Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Official Trent Richardson Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    I see ability in him and I think he's a bit broken right now. I also can relate to that. Sometimes people need a boost or help to get back on track.
    Yes, in a vacuum, I can agree with that. But this is professional football--a results driven business. He's being paid handsomely to be a professional and produce results. He just hasn't done it.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

      Our running game as a whole hasn't done it, man, from top to bottom. He receives almost all of the blame for it.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        Our running game as a whole hasn't done it, man, from top to bottom. He receives almost all of the blame for it.
        No, he doesn't. He receives the most backlash because of the high price we paid to obtain his services. When you pay top dollar for something, you expect it to be superior to similar products. So even if his production and Boom Herron's production are close, the fact that Richardson cost us a first round pick means he's going to get more criticism. Is it totally fair to Trent? No, probably not, but that's part of being a professional athlete.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

          Trent didnt draft himself or trade himself. Your anger is misdirected. And that's exactly what I said above. People have irrationality attached that to their expectations of him.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            Trent didnt draft himself or trade himself. Your anger is misdirected. And that's exactly what I said above. People have irrationality attached that to their expectations of him.
            I'm not angry with him. I never was. It was never about him. Trent seems like a good dude who genuinely wants to help the team win. My anger has been directed at Grigson for making that stupid trade. That doesn't mean I'm going to simply give Richardson a pass on his complete lack of production though. It doesn't mean I'm going to make excuses for the guy for not producing. If that's irrational behavior, then you basically think every sports fan ever is irrational.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

              I do, lol.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                Our running game as a whole hasn't done it, man, from top to bottom. He receives almost all of the blame for it.
                Clearly the Colts think he deserves the majority of the blame. They benched him last year (4 total carries in two playoff games), and have now benched him again. He's even lost the backup carries to a player who was an undrafted free agent who had 10 career carries for 18 yards entering the playoffs. And they were the ones who believed in his talent more than just about anybody.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                  Ya that's been a mystery to me... they go to him all year round and then bench him in the playoffs for no apparent reason, it's not like his production dropped dramatically.
                  I like the staff generally although Pep can drive me crazy sometimes but one area I feel like they are bombing in is the entire running game and how they go about it. That entire aspect of our offense just seems botched and then patchworked. It needs to be stabilized and then established. Seems like Trent is always the fall boy when it's been obvious to me that the issues have gone above and beyond him.
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-13-2015, 10:02 PM.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    And you know this... how? The eye test?

                    I think the more appropriate question is would I change my mind about TRich if he went elsewhere that had a good system and he still showed no improvement, and the answer is absolutely yes. You guys are still way off about what we're arguing about and you're still way off about my stance on TRich. You act like just because I present a defense for him that I think he's amazing and will defend him no matter what. My entire stance is just a fair take on the situation, one that I don't think most of you are doing.
                    I think most of you are correlating his draft placement and irrationality relating that to your like or dislike of him. My stance is completely independent if his draft position and cost to us. It's purely football and I feel he's got ability to succeed. I don't see a huge difference between him and the other backs. I understand most of you disagree with that and think he sucks. I don't care what you think.
                    Have you changed your stance on him then KM? Just curious and asking. I know that before you saw Trent as a special talent that could be an elite RB in the right system. I'm just wondering because of your comment about not being different than the other backs. Herron and Tipton are classic guy off the street type backs. A couple bad plays from them and they could wash out of the NFL very quickly.

                    I actually do think Richardson could be average in the right system. I don't think he has enough talent for any team to ever really try to find out though. And since he has poor skills for a 2nd runningback role, that could be very troublesome for his career.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                      I haven't changed my mind about his abilities, no. I have been like everyone else in terms of realizing it hasn't gone as well as hoped. But the factors here have been too messed up for me to say "yes the problem is clearly and solely Trent." In fact I almost feel like this system has damaged him. It's a good team but they have not gotten anything right in the run game. It's largely been the o line... I feel like had they gotten that o line straightened out when he got here, we likely wouldn't be having these Trent arguments.
                      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-13-2015, 09:56 PM.
                      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        I haven't changed my mind about his abilities, no. I have been like everyone else in terms of realizing it hasn't gone as well as hoped. But the factors here have been too messed up for me to say "yes the problem is clearly and solely Trent." In fact I almost feel like this system has damaged him. It's a good team but they have not gotten anything right in the run game. It's largely been the o line...
                        Who is saying that?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          Ya that's been a mystery to me... they go to him all year round and then bench him in the playoffs for no apparent reason, it's not like his production dropped dramatically.
                          I like the staff generally although Pep can drive me crazy sometimes but one area u feel like they are bombing in is the entire running game and hiw they gi about it. That entire aspect of our offense just seems botched and then patchworked. It needs to be stabilized and then established. Seems like Trent is always the fall boy when it's been obvious to me that the issues have gone above and beyond him.
                          I think the simplest explanation is that they've been trying to give him every chance to succeed during the regular season because they believe in his talent. It's kind of like Lance Stephenson in his 2nd season. He got minutes early on, but then as it got close to playoff time the chances dry up as the team goes to the players they think are performing better now. I think they would have loved to have given the job to Trent either season because he was the only possible long-term option (the other guys are clearly just roster bubble types), but when the rubber hits the road they had to give the carries to the RB's who were playing better.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                            First off, Boom has performed better. Just like Donald Brown did last year. In limited minutes, Tipton looked better as well. Maybe Boom will get bottled up in NE this weekend... and you know what? If he does all that tells us is with TRich we would've been dead in the water. Because, Boom, just like Donald before him, has been able to make positive contributions to the running game. TRich's positive contributions, as few and far between as they've been, are more of an "even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes".

                            How anyone cannot see TRich's slow feet, slow decisions, and a total lack of burst, and not completely understand how this is a fatal flaw for an NFL RB I don't know. Even if you put him behind the best line in football, or the best line that's ever been in NFL football, those flaws will still be there. Which means just about any other competent back will ultimately be better. TRich isn't getting beat out by Barry Sanders... He's getting beat out by Donald Brown and now Boom Herron. Donald Brown.... let that sink in.

                            There is no difference in the ways the backs have been used... other than the other backs have more success so ultimately offer more options. It's not like the coaches don't want TRich to succeed. It's more like they can't find any way for him to succeed.

                            Grigson got fleeced. It was a panic trade and time has done nothing but bring this all into crystal clear focus. We could've gotten TRich type production with just about any practice fodder RB we could've signed off the practice squad, waiver wire, or even off the street.

                            I'm sure at the time he was thinking "OPPORTUNITY!" when the chance to get the #3 pick from the year before was on the table, but he obviously moved way too quickly on this one without doing his research. I'd like to know if Cleveland saw an opportunity and called Grigson, or if he called them and couldn't hear the excitement in their voices as he made a pitch for TRich.

                            Nobody has said the Colts running game is great. But it's a helluva lot better when TRich isn't part of it. That's really all anyone needs to know. If Boom gets 0 yards this week I will be confident that TRich would've gotten -10.
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                              Bball, I'm not arguing that he's not produced, but I do disagree about his abilities. Go google some highlight vids of him to remind yourself of what this guy can do, and I don't just mean his college highlights. It does not feel like we are seeing his full potential at all.
                              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Well obviously. The point isn't to make Boom look pedestriatian. The point is to illustrate just how often Boom and Trent produce similiar numbers.

                                It goes back to people saying Boom performs so much better, and how good the run game looks. 96% of the time, when I handicap the statistics by allowing Trent to keep his highest 3.3% of runs while throwing out Boom's highest 3.3% like they are yesterday's trash, it looks exactly the same.
                                Fixed.

                                Your entire premise in this thread is one massive contradiction. You say that Boom was helped mightily by 3 runs that were about 3.3% of his workload, and that it's important to look at what he was in the other 88 runs. So it's pretty funny to see how you allowed Trent to keep his highest 3.3% of runs so that he can keep his 3.3 average, allowing you to come to the incorrect conclusion that they are the same "96 percent of the time".

                                Let's compare like things. If the highest 3.3% are unimportant outliers for Boom, then the highest 3.3% should be unimportant outliers for Trent too. Since you're so concerned about what Boom is 96.7% of the time, let's see what Trent is 96.7% of the time.

                                Trent had 159 carries for 519 yards this year. The top 3.3% of his carries would represent about 5 carries. By my count, Trent's top 5 runs were 27 yards, 15 yards, 15 yards, 14 yards, 12 yards. Those 5 carries represented 83 yards. Without those 5 carries, which is the equivalent of ripping those 3 carries from Boom, Trent had 154 carries for 436 yards, which is a 2.83 YPC.

                                Boom 96.7% of the time: 3.43 YPC
                                Trent 96.7% of the time : 2.83 YPC


                                Your whole premise that "Boom and Trent are the same 96.7% of the time" is just blatantly false. You're handicapping and cherry picking the stats by ditching Boom's top 3.3% of runs, while at the same time conveniently allowing Trent to keep his top 3.3% so that he can keep his 3.3 YPC. 96.7% of the time, Boom is still 0.6 yards better....hardly "exactly the same" as you said above. You say that the rest of us have a narrative, but this method of unequally manipulating the statistics seems pretty narrative driven to me. If it is so important to focus on what Boom did in 88 of his 91 carries, then it should be equally important to focus on what T-Rich did on 154 of his 159 carries. Boom is still better when you ditch an equal percentage of high outliers for both players.

                                96.7% of the time, Boom is 0.6 yards better than Trent. 100% of the time, he has been 1.1 yards better. Any way you slice it, Boom is the better back. It's not that he is a really good back by any means....I'd be fine with the Colts looking to spend a 3rd rounder and trying to make that player a starter....but he's certainly better than Trent....100% of the time, 96.7% of the time, 25.34% of of the time, etc. Unless Pagano is a closet PD poster who is trying to win an internet battle by benching Trent for two straight years in "do or die" scenarios, this one is pretty open and shut....
                                Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-13-2015, 10:43 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X