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 Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

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

  • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

    Alford without Lonzo is just Alford. And Lonzo and the Ball boys aren't coming to Indiana. The only reason Alford has them is because they're from LA. Their dad was asked about it and basically laughed at the idea of his kids playing in Indiana.

    IMO, Alford making the final 4 with this group would be no different than Crean going there with Wade at Marquette.


    Comment


    • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

      Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
      It's going to be tough to continuously compare him to Crean if he ends up going past the sweet sixteen this year... Crean has never been to 3 sweet 16's in 4 years (he's been to 3 in 9 years...), and while Crean walked in to a tough situation, his winning % is significantly lower than Alford's is over the last few years as well. It's not like UCLA was great when Alford took over either, when Alford took over UCLA had gone 6 seasons without even reaching the sweet 16. This while Alford is racking up top rated recruiting classes at UCLA. I get he's not anyone's first choice for a coach, but the hate on him is getting out of control as far as his results go in comparison to Crean.

      Again I'm not saying Alford is my #1 guy, but if I were given a choice between him and Crean, I'm taking Alford without hesitation.
      That's fine that you'd take Alford over Crean. I get that Crean with an IU background is appealing to some. It's not to me. If Steve Alford had not gone to IU, he would not even be considered based on the success level necessary for the job that Fred yammered on about on Thursday.


      Comment


      • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
        The reason I chose to compare Alford's time at UCLA to Crean at IU is both are similar programs... Both expect strong results. That's not really the case with schools like Iowa and New Mexico, which put significantly fewer resources into their basketball programs and are just satisfied with making the tournament.
        UCLA records by season:

        2012-2013 (Howland's final year): 25-10; 13-5 in PAC [1st]; 1st round NCAAs
        2013-2014: 28-9; 12-6 in PAC [2nd]; Sweet Sixteen
        2014-2015: 22-14; 11-7 in PAC [4th]; Sweet Sixteen
        2015-2016: 15-17; 6-12 in PAC [10th]; no NCAAs
        2016-2017: 31-4; 15-3 in PAC [3rd]; Sweet Sixteen (at least)

        The trend line was not looking so good for Alford coming into this season. So bad in fact, let's not forget this unprecedented act of desperation: he gave up an entire year on his contract. His seat was very hot. UCLA fans would still trip over each other to drive him to the airport if he took the Indiana job.

        Also, let's stop acting like Iowa and New Mexico are impossible places to win. New Mexico (a place where I think Alford should have stayed, as the fit was great) cares a lot about basketball and has pumped a lot of money into the program and facilities over the last decade plus. It's a very desirable job in the Mountain West. If we're going to compare to results of someone like Gregg Marshall or Archie Miller or whoever else at mid-majors then why are we trying to sweep Alford's record under the carpet at a school in our own conference and another school that is, at least program wise, on or around par with the Daytons or Wichitas of the world?

        Comment


        • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          Why? UCLA making the Sweet 16 as a 3 seed really moves the needle that much? Their resumes are still pretty similar; show similar trends. The choice isn't between Alford and Crean so we can, should, and will do better.
          This is as simple and concise as you can possibly say it. Just like Glass said Crean's season this year wasn't the only thing considered in his termination, Alford's success this year isn't something that should be considered without looking at the whole story.

          Like I said when this all started. If Alford's the guy, whatever, IU will have a chance to go to the final four maybe once every 10 years or so, just like they would have with Crean which hey if that's what you can live with, go for it, but I thought the whole point for firing Crean was to aim higher.

          If we hire Alford, Glass and IU are basically admitting that Crean's relative level of success at IU was fine, but that we just needed an IU guy so he could weather the lean times a little better with some of the fanbase.


          Alford is just extremely unappealing to me, forgetting Donovan for a second, I'd rather go with Archie (young and potentially your coach for 25-30 years), Marshall (has done more than Alford with less), or even god forbid it Tony Bennett and his butt ugly system. Heck I'd rather roll the dice on a guy like Chris Collins or Enfield before going for Alford.

          I don't personally trust Alford's recruiting at UCLA either considering that his big gets are the Ball boys and then Wilkes who is on record of being way more enamored with the idea of living in LA for college than he is with being coached by Alford.
          Last edited by Trader Joe; 03-20-2017, 01:14 PM.


          Comment


          • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

            The kids Alford will be recruiting in state barely will remember tales of IU's 2002 final four starting next year basically.

            Thinking Alford's name has any meaning to them because of his time at IU is frankly moronic, and is at worst borderline destructive considering the way Bob Knight and a lot of his era has behaved towards IU in the past 15 years.

            It'd be different if Alford was rolling up years of success, but 4 2nd weekend tourney births in 22 years as a head coach? Is that and an IU degree really all it takes to get some of you revved up? What if instead of Steve Alford I told you we were going to hire Rick Barnes? I bet most of you would be ready to go burn down Assembly Hall, but guess what Barnes time at Texas was more successful than anything Alford or hell Tom Crean has ever done.

            In 17 years at Texas, Barnes had 1 Final Four, 2 Elite Eights, and 2 other sweet sixteens.


            Comment


            • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

              Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
              All I am saying is I think Alford is a better coach than Crean, and i've seen a lot of people saying they're equal and I just don't believe that. I also agree we can and should do better, if Donovan isn't possible I would much rather go get a guy like Archie Miller or Gregg Marshall than hire Alford.
              I don't think there's any evidence to support this though. It's just you hoping he'd be better at IU than he's been at other stops. His career suggests that he can win very big at a certain level and then still struggles in March (see his entire time at New Mexico).

              Maybe he's slightly better than Crean, but even then I think they're essentially the same guy. You gotta remember whoever is taking this gig is probably getting at minimum a 7 year deal with a pretty nasty buyout. Slightly better than Crean ain't worth that headache when Alford throws up a stinker or two (which history says he will).

              When you're at a tipping point like IU appears to potentially be, there's only way off the shitter and that's by opening the checkbook and going hard for somebody that is established or appears decidedly on the path to being established as a great coach. Ask UK with Cal, ask UNC with Roy Williams, ask Arizona with Sean Miller, and then go ask the programs who have whiffed on these hires. There's not a whole lot of middle ground. And IU has already used up two swings with the Mike Davis hire and the Kelvin Sampson hire.

              Crean was IMO, a smart hire for what was needed at the time, but all he really did was get the program breathing again on it's own. IU is still very much not out of the woods, and a bad hire here probably puts IU firmly outside of the elite category...likely forever.

              Where does Alford put you 7 years from now? Probably with 2-3 sweet 16s. Sounds a lot like where we are now.


              Comment


              • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

                Also, not trying to attack anyone personally, I just feel very emotionally strong about this hire and I think Alford is the kind of nepotism that leads to a program like IU solidifying it's movement towards mediocrity and irrelevancy.


                Comment


                • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

                  I'd really like for Dakich to get back into coaching somewhere like, Idaho State so we don't have to hear his incessant trolling of the IU fans anymore.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    I'd really like for Dakich to get back into coaching somewhere like, Idaho State so we don't have to hear his incessant trolling of the IU fans anymore.
                    I'm listening today too and it's wearing me down. I used to like him a lot, but not the last month. Plus i'm tired of hearing about the IU coaching search already.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

                      I'll just leave the Alford stuff alone, I think it's a mute point anyway because I guarantee you we'd hire a guy like Archie or Marshall before Alford, and we should. Dakich was one of the biggest supporters of Alford to IU and he's even saying he may be wrong now.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

                        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                        I'll just leave the Alford stuff alone, I think it's a mute point anyway because I guarantee you we'd hire a guy like Archie or Marshall before Alford, and we should. Dakich was one of the biggest supporters of Alford to IU and he's even saying he may be wrong now.
                        Moot. It's a "moot" point.

                        /grammarnazi


                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

                          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                          I'll just leave the Alford stuff alone, I think it's a mute point anyway because I guarantee you we'd hire a guy like Archie or Marshall before Alford, and we should. Dakich was one of the biggest supporters of Alford to IU and he's even saying he may be wrong now.
                          Yep from what i can gather, it sounded like he went on record to Gregg Doyle that it was a done deal and then came on the radio and claimed that because they hired a search committee, that he's not sure he's right.

                          Real lame. Losing respect. He's entertaining sometimes, but losing respect now.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

                            Apropos of nothing, like anyone who has ever coached a basketball game in the state of Indiana on any level, Frank Vogel's name has been tossed out there as a potential IU candidate. Vogel reportedly has zero interest in leaving the NBA.

                            Comment


                            • Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

                              Alford's coaching ability aside, do we really want to be associated with all of this?

                              http://m.ocregister.com/articles/alf...erce-iowa.html


                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indiana Hoosier Athletics 2016-2017

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                Apropos of nothing, like anyone who has ever coached a basketball game in the state of Indiana on any level, Frank Vogel's name has been tossed out there as a potential IU candidate. Vogel reportedly has zero interest in leaving the NBA.
                                What is Jim O'Satan up to these days?


                                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X