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

Fire Ryan Grigson

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

  • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

    I hate to bring fantasy football up here, but there's a reason when a starting RB goes out with injury, everyone is all over the waiver wire to get his backup. The position is not that hard to fill with a productive player these days. That's why TRich is such a bust all things considered.

    Is there a worse starting RB in the NFL than TRich?
    This site certainly gives ammo to that argument: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb
    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


    • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      Who spoke? What is all this rabble about teams and running backs and odds? Every position on the field is valuable. Every position has the same pass/fail odds in the draft. This nonsense that seems to be commonly copied and pasted on message boards is nonsense.

      In 2014, you didn't have a team draft a RB until Tennessee at 54. In 2013, you didn't have a team draft a RB until Cincy at 37.

      But this is all just nonsense created in the minds of internet message boards posters? Or is it that teams have (correctly) determined that in this day in age, the odds of finding a true difference maker at RB in the first round is much much lower than that of other positions?

      If in 2015, teams all of the sudden go back to drafting RB's in the first round, then we can say that 13 and 14 were a fluke. But if the trend continues in which teams don't burn first rounders on RB's, then the trend will have become pretty obvious.

      You're all but admitting it yourself when you always say that T-Rich's poor production is because of the offensive line. So why in the world would spend such a high pick on someone whose production is so dependent on areas where you are weak? Wouldn't the smart thing be to spend your best assets (first round picks) on the line like Dallas has?

      Comment


      • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

        Not hard to fill, so what? It's a next-man-up league, this statement applies to every position.

        That statement also isn't true, I've lost many RBs and going with his backup is rarely a good decision.

        Also, that site you linked to show how bad TRich is actually has Boom ranked even further below lol....
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-18-2014, 11:50 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


        • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          In 2014, you didn't have a team draft a RB until Tennessee at 54. In 2013, you didn't have a team draft a RB until Cincy at 37.

          But this is all just nonsense created in the minds of internet message boards posters? Or is it that teams have (correctly) determined that in this day in age, the odds of finding a true difference maker at RB in the first round is much much lower than that of other positions?

          If in 2015, teams all of the sudden go back to drafting RB's in the first round, then we can say that 13 and 14 were a fluke. But if the trend continues in which teams don't burn first rounders on RB's, then the trend will have become pretty obvious.

          You're all but admitting it yourself when you always say that T-Rich's poor production is because of the offensive line. So why in the world would spend such a high pick on someone whose production is so dependent on areas where you are weak? Wouldn't the smart thing be to spend your best assets (first round picks) on the line like Dallas has?
          Trends don't last, Soll.

          And that last paragraph says more about our front office than TRich. Picking up a RB should not impact working on improving the line. My guess is the FO thought the o line was in better shape than it really was.
          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: Fire Ryan Grigson

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            you win with high draft picks....

            All Nonsense.
            Yup, if watching the Colts have a ton of success in the 2000's taught us anything, it's that hitting on your first rounders isn't very important. I'm sure the likes of Harrison/Tarik Glenn/Freeney/Reggie Wayne/Dallas Clark could have been easily replaced by fourth and fifth rounders. The team started going downhill when those first rounders became Gonzo, trading the 08 pick for Ugoh, Donald Brown, Jerry Hughes. This is why Chris Polian will never again have an important NFL job.

            No one has said that the running game isn't important, it's that you don't need to spend a first rounder on the position. Only one of the top five rushers this year was drafted in the first round, and that was all the way back in 2007.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-18-2014, 11:50 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Yup, if watching the Colts have a ton of success in the 2000's taught us anything, it's that hitting on your first rounders isn't very important. I'm sure the likes of Harrison/Tarik Glenn/Freeney/Reggie Wayne/Dallas Clark could have been easily replaced by fourth and fifth rounders. The team started going downhill when those first rounders became Gonzo, trading the 08 pick for Ugoh, Donald Brown, Jerry Hughes. This is why Chris Polian will never again have an important NFL job.

              No one has said that the running game isn't important, it's that you don't need to spend a first rounder on the position. Only one of the top five rushers this year was drafted in the first round, and that was all the way back in 2007.
              That team certainly won with high draft picks. That isn't the only way to build success though. The two strongest teams right now, the Pats and Seahawks, are loaded with late draft picks and free agents. The Colts offense features plenty of late round picks.
              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: Fire Ryan Grigson

                omg i cant believe km is still defending richardson.

                Comment


                • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                  Sure ya can.
                  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: Fire Ryan Grigson

                    Disastrous pickup. Of all running backs with at least 500 career carries, Richardson has the 2nd worst YPC of all time. All time!

                    Everyone who's had the opportunity has contributed more than Trent.

                    I'm impressed with the amount of slack he's able to generate on here. If he wasn't the 3rd overall pick he would've been cut already and replaced by someone on the practice squad.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      Sure ya can.
                      seriously, you've gotta be related to the dude at this point to not admit the guy blows

                      Comment


                      • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        Not hard to fill, so what? It's a next-man-up league, this statement applies to every position.

                        That statement also isn't true, I've lost many RBs and going with his backup is rarely a good decision.

                        Also, that site you linked to show how bad TRich is actually has Boom ranked even further below lol....
                        Herron is not ranked below. He is just ranked on a separate chart because he doesn't have enough carries yet to qualify for the first chart. If he did have enough carries, Herron's current rate would put him 9th on the first chart out of 40, compared to 34th for Trent.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          omg i cant believe km is still defending richardson.

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          Disastrous pickup. Of all running backs with at least 500 career carries, Richardson has the 2nd worst YPC of all time. All time!

                          Everyone who's had the opportunity has contributed more than Trent.

                          I'm impressed with the amount of slack he's able to generate on here. If he wasn't the 3rd overall pick he would've been cut already and replaced by someone on the practice squad.

                          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                          seriously, you've gotta be related to the dude at this point to not admit the guy blows
                          He's still learning the playbook. Be patient.
                          Never forget

                          Comment


                          • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            Who spoke? What is all this rabble about teams and running backs and odds? Every position on the field is valuable. Every position has the same pass/fail odds in the draft. This nonsense that seems to be commonly copied and pasted on message boards is nonsense.
                            I've heard some real humdingers this year... offensive lines don't matter... running backs don't matter, coaching doesn't matter... all you need is a good quarterback... teams don't care about running the ball... it's a passing league... you win with high draft picks....

                            All Nonsense.

                            Look at the reigning SB champs. They don't adhere to a single one of those myths.
                            Clearly teams value different positions in vastly different ways. They tend to draft them higher and pay them more. Every position doesn't have close to the same value or the same pass/fail odds. It is maximizing those odds how you build a great team.

                            For example, all those statements that you're attributing to others would need to be qualified. It is a passing league, and running backs don't matter nearly as much as they did. But they still have some value. Bad offensive lines can be compensated through by QB play (the Broncos last year were a perfect example of this), but they are important because that not having one leaves you vulnerable to certain types of teams. High draft picks are the backbone of most teams, and having young talent from high picks usually separates the good teams from the terrible teams. But late round picks and quality free agent signings are still very important, they are where the great teams separate from the good.

                            Teams value coaching, but it's typically not nearly as important as talent. The best coaches only make 1/4 of the best players despite having no salary cap that would constrain their salaries. Why is there no bidding war for coaches that would pay them 20-40 million per year? Because no team currently thinks they are worth that much. Personally, I think Belichick is worth that much. After that, other coaches have advantages, but the advantages aren't massive like the difference between a great and bad player.

                            For example, unless there's a guy who you think is a generational type of talent, guards, tight ends, and safeties are often not drafted in the first round. Running backs are now joining that list, and inside linebackers might not be far behind. Kickers and punters are valued so little that they are never drafted that high. There's no shock that when you look at contracts, all those positions also pay the least. Teams look for QB's, offensive tackles, pass rushers, WR, and CB predominately at the top of the draft because that's where they feel the most important positions are.

                            The Seahawks weren't quite the traditional build, but they do have some elements of it. They have been able to splurge in certain areas because they have drafted so well, both in the first round and later on. And watch what they do when handing out contracts. QB, pass rushers, and their secondary will all get big deals, while they will either cut Lynch before next year or let him walk as a free agent after that and get cheaper at RB to make up for that. That is their reported plan, and it makes perfect sense. They've already drafted a 2nd and 4th round running back for that plan to happen.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              Trends don't last, Soll.

                              And that last paragraph says more about our front office than TRich. Picking up a RB should not impact working on improving the line. My guess is the FO thought the o line was in better shape than it really was.
                              That's why I said look at the trade in context. Look at the draft picks and FA signings before Trent was traded for. 2 FA signings to shore up the left side of the line, two draft picks to develop.

                              Like I said, if 1st rd picks are so damn valuable, then when are we going to start *****ing about how unproductive Werner has been? Imagine that draft pick being used to draft an OLinemen, SAME EXACT ARGUMENT used for the Trent trade.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                                I wonder what KM's reaction would be if the Colts drafted Vinatieri's replacement with their 2015 or 2016 first round pick? They'd be lucky to even get a serviceable player at such a late pick right? Might as well get the best kicker available and lock that position down

                                To respond to a poster explaining that the running back position has gone down in value in recent years (as just about every respectable writer and analyst has agreed) by saying "every position is valuable" is such a lame response. Nobody is saying a team can pick up some NAIA scrub and play him at running back. But teams are clearly not valuing running backs with first round value, 1-32, at this time.

                                Sure the oline is not playing well enough and the coaches may not be calling the best plays for him. But to not place any blame on Richardson is laughable. There's no denying that Richardson is underperforming compared to most other running backs. If you do try denying it, how about you come back with any sort of proof or statistics to back up your claim, other than your own "eye test".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X