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

college conference musical chairs

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

  • college conference musical chairs

    You know, I do my best to ignore this stuff, but it's gotten to the point where I think it's serious.

    What the hell is going on?

    You've got the Big 12 threatening Nebraska and Missouri, you've got Texas threatening to go West and take the entire Big 12 south with them, and you've got the Big 10 talking to Austin and Storrs and just about every frakin' school in between. I just read a blog on IndyStar (from a J&C writer, natch) saying the only way to stop Armageddon is if ND would just wise up and join the Big 10, before the Pac 10, Big 10, and ACC go hexadecimal and the Irish don't have a Big East to play in anymore.

    :brainmelt:

    I guess I should have seen this coming when freaking Boston College went to the ACC. And don't get me started about the Big Ten Network. I don't care how much money it makes, the things a joke. Does anybody watch this? Anybody? No wonder it makes so much money, all it is is a bunch of junk shot by the school's Comm kids for free, and then they charge us an arm and a leg for it. Aaarghhh!

    Anyway, I digress. Thoughts?

    [edit] I just realized, with my hexadecimal comment, the Big 10 has to expand. It's the only way to make their moniker fit. Right now they're the Big 0xB. (Can you tell I'm studying IPv6?)

    Last edited by Kegboy; 06-08-2010, 09:22 AM.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

  • #2
    Re: college conference musical chairs

    It's pretty interesting that's for sure. I think Texas holds all the cards. They are a cash gold mine, and of course Notre Dame also has a lot of power from a financial standpoint, but I think everyone is tired of their posturing and waiting on them to finally commit.

    I think it's incredibly interesting that the two conferences who have been ripped on relentlessly recently for being weak (the Big Ten and Pac 10) appear to be in the power positions.

    Whereas, the Big 12, who has traditionally been viewed as THE most complete conference is being torn apart from the inside, and the SEC is just kind of hanging out and we haven't heard a single thing from them.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: college conference musical chairs

      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
      And don't get me started about the Big Ten Network. I don't care how much money it makes, the things a joke. Does anybody watch this? Anybody? No wonder it makes so much money, all it is is a bunch of junk shot by the school's Comm kids for free, and then they charge us an arm and a leg for it. Aaarghhh!

      Anyway, I digress. Thoughts?
      I'm a Purdue alum, so naturally I'd be more inclined to watch the Big Ten Network than your average person, but I happen to think it is incredible. When I lived out west I was still able to get my Big Ten fix. Now that I'm back in Indy, I would still see most Purdue games, but now I don't have to worry about it. Every game is televised. I have no complaints, but I would never even consider not having DirecTV in my house, no matter where I live, so the cost does not bother me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: college conference musical chairs

        ND doesn't hold any cards. I know one thing though. The Big East guys absolutely HATE the ACC guys for taking Miami and BC. Let's say Texas bolts to the Pac 10 and takes all of those teams with the. If that happens and I were the SEC, I'd immediately be on the phone getting Florida on board so I could jump in and make Florida State and Miami an offer they can't refuse and get that state locked down. Then the ACC can poach the cream of the crop of what's left of the Big East. That would leave ND with no place to play practically forcing them to join the Big Ten for all sports. The Big Ten then invites Mizzou and Nebraska, maybe Kansas too. The Big 12 dissolves in this scenario leaving one of the lesser conferences like the Mountain West as their most likely destination. Whew! What a whirlwind!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: college conference musical chairs

          When there was just rumblings about this I knew the Big Ten was going to do something big. They were getting killed because they were not playing that last when when everyone was playing their conference championships and the voters forget the Big Ten teams when it comes to the BCS Bowls. You have to play a conference game becuase voters have the memory of an ant.

          As an Indiana resident and ND fan I hope ND smartens up and joins the Big Ten. The Big East is about to be ripped to shreds and all the other sports at ND will suffer just to keep ND football independent. Just bite the bullet and join the Big Ten.

          I am suprised that one pull of the thread and the Big 12 would be gone.

          I would love to see Miami and Florida State join the SEC. Talk about a power conference.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: college conference musical chairs

            Nebraska has supposedly agreed to join the Big 10.

            http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5268408

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: college conference musical chairs

              So, if I understand this correctly, we will probably see four power conferences of 18 to 20 teams.

              Does this mean we might see a Big Ten with:

              - Nebraska (already done I suppose)
              - Iowa State (instate rivals are in the Big Ten)
              - Kansas (considered a Midwestern state, makes more sense than SEC or Pac 10)
              - Kansas State (same as Kansas)
              - Missouri (same as Kansas)

              Then you factor in potential Big East schools, maybe 2 to 4. I'd be guessing the candidates would be:

              Notre Dame
              Pitt (the two most mentioned with strong basketball and football programs)

              Louisville
              West Virginia
              Cincinnati (not sure if these three are up to the academic standards that the Big Ten claims to be a requirement)

              It will be interesting regardless.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: college conference musical chairs

                Kansas is in an interesting position - neither the Big Ten nor the Pac-10 seem to have any interest in inviting them to the party (for the moment anyway). I guess it proves that no one making the decisions for these conferences cares about anything but football.

                As far as the academic standard goes, all eleven Big Ten schools are members of the Association of American Universities (an organization of 61 leading research universities). I'd guess the schools most likely to be considered by the Big Ten would be too, like: Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse (Vandy and Virginia seem less likely but I suppose could still be considered).
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: college conference musical chairs

                  Kansas had a solid football team a few years back; it seems like they would be added for the sake that they have one of the best programs in college basketball historically and currently. Adding them and Kansas State would make the Big Ten right up there with the Big East and ACC for best conference for college basketball.

                  I am completely ignorant of the finances of college athletics, is college football really the only thing that matters? I know it is the most profitable, but wouldn't basketball matter to some degree?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: college conference musical chairs

                    Originally posted by Wu-Gambino View Post
                    Kansas had a solid football team a few years back; it seems like they would be added for the sake that they have one of the best programs in college basketball historically and currently. Adding them and Kansas State would make the Big Ten right up there with the Big East and ACC for best conference for college basketball.

                    I am completely ignorant of the finances of college athletics, is college football really the only thing that matters? I know it is the most profitable, but wouldn't basketball matter to some degree?
                    Depends on the school. I know at PSU three sports make money, football, mens bball and i believe the third is womens bball. I wouldnt be surprised is womens volleyball makes money now too. My one teacher did research on this a few years ago so thats when my info is from. The football program brings in enough money to run the entire athletic department though. Thats why they try for 8 home games, a minimum of 7.

                    My dream list for the Big Ten would be the following:

                    Texas - most profitable school when it comes to sports and strong in many sports
                    ND - obvious reasons, plus I would love to beat them on a regular basis.
                    Nebraska - seems like a good fit, glad they are joining. got a history that will fit in with Big Ten Schools
                    Missouri - not flashy, but always puts out a solid team
                    Kansas - mainly want them for basketball. Adding them to the mix would be awesome
                    Pitt - mainly to shut up their fans that think they are on par with PSU, plus a good bball school
                    Syracuse - basketball and academics (yes i said academics)

                    What I think is most realistic is Nebraska (duh), Missouri, Pitt, Syracuse. Kansas depends on if Texas leaves the Big 12. If they do I think the Big Ten is their first spot to land.

                    Texas is interesting. They could make more money in the Big Ten. But the Pac 10 has USC and playing them regularly is something that is good. Honestly right now I don't see Texas leaving. I don't really know why, but to me it just doesn't seem like they will fit in with either the Pac 10 or Big Ten.

                    Notre Dame is probably going to be feeling left behind and then will join the Big Ten.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: college conference musical chairs

                      Penn State is part of the Big Ten with no real "hated rival" other than say Ohio State and for the Buckeyes its all about the Wolverines. To boost rivalries and regional interest a Pitt or Syracuse makes sense. Otherwise you have the Lions travelling long distances all the time....Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc, whereas those schools are somewhat clustered and only travel to PS occassionally.

                      This ma sound trite but adding ND would place 3 schools within the same state in the Big 10....would that be seen as too much regional influence?
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: college conference musical chairs

                        Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                        Penn State is part of the Big Ten with no real "hated rival" other than say Ohio State and for the Buckeyes its all about the Wolverines. To boost rivalries and regional interest a Pitt or Syracuse makes sense. Otherwise you have the Lions travelling long distances all the time....Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc, whereas those schools are somewhat clustered and only travel to PS occassionally.

                        This ma sound trite but adding ND would place 3 schools within the same state in the Big 10....would that be seen as too much regional influence?
                        Here's a breakdown of miles from Indy to other schools.

                        Indy to Bloomington, IN is 52 miles.
                        Indy to West Lafayette, IN is 66 miles.
                        Indy to South Bend, IN is 138 miles.
                        Indy to Champaign-Urbana, IL is 125 miles.
                        Indy to Columbus, OH is 175 miles.
                        Indy to Evanston, IL is 199 miles.
                        Indy to Lansing, MI is 254 miles.
                        Indy to Ann Arbor, MI is 277 miles.
                        Indy to Madison, WI is 331 miles.
                        Indy to Iowa City, IA is 365 miles.
                        Indy to State College, PA is 511 miles.
                        Indy to Minneapolis, MN is 593 miles.
                        Indy to Lincoln, NE is 641 miles.


                        I think now to counter balance the geographic disparity, you need to invite a more eastern team.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: college conference musical chairs

                          The Big 10 wants Rutgers and Syracuse badly so they can break their network into the NYC market. So, Nebraska is already in and the Big 12 is dissolving. Syracuse and Rutgers are going to get invited. I think Rutgers probably accepts straight away and Syracuse thinks about it before deciding to join. So now you're at 14 teams. Then, the best schools in the Big East will all get invites from other conferences. Some will accept, gutting the Big East. This forces ND's hand wo then requests to be invited to the Big Ten party, which is now at 15 teams. The Big Ten can now get to 16 or if it wants 18, by inviting more of the Big 12 teams, Likely Missouri. If they want to get to 18, Kansas and Kansas St. will also get invites.

                          That's a hell of a conference in both football and basketball if that's how it plays out.
                          Last edited by travmil; 06-10-2010, 08:37 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: college conference musical chairs

                            Originally posted by travmil View Post
                            The Big 10 wants Rutgers and Syracuse badly so they can break their network into the NYC market. So, Nebraska is already in and the Big 12 is dissolving. Syracuse and Rutgers are going to get invited. I think Rutgers probably accepts straight away and Syracuse thinks about it before deciding to join. So now you're at 14 teams. Then, the best schools in the Big East will all get invites from other conferences. Some will accept, gutting the Big East. This forces ND's hand wo then requests to be invited to the Big Ten party, which is now at 15 teams. The Big Ten can now get to 16 or if it wants 18, by inviting more of the Big 12 teams, Likely Missouri. If they want to get to 18, Kansas and Kansas St. will also get invites.

                            That's a hell of a conference in both football and basketball if that's how it plays out.
                            Go to 20 and have two divisions of 10 and a Conference playoff while preserving the BIG TEN.
                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: college conference musical chairs

                              I don't understand why Louisville hasn't been all over trying to join the Big Ten.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X