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 Athletics Thread 2011-2012

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

  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    P4E said he needs to be punished. BRush is saying Crean intentionally broke the rules, and considering our history from the Sampson saga, is questioning Crean's judgement.

    Plus, you have a history of stirring the pot, because that is just what you do. Most of the time when you post in this thread, the intent is to irritate the IU fans posting in here. I'm sure you will deny that, but we all know it is true.
    You'd like to think so, but I honestly don't have any issues with IU. I've told you many of times that I root for them.

    I have lots and lots of down time at work. I have PD open on my brower pretty much the entire 8 hours I'm here. I like to discuss things because I'm bored, not because I like to irritate you.

    If you care enough to check out my story, you'll notice my user tag will be online monday-friday from 9am to 5pm.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have any hidden ulterior motives. I don't hide my feelings.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Because you keep asking me direct questions?

      EDIT: you guys act like anytime anyone say's anything remotely negative about IU like we're going to war or something.

      Chill out.
      Who's going to war? haha


      Comment


      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Who's going to war? haha
        Travmil is the perfect example from a few pages ago. I make the point that IU lost to a FCS school and he starts acting like a child.

        If he would have noticed, he would have read that I also added in the fact that Ball St. got beat by North Texas just a few years ago. (or it might have been last year??)

        I said it was embarrasing for us, as a MAC team, so it's even more embarassing for a Big Ten team. It wasn't to sling mud.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

          Well I don't think I've been going to war this whole time so...


          Comment


          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            You'd like to think so, but I honestly don't have any issues with IU. I've told you many of times that I root for them.

            I have lots and lots of down time at work. I have PD open on my brower pretty much the entire 8 hours I'm here. I like to discuss things because I'm bored, not because I like to irritate you.

            If you care enough to check out my story, you'll notice my user tag will be online monday-friday from 9am to 5pm.

            Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have any hidden ulterior motives. I don't hide my feelings.
            I'm not going to get on anyone's case for posting too much--I do the same thing.

            Comment


            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              BRush is saying Crean intentionally broke the rules, and considering our history from the Sampson saga, is questioning Crean's judgement.
              Originally posted by IndyStar
              According to the report filed by IU on Thursday, assistant coach Tim Buckley advised Crean the previous day that he could have an off-campus contact the next day. Buckley thought Thursday was the final day of the contact period. It was the first of the evaluation period.
              It's impossible for me to believe that they did not know the recruiting calendar. Every single coach in America knows the schedule! You're telling me two guys whose only job in the offseason is to recruit, do not know when they are allowed to do so? You don't think a copy of this calendar is in every basketball office in the country? The explanation just doesn't make any sense.

              I do not care one bit that he did it. I think it is poor judgement but it's not like he walked into HSE with a stachel of money with the initials GH on it. However, I cannot be convinced this was an honest mistake and they just didn't know the schedule. The next time Matt Painter or Brad Stevens or Coach K or whomever commits a secondary violation, I won't care about that just as I don't care about this. If their excuse is that he didn't know the recruiting schedule, I'll say the same thing. ********.

              It's not the fact that a violation occurred. It's the fact that the only easy to understand portion of the NCAA's retarded rulebook was violated. Thus, the excuse is either an outright lie or IU has the dumbest staff ever. I don't believe Crean and company are that stupid.

              And fair or not, and it's clearly not, but it is amplified because of IU's history and probationary status.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                I don't disagree really with anything you're saying.

                However, like I said, the punishment has been handled the NCAA has accepted it. I don't see why the UK blogger brought it up to begin with. Just to stir the pot I guess.


                Comment


                • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  I don't disagree really with anything you're saying.

                  However, like I said, the punishment has been handled the NCAA has accepted it. I don't see why the UK blogger brought it up to begin with. Just to stir the pot I guess.
                  If it had been Cal or Painter, you're really naive if you don't think all the IU nut jobs would have been up in arms too.

                  It's the nature of the business.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                    Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                    If it had been Cal or Painter, you're really naive if you don't think all the IU nut jobs would have been up in arms too.

                    It's the nature of the business.
                    Although I don't like the "nut jobs" shot, he's right. It's the nature of the beast. I can't wait for the day when Calipari vacates last year's Final Four.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                      Obviously, I get that.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                        Originally posted by Bob Kravitz in 10/13/11 IndyStar
                        http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...t|IndyStar.com

                        For Christmas, I'm going to buy Indiana University basketball coach Tom Crean and his assistant, Tim Buckley, calendars. Maybe one of those cute kitty-cat calendars, like the one my wife has attached to our refrigerator. I might even go to the trouble of color-coding them: red for no-contact recruiting periods, yellow for evaluation periods, green for contact periods.

                        Granted, this isn't the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby: the secondary violation IU's basketball program reported almost immediately this week regarding the recruitment of Hamilton Southeastern's Gary Harris. The cutthroat world of high-stakes basketball recruiting is rife with egregious forms of cheating. Some schools are engaging in grand larceny; this goof-up is like failing to come to a full and complete stop at a stop sign.

                        But it's puzzling.

                        And a little bit hard to get your head around, especially for a staff that has a solid history of compliance and walked into a situation in which circumventing the rules became a way of life.

                        Help me out here: Was this a leap year? Are they using the Mayan calendar in the Bloomington offices?

                        "We had a miscommunication on Oct. 6 as to what the last day of the contact period was," Crean said Wednesday on Dan Dakich's show on WFNI-1070 AM. "My thought was that the last day of the contact period was Thursday."

                        How does that happen?

                        Two days ago, several members of The Star sports staff received information from a blogger -- he said he was a blogger, although I haven't seen the blog yet -- showing a paper trail of emails that confirmed Crean was at HSE talking to Harris on Oct. 6.

                        So I started to follow up and immediately searched for "NCAA basketball recruiting calendar." In a nanosecond, I found this: "Contact period is the time when a college coach may have in-person contact with a prospective student-athlete and the prospect's parents on or off the college's campus . . .''

                        This period ends Oct. 5.

                        The evaluation period begins Oct. 6.

                        "Evaluation period is the time a college coach may watch a prospective student-athlete play or visit the high school but cannot have any in-person conversations with the possible recruit or the parents off the college's campus . . .''

                        We understand the NCAA rulebook is longer and less readable than "War and Peace," and we understand that there are some picayune and generally bizarre rules that defy comprehension.

                        This wouldn't seem to be one of those rules, though, would it?

                        Shouldn't those dates be etched in the brains of every college basketball coach in America?

                        "It just happened; there's no excuse or let's try to rationalize it," Crean told Dakich.

                        "It just happened. We got screwed up on what the last day of the contact period was and it was a mistake. That's not how you break a rule if you're looking to break a rule. . . . If you're looking to circumvent something, you don't do it that way. As direct as I can put it, it was an honest mistake."

                        If this was a coach with a history of working the gray area of the rulebook, I would question that. And I'm guessing some of the coaches who are fighting over Harris, notably Purdue's Matt Painter and Kentucky's John Calipari, aren't sloughing this off as an innocent little administrative mistake.

                        If one coach gets an additional day to woo a prospect, that looks to me like someone who is getting a small competitive advantage.

                        If the tables were turned, you can be sure IU fans would be trashing Painter or Calipari and painting them as scofflaws.

                        But look at Crean's record, and it is good. He took compliance seriously all those years at Marquette. He has played by the rules since coming to Bloomington, following Dakich's noble lead and cleaning up a program that had careened out of control under former coach Kelvin Sampson.

                        Is this embarrassing? Absolutely. Sloppy? Clearly. Inexcusable? That, too.

                        But in the end, it's a secondary violation, and secondary violations happen at every school in every sport in every year. According to the NCAA, there were 3,041 secondary violations committed by Division I schools in 2010. Even Duke's Mike Krzyzewski got popped for one. They are parking tickets; you pay them and they go away. Last year, IU's athletic department committed 18 secondary violations, two by the hoops program.

                        This won't have any impact on the Harris recruitment, and it's hard to imagine the NCAA is going to spend more than a half-second reviewing this case. NCAA President Mark Emmert has made it clear: He doesn't want his enforcement staff wasting time chasing litterbugs.

                        Ultimately, IU handled this correctly; most schools don't even go public with news of self-reported secondary violations.

                        I'm not turning this into the college-basketball Crime of the Century, but I'm not ready to dismiss it as some kind of (oops!) minor administrative error that should be swept under the rug and ignored, either -- not with IU's recent history.

                        Question: If I send Crean and his staff those cute kitty-cat calendars, and they accept them, is that an NCAA violation?
                        Written like a true Boiler fan.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                          I didn't know Kravitz liked any Indiana sports.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                            Written like a true Boiler fan.
                            There's a difference between that article, and what you said. One word: Intentionally. You repeated that Crean did it on purpose. I don't see where Kravitz says that in his column. I don't disagree with anything Kravitz says.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                              Kravitz is saying he's either a total idiot, or he did it on purpose. Either one you choose isn't good.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                                I'm more inclined to believe that he is a total idiot. I've watched him coach this team for three years.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X