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

Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

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

  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

    I could easily see them not making it to the Elite 8.

    If they somehow win at Michigan, do they still have a chance at going through Lucas Oil?

    Comment


    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      Oh you can bet your *** we lose at Michigan this weekend.
      Michigan isn't physical. They live off of stepback threes and other jump shots. We can take care of them and IMO they are the easiest matchup among OSU, MSU, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and UM.
      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!).

      Comment


      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
        Cutting down the nets, after a loss, is one of the weirdest things I've ever heard.

        Even more so than Sweet 16 rings.
        I watched senior night festivities on the BTN until I thought was the end, after the trophy, after the hats, which was bad enough. They went back to the BTN studios and I figured it was done and so I went to bed. Now I hear that they even cut down the nets!!!??? Yuck.
        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!).

        Comment


        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          I could easily see them not making it to the Elite 8.

          If they somehow win at Michigan, do they still have a chance at going through Lucas Oil?
          As long as they don't lose their 1st game in the Big Ten tournament, I don't think they even need to win at Michigan to be the #1 seed in the Midwest.

          Comment


          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

            I worry about the Hack-a-Hoosier strategy (when the fouls are never called). We do not play through contact well. Kudos to OSU for taking advantage of it. Hopefully tournament teams will be ill-equipped to do the same, or maybe non-Big 10 refs will not let so many things slide by without a whistle.

            I hate to even talk about the officiating since we in no way deserved to win, but what is up with refusing to call fouls on bumps, whacks, and even bear hugs to the ball-handler late in the game when we were trying to foul? I don't recall ever seeing anything like that.
            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!).

            Comment


            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              I worry about the Hack-a-Hoosier strategy (when the fouls are never called). We do not play through contact well. Kudos to OSU for taking advantage of it. Hopefully tournament teams will be ill-equipped to do the same, or maybe non-Big 10 refs will not let so many things slide by without a whistle.

              I hate to even talk about the officiating since we in no way deserved to win, but what is up with refusing to call fouls on bumps, whacks, and even bear hugs to the ball-handler late in the game when we were trying to foul? I don't recall ever seeing anything like that.


              My takeaway from that was anything we might have done to get a steal - hack, pull, grab, etc. would have been allowed. But we were trying to commit fouls to stop the clock instead of trying to steal the ball whether we foul or not.

              I've never seen that before, but when it happens I guess we need to adjust the current intrepration of the rules and just focus on tearing the ball away since there won't be a whistle.

              I know most of us won't call that "basketball". But for at least one night, that's the way the game of basketball was being governed.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                That was a pretty much a mirror image of the Wisconsin game.

                I am tired of watching Sheehey.


                Comment


                • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  My apartment looks like a demilitarized zone.
                  They are lucky the chairs were bolted down in the Hall.

                  Hulls, Elston, and Watford are lucky they all got emotional in their speeches because otherwise I was about to start booing


                  Comment


                  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                    Originally posted by obnoxiousmodesty View Post
                    I've been angry after losses, and sad after losses, but I have never been so damn disappointed. This is not how it should have been tonight. Have some damned heart.
                    Exactly. Nothing from the underclassmen tonight at all for their seniors. Remy and Will were complete no shows. Oladipo decided he wanted to remind us what he looked like freshman year, which was a complete idiot who made dumb turonvers and even dumber fouls. Zeller had 1 bloody rebound. Way to let your seniors down "stars".

                    Even Yogi was pretty meh from an effort stand point.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                      Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
                      I've enjoyed watching IU this year but this team isn't winning it all. They just aren't tough enough.
                      Sadly i think I am in the same boat at this point. We are slouching at the worst possible time.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                        Over the course of the season, I can't decide if I've been more impressed with Oladipo or disappointed with Sheehey.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                          Originally posted by Wu-Gambino View Post
                          I think Mark Titus made a very good point in questioning Crean's tendency to go so deep in the bench. At this point, there should be an eight man rotation but he still goes with ten guys. I realize he had to in the first half with Vic and Cody in foul trouble but why was Creek playing with six minutes to go in the game?
                          What bench? I mean seriously, what bench? Sheehey has been complete crap aside from about two games in the B1G. Even going 8 deep seems to be a disaster at this point. At this point, I have more faith in Hollowell than Sheehey. Jeremy may not have his offensive game tightened up, but at least he crashes the board and plays hard every game.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                            Over the course of the season, I can't decide if I've been more impressed with Oladipo or disappointed with Sheehey.
                            That is where I was last night. They keep tossing him in with Hulls and Vic as the other gym rat on this team, but how am I supposed to believe that? His free throws are a disaster, his only "go to" offensive move is either relying on a great pass from a teammate off of a cut or hoping his dumbass pull up mid range jumper is falling. If he really is a gym rat then he must just be really naturally bad at basketball


                            Comment


                            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              I could easily see them not making it to the Elite 8.

                              If they somehow win at Michigan, do they still have a chance at going through Lucas Oil?
                              They still have a chance right now. I don't believe at the moment the committe would actually move KU ahead of us yet. We still don't have a "bad loss", and they have TCU. We can still definitely go through Lucas Oil, even probably with a loss at UM, if we make the B1G final or win it, we probably are still 1 in the midwest. So we have some leeway, but what annoys me is we could have locked up that 1 seed at home last night and we could have locked up the outright title, don't really know how much more this team needs to play for to show up big to a game like that. Honeslty one of the most baffling efforts I have ever seen.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                                Cutting down the nets, after a loss, is one of the weirdest things I've ever heard.

                                Even more so than Sweet 16 rings.
                                Tell me about it. I was there and the Senior Night was so surreal. Hull, Watford, and Elston all gave heart felt speeches. Honestly Hulls really is basketball incarnate in Indiana, his raw emotion during his speech was just something else. I was also surprised to see Watford tear up, didn't really think that was his style, but here we had our first sneior class in a long time that honestly got to watch grow and will really miss this year (Sorry VJIII and Pritch and Roth, but Hulls and Wat out do your group), and it was like I want to be all in for these senior night festivities but still everyone was in a daze from that loss. So weird. And then Crean comes out to cut down the nets, and they are wearing the hats and parading around the trophy, and I'm starting to worry that these guys are just already content with this season.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X