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

  • Bball
    replied
    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    IU might fall *** backwards into a perfect moment. If Boston goes under .500 or even .500 this year Brad really has no excuse and almost has to be canned. Hopefully we lose out and punt on Archie and then somebody like Cuban or a big boy donor makes the pocket book wide open and Brad comes home. Seems like the only way out at this point. Something wild like that.
    I've always wondered if that situation would ever manifest itself-
    Stevens on the out in Boston. IU with a clear failure (or less than optimal performer) as HC.

    Of course you have two sub-boxes to check off:
    Does Stevens want to return to college ball? And.... At this point.. .we have to ask.. What does the administration consider a success or "good enough" for the basketball program? (AKA Is Miller doing "good enough for the administration... or not?)

    Leave a comment:


  • Trader Joe
    replied
    IU might fall *** backwards into a perfect moment. If Boston goes under .500 or even .500 this year Brad really has no excuse and almost has to be canned. Hopefully we lose out and punt on Archie and then somebody like Cuban or a big boy donor makes the pocket book wide open and Brad comes home. Seems like the only way out at this point. Something wild like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Michigan is gonna smoke us on Saturday.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    An offense this bad in modern college basketball at a university that USED TO BE one of the blue-bloods.

    Not any longer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    ...And doesn't that game seem like FOREVER ago???

    Geez... Covid....

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    I’ve been highly skeptical about Archie ever since we lost 12 of 13 (or whatever it was) two seasons ago. It’s one thing to have a slump, but that was just unbelievable. Surreal.
    The glimmer of hope that Miller was building something and there was a method to the madness dimmed greatly for me (and it was already a dim flicker) with the way IU played last season for the "Knight Return" game against Purdue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    ^ I’ve been wondering this for years now. The glory days of this program are akin to The Roman Empire or Ancient Egypt in the history books. The banners have the symbolism of the pyramids: Ancient monuments to a long lost age.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    I just saw a question that is popping up a bit now... Is IU now a football school?
    So, reading the comments and thinking about the question my answer is that there seems to be a clear goal and expectation for the football team. Positive program momentum and being in position for bowl games, and being competitive in bowl games.
    The gravy boat would seem to be top 10 rankings and competing for the B10 championship, but I don't think anyone really is expecting that. So, I'd like to say "no, IU isn't a football school".

    But then we think about coaching turnover for the football program. They definitely seem to have some clear expectations and no problem moving on if those expectations are not met (both with the record and with professionalism by the coaches).

    So, what is the expectation for the basketball program? Mid-pack in the Big Ten? NCAA tournament bubble team with a CHANCE to make the tournament? Fighting to have a 20 win season each year? It doesn't seem to be BTT success or deep NCAA tournament runs. Crean held on a long time without much BTT success or much in the way of tournament runs.

    Did Crean get canned because he missed the tournament, or because his recruiting was slipping? I wanted to believe it was because it had become clear he was not a coach that could get something from nothing, and could do less with more. Now, I'm not so sure.

    I think I gave Miller a fair chance before deciding he is not the answer. But, that is me... It begs the question- What is the question the administration is asking of the basketball program these days? What IS the goal?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    I’ve been highly skeptical about Archie ever since we lost 12 of 13 (or whatever it was) two seasons ago. It’s one thing to have a slump, but that was just unbelievable. Surreal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Every team in the Big Ten has their down years. Injuries, transfers, recruiting misses add up. But IU has had 4 straight years of terrible offense. It SEEMS that they have finally managed to improve FT shooting of late. But at this point, even that would be an outlier (instead of a return to the norm).
    A lot of years are now in the rearview mirror for Archie Miller's coaching for someone to tell me what we are seeing these 4 years are the outliers and the foundation of something different, and something better, being built.
    It looks to me like we're simply seeing IU basketball under Archie Miller. If he could fix it, he would've fixed it by now. IMHO...

    Leave a comment:


  • clownskull
    replied
    Originally posted by Bball View Post

    I'm much more optimistic than you... I think we can head into the BTT riding a 1-3 'wave'....
    Yeh, pulling off one win in these last 3 games is possible. Wouldn't even surprise me too much if they somehow pulled one more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Originally posted by clownskull View Post
    That msu loss is pretty much the nail in the coffin on possible post-season hopes. Rutgers, Michigan & Purdue remain. Likely gonna be riding a 4 game losing streak heading into btt. Toss in factors like iu's history in the btt plus the fact this team just isn't very good and we're looking at 4 more games for the rest of the season.
    I'm much more optimistic than you... I think we can head into the BTT riding a 1-3 'wave'....

    Leave a comment:


  • clownskull
    replied
    That msu loss is pretty much the nail in the coffin on possible post-season hopes. Rutgers, Michigan & Purdue remain. Likely gonna be riding a 4 game losing streak heading into btt. Toss in factors like iu's history in the btt plus the fact this team just isn't very good and we're looking at 4 more games for the rest of the season.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Kinda hard to have anything negative to say about last night. IU played hard, were solid defensively, solid down the stretch, hit their 3's, and hit their FT's... and got to the line a lot where it's important to make your FT's, especially if getting to the line is a major part of your game.

    But it's not like Minnesota is a basketball machine. So there's that...

    IU needs to play like that every game. They have yet, in the Archie Era, to prove they can do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trader Joe
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post


    Wasn't Sampson on track to bring in some huge recruits for the 08-09 season? Could someone with a better memory of that fill me in?

    Yeah there were some problem guys on that team, but I think everything falling apart exacerbated it. Sampson could just flat out coach. That team was what, 22-4 when he resigned? With IU's resources, he would have always been able to find enough quality players. That, combined with his coaching, would have always had us in the mix.
    Yes, he had a huge recruiting foothold coming in headlined by 5 star Devin Ebanks who ended up going to West Virginia. There was also a guard who's name is now slipping my mind. I think he may have ended up at Xavier?

    Lance probably would have gone to IU if Sampson had not been fired. We were considered the leader for him because of that Sampson assistant that had a lot of connections in NYC.

    IU should have held their water on Sampson IMO especially since they ended up essentially giving us such a bitter pill anyway. It's insane that what Sampson did is now no longer even illegal in the NCAA. IU got ****ing hosed there especially when you look at what KU, UNC, and others have gotten away with in the past 10-15 years.

    Sampson is a fantastic coach. I think one of the 10 best coaches in college basketball easily. He would have won titles, not title, titles at IU. He had the state on lock and was also recruiting the east coast insanely well which is the magic recruiting formula you need at IU.

    The Sampson thing makes me so mad to this day. I also truly believed he loved coaching at IU and understood what the program represented. He was such a good hire and a guy like him seems a universe away at this point. Imagine getting a guy with that kind of resume now. Seems impossible. He was already so accomplished at Oklahoma.

    Ugh.

    EDIT: Yep the guard was Tu Holloway who you might remember. A 4 year player at Xavier who averaged I think like 18-20 PPG his junior and senior years. He started 3 years and played next to Jordan Crawford (who left IU) on those Xavier teams. My god we were so robbed. Armon Bassett also left IU and went on to take Ohio University to the sweet 16. Makes me sick thinking about this again now, especially when you think about guys like Yogi or Cody coming into this system. That was what Sampson was good at, getting 3-4 year guys who were talented and then also bringing in big 5 star recruit to supplement them. Eli Holman who was the guy who famously threw a potted plant in the coach's office also end up going to University of Detroit I think and having a great college career.

    I think Sampson has 2 titles and 4-5 final fours if he stays at IU. You might think that's aggressive, but look what he's done his entire career. He just wins and IU had the resources and still had the national clout to make it happen.
    Last edited by Trader Joe; 02-15-2021, 02:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X