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

The Official Trent Richardson Thread

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

  • #31
    Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

    Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
    You still have to do it to both players
    If I was comparing them without their top runs, yeah.

    I'm comparing how often they produce similiar stats, so you need to find out how often they're similiar. They're similiar 96% of the time. I know it's hard to believe, but it passes my eye test and we all know the eye test is unquestionable.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      So let's see all those RBs who fall under that.

      And Boom gets more receptions out of the backfield, simply because the Colts changed their offensive philosophy. But Boom's catches don't produce anymore than Trent's. Boom yards per catch? 8.2 Trent's? 8.5.
      Using the 96.7% figure and rounding to the nearest run taken off:

      DeMarco Murray: 3.9
      Marshawn Lynch: 3.8
      Le'veon Bell: 3.7
      Arian Foster: 3.7
      LeSean Mccoy: 3.4

      It's not unusual for RB's to be under 4 just taking those carries away. Obviously those guys are better than Herron. If I went down a level and went to names like Morris, Bell, Mason, Stewart, and Bernard, their effects would put them closer to that 3.4 that Herron did, and they also have carry totals that are close to Herron's. I could do that if you like when I get another chance.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

        That's why it's a hilarious anecdote. You take away the top performances of anyone and their numbers are going to look more pedestrian.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
          That's why it's a hilarious anecdote. You take away the top performances of anyone and their numbers are going to look more pedestrian.
          Well obviously. The point isn't to make Boom look pedestriatian. The point is to illustrate just how often Boom and Trent produce similiar numbers.

          It goes back to people saying Boom performs so much better, and how good the run game looks. 96% of the time, it looks exactly the same.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

            I'll assume Cubs' numbers are right. But that's the difference between 3% of 280 and 3% of 90. I'm still standing by my illustration, I'm not backing away.

            But at the same time, the difference in raw total numbers does hold weight. We are watching Boom's production go down, as he's given more reps. What do you think would happen to Boom's production if his workload was doubled? Production won't reduce by half, but it will continue to go down. Lynch and Company, can produce at a higher level with a bigger workload. It's impressive, just on a phsyical stand point.

            Almost tempted to start breaking out some bell curves with standard deviations.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

              That's why it's a hilarious anecdote. You take away the top performances of anyone and their numbers are going to look more pedestrian.

              The argument comparing Trent and Boom morphed into that because, well, there was no further argument to support Trent; a historically bad running back. It deflects attention away from the real issue, which is that Trent has the 2nd lowest YPC of all-time for running backs. 2nd lowest all-time.

              The arguments have always deflected away from Trent. First his poor performance was because opponents stacked the box against us. Then, it was because of our o-line. Then, it was because of his hamstring. And now, it's about Boom's equal performance when you take away his non-starting games and best runs.

              The truth is, Trent is slow, has the worst vision I've ever seen from a running back, and makes poor decisions. Luck never trusted Trent enough to even throw him the ball in the flat, which he's now doing regularly with Boom. Every running back we've during Trent's tenure has outperformed him. And now Trent isn't even dressing in front of some guy we signed last Tuesday.

              The only thing I've learned in this entire debate is about the people involved in it (and Cubs' stat). It's over for me.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                I'll assume Cubs' numbers are right. But that's the difference between 3% of 280 and 3% of 90. I'm still standing by my illustration, I'm not backing away.

                But at the same time, the difference in raw total numbers does hold weight. We are watching Boom's production go down, as he's given more reps. What do you think would happen to Boom's production if his workload was doubled? Production won't reduce by half, but it will continue to go down. Lynch and Company, can produce at a higher level with a bigger workload. It's impressive, just on a phsyical stand point.

                Almost tempted to start breaking out some bell curves with standard deviations.
                I would agree with that. One big reason that the names I mentioned are better is that they can maintain that good of an average over such a large workload. That doesn't dismiss the overall point that you can't just take out the big runs, but it does qualify it.

                So let's go another way. Can you name a few offenses that you think are average or better at running the ball and who does not have a true workhorse back? There are so few workhorse backs that there should be several out there. I can run the numbers for them, but I'd hate to run the numbers for a bunch of guys only to find they aren't great examples for who you think is a good running team.

                Obviously just about anybody we compare is going to have more carries than Herron because Herron only has half a season of data, but there are plenty of examples out there of 10-20 carry a game backs that aren't workhorses to get a better comparison of how much their numbers come down.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                  Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                  That's why it's a hilarious anecdote. You take away the top performances of anyone and their numbers are going to look more pedestrian.

                  The argument comparing Trent and Boom morphed into that because, well, there was no further argument to support Trent; a historically bad running back. It deflects attention away from the real issue, which is that Trent has the 2nd lowest YPC of all-time for running backs. 2nd lowest all-time.

                  The arguments have always deflected away from Trent. First his poor performance was because opponents stacked the box against us. Then, it was because of our o-line. Then, it was because of his hamstring. And now, it's about Boom's equal performance when you take away his non-starting games and best runs.

                  The truth is, Trent is slow, has the worst vision I've ever seen from a running back, and makes poor decisions. Luck never trusted Trent enough to even throw him the ball in the flat, which he's now doing regularly with Boom. Every running back we've during Trent's tenure has outperformed him. And now Trent isn't even dressing in front of some guy we signed last Tuesday.

                  The only thing I've learned in this entire debate is about the people involved in it (and Cubs' stat). It's over for me.
                  When TRich first got here Luck did throw him the ball, and he dropped them. That's why I was surprised when statistically he appeared to be a decent receiver. I wouldn't be surprised if he dropped them in practice as well and part of the reason we didn't utilize that part of his game as much as you'd think we would. Possibly it was a case where the numbers didn't tell the entire tale.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                    Much of the anger here should be directed at Grigson who out of desperation made this trade. TR did nothing at Cleveland to warrant getting a first. Did Grigson ask why Cleveland was so willing to unload TR or even if he could get TR in the 3rd or 4th round.

                    You trade a first for a guy who is underperforming on another team and then stay with him for a season and a half because you can't admit you were taken? Then you get the coaches to compound your stupidity with a whole bunch of excuses blaming the OL and lack of preparation in the offseason.

                    Grigson did a bunch of things right but the TR fiasco is his.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                      Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                      Much of the anger here should be directed at Grigson who out of desperation made this trade. TR did nothing at Cleveland to warrant getting a first. Did Grigson ask why Cleveland was so willing to unload TR or even if he could get TR in the 3rd or 4th round.

                      You trade a first for a guy who is underperforming on another team and then stay with him for a season and a half because you can't admit you were taken? Then you get the coaches to compound your stupidity with a whole bunch of excuses blaming the OL and lack of preparation in the offseason.

                      Grigson did a bunch of things right but the TR fiasco is his.
                      This is the reason people are more upset about Richardson than they are about other underperforming first round picks (I saw Werner's name mentioned). Richardson had a year's worth of NFL experience to prove he wasn't worth a first round pick, and it should have been pretty telling that a year after being picked #3 overall, the team that drafted him was ready to unload him for a pick that wasn't likely to be nearly that high.

                      Grigson got fleeced, a lot of people knew it at the time, this isn't revisionist history here. I will give him credit for the Vontae Davis trade though--that was a great trade.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                        Trent will never play another down for the Colts. We might as well have a Griff Whalen thread, and explain how his YPC, or drop ratio somehow equates to him being as good as Moncrief or Nicks. If Trent was any good, regardless of what the numbers say, he would still be playing
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                          Here is the ultimate question for Kid Minneapolis and Since 86: If Trent was on a different team that is good at running the ball, like Houston or Pittsburgh, would he be good there? I say absolutely not
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                            Here is the ultimate question for Kid Minneapolis and Since 86: If Trent was on a different team that is good at running the ball, like Houston or Pittsburgh, would he be good there? I say absolutely not
                            And you know this... how? The eye test?

                            I think the more appropriate question is would I change my mind about TRich if he went elsewhere that had a good system and he still showed no improvement, and the answer is absolutely yes. You guys are still way off about what we're arguing about and you're still way off about my stance on TRich. You act like just because I present a defense for him that I think he's amazing and will defend him no matter what. My entire stance is just a fair take on the situation, one that I don't think most of you are doing.
                            I think most of you are correlating his draft placement and irrationality relating that to your like or dislike of him. My stance is completely independent if his draft position and cost to us. It's purely football and I feel he's got ability to succeed. I don't see a huge difference between him and the other backs. I understand most of you disagree with that and think he sucks. I don't care what you think.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-13-2015, 10:13 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


                            • #44
                              Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              And you know this... how? The eye test?

                              I think the more appropriate question is would I change my mind about TRich if he went elsewhere that had a good system and he still showed no improvement, and the answer is absolutely yes. You guys are still way off about what we're arguing about and you're still way off about my stance on TRich. You act like just because I present a defense for him that I think he's amazing and will defend him no matter what. My entire stance is just a fair take on the situation, one that I don't think most of you are doing.
                              Your unwavering defense of him and him in particular sure makes it seem like you will defend him no matter what.

                              How are we not giving him a fair take? The guy has had three years in the NFL with two different teams to prove his worth and he hasn't done it or anything close to it.

                              If you wanted to go through a bunch of top 5 overall picks who were busts and comb through each of their individual situations and come up with a defense with why they didn't pan out, I'm sure it could be done.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                                I see ability in him and I think he's a bit broken right now. I also can relate to that. Sometimes people need a boost or help to get back on track. I also believe the factors around him haven't helped... the ****** line and playcalling. He's not met expectations, but the things around him are starting to show improvement.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-13-2015, 10:19 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

                                Working...
                                X