Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

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

  • #91
    Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    You want to ruin this program fast? You fire Crean now. Let him get that 2012 class in here and if he bombs then you go big game hunting for a big time coach with all that talent. Just like UNC did when they bagged Roy Williams.
    Which is exactly how I expect this to play out.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      Which is exactly how I expect this to play out.
      So then what are you so depressed about? We have to ride this out til at least 2012 and get Parea, Yogi and hopefully Gary Harris in here.

      THAT'S when you decide if Crean's your guy and if you not go out to try and bring someone in who is big time somewhere else and wants to coach IU with all that talent.


      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Comparing IU's situation to anything we've ever seen before in college basketball is a complete and total stretch. To compare it to an NBA team who can't have a roster gutted like that does not even make sense.



        I think we've seen decided improvement in Hulls.

        Elston as well is making much quicker decisions than he did last year and is playing with more aggression.

        Watford has improved and regressed at the same time. His offense is superior particularly in the post, his defensive failures are largely due in part to the lack of a true big body next to him IMO.

        Creek will never be the same player again after his injury or at least he won't be this year, I have accepted that.

        We just need a bit more patience, we're not even three full years through this process.
        It was a general comparison. I didn't get that deep into the situations. I just think it's incredibly idiotic that we supposedly can't judge Crean's coaching, you know, since he hasn't been a head coach for 13 years with "meh" results, even when his rosters weren't gutted.

        I understand patience, I really do. I also want to be rewarded for my patience by seeing growth and progress. While I agree mainly with what you were saying about the individual improvements (however incremental they may be), the results are the same. We will end up with barely more wins than we did last year, quite possibly with fewer Big Ten wins than we had last year. Everyone and their brother (including you, I suspect) picked the Hoosiers to win somewhere between 14-18 games this season. Why aren't they there? Why are we still seeing the same mistakes that we saw in his first and second seasons? Why are we still routinely getting the crap beaten out of us by opponents with similar talent?

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          All the apologists say the same thing about the team being gutted. Trust me, I'm well aware of the situation he walked into. Tabor and Finkelmeier were the only returning players, and neither of them was worth their weight in salt. I get that, I really do. I don't buy that "this is really year 1" crap. Year 1 was year 1. His situation sucked, but he is playing with his own players. He recruited all these guys in one form or another. The fact that they don't fit his system is odd, because he knew his system and he knew the players when he recruited them.

          You are right: it isn't a very good basketball team. We all realize there are serious holes in our virtually non-existent frontcourt and we don't have a point guard who has the ability to create for himself, which is a huge problem in the dribble drive offense.

          I want to know, what is the foundation? These guys who you yourself said aren't very good? Is Crean himself the foundation? The recruiting classes coming in?

          Obviously, when I said fire Crean above, I didn't mean now, today. It was a post I made when I was pissed off during the game, when we all know hyperbole rules. I posted in another thread that I think it would be incredibly short sighted and it would do the program no favors if it fired him now, and I fully anticipate on seeing him make it to Year 5 regardless of the outcome of this year and next.
          Hulls can be a solid hold the line PG.

          Watford can be a very good player.

          Elston can be a great dirty work player.

          Creek, if he ever heals, can be a good shooter, but like all major knee injuries it's probably going to take til at least next fall.

          Finally, there is Oladipo and Sheehey, when I see Oladipo, I see a classic Tom Izzo/Mich St. type player and with Sheehey I see a great 4 year swing man.

          I think that's a decent foundation all things considered. Just because they aren't very good right now, doesn't mean they won't get better. JMO tho


          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            So then what are you so depressed about? We have to ride this out til at least 2012 and get Parea, Yogi and hopefully Gary Harris in here.

            THAT'S when you decide if Crean's your guy and if you not go out to try and bring someone in who is big time somewhere else and wants to coach IU with all that talent.
            I'm depressed because I thought when those guys got here, and by their second season on campus, that we would be ready to compete for Big Ten titles and make deep tournament runs. In Year 6 of a rebuild, with that kind of talent, I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation.

            Now? I think that class will get us back to the tournament, and flame out in the second round like most Crean-coached teams. I just don't think he is a very good coach. I see a lot of limitations in him. The offense, regardless of personnel, is horrid. His defense is horrid, and he is slow to make adjustments to his schemes. But lord knows that he will yank around his players with hockey-like substitutions. I don't really blame him for this that much, but he has a different starting lineup every game. Again, I understand the need for that, but he needs to adjust his system to the personnel. They can't run the dribble drive. Verdell is a turnover machine and Hulls simply doesn't have the physical tools to create for himself.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Hulls can be a solid hold the line PG.

              Watford can be a very good player.

              Elston can be a great dirty work player.

              Creek, if he ever heals, can be a good shooter, but like all major knee injuries it's probably going to take til at least next fall.

              Finally, there is Oladipo and Sheehey, when I see Oladipo, I see a classic Tom Izzo/Mich St. type player and with Sheehey I see a great 4 year swing man.

              I think that's a decent foundation all things considered. Just because they aren't very good right now, doesn't mean they won't get better. JMO tho
              I'll exclude Oladipo and Sheehey from this, since they are freshmen.

              In college basketball, aren't you supposed to make your biggest jump between your freshman and sophomore seasons? I thought all these guys would have progressed, and the team would benefit from it. They maybe have in small ways, but the team is certainly no better off. Looking at the micro, you can see improvements in most of those guys. Looking at the macro, the results are the same. Why?

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

                Maybe, I'm just saying I think we have to wait til the end of next year to really know anything that's 4 years. And if by then it looks like Crean doesn't have it together, then the 2012 class spends one year with him and then we go looking for a guy like Roy Williams when he was at Kansas.


                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  Maybe, I'm just saying I think we have to wait til the end of next year to really know anything that's 4 years. And if by then it looks like Crean doesn't have it together, then the 2012 class spends one year with him and then we go looking for a guy like Roy Williams when he was at Kansas.
                  I don't think we could get a guy like Roy Williams, but I think that is how it is going to play out. He underwhelms this season and next season, but we give him Year 5 and the 2012 kids and see what he can do. With that mix of talent and veteran leadership, that team should be a top 15 team, assuming we get the guys we are supposed to get and no one defects early from the Hulls/Watford/Creek/Elston quartet.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

                    I agree with the assessment of what that team should be.

                    I don't know why we couldn't get a guy like Williams. UNC was in a mire just like we were until they got him. What brought him in was the Felton/May/McCants class.

                    Why can't 2012 be that sort of class for us if we add Harris? PG/Big man/Wing


                    Comment


                    • Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      I agree with the assessment of what that team should be.

                      I don't know why we couldn't get a guy like Williams. UNC was in a mire just like we were until they got him. What brought him in was the Felton/May/McCants class.

                      Why can't 2012 be that sort of class for us if we add Harris? PG/Big man/Wing
                      Well, he was a UNC alum, I think that's what did it. Dean Smith, his mentor, called and personally implored him to take the job. We don't have anything like that here. Otherwise, I agree with your assessment. With Harris, that 2012 class would be the framework of a national title contender. I really believe that.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

                        ..Perhaps this can help a little bit in our time of despair.


                        We need better than solid. No JJ Redicks, Andray Blatche, Mike Dunleavy type guys to have big roles on our team.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

                          Very important game tonight. Need to get the dub.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

                            IU up 30-15 at the half!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

                              Finally! A win!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indiana University 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Thread

                                I don't know how current they are, but there's some coaching clinics with Crean notes (and a bunch of other cool stuff) here. Thought some of you may find it interesting.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X