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

    I don't even want to think about how many times I've watched this at this point, and it still gives me chills every time.

    Just like old times. Except the fans and players are actually allowed to celebrate now, lol.

    Comment


    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

      Originally posted by Stryder View Post
      I'm not going to stay on this very long, but there were a multitude of times CZ was open- wide open- and the ball never got to him. Just sayin'.

      You seem to be quite chippy lately in multiple posts. Need some more sleep?
      Do you really think that post was chippy? I disagree with you that it is as easy to get the ball to Zeller as you make it sound, that is it. He may have not been directly covered, but Kentucky's length is such that you have to ask yourself, just because Zeller is open, is the lane to throw the ball open? Is there a UK player who will get there in time to poke the ball away from Zeller as he caught it (this happened at least 4-5 times last night, Zeller would be passed the ball and he would not be strong enough with it.)

      Cody is good, Cody is very mature, but that win last night was about a lot more than Cody, and I honestly didn't see a whole lot from the first 35 minutes to suggest that getting Cody the ball a more significant amount would have made it some easy 10+ point win. This was freakin' Kentucky we were playing! The fact we won at all was impressive. And let's not act like those handful of 10 point leads we had were built completely on the back of Cody. Watford, Oladipo, and Jones were getting a healthy dose of one on one opportunities the entire game. Kentucky was going to make a run, that was a given. Regardless of who we ran the ball through offensively.

      If there's one thing to pick on last night, it might actulaly be the lack of help D that was given to Hulls over the last 4 or 5 minutes. Hulls was clearly gassed and his quickness disadvantage was amplified, he needed help, and didn't get it.

      Not trying to be chippy, at least about this, just calling it as I see it. I don't think feeding Zeller is as easy as some of you are suggesting it would have been, and I don't think feeding him would have given us some huge edge either based on how the game was going. We were playing one of the best defensive teams in the country last night and the bread and butter of their defense is their post D.

      We won last night because we were able to destroy their perimeter D, we had at least 2 other 3s (one from Sheehey and one from Watford) from the exact spot Watford hit the game winning 3. That was the coaching move from Crean that wasn't getting enough recognition. Calipari's teams have always struggled defending the 3 due to their aggressiveness and the fact that he doesn't switch a whole lot off screens, he trusts the quickness of his team to get by the screen in time. But if you have a very good screener, like Zeller is, setting the screen Calipari coached teams will give you a lot of open perimeter looks, which is how we won last night. Heck, Zeller set the screen at half court to get Jones free on the last play.

      I'm really not chippy, I just don't see feeding Zeller the ball as the end all, be all way to use him. Maybe next year when we have Yogi AND Hulls that will be more realistic. But right now, like we saw last night, Zeller can be very effective as a decoy and as a screener. Not to say we shouldn't try and get him the ball at all, but also to say that he is not clearly our first scoring option at this point. Especially with the fact that HUlls is really our only good passer, and last night Kidd-Gilchrist was making it virtually impossible for Hulls to throw an effective entry pass. Who else can even attempt to the throw that pass consistently at this point? Jones? Oladipo? Sheehey? It's just not our strong suit right now. Zeller will get his 10-15 points every game, so I'm just not that concerned about it.
      Last edited by Trader Joe; 12-11-2011, 03:41 PM.


      Comment


      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        That was the coaching move from Crean that wasn't getting enough recognition. Calipari's teams have always struggled defending the 3 due to their aggressiveness and the fact that he doesn't switch a whole lot off screens, he trusts the quickness of his team to get by the screen in time. But if you have a very good screener, like Zeller is, setting the screen Calipari coached teams will give you a lot of open perimeter looks, which is how we won last night. Heck, Zeller set the screen at half court to get Jones free on the last play.
        Abso-freakin-lutely. We had the game on during the family Christmas party and my dad's cousin's husband said almost exactly this was the key to beating Kentucky.

        For the record, when your grand-aunt is asking to turn the game on INSTEAD of the XM Christmas Carol channel, its time to turn the game on!
        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

        Comment


        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          I may be in the minority around the nation but I love how coach Cal coaches. He coaches aggressiveness on defense and offense he is really a good coach IMO. Not gonna lie if I was a top recruit I would want to play for him . But I do understand why people dont like him.

          Heard him do an interview a few years ago after he had gotten DRose. Said he tells his players that if they play defense for him, he'll let them play offense. It's a pretty interesting tactic, and the fact that he can get kids to do just that is pretty amazing.

          But he's still a cheater.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            I've never bought into him. He was basically an unheard of recruit til Calipari decided to offer him to come to UK and he shot up the boards. He's a very good athlete, but he needs a whole lot of discipline on both ends of the court.
            Because he grew 10inches last year, and went from a 6'1" PG to a 6'11" athletic freak of nature.

            For all intents and purposes, he's a blank sheet of paper.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Does anyone else think the IU-UK game was way better when they had it in Indy and Louisville?

              I went to a few of them at the Dome and it was always such an enjoyable day. The city was decorated for Christmas and there were thousands of IU and UK fans everywhere. And it was classic how half the Dome was red and the other half blue. It would be great if they had it at Lucas and the new Yum Center and Louisville.

              I just thought it was great how fans of both schools were able to go to the game when it was a neutral site. It added to the intense atmosphere. It would have been enjoyable to see thousands of depressed UK fans after last night's result had that game been played at Lucas.
              I couldn't possibly disagree anymore with this post.

              The games sucked at neutral sites. Half the fun of college basketball is the atmosphere, and you won't find any better atmospheres than Assembly Hall and Rupp Arena for a rivalry game. Neutral sites neutered the fun of it. It took so much away from the atmosphere. And yes, I attended IU/UK games both at the RCA Dome and Assembly Hall. There is no comparison, even without the theatrics of last night.

              Comment


              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                I've never bought into him. He was basically an unheard of recruit til Calipari decided to offer him to come to UK and he shot up the boards. He's a very good athlete, but he needs a whole lot of discipline on both ends of the court.
                That's not entirely accurate. He was unheard until the summer before his senior year because he was only a skinny, 6'2 guard. When he grew almost a foot, still possessed guard skills, and became a defensive force, he shot up the rankings. IU actually offered him before UK did.

                Comment


                • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Because he grew 10inches last year, and went from a 6'1" PG to a 6'11" athletic freak of nature.

                  For all intents and purposes, he's a blank sheet of paper.
                  My bad. Didn't see this before I posted mine. Beat me to it.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    That's not entirely accurate. He was unheard until the summer before his senior year because he was only a skinny, 6'2 guard. When he grew almost a foot, still possessed guard skills, and became a defensive force, he shot up the rankings. IU actually offered him before UK did.
                    Sounds like what happended to David Robinson.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Maybe not. I'm just saying that I think the rivalry had more flare when it was at a neutral site with the attendance split 50/50 between the fanbases.

                      The fact that you had thousands of IU and UK fans sitting in the same gym together was something else. Each side would try to be louder than the other. There was nothing like it in the 90's when both programs were on top. Being in downtown Indy before an IU/UK game and seeing all the blue and red sweatshirts was an awesome experience. I never went to one in Louisville, but the atmosphere there always looked the same too, except that Freedom Hall was obviously much smaller than the Dome. But you still had a split gym and that's what counted.

                      Yeah, Assembly Hall is special. But we play games there all year. IU/UK is a one of a kind rivalry and playing it on a neutral court met that it wasn't just like any other game. There was something to be said about having a massive RCA Dome split 50/50 between UK and IU fans. The fact that both fanbases had to be in the same gym added to the venom. Whoever won would be cheering in the concourses after the game while the other side was visibly irate and looked like they wanted to hit someone. That's a true rivalry right there. Now? It's just like any other home game, IE it's almost 100% IU fans (or 100% UK fans at Rupp). Beating UK at Assembly Hall is obviously a magical experience and last night will stay with us forever, but having no UK fans around to gloat to makes it a bit less intense than it would have been in the old days.

                      The IU-UK fans don't get to interact in the same gym anymore. That's what sucks about it. It hurts the rivalry.

                      It was awesome winning that at Assembly Hall, but can you imagine the intensity had that been at Lucas? Seeing the looks on the UK fans' faces would have been priceless. Now if you're a fan of the visiting team you are an outcast.
                      The rivalry had more flare when we played at neutral sites because both teams were actually good then. The only reason the rivalry has waned is because IU as a program has waned.

                      The bolded part is what completely baffles me. The intensity wouldn't have been anywhere NEAR what it was last night if the game had been at Lucas. By all accounts, the atmosphere of last night's game (even from non-IU fans/national reporters) was part of what made it so damn special. The win at Lucas wouldn't have been as fulfilling. The crowd wouldn't have been near as good.

                      My friend and I actually had this very discussion last night. Both of us were thanking everything sacred and holy in life that they decided to end the neutral site crap. The games on campus are much, much better to go to.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                        Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                        Sounds like what happended to David Robinson.
                        And Jeff Foster. Which is why I think he's the rebounder that he is. As a small guard, you have to rely on other ways to rebound, like tracking them down and beating people in a foot race to the ball. Learning that skill early on really benefited him, considering that's the sole reason why he's been in the NBA as long as he has.

                        Davis is in the same boat. He's learning to play the game from a completely new POV. Of course, he's going to have his ups and downs.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                          Oh, I know why he wasn't highly regarded, I'm just saying there are still some major question marks about the guy.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                            I know. But his shows flashes of stardom without having a clue as to what he's doing. It's all natural instinct, and he's playing a brand new game of basketball for the first time in his life. All his experiences are going to be completely different.

                            So they're just chomping at the bit to see what he can do when he actually understands what he's supposed to do. I think they're assuming he's going to be able to understand the post game once he gets experience through playing.

                            They always drool over athletic talent first, because everyone thinks they can teach basketball. The old saying of "You can't teach height" has just carried over to meaning "run/jump/throw." They see his athletic abilities along with the fact he's practically clueless and it turns into a wet dream.

                            EDIT: And as I type that last bit, Tim Tebow leads Denver to a game tying FG against the Bears. Talk about not being able to teach winning as a skill. He might change the argument about winning not being one.
                            Last edited by Since86; 12-11-2011, 08:03 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                              I'm still glowing. How the hell am I supposed to work this week? Better yet--how are any of the students going to be able to take finals? My god I can't imagine studying with the way my brain has been the past 24 hours.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                                Also, is there any doubt after last night what fan base knows how to bring it better than anyone else? Assembly Hall really was a force of nature last night, Calipari basically said as much in his post game presser, had to really eat at those UK fans to hear that.
                                Last edited by Trader Joe; 12-11-2011, 09:15 PM.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X