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 Mackey_Rose View Post
    Clark Kellogg is roughly 5000 times better than Quinn Buckner.
    Seems conservative.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

      Maybe it's just because of how much I enjoy the NBA 2K series, but any time I hear Clark broadcasting a game I will stop and watch the entire thing. He's my favorite.

      Comment


      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Kellogg played at OSU from 1979-82. They went 33-21 in the Big 10 during those three seasons. That's a 61% winning percentage. He went 2-4 against IU in those three years. Several of the games were very close. Two of the losses against IU occurred in the 81 season when IU ended up winning the championship. Kellogg's Big 10 resume' is far from embarrassing. Also, he made the Sweet 16 his freshman year.
        That's a clever way of saying that the man played in two total NCAA tourney/ NBA playoff games in his career. Both as a freshman in college. And Clark was playing third-fiddle to a pair of future first-round draft picks on that team. (Note the interesting thing of that Big Ten season - the third and fourth place teams, Iowa and Purdue, both made the Final Four at Market Square whereas IU and Ohio State lost earlier in the tournament.)

        The next season, his sophomore season and after Kelvin Ransey had turned pro (#4 overall pick), Ohio State's starting front court was? Yes - the preview for the horrific Pacers teams in the mid-80s when Herb Williams and Clark Kellogg teamed up to go 9-9 against the Big Ten. It certainly puts all those 20-win seasons in perspective. Clark gets hurt, Rifleman steps in as a rookie and presto - 0.500 and the playoffs.

        I'll give you that they went 12-6 in '82 and finished in a three-way tie for second after Herb left. I'd also suggest that was one of the weakest seasons in Big Ten history.

        And I was wrong: Ohio State lost one tournament game that season, too. So Clark has played in a total of three NCAA tournament/ NBA playoff games in his career.


        He's very articulate as an announcer. Lots of cute phrases. Can explain things well to a casual fan. I haven't been a fan of his. Not at Ohio State, it was hard to cheer for him with the Pacers, and I don't want to hear him as an announcer. But he was a stat sheet stuffer extraordinaire.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
          Seems conservative.

          That's okay. Especially for home games, I use my audio league pass on my iPhone and listen to Mark and Slick. Usually during my train ride home from the office.

          Problem solved.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

            Good god, was there ever Victor Oladipo. He's known as one of the country's best defenders, but it's almost a crime when the accolades stop there. Because yes, he's a defensive genius, so much so that he should win Big Ten defensive player of the year over Craft, who, let's face it, does get away with a lot of body contact because he's Aaron Craft. But defense alone doesn't begin to tell the Oladipo story. Did you know he has the 24th-highest offensive rating in the country? Or the sixth-highest effective field goal percentage? Or that he's an excellent offensive rebounder, can get to the line almost at will, and has turned his former weakness, 3-point shooting, into a 52.6 percent strength?
            But even the stats don't go far enough. He's become so fluid, so skilled, so smooth, that in conjunction with his athleticism, it almost makes sense that Dick Vitale compared him to Michael Jordan. I know, I KNOW, but when he puts the juke on a defender, gets to the lane, and starts to rise for one of his soul-reviving jams, it really ****ing looks like Michael Jordan. Maybe it's because he's so skinny, with the same long flailing limbs and the twitchy quickness. It gives you a reluctant déjà vu, and yes, you want to shy from the comparison because it feels inherently absurd. But it's there, man. It's there.
            http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...els-ohio-state


            Comment


            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

              Of course OSU considered IU a big rival. In those days, the record attendance game for every arena in the entire Big Ten was for a game against IU.

              If you were hosting IU there was huge buildup on your campus and you probably considered it a rivalry even if you lost all the time. Wisconsin probably considered IU a main rival since they forced triple overtime in 1987 (and lost), and they lost consistently before and after that, until recently. When the opponent is top dog, you see the opponent as a rival, even if your opponent sees you as a pissant
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                Just confirmed, IU will remain number 1 for this week
                IU
                Duke
                Miami
                Gonzaga
                Michigan

                Hi Haters


                Comment


                • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  Of course OSU considered IU a big rival. In those days, the record attendance game for every arena in the entire Big Ten was for a game against IU.

                  If you were hosting IU there was huge buildup on your campus and you probably considered it a rivalry even if you lost all the time. Wisconsin probably considered IU a main rival since they forced triple overtime in 1987 (and lost), and they lost consistently before and after that, until recently. When the opponent is top dog, you see the opponent as a rival, even if your opponent sees you as a pissant
                  Actual conversation between me and some Chicago kids my freshman year of college (winter of 1989). Nick Anderson hits a forty-footer at the buzzer to win in Bloomington.

                  Those clowns are dancing around the dorm lounge in Upland celebrating the win over thier "biggest rival". (Which is funny, because I would have ranked Purdue, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio State, and perhaps Notre Dame as signficantly bigger rivals than Illinois.)

                  Finally I said to them, "In 13 years, Lou is 3-23 against IU. You aren't a rival, you are team we expect to beat twice each season. Get back to me when it is at least closer to 0.500 like Purdue, Kentucky and Michigan are."

                  Now the situation has been different over the past decade. I suspect Wisconsin might be thinking the same of us now that we used to think of Illinois.

                  But the point is still valid.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                    https://twitter.com/indystar_hutch/s...14191412752384

                    Pollsters appear to have been very conflicted in choosing No. 1. IU got 26 first place votes, Duke had 20, Miami with 17 and Gonzaga with 2.
                    Gonzaga with 2 votes, hmm. An interesting vote to be sure.
                    Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                      I'm going to hate myself for talking up Victor so much because it will probably jinx his chances at the next level, but my God, that Grantland piece nails it.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                        The amazing thing about it is I don't think any of us saw it coming with Victor. We have loved his energy for a long time, and frankly last year half the mentions of him were "Sheeladipo" referring to the boost of energy we all felt when either or both of those guys were on the court.

                        But from the low recruiting rankings to his so-so basketball skills as a freshman to his stellar play that emerged last year that still lacked a jump shot, I don't think I ever recall such a late bloomer. I guess it brings to mind Brad Miller, who never bloomed at all until getting to the NBA undrafted, then became an all-star. But from going to "yeah, I think he can start for IU" to "lottery pick" in 4 months is unreal.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                          I wonder how many times the #1 team has lost and retained the ranking. It can't be that often at all, can it?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                            Duke #1 in coaches poll, IU #2, Gonzaga #3, Miami #4

                            http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/polls/

                            One explanation is that most coaches have their ballots filled out and submitted before the Sunday games are played.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                              Wow I'm shocked we fell behind Duke in the coaches poll.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                                Wow, #3 is too high for Miami. I know they put a beating on Duke, but they haven't really beaten anyone else of note, and they are only barely squeaking by bad teams on the road. Feels like a case of overcompensation for them not being ranked in the preseason.

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Just confirmed, IU will remain number 1 for this week
                                IU
                                Duke
                                Miami
                                Gonzaga
                                Michigan

                                Hi Haters

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X