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

  • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    Well that settles it, lol.
    The numbers and evidence don't exactly support your side of the argument. We could toss out numbers all day and you will continue to make excuses for him without ever backing it up with any real facts. Just your blanket, "the offensive line sucks" statement. Or little quips like this post.

    Comment


    • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      And that's why so many people have *****ed about him over the years--he was a wasted first round pick.
      So when are you going to start directing this *****ing at those who drafted him, or traded for him, rather than Trent himself? I gave the example in another thread. Someone overvalues a car. Do you ***** about the car, or their overvaluing of it? Obviously, it's the cars fault.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        The numbers and evidence don't exactly support your side of the argument.
        Seriously? Statistical numbers don't prove that the offensive line is beyond ******? All the evidence you need to know that they couldn't block a jr high team is to watch the game, and notice that the RBs have to deal with defenders in the backfield on 99.9% of running plays, and watch Luck get pummeled every time he drops back. Good lord man, no numbers or evidence to back up the assertion that the oline sucks? What planet are we now on?
        Last edited by Since86; 12-05-2013, 01:57 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          So when are you going to start directing this *****ing at those who drafted him, or traded for him, rather than Trent himself? I gave the example in another thread. Someone overvalues a car. Do you ***** about the car, or their overvaluing of it? Obviously, it's the cars fault.
          I think Ryan Grigson has been getting a decent amount of criticism for this past year's transactions - draft, free agency signings, and trades. Now he had a helluva first year so that buys him some leniency.

          But why does Trent Richardson need so much protection from you guys on PD? McGlynn and Satele get railed on here pretty good for obvious reasons. DHB as well. Why is it ok to call them out for their mediocre play but not Richardson?

          Comment


          • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

            Originally posted by bunt View Post
            Why is it ok to call them out for their mediocre play but not Richardson?
            Because people don't make stuff up about them, that's why. I've seen enough posts by people trying to say that Trent is a slow, and that he goes down on first contact, which both are refuted by facts. The problem is that the Trent criticism has been so extreme, that any push back against it is made out to be extreme the other way.

            How many times have I had to point out that Trent deserves blame, only to have a poster come back 10 posts later and try and argue that we're placing ALL the blame on the OLine?

            And there is very little criticism towards Grigson here. I could count the number of posts to prove that fact, but when I do I have poeple ***** about me counting and proving it. 90% of the criticism on here is towards Trent. It's so over the top it's frustrating to watch. It's pretty much mob mentality at this point.

            EDIT: About making stuff up, just look at it this way. Trent put up 1300 yards of offensive production as a rookie, with 12 TDs, and we still have posters saying he hasn't proven anything. Except the fact that it was near record production for a rookie RB. (He actually tied Jim Brown's rookie rushing TD record) Just think about that.

            If they actually used one of his greatest strengths, pass catching, he'd look a hell of a lot better. But no, let's just act like Trent is downright awful with no good qualities.
            Last edited by Since86; 12-05-2013, 02:11 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Because people don't make stuff up about them, that's why. I've seen enough posts by people trying to say that Trent is a slow, and that he goes down on first contact, which both are refuted by facts. The problem is that the Trent criticism has been so extreme, that any push back against it is made out to be extreme the other way.

              How many times have I had to point out that Trent deserves blame, only to have a poster come back 10 posts later and try and argue that we're placing ALL the blame on the OLine?

              And there is very little criticism towards Grigson here. I could count the number of posts to prove that fact, but when I do I have poeple ***** about me counting and proving it. 90% of the criticism on here is towards Trent. It's so over the top it's frustrating to watch. It's pretty much mob mentality at this point.
              I know there were several posters that criticized Grigson for trading a first for Trent right after it happened. Cdash was one of them I believe.

              Also where is the fact proving that Trent is or isn't slow? I'd love to see that because I sure as heck notice a difference between the burst Brown shows vs. Trent.

              Comment


              • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                Originally posted by bunt View Post
                Also where is the fact proving that Trent is or isn't slow? I'd love to see that because I sure as heck notice a difference between the burst Brown shows vs. Trent.
                The fact that Trent runs a faster 40 time. I've linked it several times. 40 yard dashes are measurements is a combination of how a players burst (take off speed) and their top speed. Noticing the different speeds a runner is running at, doesn't tell you how good or how bad their burst is. We're trying to use visual evidence of one thing, and trying to aruge it proves something completely different.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                  Trent's 40 time from 20 months ago? That's the fact showing how fast he is right now?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                    An older article but still packed full of goodies.

                    https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...bonus-edition/

                    Of his 14 carries, Richardson arrived at the intended point of attack to find it still viable just four times. That means that on 71.4% of his carries by the time he arrived at the hole he was supposed to hit it was already blown up! He was forced to make a cut in the backfield 10 times by defenders beating his blocking almost immediately, quickly enough that the average point at which he was forced to cut away from the intended point of attack was -2.1 yards. 2.1 yards deep in the backfield. Even counting the plays that weren’t destroyed before Richardson made it to the hole, the average point at which he was hit by a defender was just 0.8 yards down field.

                    The point I’m making? Richardson could be the hybrid lovechild of Adrian Peterson and Barry Sanders and he would struggle behind the blocking he saw against the Broncos.
                    I doubt it's changed all that much since he's gotten vastly more carries.

                    He may never live up to the draft picks that have already been spent on him, but it would be a mistake to write Trent Richardson off as just another guy running the football, a plodding power back with little else to his game. The Colts are giving him little to no chance at the moment, but the tape shows a guy who is making explosive moves with the ball in his hands. Only Marshawn Lynch has more than the 34 forced missed tackles Richardson has tallied this season, and there is no back in football with a significant number of carries who is making people miss at a better rate than Richardson. This is a guy who is doing his best to make things happen, but so far hasn’t been able to overcome the plays crashing down around him.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                      Originally posted by bunt View Post
                      Trent's 40 time from 20 months ago? That's the fact showing how fast he is right now?
                      So his running ability just dropped off the edge of the world? Clearly he's not out of shape. He has no injury. People don't magically go from fast to slow, without something happening. Nothing has happened though. So instead of using cold hard numbers, we'll just pretend like Trent suddenly requires a walker.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        So his running ability just dropped off the edge of the world? Clearly he's not out of shape. He has no injury. People don't magically go from fast to slow, without something happening. Nothing has happened though. So instead of using cold hard numbers, we'll just pretend like Trent suddenly requires a walker.
                        So me saying Trent isn't as fast as he was almost two years and 400 NFL carries ago suddenly equates to pretending like he requires a walker? Seems like you're resorting to the similar tactics you claim to despise so much from these other posters. Is it really that big of a stretch to say he has lost some speed or burst?

                        And your above quotes show again how ****** the oline is and the insanity of the coaches calling the same plays over and over. Trent isn't getting any help. But he's also not making anything happen on his own either.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                          Also, where are these cold hard numbers that show Trent hasn't lost any speed? On 71.4% of his carries he arrived at the hole he was supposed to hit only that it had already been blown up. Maybe because he didn't hit it fast enough!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                            Originally posted by bunt View Post
                            So me saying Trent isn't as fast as he was almost two years and 400 NFL carries ago suddenly equates to pretending like he requires a walker? Seems like you're resorting to the similar tactics you claim to despise so much from these other posters. Is it really that big of a stretch to say he has lost some speed or burst?
                            When somone is going to try to shrug off an electric timed 40 number, because it doesn't support their argument, then yes, I'm going to go to sarcasm.

                            Without some type of reasoning for the burst being gone, yes it is a stretch. Is there an example of another RB that lost his wheels after he crossed the 400 carry line? Something to support your idea that it just up and vanished?

                            Probably not, beause what you're seeing and what you think it says, isn't what it's actually saying. There is a difference in the way Trent and Donald run the ball, and it has nothing to do with their actually phsyical ability to run the ball. Donald hits the hole much harder, doesn't mean his burst is better. Means he has more confidence in his running. It means he sees the hole sooner. It can mean a bunch of things that isn't tied to a players burst.

                            Originally posted by bunt View Post
                            And your above quotes show again how ****** the oline is and the insanity of the coaches calling the same plays over and over. Trent isn't getting any help. But he's also not making anything happen on his own either.
                            Yep, and using that excuse two weeks ago was a punch line. That's what I told you yesterday, and I'll continue saying it today, because it's the God's to honest truth. When KM or I bring up how crappy the oline is, posters actually LAUGHED. That was why I asked what excuse would get trotted out or Dondald. IT will be hilarious watching those who laughed at that excuse, use it when their supposed solution still produces crappy numbers.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              So when are you going to start directing this *****ing at those who drafted him, or traded for him, rather than Trent himself? I gave the example in another thread. Someone overvalues a car. Do you ***** about the car, or their overvaluing of it? Obviously, it's the cars fault.
                              Oh, I'm more pissed at Grigson and the FO than I am Richardson. Make no mistake about that. They got fleeced. There is plenty of disappointment to spread around.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts bench Trent Richardson

                                Originally posted by bunt View Post
                                Also, where are these cold hard numbers that show Trent hasn't lost any speed? On 71.4% of his carries he arrived at the hole he was supposed to hit only that it had already been blown up. Maybe because he didn't hit it fast enough!

                                Guy gets touched on average 2 yards in the backfield, and you think the problem is how hard he's hitting the hole....
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X