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

John Kerry belittles US troops

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

  • #16
    Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

    I watched the cnn video of this. He starts his peach pretty much with that line.....

    Way to start a speech.

    And Jay, I was one of those "noble examples".

    I went in the military first, then to college. But not because I couldn't get a student loan to do so. I went because I was proud to serve my country.

    The military provides an excellent source of education and training along with the ability to go to college financially. What Kerry said I find offensive as a former service member. Regardless if your poor or maybe a student with the 2.5 grade point average, there is still requirements to get into the military through testing.

    So to imply that just because you entered the Military means you are uneducated is flat out lie and a very dumb statement to make, regardless of the point he was trying to make.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

      I know of two young men who could have gone to college and joined the Marines instead. Now they signed up before 9-11 but they went - in fact one had decided not to re-up and go to college and then changed his mind after September 11.

      One of those two even turned down a football scholarship to a Division I-AA school.

      They're both in Iraq right now - one's in Fallujah and so far two members of his unit have been killed and seven others are out of Iraq with serious injuries - and they just went back (2nd tour) in early September.

      And they're both Sergeants.

      As for Kerry - it was idiocy in the middle of an idiotic speech. Unless we want to consider it Freudian I'm willing to take his word that he flubbed a one-liner aimed at Bush.

      But I'm also very, very glad he isn't President. We don't need people for President who decide to discuss Iraq with a set of jokes that would fit better on Saturday Night Live. Whether you like Bush or not, elected officials should have some respect for the Office of the Presidency. I'd think that would be even more true for someone who once ran for that office.

      I'm also beginning to re-think my earlier preference for Democratic Leadership in the House. No, the Republicans don't deserve to maintain the majority and they should be made to understand that when you take your party as radically away from what I always thought the party stood for - among other things fiscal responsibility and smaller government - that you'll be held accountable.

      But the more I hear from campaigns around the country the more I'm beginning to believe that a Democratic majority would be a very, very bad thing for this country. They seem not to be interested in doing what's right for the country, just the opposite of what they think Bush would do. That's pretty sad.

      The funny thing is the Republicans are going to make huge mileage out of this for 3-4 days and finally Kerry will apologize to the troops. I doubt he'll do it until Rove and company have created a huge firestorm that will at least somewhat carry up to election day.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

        I thought what Kerry said was disrespectful. His apology was hateful.
        It won't make me think any less of him though.
        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

          Kerry says he was trying to make a joke about George Bush.

          So now Kerry is insulting our intellegence. He owes everyone an apology.

          The dems have to be fuming

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

            Kerry is Kerry is Kerry.

            A hack.

            I believe the American people know that.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

              Do we have a link to his apology?

              EDIT: Never mind, just saw it. Holy cow, I'm glad he's not the President.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                I'm with Jay. While he certainly could have found a better way to say it, the man speaks the truth. The vast, vast majority of enlisted men go for one of three things: education money, gaining skills and having a job, or discipline. There are very, very few people who say, "well, I averaged a 3.8, got a 1400 on my SATs, but I think I'm going to sign away 4 years of my life to my government because I feel a duty to serve." Yes, they're out there, but they are few and far between.

                Honestly, I think John Kerry's Vietnam experiences are showing here, and so no, he shouldn't have said what he said the way he said it. But he's not lying, and I actually find it refreshing that somebody was willing to say what they think without running it by their speechwriters and handlers first, even if it was the wrong thing to say. I was most shocked that someone in Washington told the bald truth.

                On a side note, I'm not a Kerry fan. He wouldn't have been a good President. I voted for him simply because I felt it to be the lesser of two evils. However, wasn't the big Republican deal with him that he wouldn't take a stand? Well, he just made a stand on an issue, and you're criticizing him for that.

                What I find most offensive about politics right now is that there seems to be some sort of "team" mentality, like you're out there to "beat" the other side, and who cares whether you're actually more qualified. If you can lie your way into the Senate and ensure your "team" won, that's just peachy.

                Politicians, in particular Republicans, make a big deal about how certain Democrats don't stand behind the troops, don't stand behind the war, and don't stand behind the President. Meanwhile, they, along with democrats, are more interested in doing what their party wants, instead of what the country needs. I find that to be far more subversive than having a dissenting view on one of our national policies. Politicians fight each other like in this article/video, instead of coming together to get stuff done. There's very little difference between the parties in truth, and while I don't mind them getting in each other's way when it's a hard-line party issue, they often impede each other on things that both primarily agree on, and the only entity that gets hurt is our country as a whole.

                Ugh, that's much more than I originally planned to type, but there you have it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                  Now hold on...

                  Other than people that are privileged enough to get into the Academies, who really is joining the military?

                  Sadly, there is a lot of truth to what Kerry said. And that's the point, the war mongers treat people with less education or worse grades as if they were a pawn to move around the world and offer up as a sacrificial lamb for their political gain.

                  Yes, I know they are there "voluntarily." But in many cases, are they really? We've heard of soldiers who signed up for the education/ college benefits or the ROTC who have said, "I never thought I'd really ever have to go war." Duh. Sorry, but duh.

                  Or because they've refused to fade from high school into street gangs but those were their only two choices. Or from high school to unemployment/ welfare. We don't employ very many people in manufacturing or skilled labor anymore, so where do these kids turn?

                  How many HS kids with a GPA greater than say 2.5 (on a 4) say to themselves, "Well, I could go to college, and I can afford to go to college, but I think I'll join the military instead." There are some noble examples, but the percentage is small.

                  We don't "need" a draft because there are still plenty of people that make an economic decision to join the military, especially with the lack of manufacturing/ skilled labor jobs. So they are there "voluntarily." But if they have a "choice", then what is the alternative?

                  I don't think this reflects, "What Kerry thinks of our soldiers." I think this reflects the way we really are treating our soldiers.

                  Sometimes you amaze me.

                  But before I go into a rant about what you are implying let me ask this. What % are you trying to say join the military because of economic hardship or to avoid jail?


                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                    But now back to the topic at hand, well sort of anyway.

                    John Kerry is the gift that keeps on giving isn't he? Just when I pretty much had consigned myself to the fact that the Republicans were going to lose the house & probably the senate as well along comes Sen. Kerry & his wonderfull world of speaking.

                    What was even better than his first speech? His tart reply attacking all things Republican & Bush.

                    While some of the Democratic underground crowd & I'm sure some of you on here loved his fire & brimstone response, it will not come across that way to the American public.

                    I still believe that we will lose but now I don't think it will be by any great majority & in fact he may have cost some seats in the house & for certain in the last week of the campaign he has almost guaranteed that the Iraq war is almost off limits because the Republicans will turn this into a support the troups movement but instead of just doing it & hoping that it works this time they will have sound bytes & video.

                    I wonder how long till the first commercial comes out with Sen. Kerry & his the troops are idiots speech to hit the air?

                    God love him, thank you thank you thank you......

                    P.S. on a side note what do you believe Karl Roves first response was when he heard this?

                    was it

                    A. laughter
                    B. Glee
                    C. Joy
                    D. all of the above


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: John Kerry belittles US troops
                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Kerry says he was trying to make a joke about George Bush.

                      So now Kerry is insulting our intellegence. He owes everyone an apology.

                      The dems have to be fuming
                      i am not a kerry supporter. when i first heard that, i thought he was talking about bush. i don't believe he was talking about troops or future troops, nobody is that stupid.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post

                        P.S. on a side note what do you believe Karl Roves first response was when he heard this?

                        was it

                        A. laughter
                        B. Glee
                        C. Joy
                        D. all of the above
                        I just hope he didn't wet himself with excitement.

                        I actually think his first response was to contact every writer, ad person, campaign manager, etc., and then order about 10,000 copies of this made and distributed.

                        Then he called Bush and said, "Hey George, remember when we were talking about the congressional elections the other day? Remember how you said we needed some sort of miracle to keep our majority? Well, you asked for a miracle - I give to you John Forbes Kerry."

                        And I still only think it's about 50-50 who wins. First, when was the last time a poll was run that didn't overstate Democratic support by 3-4 percentage points?

                        And second, John Kerry just reminded every hard-core conservative that while he or she may be disgusted by Mark Foley, they're even more disgusted by John Kerry. All that visceral distaste from the '04 Presidential re-election just resurfaced. The percent of Republicans voting in this election just rose by 10%.

                        And we wonder how Kerry could manage to lose an election against a President having a terrible time with a war and with a struggling economy. What a screw-up.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                          Originally posted by lumber man View Post
                          i am not a kerry supporter. when i first heard that, i thought he was talking about bush. i don't believe he was talking about troops or future troops, nobody is that stupid.

                          Please explain to me how he could have possibly been talking about Bush.

                          If he was talking about Bush, then Kerry has some type of serious brain problems. Because the words that came out of his mouth had nothing to do with Bush. Are we supposed to read minds now. Or maybe he was talking about the Pacers, or the Colts, yeh that's it.

                          No he was talking about those people that go into the military and those people who are over in Iraq. Bush wasn't mentioned.

                          I find this more unfathomable then his first comments. He must think we are stupid.

                          A note about the election: while I seriously doubt any democrats will change their vote and decide to vote for republican, what this does do is motivate the republicans base to vote.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                            My best friend is in the Army. He got his bachelors in Electrical Engineering. After he finished college he joined the Army and has served a 1 year tour in Iraq.

                            What John Kerry said offended my friend, his family, my family, and me. NOT ONLY what he said was inappropriate, but it was also wrong. My friend IS smart, my friend IS educated, AND HE SERVED PROUDLY FOR HIS COUNTRY. There is nothing wrong with joinining the armed forces.

                            John Kerry should apologize.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                              I think John Kerry should apologize too: For thinking there are any Democrats who want his foot-in-the-mouth boring arse running for President again. If nothing else, I hope that this flap ends the small amount of support he had.

                              On the other hand, anyone who is claiming John Kerry is against our military and that he thinks the military ranks are filled only with men and women, incapable of doing anything else, is getting too caught up in this nasty political season. You may wish it to be so, but that doesn't make it so.

                              I heard Rush Limbaugh proclaiming yesterday that not only John Kerry, but all Democrats hate the military. At first I was angry, then I realized that this is the cry of a man desperately trying to appeal to his base to get out and vote. UB in his post above says as much. If this is what it takes to get a Republican to stay the course in this election and get out and vote, God help the Republican party.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                                Originally posted by sixthman View Post
                                I heard Rush Limbaugh proclaiming yesterday that not only John Kerry, but all Democrats hate the military. At first I was angry, then I realized that this is the cry of a man desperately trying to appeal to his base to get out and vote. UB in his post above says as much. If this is what it takes to get a Republican to stay the course in this election and get out and vote, God help the Republican party.
                                It is good to hear that you were listening to Rush.

                                I truly believe that a decent % of democrats hate the military - it might be 25% I don't know, but there are some who hate it. That doesn't mean they hate the people in the military (but they cannot understand why anyone would want to join the military and they believe the only reason why they would is because of economic conditions.....) , they just hate what the military stands for and the way they go about what they do, the way it is set up - yes they hate the military.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X