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 2011-2012

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

  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

    Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
    This is an absolute lie. You should be ashamed for posting such unsubstantiated drivel. If IU had an open scholarship, Patterson would STILL not be at IU because he didn't get good enough grades to be admitted to the school. That is a FACT that is not up for debate. Tom Crean does not determine whether or not his players get into IU. What kind of a tin foil hat wearing nutjob do you have to be to think he has that sort of control?

    The fact that you root for a podunk little school that has seen its 15 minutes of fame pass by is no justification for delving into absurd conjecture.
    A little unnecessary perhaps?
    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 2011-2012

      Dakich is ripping Crean today about Matt Roth. hoosierguy must be pissed.

      Comment


      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
        Dakich is ripping Crean today about Matt Roth. hoosierguy must be pissed.
        I will say the Patterson deal didn't bother me. It was a little shady but nothing out of line with the rest of college basketball.

        I haven't listened to Dakich today but the Matt Roth deal is much, much slimier in my opinion. He should have had a scholarship if he wanted one. And all indications are that he did. There were no academic issues. There were no behaviorial issues. To force a guy with a full year's elgibility out of the program simply because he's no longer needed is wrong.

        But that is probably just my tin foil hat poking its evil head out of the trash can.
        Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 08-27-2012, 03:09 PM.
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
          I will say the Patterson deal didn't bother me. It was a little shady but nothing out of line with the rest of college basketball.

          I haven't listened to Dakich today but the Matt Roth deal is much, much slimier in my opinion. He should have had a scholarship if he wanted one. And all indications are that he did. There were no academic issues. There were no behaviorial issues. To force a guy with a full year's elgibility out of the program simply because he's no longer needed is wrong.

          But that is probably just my tin foil hat poking its evil head out of the trash can.
          I agree with this for the most part. I would be lying if I said I wasn't a little put off by some of these so called "Creaning" methods he has displayed. I mean I knew this was coming with Roth, but reading some of the details (I didn't even hear Dakich's opinion) just makes it sound crappy. I love that our program appears to be thriving again and that we are in a position to weed out talented players to play for us, but this just seems in poor form.

          Comment


          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

            I would feel worse of this if Roth hadnt already gotten his degree. Part of me thinks that its better to leave the scholarship to somebody without a college degree

            Comment


            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

              In an era when you need to get verbal commitments 3-4 years in advance, I am not sure how you effectively PLAN for someone getting a 5th year, on scholarship, occurring only because of an injury redshirt.

              I would have also liked for it to happen, but it seems a little more complicated than just deciding to do it. I am sure the choices are 1)he could have walked on 2) somebody committed has to be dropped 3)somebody else has to walk on
              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 2011-2012

                food for thought...

                Roth needs to be enrolled in classes to even be eligible. Period.

                In order for him to be enrolled in classes and be eligible, he would need to be in a graduate program, Ph.D. or a different masters program. The application process for such a program would need to have started quite awhile ago (many many months).

                It appears that Roth did not apply for, or enroll in, a program that would make him eligible to play this season. He apparently took little/no steps to make himself eligible. As it stands right now, Crean wouldn't be able to bring Roth onto the team even if there were 13 scholarship spots available for him.

                How this did not get communicated to him or between him and Crean, I don't know.

                In an interview, Don Fisher said that he knew Roth probably wouldn't be back at the end of last season, and his understanding was that Roth had let Crean know that he "wanted to move on with his life and get a job" and that is why he was in senior day.
                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 2011-2012

                  I understand it, I get it, and since I am a fan of the team and our coach, I will do mental gymnastics to justify it. To me, it just sucks that a guy who was there when the team had nobody else and a program was at it's ultimate deep point, gets pushed aside right before the ascent is complete. I know he has two degrees from IU and all that, I just feel bad for the guy. I don't necessarily blame Crean and the staff, I just don't like the system that allows such things to go happen.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                    Roth sets the record straight in interview

                    http://indiana.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1401618
                    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 2011-2012

                      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                      I will say the Patterson deal didn't bother me. It was a little shady but nothing out of line with the rest of college basketball.

                      I haven't listened to Dakich today but the Matt Roth deal is much, much slimier in my opinion. He should have had a scholarship if he wanted one. And all indications are that he did. There were no academic issues. There were no behaviorial issues. To force a guy with a full year's elgibility out of the program simply because he's no longer needed is wrong.

                      But that is probably just my tin foil hat poking its evil head out of the trash can.
                      Yes, it's so slimy that a player got four years of free education, two degrees, and was subsequently told prior to the end of last season that it was likely there would not be room for him to come back for a fifth year.

                      The IU haters will not be persuaded by the truth or any amount of factual information.

                      To all the PU fans chiming in on this thread- you have no absolutely no moral high ground considering what Painter did to Eric Molock or Patrick Bade.

                      The non IU fans in this state are pathetically desperate to find anything to criticize IU about- it's sad.
                      Last edited by hoosierguy; 08-31-2012, 08:27 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                        I don't consider it "pathetically desperate" to criticize a school for forcing out a player who, by all accounts, was the absolute model student-athlete simply because they recruited a freshman who is better.

                        The fact that he was able to use his 1st four years to get two degrees shouldn't be reason to force his scholarship away from him. It should be a reason that the school should want him to stay in the program as long as the NCAA would let him. He had a 5th year of elgibility. He should have been able to use it. To force him out because they recruited over him, isn't right. The fact that he knew he was going to get a raw deal doesn't make it better.

                        I'd say this if it happened at Butler. I'd say this if it happened at Purdue. I'd say this if it happened at Wabash College. It's not some damn conspiracy against IU.

                        It's not just an IU problem. It's an NCAA problem.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post

                          It's not just an IU problem. It's an NCAA problem.
                          Yes. This 1,000 times.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                            I don't consider it "pathetically desperate" to criticize a school for forcing out a player who, by all accounts, was the absolute model student-athlete simply because they recruited a freshman who is better.

                            The fact that he was able to use his 1st four years to get two degrees shouldn't be reason to force his scholarship away from him. It should be a reason that the school should want him to stay in the program as long as the NCAA would let him. He had a 5th year of elgibility. He should have been able to use it. To force him out because they recruited over him, isn't right. The fact that he knew he was going to get a raw deal doesn't make it better.

                            I'd say this if it happened at Butler. I'd say this if it happened at Purdue. I'd say this if it happened at Wabash College. It's not some damn conspiracy against IU.

                            It's not just an IU problem. It's an NCAA problem.
                            So instead of forcing out the kid who already got an education they should force out a kid who wants to come play here and go to school here.

                            Coaches are being forced to offer kids scholarships when they are sophmores in high school. How the hell are coaches supposed to factor in the potential situation of having two 5th year players on their roster. If Roth and Creek had never got hurt we would have been able to keep Patterson and we wouldn't even be having this conversation about Roth.

                            Not to mention who could have expected us to be the #1 team in the country, and thus have nobody leave the program. Usually you would have somebody transfer for more playing time. But not now, not when they see the chance to ride Cody Zeller to a National Championship game.

                            Roth came here, he got his 4 years of schooling. He got a fair deal. And don't tell me he was forced out, if somebody was going to be forced out simply because they were the lesser player, it wouldn't have been him.

                            I think the only fair way to deal with this would be to make it so that 5th year players don't count against the scholarship. They still get one, but you are allowed to offer 13 others. That way if a player gets hurt, it doesn't adversely affect kids who have already been offered, who want to come to the school.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indiana University Athletics Thread 2011-2012

                              Northwestern just signed a kid labeled "the Jewish Dwight Howard"

                              That makes about as much sense and calling a used car "the Hyundai Lamborghini"

                              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 2011-2012

                                Just to be clear: Wabash, as DIII, can't give athletic scholariships and has an entire roster of true student-athletes. This would never be an issue at DIII because the availability (or lack thereof) of scholarships has no bearing on the team's roster.

                                Now some student-athletes may get better financial aid packages than similar-rated non-athletes. But even at DII or NAIA, you're talking about splitting a handful of scholarships across the entire roster.

                                I think we (NAIA) had the equivalent of one scholarship to split across the entire men's track team. And you couldn't get your hands on any portion of it until you were a letterman so it wasn't even a recruiting tool but a way to help a little bit with student-athletes paying a heavy load of private university cost.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X