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

Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

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

  • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

    Originally posted by owl View Post
    Your point is actually proving KM's point.
    Then you clearly aren't understanding the point.

    Comment


    • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
      In the regular season, yes. No way would I bet the house on him in the post season. Even this year. I'll call it now. Broncos will not win the SB this year.
      Well that's when his weak supporting cast cost him. Will Denver win the SB this year? Hell if I know, I sort of doubt it just because that's the nature of the NFL.

      Comment


      • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post

        I wish people would just lay to rest all these crazy conspiracy theories.
        I don't think my theory is all that crazy. I'm not saying that the players or coaches actually tried to deliberately lose games on the field. All I'm saying is that the organization did not even remotely try to improve things when we were losing a lot of games, and instead seemed to deliberately stick with the things that were not working so that they'd continue to lose games.

        If they were honestly trying to win, then Curtis Painter should not have started 8 games. He probably should have been yanked after the New Orleans 62-7 massacre, yet he still started 4 games after that. He should have been yanked after the next game when we were smacked in Tennessee, yet he still got to keep starting. He should have been yanked after the Atlanta beatdown, yet he still got to keep starting. He should have been yanked after the pitiful 3 point effort at home against Jax, yet he still got to keep starting. It was only after the loss against Carolina, when we were virtually assured at getting the number 1 pick, that we finally brought Dan Orvlosky in. And his first start was in New England of all places, which was akin to throwing him to the wolves. Had we honestly cared about winning games, then we'd have started him at home against Carolina in the previous week, which would have been a far better environment for a player making his first start of the season.

        Had we honestly been trying to field a team that would give us the best chance at winning the game, then there is simply no way that we would have rolled with Painter for as long as we did when it was so apparent that he was absolutely awful. A team that was trying to win would have given Dan O. a chance long before he finally got one. Once we lost those close games at the beginning of the season and it became clear that we had zero chance at the playoffs without Peyton, we did all we could to ensure that we would continue to lose games so that we would get that number 1 pick.

        Also, we never added waiver players or attempted to make trades. Some of those guys could have maybe been better than the scrubs we were putting out there.

        I agree 100% with what the Colts did. Leaving Painter out there for as long as they did was a great strategic move that appears to have paid off big time. Our franchise saw the big picture and understood that 2011 was a complete throwaway. Winning some more meaningless games could have hurt our draft position, which would have been idiotic for our future. But you have to call a spade a spade. This was not a team that was honestly trying to win games. They didn't try at all to improve the team and deliberately stayed with the things that were losing.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-24-2013, 10:26 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          Who? I've never even heard of this site. Is it hosted in Cleveland?

          The thousands of people in the SiriusXM radio audience severely outnumber the 207 Browns fans who voted on that poll.
          1) Majority of Browns fans would not have voted that it was a good trade WHEN the trade occurred,

          2) Browns 2-0 since the trade and now tied for the division lead in what has become a weak division! Browns defense is a top 5 in the league. Just need an offense that can get near 20 PPG.

          Comment


          • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

            Trent Richardson appears to be the exact same player as Vick Ballard. Not sure Vick Ballard = a 1st round draft pick
            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

            Comment


            • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

              Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
              Browns 2-0 since the trade and now tied for the division lead in what has become a weak division! Browns defense is a top 5 in the league. Just need an offense that can get near 20 PPG.
              Hope you're not correlating their 2-0 to Trent Richardson, because their turn-around has had nothing to do with their rushing attack. It was the switch to Hoyer and the return of Josh Gordon... and Jordan Cameron is a beast. They had a decent defense, and now they seem to have found a spark in the passing game. I wouldn't count on it lasting too long, though, I think Hoyer has snuck up on people and it'll just be a matter of games before the league gets a book on 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


              • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                Trent Richardson appears to be the exact same player as Vick Ballard. Not sure Vick Ballard = a 1st round draft pick
                Like I've been saying, draft position doesn't mean jack ****. Ballard (5th round) better than D. Brown (1st round). Arian Foster is a top 5 back --- wasn't even drafted.

                I don't think Ballard is as good as Trent Richardson.

                When I look at our rushing attack, I mainly see a big problem with our O-Line. I don't think it's fair to judge our backs right now when there is zero holes or penetration being created for them to run through. Our team is pretty stout on a number of fronts except our O-line.
                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


                • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                  Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
                  1) Majority of Browns fans would not have voted that it was a good trade WHEN the trade occurred
                  Plenty of people around me were either indifferent or thought they got good value for him.

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  Hope you're not correlating their 2-0 to Trent Richardson, because their turn-around has had nothing to do with their rushing attack. It was the switch to Hoyer and the return of Josh Gordon... and Jordan Cameron is a beast. They had a decent defense, and now they seem to have found a spark in the passing game. I wouldn't count on it lasting too long, though, I think Hoyer has snuck up on people and it'll just be a matter of games before the league gets a book on him.
                  Gosh I hope so, cause it is tough up here with them doing well.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    When I look at our rushing attack, I mainly see a big problem with our O-Line. I don't think it's fair to judge our backs right now when there is zero holes or penetration being created for them to run through. Our team is pretty stout on a number of fronts except our O-line.
                    It's still way too small of a sample size to draw many conclusions from, but with Richardson's history I can see how this is starting to be a little bit of a concern:

                    Bradshaw 41 carries, 4.5 average
                    Brown 13 carries, 9.2 average
                    Richardson 33 carries, 2.9 average
                    Ballard 13 carries, 4.8 average

                    The offensive line seems to be opening up holes for everybody else. And Richardson was supposed to be the guy who was more talented than any of them, the one who didn't need everything around him to be good to succeed.

                    Still lots of time to turn it around, but it has been a very bad start. The fact that it matches the concerns that were surrounding him in Cleveland makes it harder to ignore as well.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                      He's been in the system for a week and a half. I'd say it's way too early to be drawing any serious conclusions from. He did have 60 tough yards yesterday, with a TD. It's becoming pretty obvious how they're going to use him, and it's not the rare deep ball that DBrown seems to bust out once every few games (which is the ONLY thing he's good at). They're grounding and pounding it with TRich. Once the O-line starts to get it's *** in gear, we'll see a better average from TRich. He had a bad o-line in Cleveland and a not much better one here in Indy. Did people really expect him to roll out in San Fran with a huge game after 2 days? I'd be more concerned if I was seeing holes and he wasn't hitting them... but I'm not. He's getting the ball and getting hit almost immediately, or getting the ball and the line has created just no space for him. And then Brown entered the game and a *gaping* hole opened up the middle.
                      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-30-2013, 10:36 AM.
                      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


                      • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        He's been in the system for a week and a half. I'd say it's way too early to be drawing any serious conclusions from. He did have 60 tough yards yesterday, with a TD. It's becoming pretty obvious how they're going to use him, and it's not the rare deep ball that DBrown seems to bust out once every few games (which is the ONLY thing he's good at). They're grounding and pounding it with TRich. Once the O-line starts to get it's *** in gear, we'll see a better average from TRich. He had a bad o-line in Cleveland and a not much better one here in Indy. Did people really expect him to roll out in San Fran with a huge game after 2 days? I'd be more concerned if I was seeing holes and he wasn't hitting them... but I'm not. He's getting the ball and getting hit almost immediately, or getting the ball and the line has created just no space for him. And then Brown entered the game and a *gaping* hole opened up the middle.
                        T Rich is a good, middle of the road RB. I was expecting more of a game changer though. Him and Bradshaw do make an intimidating power running game
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          Like I've been saying, draft position doesn't mean jack ****.
                          I'm sorry, but you cannot possibly be serious with that comment.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                            I'm not buying the excuses being made for Trent Richardson. His numbers here through two games, fine, take that however you will, toss them out for all I care, but at no point during his NFL career has he shown himself to be anything special. If he was "elite" then he wouldn't need an All-Pro offensive line to average more than 3 yards per carry. And if you are trading a first round pick for a running back, I would make damn sure he is elite.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              I'm not buying the excuses being made for Trent Richardson. His numbers here through two games, fine, take that however you will, toss them out for all I care, but at no point during his NFL career has he shown himself to be anything special. If he was "elite" then he wouldn't need an All-Pro offensive line to average more than 3 yards per carry. And if you are trading a first round pick for a running back, I would make damn sure he is elite.

                              What would our running back situation be right now if we had not made the trade? I'm a huge Bradshaw fan, but clearly that guy's health is going to be a question mark from week to week. Do you want to risk Donald Brown being the team's primary running back?

                              What are the odds of our 20 something pick being better than Richardson?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                                I know this.... when the Colts are at the goal line I'm hollering for the handoff to Richardson. He's a touch SOB and that's where this is paying/going to pay off.
                                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X