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

Political News and Policies

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Political News and Policies

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    If Obama's policies were liked by voters, they would win without Obama. Every time the policies were on the ballot box without him (10, 14, 16), Democrats got slaughtered. There's no doubt that he could win big time as he did it twice, but much of his success was due to his abstract populism and pop culture icon historical status. A lot of the people who voted for him obviously didn't care enough to vote for his policies when he wasn't on the ballot.
    Imagine if his policies worked AND he was not intentionally devisive in the 2012 election cycle. He might have surpassed Reagan's 58% popular vote.

    His supporters were disappointed when his policies never brought on the utopia he had them sold on. When he noticed he was failing to deliver, he went back to the old liberal playbook.

    There actually wasn't anything attractive about his candidacy in 2012. He just had so much support from his base and liberals in general. It was a lot like George W winning in 2004 with Bush being just about as popular and unpopular.
    Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-18-2017, 06:41 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Political News and Policies

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      If Obama's policies were liked by voters, they would win without Obama. Every time the policies were on the ballot box without him (10, 14, 16), Democrats got slaughtered. There's no doubt that he could win big time as he did it twice, but much of his success was due to his abstract populism and pop culture icon historical status. A lot of the people who voted for him obviously didn't care enough to vote for his policies when he wasn't on the ballot.
      If we're being honest people don't vote policies they vote a slogan. Unless something terrible happens like war or what Trump is about to do.

      Comment


      • Re: Political News and Policies

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Imagine if his policies worked AND he was not intentionally devisive in the 2012 election cycle. He might have surpassed Reagan's 58% popular vote.

        His supporters were disappointed when his policies never brought on the utopia he had them sold on. When he noticed he was failing to deliver, he went back to the old liberal playbook.

        There actually wasn't anything attractive about his candidacy in 2012. He just had so much support from his base and liberals in general. It was a lot like George W winning in 2004 with Bush being just about as popular and unpopular.
        You guys, you're reading too much into this. A single party winning POTUS three times in a row doesn't happen.

        Comment


        • Re: Political News and Policies

          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
          You guys, you're reading too much into this. A single party winning POTUS three times in a row doesn't happen.
          Not sure what your point is by saying that. Adam is just saying that his policies didn't win him votes. I'm saying they weren't good policies and basically failed his excited voters who later became suicidal. OK, I guess I didn't go that far, but the point is that he was a huge disappointment as a POTUS. He was George W. Bush level including his popular vote by the time voters arrived at the polls in 2012. That is a far cry from what he was supposed to be. He was supposed to be the next MLK and while he gave some great speeches and is a very bright guy, when his policies had the chance to be tested by reality, they failed. Fell flat as a pancake.

          BTW, his signature bill, ACA, is a disaster. In 2018 Indiana is set to have no option in 89% of the counties in the state. While I am actually pro health care, it was done very poorly. If the GOP leadership wasn't so stingy they could get this right and control Congress for another decade if they'd just do it.

          You know, the worst thing about some in the GOP is that they fight health care. The worst thing about Democrats is that they support immoral things like abortion. I wish these parties would get it right. You have to help those who cannot help themselves. That includes not killing them before they are born. It also includes helping people afford health care if they truly cannot afford it.
          Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-18-2017, 09:05 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Political News and Policies

            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
            You guys, you're reading too much into this. A single party winning POTUS three times in a row doesn't happen.
            Well it did happen when Bush succeeded Reagan, but anyway, it's not just the presidency though. Democrats have lost virtually everything of relevance at the national and state levels since 2010, with the exception being Obama's re-election. It's been complete Republican domination at the ballot box.

            Now Republicans of course never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The party is so sloppy and all over the place, with no one ever getting behind a clear leader. Contrast that to Democrats who are good soldiers when they have power by getting behind the leaders. About the only thing Republicans offer now is that they are a shield against Democrat legislation.

            Comment


            • Re: Political News and Policies

              I'm empathetic with the opinion that a college degree doesn't hold the value it once did but a majority of a party saying that "colleges are bad for the country" is flat out insane. just shy of two thirds of hard line capital C Conservatives think college is a negative influence on the country. I'm open to discussion on the importance of a Bachelor's, hellTrump got one from friggin Wharton and he can't speak string a cogent off the cuff thought together longer than 5 words. I'm open to the discussion of the political leanings of profs (these people have NO clue how many right leaning profs there are in fields like business and engineering), but just a flat opinion of "college bad" is just...it's stupid, it's caveman stuff.

              http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/...-institutions/

              Comment


              • Re: Political News and Policies

                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                I'm empathetic with the opinion that a college degree doesn't hold the value it once did but a majority of a party saying that "colleges are bad for the country" is flat out insane. just shy of two thirds of hard line capital C Conservatives think college is a negative influence on the country. I'm open to discussion on the importance of a Bachelor's, hellTrump got one from friggin Wharton and he can't speak string a cogent off the cuff thought together longer than 5 words. I'm open to the discussion of the political leanings of profs (these people have NO clue how many right leaning profs there are in fields like business and engineering), but just a flat opinion of "college bad" is just...it's stupid, it's caveman stuff.

                http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/...-institutions/
                Don't believe everything you read. Conservatives are not opposed to college. I am not sure where that talk is coming from. What I can say is that law school is filled to the brim with liberals attempting to indoctrinate students. I sat in class and watched now Senator Todd Young, while he was in school with me earning his JD, battle them night after night after night.

                Comment


                • Re: Political News and Policies

                  Trump fans got hosed LOL


                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Political News and Policies

                    I vow...and I never do that without following through...that I will vote straight line Democrat in the next general election if the GOP doesn't

                    A) have a plan ready for 1/1/2018 and

                    B) that it have reasonable options for those with pre-existing conditions.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Political News and Policies

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      Trump fans got hosed LOL


                      You know what's really odd. It wasn't that long ago that Democrats wanted to protect the working man. Tell me what happened. I don't want to know whether his actions are right or wrong. I want to know what happened to the Democratic Party on this issue and why liberals will not acknowledge that Trump has taken up their abandoned banner. Help me out here.

                      As for Carrier, they better watch their back. Donald and company will take this very serious. They better hope he gets impeached and removed because he will definitely take action on this.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Political News and Policies

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        You know what's really odd. It wasn't that long ago that Democrats wanted to protect the working man. Tell me what happened. I don't want to know whether his actions are right or wrong. I want to know what happened to the Democratic Party on this issue and why liberals will not acknowledge that Trump has taken up their abandoned banner. Help me out here.

                        As for Carrier, they better watch their back. Donald and company will take this very serious. They better hope he gets impeached and removed because he will definitely take action on this.

                        Are you asking why white working class and/or poor voted against their best interests?

                        Democrats were terrible with their message and nominating Clinton. Trump appealed to people using racism and lies. The biggest lie is in full display. He said he was a great deal maker that would get things done, changing the standstill in DC and repeal and replace Obamacare in the first 100 days. He said everyone will be covered under new bill.

                        In my lifetime a balanced government working together was the best for jobs. Democrat president working with a republican legislature.

                        People have got to stop treating this like sports. One side doesn't know everything and there is no winner besides these career politicians that aren't doing anything besides figure out ways to line the pockets of the rich and their donors. Why do people "root" for them I will never know.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Political News and Policies

                          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                          Are you asking why white working class and/or poor voted against their best interests?

                          Democrats were terrible with their message and nominating Clinton. Trump appealed to people using racism and lies. The biggest lie is in full display. He said he was a great deal maker that would get things done, changing the standstill in DC and repeal and replace Obamacare in the first 100 days. He said everyone will be covered under new bill.

                          In my lifetime a balanced government working together was the best for jobs. Democrat president working with a republican legislature.

                          People have got to stop treating this like sports. One side doesn't know everything and there is no winner besides these career politicians that aren't doing anything besides figure out ways to line the pockets of the rich and their donors. Why do people "root" for them I will never know.
                          I don't think your response is at all related to my question. Let me restate it.

                          Why did the Democrats abandon supporting unions and now give speeches to Wall Street?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Political News and Policies

                            Hmmm. If you are talking about race, percentage-wise, blacks are more likely to be employed by a union than other jobs.

                            Among major race and ethnicity groups, Black workers continued to have a higher union membershiprate in 2016 (13.0 percent) than workers who were White (10.5 percent), Asian (9.0 percent), orHispanic (8.8 percent).

                            https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

                            OK, maybe I should ask why the Democrats have abandoned blacks? ...which they actually have if you are able to see through their facade.

                            What the Democrats want more than anything is for the electorate to remain dependent. Supporting unions cuts against that idea. It is far more profitable for them to hide behind closed doors when they speak to Wall Street, so you don't see them cheating on you. They do everything they can to avoid advertising these kinds of facts. Instead, keep on selling influence, claim to support the working poor but ditch the unions that support blacks, keep on playing the race card, get people stirred up...all to get elected. That really is today's Democratic Party.

                            Just look at the facts above and be honest with yourself. BTW, as you know I'm cutting against the GOP on healthcare. I would hope more people could think for themselves instead of just falling in line.
                            Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-19-2017, 11:18 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Political News and Policies

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              I don't think your response is at all related to my question. Let me restate it.

                              Why did the Democrats abandon supporting unions and now give speeches to Wall Street?
                              I already said Clinton was a terrible candidate. Trump, Romney, etc have given speeches to Wall Street, and there's nothing wrong with that.

                              However there is something wrong with the republican tax breaks and policies that favor the rich.

                              You should really drop the "speeches to Wall Street" bit. It doesn't apply here and it's just a tired point that has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Political News and Policies

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Hmmm. If you are talking about race, percentage-wise, blacks are more likely to be employed by a union than other jobs.

                                Among major race and ethnicity groups, Black workers continued to have a higher union membershiprate in 2016 (13.0 percent) than workers who were White (10.5 percent), Asian (9.0 percent), orHispanic (8.8 percent).

                                https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

                                OK, maybe I should ask why the Democrats have abandoned blacks? ...which they actually have if you are able to see through their facade.

                                What the Democrats want more than anything is for the electorate to remain dependent. Supporting unions cuts against that idea. It is far more profitable for them to hide behind closed doors when they speak to Wall Street, so you don't see them cheating on you. They do everything they can to avoid advertising these kinds of facts. Instead, keep on selling influence, claim to support the working poor but ditch the unions that support blacks, keep on playing the race card, get people stirred up...all to get elected. That really is today's Democratic Party.

                                Just look at the facts above and be honest with yourself. BTW, as you know I'm cutting against the GOP on healthcare. I would hope more people could think for themselves instead of just falling in line.
                                This is all over the place. I really don't get what you're trying to say.

                                I've listened to several podcasts about the unions and Trump. First, it's not like Trump completely won over the union vote. Second, I'll have to find the podcast, but they interviewed people in an Indiana town that voted for Obama and then voted bigly for Trump. The funny thing is, Obama brought the town back to life with jobs! And now the town is afraid they're going to lose healthcare. It's a fascinating look into why people voted for Trump.

                                As for people being dependent and such, that's a complete overblown myth. Yes people are dependent and abuse the system, but the large majority on social programs are elderly, children, vets, people that work two jobs and students. You can google yourself and read up on it. Obviously you've never taken the time to volunteer and talk to people or do any type of social work to get answers to question from people actually on Obamacare or recieving aid from the government.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X