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

Penn State accusations

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

  • Re: Penn State accusations

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    I guess I'm torn on punishing the school for one reason: If everyone involved/guilty/responsible has been imprisoned, fired, or died... who are they punishing that DESERVES IT that's leftover at the university, and how much are wanting to hurt all of the students/alumni/staff/players/coaches that had nothing to do with it?

    I'm not saying there is nobody left who should be punished and still works at the school (I don't know either way), I'm just saying that if it can be established who was and who was not responsible for all of this, why not single them out and fire them all, if they haven't already been fired, and prosecute them all as appropriate? Why hurt the innocent ones on that campus?
    I heard a long (and well educated) debate between two groups of lawyers arguing this the other day.

    I went into it thinking "screw it, they should lose the football program".

    While I still think this cover-up was huge, and while I think they will get blasted from the FBI with the provision that lets you fine up to 500K per infraction (cannot think of the provision, I will have to look it up) I honestly and not sure if punishing kids who were not even there is the right answer.

    That does not even open the can of worms that is does the NCAA have jurisdiction on this matter, but I will leave that one for another day.

    EDIT: The Clercy Act
    Last edited by vapacersfan; 07-12-2012, 07:38 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Penn State accusations

      Interesting read from another site

      Read the report. Penn State handled the 1998 incident appropriately - save for reporting the incident to Human Resources. The DA did not have enough to charge Sandusky. In fact, if you read the report of the incident, it's pretty clear that he didn't probably technically do anything illegal in that moment. In retrospect, it's pretty clear that he has begun escalating his behavior with the child as seemed to be his MO. Freeh does not allege any pressure from PSU to sweep this under the rug.

      Freeh is also clear that Sandusky had decided to retire before this incident happened.

      So, PSU did not kill a DA and they did not force Sandusky into retirement.

      However, the '98 incident is still important. Why?

      1. It makes their inaction in 2001 completely unacceptable. Two accusations should forced immediate and dramatic action.
      2. It proves that they are all liars. Paterno and Spanier have denied knowing about the 1998 incident. They are lying.
      3. It makes Spanier's actions in 1999 all the more bizarre. Why did her personally give Sandusky emeritus status? Why the huge payout?

      Comment


      • Re: Penn State accusations

        While many are waiting for the NCAA to step in and issue some sort of death penalty against Penn State for its lack of institutional control following the release of the Freeh report, which detailed a university-wide cover-up of sexual abuse by former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, the harshest penalties could be coming from the Department of Education (DOE).

        John Infante, who created bylawblog.com and works for NCAA.org, stated on Twitter that: "Dept. of Ed could prohibit Penn State from receiving federal student aid…. Prohibiting a school from receiving federal financial aid is the DOE's death penalty. But we're in "If not here, then where?" territory."

        he issue at hand is Penn State's compliance (or lack thereof) with the Clery Act. The Clery Act requires that any public or private university that receives federal financial aid publicly report any crime on or near campus.
        The Department of Education has stated that it is looking into the findings from the Freeh report, but declined to make any other public comments about the matter. But if the DOE were to come down on Penn State, it could remove the university's accreditation and prohibit students from obtaining Pell Grants and federal student loans. In essence, it would cripple Penn State's ability to be a viable institution.



        So while the release of the Freeh report might have signaled the end of Penn State's internal investigation, it might be the beginning of the end for Penn State football and the university.




        http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-...tml#more-16705

        Comment


        • Re: Penn State accusations

          Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
          To use them as an example for everyone else.
          Why does the example need to including punishing innocent people? The damage is already done (by the guilty). They'd essentially be punishing the next generation of Penn State for the crimes of the previous one.

          Comment


          • Re: Penn State accusations

            But doesn't that gloss over the fact that the guilty people were hired and put in place by...whoever takes care of these things? The board, regents, trustees, whatever? Most of those people are still there and they hired the people who let this happen. I'm a firm believer that you have to cut off the head to kill the beast. Maybe I'm a hardass.

            Comment


            • Re: Penn State accusations

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              I guess I'm torn on punishing the school for one reason: If everyone involved/guilty/responsible has been imprisoned, fired, or died... who are they punishing that DESERVES IT that's leftover at the university, and how much are wanting to hurt all of the students/alumni/staff/players/coaches that had nothing to do with it?

              I'm not saying there is nobody left who should be punished and still works at the school (I don't know either way), I'm just saying that if it can be established who was and who was not responsible for all of this, why not single them out and fire them all, if they haven't already been fired, and prosecute them all as appropriate? Why hurt the innocent ones on that campus?
              When school's are punished for violations, it is quite frequently after a coach is removed and the new regime must face the consequences, what makes this any different? They are still Penn State


              Comment


              • Re: Penn State accusations

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                Why does the example need to including punishing innocent people? The damage is already done (by the guilty). They'd essentially be punishing the next generation of Penn State for the crimes of the previous one.
                Again, this happens all the time for other violations. For example, Tom Crean paid the price for Kelvin Sampson's violations and he only made a few too many phone calls.


                Comment


                • Re: Penn State accusations

                  Then it sounds like they keep getting it wrong.

                  Hope they don't put me in jail when my father commits a crime....

                  Comment


                  • Re: Penn State accusations

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Then it sounds like they keep getting it wrong.

                    Hope they don't put me in jail when my father commits a crime....

                    I think it is necessary to punish the school because you want to do everything possible to prevent misconduct. If the penalties are just confined to the specific people involved then that makes it more likely for a school to be reckless with their hires and oversight because they can just shrug it off by saying: "if a rule is broken then only the people directly involved will get in trouble." The threat that the entire school can be punished for rule violations leads to top-down oversight between the university officials, athletic directors, and coaches.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Penn State accusations

                      Aren't you still punishing them that way if you fire and prosecute everyone who had any kind of oversight?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Penn State accusations

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        I guess I'm torn on punishing the school for one reason: If everyone involved/guilty/responsible has been imprisoned, fired, or died... who are they punishing that DESERVES IT that's leftover at the university, and how much are wanting to hurt all of the students/alumni/staff/players/coaches that had nothing to do with it?

                        I'm not saying there is nobody left who should be punished and still works at the school (I don't know either way), I'm just saying that if it can be established who was and who was not responsible for all of this, why not single them out and fire them all, if they haven't already been fired, and prosecute them all as appropriate? Why hurt the innocent ones on that campus?
                        I pretty much agree. In a perfect world every single ranking member of the athletic department and university is immediately fired. But good luck with that. You can say suspend the football program, but it's not like the players were cool with it. Sure, let em transfer and not have to sit out, but that still means a ton of kids having to pick up and move (which costs money) and get adjusted to a new place after deciding on a place that they felt was the best fit for them. New friends, new role, new system, all that stuff. It's just not feasible.

                        If there's any holdovers from the coaching staff fire them immediately. Fire everyone in the athletic department as soon as possible. Then move on. Sandusky's going to rot in a cell, Paterno's dead. What else can you do w/o remarkable undeserved collateral damage?

                        Obviously other than the victims, I feel pretty bad for current students and recent (hell, not even really recent) PSU grads. When they apply for a job and their resume is read it's not going to be "Penn State...solid school." It's going to be "Penn State...disgusting."

                        And get that ****ing statue off campus already. I'd have gotten drunk and rented a backhoe and ripped it down myself if I were a student.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Penn State accusations

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Again, this happens all the time for other violations. For example, Tom Crean paid the price for Kelvin Sampson's violations and he only made a few too many phone calls.
                          A lesser example would be (although, don't get me started on this) the current crop of Uconn Men's players who won't be playing the NCAA tournament this season because of the grades/drop out rate of student 3-6 years ago. (This current crop has a better overall GPA then the women's team..)

                          Penn State has been sketchy with a lot of things. And I agree that if you don't punish the institution, you are setting the standard for a school to get reckless with who it hires because only that person will be liable.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Penn State accusations

                            Victims from the 70s and 80s are now coming forward.

                            http://espn.go.com/college-football/...0s-report-says

                            Just kill the program and bulldoze the football facilities, already
                            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: Penn State accusations

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                              Victims from the 70s and 80s are now coming forward.

                              http://espn.go.com/college-football/...0s-report-says

                              Just kill the program and bulldoze the football facilities, already
                              They're completely remodeling the showers and lockerroom. Which is pretty obvious but never even occurred to me, that's a start.

                              But the statue is staying. I adore sports, both college and pro, I mean adore them, but it's this whole saga that makes me hate caring so much. I don't know who'd be a good example, maybe Bruce Weber under Keady for 20 some years, I hate to put the guy's name in this context, but if it were him doing something like that and then Keady covered it up? I mean holy hell, I'd be burning combovered scowl faced effigies. I just don't understand how a coach can be THAT revered.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Penn State accusations

                                http://espn.go.com/college-football/...ons-penn-state

                                NCAA President Emmert seems serious about sanctions. Of course, talk is cheap.

                                That said, the Penn State admins--or at least the BoT--shows signs of not "getting it" still--their attitude seems to invite sanctions, almost.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X