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:
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

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 2017-2018

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I didn't watch yesterday's game... but I gather in crunch time, yet again, the play was for Romeo? I'm just not understanding why he's option number 1 for a crunch time play except that for some reason Miller thinks Romeo is 'owed' that.
    Of course maybe it just worked out that way yesterday since I didn't see the game, but there have been plenty games where the final play was for Romeo. Just cut off his drive and watch (dare) him to hoist a prayer.

    I don't know that he's the problem per se', but that can't be sitting well with other players since Romeo hasn't exactly separated himself from the pack as a blue chipper in college like he did in HS.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden


    • This season started out promising but, flamed out. The team is done & the season is lost. At least it will mercifully end one game into the btt.


      • Down 30-47 lol.
        i don't know what the longest losing streak at assembly hall is but, the hoosiers may break it this season. And yes, i am aware this game is at minn today. But, they can (and likely will) add another 4 losses in a row before the season is finally over. Yes, i think even rutgers pulls it out at the hall!


        • So, Fish was on with Dakich. That's about as negative as I've ever heard him. He wasn't really down on Archie in his comments but he was down on the team. He didn't really name many names. He mentioned Morgan, gave him a huge compliment, and then he threw in a 'but' referring to this last game and some comments Morgan made afterwards.
          Don really hammered on the lack of heart and effort aspect of things.

          He said the team lacked an "Alpha..."

          He did talk some about a team not needing to like their coach and how hard Izzo and Coach K are on their players in practice. He said Archie was the same way as them in practice (working and pushing players). I don't know if that was saying these players don't like Miller or if that was him just saying that can't be it. He didn't elaborate.

          At the very end of the the show he did slip in a reference to the IU Bill of Rights and said "Give me a break". This was just as his segment was concluding but I gather he thinks that is a problem. The Bill of Rights, IIRC, came about because of Crean's practice of 'Creaning' the roster each season to make room for his next round of offered players.
          And Fish brought it up in context of Dakich talking about punting players that don't bring heart/effort to the team. So it's pretty easy to see that Fish doesn't like the Bill of Rights. I would've liked to have heard him talk more about this angle. Does he really think there are players that should be cut? Players that would benefit from knowing/believing their scholarship could be pulled if they don't play hard every minute? Does he think the Athletic Dept has tied the coaches' hands with this type of thing and are there other things along these lines he thinks isn't helping?

          My latest theory on what has went wrong with this season is that Miller made promises to Romeo in order to recruit him for his lone season at IU. IMO, for a freshmen, Romeo has been good. For a hyped top 5 NBA one and done pick, he's a bust.
          But Archie is sticking with his word. He's allowing Romeo to play thru mistakes. He's calling crunch time plays for Romeo (that Romeo never comes thru on). The offense is based around Romeo and Morgan. Romeo can't hit an outside shot to save his life. He's either slow or indecisive making him look slow and gets beat on defense often. His handles are marginal at best, and were downright bad to start the season.

          I think that could easily create a vacuum, particularly on a leaderless team, with other players thinking they could do as well if everything revolved around them. Or else thinking "Don't run that for Romeo, get ____ a shot. He can hit those and Romeo will just panic and heave the ball".
          Romeo is being pushed into a starring role which means other players are being asked to play second fiddle. Romeo has the green light. They don't. Meanwhile, Romeo is not setting world on fire with his play. IU is a bad team... Romeo should easily be able to be the best player on a bad team when everything basically is setup to revolve around him.

          Meanwhile, either by being loyal to a fault, or believing if he's going to recruit one and done players he has to make these type of promises to them, Romeo gets plenty of rope and little repercussions for wild shots, defensive lapses, breaking the offense, etc..

          It could be the biggest lesson learned from all of this is for Archie not to make promises to one and done players, because if they don't live up to the hype you have no way to use the bench with them, change their role, or move someone ahead of them. At least not without going back on your word. Of course promises aren't a problem if a player is as good as advertised. But Romeo is not. He's, at best, a good freshman. In most circumstances, he's a player you want to see how he progresses his second year. You certainly don't see him starting alongside LeBron in the NBA based on his play on the court this season.

          Based on what I've seen, this team would've been better off with the team built around Morgan and Durham. They might've been better off without the distraction of Romeo on the team at all.
          Last edited by Bball; 02-19-2019, 02:42 AM.
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

          -John Wooden


          • When you look at all of the big state schools across the country, IU has to have the worst combined basketball/football programs, right? Itís just a total embarrassment for a school of IUís pedigree to be this awful in the two major sports.

            Iím just numb to it and donít even care anymore. The two main IU sports suck and Iíve accepted it. This is why I try to be relatively soft on the Colts and Pacers nowadays. I appreciate the solid entertainment that theyíve given over the years.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-20-2019, 11:49 AM.


            • Romeo's defense, which is the best in the team, grants him a lot of grace from me. If the rest of the team can't deal with the aura he's had around him, then that's on them, not him, because he busts his *** out there and is one of the best young perimeter defenders I can remember in college basketball (Nojel for Purdue is also very good).

              Honestly, I think Juwan just isn't a leader, he gets a lot of slack, I even saw an article saying he deserves better, but he's a pretty below average defender and one of the worst passers on a roster full of bad passers.


              • Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                Did anyone else get some JBJ getting hurt vibes wtih the way the team played, paced and spaced once MOrgan went out? I know Romeo has taken much of the criticism since being a one and done he is an easy target for that, but man...
                I want to go back tot his, but it is clearly not a coincidence now that IU looked better without Juwan on the floor IMO.


                • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  When you look at all of the big state schools across the country, IU has to have the worst combined basketball/football programs, right? Itís just a total embarrassment for a school of IUís pedigree to be this awful in the two major sports.

                  Iím just numb to it and donít even care anymore. The two main IU sports suck and Iíve accepted it. This is why I try to be relatively soft on the Colts and Pacers nowadays. I appreciate the solid entertainment that theyíve given over the years.
                  Illinois is pretty bad too.


                  • Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

                    Illinois is pretty bad too.
                    True, Iíd give IU the nod though because IU achieved prestigious basketball success in the past and allowed it all to crumble. There is a much stronger fan base and recruiting system to IU. IU still manages to get big recruits. Thus, IUís basketball status is just inexcusable right now.

                    IUís administration seems content with being relevant in baseball and soccer while they cash those fat checks from the Big 10 network.

                    The season is one of the most shocking things Iíve witnessed as a sports fan. To be this bad is just jaw dropping.


                    • I thought last night was Romeo's best overall game as a Hoosier.

                      It sucked to lose another game, but Purdue is the better team and IU's defense affected them and kept IU in the game until the very end. Really, given the situation the two teams are in, IU have a shot to win at the end is about all you can ever hope for. This was not a game IU "should win".

                      To the idea IU might be better without Morgan... Somewhere I asked in this thread that if Archie had an NBA like setup would he have kept Morgan or would he have traded him for a player that more fits what he wants his team doing? I think back to Larry Brown arriving in Indy and inheriting Detlef Shrempf. From the outside looking in you'd think he'd be giddy to have him. But instead, he wanted something different and traded him.

                      I also think it's obvious how much DeRon Davis' injury (last year) impacted some things. Not that he was great but that he could fill a role for the team. Between rehab, playing himself back into shape, another minor injury and getting to this point, he's kind of showing he brings some options and another dimension to the table (when healthy and in shape).

                      I don't think Archie is the clapping Monkey on the sidelines that Crean was so I still hold out some hope for the future. But it's going to take solid recruiting and some freshmen coming in ready to play as the roster transitions from Crean's team to 100% Archie's team.

                      I'm reading some things (rumors, alleged insights) that Jerome Hunter's issue is not simply an injury and rehab issue but a condition and so one of the players expected to be playing a solid role this season (and out for the year), might not be 100% ever. We kind of have to take all of that with a grain of salt and leave it at that right now and just see what happens. But IU and Miller don't need setbacks like that in years 1 and 2... or 3.

                      Last year the team got better as the year went along. Not a trait of a Crean team and a big reason he's gone (besides lackluster instate recruiting and overall recruiting as time went along).
                      Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case this year and that is concerning. But I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet.

                      Graduation and a couple of transfers opening up some scholarships might not hurt a thing for the progression of the team from this point.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                      -John Wooden


                      • IU is just snakebit at this point. They have probably played a couple of their best games in some time as far as effort goes these last two games... and still lost.

                        That said, Romeo is starting to look like PG at crunch time. If he's not going to drive, those step back threes are nothing but prayers on his part. As he even been close with one?
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                        -John Wooden


                        • IU won a game!
                          BTW... these last 3 games have, imo, been Romeo's best overall games at IU. I'm still not sold on him hoisting 3's at the end of the clock, but driving to the basket is a different story.

                          More than anything though, his defense has improved. He seems to be trying, and his man doesn't seem to be getting by him so easily any longer. He's actually starting to play like I would've expected at the start of the season (or at least much sooner in the season) for a player with his hype and expected draft status.
                          Somebody has been getting through to him, or that and a combination of figuring out the speed and strength of college players and college game.

                          I hope I didn't just jinx him for the next game.
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                          -John Wooden


                          • Never any doubt... 2 games in a row for IU.
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                            -John Wooden


                            • Thank you very much Hoosiers


                              • Lol weíve beat a great MSU team twice this year. What a strange season. They are showing a ton of fight down the stretch which is to be applauded.

                                Phinnessee is crucial.