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

The Origin of Life/Evolution?

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

  • #61
    Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    Personally, I don't buy the allegation that the 7 days stuff could mean some kind of 'special God days' versus just plain old 24 hour days. The only reason I can see for anyone to assume that spin is to make what would otherwise be a square peg fit in a round hole, in my opinion. Not that you can't believe that if you want, but I find it dubious and contrived myself.

    I feel like some people act like they can't believe in God without attaching a popular religion to God at the same time. Perhaps God is real but the religions built around him are mistaken. They don't have to go hand in hand.
    When did the 24 hours makes a day system come into effect?

    I honestly never thought of that before, but I could see where translations get changed years after years (or hundreds or thousands, etc). Just think of how much the message in the telephone game gets changed, and that is usually a group/class of 15-20 people and 45 seconds

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      ...then you've officially expanded "creationism" to "anything anyone believes ever." You've officially run as far away from this topic as possible without putting your toes in the water.
      No, that's not what I've "expanded" it too. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a superior being, God. I believe God created the world. I believe God created the dinosaurs.

      This isn't that hard to understand.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        No, that's not what I've "expanded" it too. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a superior being, God. I believe God created the world. I believe God created the dinosaurs.

        This isn't that hard to understand.
        ....and your belief on how and when god "created" all of the life on earth is....

        You're trying really hard to get offended without reading through this topic and seeing what is actually on the table. If you're going to stick to the broadest, most generic definition of the word possible, then you have been getting upset over the English language, not philosophy.
        Last edited by Kstat; 04-29-2013, 02:13 PM.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          When terms like "indoctrination of our children" and "arrival of the fittest" come into play, you've narrowed the definition significantly.
          And when did I do those things? I haven't, nor will I.

          The only purpose of my post was to refute your ignorant belief that anyone who believes in Creationism denies the past existence of dinosaurs. Obviously that position isn't true.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            ...then you've officially expanded "creationism" to "anything anyone believes ever." You've officially run as far away from this topic as possible without putting your toes in the water.
            The irony here is that it's Darwinists who are overeager to label anything which challenges their stealth religion "science" as being creationism. As I stated in a prior post, according to these people there are but two possible positions: Abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution, or the dreaded CREATIONISM. Let's all give Kstat and Thingfish a round of applause for bringing that willfully dishonest myth to this thread. Way to go, fellas!


            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            When terms like "indoctrination of our children" and "arrival of the fittest" come into play, you've narrowed the definition significantly.
            Schoolchildren have been indoctrinated into Darwinian evolution for at least a generation now, and the question of the arrival of the fittest is not only a very valid question, it's the foundation of the entire debate, starting with the arrival of the very first lifeform(s).

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              And when did I do those things? I haven't, nor will I.

              The only purpose of my post was to refute your ignorant belief that anyone who believes in Creationism denies the past existence of dinosaurs. Obviously that position isn't true.
              ...except I never took that specific position, as it pertains to your definition of the word. You just objected to my use of the word "creationism" as you obviously take a far more liberal approach to it than I do.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                I don't take issue with anyone's religious beliefs. People are free to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old if they want to. Or that God created the universe. You can believe whatever you want to, as long it doesn't affect others negatively.

                What I DO take issue with is people trying to shoehorn their religious beliefs into the science classroom. Organizations with names like the "Discovery Institute" have been trying to dress up the wolf in as much sheep's clothing as they can, but the wolf is still a wolf and people can see it. Organizations like the Discovery Institute, which use underhanded tactics to try to get religion into science textbooks, are the reason that scientists have gotten so defensive.

                Disagree with evolutionary theory all you want, but it was developed using evidence, observation, scientific testing and the scientific method. Creationism was not. Evolutionary theory is not perfect, it hasn't delivered all of the answers yet (many will never be able to answered definitively), but it never claims to. Scientists continuously search for new answers and expound on old ones. That's the great thing about science. It's never satistfied. It continues to look to expand knowledge. That's why evolution belongs in the classroom and creationism (or Intelligent Design or whatever name people try to use to hide their true intentions) does not.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  ...except I never took that specific position, as it pertains to your definition of the word. You just objected to my use of the word "creationism" as you obviously take a far more liberal approach to it than I do.
                  ...or you could educate yourself on the subject, and learn the distinction between old Earth creationism, who believe in a several-billion-year-old Earth, and young Earth creationism, who believe in a (I believe) 6,000-10,000-year-old Earth.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                    ...or you could educate yourself on the subject, and learn the distinction between old Earth creationism, who believe in a several-billion-year-old Earth, and young Earth creationism, who believe in a (I believe) 6,000-10,000-year-old Earth.
                    This is where I get to quote you! I knew you were a young earth creationist! Totally called that one out LOL. So let's look at your quote and think about how far the human race has come from the Bronze Age to Charles Darwin. Now, let's let this quote sink in a while.

                    "I believe Darwin was an ignorant product of an ignorant time". - GRH 2013

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      ...except I never took that specific position, as it pertains to your definition of the word. You just objected to my use of the word "creationism" as you obviously take a far more liberal approach to it than I do.
                      I take the accepted dictionary definition of the word. Sorry, I figured we'd use those and not our narrow personal view points.
                      Last edited by Since86; 04-29-2013, 02:31 PM.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                        This is where I get to quote you! I knew you were a young earth creationist! Totally called that one out LOL. So let's look at your quote and think about how far the human race has come from the Bronze Age to Charles Darwin. Now, let's let this quote sink in a while.

                        "I believe Darwin was an ignorant product of an ignorant time". - GRH 2013
                        The (I believe) was in reference to what I believe (read: what I think, but am not certain of) young Earth creationists believe the age range of the Earth to be, not what I, myself, believe.

                        Charles Darwin remains ignorant, and his views remain horse-and-buggy-era nonsense.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                          The (I believe) was in reference to what I believe (read: what I think, but am not certain of) young Earth creationists believe the age range of the Earth to be, not what I, myself, believe.

                          Charles Darwin remains ignorant, and his views remain horse-and-buggy-era nonsense.
                          Oh, Isaac Newton. What an ignorant hack! His theory of gravity should've died with his powdered wig.

                          It's easy to be condescending and dismissive. But you STILL have not provided your alternative, supposedly superior theory to evolution.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                            What I DO take issue with is people trying to shoehorn their religious beliefs into the science classroom. Organizations with names like the "Discovery Institute" have been trying to dress up the wolf in as much sheep's clothing as they can, but the wolf is still a wolf and people can see it. Organizations like the Discovery Institute, which use underhanded tactics to try to get religion into science textbooks, are the reason that scientists have gotten so defensive.
                            The Discovery Institute is a great organization with top-notch thinkers with elite educations. Their Evolution News & Views blog is a daily read for me.

                            Unfortunately, the fact that they challenge Darwinian evolution makes them public enemy #1 to a certain class of people, which in turn has lead to a massive smear campaign against them. It's shameful and dishonest, but shameful and dishonest is the name of the game when it comes to protecting outdated ideas like Darwinian evolution.

                            Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                            Disagree with evolutionary theory all you want, but it was developed using evidence, observation, scientific testing and the scientific method. Creationism was not. Evolutionary theory is not perfect, it hasn't delivered all of the answers yet (many will never be able to answered definitively), but it never claims to. Scientists continuously search for new answers and expound on old ones. That's the great thing about science. It's never satistfied. It continues to look to expand knowledge. That's why evolution belongs in the classroom and creationism (or Intelligent Design or whatever name people try to use to hide their true intentions) does not.
                            There are many disputable claims there.

                            First of all, what evolutionary theory are you referring to? Notice how I'm always careful to specify not just evolution, but Darwinian evolution? That's not an accident. My primary objection isn't to the common descent, but to the laughable random mutation/natural selection nonsense. If that's the variation of evolution you're referring to, then I'll have to strongly disagree with your claim that it was developed using observation, evidence, and proper scientific methodology.

                            As for intelligent design, as an I.D. proponent myself, I'll have to object to your claim that it's repackaged creationism. This is a myth that was started in order to try to refute I.D. without having to actually address it's argument. It's what we call a straw man argument; an intentional misrepresentation of an argument in order to create the illusion that you've actually refuted the real argument.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                              The (I believe) was in reference to what I believe (read: what I think, but am not certain of) young Earth creationists believe the age range of the Earth to be, not what I, myself, believe.

                              Charles Darwin remains ignorant, and his views remain horse-and-buggy-era nonsense.
                              Aww, well hell. I'm sure I can use all these quotes again soon... Really, anything you say after bashing one of the greatest thinkers in the last 300 years, constantly referring to him as ignorant, will no doubt be ridiculed.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                For the record, I'm non-religious. I grew up in a weak-to-moderately religious, non-church-attending household, and religion never took a hold on me. If your arguments against anything I say in any way are formulated around the idea of me being a Christian, believing the Earth is 6,000-10,000-years-old, or "sneaking creationism into the classroom," then you've failed right out of the gate.

                                What I am is a neo-teleologist. Teleology, for those unaware, is the belief that there is design and a sense of direction in nature, including biology. It predates Christianity by several centuries, dating back to no later than the early Greek philosophers. My belief is that neo-teleology is not merely a philosophy, but a valid scientific discipline, one with strong supporting evidence.

                                On a neat little sidenote, Thomas Jefferson, the father of the separation of Church and state, was a noted deistic teleologist, who explicitly rejected teleology being a religious concept, but one based on reason and evidence.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X