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

  • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

    Originally posted by BornIndy07 View Post
    I was hoping Richardson was gonna be the Colts version of Marshawn Lynch. Colts always suck at running the ball for some reason. Even when Manning was here, which I don't get. Having a great qb should make it easier for the rb.
    Edgerrin James disagrees

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

      http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12...mber-incidents

      INDIANAPOLIS -- The rocky relationship between the Indianapolis Colts and running back Trent Richardson built up over time during the 2014 season because of weight issues, accessibility and an absence, multiple sources told ESPN.com.

      Richardson, whom the Colts acquired from Cleveland in September 2013, had weight issues during the season, was difficult to get in touch with and didn't tell the team he wouldn't be at the walk-through the day before the AFC Championship Game, a source said. He was suspended two games by the team for missing the walk-through.

      He served the first game of the suspension during the AFC Championship Game against New England. His second game will be served next season -- if he's still with the Colts.

      [+] EnlargeTrent Richardson
      Brian Spurlock/USA TODAY Sports
      Trent Richardson has averaged 3.1 yards per carry during his two seasons with the Colts.
      Because of default language in his contract, the Colts could exercise an option to void $3.1 million in guaranteed money owed to Richardson next season. The NFL Players Association would likely challenge that ruling if it occurs.

      Things started to change for Richardson against Cincinnati on Oct. 19, when he suffered a hamstring injury and had to sit out the fourth quarter after rushing for 77 yards through the first three.

      That's when Richardson's weight issue started to take off. He began the season at 225 pounds, but his weight had ballooned up to around 240 pounds later in the season, according to a source.

      Richardson said after practice one day during the middle of the season that he was running extra sprints to work on his conditioning. He denied to the media late in the season that he had a weight issue.

      He had shared carries with Ahmad Bradshaw during the first 10 games of the season, but Bradshaw suffered a fractured fibula -- ending his season -- against New England on Nov. 16.

      The Colts, according to a source, became frustrated with Richardson because they couldn't get in touch with him and didn't have any communication with him until around 1 p.m. the day after the Patriots game.

      Daniel "Boom" Herron outplayed Richardson after Bradshaw's injury and eventually became the full-time starter in Week 16 at Dallas.

      Where Richardson stood with the Colts became even more evident when he was listed as the third running back behind Herron and Zurlon Tipton for the wild-card playoff game against Cincinnati and then was inactive against Denver in the divisional round.

      "That situation will never happen to me again," Richardson told reporters Jan. 15. "Anybody can quote me, today, because it's never going to happen again."

      Richardson then was suspended for the AFC Championship Game because he didn't alert the team he would not be at the walk-through due to a family emergency. He told the team, according to a source, that he didn't call or text because he had phone problems.

      Richardson told ESPN.com on the day of the AFC Championship Game that he was "dealing with a very serious family emergency. ... I wouldn't purposely just miss walk-through."

      General manager Ryan Grigson declined comment, instead referring to what he said during his season-ending news conference Jan. 23.

      "Every situation is different," Grigson said at the time. "Every player and how we deal with them is going to be different. He'll be lumped into that conversation with guys this offseason. Where does he fit? Where is he going? Is his arrow up, down, sideways, 45-degree angle?"

      Richardson, the No. 3 overall pick in the 2012 draft, has rushed for 977 yards (3.1 yards a carry) and six touchdowns on 316 carries in his two seasons with the Colts, who acquired him from Cleveland in exchange for a first-round draft pick.

      The Colts paid Richardson $1.1 million in 2013 and $2.2 million last season.

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

        So the only other shoe left to drop is to learn the family emergency was somewhere between trumped up and non-existent in the first place. "Phone problems" is a pretty lame excuse in this day and age. It's not like he was claiming to be on the road, in the desert, by himself. He should've been able to find a working phone of a friend, or sent an email easily enough.

        The weight issue doesn't surprise me. It would explain help to explain his lack of burst. It was also interesting to hear a game commentator bring up weight, seemingly out of the blue, when discussing Trent being a disappointment for the Colts (this was sometime mid-season).

        I also thought he looked noticeably slimmer in the Cleveland highlight video from early in the season compared to later. It's getting pretty obvious Cleveland sensed a problem early on, and even his first season there wasn't much to write home about when looked at in hindsight. So they got out when the getting was good.
        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: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

          His arrow is down Ryan.

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
            Edgerrin James disagrees
            Rookie Joe Addai and Dom Rhodes weren't bad either

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

              Our run-blocking was never as bad as it has been the past 2 years.
              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: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                Our run-blocking was never as bad as it has been the past 2 years.
                Kinda like how pass protection looks worse when you have a QB who likes to hold onto the ball too long...
                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: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                  No, our line has been exceedingly poor in execution the last two years. Don't even watch the backs, just go back and watch the tapes of the line... Our line went through large periods of time of losing their matchups, oftentimes in grotesque fashion. Our backs have had no help.
                  From about the San Fran game of the year prior to roughly the playoffs this year, they were terrible.
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 02-13-2015, 01:19 AM.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...-can-he-fix-it
                    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: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                      I'm sure we'll trade or cut him and he'll turn into an All Pro for some other team.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                        Who's gonna take him?
                        Never forget

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                          Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                          Who's gonna take him?
                          The Colts gave him two years and a ton of opportunities. They could've (and probably should've) cut their losses sooner. So it's hard for me to see him getting much of a sustained chance elsewhere at this point. It would be different if the Colts gave him the better part of a season and then gave up on him leaving other teams to wonder. But two full seasons of it, and coming from Cleveland where his production wasn't as good on paper as many might believe and where they cut their losses awfully quick, makes you wonder about who thinks he really can be successful somewhere else and how much of an opportunity they'd really give him.

                          It's really going to be on him at this point to reinvent himself. I can't see him going anywhere at this point that will pencil him in as the #1 back. I see him as someplace's project back that will have to prove himself just to get thru training camp.
                          Last edited by Bball; 02-17-2015, 09:05 AM.
                          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: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                            http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...odds/23580037/

                            There are claims there were complications with his GF's pregnancy causing him to miss the walk-thru which allegedly led to the suspension.

                            But here's an issue that's much less clear: Is Richardson guilty of engaging in conduct detrimental to the team?

                            That's what the Colts are, in effect, alleging based on their decision to suspend Richardson for two games without pay for not contacting the team prior to missing the walkthrough and flight before last month's AFC Championship Game against the New England Patriots. However, sources said his absence was the result of serious complications with his girlfriend's pregnancy that could potentially have endangered the life of the child.

                            These sources said the mother was experiencing contractions and appeared to be in premature labor at just 28 weeks of pregnancy.

                            Richardson, sources said, rushed her to the hospital in the early-morning hours of Jan. 17 — the same day the team departed for the New England game — missing that morning's walkthrough in Indianapolis and the team's chartered flight.
                            Meanwhile, apparently we have confirmation of weight issues with Richardson failing to meet contractual weight numbers:
                            Teams may require players to maintain prescribed weights, and the Colts did so with Richardson. He was fined multiple times for weight by the team, sources said.

                            For the 2014 season, the collective bargaining agreement permitted teams to fine players a maximum of $545 per pound per day, with fines assessed no more than twice a week. It's not known how much Richardson was fined under this policy or how far over his 227-pound weight limit he was.
                            There's another mention of a fine for missing a meeting after the 1st Pats' game mentioned in there but the above are the two larger pieces of information that until now had been rumors or questions.
                            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: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                              Well there goes the whole made-it-up theory.
                              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: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                Well there goes the whole made-it-up theory.
                                I saw nothing confirming it...
                                Let's see what the Colts have to say when this hits arbitration. That assumes it does hit arbitration because if the story is true and not trumped up then I'm not sure the Colts will really void his contract anyway. Unless there's more that the suspension is based on.

                                AFAIK the Colts have never said they are going to void his contract.

                                But the fact remains, he could've contacted the team... and the timing is convenient to say the least.

                                I think the bigger story is the fines for being overweight. Being overweight would help to explain his loss of speed and slow burst. Being continually fined and continually overweight could show a player who got his payday and being competitive or great didn't mean as much any longer. It's also the kind(s) of issue(s) that Cleveland could've noted as problems pushing them to jettison him ASAP.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X