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

The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

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

  • #16
    Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    Dude, Fresno State sucks. Boise State is not the best team in college football, and I sincerely doubt they would smoke Ohio State.

    I know the SOS and all that crap has TCU and Boise State close to some of the big time schools, but they only need to really get up for 2 or 3 games a year. The rest are a cakewalk. They can play like crap and still beat the **** out of everyone else in their conference. Of course this would all be made moot if there were just a playoff system, but hey, that just makes too much sense to actually implement.
    Fresno got beat 51-0! They hadn't been shut out in 12 years...I'll just say we'll see at this point. I haven't watched a more impressive defense and there isn't a more impressive threesome at QB and WR in the entire country.


    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

      Plus judicata brings up a great point. This Boise team played basically this exact same Oregon team last year, and SPANKED EM. And they beat TCU in the BCS game. Just boggles my mind.


      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

        That is why we need a playoff system somehow. So guys like this can get their mouths shut when a team like TCU or Boise State beat them head to head. I like the idea of taking the top eight and doing a short playoff. Hell, use the BCS to rank them and then they play it out.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

          Auburn is getting ROFL-stomped right now.


          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

            Well, Alabama decided to see how hard they could choke.


            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

              Good Lord Greg McElroy just got rocked, when they rolled him over his eyes looked completely blank.


              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                Dude, Fresno State sucks. Boise State is not the best team in college football, and I sincerely doubt they would smoke Ohio State.

                I know the SOS and all that crap has TCU and Boise State close to some of the big time schools, but they only need to really get up for 2 or 3 games a year. The rest are a cakewalk. They can play like crap and still beat the **** out of everyone else in their conference. Of course this would all be made moot if there were just a playoff system, but hey, that just makes too much sense to actually implement.
                I wouldn't say Fresno sucks, they aren't great, but they are a good team.

                Boise State is the best team in football and I don't care what anyone says. They beat Va Tech and Oregon State and play #19 Nevada tonight. I've watched a lot of OSU games this year and there isn't a doubt in my mind that Boise would destroy them. They have absolutely rolled over ever team on their schedule that they should. Sure they only have to get up for 2 or 3 games, but the thing is they play great every single game. They don't look average against anyone. They have had 3 shut outs and average close to 50 a game. I don't care who they play, thats impressive. OSU has one good win and thats Iowa. They lost to Wisconsin which was their best test. If PSU played a full game against them, they would have lost to an average PSU team at home. As a PSU fan I would be way more scared of Boise than OSU.

                Boise does a great job at recruiting. My family lives in the Sacramento area and the local high school is a powerhouse there as they have been competing for state championships recently and Boise State has recruited quite a few players from there. Kids like going to Boise. They have a great program and have proven time and time again that they can play with the big boys. What else do they need to do?

                Boise is a more complete team than Oregon and has enough speed to keep up with Auburn. They should be ahead of TCU imo too.

                College football needs a playoff system. Joe Paterno has been saying this for years. So many people have been saying this for years. I think big conferences schedules are vastly overrated as usually their non conference schedule is terrible as is their in conference schedule. The Big Ten has two good teams in OSU and Wisconsin. MSU and Iowa are good, but aren't special, PSU is average and no one else in the conference is special. The SEC is overrated as usual. They are better than the Big Ten, but I'm really not that scared of most the teams not named Auburn. Only thing that scares me in the Pac 10 is Oregon's offense. The Big 12 is similar to the Big Ten. Don't get me started on the ACC or better yet the Big East. Neither of those conferences deserve an automatic bid this year, nor have they in recent years.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

                  Well Auburn and Oregon both win.

                  Now about the only thing Boise can hope for is that Scam Newton gets benched for his transgressions.

                  Boise St. up 24-7 over 19 Nevada in Nevada right now.

                  Everyone can have the big conference boys, but I'm taking Boise State over any of them anywhere in the country every time. I'll take their 25 game win streak, their ridiculous 40+ PPG spread, and the best QB in college football every single day.


                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

                    Wow! If you didn't stay up to watch, you missed an all time heartbreaker for Boise.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

                      Well I guess all of Boise can blame me for that one.


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Well I guess all of Boise can blame me for that one.
                        I will share that with You. Guess I'm eating some crow today. I went to bed at half time. Still think Boise is better than osu.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

                          I still think Boise could beat Auburn and Oregon. Look there needs to be a playoff. We all need to pray TCU gets a chance to break up the monotony. Otherwise the big fat conferences will continue to collect their pay checks.

                          And for the record, I think the loss by Boise yesterday says loads more about the improved play in the WAC and Nevada than it does about Boise.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

                            My biggest problem with Boise: Their blue ****ing field. That thing is an outrage. The NCAA needs to step in and mandate that all playing surfaces in CFB be green. That smurf turf is obnoxious and when they wear their all blue uniforms at home you can't see them! They blend into the turf. It's ridiculous. If you want to be taken seriously Boise, then get rid of that gooftrooper field.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              My biggest problem with Boise: Their blue ****ing field. That thing is an outrage. The NCAA needs to step in and mandate that all playing surfaces in CFB be green. That smurf turf is obnoxious and when they wear their all blue uniforms at home you can't see them! They blend into the turf. It's ridiculous. If you want to be taken seriously Boise, then get rid of that gooftrooper field.
                              Thats exactly why they made their field blue. Quite frankly I think it's genius. The NCAA has made a rule about it, and boise is why, but they have been grandfathered in. A couple weeks ago they wore orange jerseys on it and they still won 51-0. Does it take an adjustment? Yes. Is it why they are good? No. The blue field is how they got attention in the first place.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The OSU president Gordon Gee says Boise St. and TCU "are not worthy"

                                cdash,

                                You would just love the Eastern Washington field:




                                and yes, they wear red....



                                and here is the combo:

                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X