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 2017-2018

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

  • Sollozzo
    replied
    For the last 25 years, quite a few programs, both in our conference and all over the country, have upped the ante with coaching, recruits, facilities, etc. There are a hell of a lot of competitive basketball programs out there right now.

    Meanwhile, IU has had far more go wrong than right in those years. So we are where we are.

    Leave a comment:


  • hoosierguy
    replied
    It is comical really how poor IUís leadership has been. You have schools an hour or two away that are far more consistent and donít have the advantages IU has. It takes a special kind of ineptitude to allow one of the great programs to turn into THIS **** show. And there is no accountability. Nobody at the top gets fired. Nothing changes. Coaches are eventually replaced but the culture and ways of doing things remain the same. Until that changes, the program will continue to suck.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heisenberg
    replied
    If you guys don't think Romeo is living up to the hype don't look up what Darius Garland wound up doing at Vanderbilt. His career lasted 5 games there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Normally I can kind of point to something to try and fix it... At least from the outside looking in. I might be wrong, but something I'd like to see the team try.
    But I got nothing. If they can't shoot from outside, at all, their inside offense is going to struggle if a team has any kind of defense and smarts at all.

    Are there shooters on the bench that we're unaware of? Anyone who can shoot the ball and realistically play defense well enough not to be a liability, or that can be hidden on defense a bit?

    Davis is injured and not all the way back and in playing shape anyway. And he's no 3 point threat so he's not going to help that. He might help rotationally though or to take some fouls (or give them actually) and stop some layup drills from happening.

    The one thought I did have was changing Green's role... Try taking the ball out of his hands and planting him at the 3 point line for kick backs or running him off of screens for some timely 3's. But he's gone/suspended. And that was just a spaghetti on the wall idea... not something I'd be confident in at late January.

    I really have nothing.

    I find it hard to believe it's all entirely an on the court problem and not something else behind the scenes too... But still... Not being able to be any kind of consistent threat from outside hurts badly.

    Start Durham... telll Phinnesy to look for his own shot more behind the arc... Maybe....

    I'm just not sure how you turn it around. The mojo is gone and the slow starts are killing them. And they have no outside offense so comebacks are extremely difficult. You can't really trade baskets when you're down 17 points. And if the other team can still manage some 3's in that stretch your comeback will be shortlived, even if your defense is getting a few stops...finally...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    We all knew IU was overmatched, but guys who play pick up games at the HPER probably wouldnít have started 17-0 tonight. Thatís just inexcusable at home. Every freaking game itís a big deficit to start.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Originally posted by clownskull View Post
    I feel bad for don fisher. Terrific broadcaster and has to call games for iu. Michigan is gonna start their managers in the 2nd half because that's all they'll need.
    Fisher, some long time media members, the fans, and students are all so loyal to this program. The program consistently gives its fans so little to be happy about, yet people fanatically come back year after year. Itís impressive, because 25 years of mostly disappointment is a long long time. I do feel sorry for the little kids who are getting suckered into a lifetime of disappointment.

    All IU fans really want at this point is some consistent Big 10 success and some nice NCAA tournament runs every once in a while. It really isnít too much to ask for, yet it seems impossible for this program to achieve. No one expects to be Duke at this point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Was anything more predictable than that MI 3 after IU's first real gasp of coming back?

    Leave a comment:


  • clownskull
    replied
    I can't remember seeing an iu squad that has gone from looking like a top 25 squad to looking like total dog%*ų% like this. Just a miserable season. Those wins against Marquette & Louisville are a distant memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • clownskull
    replied
    This squad has simply fallen apart. They won't even make nit AGAIN. They will be fortunate to beat Rutgers next game... Seriously.

    Leave a comment:


  • clownskull
    replied
    I feel bad for don fisher. Terrific broadcaster and has to call games for iu. Michigan is gonna start their managers in the 2nd half because that's all they'll need.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    We are down 17-0 lol

    Leave a comment:


  • Heisenberg
    replied
    Far as Romeo maybe not working out as expected and it effecting recruits in the future, not like Swanigan did a whole lot for Purdue. it's not the same, I know, but we got our first Mr. Basketball since Big Dog (serously!) who de-committed from MIchigan State for us, legitimately picked us over Kentucky, that was a BIG get y'know. he had a pretty awesome 2 years, put up great numbers, was the focal point of the offense. went from 400lbs to a svelte 260ish and turned into a 1st round pick.

    we went right back to mostly really being in the mix for kids in the 50-100 range, missing fairly often, and getting guys in the 120s as a fallback. every kid's different is what I'm saying I guess.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    I will add this...
    I don't think Archie is able to use Romeo like he planned to. Romeo's handles were pretty questionable in the first part of the season, and his outside shot has been lacking severely. I have a feeling Archie expected more with both of those things, and constant improvement for him as well, and particularly his shot simply hasn't arrived.

    For a likely one and doner, he's not been the player I think most expected he'd quickly develop into. He's really just been a freshman that you think will be really good next year. Take away the HS hype and one and done talk and I don't know that you'd really be talking about him going pro after this season.
    Langford is being scouted by great Big 10 scouts and doesnít have a very good team around him. I do think another year would benefit him greatly.

    Its just sad how all of this has turned out. Archie coming in and seizing Langford was a huge moment for the program. Its rather shocking that this is where weíve ended up. This could be a huge ding in us getting future mega Indiana recruits because itís very possible that the perception will be that Indiana wasted Langford.

    I think Glass should have been fired yesterday for his abysmal handling of our laughing stock football program, but itís hard to fault him for Archie. It seems like most people felt it was a decent hire at the time given how IU has plummeted in prestige as a program. If we got rid of him, the next coach would probably go down the same sordid road. The program just breeds mediocrity.

    It is sad to wonder where this program could be if Sampson didnít screw up 11 years ago. That guy could flat out coach. I was a student at IU at the time and there was such a shared feeling that we were headed back to elite status. Back then, we werenít too far removed from the 2002 run, and the glory years werenít quite the ancient history that they are now. But then it all fell apart and the subsequent years have been mostly sadness. After 11 more years of this, the mediocrity and falling short has just become what the program is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    I will add this...
    I don't think Archie is able to use Romeo like he planned to. Romeo's handles were pretty questionable in the first part of the season, and his outside shot has been lacking severely. I have a feeling Archie expected more with both of those things, and constant improvement for him as well, and particularly his shot simply hasn't arrived.

    For a likely one and doner, he's not been the player I think most expected he'd quickly develop into. He's really just been a freshman that you think will be really good next year. Take away the HS hype and one and done talk and I don't know that you'd really be talking about him going pro after this season.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    If we forget the idea there's some lockerroom or other internal issue going on with the program, there's still a basketball issue to be concerned with-
    The lack of outside shooting. Let's not forget, they had this problem last year too. And the poor FT shooting as well.

    While the poor FT shooting is concerning, it doesn't seem to be impacting everyone. Romeo seems to be consistently OK from the line. Right now, it's not the biggest problem. IMO that is the 3 point shooting that is harming the offense. Or should I say, lack of? Indiana is relatively good inside. Morgan can be great. Smith, when he goes for the normal and not the highlight can be good. Romeo is a driver.
    But if teams don't have to defend IU at the line with anything more than a token 3 point defense and can focus their energy packing it in on IU, then IU has a hard time overcoming that. Where has their 3 point shooting went? I don't recall thinking it would be a problem during the early games. In fact, I recall thinking they'd fixed that problem from last year.

    People are passing up open 3's, too scared to take one I guess. I've seen people saying IU just needs to stop shooting 3's and I can understand where they are coming from, but in this modern era you have to at least be able to take and make enough to keep the other team's defense honest because odds are they CAN hit enough threes to be an advantage for them if you're not hitting at all.

    Plus, with terrible 3 point shooting, passing up 3's, and now teams taking away the inside game, it makes it harder for IU to play defense. They seem constantly on defense after a miss instead of after a make. You need to be able to setup the defense and not constantly in transition.

    I do half think not having Green available could possibly pay some dividends because it will force IU to try some different lineups and rotations. I'm not sure Green was ever a good fit and I've felt all along Green got his minutes because he was a player that stuck with the program after Crean left and he was getting 'rewarded' for that. Not sure if he'll be back, but his one handed passes and dribbling until he could find a defender won't be missed.
    Of course, maybe there's not a good option behind Green. Maybe IU is still a year away from that. I really don't know too much about IU's bench in guard depth. With Davis' injuries, he's hurt frontline depth some... Not sure why Moore doesn't get a few 'moore' minutes. He seems to do OK in limited minutes and maybe that kind of spark and bench development is needed. Of course, I don't see him helping with 3 point shooting and this is a huge problem right now.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X