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

Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

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

  • #31
    Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    Stop this appeal to authority idiocy.
    Give me a list of reasons to put Grigson on the same level as JOb or MATT MILLEN. I give people the benefit of the doubt, until they demonstrate that that they shouldn't. I haven't seen it yet with Grigson, so yeah..... When I look at the body of work by Grigson, JOb and MATT MILLEN aren't anywhere near.

    Your application of my comment is a bit misguided.
    Last edited by Since86; 01-20-2014, 10:52 AM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

      Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
      Found it always funny (belittling as well) when some refer to that appeal to authority idiocy as you said. On a freaking message board.
      I've always found it funny when some think they have a better understanding of a professional game, than professionals. On a freaking message board.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        No... Instead he's telling us we didn't see what we saw.
        Not saying that Trent was some world beater, but he did have positive impacts. He was usually part of the passing lineups the Colts needed to close out games, as he's great at picking up rushers and the fact that he's a weapon catching the ball. If you didn't see those positive impacts, then I'm not sure you saw everything.

        You can look at the statement and think it means he helped the Colts win all 12 games, or look at it that he only helped them win 1. If they won 11 instead of 12 without Trent, the statement rings true. What if Grigs was going through film and noticed Trent pick up a blitz that saved Luck's *** for an important 3rd down conversion? Is that possible?



        Patience just isn't a word most fans understand.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

          A lot of things are possible including that Cleveland fleeced us....
          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


          • #35
            Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

            Originally posted by cdash View Post
            I'm not sure where he will be on the depth chart next season. Donald Brown outplayed him and usurped him as the starter, one has to assume Vick Ballard will jump him too.
            Donald is a FA. Who knows if he's back.

            I'm honestly not sure what to think of Richardson. He had a productive year in CLE, so it's not as if he's just completely terrible. He's got some obvious skills that our other RB's lack (ability to catch out of the backfield, pass blocking), but it seems like he was miscast as a pure power running back.

            Guess we will see what happens with him next year. Should be interesting.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

              Sure that is possible. Only one side of the coin is arguing that rock solid conclusions are ready to be made.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                I've always found it funny when some think they have a better understanding of a professional game, than professionals. On a freaking message board.
                Good grief.
                First of all, nobody has said that. It's just you and Kid Minneapolis keep repeating this sorry *** statement ("Internet crusaders") by belittling and disrespecting other posters. You could both really do much better than that. Let alone the fact that professionals do **** up. Big time or small time. I know though.. must be shock to you.

                Second and to the point, you think there is no chance Grigson has completely screwed up this trade?* Cause so far he is clearly on the losing side of it. For all the understandable reasons and excuses, the player he traded for has offered little to what was expected and definitely he hasn't given his team what players of his position are supposed to do best.

                Bottom line is Richardson will have another chance next year to prove he is a really good player and the trade was worthwhile. He didn't come close to it the first year. I hope he does achieve that and help the team reach as far as it can.

                * Edit: Forget that. Saw you answered it above.
                Last edited by Johanvil; 01-20-2014, 01:18 PM.
                Never forget

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

                  When have I disrespected anyone?
                  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: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    When have I disrespected anyone?
                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    I'll go with Grigs word over most dudes on their couches.
                    This sounds belittling to me. You could make your point without having to post that.

                    PS: The "Internet crusaders" was not yours of course. You just posted the above that is in the same context to what Since86 said.
                    Never forget

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

                      Internet crusaders wasn't meant as a insult, as I consider myself in that category. I spend M-F 9-5 logged in here.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

                        On this subject 'internet crusaders' have the benefit of hindsight to base their opinions and observations.
                        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


                        • #42
                          Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

                          I wasn't opposed to getting T-Rich as much as giving up a 1st rounder for him. Seemed to be a high price.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

                            Isn't Pagano a "professional"? Am I missing something? He made the choice to bench Richardson and replace him as the starter, did he not? Shouldn't that tell us something? Or since Grigson is his superior, Pagano's choices are superseded? I can't believe people are still defending this guy. Just admit it: You are both stubborn and will not admit you are wrong (hell, or even might be wrong) under any circumstances.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              Isn't Pagano a "professional"? Am I missing something? He made the choice to bench Richardson and replace him as the starter, did he not? Shouldn't that tell us something?
                              Yeah, and the timing of when Pags decided to bench Richardson was pretty telling. His first benching was on that Dec. 1 home game against Tennessee. We were 7-4 and Tennessee was 5-6. Had we lost that game, then we would have only had a one game lead on them and would have really been feeling the heat. Pagano obviously knew this. There was a "do or die" feeling going into that game and Pagano decided to roll with Brown.

                              This is a different case than the Lance Stephenson example mentioned early in the thread. With Lance, people like Bird and Boyle were saying that he was great in practice away from the public eye. They were watching things that we weren't privy to, so we had to take their word for it. Grigson OTOH is talking about T-Rich's impact on the actual games that everyone else is also able to watch. I don't care what Grigson's title is, he can't change what's on the tape. And the tape said that T-Rich was not a good runner, which was why his own coach decided to finally bench him when the season was on the line. This isn't meant to say that T-Rich didn't do some good things, such as picking up rushers and catching the ball. But I think that running the ball was the number 1 thing the Colts had in mind when they traded for him, and he was not good at it. Sure, the offensive line deserves a huge chunk of the blame, but other running backs looked much better running behind the line this year.

                              I'm not totally giving up on the guy yet. We have no choice but to coach him up and hope that he can improve. Some of the stuff can be improved on. Sometimes he just hesitates way too much as if he's waiting for some magically large hole to open up, when he could get more of a gain if he would just commit to a spot. There's one run against NE where this really sticks out. He had space to get some yards if he would have just committed to a spot early, but instead he screwed around and was tackled early because he never committed to a spot. Part of this probably comes from his days at Alabama where he could just sit back and wait for that beast OL to clear a massive hole. But that doesn't really happen consistently in the NFL even if you have a really good offensive line. You have to commit to a spot quickly in the NFL.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Ryan Grigson: We don't win 12 games without Trent Richardson

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                Isn't Pagano a "professional"? Am I missing something? He made the choice to bench Richardson and replace him as the starter, did he not? Shouldn't that tell us something? Or since Grigson is his superior, Pagano's choices are superseded? I can't believe people are still defending this guy.
                                Yeah, it does say something, it just doesn't say what you think it says. I think it's pretty telling that Bball was able to go from saying that Trent didn't bring any positives, to acknowledging he does bring positives.

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                Just admit it: You are both stubborn and will not admit you are wrong (hell, or even might be wrong) under and circumstances
                                I see you're back on the kick of ignoring what was just said. I just admitted that Trent being a bust IS possible. My point has never been that Trent will go down as some great Colt rb, and that his impact is such a great one. Nope, never been my point. My point has always been that he hasn't gotten a fair shake, and that we should give him more time before declaring ourselves right. I don't know what will happen, neither do you. Only one of us is arguing that the discussion is over.

                                I just don't think it's too much to ask to give a guy one offseason with a team, before declaring a concrete opinion. Patience is almost a dirty word now. There's a reason why I put that LB quote in my sig.
                                Last edited by Since86; 01-21-2014, 02:44 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X