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

2020-21 Indiana Athletics thread

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

  • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Joe, did you hear anything else about what exactly went down with Stevens? How close do you think it got?
    Closer than the national media thought, but not as close as the high level IU boosters thought it was if that makes sense. Stevens seriously considered the IU opportunity and I do think it is still in some ways his dream job, but ultimately don't think he was ever going to bring himself to leave Boston especially mid season.


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I wonder what kind of physical/what he failed? If it was related to his known issue, what would actually show up in a physical? What did they actually put him thru?
      I think it's known he allegedly has a permanent limp.

      Matta makes some sense (Not too old, Indiana ties, Big Ten experience, good showing in the Big Ten (and Butler before that)), but I have to think if the list is getting down to Matta and Woodson, it's not a list of first tier names.
      It's not true at all.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

        Oh yeah, the past 13 have shown that if we decided to engage in a coverup at the time, there’s no way we’d be any worse off all these years later lol. I say that half tongue-in-cheek/half serious....but really it’s true

        Back then IU still thought “we are IU and can find someone else to win”.

        Well Crean was a big downgrade from Sampson, then Archie was even a downgrade from Crean. So it’s not that easy.....
        IU should have made the NCAA dress us down. Like you said the issue was IU decided to pre-emptively fire Sampson hoping they'd save themselves and instead they basically let the barbarians through the gate and the NCAA took no prisoners.

        Yes, Sampson was on "probation" from his days at OKlahoma for doing the same thing, in that way the risk was kind of dumb by Sampson especially doing it so early in his tenure, but every single coach was doing that exact same thing, so the fact he was even punished...I don't know

        Let's put it this way if Kelvin Sampson was white, I don't think it goes down like that at all.


        Comment


        • A couple things on Matta:

          They talked. There was no agreement, the physical thing is legitimately hysterical and untrue. Matta has always said he doesn't really want the pressure of a job like IU. I think that makes both sides skittish. IU needs a guy who is ready for the pressures IU brings whether our fans are crazy or not lol


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

            It's not true at all.
            Good... I was doubtful he'd fail a physical based on the known problem (I mean if he says he's good to go, I'm not sure the physical could contradict that)... So I was actually a little worried something else was up with him.

            I wouldn't have a huge problem with Matta being named coach. He didn't really flame out and get fired. He was mostly solid at OSU. He was solid at Butler... moved up to OSU and was solid there too.

            But, he wouldn't be my first pick either.

            Stevens of course would be my first pick because he has a package thing going for him. Indiana connections... the Butler runs... his age... NBA experience... name recognition... Reputation as a bit of a basketball savant...

            But the main thing he doesn't have is the one thing I'd want from most any other coach: Coached in the major leagues of college basketball and done it successfully and consistently. No mid-major stuff. No rode DWade's coattails. The last two coaches have burned that bridge for me. At least right now.

            But it's not like anyone is paying attention to me that matters. So they'll do what they do.

            I just hope that IU isn't getting turned down left and right with the feelers they send out to their top tier wants... and ultimately has to 'settle'.

            1A might be off the list, but hopefully 1B and 1C is still in play. Not 3D and 4A and hoping to get some interest from 2B.
            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, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • The thing that drives me nuts is that IU fans have this reputation for being crazy or whatever. That’s just not true at this point.

              Plenty of fans still seemed to support Archie until midway through this season. He had four years!

              No one is expecting us to make Final Fours every year. No one is expecting a championship within 5 years.

              All most IU fans want is someone who can come in and be reasonably successful in the Big 10, be a major contender for a Big 10 title every few years, and make a deep tournament run every once in a while. All of that shouldn’t be super difficult to accomplish given what IU has to offer. Once someone can do all of that, then hopefully we could start building towards being a major success program.

              IU fans are reasonable at this point. The only thing crazy about us is that we stay so loyal to this brutal program lol.
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-23-2021, 02:50 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                The thing that drives me nuts is that IU fans have this reputation for being crazy or whatever. That’s just not true at this point.

                Plenty of fans still seemed to support Archie until midway through this season. He had four years!

                No one is expecting us to make Final Fours every year. No one is expecting a championship within 5 years.

                All most IU fans want is someone who can come in and be reasonably successful in the Big 10, be a major contender for a Big 10 title every few years, and make a deep tournament run every once in a while. All of that shouldn’t be super difficult to accomplish given what IU has to offer. Once someone can do all of that, then hopefully we could start building towards being a major success program.

                IU fans are reasonable at this point. The only thing crazy about us is that we stay so loyal to this brutal program lol.
                Our reaction to losing to Syracuse was insane.


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

                  Our reaction to losing to Syracuse was insane.
                  That was just an exclamation point on the realization that a basketball savant, Crean was not... and that IU would almost always be at a coaching disadvantage in big games against perennial contenders.
                  Sure, IU had a puncher's chance if the team could go crazy from 3, make even prayers, and win 96-94... But the other team likely had a coach that would figure out how to stop that from happening if they were traditional contenders (NCAA tournament regulars, not necessarily championship contenders either). Crean just wasn't on the level of those other coaches.
                  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, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bball View Post

                    That was just an exclamation point on the realization that a basketball savant, Crean was not... and that IU would almost always be at a coaching disadvantage in big games against perennial contenders.
                    Sure, IU had a puncher's chance if the team could go crazy from 3, make even prayers, and win 96-94... But the other team likely had a coach that would figure out how to stop that from happening if they were traditional contenders (NCAA tournament regulars, not necessarily championship contenders either). Crean just wasn't on the level of those other coaches.
                    I disagree completely specifically because it was Syracuse who has tripped up teams for years with their zone.

                    You combine that with IU's best shooter having a bum shoulder and it's not a shock at all we lost that game. That was a 1 seed losing to a 4 seed in the Sweet 16 and the first really great IU basketball year in basically a decade and people reacted like Crean had cost us 3 straight titles or something.

                    I'm not gonna defend Crean, it had more than run its course, but the reaction to losing that Syracuse game and the fact tthat we still talked about it years later was ridiculous.

                    Crean out dueled John Beilien and Izzo twice that year.

                    I think Crean's issues were only sort of X's and O's. I think the guy's personality was a lot to deal with and his recruiting fell off hard.


                    Comment


                    • Crean had issues. Lots of issues.
                      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, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • So if we’re talking about coaches with NBA ties, name recognition, and and ability to attract players...

                        How do people feel about Rick Pitino?

                        If you want a guy that can handle the spotlight (as well as bring some much needed national attention to the program), Pitino lives for the cameras.

                        His name hasn’t been mentioned at all, but it would be one hell of a whirlwind.
                        I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by indyman37 View Post
                          So if we’re talking about coaches with NBA ties, name recognition, and and ability to attract players...

                          How do people feel about Rick Pitino?

                          If you want a guy that can handle the spotlight (as well as bring some much needed national attention to the program), Pitino lives for the cameras.

                          His name hasn’t been mentioned at all, but it would be one hell of a whirlwind.

                          He would win immediately.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

                            Our reaction to losing to Syracuse was insane.

                            Maybe, but that's really the only team we've had since 2002 that had a great chance at a Final Four so I'll give the fanbase a bit of a pass on that one. When the chances are so few and far between, people get a bit emotional. 2008 had the talent, but the Sampson thing derailed the season.

                            We were just manhandled by Syracuse - it's not like we lost on some crazy buzzer beater or something.

                            But Crean to his credit could win in the Big 10, something Archie could never do. I'm guilty of not fully appreicating the successes Crean did have until witnessing these last four yeras.

                            All of these years later, I think the fan base is very reasonable. Up until midseason this year, there will still a lot of IU fans who were willing to stick with Archie. I really don't think most people are unreasonable at this point. All they want is a team that is halfway decent consistently.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post


                              He would win immediately.
                              And he’s practically endearing himself to the fan base already by saying that Brad Stevens is the perfect fit and that IU shouldn’t leave Boston without him.

                              The biggest issue would be the fact that he has a $10mil buyout with Iona because they figured he would use it as a springboard to a bigger program. But IU has donors for that

                              This is all without talking about his coaching pedigree and knack for modern offense with tough-nosed defense - something Indiana hasn’t had for at least four years...
                              I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                              Comment


                              • Is there an unanticipated delay in IU announcing the coach, like everyone seems to think, or are they just finishing negotiations with their target? Let's assume Stevens is off the board and he's rejected their lifeline and and been asked "FInal answer?" and he's replied "Final answer!".
                                Are we to think there was no number 2 already penciled in?
                                Is it truly just a wide open search now with nobody as a clear target?

                                Or is it final negotiations, and/or the target is still in the tournament and not available to sign or talk just yet?
                                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, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X