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

2016 Indiana Fever Thread

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

  • #61
    Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    Do you not know any of the history or origin of the anthem?
    I am not sure what your point is, enlighten me.
    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

      Originally posted by Natston View Post
      I am not sure what your point is, enlighten me.
      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...770075?0p19G=c

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        This.

        We also didn't have cameras 20 years ago on almost every police shooting. Watching unarmed men get gunned down is a sure way to incite a severe public reaction. And the problem isn't the cameras.

        For the record, I don't think protesting the anthem is productive. However there's an obvious problem and it isn't being addressed.

        Luckily for us, the premier academic institution in this country decided to look at the facts instead of the emotion (unless I missed where Harvard became a right wing news outlet run by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News). The Washington Post (again, hardly a right-wing outlet) also attempted to actually look at some facts which dispel the myths put out there by the left. The facts show that there are no racial discrepancies in officer-involved shootings.


        Last week, the Washington Post published a study of the police shootings that took place in 2015. Likely they intended the story to be shocking — as on Dec. 24, 965 people were killed by police! Instead, the report quells the notion that trigger-happy cops are out hunting for civilian victims, especially African-Americans. Among its key findings:
        •White cops shooting unarmed black men accounted for less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings.
        •In three-quarters of the incidents, cops were either under attack themselves or defending civilians. In other words, doing their jobs.
        •The majority of those killed were brandishing weapons, suicidal or mentally troubled or bolted when ordered to surrender.
        •Nearly a third of police shootings resulted from car chases that began with a minor traffic stop.

        The moral of this story is: Don’t point a gun at the cops and don’t run when they tell you stop, and you’re likely to survive. Since the population of the US is about 318 million people, a thousand deaths at the hands of police works out to 1 in 318,000. You have a better chance of being killed in a violent storm (1 in 68,000) or slipping in the tub (1 in 11,500) than being shot by a cop, no matter what color you are.

        But even these figures are deceptive. On those 965 killed, only 90 were unarmed, and the majority of those were white. (And that doesn’t take into account other extenuating circumstances besides a weapon that would have caused a police officer to fire.)



        http://nypost.com/2016/01/02/myth-of...ling-epidemic/

        (Washington Post study is within above link)

        Harvard study from Summer 2016 which finds no racial discrepancies in shootings:

        http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf

        The facts paint a far difference picture than the false political narrative advanced by the left. Racial divides are good for the left's political business. The left wants to convince minorities that there are evil racist cops lurking in the shadows ready to execute them at any minute. Hashtags and scary rhetoric are far more eye opening than reading through some dry Harvard study. The left wants to create hysteria to gin up their political base and turn out voters on election day all under the guise that there are evil racist cops everywhere and only Democrats can fix the problem. It doesn't matter that the facts say it's false. The charge and accusation is so shocking to the conscious that it spreads like wildfire and creates mayhem. The rhetoric can also have dangerous consequences. See Dallas, Texas.

        That's not to say there aren't bad cops or some stories where police officers acted wrong and deserve to be punished. Of course there are in a country of 300 million people. The Harvard study does say that minorities are more likely to experience force than whites. That certainly needs to be addressed. However, when it comes to the most deadly force, officer-involved shootings, the study finds no racial discrepancies in the data. Thus, the problem is nowhere near as scary and horrible as the left makes it out to be.

        Leave it to the left in this country to *******ize the national anthem. Only they could succeed in turning a once-unifying anthem into a polarizing political football. Typical. For decades, people from all walk's of life stood during this song because it stood for the idea that we all belonged to a country that, while not perfect, has advanced freedom and made continuous improvements over the years. But now it is forever tainted at athletic events. I grudgingly give the left credit for this - they always find a way succeed in doing the unthinkable.

        Fifteen years ago 3,000 people were slaughtered by terrorists who hate the freedom the US stands for. People of all races and socio-economic backgrounds were killed because they were in buildings viewed by terrorists as representing freedom. The attacks united the nation, but fifteen years later you had smug athletes desecrating the anthem as the country remembered those attacks. That obviously is going to rub a ton of people the wrong way. Sure, it takes guts to protest the anthem, I'll give them that. Most stupid actions do take guts.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-23-2016, 10:54 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
          And the "Obama didn't fix it" argument. What absurd points.
          If systematic racism was so rampant, wouldn't Obama/Holder/Lynch address it at some point during the past 7 1/2 yrs? So either they don't have a problem with systematic racism oppression their fellow AAs, or there's a different underlying issue. The DOJ has investigated every single one of the shootings that have gotten national attention, and they have not found a single case where action was taken.

          The only case that has went to trial so far has been the Freddie Gray case, and that was an utter embarrassment for the city of Baltimore.

          I can get behind protests of police abuse. But when those protests turn into racial theater, count me out. I have a problem with labeling complete strangers who I don't know a thing about as racist bigots, simply because they were involved in a shooting. Gonna need to know a little bit more about what happened other than a black man being shot. Especially when it turns out said black man was shot by another black man, in regards to Charlotte.
          Last edited by Since86; 09-23-2016, 11:13 AM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
            So many people are more outraged by kneeling than death. And the "Obama didn't fix it" argument. What absurd points.

            But the best is people critiquing how people protest. "I mean, they don't have to protest on my bus and hold up traffic" "They don't have to sit in while people are trying to eat."
            My argument is more of a "Obama fanned the flames to help the business of Democrat politics" type of thing.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              If systematic racism was so rampant, wouldn't Obama/Holder/Lynch address it at some point during the past 7 1/2 yrs? So either they don't have a problem with systematic racism oppression their fellow AAs, or there's a different underlying issue. The DOJ has investigated every single one of the shootings that have gotten national attention, and they have not found a single case where action was taken.

              The only case that has went to trial so far has been the Freddie Gray case, and that was an utter embarrassment for the city of Baltimore.

              I can get behind protests of police abuse. But when those protests turn into racial theater, count me out. I have a problem with labeling complete strangers who I don't know a thing about as racist bigots, simply because they were involved in a shooting. Gonna need to know a little bit more about what happened other than a black man being shot. Especially when it turns out said black man was shot by another black man, in regards to Charlotte.
              It's harder for black people in power to address racism towards black people. I'm surprised this isn't an easily understood situation.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                My argument is more of a "Obama fanned the flames to help the business of Democrat politics" type of thing.
                This is just flat out off base.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

                  Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                  It's harder for black people in power to address racism towards black people. I'm surprised this isn't an easily understood situation.
                  So it's hard for the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States to uphold the law of the United States, because they're black? Okay. It's not even like they have to write new laws or anything. All the Atty General has to do is make the decision to prosecute a police officer(s) under Federal laws already on the books. I don't know why their skin color prohibits them of doing their job, when there isn't anyone other than Obama above them that could stop them from doing their job.
                  Last edited by Since86; 09-23-2016, 02:12 PM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

                    Ha, these arguments are gold.

                    EDIT: dang, why delete sollozo? Hilarious.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

                      I know the police have said they aren't going to release the video of Mr. Scott being shot just yet, but you do know there are still pictures showing a gun laying next to his body right? And before we start getting into whether or not it was planted by officers, just know that Mr. Scott's wife also released a cell phone video of the shooting and them planting it would be caught on her video and none of the eyewitnesses have given any reports of the police dropping a gun to plant evidence.

                      I'll use this link for now, but I'd just watch the news report at the end.
                      http://bluelivesmatter.blue/proof-ke...ont-scott-gun/

                      EDIT: Here.
                      Last edited by Since86; 09-23-2016, 02:55 PM.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        Ha, these arguments are gold.

                        EDIT: dang, why delete sollozo? Hilarious.
                        Since you asked....

                        From "Hope and Change!" to "Hey, it's not fair to hold him accountable for anything after almost 8 years!"

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I know the police have said they aren't going to release the video of Mr. Scott being shot just yet, but you do know there are still pictures showing a gun laying next to his body right? And before we start getting into whether or not it was planted by officers, just know that Mr. Scott's wife also released a cell phone video of the shooting and them planting it would be caught on her video and none of the eyewitnesses have given any reports of the police dropping a gun to plant evidence.

                          I'll use this link for now, but I'd just watch the news report at the end.
                          http://bluelivesmatter.blue/proof-ke...ont-scott-gun/

                          EDIT: Here.
                          Favorite thing about conservatives, everyone has a right to bear arms, unless you're black and shot by cops. That said, I haven't seen your report from any legit source.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Since you asked....

                            From "Hope and Change!" to "Hey, it's not fair to hold him accountable for anything after almost 8 years!"
                            Lol, thanks. **** was going great 8 years ago.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

                              I also love that nobody addresses want prompted this, the origin of the national anthem. I posted the link, a celebration of slave murder. But you guys are more outraged by the Fever. Okay.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: 2016 Indiana Fever Thread

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                Favorite thing about conservatives, everyone has a right to bear arms, unless you're black and shot by cops. That said, I haven't seen your report from any legit source.

                                Ask Sollozzo, I'm a Libertarian. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right have a gun in your hand and disregard commands to put it down. The "funny" part about this is that those Conservatives you're deriding was the political party who fought for minority gun rights during Jim Crow. They, and the NRA, backed Otis McDonald against Chicago.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X