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

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

    Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
    So does his draft selection do him no favours and in some way will always haunt him? I mean, had he been selected lower, there would have been more appreciation for him for what he offers?
    Yes, people will always look at his draft position along with the first round pick that the Colts traded for him. It's as if the guy was drafted twice in the first round. Double whammy for him as far as expectations are concerned.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Yes, people will always look at his draft position along with the first round pick that the Colts traded for him. It's as if the guy was drafted twice in the first round. Double whammy for him as far as expectations are concerned.
      Triple whammy when you consider Cleveland traded up a spot to get him, too.

      Comment


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

        http://sports.yahoo.com/news/week-5-...0187--nfl.html

        I would agree with this
        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

        Comment


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

          http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/10/...ent-richardson


          Another interesting read on the Colts running game. The gifs are pretty good
          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
            So that article is mostly in-line with what I think, but my response to the last paragraph suggesting he's overthinking is: "Duh". He has so much to ingest mentally in a short amount of time, of course he's thinking too much. He's basically mentally in pre-season form with this team. It'll slow down for him as he gets more comfortable.
            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


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

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              So that article is mostly in-line with what I think, but my response to the last paragraph suggesting he's overthinking is: "Duh". He has so much to ingest mentally in a short amount of time, of course he's thinking too much. He's basically mentally in pre-season form with this team. It'll slow down for him as he gets more comfortable.
              Does give you Joseph Addai flashbacks, too. Dancing around behind the line waiting for something to open up was a staple of the Addai Experience.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by cdash View Post
                Does give you Joseph Addai flashbacks, too. Dancing around behind the line waiting for something to open up was a staple of the Addai Experience.
                Rich isn't dancing a ton, though. Addai used to do a damn pirouette back there. Rich is just not running instinctively, which like I said, he'll do once he gets the system down and comfy.

                Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
                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


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

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  Rich isn't dancing a ton, though. Addai used to do a damn pirouette back there. Rich is just not running instinctively, which like I said, he'll do once he gets the system down and comfy.

                  Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
                  Yes I know I was just making a connection. Addai's was maddening. He was just shuffle jump from side to side until he found whatever the hell he was looking for and took his 3 yards happily.

                  Comment


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

                    I assume this has been posted on one of the previous 5 pages of this thread but I'm not going back through to look. Worth a read if it is new to you.

                    http://www.footballperspective.com/w...es-not-matter/

                    *Note this was written in July before any thought a move to the Colts could have been conceived.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                      I assume this has been posted on one of the previous 5 pages of this thread but I'm not going back through to look. Worth a read if it is new to you.

                      http://www.footballperspective.com/w...es-not-matter/

                      *Note this was written in July before any thought a move to the Colts could have been conceived.
                      Yeah Barnwell linked to that in his piece on the trade.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                        Last week he averaged .07 more ypc than Trent. Willis' first game was 8 touches, not exactly an enormous sample size.
                        You got a bigger sample size now Tinman.

                        The browns line still sucks and Mcgahee is still below 3 yards per carry.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          You got a bigger sample size now Tinman.

                          The browns line still sucks and Mcgahee is still below 3 yards per carry.
                          So if Trent Richardson is still averaging 3 yards per carry after his third game as a Colt, can we just call it then like you are here? Seriously.

                          Comment


                          • I think yall are way too focused on YPC.

                            Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
                            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


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

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              So if Trent Richardson is still averaging 3 yards per carry after his third game as a Colt, can we just call it then like you are here? Seriously.
                              Why can't you keep context or follow the same argument that you yourself made? You can't just plug anyone in and get 3.5 ypc behind a crappy line.

                              It wouldn't bother me so much but you consistently argue a point where you have shown that you have done little to no research on yet you act like your opinion is backed by some facts which they aren't. You assume starting running backs are a dime a dozen and I showed you that most teams draft in such a way that completely blows that theory away but of course Cdash you know what's best.

                              Also you don't even know what Trent is good at yet you act like his production is easily replaceable. So on one hand you show that you don't know his true worth and then act like this philosophy of valuing a rb highly is somehow flawed. It's not and history is on the side of having a well balanced team to win games and Super Bowls. I have no problem with your opinion btw but pointing to a few examples of late round picks doesn't erase all the success teams have had with drafting rbs early. Meaning a few exceptions hardly prove that your opinion is somehow right or a good way to build around Luck and Peps offense. It probably has the lowest rate of success which is why there are so few examples you can draw upon.
                              Last edited by Gamble1; 10-04-2013, 10:57 PM.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                Why can't you keep context or follow the same argument that you yourself made? You can't just plug anyone in and get 3.5 ypc behind a crappy line.

                                It wouldn't bother me so much but you consistently argue a point where you have shown that you have done little to no research on yet you act like your opinion is backed by some facts which they aren't. You assume starting running backs are a dime a dozen and I showed you that most teams draft in such a way that completely blows that theory away but of course Cdash you know what's best.

                                Also you don't even know what Trent is good at yet you act like his production is easily replaceable. So on one hand you show that you don't know his true worth and then act like this philosophy of valuing a rb highly is somehow flawed. It's not and history is on the side of having a well balanced team to win games and Super Bowls. I have no problem with your opinion btw but pointing to a few examples of late round picks doesn't erase all the success teams have had with drafting rbs early. Meaning a few exceptions hardly prove that your opinion is somehow right or a good way to build around Luck and Peps offense. It probably has the lowest rate of success which is why there are so few examples you can draw upon.
                                Goodness, where to start?

                                I guess at the beginning. Amazingly, I can keep context. Your condescending **** is irritating as ****, for starters. My original argument wasn't that you could plug anyone into a system and get around 3.5 YPC--that was Barnwell's assessment. Seeing as how it is not exactly a lofty total and at around or below the league average, I tend to agree. You are trying to make the point that since Willis McGahee, in his THREE games with the Browns has failed to reach that threshold, that the argument is wholly ridiculous and void. Meanwhile, you are supporting the argument that Trent Richardson will need time to adjust to our system, personnel, and so on while not giving McGahee the same pass. Frankly, their numbers are close enough through a ridiculously small sample size with each of their new teams where I don't think you can draw any conclusions for or against the other if compared head to head at this point.

                                My opinion is based by facts--Trent Richardson is averaging 3.5 yards per carry for his NFL career at this point. Those numbers were like that in Cleveland, and they have been like that in Indianapolis. You guys are throwing context out there for both cases, and there is something to be said for that for sure, and I have acknowledged as much. I don't assume running backs are a dime a dozen, it's just my personal opinion that the position is not as valuable as it once was, and certainly not worth a first round pick. Is it right? I don't know. Is it wrong? You don't know. It's an opinion. I'm not asking you to agree with it. I'm not saying I know best, I'm just giving my opinion on the matter. It's a message board, after all. We don't all have to agree on everything.

                                I don't know what Trent is good at anymore than you don't know what he isn't good at. I'm basing my opinion off of what I've seen and what the stats tell me. My eyes tell me he certainly looks the part and my gut tells me that he will eventually be a lot better than he has shown thus far in his NFL career, but 19 games in he has not proven to be worth a first round pick. That's my entire point: I don't think running backs are worth first round picks, especially those with a spotty track record thus far. That's it. Agree, disagree, continue to condescend, I don't care. It's my opinion. Sorry you don't agree with it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X