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

Colts bench Trent Richardson

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

  • #31
    Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

    Before the final drive Donald Brown had around 10 yards with 8 carries. No doubt he ran GREAT on the final drive, but this game does not say much about if the benching of Richardson was a good idea.

    He ended the game with 14 carries for 54 yards…which is very similar to Trent Richardson's first game as a Colt…13 carries for 47 yards.
    DG for 3

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

      It's not even about Richardson, RBs are a dime a dozen. The problem wasn't ever Richardson, it was giving up a 1st for a RB not named Peterson. If it was a 3rd rounder for TRich, OK, maybe take the gamble, I could live with that.

      But we gave up a 1st from a team with a 35 year old #1 WR who's now torn an ACL and is probably going to be worthless going forward and there's no viable replacement on the roster (TY's way too small to be a #1), a team that has zero ability on the interior offensive line, C and RG specifically, a team that's 2 years into a defensive rebuild and has zero LBs that have the speed and agility to play the scheme. We have no pass rush outside of Mathis who's not getting any younger. We have massive, gaping, holes on this team and we dumped a cost controlled hopeful rookie replacement for a damn RB. I mean be honest, Trent Richardson's been our 5th best RB this year counting Luck. That's not even worth a roster spot, let alone a damn 1st round pick.

      Grigson needs to destroy the 2014 draft. Otherwise this is a massive, massive mistake. A mistake I'd fire him for.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

        So bench Richardson because of where he was drafted and what we gave up for him. Also promote Brown for "being so much better" even though he was terrible last week and for the first 55:00 this week.

        It's the freaking system, people. How many times does it need to be bashed over the head?

        O line; play-calling. O line; play-calling. O line; play-calling. O line; play-calling.

        I could go on.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-01-2013, 08:40 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


        • #34
          Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

          No, you bench Richardson for being terrible every step of the way. I don't care who or what we traded for anybody, if he sucks he sucks.

          And Brown had 2 carries last week. Massive sample size. Almost as big a sample size as him not playing well except when he did. Still waiting on TRich to have a drive like Brown's last one.

          Just stop dude. Richardson sucks, it is what it is. It was a terrible trade that Grigson got taken to the cleaners on, you're seeing the reason Cleveland's new regime jumped at the chance to dump him.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

            I'm glad the last drive gave you something to hang your hat on because before that, you know I was absolutely right.
            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


            • #36
              Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

              Right. And we keep waiting on Richardson to give anybody a reason to hang their hat. Keep beating that drum.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                I'm glad the last drive gave you something to hang your hat on because before that, you know I was absolutely right.
                You were right... until you were wrong.

                Great retort!
                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


                • #38
                  Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                  DBrown "sucked" until the 4:00 mark of the 4th --- clear cut winner of this argument, you are.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    I'm glad the last drive gave you something to hang your hat on because before that, you know I was absolutely right.
                    Brown's nice drive is one more awesome drive than T-Rich has so far this season.

                    No one is saying that Brown is Emmit Smith. What we are saying is that he has at least shown a few flashes this year, something that T-Rich has been incapable of. Bradshaw had an awesome game (yes the line was better back then, but it's not like it was that great) and Brown has shown a few flashes including an awesome drive today, yet T-Rich has never done anything remotely special despite having infinitely more opportunities to do so. The line has certainly been awful, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. Them clearing the hole against Arizona on that one play is a perfect example. T-Rich should have been able to bust out a 10 plus yard run, yet he stutter stepped and screwed it up.

                    It is what it is. T-Rich is slow and has been awful this year.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      DBrown "sucked" until the 4:00 mark of the 4th --- clear cut winner of this argument, you are.
                      The thing is, you really weren't right. You said:
                      everyone will proclaim DBrown the Next Coming
                      ...and no one is saying that. All anyone is saying is that he's better than Trent Richardson.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                        Originally posted by ColeTheMole View Post
                        Before the final drive Donald Brown had around 10 yards with 8 carries. No doubt he ran GREAT on the final drive, but this game does not say much about if the benching of Richardson was a good idea.

                        He ended the game with 14 carries for 54 yards…which is very similar to Trent Richardson's first game as a Colt…13 carries for 47 yards.
                        Benching Richardson was a good idea for the reason he hadn't performed at all prior to this game. Brown had made plays before this game. Can we please put this aside? It was a thoroughly deserved benching for TRich for what we had seen up to today's match.

                        Now Brown didn't have a good game for the best part of the game. Even if he hadn't had the last drive, he would have continued being the primary RB at least for the short term future. Nobody says he is a top top RB who will wow everyone. But he has earned this and unless he stinks the place with continued bad performances, he will keep his current status.
                        Never forget

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                          I'm not talking about that, cdash, that was just me talking tongue-in-cheek. You have to know by now that I'm preaching "o-line and playcalling". My point was that it doesn't matter who or what you use to push the football forward if your line sucks and your playcalling doesn't work.

                          Today we had a chance to put my theory to test, and you can't exactly say I was wrong about it. DBrown, for the first 56:00 of this game, had 29 yards on 11 carries. Look familiar? It's the exact same production that you all blasted TRich for having.

                          Proving exactly what I've been saying --- it doesn't matter who you throw back there when your line sucks and your playcalling fails.

                          I'm glad Indy put together some rushes on that final drive, that was a stepping stone going forward, and it iced the game. Luck himself had a couple of huge runs. But the almighty YPC of Brown, even with that awesome drive, went from about 2.0 to 3.9, and just barely passed the 3.8 that TRich had on the very final carry of the day. Before that drive, DBrown had about 5 more yards rushing than TRich despite having over twice the touches. Think about that.

                          I'm not saying DBrown is bad. I'm not saying he's great either. He's DBrown. We know who this guy is.

                          My point is that you all have been harping on TRich (and you still are), and my entire point has been from the beginning that as long as our front-line is playing as bad as they are, and Pep is a moron, our backs are going to have bad production.

                          DBrown had a 3.9 avg on the day, was ineffective for 90% of the game, and somehow that was enough to show people that "TRich sucks" and "DBrown is clearly the better back". I'm like "wha?"

                          I'm glad we put together a good running drive... it's something to build on. But it's pretty hilarious to me that you all are taking that one single drive and proclaiming me "wrong". Before that drive, you could not have even come close to forming any sort of argument against me. I can absolutely assure you that the problem is still 100%, guaranteed o-line issues, it's now being discussed on a national level, and I've been pointing to the line for over a month now.

                          You can sit there and say, "See, TRich verifiably sucks" all you want, but I ain't on that boat, and I know it's not the truth. Our offense is a wreck, and it was obvious for almost the entire game. DBrown looked exactly like TRich out there until the 4:00 of the fourth. Gratz and all that he finally put some runs together at that point, but up until then TRich had actually put together a better run effort. We went from getting absolutely nothing the entire game to getting almost 70 yards of rushing on that drive as a team, and Luck himself was accountable for over half of that. I don't know what happened to the Titans front line on that drive, but we went from getting nothing to gashing the crap out of them. Either way, it wasn't exactly indicative of how the game went.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-01-2013, 10:07 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


                          • #43
                            Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                            Does anyone think Richardson would have scored on Brown's 4-yard TD run? Brown slipped through a very narrow hole, got hit but kept driving forward until he was in the end zone. Richardson probably would have been stopped at the 4 and driven backward.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                              Oh, I dunno.... I know this is probly just absolutely CRAZY to think about... but he has scored as many touchdowns in 26 career games as Brown has in 61 career games. But I doubt he could've scored on that play, like you said. Sucks.
                              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


                              • #45
                                Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                No, you bench Richardson for being terrible every step of the way. I don't care who or what we traded for anybody, if he sucks he sucks.

                                And Brown had 2 carries last week. Massive sample size. Almost as big a sample size as him not playing well except when he did. Still waiting on TRich to have a drive like Brown's last one.

                                Just stop dude. Richardson sucks, it is what it is. It was a terrible trade that Grigson got taken to the cleaners on, you're seeing the reason Cleveland's new regime jumped at the chance to dump him.
                                What i found surprising was that TRICH didn't go for a second or third round pick.. A first was always questionable given his lack of performance.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X