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 Athletics 2019-20

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dal9
    Mo Creek with a sick game winner to send Sideline Cancer to TBT final versus Marquette

    Leave a comment:

  • clownskull
    Well, the season is probably over now. At least IU went undefeated in the big10 tourney this time and we hit 20 wins!

    Leave a comment:

  • clownskull
    Looks like Wisconsin wins again. Looks like it's gonna take a win in the big10 tourney to make sure they get into the ncaa. But, we know how bad iu is in that!

    Leave a comment:

  • Bball

    Leave a comment:

  • Bball
    The bigs continually hedge to help on the 3 point line and leave the paint. Nobody rotates to cover, which I assume is because IU's 3 point defense is so weak that Archie doesn't want them losing contact with their man.

    But the bigs hedge so far they can't recover and leave a wide open layup for the other team.

    It keeps happening so either it's what Archie wants... or what he accepts...

    To me, the bigs, if they are going to do it at all, just need to flash and show and get back. Don't hedge so much they leave the paint unprotected. Don't hedge so much they can't recover.

    Really, in year 3, there's lots to be questioning about Archie's coaching and just what he's thinking. Eventually, even if you're trying to imprint your plan on a team, you have to coach the players you have and bend to what they can do.

    And for the love of God, sit Devonte when he's hurting the team. Which is more often than not. IU has options that are more consistent.

    Leave a comment:

  • Bball
    You can make the argument IU has a couple of players who hurt the team... I'm especially looking at you Mr. Inconsistent (AKA DeVonte)...
    IU just looks like a poorly coached team. The same mistakes keep happening and not getting corrected.

    I see no reason for Devonte to get minutes over Franklin. With Hunter back... Phinisee back healthy... Franklin on the team... There's just no reason to deal with Devonte's inconsistencies and mistakes.

    Picking who plays is also a coaching decision...

    Leave a comment:

  • Sollozzo
    We give up wide open layups. There is just no passion on this team.

    Leave a comment:

  • Sollozzo
    Seems like this has happened so many times this year: we are down a bit at the half, but instead of making the game close in the second half we get our doors blown off and the game turns into a route. Inexcusable. That’s the hallmark of a poor team.

    Leave a comment:

  • Bball
    It's just bad decisions after bad decisions.

    Leave a comment:

  • Sollozzo
    Yeah that was a good article that did a nice job summing up the problems that have plagued us for years, as well as the problems that are plaguing us on a game by game basis this year.

    Really every current problem with Archie falls under one umbrella: can he win in the Big 10? So far he hasn’t shown the ability to consistently win conference games. Crean, for all his warts, showed that he could have some nice Big 10 success. We won 2 out of 4 Big 10 titles from 13-16. That sort of success seems light years away right now.

    Leave a comment:

  • clownskull
    Came across a good article. It asks great questions.

    Leave a comment:

  • Bball
    I really have nothing to excuse Archie's 3rd year. It's now just a pile of question marks. I have theories but without more info it's hard to know anything for sure except... something is wrong.

    The offense is putrid. In the first year it seemed to come together a bit over the course of the season. I think the first year might be the only year the team didn't regress over the course of the season.

    Let's look at DeRon Davis as an example. Year 1, he was featured and looked pretty good early. Got injured early in season 1 and had to work himself back into game shape and thru the mental hurdles last season to get back. Had a great game against MSU at MSU... I don't exactly recall his minutes last year, but this year they have been erratic at best. Last year, Race got some burn and looked solid. This year, his minutes have been erratic as well.
    I fully agree it's hard to get minutes if you don't deserve them, but it's also hard to get a flow if you don't get consistent minutes.
    But then there's Devonte Green. He gets minutes... and seems to have a mile long leash, yet plays sloppy. Streaky shooter that is just as likely to shoot you out of a game as into one. Maybe more likely to shoot you out of a game. Doesn't understand the concept of a 2 handed pass.
    Makes some of the worst unforced errors on the court.
    Gets lost on defense.
    Yet he's getting a lot of minutes.

    You could argue that Archie made promises to a player like Devonte to stay with the program when Crean was sent packing, in order to not start from scratch (which at this point, starting from scratch would've been fine considering where IU is now). Didn't want to lose a bunch of players heading into year 1. So that could explain his loyalty and mins to Devonte, being loyal to a fault. But where is the loyalty to DeRon Davis? Wouldn't he have made the same promises to him?

    Why isn't Archie disciplining bad play with the bench? Or if he is and that is explained in Race and DeRon's sporadic minutes, for example... then how is he justifying Justin Smith's and Devonte's minutes?

    Hunter and Franklin definitely seem like pieces for the future, so it's understandable to get them minutes and let them play through a mistake or two. You don't necessarily have to bury a player on the bench for the rest of the game to still give him a seat and let him think about bad or selfish play before sending him back into the game.

    Meanwhile, I don't think I've ever known less about IU's depth on the bench once it gets past about the 8th player or so.

    I do think Romeo was a setback for the program... blame it on the injury or the timing of his recruitment to the Miller era, but the team wasn't ready for a one and done. Especially one that underwhelmed. Like I said, blame it on the injury, it doesn't matter why, he underwhelmed. His numbers came more to being handed a role rather than deserving/earning a role. For example, he was a guaranteed starter from the day he said he was coming to IU. And the team was forced to accept that. But Romeo isn't there this year. You can't argue you have a one and done player causing jealousy amongst the team and everyone not on the page for that reason.

    Hunter was expected to play and contribute last season, and wasn't able to answer the bell. But he's here now.

    One huge consistency with Archie's teams has been sloppy play, terrible 3 point offense, and a lack of leadership. They also rarely look motivated and seem to not take a punch. That's not the kind of consistency you want.

    Just like the fans now, everyone is waiting on the next shoe to drop when they are winning games, or even leading a game and playing well. Let alone when they are hanging in a game by a thread.

    So, I say all of that to get to this- For a team many times lacking motivation and a spark, why didn't Archie have the team back out of the lockerroom in time to watch Knight's return to the court? Knight's legacy looms large over IU basketball. The banners attest to that. IU is still mentioned nationally not because of anything they've done in the last 20 years, but because of what Knight's teams did more than anything else.
    His return was history. It was finally a bridge to the past. There was plenty of halftime ceremony to have taken the team to the lockerrom and discussed the game, and then brought them back out to witness that history, feel that passion and energy, and maybe inspire them to play harder for the next 20 minutes. Or the rest of the season. In fact, missing that moment was likely a giant distraction. Especially being in the lockerroom and hearing cheers and chants and not knowing exactly what was happening other than just the general sense that Knight was back on the court.
    This was an epic fail on Archie's part IMHO. It's a moment he can't get back either.

    I doubt that was Archie's first epic fail in decision making at IU.

    I think more than anything, Archie's problem might be he wasn't ready for the big chair. At a mid major the players he was able to recruit were mainly 2nd tier, hard workers. Much like himself as a player, players that knew to compete they were going to have to work harder and be more prepared than their competition. Players that had already learned they needed to play as a team because they weren't athletically gifted enough to steamroll opposing players by themselves. Many probably played on HS teams where team ball was their only chance to beat other teams and didn't have the luxury of having a natural talent where the game came easy for them amongst other HS'ers.

    But this is college, even the players where it all came easy in HS are playing against equal and better talent. Maybe Archie just doesn't know how to handle them. Or is experimenting on the job. Athletes that he could recruit at IU are different than the athletes he'd recruit at Dayton. Maybe he'd do better recruiting players more like who he recruited at Dayton. Maybe he'd do better treating the players he's able to recruit at IU more like players that need coaching maybe more than the type of player he recruited at Dayton?

    Maybe there is something with the AD and the code of conduct the coaches have to agree to that is hampering Miller? But even at that, he has a bench, use it. The players getting limited minutes aren't necessarily the players making the biggest mistakes on the court.

    Whatever the problem, or problems, he needs to be figuring it out. This was the year that the excuses should be going out the window. Economics might dictate he gets another year, but results dictate his seat is getting warm.

    IU has already dealt with a coach staying past his welcome in Crean. At a certain point, your ceiling becomes apparent. 3 years of offensive ineptitude, let alone being unable to defend the 3 point line, is a pattern now. There can't be a 4th year of that. If a turnaround is possible for Miller, it needs to be happening.

    IU would be justified in firing him this year if there was a suitable replacement at the ready. Deciding the players would not be on the court for Knight's return isn't the only epic fail for the Miller era, unfortunately. So far, his entire tenure has been an epic fail.
    Last edited by Bball; 02-09-2020, 01:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • Sollozzo
    It was certainly incredible to see Knight finally walk back onto that court. I never thought it would happen. I'm glad that he, the players, and the fans had that moment. No one will ever forget that. It would have been such a shame if it never happened.

    That's about the only positive from yesterday.

    We've lost 6 straight games to Purdue. That pretty much sums up the state of our program right now. Pitiful.

    I was starting to get a little optimistic when we beat Nebraska on the road, Michigan State at home, and then looked like we might be able to pull out a win against Maryland. Of course, we lost the Maryland game and then 3 more after that for a 4 game losing streak. This doesn't look like a tournament team. Once you start losing home games, the tournament chances start to take a big hit.

    My problem with these Archie Miller teams is that no one ever really seems to improve. The offense is just terrible to watch. Purdue's offense was just so much quicker with much faster execution and decision making. IU has a ton of top of the key dribbling, then struggles to make anything develop.

    Leave a comment:

  • clownskull
    Well, it looks like the annual implosion has officially begun! I figure some wins somewhere possibly though, I'm not really sure where. Looking like another non postseason beyond the btt for IU is becoming increasingly likely.

    Leave a comment:

  • clownskull
    Osu game is already over in the 1st half.

    Leave a comment: