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

  • #46
    Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

    Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
    Edgerrin James still exists.
    Yeah, him too! Not sure how I forgot him.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

      Man, oh man. I have a million thoughts on this.

      On what we gave up: A first-rounder. I'm a big believer in known quantities. I also believe that draft picks are at best a 50/50 crap shoot even with the very first pick of the draft, and that ratio only worsens immediately and dramatically after the first 5 picks. Draft picks are... stabs in the dark. Most draft picks don't remain with the team. We got rid of a mid- to late- first rounder, a place where we probably wouldn't have gotten anyone of note, for a very notable RB who is young and dynamic. I wouldn't want to get rid of a high first-rounder... but a mid- to late- first rounder for a top-flight RB who just went #3 last year and did nothing over the course of the season to disprove his draft position? No brainer. I have no problem trading them for a known quantity.
      On the player: TRich is that known quantity. He runs with a style that most reminds me of Emmitt Smith or Edgerrin James. He's not a blazer, but a patient, shifty runner with good vision. He's very versatile; an every down back. Can run it with power up the gut, can shift outside, is creative in the open field. He's a good receiver. He's a decent blocker. In my opinion, he's the strongest overall RB prospect to come out of the draft since AP. I feel like we just reversed the bad mojo of the Marshal Faulk trade; we got an all-around good back for peanuts.. He put up really good numbers last year for an extremely ****** team. He was dinged up --- but he played. And not badly. He scored 12 touchdowns, had 1300+ yards in total offense, and that was with opposing defenses mostly focusing on him. If he didn't mind Weeden, he's going to absolutely love Luck. And TRich has to be embarrassed and pissed off, which means he's gonna run it mean.
      How it fits for the Colts: Our offense could be like the Triplets. We have the pieces. If only Dwayne Allen was playing this year... TRich faced 8-man boxes in Cleveland, but they aren't going to be able to do that here with Luck and the receivers we have. And Luck having TRich in the flat to dump to is going to be awesome. Just think, before the season, we were looking at the prospect of Vick Ballard spearing our rushing attack. Now we have Trent Richardson and Ahmad Bradshaw. Our backfield just became serious.
      In regards to the Browns: What the **** are they thinking? I know it's a new regime, but how many damn new regimes are they going to have? They go through a new regime every 2-3 years. I heard some knuckleheads on the radio praise the Browns for stockpiling a first-round pick. They already were going to HAVE a high 1st round pick this next year. The quarterbacks coming out are not on the level of the 2012 class. You're looking at Bridgewater, McCarron, and Johnny Football. I'll pass on all 3. The Colts 1st-rounder this year is going to be mid- to late- round. You can't even tell me that having a great, young, cheap RB as part of your new build isn't a good idea. They are stocking up for a big draft. They just HAD a big draft with multiple first rounders last year. They used those picks on TRich and a 29-year old QB. Why they drafted Weeden over Wilson was beyond me. I was with Gruden last year --- I loved Wilson coming out and couldn't believe he fell as far as he did. The Browns even traded a slew of picks just to move up ONE SPOT and draft TRich! They basically traded 3 picks LAST year to essentially move DOWN about 20 spots. Idiots!
      On running backs: I get tired of hearing "they're a dime a dozen". No, they are not. They are just as important as every other position on the field, save QB. I've been longing for a back like Edge since he left; TRich is that back. "You don't need running backs to win a SB". Really? In that case, you don't really *need* any position to win a SB, do you? I mean ask the Ravens, they didn't really "need" a QB to win a SB in 2000. Every SB winning team has holes in their roster, and the holes are different from team to team. It's not a generic sweeping statement to say that one particular field is just insanely irrelevant. Most people think kickers are a dime a dozen. Ask the Patriots what a kicker meant during their SB runs. I get so tired of hearing how "X" position is unimportant. It's not about that. It's about the overall team you put together.
      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-19-2013, 11:50 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


      • #48
        Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

        Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
        Luck, Richardson, Hilton. New triplets
        Now all we need to do is get AJ Green and we will be set, lol

        On a real note maybe they would also swap DHB for Josh Gordon, lol....
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

          Originally posted by Really? View Post
          Now all we need to do is get AJ Green and we will be set, lol

          On a real note maybe they would also swap DHB for Josh Gordon, lol....
          I really wanted the Colts to pick up Josh Gordon in the supplemental draft.
          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

            I imagine that Richardson will be pretty happy once the initial shock of the trade fades away. He is going to a superior franchise and will be playing with a real QB.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

              Have I told you guys recently how much I ****ing love sports in this city right now.


              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                I imagine that Richardson will be pretty happy once the initial shock of the trade fades away. He is going to a superior franchise and will be playing with a real QB.
                He looked pretty happy in his pic next to the horseshoe at the practice facility today.


                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                  Here are some stats about Trent at the browns (I am just putting this franchise on lower case status to further notice, what a joke they are)

                  He is 5th in running back receptions since 2012, at 58. He has caught more yards that Bradshaw and Brown combined.

                  Perhaps most importantly, when Trent was on the field, the browns qbs were sacked on 4.8% of dropbacks. When he was off the field, the percentage nearly doubled to 9.4%.

                  Luck will help Trent. Trent will help Luck. I bet Trent saw as many 8 man boxes last year as any running back not named AP. That won't happen with Luck at QB and Hilton, Wayne, DHB, and Fleener out wide.


                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                    This guy is a beast, damn.

                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      Are the Browns trying to keep up with the Jags in the tank-a-thon for Bridgewater, Manziel, or Clowney?
                      whoa...Manziel is not the guy to tank for. He'll be a late first and that is if there is a crazy McDaniels-type out there who is in love..

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        I don't like it. Running is not how you win football games anymore.
                        Oh yeah because it was all Joe Flacco who led Baltimore's offense to a Super Bowl championship and Ray Rice had little to do with it...

                        The importance of the running game has not changed. You need a solid RB if you want your offense to be very good and well balanced. You can't rely on throwing on every down, no matter how great your QB is.

                        As far as us, we were desperate for a RB for the future. Ahmad is signed to a one year deal and who knows with Vick now. Was he ever going to be our featured back moving forward?

                        Even though we gave up a lot, look at what we got in return. Getting Trent is huge for us moving forward.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Have I told you guys recently how much I ****ing love sports in this city right now.
                          As a die hard Indy sports fan, I am ecstatic about the present and the future.

                          There could very well be two championship parades in one year in the city. One in February and the other in June. Possibly multiple titles for both the Colts and Pacers down the road as well.

                          The city of contenders!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick


                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                              I like the trade. Hope he can stay healthy in a Colts uni.
                              Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Trent Richardson to Colts for 1st round pick

                                Apparently he's had a couple knee operations within the last couple years. That does worry me some
                                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X