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

    At least IU covered (barely) against Iowa. Roberson looked like a solid little QB, makes you wonder what took so long for him to get a start.

    I want Purdue to knock off one of their next 3 big boys (yeah right) to make the Bucket for a bowl birth, and hopefully Danny Hope's job (yeah right x2). A chippy battle of ineptitude would make for an entertaining postgame handshake between Wilson and Hope.

    Comment


    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

      Originally posted by Psyren View Post
      Not really shocked to hear about Kiel.

      I don't care what kind of connections to IU you have, when you're supposedly one of the best players in the nation, you don't commit to IU. You just don't. IU is the epitome of football failure.

      Go to Alabama, Notre Dame, ANYWHERE but IU.

      Now if it were basketball, IU would be a fine choice. But don't waste your college football career on IU. He wouldn't turn anything around. He'd just be a good player on yet again probably the worst team in the Big 10 (11, 12, 13, 25, whatever it is now)
      I think he could still have a decent chance to get to the NFL if he came to IU, if he had receivers like Doss or Belcher he would definitely have a shot. As long as he has enough talent around him he would be fine.

      Ben Chappell even got a shot in the NFL and he has no where near the same talent as Keil, the previous QB would have even had a chance if he did not mess up and get kicked off the team. I definitely do not think it would be a waste, I am sure IU would be middle of the conference or better if he played to his potential year in and year out.

      But losses can really turn a recruit away, and that seems to be pretty much what happened in this case.
      Why so SERIOUS

      Comment


      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

        Less than 3 weeks til basketball season!


        Comment


        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

          Verbal "commitments" and subsequent "de-commitments" are just one more reason why I do not follow recruiting whatsoever.

          But as has been said, hard to blame him.
          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

          -Lance Stephenson

          Comment


          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

            Reading through the first few pages of this thread is about 180degrees from where it is now.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

              Hope springs eternal and all that jazz...


              Comment


              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                Did anyone else think last night's Colts game and subsequent postgame coach's press conference was stunningly similar to 2010 IU @ Wisconsin?

                Jim Caldwell = Bill Lynch in so many ways it's frightning.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                  Right down to the terrible record coaching in college before getting the head coach jobs.


                  Comment


                  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Reading through the first few pages of this thread is about 180degrees from where it is now.
                    Just wait till basketball season starts. Roughly 75% of my posts in this thread will be me *****ing about Tom Crean's coaching, followed by Trader Joe arguing the other side. Ahhh, it's a winter rite of passage.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      Just wait till basketball season starts. Roughly 75% of my posts in this thread will be me *****ing about Tom Crean's coaching. Ahhh, it's a winter rite of passage.
                      It just wouldn't be an IU season without it.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                        I didn't see many of the games last year, but a big problem to me for the IU Bball team was defense and rebounding... Hopefully Zeller will really help fill that role as well as the defending of some of the younger guards.. It should be a solid year for the Hoosiers on the court....... hopefully. God knows we need it!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                          I have renewed hope about the Hoosiers landing Gary Harris.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            I have renewed hope about the Hoosiers landing Gary Harris.
                            You've peaked my interest..

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                              What's your prediction for the 2011-2012 Big Ten basketball season? The media's picks should be out later this week. Hutchens' blog had his rankings and he also mentioned he expected IU to match or exceed Crean's career Big Ten win total. Pretty lofty expectations from the Bloomington media. What do you guys think?

                              Originally posted by Terry Hutchens on IndyStar.com
                              http://blogs.indystar.com/hoosiersin...top-to-bottom/

                              When the Big Ten holds its annual Media Day on Thursday in Chicago, it will release a preseason all-Big Ten team along with predictions for the conference’s top three teams. There are one or two beat writers from each school that serve on this panel and I am one of them.

                              But a few years ago, one of the Big Ten writers decided to conduct his own poll separate from the Big Ten where he would get votes from writers around the conference to pick all 11 Big Ten teams (now all 12) and rank them in predicted order of finish.

                              I voted in this poll earlier this week, too.

                              Here’s how I picked the Big Ten:

                              1. Ohio State

                              2. Michigan State

                              3. Wisconsin

                              4. Michigan

                              5. Illinois

                              6. Indiana

                              7. Purdue

                              8. Northwestern

                              9. Iowa

                              10. Minnesota

                              11. Nebraska

                              12. Penn State

                              Now, I can already hear it from the Purdue people but to be honest I really wrestled with that one. I think you could make a case for Purdue at No. 6 and IU at No. 7. It all comes down to Robbie Hummel. (I did have Hummel on my preseason all-Big Ten team by the way).

                              The bigger question is whether this is expecting too much out of Indiana. And with the Hoosiers it will come down to how much of an impact Cody Zeller can make right away, and whether sophomores Victor Oladipo and Will Sheehey in particular can take their game up a notch. If those three things happen, I think IU is firmly a middle of the pack Big Ten team. And that would be a major improvement.

                              In order for the Hoosiers to do this well, here’s what has to happen:

                              1. Indiana needs to win 10 non-conference games and have nine wins going into the Big Ten season. This would be losses to Kentucky, Notre Dame and one other school. It could be North Carolina State in the Big Ten/ACC Challenge. It could be Butler at Assembly Hall. And it could be another school scoring an upset. But if IU loses three, it would have nine wins going into Big Ten play. The final non-conference game is during the Big Ten season and against North Carolina Central. Here’s the schedule if you want to check it out yourself.

                              2. IU needs to win eight games or more in the Big Ten. But even at 8-10, I would think the Hoosiers could be at sixth or seventh in the conference. If you win eight, coupled with 10 non-conference games, that would give you 18 going into the Big Ten Tournament. This year eight teams will have play-in games and the top four finishers will get first round byes. But if you could come out of the Big Ten Tournament with 19 or 20 wins, I would have to think you would wind up in postseason play for the first time in four years.

                              3. IU needs to stay healthy. Maurice Creek is enough of a blow. Christian Watford should be back in a week or so at close to 100 percent. But this is still a team with a relatively small margin of error and it can’t afford to have major injuries. If it stays healthy, there’s no reason IU can’t be successful in the first two points I’ve made above.

                              So what do you think? I’ll be interested in how you rank the 12 teams in the Big Ten? And then we can all compare our lists to the actual one that comes out on Thursday afternoon and will likely be printed in the paper on Friday.
                              My preseaon rankings:
                              1. Ohio State

                              2. Wisconsin

                              3. Michigan

                              4. Michigan State

                              5. Purdue

                              6. Northwestern

                              7. Illinois

                              8. Indiana

                              9. Iowa

                              10. Minnesota

                              11. Penn State

                              12. Nebraska

                              Unless Zeller is a one and done type talent, which I've heard nobody suggest, I can't see anyway that IU is a better basketball team than Purdue this year. I also don't understand how Illinois, which lost everything from a middle of the road team, is better than them.

                              Obviously, there's a pretty big gap between Ohio State and everyone else. After that, the 2-5 teams seem pretty close with another pretty large gap before you get to 6th. 6-10 could be any order. Penn State and Nebraska should be awful.

                              My preseason All-Big Ten team:
                              Jared Sullinger - Ohio State (POY)
                              John Shurna - Northwestern
                              Robbie Hummel - Purdue
                              Jordan Taylor - Wisconsin
                              Tim Hardaway Jr. - Michigan
                              Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 10-26-2011, 10:40 AM.
                              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                              -Lance Stephenson

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                                I can't quibble much with your rankings BWD, especially with Shurna back for NW

                                Secondly, I've said pretty much from the beginning that my goal for IU this year is 18 wins so Hutchens and I are pretty much right together on that. And yes, obviously that gets you into postseason play. The NIT will take IU and the potential revenue they represent the moment they crack .500 at the end of the season which is all that is required to get an invite.

                                If Zeller ends up an 18 and 8 guy right away then I think maybe we can hit 20 wins in the regular seaosn and finish as high as 5 or 6 this year, but I don't see that happening. I think he'll be around 12 and 6.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X