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

Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

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

  • #46
    Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

    I don't think I'd be opposed to that.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

      How about that Kerrigan guy?!

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

        Yep, that was the lone bright light of a horrible football weekend.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

          Go through active NFL rosters, there's PLENTY of Purdue talent on them, the majority of them starters. In the NFL. Granted, the vast amount of them are either QBs or DE/OLBs, but the talent is there and has been there. I don't even dislike Hope's recruiting, I haven't looked it up but I'd imagine he's doing just as well there as Tiller did and with even less to get those guys to WL on. Not that either was pulling major coups in that area, unless you count guys that never saw the field for Tiller.

          Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, if Hope's not fired at season's end and Kevin Sumlin's not offered the job then I'm ready to call for Burke to be replaced. It's a lot like IU with Lynch, I genuinely like Hope, think he has the best interests for his players and the school in mind at all times, he just isn't good enough a coach. I'm not asking for double digit wins and Rose Bowl contention, just yearly bowls. There's absolutely no reason for ANY Big Ten school to not expect that from their coach.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

            Just for reference:

            Some 18 former Purdue football players are on NFL rosters as the 2011 season opens this week. Sixteen different clubs have Boilermaker alums; the New England Patriots and San Diego Chargers are the only teams with more than one.

            Newcomers: Two Boilermakers who completed their eligibility last season are active - linebacker Ryan Kerrigan, the Washington Redskins' first-round draft pick, and tight end Kyle Adams, who made the Chicago Bears roster as an undrafted free agent.

            New Places: Two former Purdue defensive standouts are with two teams - defensive end Ray Edwards signed with the Atlanta Falcons after spending the first five seasons of his career with the Minnesota Vikings, and safety Bernard Pollard hooked up with the Baltimore Ravens. Pollard previously played with the Kansas City Chiefs (2006-08) and Houston Texans (2009-10).

            Cradle of Quarterbacks: Drew Brees begins his sixth season with the New Orleans Saints, while Kyle Orton and Curtis Painter are in their third season with the Denver Broncos and Indianapolis Colts.

            Den of Defensive Ends: No fewer than six former defensive ends are with NFL clubs: Cliff Avril (Detroit Lions), Edwards, Kerrigan, Rob Ninkovich (New England), Shaun Phillips (San Diego) and Anthony Spencer (Dallas Cowboys). Kerrigan, Ninkovich, Phillips and Spencer now each play linebacker. Meanwhile, two former defensive tackles - Ryan Baker and Mike Neal - now are ends with the Miami Dolphins and Green Bay Packers.

            O Line Vets: Tackle Matt Light enters his 11th season with the New England, center Nick Hardwick his ninth season with San Diego, guard-center Uche Nwaneri his fifth season with the Jacksonville Jaguars and tackle Mike Otto his fifth season with the Tennessee Titans.

            Former First Rounders: The Boilermakers have had three first-round draft picks in the past five seasons: Spencer with Dallas in 2007, tight end Dustin Keller with the New York Jets in 2008 and Kerrigan with Washington in 2011.
            http://www.purduesports.com/sports/m...090511aad.html

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

              Interesting story on J & C that Henry had his ACL done by James Andrews (guy who did Brees' shoulder I think), not Shelbourne.

              Wonder if this is a sign that the re-injuries are forcing PU is away from Shelbourne...

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                Yep, that was the lone bright light of a horrible football weekend.
                Don't forget about Shaun Phillips play...
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                  Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                  Interesting story on J & C that Henry had his ACL done by James Andrews (guy who did Brees' shoulder I think), not Shelbourne.

                  Wonder if this is a sign that the re-injuries are forcing PU is away from Shelbourne...
                  I would think the history would have to scare you a little at least.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                    FIFTY-NINE to zero!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                      Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
                      FIFTY-NINE to zero!
                      lol and we played who? I would be embarrassed for scheduling that game. Thats why i hate college ball it is a joke there are about 2 games that matter a year out of conference in all of college ball. LSU Oregon was the only game that has mattered so far all year. Oklahoma FL State matters tonight aswell. College ball is such a joke now a days.


                      I was working in Lafayette today traffic is a ***** game days.

                      I am thinking about going to ND PU on the 1st but im afraid Purdue will get smoked and will be a waste.But ill be going to Chicago that night it is on the way so I mys well.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                        Hard to take a lot from that game, REALLY nice to be on the right end of a 59-0 shellacking of course, but SEMO St's a 1-AA school and looked like a bad one at that.

                        Marve looked good though. More decisive, the passes are much crisper and on target. If the knee's still 100% I'd probably start him the rest of the way. Now beat ND and put on a show for Gary Harris.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                          I'd start Marve as well. I don't care who it was, we were supposed to beat Rice also.

                          I don't like when people who don't go here, or never did, say 'we' either.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                            Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
                            I'd start Marve as well. I don't care who it was, we were supposed to beat Rice also.

                            I don't like when people who don't go here, or never did, say 'we' either.


                            my mom and dad both went to Purdue my Uncle is the Sheriff of Tipp county and get free tickets to any game I want to go too and most of my family lives in Lafayette. I think I can say we if I want too.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post


                              my mom and dad both went to Purdue my Uncle is the Sheriff of Tipp county and get free tickets to any game I want to go too and most of my family lives in Lafayette. I think I can say we if I want too.
                              Didn't say you couldn't. Do as you please. You're just not a Boilermaker to me is all. I catch myself saying we all the time when I talk about the Pacers and Buccaneers.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                                Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
                                Didn't say you couldn't. Do as you please. You're just not a Boilermaker to me is all. I catch myself saying we all the time when I talk about the Pacers and Buccaneers.
                                LOL I think you forgot the green font buddy. I'm sure P4E wets his bed at night when he remembers he's not a Boilermaker to you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X