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 2012-2013

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

  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

    Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
    If I'm an NBA GM I would rather draft Oladipo than Zeller.

    I said last April that while I liked it selfishly as a fan, I feared that Zeller was making a mistake by coming back. I'm starting to think that more and more. There is no way I could justify taking him in the top-3.

    While he isn't nearly the ball handler and is probably not quite as good a shooter, I see a lot of Dwyane Wade's college game in Oladipo this year.
    Yeah Zeller has really shown the same game that he had last year--which is a very good game but I have not seen anything that would make me want to take him even in the top 5 of a draft. He seems like a really solid 7-12 type of pick. Oladipo is just a terror on the court. I love watching that guy wreak havoc out there.

    Comment


    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      Yeah Zeller has really shown the same game that he had last year--which is a very good game but I have not seen anything that would make me want to take him even in the top 5 of a draft. He seems like a really solid 7-12 type of pick. Oladipo is just a terror on the court. I love watching that guy wreak havoc out there.
      My favorite thing about Oladipo, is that on a team that has shown a very real tendency to play listless, lazy basketball, he plays with 100% effort at all times. Amazing motor.

      Comment


      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        Yeah Zeller has really shown the same game that he had last year--which is a very good game but I have not seen anything that would make me want to take him even in the top 5 of a draft. He seems like a really solid 7-12 type of pick. Oladipo is just a terror on the court. I love watching that guy wreak havoc out there.
        You guys are now saying what I said before the season started. Zeller is not a franchise center and will likely be a career backup or a starter on a not very good team.....

        Comment


        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

          Smith owned Zeller in that Butler game. He didn't let him have anything on the glass. Zeller is going to have to bulk up a lot and improve his skills if he wants to be a quality NBA player.

          Comment


          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            Smith owned Zeller in that Butler game. He didn't let him have anything on the glass. Zeller is going to have to bulk up a lot and improve his skills if he wants to be a quality NBA player.
            I disagree with this. Zeller is not going to be a back to the basket offensive player and he's not going to be defending the post in the NBA. He needs to get stronger because, despite the summer hype tweets and pictures, he is still really weak but he doesn't need to bulk up considerably. His future is as a 4 in the NBA. You are right about his skills. He needs a jumper. He needs to be able to handle the ball a little bit. He's skilled, but hasn't shown much of a floor game yet.

            Of course, a couple of years ago I was also somebody who said I thought Andrew Smith would have a decent shot to be an NBA player so what do I know? He hasn't developed nearly like I thought he would. Decent college player though.
            Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 01-02-2013, 04:33 PM.
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment


            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              Especially at Carver-Hawkeye. We have had some mighty struggles winning there over the years, and I think this year's Iowa team is sneaky good. That crowd was pretty boisterous yesterday as well. It wasn't pretty, we didn't play particularly well, but I am pretty satisfied with that win.
              After watching Illinois get housed by Purdue for the last 5 minutes of that game last night, how can you not be happy with that Iowa win? I think it was Stein or Katz who pointed out how good that Iowa win was looking so far. No offense to Purdue, but I think the Hawkeyes are a superior team this year and maybe next year as well depending on the development of Hammons.

              It will be interesting to see how this B1G season goes. I'm beginning to think that 13-5 in conference play may take the regular season title outright this year.


              Comment


              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                Well we should get wins at Purdue and PSU pretty easily. Assuming we hold serve at home that will give us 12 wins. Going to need to get some tougher wins on the road for sure. We play alot of good teams in their house this year.
                Get to skip Wisconsin though which is always nice even if this is a down year for them.


                Comment


                • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                  Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                  If I'm an NBA GM I would rather draft Oladipo than Zeller.

                  I said last April that while I liked it selfishly as a fan, I feared that Zeller was making a mistake by coming back. I'm starting to think that more and more. There is no way I could justify taking him in the top-3.

                  While he isn't nearly the ball handler and is probably not quite as good a shooter, I see a lot of Dwyane Wade's college game in Oladipo this year.
                  Yeah....They are really creepy in how they have developed, Crean knows how to work with really athletic but raw 2s, that is for sure. The crossover Vic had in the lane against Iowa would have never happened two years ago, and last year it still would have been a turnover a decent part of the time, but now his handles are really tight and we all know that Vic knows how to finish much like Wade always did.

                  Zeller is an interesting case, I agree that he has probably already dropped out of the top 3, but I kind of expected that. I think most are being way too hard on him. I mean against Iowa everyone was talking like he was just not even impacting the game and he had 19 and 10 which isn't exactly peanuts in the Big Ten.


                  Comment


                  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                    RE: What does Zeller need to do to get better?

                    I see two things that are really big right now.

                    1.) He needs to be more willing to create contact when he goes to the basket. He still too often takes a passive stance when he makes a move to the basket, I don't know if he is looking for the whistle or what, but the guy needs to learn that he is playing against other 6'10" to 7' dudes now and that they are not going to go flying like ragdolls if he bodies them up. I think he is too concerned with getting whistled for a foul. One of the best plays he's made this seaosn was the late bucket against Butler where he went strong with it and yes the defender fell down, but the refs respected Zeller's move and did not blow the whistle.

                    2.) The next thing that bothers the F out of me is that Zeller does not adjust to entry passes. This resulted in probably 3-5 turnovers against Iowa. He is so intent on keeping his position once he establishes it that he will not move his butt out of the post once he gets in there even if the entry pass is not perfect. He needs to learn that even if he has to give up some inside position to come get the ball it is better than a turnover and it actually opens up a great backcut opportunity for Oladipo, Sheehey, or Watford, or heck even Perea. The defense will follow Zeller when he comes to the ball and that should open a path in the paint for one of those guys to get down and I think Zeller can make the pass. I hope Crean realizes this and tries to make an adjustment to coach Cody on this.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                      The Big Ten is going to be wild this year. How many games do you guys think we will lose in conference? If the over/under was set at 4.5, which would you take? Our schedule is ridiculously back loaded in B1G play, which sort of worries me. I think getting Hollowell and Perea minutes early in the B1G against teams like Pennsylvania State will be key to building their confidence, because we are going to need them.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                        Ideally I would like to go 14-4, but I think 13-5 will probably win the conference. I would like to go 3-2 in our big road game from February 1 on.


                        Comment


                        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                          I would have to believe that between OSU, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, and IU, at least one of that group is going to go 14-4 or better in conference. Hopefully it's IU. When you have 5 teams capable of winning at a high level, someone is going to come through with fewer losses than the others and I think it's going to take more than 13-5 to get it done. I know they're gonna beat up on each other but I just think there are too many contenders for one of them not to separate themselves.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                            13-5 got it done last year and the conference wasn't this tough.


                            Comment


                            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                              To me that's a reason to believe it will take a better record to win it, not the same record.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                                Huh? The conference is much deeper than last year is what I mean. So that should in theory mean a similar number of losses should win it. I think 14-4 could take the conference outright but I don't know if anyone will get there.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X