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

And I would put the pasted article in quotes like this.
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

What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

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

  • #16
    Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

    A gore presidency would not have stopped 9-11, the planning started long before bush even came into office. They were gonna attack no matter who the president was.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

      4.2 million in donations in one day, could get some people talking. Especially if they start seeing his face everywhere. Wouldn't it be interesting to have three real strong contender candidates in the race? That would be historical.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

        It's funny .... some of Paul's most "radical" ideas are not radical at all. In fact, he's VERY close to Milton Friedman who asked "How can we benefit from the promise of government while avoiding the threat is poses to individual freedom?"

        By the way, Fortune Magazine says Friedman is the "economist of the century" ... Washington Post "the most influential living economist since WWII" ... Times "hundred most influential thinkers of all time" etc etc etc.

        Paul is gaining momentum because he links foreign and domestic monetary policy. It would be nice to stay and fix Iraq.... but it's not free, it's tremendously expensive. And we're not likely to "fix" anything for a very very long time. In fact, so long, it could bankrupt this country.

        Anyway check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

          Originally posted by Mav View Post
          It's funny .... some of Paul's most "radical" ideas are not radical at all. In fact, he's VERY close to Milton Friedman who asked "How can we benefit from the promise of government while avoiding the threat is poses to individual freedom?"
          If completely getting rid of income taxes, with no increase in federal sales tax but completely just trashing the whole idea, isn't radical than I don't know what is.

          He wants the Constitution treated as the original document and not a living/breathing one.

          Some of his ideas aren't quite 180 degrees differently than how we do things now, but they're pretty damn close. His ideas aren't radical like we think of radical religionists that are fundamentalists, his ideas are radical in that they're a complete change of direction. The level of change he's calling for is way out in left field that have no hope of getting done.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            If completely getting rid of income taxes, with no increase in federal sales tax but completely just trashing the whole idea, isn't radical than I don't know what is.

            He wants the Constitution treated as the original document and not a living/breathing one.

            Some of his ideas aren't quite 180 degrees differently than how we do things now, but they're pretty damn close. His ideas aren't radical like we think of radical religionists that are fundamentalists, his ideas are radical in that they're a complete change of direction. The level of change he's calling for is way out in left field that have no hope of getting done.
            It's not radical when you think about the big picture. The idea is really simple. There are 190 countries in the world. The US is in 130 of them. We have military bases in over 90 countries. Paul says it's time to bring those troops home and stop messing in the affairs of foreign countries.

            The byproduct of bringing the military home serves several purposes. One, it will save the US about $1 trillion dollars per year. Two, we can use our forces to secure and defend our borders (solving the immigration problem). Three we can use the savings to pay for certain entitlement programs that need to be funded - like social security.

            In the meantime, we can allow young people to opt out of social security if they want to. We can also eliminate the Federal Income Tax so people keep more of what they earn.

            Eliminating the Federal Income Tax would only require government spending to be reduced to what was spent in the year 2000. Does anyone believe it's too much to ask the goverment to spend what they did only seven years ago, if we can save almost $1 trillion dollars on our screwed up foreign policy? Further, you may think your income tax dollars pay for all sorts of wonderful goverment entitlement programs. But the reality is you tax dollars may for (largely) interest on our goverment debt.

            Paul is not an isolationist. Paul would talk and trade and encourage foreign travel. But he would not subsidize foreign goverments with taxpayers (YOUR) money. Whether it's the $16 billion we gave to Pakistan or maintaining bases in Korea for the last 50 years, US foreign policy is tremendously expensive. And it's leading to the decline in the value of the US Dollar because the Federal Reserve simply prints more money out of thin air to pay for exorbitant spending. Ron Paul wants to stop the madness.

            You can think of Paul's position in VERY simple terms. The goverment spends YOUR tax dollars on a foreign policy that is a complete mess. If we changed our foreign policy we could fix social security, defend our borders, end the war, bring our troops home, oil would drop $20 per barrel over night, and you would no longer have to pay Social Security tax or Federal Income Tax.

            If we do not change our Foreign Policy odds are the US Dollar will continue to decline in value, oil will continue to rise, our troops will be in Iraq for a very long time (even Hillary Clinton says until 2013), you will continue to pay in tax almost 50% of what you make to the government. And who knows what socialized medicine or a National ID card or a border wall will cost. Tons of money.

            And things could get worse. If, for example, the US atacks Iran we'll likely see $200 oil.

            Now, which idea is more radical?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

              Originally posted by Mav View Post
              It's not radical when you think about the big picture. The idea is really simple. There are 190 countries in the world. The US is in 130 of them. We have military bases in over 90 countries. Paul says it's time to bring those troops home and stop messing in the affairs of foreign countries.

              The byproduct of bringing the military home serves several purposes. One, it will save the US about $1 trillion dollars per year. Two, we can use our forces to secure and defend our borders (solving the immigration problem). Three we can use the savings to pay for certain entitlement programs that need to be funded - like social security.

              In the meantime, we can allow young people to opt out of social security if they want to. We can also eliminate the Federal Income Tax so people keep more of what they earn.

              Eliminating the Federal Income Tax would only require government spending to be reduced to what was spent in the year 2000. Does anyone believe it's too much to ask the goverment to spend what they did only seven years ago, if we can save almost $1 trillion dollars on our screwed up foreign policy? Further, you may think your income tax dollars pay for all sorts of wonderful goverment entitlement programs. But the reality is you tax dollars may for (largely) interest on our goverment debt.

              Paul is not an isolationist. Paul would talk and trade and encourage foreign travel. But he would not subsidize foreign goverments with taxpayers (YOUR) money. Whether it's the $16 billion we gave to Pakistan or maintaining bases in Korea for the last 50 years, US foreign policy is tremendously expensive. And it's leading to the decline in the value of the US Dollar because the Federal Reserve simply prints more money out of thin air to pay for exorbitant spending. Ron Paul wants to stop the madness.

              You can think of Paul's position in VERY simple terms. The goverment spends YOUR tax dollars on a foreign policy that is a complete mess. If we changed our foreign policy we could fix social security, defend our borders, end the war, bring our troops home, oil would drop $20 per barrel over night, and you would no longer have to pay Social Security tax or Federal Income Tax.

              If we do not change our Foreign Policy odds are the US Dollar will continue to decline in value, oil will continue to rise, our troops will be in Iraq for a very long time (even Hillary Clinton says until 2013), you will continue to pay in tax almost 50% of what you make to the government. And who knows what socialized medicine or a National ID card or a border wall will cost. Tons of money.

              And things could get worse. If, for example, the US atacks Iran we'll likely see $200 oil.

              Now, which idea is more radical?
              How about the one which goes against U.S. policy for the past century or so?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                I'm glad someone gets the point I was trying to make.

                I'm not going to debate what he says he will try to do if elected, because it's a moot point. Even if he does get elected he won't be able to do 3/4ths of what he wants, because he can't introduce bills into Congress. Even if he manages to find someone who thinks like him, a committee in both houses would have to approve it, before it ever sees the floor.

                If for some messed up reason it does see the floor, you think 50% of Congress will vote for it? Get real.

                His ideas are radical because they're completely opposite of the norm. Whether you think the norm is right or not isn't the question.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                  This raises a broader point. It has become fashionable among certain commentators to hurl insults at Ron Paul such as "huge weirdo," "fruitcake," and the like. Interestingly, the same thing was done to another anti-war medical doctor/politician, Howard Dean, back in 2003, as Charles Krauthammer infamously pronounced with regard to Dean that "it's time to check on thorazine supplies." Krauthammer subsequently said that "[i]t looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again."

                  For a long time now, I've heard a lot of people ask: "where are the principled conservatives?" -- meaning those on the Right who are willing to oppose the constitutional transgressions and abuses of the Bush administration without regard to party loyalty. A "principled conservative" isn't someone who agrees with liberals on most issues; that would make them a "principled liberal." A "principled conservative" is someone who aggressively objects to the radicalism of the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution and embraces a conservative political ideology. That's what Ron Paul is, and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most liberals. That hardly makes him a "fruitcake."

                  Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of a sovereign country that had not attacked us and could not attack us -- as did some of the commentators now aggressively questioning Ron Paul's mental health or, at least, his "seriousness." She supported the occupation of that country for years -- until it became politically unpalatable. That war has killed hundreds of thousands of people at least and wreaked untold havoc on our country. Are those who supported that war extremist, or big weirdos, or fruitcakes?

                  Or how about her recent support for Joe Lieberman's Iran warmongering amendment, or her desire to criminalize flag burning, or her vow to strongly consider an attack on Iran if they obtain nuclear weapons? Is all of that sane, normal, and serious?

                  And I read every day that corporations and their lobbyists are the bane of our country, responsible for most of its ills. What does it say about her that her campaign is fueled in large part by support from exactly those factions? Are she and all of her supporters nonetheless squarely within the realm of the sane and normal? And none of this is to say anything of the Giulianis and Podhoretzs and Romneys and Krauthammers and Kristols with ideas so extreme and dangerous, yet still deemed "serious."

                  That isn't to say that nobody can ever be deemed extremist or even crazy. But I've heard Ron Paul speak many times now. There are a lot of views he espouses that I don't share. But he is a medical doctor and it shows; whatever else is true about him, he advocates his policies in a rational, substantive, and coherent way -- at least as thoughtful and critical as any other political figure on the national scene, if not more so. As the anti-Paul New York Sun noted today, Paul has been downright prescient for a long time in warning about the severe devaluation of the dollar.

                  And -- as the above-cited efforts to compel Congress to actually adhere to the Constitution demonstrate -- few people have been as vigorous in defense of Constitutional principles as those principles have been mangled and trampled upon by this administration while most of our establishment stood by meekly. That's just true.

                  Paul's efforts in that regard may be "odd" in the sense that virtually nobody else seemed to care all that much about systematic unconstitutional actions, but that hardly makes him a "weirdo." Sometimes -- as the debate over the Iraq War should have demonstrated once and for all -- the actual "fruitcake" positions are the ones that are held by the people who are welcome in our most respectable institutions and magazines, both conservative and liberal.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                    Originally posted by Mav View Post
                    Nope, not at all. And sorry for the confusion. I usually read the Pacers board but I don't post very often.

                    EDIT: I don't know who I'm going to vote for. Sometimes I wonder if Paul is a nutjob ... other times I think it's everyone else who is nuts.
                    Um...are you sure you're not working for Ron Paul?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                      I like the guy. He would have my vote if he were to win the nomination. Sad thing is no one outside of Charlotte's World Wide Web has even heard of the guy, much less are willing to vote for him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                        Um...are you sure you're not working for Ron Paul?
                        Sure sounds like it doesn't it Rexnom.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                          I certainly don't work for him but he can count on my support. His chances are slim but he's gaining steam quickly. Internet polls show him "winning" recent debates. Young people are flocking to his message. Not just any young people but traditionally non-voting types. He's a breath of fresh air in a stagnant political system in my opinion. He made me register and I fully intend on supporting this guy.
                          I'm in these bands
                          The Humans
                          Dr. Goldfoot
                          The Bar Brawlers
                          ME

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                            I'll be voting for him in the primaries.

                            Disclaimer: I don't work for his campaign.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                              Originally posted by Manuel View Post
                              I'll be voting for him in the primaries.

                              Disclaimer: I don't work for his campaign.
                              when you are this good with kids - how could you not vote for him...?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X