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

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

    Well I am pretty sure we can at least agree that there is no way I will change your mind.

    Comment


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

      Well unlike you I think they are both solid coaches.


      Comment


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

        Most likely we both over-rate our team's coach and under-rate the rival's at least to a small degree. Which coach would you rather have?

        Comment


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

          Right now I'd have to say Crean. He has completely dominated in state recruiting since he got here.

          Painter is a fine coach though and Purdue is lucky to have him.


          Comment


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

            Also, I'd love to know how Crean has under achieved with more talent since getting to IU.


            Comment


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

              Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
              Most likely we both over-rate our team's coach and under-rate the rival's at least to a small degree. Which coach would you rather have?
              Crean for recruiting and program building, Painter for the in-game X's and O's.

              Comment


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

                I'd like to see Painter win something before I even say he is clearly a better in game coach than Crean.

                I like the guy, but he hasn't really proven anything yet.

                He got a class in Hummel, Moore, and Johnson. Those three guys were all border line 5 stars and probably would have been in today's Indiana high school recruiting scene now that everyone has accepted how deep our talent pool is.

                Crean (Dwyane Wade or not) took a team to the Final Four. And let's give Crean some credit for finding Wade and sticking with him (academically ineligible his first year on campus and only a 3 or low 4 star recruit to begin with)


                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  I'd like to see Painter win something before I even say he is clearly a better in game coach than Crean.

                  I like the guy, but he hasn't really proven anything yet.

                  He got a class in Hummel, Moore, and Johnson. Those three guys were all border line 5 stars and probably would have been in today's Indiana high school recruiting scene now that everyone has accepted how deep our talent pool is.

                  Crean (Dwyane Wade or not) took a team to the Final Four. And let's give Crean some credit for finding Wade and sticking with him (academically ineligible his first year on campus and only a 3 or low 4 star recruit to begin with)
                  They were not borderline 5 stars. If I remember correctly, they were all in middle of the pack 4 star guys. Nationally ranked in the 50-100 range.

                  I think you should take a step back. The Indiana high school recruiting scene has always been a big deal and highly respected. Nothing has changed at all from 4 years ago when those guys were recruited.

                  I give Painter credit because when I watch Purdue I see a well functioning team who plays hard and makes good adjustments. I see improvement out of their players from year to year (Johnson especially has made huge strides in his 4 years in West Lafayette).

                  Up until the past few games, I haven't seen that out of Crean. I think they are both good coaches, but just based off what I have seen, I think Painter is probably the better in game coach. Who knows, Purdue could be a Final Four team this year. I doubt it, but besides that curb stomping in Columbus, they have played pretty well.

                  Comment


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

                    If you remember that class had 4 guys, ironically, the highest ranked one (Scott Martin I think was his name), is the one that transferred to Valpo.

                    Those guys got dogged on the national recruiting scene for different reasons.

                    1.) Hummel and Matin- Played in the boon docks on the same team and never got the individual credit they deserved.
                    2.) Johnson- Was seen as a raw project, which he was, but for some reason didn't get the potential bump so many other projects get. IMO this was because of **** poor guard play on his Franklin Central team.
                    3.) Moore- IMO he was clearly a 5 star talent, but I do think the talent evaluators had a tough time giving two shooting guards from Indiana 5 star talent ratings.

                    Scout and Rivals and other sites definitely think about how many 5 star ratings they give to a certain state, and Indiana was still viewed as a "very good" but not great recruiting state. They only give out about 20-25 five star ranking a year, so IMO if you're a top 50 recruit you're a border line 5 star player, and I think the only guy who wasn't top 50 was Hummel, but I'm not 100% sure on that. I'd need to go check.
                    Last edited by Trader Joe; 01-31-2011, 03:49 PM.


                    Comment


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

                      And I'm not taking away credit from Painter, I just think you've been overly harsh on Crean so far this year. There's only so much you can do on the floor when you have Tom "I should be playing for Butler's bench" Pritchard starting at center. I don't think Cody Zeller's arrival and subsequent replacement of Pritchard can be overstated at this point.


                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        If you remember that class had 4 guys, ironically, the highest ranked one (Scott Martin I think was his name), is the one that transferred to Valpo.

                        Those guys got dogged on the national recruiting scene for different reasons.

                        1.) Hummel- Played in the boon docks and never got the credit he deserved.
                        2.) Johnson- Was seen as a raw project, which he was, but for some reason didn't get the potential bump so many other projects get. IMO this was because of **** poor guard play on his Franklin Central team.
                        3.) Moore- IMO he was clearly a 5 star talent, but I do think the talent evaluators had a tough time giving two shooting guards from Indiana 5 star talent ratings.

                        Scout and Rivals and other sites definitely think about how many 5 star ratings they give to a certain state, and Indiana was still viewed as a "very good" but not great recruiting state. They only give out about 20-25 five star ranking a year, so IMO if you're a top 50 recruit you're a border line 5 star player, and I think the only guy who wasn't top 50 was Hummel, but I'm not 100% sure on that. I'd need to go check.
                        Hummel and Martin went to the same high school. They both went to Valparaiso. Not really the boondocks.

                        I'll just go ahead and say that I disagree with your last paragraph.

                        Rankings for those guys:
                        #35 E'Twaun Moore
                        #42 JaJuan Johnson
                        #75 Robbie Hummel
                        #76 Scott Martin

                        So they were a lot higher than I thought. The last 5 star guy was #28, so it's fair to say that Moore was a borderline 5 star guy, and Johnson not too far behind. I got these rankings from Rivals.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          And I'm not taking away credit from Painter, I just think you've been overly harsh on Crean so far this year. There's only so much you can do on the floor when you have Tom "I should be playing for Butler's bench" Pritchard starting at center. I don't think Cody Zeller's arrival and subsequent replacement of Pritchard can be overstated at this point.
                          I'm not criticizing Crean at all here, it's more of me giving praise to Painter. I think he's a really good coach.

                          I won't say a word bad about Crean because the past few games he has done a great job, especially considering the injuries we have sustained. The offense is moving and looks better, the defense is still a work in progress, but it's been better. The guys aren't making dumb fouls so much and are learning how to play at the end of games. That's all I want. This is progress, finally. I don't know what has changed or why it has changed, but I have no problem at all with the team that is on the floor now. For the record, I agree that Zeller's inside presence and rebounding ability alone will be a huge boon to this team. Not to mention, the Big Ten will be much weaker next year. All we lose is Jeremiah Rivers (who I love, by the way). We should be middle of the pack in the Big Ten at the very least next season.

                          Comment


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

                            I usually use Scout.

                            They had Martin as the 4th best small forward in that class. Moore as the 8th best 2 guard. Hummel as the 12th best SF, and Johnson as the 11th best PF.

                            And IMO in terms of competition, Valpo is the boondocks and it certainly hurt their ranks. A guy like Eric Gordon is very, very good, but he got a huge boost from playing in Indianapolis.


                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              I usually use Scout.

                              They had Martin as the 4th best small forward in that class. Moore as the 8th best 2 guard. Hummel as the 12th best SF, and Johnson as the 11th best PF.

                              And IMO in terms of competition, Valpo is the boondocks and it certainly hurt their ranks. A guy like Eric Gordon is very, very good, but he got a huge boost from playing in Indianapolis.
                              Ehhh...maybe. Valpo is really close to Chicago, and from my understanding is considered part of "the region". It might be slightly off the grid, but I don't think it's the boondocks.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                I'm not criticizing Crean at all here, it's more of me giving praise to Painter. I think he's a really good coach.

                                I won't say a word bad about Crean because the past few games he has done a great job, especially considering the injuries we have sustained. The offense is moving and looks better, the defense is still a work in progress, but it's been better. The guys aren't making dumb fouls so much and are learning how to play at the end of games. That's all I want. This is progress, finally. I don't know what has changed or why it has changed, but I have no problem at all with the team that is on the floor now. For the record, I agree that Zeller's inside presence and rebounding ability alone will be a huge boon to this team. Not to mention, the Big Ten will be much weaker next year. All we lose is Jeremiah Rivers (who I love, by the way). We should be middle of the pack in the Big Ten at the very least next season.

                                Rivers is a lot more palatable to me this season than last. Those his free throws last night were absolutely killer to our chances. And I could tell he knew it and I felt bad for him when I saw Crean embracing him after the game as Rivers had his head on Crean's shoulder. This team wants it, and they need to respond Minnesota and Iowa at home are winnable games.

                                Verdell may be back as well supposedly, but we can't let his arrival hurt the movement of the offense. He has tendency to stall it with the ball in his hands. I feel like Hulls needs to have the ball in his hands as much as possible because he has made such an incredible leap that even I am shocked, and I think you know how much I like Hulls.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X