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

Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

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

  • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

    So hyped about this win. News Flash, Purdue has a pretty damn good defense. Short has been amazing this season. Might be 1st Team All-American good.

    Comment


    • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

      Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
      So hyped about this win. News Flash, Purdue has a pretty damn good defense. Short has been amazing this season. Might be 1st Team All-American good.
      They are getting better, but until they can prove it week in and week out, not sure that I am buying the good defense part. Anyways happy that we grabbed the win.
      Why so SERIOUS

      Comment


      • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

        Originally posted by Really? View Post
        They are getting better, but until they can prove it week in and week out, not sure that I am buying the good defense part. Anyways happy that we grabbed the win.
        Yeah I know this is going to come off as me trolling--but I wouldn't get too excited if I were you guys. IU even played Penn State close. They are easily the worst 1 loss team in the country. Their offense is abysmal. I'm still trying to figure out how they dropped 30+ on Northwestern. Illinois has been a farce all season. They had one decent win against Arizona State, an okay team, but the Sun Devils outplayed them that entire game. It's amazing the Illini won that game. Couple that with squeaky wins against teams like Western Michigan and such...yeah. They were a farce.

        All that said, you guys are actually showing improvement as the season goes on. The hilariously named TerBush seems like he might be a decent QB for you guys.

        Comment


        • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

          Agreed.

          Purdue still isn't good at all.

          Though, were it not for a blocked FG against Rice (amidst a comedy of errors by both the players and coaches) they'd be a bowl elgible team thanks to their schedule.

          I originally said the Purdue/IU game was a toss up and I was leaning towards IU since they were at home. That's changed. Purdue is a markedly better team than IU. That doesn't mean they'll win. Purdue has certainly showed more than an ability to lose games it should win. But that IU game is one it should win. I'm not ready to put IU with Minnesota in the worst Big Ten team of all-time discussion, but they're close.
          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

          -Lance Stephenson

          Comment


          • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
            Agreed.

            Purdue still isn't good at all.

            Though, were it not for a blocked FG against Rice (amidst a comedy of errors by both the players and coaches) they'd be a bowl elgible team thanks to their schedule.

            I originally said the Purdue/IU game was a toss up and I was leaning towards IU since they were at home. That's changed. Purdue is a markedly better team than IU. That doesn't mean they'll win. Purdue has certainly showed more than an ability to lose games it should win. But that IU game is one it should win. I'm not ready to put IU with Minnesota in the worst Big Ten team of all-time discussion, but they're close.
            Yeah, I agree. I actually think our offense is getting better with Tre Roberson at QB, but our defense is a complete mess and the more I watch, the more I agree that we are a poorly coached team. That's not necessarily an indictment on Wilson, but I question his coordinators, especially the defensive guys. Stupid penalties kill us too, and that's always a sign of a poorly coached/young team. Purdue should beat IU, but it's a rivalry game and it's in Bloomington, so anything can happen.

            Comment


            • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

              Apparently one of Jacob Lawson and Donnie Hale MAY redshirt. Not too sure I agree with that. The froncourt's already thin on talent and experience. I know there's the annual report of Sandi Marcius progressing well and yada yada but until he actually shows it on the floor it's just more talk.

              Comment


              • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                That would be rough for Hale . . . he's already waited a year to play.

                Comment


                • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                  I hear Bade's coming back











                  /green, fine.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    Yeah I know this is going to come off as me trolling--but I wouldn't get too excited if I were you guys. IU even played Penn State close. They are easily the worst 1 loss team in the country. Their offense is abysmal. I'm still trying to figure out how they dropped 30+ on Northwestern. Illinois has been a farce all season. They had one decent win against Arizona State, an okay team, but the Sun Devils outplayed them that entire game. It's amazing the Illini won that game. Couple that with squeaky wins against teams like Western Michigan and such...yeah. They were a farce.

                    All that said, you guys are actually showing improvement as the season goes on. The hilariously named TerBush seems like he might be a decent QB for you guys.
                    I will say the difference to me with the Penn State situation is that Purdue went to PSU one of the hardest places to play, I think, and almost pulled out a victory. That says a lot more to me than coming close to beating them at home.

                    With that being said we can play this game with Iowa as well. They have put up points this year but do not have the typically strong defense that they normally have. Also their losses this year have came on the road, one come at the hands of those horrible Nittany Lions.

                    OSU is showing better but their offense is still a question mark, I still think they have a big upperhand on us for the matchup.

                    I think Mich and Wisconson will beat us up pretty good, which will help OSU out, I propose us beating Iowa at home and using that momentum to go down to IU and beat them to lock up a spot.
                    Why so SERIOUS

                    Comment


                    • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                      Apparently one of Jacob Lawson and Donnie Hale MAY redshirt. Not too sure I agree with that. The froncourt's already thin on talent and experience. I know there's the annual report of Sandi Marcius progressing well and yada yada but until he actually shows it on the floor it's just more talk.
                      Yeah hopefully they don't. I mean bigs will be okay but i just like how many different lineups that gives us with both of those guys active.
                      Why so SERIOUS

                      Comment


                      • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                        ^^OSU offense has to improve dramatically before it can be called a question mark. If you haven't seen any of their games, it is bad beyond belief.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                          Originally posted by Dab View Post
                          That would be rough for Hale . . . he's already waited a year to play.
                          Man, didn't even consider that. I don't mean to plant any seeds or anything, but if wanted to be a Boilermaker bad enough to go to prep school until there was a scholarship for me, then I got redshirted, I'd probably at least think about a transfer.

                          I'm just not really a fan of redshirting in basketball in general, an argument could me made sitting John Hart has put us in a tough spot.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                            Painter on the upcoming season:

                            Head coach Matt Painter addressed the 2011-2012 season outlook at Purdue Basketball media day on Tuesday. Here’s what he had to say:

                            On the team’s identity:

                            “We have three seniors that have started full seasons,” Painter said. “Our best offensive team and our best defensive team are two separate teams. That’s where we lie right now. You like one group at one end of the court and you like another group on one end of the court.”

                            On the defense:

                            “Our best defensive player is, without question, Kelsey Barlow,” Painter said. “Lew (Jackson) does a good job of putting pressure on the ball, but he’s very disruptive in the half court. Him and Rob (Hummel) were the only two guys that played at a high level in our scrimmage the other day. Terone (Johnson) is hampered by his injury, coming off the meniscus surgery in August, so he doesn’t have his conditioning, doesn’t quite move as much as he’s capable.

                            “I’ve always thought Rob Hummel was under-appreciated as a defensive player. But he’s a good team defensive guy. He knows what’s going on. He can communicate these things and does a good job stopping the basketball. Ryne Smith has had to work awfully hard to get in the game from the defensive standpoint. I don’t look at him as a stopper, but he’s a cerebral guy, knows what’s going on, knows the scouting report.”

                            On Lewis Jackson:

                            “He hurt his foot and why he’s out is he sprained his ankle,” Painter said. “He’s been able to push through some things and we took him out of some of the workouts in the fall. I’m not concerned with it as much. You just don’t want it to nag the whole year. It might be one of those things where it does nag him the rest of the year, with that being said, that’s kind of par for the course. It’s not enough to keep him out.

                            “Lew’s a competitor. He’s a tough kid. When you have those kind of characteristics, I normally don’t worry about you.”

                            On freshmen Donnie Hale and Jacob Lawson:

                            “They both can can help us with their athleticism,” Painter said. “They’re simply going to have to beat out some people ... There was a big recruiting tool in saying we were going to lose 35 minutes that now we haven’t lost. Both of them understand that’s their position.

                            “Trying to get figured out what’s best for them and what’s best for us might be two different things, because there’s only so many minutes at that spot unless we play incredibly small.”

                            On redshirting Hale or Lawson:

                            “Yeah, I would think so,” Painter said. “It’s something I don’t talk to those guys about until we get through the exhibition games. They both could play well in the exhibition games. As a coach, you want to do what’s best for them.”


                            On Lawson’s Achilles:

                            “I think the one thing that happens a lot with young guys is system overload,” Painter said. “You throw so many things at them in terms of your rules and your principles on defense. You’re making them run hard every time, you’re making them play hard on defense. You’re holding them accountable and it’s hard. You see the smoke coming out of their ears at practice.

                            “We recruited him for his motor, for his energy, for his high athleticism, but we just have to get him on the same page as everyone else. It’s hard for guys like that to make that adjustment. He’s got a long way to go, but all freshmen have a long way to go. I felt the same way about guys that have been All-Conference as freshmen. It’s a hard thing. The one thing about guys with athleticism and talent is you always want more from them. Jacob’s a very, very talented guy, but he still has to learn our system. His effects from his Achilles, you see the flashes. You don’t see it continuous.”
                            http://www.purdueexponent.org/sports...acdd12cb3.html

                            I would think Lawson would maybe be redshirted before Hale, but ya the frount court is kinda iffy as it is.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                              Can Purdue beat Michigan? I'm not convinced they can't.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                                Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
                                Can Purdue beat Michigan? I'm not convinced they can't.
                                In the Big House? No chance. None.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X