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:
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

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

Penn State accusations

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Penn State accusations

    Peegs predicts Paterno will resign soon.


    • #32
      Re: Penn State accusations

      A great many people have seemingly assumed that the witness told Paterno something specific enough for him sit up and say "I need to go to the police with this information".

      Considering all of the things the witness himself did not do- like stop the act, or go to the police himself- I have to wonder what his meeting with Paterno was really like. Did he just go in there and say "Coach, how well do you know Mr. Sandusky? He seems creepy to me". If the witness didn't want to get involved enough to stop the guy, maybe he didn't even want to be the one to blow the whistle on the guy, until he had to do so under oath.

      Just thinking out loud here, and maybe JoePa and others did indeed cover up actual rape, but an awful lot of factors seem to make no sense at all and some issues like who knew exactly what, and when, need to be clarified.
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).


      • #33
        Re: Penn State accusations

        Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky had access to the team's weight room as recently as last week, a person familiar with the situation said just hours before Joe Paterno was to give his first news conference since his former protege was charged with child sex abuse.


        • #34
          Re: Penn State accusations

          PSU just cancelled Paterno's weekly press conference scheduled for today, per ESPN (TV), according to what I read on another board.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).


          • #35
            Re: Penn State accusations

            confirmed now at, cancelled by the school president, not by Paterno, according to his son.

            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).


            • #36
              Re: Penn State accusations

              Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
              How can a man walk in on a child being raped and not do anything about it? How can you turn your back and walk away? I'm about to get sick.
              That's what I was trying to figure out. If I witnessed that, the LEAST that's going to happen is I'm grabbing this guy and throwing him against the nearest wall.


              • #37
                Re: Penn State accusations

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                My understanding was that at least one of the first incidents did go to the police and to the district attorney who decided, somehow, to not press charges even when confronted with the evidence provided by the parent of a victim, including a legally taped phone conversation with the scumbag, implicating himself. The district attorney has apparently been missing and presumed dead for 6 years, in another very odd twist.


                • #38
                  Re: Penn State accusations

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  Did he just go in there and say "Coach, how well do you know Mr. Sandusky? He seems creepy to me". If the witness didn't want to get involved enough to stop the guy, maybe he didn't even want to be the one to blow the whistle on the guy, until he had to do so under oath.

                  Just thinking out loud here, and maybe JoePa and others did indeed cover up actual rape, but an awful lot of factors seem to make no sense at all and some issues like who knew exactly what, and when, need to be clarified.
                  Well, I think he must have told Paterno something with a bit more substance than that to warrant Paterno reporting it to the AD. You're right that none of us know what it is, but Paterno didn't go to the AD to report that his graduate assistant thought Sandusky was creepy.


                  • #39
                    Re: Penn State accusations

                    Paterno should resign and everyone else on the staff should be canned. The school should vacate 2 wins, especially since the timing of this is very suspicious with #409 coming about a week ago.

                    I don't think the NCAA touches this one. It appears to me that they generally only care about violations of their own rules and things that give schools an unfair advantage (freebies, grades, recruiting violations).


                    • #40
                      Re: Penn State accusations

                      New york post reporting that PSU is planning Paternos exit.

                      The last 15 minutes with Matt Millen on espn have been gripping.


                      • #41
                        Re: Penn State accusations

                        Hes done. Plain and simple.

                        And no, I don't think the NCAA gets involved at this time. This is a law enforcement matter.
                        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "


                        • #42
                          Re: Penn State accusations

                          Here's an article I found with a detailed timeline just to clear up what was said by whom to whom and when. I've copied the timeline only but there is an article at the link as well.


                          By Melanie Jones | November 7, 2011 5:12 PM EST

                          Here, a timeline of the course of the explosive sex scandal and its apparent cover-up by members of the Penn State faculty.

                          1977 -- Jerry Sandusky founds The Second Mile, a state-wide non-profit foundation established to help at-risk youth. The organization's web site describes it as a place to "promote self-confidence as well as physical, academic, and personal success."

                          1994-1997 -- Sandusky allegedly uses The Second Mile grounds to engage in "inappropriate conduct" with three different boys he met separately through the program. One boy was 7 or 8, the second was 10, and the third was between 12 and 13. According to the grand jury report, the three boys, now grown, say Sandusky's behavior ranged from touching to overt sexual come-ons and sexual assault. Several incidents reportedly took place during home games for Penn State football, when the team, staff and the boys were all staying at a nearby hotel.

                          1998 -- First police involvement. Penn State police and the Penn. Department of Public Warfare are contacted by the mother of an 11-year-old boy, who says Sandusky showered with her son and may have had inappropriate contact with him.

                          June 1, 1998 -- In an interview with investigators, Sandusky admits showering naked with the pre-teen. He admits that it was wrong, and promises not to do it again. No charges are filed, and the university police chief instructs that the case be closed.

                          1999 -- Sandusky retires from Penn State after coaching for 32 years. he remains a volunteer, and retains full access to the campus, football facilities, and The Second Mile camp grounds.

                          2000 -- Sandusky showers with a young boy and tries to touch his genitals during overnight stays at the coach's house, according to the now 24-year-old man's testimony to the grand jury.

                          2000 -- First eyewitness report. Tim Calhoun, a janitor at the Lasch Football Building on Penn State's campus, tells another janitor and his supervisor that he saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a young boy. The incident goes unreported.

                          2000 -- Second eyewitness report. Another janitor sees Sandusky and a boy leave the shower room together and walk out of the building hand in hand, according to the grand jury report. No one reports the incident to university officials or law enforcement.

                          March 2, 2002 -- A graduate assistant allegedly tells Coach Joe Paterno that he saw Sandusky in the locker room shower on Mar. 1 with a young boy. The retired defense coordinator was engaging in anal sex with the boy, believed to be no more than 10 years old.

                          March 3, 2002 -- Paterno reports the incident to Athletic Director Tim Curley. Paterno tells Curley the grad student had seen Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy." The graduate assistant is called to a meeting with Curley and Schultz.

                          March 3, 2002 -- The assistant, according to the grand jury report, sticks by his story, saying he saw Sandusky having anal sex with the young boy. Schultz, 62, and Curley, 57, told the grand jury they could not remember the details of the meeting. Schultz said Sandusky "might have inappropriately grabbed the young boy's genitals during wrestling," and Curley said he was under the impression, like Schultz, that the affair involved little more than "horsing around."

                          March, 2002 -- Sandusky's locker room keys are confiscated, and he is told not to bring his Second Mile participants to campus. The incident is not reported to police, and no official investigation is launched.

                          March, 2002 -- The Second Mile learns of the shower incident through Penn State. Curley tells them that "the information had been internally reviewed, and that there was no finding of wrongdoing."

                          2005 or 2006 -- Sandusky allegedly befriends and molests another Second-Mile participant. These allegation will form the foundation of the multi-year grand jury investigation about to launch.

                          2006 or 2007 --Fourth known eyewitness report. A wrestling coach at a high school where Sandusky volunteers surprises the former coach and a young boy. The two are allegedly "lying on their sides, in physical contact, face to face on a mat." Sandusky jumps to feet, telling the coach the two were practicing wrestling moves, which seemed believable. Later, according to the wrestling coach's testimony, Sandusky begins to spend more time with the boy, taking him to sporting events and giving him gifts like a computer, golf clubs, clothing and cash. Sandusky allegedly performs oral sex on the boy over 20 times, and boy performs oral sex on Sandusky at least once, according to grand jury reports.

                          2008 -- The boy breaks off contact with Sandusky, and his mother calls the high school to report her son has been sexually assaulted. The principal, Steven Turchetta, bars Sandusky from campus and reports the incident to police, calling Sandusky "clingy" and "needy" around the boy. The resulting investigation into the sex abuse claims reveals 118 calls from Sandusky's home phone and cell phone to the boy's home number.

                          November 2008 -- Sandusky informs The Second Mile that he is under investigation. He is removed from all program activities involving children.

                          September 2010 -- Sandusky retires from The Second Mile.

                          Nov. 4, 2011 -- The grand jury report is released.

                          Nov. 5, 2011 -- Authorities arrest Sandusky. He is charged with seven counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and numerous other charges, including aggravated indecent assault, corruption of minors and endangering the welfare of a child. He is charged with 40 counts n all, 21 of them felonies. Punishment for each of the felonies ranges from seven to 20 years in prison and $15,000-$25,000 in fines. For the 19 misdemeanors, convictions earn two to five years' imprisonment and $5,000-$10,000 in fines.

                          Nov. 5, 2011 -- Sandusky is freed on $100,000 unsecured bail. Curley and Schultz are each charged with one count of felony perjury for lying to grand jury investigators, and one count of failure to report abuse allegations. They plead not guilty.

                          Nov. 6, 2011 -- Curley is granted administrative leave to deal with the charges, while Schultz retires.

                          Nov. 6, 2011 -- Paterno releases a statement calling the charges shocking. "If this is true, we were all fooled, along with scores of professionals trained in such things, and we grieve for the victims and their families." Paterno is questioned about the allegations, since 20 of the charges agaisnt Sandusky to date occured while he was Paterno's defense coordinator at Penn State.

                          Nov. 7, 2011 -- More begin to step forward. "There were whispers about it," Alex Ricker, a former Penn State student who has worked several Second Mile camps, told USA Today. "But when it came out, I don't think anybody expected that big of a hit or that serious of an indictment, as well as that many charges."

                          Nov. 7, 2011 -- Pennsylvania attorney general Linda Kelly says Paterno is not a target of the sexual abuse investigation involving his former assistant coach, despite noting his responsibility to report the incidents to law enforcement.

                          Nov. 7, 2011 -- "I understand that people are upset and angry, but let's be fair and let the legal process unfold," Paterno says in a statement. "In the meantime, I would ask all Penn Staters to continue to trust in what that name represents, continue to pursue their lives every day with high ideals and not let these events shake their beliefs nor who they are."


                          • #43
                            Re: Penn State accusations

                            I don't mean to be that guy, but Penn State did not violate any NCAA rules (to my knowledge). They broke a crap-ton of laws, and about half of the athletic department is probably guilty of obstruction of justice, but I don't think they deserve NCAA sanctions.

                            Carmel HS Class of 2011


                            • #44
                              Re: Penn State accusations

                              I'm absolutely positive there's a rule about using university athletics resources in the commission of a crime. I could be wrong but with everything else the NCAA regulates I don't see how there couldn't be.


                              • #45
                                Re: Penn State accusations

                                Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                                Hes done. Plain and simple.

                                And no, I don't think the NCAA gets involved at this time. This is a law enforcement matter.
                                Why should Paterno be forced to retire if this is not an NCAA issue? There have been no charges pressed against him.

                                Either this is an NCAA issue or it is not, and if you think it is not, then I don't understand why you think Paterno should be fired.

                                Personally, I think he should be fired, and I think it should be a NCAA issue.