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

Rasko on a Rant!

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

  • Rasko on a Rant!

    So I'm in my last year of "college" as you crazy Americans would say it and for my thesis/endwork I have to do a lot of reading. I was sick of staying in my room for a whole day and to create some sort of going to work/class feeling for the last couple of days I've been going to the local scientific library to study my material. Everything is peaceful and calm over there and though it's a bit hot it's a great environment to study the books. I almost feel like I have my own office.

    There I am again at the library this morning. For the first 30 minutes everything is peaceful as usual, I'm working at ease -- a bit of strings here, a bit of Dp-branes there -- but then all of a sudden there's a burst of rumor coming from the entrance hall.

    A bunch of rascals just entered my precious library. I can't see them and they can't see me, because the desk which I'm sitting at is hidden between the numerous bookracks standing all over the library. So how, you might wonder, am I so sure they're a group of scoundrels? Why I can hear them talk. They're talking the rascal talk. Well ok, says I to myself, I'll give them 15 minutes. If they're not quiet by then, it's time to react. Or act, you can interpret it both ways.

    The rascal noise is coming closer now. And closer. They're now standing one bookrack away from where I'm sitting. They're looking at the physics books. Talking the rascal talk again. "Wow, that one looks very interesting", says one. "And that one too", says another. "But that one's less", says a third. The noise fades and I can hear them take a seat at some desks a bit further. Apparently the rascals have chosen some book or article. But they still won't keep quiet.

    15 minutes have gone by. It's time to act now, my man, I tell myself. I take a short breath and am aware of the fact I don't like these kind of situations. But loaded with confidence from my last rascal confrontation I take a final bite from my apple, throw it in the trash can standing next to my desk and leave my seat. To this point the rascals and I still haven't seen one another yet.

    That doesn't last for long though. As soon as I pass the first bookrack, we're in each others field of glance. There's about 40 feet distance I have to cover to reach them, so as I walk towards them in Samuel L. Jackson style (well, maybe without the L., but still) I have more than enough time to make some valuable observations about my opponents. There's 3 of 'em. They're sitting in a vertical row as seen from my point of view. The last and the first one are laughing, the middle rascal is staring quiet at his desk.

    My hierarchy conclusions are the following. As the first one was telling the story and the last one was confirming and laughing, I take it the first one is the leader and the last one the confirmer. I'm not sure about the quiet guy in the middle. He can be dangerous. Or he's just a quiet guy, nothing more to it, or he's an unpredictable outsider rascal. I'm praying he's not the latter, for that's too much rascal one man can take.

    The confirmer notices me first. Through his rascal glasses he gives an eye signal to the leader to make him aware of my presence. The quiet guy just keeps staring at his desk. As the leader turns his head in my direction I can't help noticing his sideburns. True rascal sideburns. I give him my best Baccharat face and

    says I: "could you guys be a bit more quiet, please?"

    Says the sideburned leader: "Ah, sorry, no problem."

    Says I: "Ok. Thanks."

    I walk back to my office and after a quiet 30 minutes the rascals leave the library. Just like that.



    Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
    Bum in Berlin on Myspace

  • #2
    Re: Rasko on a Rant!

    Dude! I was expecting an all-out brawl in the library!



    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rasko on a Rant!

      Originally posted by SoupIsGood
      Dude! I was expecting an all-out brawl in the library!
      So was I. Rascals just aren't anymore what they used to be.
      Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
      Bum in Berlin on Myspace

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rasko on a Rant!

        Thats it?? Thats story sucks. Wheres the part where you save the library when you have a duel with the sideburned leader and you make out with the hot chick at the end?? Wheres all that?!
        "Remember the pain of my fist. That is my power!"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rasko on a Rant!

          Originally posted by Fireball Kid
          Thats it?? Thats story sucks. Wheres the part where you save the library when you have a duel with the sideburned leader and you make out with the hot chick at the end?? Wheres all that?!
          Yeah, I wish that would've happened.

          But this is real life, man. The hard knock library life; it's a true story.

          Furthermore, scientific libraries do not contain hot chicks.

          On a more serious note: Fireball, you're a Mavs fan, right? Do you have any idea what the plans are with DJ Mbenga? Since he has Belgian nationality, I'm forced to follow him around a bit. This season I have seen nothing but DNP cards for him, except in blowout wins (or losses, but when you're the Mavs, that doesn't happen all that much these days) where he gets to play in garbage time. Avery Johnson actually said it once litterally Mbenga may only play in garbage time. That doesn't seem like he's doing well or like he's gonna get a real chance, or is it all part of some master development plan?
          Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
          Bum in Berlin on Myspace

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rasko on a Rant!

            I hate it when people are joking around and talking in the library.

            There always seems to be some typical freshmen girls all outfitted in their "ugs" and furry jackets making noise while I'm trying to get some work done. Usually, calling them out in front of everyone in the library embarasses them enough to leave and hang their heads in shame.

            Rasko - what's your thesis on?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rasko on a Rant!

              Originally posted by rcarey
              I hate it when people are joking around and talking in the library.

              There always seems to be some typical freshmen girls all outfitted in their "ugs" and furry jackets making noise while I'm trying to get some work done. Usually, calling them out in front of everyone in the library embarasses them enough to leave and hang their heads in shame.

              Rasko - what's your thesis on?
              It's about string theory, physics' best candidate to the Grand Unified Theory. I'll try to give a short explanation.

              There are two main experimentally verified theories in physics today. The first one is Einstein's general theory of relativity, which describes gravity, the motion of the stars, ... in general everything in the universe that is large. The second one is the Standard Model, based on quantum field theory (QFT), which describes the small, such as electrons circling around the atomic nucleus on account of the electromagnetic force, protons and neutrons being held in that same nucleus on account of the strong force or the decay of nuclei into other, more stable nuclei on account of the weak force.

              Something that physicists love to do is to unify theories, that is develop a new theory in such a way that your earlier theories can all be deducted from the new one, i.e. under certain circumstances (in certain limits) a certain earlier theory holds. Examples are the unification of electric and magnetic forces into the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell (1860s) and more recently (1970s) the unification of the weak and electromagnetic into the electroweak force.

              What string theory tries to do is to unify (there you have it) the two theories about the large and the small -- Einstein's relativity theory and the Standard Model. This is not a simple thing to do, there have gone decades by till there was finally found a legal candidate to bring these two together. And since that was such a hard thing to do, it was almost not a surprise anymore that a unifying theory of relativity and QFT contains a few very strange, almost uncanny properties.

              That candidate, string theory (1980s), states for instance that, as it's name implies, the building blocks of matter are strings, 1-dimensional objects, instead of dimensionless point particles that are used in all preceding theories. The connection with those earlier theories is made by the statement that each string vibrating in some sort of mode represents some point particle and it's properties. Another strange asset of ST is that the building blocks of matter live in a 10-dimensional world (9 space-dimensions & 1 time-dimension), instead of the classical 4-dimensional (3 space-dimension & 1-time dimension). The fact that we don't see those missing 6 space-dimensions is due the compactification of those 6 in space and time.

              Until now, there have been no experimental verifications of ST because such tests are, from a technical point of view, very hard to do. ST is a pure "theoretical theory". But the fact that it unifies two very well experimentally verified theories is a good reason why it might make sense after all.

              Well, that was not too short actually. Hope you got something out of it.

              Of course I'll only be studying the very basis of the theory. Hopefully later I'll get more into it and eventually contributing to it in very very small, small ways, but I'm afraid chances to that are very very small, small as well.

              Thanks for asking.

              You're a history man, right? (Tell me more)

              And future Raptors GM?
              Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
              Bum in Berlin on Myspace

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rasko on a Rant!

                String theory has always been real interesing to me, thanks for that Rasko.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rasko on a Rant!

                  Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                  String theory has always been real interesing to me, thanks for that Rasko.
                  You actually know about it?

                  I'm not .

                  How are your college plans developing?
                  Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                  Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rasko on a Rant!

                    Dang - Rasko, you pretty much summed up the reasons I'm finishing my history degree. Hah!

                    That's some heavy material right there, but interesting nonetheless. Not your average "bed-time reading" I imagine. Good luck with it. Is this to earn your Ph.D?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rasko on a Rant!

                      Originally posted by Raskolnikov
                      Yeah, I wish that would've happened.

                      But this is real life, man. The hard knock library life; it's a true story.

                      Furthermore, scientific libraries do not contain hot chicks.

                      On a more serious note: Fireball, you're a Mavs fan, right? Do you have any idea what the plans are with DJ Mbenga? Since he has Belgian nationality, I'm forced to follow him around a bit. This season I have seen nothing but DNP cards for him, except in blowout wins (or losses, but when you're the Mavs, that doesn't happen all that much these days) where he gets to play in garbage time. Avery Johnson actually said it once litterally Mbenga may only play in garbage time. That doesn't seem like he's doing well or like he's gonna get a real chance, or is it all part of some master development plan?
                      To answer your question we have Diop at center starting and Dampier coming off the bench. Keith Van Horn usually backs up Dirk or Josh, or sometimes Dirk and Keith play at the same time. So theres pretty much no room for DJ to play because were deep.

                      From the few minutes I see him play, I kinda like his game. He has a nice mid-range shot and can block shots too. I hope Dallas keeps him around.
                      "Remember the pain of my fist. That is my power!"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rasko on a Rant!

                        Nice post Rasko. Hawking's A Brief History of Time really delves into finding a GUT. He just published a follow up but I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rasko on a Rant!

                          Originally posted by Raskolnikov
                          You actually know about it?

                          I'm not .

                          How are your college plans developing?
                          It's something that I've heard people talk about at times, something I've always meant to read about sometime. Loved the little synopsis you gave.
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rasko on a Rant!

                            Originally posted by rcarey
                            Dang - Rasko, you pretty much summed up the reasons I'm finishing my history degree. Hah!

                            That's some heavy material right there, but interesting nonetheless. Not your average "bed-time reading" I imagine. Good luck with it. Is this to earn your Ph.D?
                            No, no, it's just the piece we have to write as a part of our (regular) last year at university (I'm still only 21). We call that 'thesis'. It is the most important task of this last year though. For instance, I have only 2 classes this semester, the rest of the time can and must be used for my thesis.

                            Maybe I will try to achieve a doctorate (that's the term which I think we use for PhD) next year(s). I have a chance of getting that, but my grades are just not good enough to be sure.

                            Thanks for the good luck. I'll need it, man.

                            A little side note: I may have explained the principles of ST in words, but when you actually work with it (and that is the case for any self-respecting theory in physics), it's all and nothing but mathematics expressing those ideas. That's why (pure) theoretical physics is often named mathematical physics. Just making sure no one would get any wrong impressions.
                            Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                            Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X