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

Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

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

  • #16
    Re: Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

    Maybe espn will stop slobbering all over the Big East when they make the move. The BE has had some great regular season teams and epic conference tournament battles, but it has been very unimpressive in March, Kemba nothwithstanding.

    The B1G may never win the challenge again. I just hope the ACC makes Pitt play Wisky every year.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

      How is winning 3 national titles as a conference since 2003 not impressive? Heck, the Big Ten and the Pac 10 don't even have 1 in that same time period.


      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

        If I was the Big Ten Commish, and I'm watching from afar as the Big 12 apparently survives yet again, I would immediately invite Kansas, Kansas State, and one other Big 12 school, maybe Missouri or Iowa State, and hope that those three, plus Nebraska already in the fold, plus the Big East going to be at least three teams down soon, is enough to Entice Notre Dame to finally align with a conference for all sports. That would get the Big 10 to 16 teams, getting two solid basketball programs and the Holy Grail of football programs in the process, with the added bonus of finally putting the Big 12 out of its misery. Something like that is the Big 10 style too, fitting right in to their style of unexpected moves. It would come completely out of left field. I think Kansas would accept the invite pretty easily and K State is going to go wherever they go. Convincing Missouri or Iowa State would be the hard one, especially if Missouri is talking to the SEC. Iowa State isn't a bad consolation prize though, especially if it gets you Notre Dame.
        Last edited by travmil; 09-25-2011, 03:25 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          How is winning 3 national titles as a conference since 2003 not impressive? Heck, the Big Ten and the Pac 10 don't even have 1 in that same time period.
          The Big East has obviously produced some great teams. The moniker is always "best conference from top to bottom." I think that given (1) the number of teams in the BE, (2) the number of teams that get invitations, and (3) the general perception of the league as having numerous contenders every year, they have underperformed in the tournament. When your conference puts in 11 teams and only 2 make the SS and 1 the EE, the hype machine was out of control.

          If you're looking only at best outcomes, they do fine, though they are well behind the ACC and barely ahead of the SEC.

          travmil: I'm hoping the ACC can pry Penn State from the B1G and add Notre Dame. With the addition of Pitt and Syracuse, the ACC's inevitable northern division seems to be a better home for those teams than the B1G. Its a long shot, since ND will only forgo its independence if four super conferences emerge and they are potentially going to miss out on a football playoff. That won't happen unless the Big 12 implodes, which looks unlikely now.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

            But the Big 12 would implode if the Big 10 did what I said and invited Kansas and K-State. Those two in the Big 10 plus one other destroys the Big 12 and forces ND to conference up.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

              Originally posted by judicata View Post
              travmil: I'm hoping the ACC can pry Penn State from the B1G and add Notre Dame. With the addition of Pitt and Syracuse, the ACC's inevitable northern division seems to be a better home for those teams than the B1G. Its a long shot, since ND will only forgo its independence if four super conferences emerge and they are potentially going to miss out on a football playoff. That won't happen unless the Big 12 implodes, which looks unlikely now.
              I cannot see PSU leaving the Big Ten for the ACC. All the money is in the Big Ten. Our culture fits the Big Ten. Also, the Big Ten is an excellent academic conference and that actually plays a huge role for Penn State. I really can't see PSU leaving the B1G.


              Originally posted by travmil View Post
              If I was the Big Ten Commish, and I'm watching from afar as the Big 12 apparently survives yet again, I would immediately invite Kansas, Kansas State, and one other Big 12 school, maybe Missouri or Iowa State, and hope that those three, plus Nebraska already in the fold, plus the Big East going to be at least three teams down soon, is enough to Entice Notre Dame to finally align with a conference for all sports. That would get the Big 10 to 16 teams, getting two solid basketball programs and the Holy Grail of football programs in the process, with the added bonus of finally putting the Big 12 out of its misery. Something like that is the Big 10 style too, fitting right in to their style of unexpected moves. It would come completely out of left field. I think Kansas would accept the invite pretty easily and K State is going to go wherever they go. Convincing Missouri or Iowa State would be the hard one, especially if Missouri is talking to the SEC. Iowa State isn't a bad consolation prize though, especially if it gets you Notre Dame.
              Missouri to the B1G has been rumored for the past few years. I didn't see the Mizzou to SEC rumor though. I think the Big 12 can collapse in an instant with all the rumors about Texas swirling around. If Texas leaves, Oklahoma will too. And that will kill the Big 12. I hope the B1G would go after Kansas and K-State at that point.

              I think sooner than later, the big 6 conferences will be down to 4, SEC, B1G, Pac 72, and the ACC. I just don't see the Big East surviving the loss of Pitt and Cuse. When will TCU announce they aren't joining the Big East?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

                I don't see PSU leaving for the ACC either, it is certainly a long shot.

                I don't see the B1G taking the Kansas schools. They do not fit the academic profile, and unlike Nebraska, bring nothing to the football table.

                In fact, taking the Kansas schools will probably force ND to the ACC and is probably the only way the ACC gets Penn State. It has been widely reported that ND prefers the ACC to the B1G and will look there for conference affiliation first. If the B1G dilutes its academic profile with the Kansas schools AND the ACC gets ND, Penn State might tag along.

                But, as you have noted, it is a long shot. B1G money and football is better historically and better now.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

                  The Big Ten will do no more expanding, and it certainly won't be raided by the ACC.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

                    Originally posted by judicata View Post
                    The Big East has obviously produced some great teams. The moniker is always "best conference from top to bottom." I think that given (1) the number of teams in the BE, (2) the number of teams that get invitations, and (3) the general perception of the league as having numerous contenders every year, they have underperformed in the tournament. When your conference puts in 11 teams and only 2 make the SS and 1 the EE, the hype machine was out of control.

                    If you're looking only at best outcomes, they do fine, though they are well behind the ACC and barely ahead of the SEC.

                    travmil: I'm hoping the ACC can pry Penn State from the B1G and add Notre Dame. With the addition of Pitt and Syracuse, the ACC's inevitable northern division seems to be a better home for those teams than the B1G. Its a long shot, since ND will only forgo its independence if four super conferences emerge and they are potentially going to miss out on a football playoff. That won't happen unless the Big 12 implodes, which looks unlikely now.
                    The reason, IMO, the Big East struggles in the Big tournament is style of play.

                    In the words of Geno Auriemma, the Big East plays "mug and thug" basketball. Because of this, it is simply the hardest basketball (or was) league to play in. And I'm actually interested in seeing Syracuse, and especially Pitt play and adjust in the ACC.

                    Against each other, they get away with it. However, that's not the style of play in the NCAA tournament that tends to win.

                    Still, the ninth best Big East team won the NCAA championship last season, and two years ago was half of the Final four. It hasn't exactly done poorly.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

                      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                      The reason, IMO, the Big East struggles in the Big tournament is style of play.

                      In the words of Geno Auriemma, the Big East plays "mug and thug" basketball. Because of this, it is simply the hardest basketball (or was) league to play in. And I'm actually interested in seeing Syracuse, and especially Pitt play and adjust in the ACC.

                      Against each other, they get away with it. However, that's not the style of play in the NCAA tournament that tends to win.

                      Still, the ninth best Big East team won the NCAA championship last season, and two years ago was half of the Final four. It hasn't exactly done poorly.
                      Cuse will be fine, although I'm sure that team in Durham is just salivating at the thought of getting open looks from behind the arc all game long.

                      Pitt was the Big East's poster child for ugly, physical basketball. They will hate playing the fainting goats at Duke more than anyone else. I'm also curious to see if they have the athletes and depth in the post to get up and down with Carolina. Otherwise, the traditional ACC powers of Wake, Maryland, NC State, and Georgia Tech have been bad. FSU is up, but they play like they're in the Big East anyway.

                      I also would not call Kemba's Huskies the 9th best team in the conference by any stretch. They did win the conference tournament, after all.

                      I'm also not going to agree that the Big East's MMA style of hoops is holding it back in the tournament. The Big East style of play is a symptom of the athletes they get and the systems they run, not a diagnosis in itself.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC, done deal apparently

                        Originally posted by judicata View Post
                        Cuse will be fine, although I'm sure that team in Durham is just salivating at the thought of getting open looks from behind the arc all game long.

                        Pitt was the Big East's poster child for ugly, physical basketball. They will hate playing the fainting goats at Duke more than anyone else. I'm also curious to see if they have the athletes and depth in the post to get up and down with Carolina. Otherwise, the traditional ACC powers of Wake, Maryland, NC State, and Georgia Tech have been bad. FSU is up, but they play like they're in the Big East anyway.

                        I also would not call Kemba's Huskies the 9th best team in the conference by any stretch. They did win the conference tournament, after all.

                        I'm also not going to agree that the Big East's MMA style of hoops is holding it back in the tournament. The Big East style of play is a symptom of the athletes they get and the systems they run, not a diagnosis in itself.
                        The Huskies finished 9th in the regular season conference last season. Obviously, seeing as they won the conference tournament and the NCAA tournament, they weren't 9th by the end of the year. But they did finish the regular season ninth. (why they played 5 games in 5 days anyway) And to be honest, going into the Conference tournament..no one would have guessed the Huskies could do what they did.

                        I think it's coaching, not that the coaching is bad. But, when you coach all season one way, and it's "great defense" and then you get to the tournament..and suddenly "great defense" is "Foul." Teams need to adjust. And that's not the easiest thing to do instantly.

                        And that's really not to say the Big East team's don't do well. They do. Do a lot of them lose in the tournament, uh yea. But they have more teams in the tournament so more of them are going to lose.

                        But in terms of early exits, I think this is a major reason. (Especially Pitt) Ugly offense and "great defense" that ends up being a foul (because it is. I actually hate Big East basketball. Calhoun's offense drives me batty, although Uconn tends to not foul as much as other teams, because instead of being strong, they are tall and fast.) in the post season.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X