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:
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

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?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

  • #2
    Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

    Well, as a teacher you should know that he is against federal spending on education.
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird


    • #3
      Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

      Basically I love his domestic policy stance, but I've heard him speak on the war several times. He's a little to "cut and run" for my taste. However, he'd probably get my vote as he seems like one the most genuine politicians in a long time.

      And ultimately thats what I want. I am a republican, but I have reserve about Guiliani and other mainstream candidates, simply because I believe that should they be elected nothing would happen. They would be too constricted by hand shake agreements, and would not be gutsy enough to make some radical changes. I just want someone who will do something, not just bide time.
      House Name: Pacers

      House Sigil:

      House Words: "We Kneel To No King"


      • #4
        Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

        You know, there was a time, not long ago, when the debate was about TV versus Radio. I think it was JFK who really killed the "radio politician." Ron Paul is only polling around 2% nationally (although some say he's around 7.5% in New Hampshire) but he's dominating the internet. Can a grass roots campaign get off the ground based on an internet led campign? Absolutely. Ron Paul has an enormous sum of money for a candidate who started among the second or third tier. But can he actually win? Who knows... Maybe the important point is the internet is providing a platform for him to be heard. And whether you like his policy or not, the man deserves to be heard. He's about the only candidate who has made me really think and reconsider my position on some major issues. Plus he's honest, which I respect, even though I certainly don't agree with everything he has to say.


        • #5
          Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

          I know little about him, but I do know that they were handing out Ron Paul for President stuff at the panthers game the other day and that there are Ron paul for President signs all over huntersville where I live. Thats the only signs I've seen for the presidential race so far of any candidates.

          I will however say, the signs that keep popping up are against the town ordiance on signage, so that should be fun for his local campiagn office when they have to go back out and collect all of those.


          • #6
            Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

            Interesting Gyron. Of course, the amazing thing about the Paul campaign, it there is no local campaign office. I read the Hillary Clinton has a campaign staff of over 500 people. Paul has about 50 people. The people putting up those signs are all spontaneous volunteers who are not coordinated by the official campaign at all. It's really sort of crazy... I read an article the other day that even Paul is baffled by what's happening.


            • #7
              Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
              Well, as a teacher you should know that he is against federal spending on education.
              Only now do I realize that this isn't Mal talking. It's a guy named Mav.

              Hey Mav, are you involved with the Ron Paul campaign?
              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

              “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird


              • #8
                Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                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.
                Last edited by Mav; 10-30-2007, 12:38 PM. Reason: more info


                • #9
                  Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                  Ron Paul - The new hope...


                  • #10
                    Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                    Isn't hope Barack's thing?


                    • #11
                      Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                      Isn't hope Barack's thing?
                      Flat-lining in the polls is more of Barack's thing now.


                      • #12
                        Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                        Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                        Flat-lining in the polls is more of Barack's thing now.


                        • #13
                          Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                          He was on Leno last night (Paul that is), and while his ideas are nice, there's no way 75% of them are plausible.

                          -He said he wants people to have the option whether or not they use SS, and the govt can't touch any of the money.
                          -Wants zero income tax.
                          -Go back to money being hard backed by some resource.
                          -Wants to pull out of Iraq immediately, and completely stop being the "police of the world," meaning no troops anywhere outside the US borders
                          -No allies with foreign countries, but be friends and work with everyone
                          -Free trade with anyone and everyone
                          -He wants very VERY limited govt., and go back to the original Constitution, no more no less.

                          In theory it's all great, but unfortunately we live in reality. If he was elected he would basically want to completely tear down and rebuild America as we know it. He even talked about how we should go back to how the country was ran prior to 1913. It's like he wanted to completely forget the past 100yrs.

                          He used an analogy last night comparing Iraq and medicine (he's a liscensed doctor). He said that if he was to misdiagnose someone, he wouldn't keep treating them the same way but stop. He said that's what we're doing with Iraq. We misdiagnosed the situation, went in when we shouldn't have, so we should just cut and run. If my doctor misdiagnosed some type of disease I had, realized it, then said "welp sorry, you're just going to have to deal with my mistake and because I did make a mistake I can't treat you anymore" I'd be one pissed SOB. He needs to atleast try to rectify the mistake, and try to find out what is wrong with me and treat that accordingly. Not just stop.

                          Anyways, there's my rant on the particular subject.

                          He's just living in a fantasy world if he thinks he could get a quarter of his ideas through Congress, and the ones he did get through would be minor compared to what he's actually running on.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.


                          • #14
                            Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                            If Ross Perot had stayed in the race instead of quitting and then re-starting, we may have had a very different country right now.

                            It could have developed into a 3 party (2 big and 1 little) system. And he could have actually won the race with less than the majority instead of just being a Republican spoiler.

                            I still voted for him because I disliked both Bush I and Clinton creeped me out.
                            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird


                            • #15
                              Re: What do you make of the Ron Paul phenomenon?

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold
                              Ross Perot was a real candidate...and was less of a nut than I implied in my post above. He was absolutely right about the giant sucking sound with respect to global trade...particularly impacts to Joe Sixpack, who now lives on just a couple beers a night with his $12/hr wage while Jane Sixpack has had to get a job to make ends meet...

                              I do think the country would have been better off with Perot. I don't think Clinton did a poor job though. Times were different. But, I don't think a Perot presidency would have stopped 9-11 and the culture of radical Islam...which is the overriding issue of our day.
                              No, but a Gore presidency might've......what? I didn't say anything...What was the question?