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

    If Harris doesn't commit to Purdue or IU after Hoosier hysteria this weekend, then he is pretty much 100% MSU or UK bound. Our 2012 recruits have already said they are going to be doing everything they can to get him to commit this weekend and he's already visited Purdue.


    Comment


    • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      If Harris doesn't commit to Purdue or IU after Hoosier hysteria this weekend, then he is pretty much 100% MSU or UK bound. Our 2012 recruits have already said they are going to be doing everything they can to get him to commit this weekend and he's already visited Purdue.
      I think he will probably go to IU, possibly Michigan State, for his game I think that MSU or PU will fit the best though, they will really develop his game and expand his defensive strengths.

      Not to be a "butt hole" but I can not really think of one singer person that Crean has developed in his time here.

      I think UK will use his athletic ability but all the depth there might not be as good for him.

      I think he will decide with in the next few weeks.

      Also one extra thing I wonder who will end up transferring I could see Howell possibly Patterson transferring if Harris comes after the first year or so.
      Why so SERIOUS

      Comment


      • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

        By the same token, who has Crean really had to develop while at IU? At Marquette Crean was viewed as an average recruiter who landed a ton of 3 stars and still competed in the Big East.


        Comment


        • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

          Originally posted by Really? View Post
          I think he will probably go to IU, possibly Michigan State, for his game I think that MSU or PU will fit the best though, they will really develop his game and expand his defensive strengths.

          Not to be a "butt hole" but I can not really think of one singer person that Crean has developed in his time here.

          I think UK will use his athletic ability but all the depth there might not be as good for him.

          I think he will decide with in the next few weeks.

          Also one extra thing I wonder who will end up transferring I could see Howell possibly Patterson transferring if Harris comes after the first year or so.
          I really don't think Harris will go to IU. I don't have any inside information, but my gut feeling is that he will end up elsewhere. Hoosier Hysteria this weekend might sway things, but we'll see. I actually think Purdue has a better shot with him. To be honest, I'd rather see him at Purdue than UK.

          I agree with you on Crean not developing players at IU. I haven't seen nearly as much development out of our guys as I'd like. Same problems persist year after year.

          When you say Howell, do you mean Hollowell? If IU did get Harris, I think the most likely transfer would be Patterson. Hollowell is more of a SF, whereas Patterson is a pure, slightly undersized SG.

          Comment


          • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

            Patterson would be the first wing off the bench behind Harris and Hollowell most likely. I don't see why he'd transfer, but that's probably a convo best carried out in the IU thread.


            Comment


            • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

              I'd guess Harris comes here, but that is based off nothing. I think it is pretty close though.

              Comment


              • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                By the same token, who has Crean really had to develop while at IU? At Marquette Crean was viewed as an average recruiter who landed a ton of 3 stars and still competed in the Big East.
                Well anyone I guess, not necessarily developing to the NBA level but I mean Verdell Jones has not got better since he has been down here. The big man have not really progressed.

                But I am also not watching as close as a die hard IU fan is.

                Also yeah Hollowell.


                So their line up that year will be Ferrell/Harris/Hollowell/Panar(however you spell it)/Zeller

                With Patterson and Creek contributing. Best wishes to Creek by the way. I know they should also have a good backup center.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                  Also for some reason I just do not have a good feeling about him coming to Purdue. I just think Purdue has too much going for themselves with him, and for him to have not signed yet does not seem like a very good sign.

                  He has probably been visiting there since he was a kid, both parents played there, he was born there. He has had a ton of visits since he has been in HS, it is in-state. One of his AAU teammates are going there.

                  I think I have just seen so many people recently that have been thought to be close to locks for Purdue turn away that I have weak feelings about big recruits signing with us.

                  Actually I can not think of one big recruit that signed with us.(Not thinking of Hummel, Martin, Johnson, Moore as big recruits)
                  Why so SERIOUS

                  Comment


                  • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                    2012 4* 7 footer AJ Hammons committed today. Much as I want Harris, a true post with actual basketball skills was sorely needed, really nice get. Haven't seen Hammons play, just read reports, apparently has a "questionable motor." Either that's been corrected in his time in prep school or it soon will be under Painter, that or he just won't play. Still a scholarship open for Harris if he wants it.

                    Far as Harris, he's not your average 5* gimme the spotlight kinda recruit. He and his family're doing everything possible to be proof positive they find the right fit. There's nothing to read into about leans or anything, just stuff you read from "experts." I think he winds up in black and gold, but I'm a bit biased.
                    Last edited by Heisenberg; 10-13-2011, 11:41 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                      Purdue's 2012 class up to 9th on ESPN

                      Comment


                      • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                        Hammons is the kid who was originally at Carmel right? If so, I've heard a lot of mixed stuff about him. From a lot of what I read, he certainly doesn't seem like a "Purdue" type though. However, if I'm thinking of the right guy his talent is through the roof so if he pans out he's probably worth the risk, the old rule of you can win as long as you only have one crazy person on the team.

                        Also, it'd be sort of shcoking to me if Harris ends up at Purdue, they've been pretty firmly #4 on the list every time you check on him. Granted IU has pretty much been firmly #4a so I don't think he'll end up in state.


                        Comment


                        • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                          Originally posted by Really? View Post
                          Well anyone I guess, not necessarily developing to the NBA level but I mean Verdell Jones has not got better since he has been down here. The big man have not really progressed.

                          But I am also not watching as close as a die hard IU fan is.

                          Also yeah Hollowell.


                          So their line up that year will be Ferrell/Harris/Hollowell/Panar(however you spell it)/Zeller

                          With Patterson and Creek contributing. Best wishes to Creek by the way. I know they should also have a good backup center.
                          I think Verdell is a lot better than he was as a freshman...he still sucks though for the amount of time he has the ball. I think Hulls took some big leaps last year as well. Plus Elston was siginificantly better from freshman to sophomore. Watford has shown steady progression.

                          The proof will be in the pudding for Crean the next two years, we're either a top 3 or 4 Big Ten team in 2012 or he's gonna be in trouble.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Hammons is the kid who was originally at Carmel right? If so, I've heard a lot of mixed stuff about him. From a lot of what I read, he certainly doesn't seem like a "Purdue" type though. However, if I'm thinking of the right guy his talent is through the roof so if he pans out he's probably worth the risk, the old rule of you can win as long as you only have one crazy person on the team.

                            Also, it'd be sort of shcoking to me if Harris ends up at Purdue, they've been pretty firmly #4 on the list every time you check on him. Granted IU has pretty much been firmly #4a so I don't think he'll end up in state.
                            Yeah, Hammons is the Carmel kid that went to Oak Hill in VA for his senior year. I don't know what you mean by "crazy type," just seems kind of lazy from what I understand, not mentally unstable or something. Some AAU message board watchers (always reliable) sorta make it sound like Hammons needs a fire lit under his ***, just not a self motivator. We all know Painter has no problem making his guys earn court time, probably the single thing I like most about him. Don't see any "risk" with him, not anymore than those that come with any recruit anyway.

                            On Harris, #4 on whose list? The order they're listed on Scout/Rivals/ESPN? Like I said before, there's absolutely no way to get a credible read on the kid. The kid could go to Wabash and it wouldn't shock me. OK, it would, but I'm just saying there's nothing to do but guess. Ronnie Johnson (who I think I'm going to adore as a PG) and Rapeal Davis as AAU teammates can't hurt though.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                              No, not the order they're listed, just the inside scuttle butt. You say Harris has kept his recruitment under wraps, I say that for the most part he's been considered a pretty out in the open Michigan State lean for most his recruitment. I have access to the Peegs paid board, and while I'm not always the biggest Peegs fan there is no doubt the guy is connected and a lot of what I have read on there suggests Michigan State all the way. Kentucky is a late pusher and don't be surprised if he becomes this years "Teague".

                              Also, I've heard more about Hammons than just lazy, maybe crazy is the wrong way to put it, but the kid has been rumored to have some serious 'tude problems. I'm not doubting that Painter can control him, but the kid's definitely got some question marks around him. It's why he is a 4 star and not a 5 star because he has 5 star talent.
                              Last edited by Trader Joe; 10-14-2011, 08:44 AM.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Purdue 2011-2012 Athletics thread

                                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                                What on Earth makes you think that?
                                PSU offense if horrible. They're not in the top 50 in passing or running. They are 93rd in points scored ( 21.5 ) . You would think that's because they played great defenses, but actually, they only scored 16 against IU and 13 against Iowa, 10 against Temple.

                                Terbush might be the best QB on the field.

                                PSU might be without there best receiver, Derrick Moye

                                I'm not sure what offense Purdue runs, but it looks like the one Florida ran with Percy Harvin being the focus playmaker. I think Purdue needs to get Antavian Edison involved more. Get the ball to him on more down screens and let him make plays.

                                I feel like if Purdue doesn't turn the ball over, 20 points could win this game. Field Goals will feel like touchdowns, because PSU has an outstanding defense, but there offense is bad, so field goals will add up.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X