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

Just a Dream

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

  • #16
    Re: Just a Dream

    I don't necessarily buy into the argument that BK hasn't done anything in the last 10-15 years. Even though his teams haven't had much postseason success, he has continued to win, even at TT. They were pretty close to nothing when he got there, and now they are at least known as a team that can't be overlooked or taken lightly. They have the reputation as a team that maximizes the talent they have, and as a team that plays the right way, and plays hard from start to finish. That is commendable.

    It also speaks to the greatness of his coaching ability. Whether or not he has won it all since 1987 is kind of a moot point. It is undeniable that he last won the title with a team that was not the most talented, that he won the title in 1981 by getting that team to play to it's potential, and he won the title in 1976 with an immensely talented team that went 63-1 over two seasons, including the last perfect season (32-0) in NCAA history. Those aren't mildly significant accomplishments. Those are LEGENDARY accomplishments.

    It would be different if he wallowed in squalor with crappy teams for the last decade, but he has continued to get the most out of his teams, and they have posted some very impressive wins. The level of parity has also risen dramatically in the last decade or so, making it more difficult to be dominant. There are teams that have made appearances in the Top 20 and done very well in recent years that were never even in the picture of national prominence before. That speaks to a much larger talent pool of kids playing ball, but also a much larger talent pool of quality coaches.

    The only problem I have with Knight is that he thinks he is always right and that since he is always right, he is allowed to do and say whatever he wants. NOBODY should be in the position to have nobody to answer to. That kind of situation breeds the kind of behavior we have seen from BK, at IU and at TT. Nobody should be able to do and say whatever they want without fear of repercussions.

    Having said that, there is no way that he can be controlled contractually. First, he would never agree to it. He would only go where he knew he could rule the roost and have complete autonomy/support from his "superiors", even though he wouldn't really acknowledge that he HAS superiors. Second, there is no way to verbalize it as anything other than a 'zero tolerance policy', and we all know how that worked out last time.

    At the end of the day, it would be interesting if he returned to Indiana, and his return would certainly sell tickets and take the focus away from Indiana's first NCAA black eye in a couple generations. I could live with it and I would certainly be an interested spectator, along with the rest of the world.

    Originally posted by Stryder View Post
    You know the most important part of that statement...

    Bob Knight was not the coach of that team.
    Some might argue that if he was, they would have won it all. It's just as valid an argument as the other side of it.
    Last edited by heywoode; 02-17-2008, 02:24 PM.



    RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Just a Dream

      Originally posted by Shade View Post
      No, that just means you have a selective memory.
      Originally posted by Shade View Post
      Fixed.

      Seriously, how can people complain about the behavior of the Pacers and then support bringing back Bobby freakin' Knight?
      I don't have a selective memory. It's just that when people keep talking about all the bad stuff I feel the need to bring up what he accomplished. And when people seriously keep bringing Knight up as a serious candidate for any coaching job I say I think they're freaking nuts to hire a man with his track record of how he deals with some people.

      Personally I don't give a flying who IU hires.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Just a Dream

        Originally posted by heywoode View Post
        Some might argue that if he was, they would have won it all. It's just as valid an argument as the other side of it.

        QFT

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Just a Dream

          Originally posted by grace View Post
          I don't have a selective memory. It's just that when people keep talking about all the bad stuff I feel the need to bring up what he accomplished. And when people seriously keep bringing Knight up as a serious candidate for any coaching job I say I think they're freaking nuts to hire a man with his track record of how he deals with some people.

          Personally I don't give a flying who IU hires.
          The fact that he won three championships is why he was fired when he was and not 5-7 years earlier.

          Nobody will forget the titles; the banners are well documented proof of his legacy. But it also needs to be remembered why he was canned in the first place instead of retiring here.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Just a Dream

            Originally posted by grace View Post
            QFT
            Or, they may have completely tanked.

            The players seemed to respond pretty well to being out from under Knight's iron fist.

            The fact is, Davis DID coach the team that went to the championship game, and Knight did NOT. And considering Knight's recent tourney track record, odds are that team wouldn't have gotten past Duke.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Just a Dream

              This has to be the largest cluster of anti-Knight people anywhere. Remember when he was first fired, Myles Brand was being burned in efigy (SP?) outside of Assembly Hall. One can argue that the only reason we are in the Sampson situation is the first place is because of Myles Brand. Who has always been a guy that needs to have the power. Even more than Knight ever did.


              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Just a Dream

                Bob Knight would have tanked that team in the second round just to "teach them a lesson." He had done that year after year before then.

                To pretend that he would have gotten them to the final four is nothing short of delusion.

                1) He gets pissed at some kid for making a simple mistake, 2) he blows it way out of proportion, disrupting the flow of the game and disrupting the confidence of his team 3) his team loses.

                That tiger wasn't going to suddenly change its stripes.
                Last edited by Los Angeles; 02-17-2008, 03:50 PM.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Just a Dream

                  Originally posted by PF Chang View Post
                  But how great would it be if IU admitted to be wrong and brought back the General for a few years? Let it end the way it should have ended. He can pick his successor and everyone is happy.



                  Greatest Basketball Coach of All-Time
                  I doubt if it would be a good idea for him to coach. As much as I loved him and watching the '81 and '87 teams win the title, today's college game has passed him up.

                  However, IU will soon need a new AD. The General would be awesome for that position. There definitely would be no more violations from any prospective coach. I think he would look to bring back one of his young former players - Dane Fife or Keith Smart anybody?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Just a Dream

                    Well, I'm not saying I know what would have happened if BK hadn't been fired, but there isn't any more certainty on the side of the argument that they wouldn't have gotten past Duke, or that they would've tanked before that.

                    It is all speculation, and really has no meaning. My contention that they might have done better and gotten past a Maryland team that wasn't any better than Duke that year has no meaning either.

                    One way or the other, neither side of the speculation is delusional. It is simply opinion.

                    I also don't believe that there is a larger clump of Knight detractors here than anywhere else. He is definitely a polarizing topic in Indiana; people either love him or hate him. I hear both sides of it every single day, and I probably hear more negative than positive. Most people that I know are glad that he is gone.



                    RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Just a Dream

                      Originally posted by heywoode View Post
                      I don't necessarily buy into the argument that BK hasn't done anything in the last 10-15 years. Even though his teams haven't had much postseason success, he has continued to win, even at TT. They were pretty close to nothing when he got there, and now they are at least known as a team that can't be overlooked or taken lightly. They have the reputation as a team that maximizes the talent they have, and as a team that plays the right way, and plays hard from start to finish. That is commendable.

                      It also speaks to the greatness of his coaching ability. Whether or not he has won it all since 1987 is kind of a moot point. It is undeniable that he last won the title with a team that was not the most talented, that he won the title in 1981 by getting that team to play to it's potential, and he won the title in 1976 with an immensely talented team that went 63-1 over two seasons, including the last perfect season (32-0) in NCAA history. Those aren't mildly significant accomplishments. Those are LEGENDARY accomplishments.

                      It would be different if he wallowed in squalor with crappy teams for the last decade, but he has continued to get the most out of his teams, and they have posted some very impressive wins. The level of parity has also risen dramatically in the last decade or so, making it more difficult to be dominant. There are teams that have made appearances in the Top 20 and done very well in recent years that were never even in the picture of national prominence before. That speaks to a much larger talent pool of kids playing ball, but also a much larger talent pool of quality coaches.

                      The only problem I have with Knight is that he thinks he is always right and that since he is always right, he is allowed to do and say whatever he wants. NOBODY should be in the position to have nobody to answer to. That kind of situation breeds the kind of behavior we have seen from BK, at IU and at TT. Nobody should be able to do and say whatever they want without fear of repercussions.

                      Having said that, there is no way that he can be controlled contractually. First, he would never agree to it. He would only go where he knew he could rule the roost and have complete autonomy/support from his "superiors", even though he wouldn't really acknowledge that he HAS superiors. Second, there is no way to verbalize it as anything other than a 'zero tolerance policy', and we all know how that worked out last time.

                      At the end of the day, it would be interesting if he returned to Indiana, and his return would certainly sell tickets and take the focus away from Indiana's first NCAA black eye in a couple generations. I could live with it and I would certainly be an interested spectator, along with the rest of the world.



                      Some might argue that if he was, they would have won it all. It's just as valid an argument as the other side of it.

                      You cannot argue things that did not happen, i.e. speculation. Knight did not coach the team; Davis did. Use of flawed logic results in an invalid argument.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Just a Dream

                        Originally posted by heywoode View Post
                        Well, I'm not saying I know what would have happened if BK hadn't been fired, but there isn't any more certainty on the side of the argument that they wouldn't have gotten past Duke, or that they would've tanked before that.

                        It is all speculation, and really has no meaning. My contention that they might have done better and gotten past a Maryland team that wasn't any better than Duke that year has no meaning either.

                        One way or the other, neither side of the speculation is delusional. It is simply opinion.

                        I also don't believe that there is a larger clump of Knight detractors here than anywhere else. He is definitely a polarizing topic in Indiana; people either love him or hate him. I hear both sides of it every single day, and I probably hear more negative than positive. Most people that I know are glad that he is gone.
                        This is all fair, and I apologize for my aggressive language in my previous post.
                        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Just a Dream

                          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                          This is all fair, and I apologize for my aggressive language in my previous post.
                          meh, no need to apologize...anybody who knows you would know that you didn't mean anything aggressive or personal by your comment; I certainly know better than to assume you were being mean.

                          Originally posted by Stryder View Post
                          You cannot argue things that did not happen, i.e. speculation. Knight did not coach the team; Davis did. Use of flawed logic results in an invalid argument.
                          I agree. My post #24 states the same thing. There is no question that speculation is entirely and only that, speculation. I was merely stating that the speculation that the runner-up team wouldn't have even made it to the final game under BK wasn't any more valid than my speculation that they might've won it all under BK. I don't necessarily believe that, but the statement is true nonetheless.



                          RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X