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

Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

    Haston's most memorable college moment came under Davis.


    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Haston's most memorable college moment came under Davis.
      Yep. The memorable buzzer beater against MSU.

      Heck, his best season was clearly the 2000-01 season under Davis. That's not even debatable:


      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

        Davis has been villified to such a point where it is kind of ridiculous. The guy wasn't great by any means, but he wasn't really any worse than Knight's last few years here.


        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Davis has been villified to such a point where it is kind of ridiculous. The guy wasn't great by any means, but he wasn't really any worse than Knight's last few years here.

          Agreed. His biggest fault was his failure to snag quality Indiana recruits.


          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

            In retrospect Davis shouldnt have been fired but if i had to choose him or sampson Davis wins 10 out of 10 times


            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

              I don't think Davis could coach a lick, and he made awful recruiting decisions. Look at his career path / lack of success after IU.

              So I grudgingly grant that OlBlu has made one valid and fact-supported point. Maybe the first ever?

              As to Haston going pro because RMK was not his coach, as Sollozzo noted, it was one whole year later. It was after he was named 1st team all Big 10 and 3rd team All-American. His stock was maxed out and he wisely jumped. He also excelled in NBA pre-draft camps, as I recall. I do not doubt that he maintained a friendship with Knight and may have even accepted advice from him to go pro. He certainly spoke out for Knight, along with Dane Fife, after the Ken Harvey incident. There was talk of a lot of kids transferring and Kirk could have done that, but he didn't.
              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!).


              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                Agreed. His biggest fault was his failure to snag quality Indiana recruits.
                Hard to snag them, when you let everyone know you don't want them.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.


                • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                  no one wants to admit I'm sure, but we all know why a significant portion of the fanbase despised Davis from day one.


                  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                    Some of the most beloved IU players are black. Get out of here with that.

                    There's nothing that pisses me off more than calling people racist, that you don't know anything about.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.


                    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Hard to snag them, when you let everyone know you don't want them.


                      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                        like I said, no one wants to admit it, but I know for a fact it's true. I probably did overstate when I said "significant portion," I really do apologize for that, didn't mean to paint the fanbase in a racist light or anything like that. it's the same with Purdue, it's why I'm such a supporter of Purdue hiring Hazell. I live in the middle of the fanbases, I've talked to plenty from both sides and heard it come from both sides mouths, literally. it's very predominately from the "old guard," whatever idiocy you want to call it, but the fact remains true.


                        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                          Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                          If I had to choose him or Sampson, Davis wins 10 out of 10 times
                          Me too, but that has nothing to do with coaching ability.

                          Davis couldn't coach or recruit, Sampson could coach at least a little but lacked ethics to an extreme, even if you ignored the phone calls. He didn't care a lick about players going to class or even passing drug tests.

                          People like OlBlu who cherish the memory of Bob Knight while ignoring his faults think that those who think his firing was sad but justified (like I do) while also respecting his Hall of Fame coaching ability and innovative approach to the game (like I do) must worship at the altar or Mike Davis and/or Kelvin Sampson.

                          I feel that IU made a sound decision to fire coach Knight and made three consecutive unsound coaching decisions thereafter: Davis as interim coach, Davis granted a permanent position, and that piece of **** Sampson allowed to even walk on our campus.
                          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!).


                          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                            Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                            we all know why a significant portion of the fanbase despised Davis from day one.
                            When he decided not to actively recruit Sean May, a legacy recruit and sure-fire All-American, son of one of my favorite IU players of any skin tone?

                            Then this was repeated with many others. Some of the over-the-top RMK supporters did have racist rants on their web site, as I recall, but they spoke for no one but themselves.

                            You know the media member who plays the race card more than ANYONE ON EARTH, Jason Whitlock? Here's his opinion on your claim:

                            There's no reason to tiptoe around it, so I won't. Mike Davis' inevitable demise at Indiana University is not a product of my home state's inherent racism. No way.

                            Indiana University and its fans have treated Mike Davis fairly.

                            Mike Davis never embraced Indiana, and that's why he wasn't able to ultimately succeed there.

                            Davis is expected to announce Thursday that he will resign at the end of this season. He totally mismanaged a golden opportunity by throwing a six-year pity party, surrounding himself with butt-kissers and failing to demonstrate leadership by embracing the very people he claims he desperately wanted to embrace him.

                            Now, in the interest of full disclosure, let me share with you that at one time, I was an ardent Mike Davis supporter and a friend. We've been to each other's homes, met each other's families and friends, and spent countless hours on the phone discussing the politics of his situation at Indiana...

                            Come on, let's not pussyfoot around. Davis knows quite well that many Hoosiers fans want Alford to replace him. Davis' comments were calculated, designed to create sympathy and paint Indiana fans in an unflattering, redneck light.

                            Davis went as far as to blame discontented Indiana fans for his players' inability to focus and perform. The Hoosiers, Davis claims, just can't execute at a high level when their coach is being unmercifully crucified by good old boys.

                            Davis isn't the first coach -- black or white -- to face a hanging tree. And you know what? He's probably not the first to tie his own noose, pick out the tree and kick the chair out from underneath his feet. It just feels like the first time to me, because I've seen it coming from the get-go.

                            While Davis believes Indiana needs one of its own to lead the Hoosiers, I contend that all Indiana fans want is a coach who passionately wants to be a Hoosier. Period.

                            Davis spent too much time whining and feeling sorry for himself at IU.

                            Davis' lack of passion for Indiana is at the crux of his Hoosier Crucifixion. IU fans have never embraced Mike Davis because Mike Davis has never embraced Indiana.
                            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-30-2013, 12:14 PM.
                            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!).


                            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                              I don't care what Jason Whitlock said about it. I heard it myself from a number of IU supporters. I know it's not a fun notion to entertain, I've had to defend Purdue's Hazell hire to the same type of people in the last few months. This isn't a thing that anyone with any semblance of integrity (I've got a least a LITTLE bit) makes up. Like I said, I apologize for saying a "significant portion," that's not true. But there were absolutely people that didn't want Mike Davis to coach Indiana University basketball specifically, and only, because he is black. If you don't believe it I don't know what to tell you, but they literally told me so.


                              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                                If your statement is that at least some fans of team X are racists, then yes, that statement is true, when X = almost any team in any sport at any level, a sad fact but pretty irrelevant when discussing IU basketball specifically.

                                Take 100 Colts fans who wanted Jim Caldwell fired, quite possibly a few of the are racists but an overwhelming majority just didn't like how he coached.
                                Same for Mike Davis
                                Same for Isiah Thomas with the Knicks (or with FIU for that matter)
                                Same with Lovie Smith of the Bears

                                There's probably somebody who hates coach K at Duke just because he's Polish.

                                To say such opinions are mainstream is reckless and unwarranted.

                                Specific to IU, I would say that the most beloved universally beloved IU players of my lifetime include in no particular order Damon Bailey, Steve Alford, Alan Henderson, Calbert Cheaney, Mike Woodson, Quinn Buckner, Scott May, Isiah Thomas, Landon Turner, and now perhaps Cody Zeller. The common thread is not skin tone but on-court excellence, character when wearing that uniform, and in many of those cases, Indiana roots.
                                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-30-2013, 12:48 PM.
                                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!).