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 dal9 View Post
    man, just saw that last call against IU...that's kinda bs
    I thought it looked like Lander really got him hard on the arm and that is why the shot missed so badly? But I just saw one replay and moved on... there were FT's still and after he hit them and IU's prayer wasn't answered I didn't want to rewind anything.
    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

      I thought it looked like Lander really got him hard on the arm and that is why the shot missed so badly? But I just saw one replay and moved on... there were FT's still and after he hit them and IU's prayer wasn't answered I didn't want to rewind anything.
      I tried pausing and watching it slowly - didn’t look to me like Lander got much if any arm. Plus the foul was called on TJD anyway, right? I thought it was a super lame call.

      I thought IU pressing on that last possession was a bad decision. Pressing ensures that Syracuse will move fast...which means there will almost certainly be some sort of contact...which means Syracuse will get bailed out with a foul call. That’s exactly what happened. We should have set the defense.

      Of course, when you turn it over 25 times you are lucky to be in the game.

      Last year’s team would have lost that game by at least 20 points. So credit to them for bouncing back.

      Kopp icing those 3 free throws at the end as if he was Larry Bird was impressive. He shot them fast as if it was nothing.

      There were 48 total fouls called last night. Granted some of those were deliberate and it was a 2 OT game, but 48 fouls is absolutely insane. Conversely, there were 25 fouls called in the Warriors-Suns game.

      The whistle happy nature of college basketball makes the games almost unbearable to watch. This is why I don’t watch a ton of college outside of IU and the NCAA tournament. In college, guys can just barrel into the lane, create the contact, and get bailed out by whistle. That was a super lame way to end the game last night. Very poor call IMHO. In the NBA, that would almost never be called.

      Whenever you get frustrated with NBA officiating, just watch a college game and you’ll have a newfound respect for NBA officials.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-01-2021, 09:47 AM.

      Comment


      • That was a fun game. Wish we could have pulled it out, but I loved the fight.


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

          I tried pausing and watching it slowly - didn’t look to me like Lander got much if any arm. Plus the foul was called on TJD anyway, right? I thought it was a super lame call.

          I thought IU pressing on that last possession was a bad decision. Pressing ensures that Syracuse will move fast...which means there will almost certainly be some sort of contact...which means Syracuse will get bailed out with a foul call. That’s exactly what happened. We should have set the defense.

          Of course, when you turn it over 25 times you are lucky to be in the game.

          Last year’s team would have lost that game by at least 20 points. So credit to them for bouncing back.

          Kopp icing those 3 free throws at the end as if he was Larry Bird was impressive. He shot them fast as if it was nothing.

          There were 48 total fouls called last night. Granted some of those were deliberate and it was a 2 OT game, but 48 fouls is absolutely insane. Conversely, there were 25 fouls called in the Warriors-Suns game.

          The whistle happy nature of college basketball makes the games almost unbearable to watch. This is why I don’t watch a ton of college outside of IU and the NCAA tournament. In college, guys can just barrel into the lane, create the contact, and get bailed out by whistle. That was a super lame way to end the game last night. Very poor call IMHO. In the NBA, that would almost never be called.

          Whenever you get frustrated with NBA officiating, just watch a college game and you’ll have a newfound respect for NBA officials.
          Counter point, we played pressing, aggressive defense last possession against St John's and it won us the game with a tough shot. Just one of those things, you play your style and let the chips fall where they may.

          Kopp's FTs were impressive, but TJD's FT's to sent OT were wild too, did not think that was gonna happen. I really expected him to miss 1. TJD is the best player in the country right now.

          If IU can dial in the turnover issue, they are a sweet 16 team for sure I think and they may be the second best team in the Big Ten.

          The fight last night was totally different than anything we ever saw in the Archie era.


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

            I tried pausing and watching it slowly - didn’t look to me like Lander got much if any arm. Plus the foul was called on TJD anyway, right? I thought it was a super lame call.

            .
            I thought the announcers said TJD, but the ref indicated Lander. And when the replay played, I watched Lander. But I just saw it once...

            I see Lander had one foul in the Box score... and I finally found this from SI.com :

            But on Syracuse's last possession, Joseph Girard drove down the and was fouled by Lander with 0.8 seconds to go. He made them both to seal the win.

            Now I want to know if I saw what I thought I saw. LOL... I thought I saw Lander get him pretty good on the arm to the point that is why the shot was so badly missed. I was paying more attention to Lander than TJD because I thought the announcers had it wrong saying it was on TJD. But, considering the circumstances... There was still drama to play out. Though, little doubt they'd get at least one FT if not both.
            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


            • Really nice win against Nebraska to bounce back after the Syracuse game. Years of Archie ball gave me brain worms and I was terrified the past couple days that we were going to blow this game at home.


              Comment


              • Yep, a conference win. I'll take it.

                Comment


                • I wish I knew what made Archie such a flameout. He played in the ACC... he came from a family of coaches... his Dayton teams did well... And I read no cautionary tales about him or his system before he came to IU (unlike Crean who had an undercurrent of "IU fans will not accept Crean once they see what he brings to the table" when he arrived.

                  IU is playing like a modern, college basketball team. No HS offense.
                  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
                    I wish I knew what made Archie such a flameout. He played in the ACC... he came from a family of coaches... his Dayton teams did well... And I read no cautionary tales about him or his system before he came to IU (unlike Crean who had an undercurrent of "IU fans will not accept Crean once they see what he brings to the table" when he arrived.

                    IU is playing like a modern, college basketball team. No HS offense.
                    Yeh, on the face of it, Archie seemed like a good hire. But as time moved on, the problems that plagued the team (ft shooting, 3 point shooting, turnovers etc) were still very much a problem. I was hopeful this would improve but, it never did.

                    Comment


                    • there were a lot of questions about Archie, his system offensively was an issue. Also everyone wins at Dayton


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        there were a lot of questions about Archie, his system offensively was an issue. Also everyone wins at Dayton
                        BEFORE he arrived at IU there were questions about his offense or the offense he'd run at IU? Sure, I heard the "Dayton? Why can't we get the coach that just won the national championship!" arguments, but I never saw an analysis that broke down why Archie would be a bad fit at IU. Clearly, questions clearly developed once the balls started bouncing. And those questions got louder as each year saw the same problems repeating themselves.

                        But I saw nothing before his arrival that actually questioned his ability to succeed at IU or questioning his basketball coaching acumen. Did I just miss it?
                        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

                          BEFORE he arrived at IU there were questions about his offense or the offense he'd run at IU? Sure, I heard the "Dayton? Why can't we get the coach that just won the national championship!" arguments, but I never saw an analysis that broke down why Archie would be a bad fit at IU. Clearly, questions clearly developed once the balls started bouncing. And those questions got louder as each year saw the same problems repeating themselves.

                          But I saw nothing before his arrival that actually questioned his ability to succeed at IU or questioning his basketball coaching acumen. Did I just miss it?
                          it was hyped up just because Archie was a young-ish coach with a nice track record at a solid mid major. the trendy type of coaching hire of that era. but how many of those guys really ended up hitting it big now that we look back at it? It was kind of a 50/50 thing, but fundamentally Archie's offense wasn't a whole lot different than Crean's. He was supposed to bring defense. he also had no experience recruting at a major conference level and that really showed.

                          so i think there were plenty of questions about archie, i just think they were largely ignored because he "fit" the type of coaching hires programs were going for at the time.


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

                            it was hyped up just because Archie was a young-ish coach with a nice track record at a solid mid major. the trendy type of coaching hire of that era. but how many of those guys really ended up hitting it big now that we look back at it? It was kind of a 50/50 thing, but fundamentally Archie's offense wasn't a whole lot different than Crean's. He was supposed to bring defense. he also had no experience recruting at a major conference level and that really showed.

                            so i think there were plenty of questions about archie, i just think they were largely ignored because he "fit" the type of coaching hires programs were going for at the time.
                            Gotcha... Yeah, I agree with that. When Crean was hired there was something published from a Marquette follower/reporter not all that sad that Crean was gone, and talking about they didn't think Indiana understood what they were getting. Nor would IU fans like what they'd see. There was talk about Crean being a hype machine that would bring some initial energy, but that he'd have the team playing in ways that fans of IU basketball would never accept. And that wouldn't bring the success needed to win them over.

                            That was the gist of it... and it proved pretty accurate. Had people not believed NCAA sanctions had given IU "the death penalty" (and of course the sanctions didn't really do that), they might've soured on him sooner. He got a lot benefit of the doubt on 'the rebuild'... and that UK win resonated throughout Hoosier Nation.
                            So, all of that bought him some time. And maybe Fred Glass wasn't exactly the best judge of these things either...
                            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


                            • Penix is hitting the transfer portal.

                              I think it's probably for the best because of his injury history, and that he didn't appear ready this season, yet CTA didn't seem to want to pull the plug on him. Likely due to some loyalty for all he'd done, and for all he went thru to get back. But it's a team sport, and I'm not convinced he was the best option in the state he was in, or at least should've been on a bit of a hook.
                              Had he came back, I think we would've seen that same loyalty to him next year. ...Unless CTA had already made this decision and he's entering the transfer portal because he was told he won't be playing next season (or won't be the starter by default).

                              It probably doesn't help that he had a weak offensive line and some questionable play calling either... But it is what it is...
                              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
                                Penix is hitting the transfer portal.

                                I think it's probably for the best because of his injury history, and that he didn't appear ready this season, yet CTA didn't seem to want to pull the plug on him. Likely due to some loyalty for all he'd done, and for all he went thru to get back. But it's a team sport, and I'm not convinced he was the best option in the state he was in, or at least should've been on a bit of a hook.
                                Had he came back, I think we would've seen that same loyalty to him next year. ...Unless CTA had already made this decision and he's entering the transfer portal because he was told he won't be playing next season (or won't be the starter by default).

                                It probably doesn't help that he had a weak offensive line and some questionable play calling either... But it is what it is...
                                yeh, i can't say i'm surprised. he probably knows his starting spot is in a shaky position at best. throw in the sub-par o-line and how much more punishment he can take, him putting his name out there sounds about right. if he goes, i wish him the best of luck.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X