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 gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

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

  • Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3243325

    Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

    By Andy Katz
    ESPN.com

    Updated: February 13, 2008, 1:15 AM ET

    The NCAA sent a notice of allegations to Indiana University last Friday detailing major violations in the men's basketball program, multiple sources told ESPN.com.

    Larry MacIntyre, assistant vice president for university communications at Indiana University, confirmed to ESPN.com that the school did receive documentation from the NCAA last week
    The Associated Press reported on Tuesday night that the school will make the allegations public on Wednesday. University trustees president Stephen Ferguson told AP that school officials this week reviewed the report, but that the NCAA is not expected to make its ruling until this summer.

    "There won't be a hearing till this June," Ferguson told AP. "It's just been reviewed, and I think everyone is analyzing it now."

    MacIntyre said he was unable to provide any more information. But MacIntyre said he was working on providing a copy of the documentation in a request made by ESPN.com through the Freedom of Information Act.

    But ESPN.com has learned over the last week that the NCAA uncovered new information since Indiana self-reported violations under second-year head coach Kelvin Sampson in October.

    Sampson had been sanctioned after making impermissible phone calls while he was the coach at Oklahoma. Indiana then revealed more bad calls while Sampson was at IU. Multiple sources told ESPN.com that the NCAA was looking into whether Sampson did not tell the truth about those calls, resulting in the allegations of major violations.

    This new information that helped result in a major violations tag could put the season of Indiana (No. 12 ESPN/USA Today, No. 13 AP) under a cloud of uncertainty and the career of Sampson as well.

    ESPN.com made multiple efforts to reach Indiana athletic director Rick Greenspan over the past week and he never returned calls. Sampson didn't return a message Tuesday.

    Indiana will have 90 days to respond to the letter. The committee on infractions has a hearing in April, but because of the 90-day window the hearing isn't expected to take place until the June meeting. That means Indiana may not have closure on the matter until late into the summer.

    "The report came out in October, the university filed its response and there's really not been anything happening [on the board] in the last five months," Ferguson told AP. "There have not been any discussions."

    A postseason ban for the Hoosiers would only come into play if IU decided to self-impose such a measure since the committee on infractions won't meet until June. According to multiple sources, a postseason ban would only occur if there were an issue with the eligibility of any current student athletes, which ESPN.com has been told isn't an issue yet.

    The NCAA investigation came after Indiana made an announcement in October that Sampson had made 100 impermissible phone calls while he was on probation for illicit calls he made while he was the coach at Oklahoma from 2000 to 2006. During that time, he made 577 impermissible calls.

    Sampson was penalized by Oklahoma by not being allowed to travel for recruiting. Indiana imposed the same penalty in his first season at IU. He was also banned from making calls and going off campus to recruit for a calendar year. He wasn't banned from text messaging since it was allowed during that year. But it was during that year that he made the impermissible calls.

    Sampson wasn't allowed to take part in three-way calls, originated by anyone on the staff. In October, Indiana made public that former assistant Rob Senderoff initiated three-way calls. During the October news conference, Indiana said that Sampson said he was unaware he was participating on a three-way call. Senderoff, who was forced to resign, said he didn't let Sampson know he was on a three-way call, either. Prior to being forced out, Senderoff was told he couldn't recruit off campus for a year or make a phone call. The same restriction was put on Dan Dakich, who has since been moved up to an assistant position from director of basketball operations.

    Sampson was hit with more penalties by the school, forfeiting a $500,000 raise, and a scholarship was taken away from the team.

    Andy Katz is a senior writer at ESPN.com. Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.
    ------------------------

    Undoubtedly means Gordon is joining some NBA team this June.
    Last edited by Will Galen; 02-13-2008, 06:42 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

    During the October news conference, Indiana said that Sampson said he was unaware he was participating on a three-way call.
    I know nothing about this other than the obvious - IU hired a crook and found out that he's a crook - I'm shocked.

    But how can you not know you're in a 3-way call? There are two other voices talking on the phone.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

      Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
      I know nothing about this other than the obvious - IU hired a crook and found out that he's a crook - I'm shocked.

      But how can you not know you're in a 3-way call? There are two other voices talking on the phone.
      indeed, sounds like he's trying to play stupid...too late. I feel sorry or IU fans.
      If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
      [/center]
      @thatguyjoe84

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

        A major violation on top of making the impermissable calls, once before IU, and again after. I'd say this just about does it for Sampson. If I were IU, I think I'd fire him mid-season.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

          I had heard rumblings about this as early as last Monday, but kept quiet til the truth came out. I've heard many different reports about what may or may not happen but the one I find to be most likely is this, Sampson will finish coaching this season and then will be forced to resign (read as fired or let go). If IU does get rid of Sampson before the hearing in June the sanctions we would face would be minimal. Sampson, on the other hand, would probably never coach again.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

            Well say goodbye to Ebanks and say hello to more Jucos. I swear Greenspan needs fired for hiring a man with Sampson's history.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

              I don't know why you would assume that Ebanks would be going anywhere...


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

                Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                But ESPN.com has learned over the last week that the NCAA uncovered new information since Indiana self-reported violations under second-year head coach Kelvin Sampson in October.
                What does this mean, exactly? Does this means that Sampson has committed more infractions since the phone calls, or that he was caught lying about/covering up other violations that he committed (which are apparently more serious than the phone calls), or what?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

                  It appears that the allegations are more against Sampson than against IU which is probably good for us. They seem to suggest that Sampson lied to the university about the phone calls and not that the university lied to the NCAA.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

                    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0601/802130516

                    NCAA: Sampson misled IU about calls
                    By Mark Alesia
                    mark.alesia@indystar.com

                    Indiana University men's basketball coach Kelvin Sampson "repeatedly" provided "false or misleading information" to the school and NCAA investigators, according to a list of five major violations the NCAA is alleging against IU.

                    The "notice of allegations" sent to IU president Michael McRobbie on Feb. 8, and obtained by The Star today through a public records request, alleges that Sampson knowingly violated telephone recruiting restrictions and then lied about it. The restrictions were imposed because of the coach's NCAA violations while at Oklahoma.
                    Sampson "failed to deport himself … with the generally recognized high standard of honesty" and "failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the men's basketball program," according to the allegations. The cover letter was signed by David Price, NCAA vice president for enforcement.

                    IU has until May 8 to provide a written response. The letter says it's anticipated IU will be required to appear June 14 in Seattle at a hearing before the Division I Committee on Infractions.

                    According to Sampson's seven-year contract, signed in April 2006, if IU fires him for "just cause" it would owe him nothing beyond his regular compensation through that month. Among the definitions of "just cause" in Sampson's contract is "a significant, intentional, repetitive violation of any law, rule (or) regulation" of the NCAA.

                    Another definition is "Failure to maintain an environment in which the coaching staff complies with NCAA ... regulations."

                    The contract says IU is allowed to use its "sole judgment" to determine if Sampson's conduct "reflects adversely upon the university and its athletic program."

                    Major violations of NCAA rules, as opposed to "secondary" violations, can carry punishments including postseason ineligibility.

                    IU has a strong record in NCAA compliance, with no major violations since 1960.

                    School officials were not immediately available for comment. A statement is expected this morning.

                    Assistant coach Jeff Meyer, who was involved in several of the allegations, issued a statement today through an attorney.

                    “In my twenty-nine years as a college coach, I have tried to maintain a reputation for integrity, fairness and good sportsmanship – values shared by Indiana University and the NCAA," the statement read. "I regret that I may have made mistakes that are causing my and IU’s conduct to be examined by the NCAA."
                    IndyStar also has the official list of allegations from the NCAA on their site for download in PDF format.

                    Get him out of here.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

                      Originally posted by Indy View Post
                      Sampson, on the other hand, would probably never coach again.
                      Somebody will hire him.

                      Might be the University of Alaska-Fairbanks but it'll be someone.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

                        this is actually sounding more and more pathological. why the hell would you do this when you KNOW there will be extra scrutiny on you from previous violations?
                        This is the darkest timeline.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

                          Doesn't the NCAA historically assume the school is responsible for the coach's actions and punish them accordingly?

                          Otherwise, the school could just deny all knowledge, fire the coach, hire a new one, and continue on with the same policy of cheating.

                          IMO, the NCAA will come down hard on IU.
                          You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                          All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                          - Jimmy Buffett

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

                            Originally posted by Doug View Post
                            Doesn't the NCAA historically assume the school is responsible for the coach's actions and punish them accordingly?

                            Otherwise, the school could just deny all knowledge, fire the coach, hire a new one, and continue on with the same policy of cheating.

                            IMO, the NCAA will come down hard on IU.
                            Past history counts too though. Some extra phone calls isn't such a huge deal - not like boosters giving kids money. IU has a clean record and you'd reasonably expect some loss of scholarships and recruiting restrictions for something like this but probably not a loss of tournament eligibility.

                            Where IU gets hammered is for hiring a coach with a history of violations and then not monitoring him enough to keep him from repeating those violations. IMO they'll get hurt less if they fire Sampson. Then it just becomes an IU issue, not a Kelvin Sampson issue.

                            I don't really know this - it's just how I would look at things if I was the NCAA. Of course they may still want to make an example out of IU - give the world a, "If you hire a coach who screwed up and he screws up again, you have nobody but yourself to blame and we'll nail you to the wall." I probably wouldn't do that but a lot of people would.
                            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Indiana gets list of alleged violations related to phone calls

                              IU has to act now to retain any semblence of credibility. Sampson either has to resign or be fired NOW. They cannot wait until the hearing or after the tournament is over. For the Greenspan haters, I think you have to take into account the way Sampsons contract was written. IU was protecting itself from the get go.

                              I wasn't happy with his signing from the beginning but I have no problem with HOW he was signed.
                              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X