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 hoosierguy View Post
    I never venture into the other threads in this sub-forum and give fans **** when their teams lose but apparently it's just fine for Butler, Kentucky, and Purdue fans to troll after a RARE IU loss.

    I don't care about Butler or Purdue but it's quite obvious that Butler and Purdue fans are obsessed with IU and every aspect of its basketball program.
    You are a real hero and model for all of us to aspire to be.

    Comment


    • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

      Meh?


      Comment


      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
        Does he also have an astonishingly awesome lack of self awareness?
        The condescending tone, pot-shots at Butler/Stevens and inability to pick up on sarcasm made him easy to spot.

        Comment


        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

          I still don't think that Zeller will make an immediate impact in the NBA. He just does not have an NBA body right now. Mbwake was abusing him. Can you imagine Zeller going up against the Pacers' front court?

          Comment


          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

            I just can't work myself up over this loss at all. I am so indifferent towards it.

            That Michigan State game told me everything I need to know about this team when the chips are down. I don't care that they got caught a little flat footed after a week off.


            Comment


            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              I just can't work myself up over this loss at all. I am so indifferent towards it.

              That Michigan State game told me everything I need to know about this team when the chips are down. I don't care that they got caught a little flat footed after a week off.
              But weren't the chips down last night? We're playing for a Big 10 championship. That was a very important game.

              We play great against elite competition like Michigan, MSU, or OSU, but we seem to have a problem playing down against teams that aren't as hyped such as Illinois, Minnesota, or Butler. That pattern worries me in a Sweet 16 game against a non-elite team. I worry that someone could catch us off guard.

              Comment


              • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                I mean of course the chips are down in every B1G game, but at the same time, I can see why we lost, a week lay off after the biggest win in the past decade maybe for IU in terms of just wow did that really happen and damn this team is for real for real. Minny needed that game, they've been stewing since BTown. I don't know I just can't get worked up. Usually I would be, but what can I say. I just didn't really care about that game. We're still up a game in the most difficult conference in America.


                Comment


                • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  I mean of course the chips are down in every B1G game, but at the same time, I can see why we lost, a week lay off after the biggest win in the past decade maybe for IU in terms of just wow did that really happen and damn this team is for real for real. Minny needed that game, they've been stewing since BTown. I don't know I just can't get worked up. Usually I would be, but what can I say. I just didn't really care about that game. We're still up a game in the most difficult conference in America.
                  I don't think it really matters in the long run. As long as they don't lose either of their remaining home games, which I don't think they will, they still should be in line for the #1 seed in Indy.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                    I have rarely been disappointed with Cody, but last night we needed him to hang with Mbwake and to just abuse Mbwake's backup stiff, and it didn't happen in the least. Part of it was not getting him the ball, part of it was him not getting in position to get the ball in a place to do damage. Watford not really showing up until the last minute didn't help either. I never thought we'd get beat on the boards like THAT. Plus we get into ruts where we don't take care of the ball, which really was a key both at Illinois, at Minnesota, and home vs. Wisconsin. Just a forgettable night. I think another Gopher 60% free throw shooter just rattled in two more free throws...
                    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

                      Minnesota shot a horrendous 4-20 from beyond the arc. This could have been much worse.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Minnesota shot a horrendous 4-20 from beyond the arc. This could have been much worse.
                        Except for the fact that they got the offensive rebounds on the 16 shots that they missed! OK, I'm exaggerating, but how many times did it look like there was going to be a shot clock violation but they threw up an unanswered prayer, and then got an offensive rebound? Yuck...
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-27-2013, 02:47 PM.
                        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

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          I still don't think that Zeller will make an immediate impact in the NBA. He just does not have an NBA body right now. Mbwake was abusing him. Can you imagine Zeller going up against the Pacers' front court?
                          Freaking Elliot Eliason was abusing him.


                          This is why the NBA drives me crazy sometimes. They're all about drafting on potential now and don't even care if said prospects are polished enough to compete at the next level. We might lose Zeller prematurely because of the "win now" and "all about potential" mentality that's taken over the sport. We wouldn't be the first, either, and that's why the quality of NBA basketball has taken such a nosedive the last couple decades.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                            Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
                            Freaking Elliot Eliason was abusing him.


                            This is why the NBA drives me crazy sometimes. They're all about drafting on potential now and don't even care if said prospects are polished enough to compete at the next level. We might lose Zeller prematurely because of the "win now" and "all about potential" mentality that's taken over the sport. We wouldn't be the first, either, and that's why the quality of NBA basketball has taken such a nosedive the last couple decades.
                            I don't agree with that at all. Unless you meant to say the quality of NCAA basketball has taken a nosedive.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2012-2013

                              The bottom line is that players leave college before they are dominant college players, hurting the college game, arriving in the NBA before they are ready to contribute there, which hurts the NBA game as they have to learn on the job. Thus I think both have suffered from early entry.
                              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

                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                The bottom line is that players leave college before they are dominant college players, hurting the college game, arriving in the NBA before they are ready to contribute there, which hurts the NBA game as they have to learn on the job. Thus I think both have suffered from early entry.
                                I don't agree. I think the NBA is as strong right now, as it ever has been. Is every rookie coming into the league ready to contribute? No, but a lot of them are, and spending at least 1 season at the college level doesn't really seem to make any difference.

                                Of the 25 (counting Rondo) 2013 All-Stars, there were 5 players who came straight out of high school. LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, and Tyson Chandler all never spent 1 minute playing college basketball. Are they worse as NBA players for it? I'm not sure you can make that argument.

                                7 more of the All-Stars spent just 1 year in college, a few of whom did so only because the rules changed and they couldn't join those 5 high schoolers. Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, Chris Bosh, Luol Deng, Jrue Holiday, and Zach Randolph left after one season of college basketball. Durant, Irving, and Holiday almost assuredly didn't need that year that was forced on them.

                                There were 9 All-Stars who spent 2 years playing in college. Rajon Rondo, Dwyane Wade, Paul George, Brook Lopez, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, LaMarcus Aldridge, James Harden, and Russell Westbrook have all had a pretty good impact on the NBA game early into their careers.

                                Joakim Noah is the only 2013 All-Star who spent 3 years in school. Tim Duncan and David Lee are the only All-Stars who used all 4 years of their eligibility. Tony Parker played professionally in France.

                                21 out of the 25 All-Stars came into the league as underclassmen or high school players. I'm failing to see how letting players start getting paid to do something that someone is willing to pay them for, is making the league worse.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X