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

The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

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

  • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

    I am obligated (though not happy about it) to point out that my wife has crushed me in our personal bracket challenge this year. She still has all final four teams left, while I have two and no chance for another win. Also, never make bets with your wife where she says you have to post your suckitude online if you lose.
    Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

    Comment


    • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

      30 years later will MSU beat another team in light blue and white uniforms with a white power forward as their most heralded player? If only they had another Magic. I'll probably still root for them if they make it. I hope they do actually or i might not watch.

      Comment


      • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

        Originally posted by Indy View Post
        Everybody keeps sleeping on the Big Ten. Michigan State is the most disciplined team left in the tournament.
        I think they take UConn. Not so sure about Carolina or Villanova.

        Nice for the BT to at least be able to make an argument for being the 2nd strongest conf in the country.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

          I have officially won my pool (only 5 people as the rest of my friends slacked on getting their brackets in) already. I got 3 of the final four (Nova, UNC, MSU). I think UNC will beat MSU in the championship, although uconn has played much better than I thought they would.

          What would everyone say if no Big East teams went to the championship game? I personally am rooting for MSU to win just for gaining some respect to Big Ten basketball.

          Comment


          • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
            I have officially won my pool (only 5 people as the rest of my friends slacked on getting their brackets in) already. I got 3 of the final four (Nova, UNC, MSU). I think UNC will beat MSU in the championship, although uconn has played much better than I thought they would.

            What would everyone say if no Big East teams went to the championship game? I personally am rooting for MSU to win just for gaining some respect to Big Ten basketball.
            That it was still the best conference in basketball this season? The Big East was so good this year that the only way they could have made themselves look foolish is if every single team went out during the first weekend.

            Big Ten can make a legit case for number 2 conference in America. Although most would probably still argue ACC due to the head to head challenge which I fully expect the Big Ten to win handily next season.


            Comment


            • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

              Oh I agree that the Big East is the best conference in basketball, but its just kind of funny if no Big East teams make it.

              The Big Ten vs ACC challenge, they won 6-5. I think if MSU were to beat UNC in the championship you have to say the Big Ten is better. I think the Big Ten is only going to get better while the ACC may take a step back, specifically UNC because of all the kids leaving after this year.

              Back on topic, I really think the tournament this year is very good. There were some upsets, most the top teams stayed in further than ever, making some great games and I really think the final four games are going to be terrific.

              Comment


              • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

                Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                The Big Ten vs ACC challenge, they won 6-5. I think if MSU were to beat UNC in the championship you have to say the Big Ten is better. I think the Big Ten is only going to get better while the ACC may take a step back, specifically UNC because of all the kids leaving after this year.
                No way. Hypothetically it would show that the best team in the Big 10 is better than the best team in the ACC, but it wouldn't mean the whole conference is better. UNC has already played MSU and stomped a mud hole in their asses.

                ACC is a lot deeper than the Big 10.

                Both the #1(UNC) and #2(Duke) team in the ACC just pounded the #1(MSU) and #2(PU) team from the Big Ten in head to head matchups. How in the world can you try to make a hypothetical argument about this, when it's already happened in reality.

                UNC would take a step back? Really? They have the top rated recruiting class in the nation coming in after this season.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  No way. Hypothetically it would show that the best team in the Big 10 is better than the best team in the ACC, but it wouldn't mean the whole conference is better. UNC has already played MSU and stomped a mud hole in their asses.

                  ACC is a lot deeper than the Big 10.
                  I don't believe that. IMO the strength of the ACC is at the top - their top 3, at least based on ratings, are a lot tougher than the top 3 BT teams.

                  But except for IU, which is horrible this year, I'd take the bottom half of the Big Ten over the ACC. The BT-ACC challenge shows that - the top 3 BT teams were 0-3. The rest of the conf was 5-3.
                  Last edited by DisplacedKnick; 03-30-2009, 03:38 PM.
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

                    And the fact remains that the ACC won the challenge, like they do every year. The discussion can go deep into conference statistics and records etc. but there is no need to do it.

                    You play games on a basketball court, and that's exactly what the ACC Big Ten Challenge does. The ACC won more games than the Big Ten. In a head to head matchup, the ACC was the better conference. There is no debating it.

                    And BTW, I would take your bet. I would take the bottom teams of the ACC like Miami any day against teams like Northwestern.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                      And BTW, I would take your bet. I would take the bottom teams of the ACC like Miami any day against teams like Northwestern.
                      Northwestern already smoked the 4th place ACC team - Florida State. Not sure why you need to look much lower. Of course Wisconsin beat them too.

                      In fact, outside of the top 3, the Big Ten WON the ACC challenge 5-3 so you're talking about something else that's already been done.

                      BTW - I'm not saying the Big Ten's the stronger conf than the ACC, just that IMO the difference is the strength at the top - though that strength doesn't look so good right now.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

                        Originally posted by obnoxiousmodesty View Post
                        I am obligated (though not happy about it) to point out that my wife has crushed me in our personal bracket challenge this year. She still has all final four teams left, while I have two and no chance for another win. Also, never make bets with your wife where she says you have to post your suckitude online if you lose.
                        Bwahahaha!
                        Dean Winchester: It takes two to... you know, have hardcore sex.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

                          The difference between the Big Ten and ACC was the smallest this year than it's been in awhile.

                          One thing the Challenge isn't very good at is determining postseason play. The numbers may not support that actually, but I think that's a byproduct of a lot of really down Big Ten years.

                          A game in early December isn't real indicative of what you'll see at the end of the year. This year, Michigan State got a lot better. Purdue was playing in the biggest game in Mackey in years and promptly urinated down its collective leg. A performance like that against UNI would've been a loss.

                          I just don't draw a lot of conclusions from it. Wake got a cookie-cutter in IU and promptly lost in the first round. Why? Because the Decons were playing like crap at the end of the year. I still think UNC would win against MSU, but does anyone think that would be a blowout again? Good coaches build their teams as they go, and the Big Ten has some good coaches in Ryan, Izzo, Painter, Weber, Matta, Beilein ...

                          I think biggest problem the Big Ten has had is that -- with OSU as the exception -- the conference is still in the mind-set of being a four-year league.

                          There's not as many guys who are looking to go one-and-done or two-and-done as a conference like the ACC. That means talent is going elsewhere.

                          In the past five years, and pardon me if I missed someone, the Big Ten lost before a junior season:

                          Eric Gordon (IU)
                          Kosta Koufos (OSU)
                          Greg Oden (OSU)
                          Mike Conley (OSU)
                          Daequan Cook (OSU)
                          Kris Humphries (Minnesota)

                          6 players, 3 schools

                          In that time span, the ACC lost:

                          JJ Hickson (NC State)
                          Brandan Wright (UNC)
                          Thaddeus Young (Ga. Tech)
                          Javaris Crittenton (Ga. Tech)
                          Josh McRoberts (Duke)
                          Cedric Simmons (NC State)
                          Marvin Williams (UNC)
                          Chris Paul (Wake)
                          Von Wafer (FSU)

                          9 players, 6 schools

                          I'm just rambling thought now. But I still think the Big Ten goes looking for three- or four-year guys, whereas the ACC and other conferences as well are more willing to check out other options.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

                            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                            Northwestern already smoked the 4th place ACC team - Florida State. Not sure why you need to look much lower. Of course Wisconsin beat them too.

                            In fact, outside of the top 3, the Big Ten WON the ACC challenge 5-3 so you're talking about something else that's already been done.

                            BTW - I'm not saying the Big Ten's the stronger conf than the ACC, just that IMO the difference is the strength at the top - though that strength doesn't look so good right now.
                            The ACC had teams like Wake, Miami, Florida St., and Clemson either in the top 25 or just sitting on the outside throughout Feb-Mar.

                            I just don't know how you can say the ACC is top heavy, when a team like Maryland finishes 7th.

                            I think if you were to ask any college analyst what conference after the Big East is the deepest and 90+% would tell you the ACC.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              The ACC had teams like Wake, Miami, Florida St., and Clemson either in the top 25 or just sitting on the outside throughout Feb-Mar.

                              I just don't know how you can say the ACC is top heavy, when a team like Maryland finishes 7th.

                              I think if you were to ask any college analyst what conference after the Big East is the deepest and 90+% would tell you the ACC.
                              But yet Wisconsin and Michigan just beat FSU and Clemson when the chips were on the table. And Wake tanked.

                              Don't get me wrong, I still think the ACC was the better league, and I imagine Rim might, too. But those middle teams are more equal than they've been in a long time.

                              And not that this is a big chip, but Miami and Va. Tech went out in the second round of the NIT, whereas Penn State is still playing.
                              Last edited by Kraft; 03-31-2009, 02:13 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The 2009 NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Tournament Thread

                                UNC is the only team left in my bracket. Ugh.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X