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

Man fired for failing a drug test... for nicotine!

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

  • #46
    Re: Man fired for failing a drug test... for nicotine!

    Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
    You're missing the point. Companies are not made from people. They are a power system just like governments are a power system. Individual people always have to be the basis of the power systems, not the other way around. When power systems have "rights" and people do not, that's basically the definition of oppression.
    Do they just spring up after planting a seed or what then?

    I wonder how Microsoft was made then. I always thought that company was founded/created by a college dropout who tinkered with computers in his garage.

    Maybe it was a robot.

    I found this very interesting:

    com·pa·ny (kŭm'pə-nē)
    n., pl. -nies.
    A group of persons. See synonyms at band2.

    One's companions or associates: moved in fast company; is known by the company she keeps.
    A guest or guests: had company for the weekend.
    The state of friendly companionship; fellowship: was grateful for her company; friends who finally parted company.

    A business enterprise; a firm.
    A partner or partners not specifically named in a firm's title: Lee Rogers and Company.
    A troupe of dramatic or musical performers: a repertory company.

    A subdivision of a military regiment or battalion that constitutes the lowest administrative unit. It is usually under the command of a captain and is made up of at least two platoons.
    A unit of firefighters.
    A ship's crew and officers. See Usage Note at collective noun.
    http://www.answers.com/topic/company

    Every single definition is intertwined with people, because PEOPLE run companies. People start companies. Companies are made up of people.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Man fired for failing a drug test... for nicotine!

      I just hope no one ever get's sick because of using a Scott's lawn product. You know their weed and lawn killer stuff. Oh, I'm sorry it's only smoke that can make you ill our caustic materials would never do that.

      From the Scotts web site.

      http://www.lawncare.com/index.cfm/ev...8fe53d0fe7e06d

      Pets and Lawn Safety
      The “American Dream” includes owning your own home, with a nice yard where our kids can play and our pets are free to roam.

      A nice lawn takes work, which in addition to timely fertilizer applications, often requires the use of weed and insect controls.

      Fertilizer is needed to make the grass thick and green, while herbicides and pesticides are used to control unsightly weeds as well as lawn-destroying and nuisance insects.

      For many pet owners, those products raise concerns about safety.

      According to the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), when used according to package directions, most fertilizer and weed control products will not pose a health or safety risk for your pets. (taken from the ASPCA’s Web site, www.aspca.org).

      The ASPCA also says “the most serious problems resulting from fertilizer ingestion in pets are usually due to the presence of heavy metals such as iron. Ingestion of large amounts of fertilizer could cause severe gastric upset and possibly gastrointestinal obstruction.”

      Chris Schmenk, director of Environmental Stewardship at Scotts, says that it is very important for homeowners to read and follow label directions carefully. “All of our lawn products are registered for homeowner use, and included on every label are directions for use which include pet safety information,” Schmenk said.

      The biggest concern with pet owners is over the use of pesticides, which are more toxic than fertilizers and herbicide products. When used correctly, they don’t pose any serious harm, however there are certain pesticide products which can be very dangerous if consumed by an animal.

      The most dangerous forms of pesticides include: snail bait containing metaldehyde, fly bait containing methomyl, systemic insecticides containing disyston or disulfoton, zinc phosphide containing mole or gopher bait and most forms of rat poisons. When using these pesticides place the products in areas that are totally inaccessible to your companion animals.

      For pet owners using any lawn or garden product in their yard, Scotts encourages consumers to keep pets such as cats and dogs out of the treated area until it is thoroughly dry. This is to minimize exposure to the product and also to avoid tracking of the product onto other plants, which could cause damage, and to avoid tracking it in the house.

      Once a liquid product has dried, or once a granular product has been watered in to the soil and the grass or plants have dried, it will be safe for pets to be back in that area.

      If you are unsure, then wait 24 hours before allowing your pets to re-enter that area. If your pets need access to the yard, consider treating the front yard on one day and the back yard on another. Although these pets may eat a small amount of grass, they will not be able to get enough of the product to cause a health hazard.

      You know your pet better than anyone, therefore if your pet likes to eat grass, or dig, or other such behavior then use your best judgment when applying products to the areas where your pet has access.

      Always store lawn care and gardening products where pets (and children) cannot get to them, such as up high on a shelf in the garage or in a locked storage shed. Read the label for proper storage of certain pesticides.

      Again, Read Labels Carefully

      The product’s label will include directions for use as well as warnings, including any cautions for using the product around animals.

      Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides undergo federal and state testing and evaluation requirements. And, as an added safety precaution, federal laws require that all lawn and garden control products undergo constant re-testing and re-registration to ensure that they comply with changing regulations.

      The ASPCA strongly encourages everyone, including pet owners, to read and follow label directions carefully, and when in doubt to contact the manufacturer. Every Scotts, Ortho, Miracle-Gro and Roundup product has the appropriate contact information on the label, including the 800 number.

      If you believe your pet has consumed a product, contact your veterinarian immediately. Have the product nearby or in hand when you call the veterinarian. If you accidentally spray your dog or cat with a lawn or garden care product, wash it off with soap and water immediately to avoid any irritations or harm.

      By paying attention to labels and using products correctly, you’ll have a nice lawn that you and your pets will enjoy.

      For more reading on this subject, see this article from the University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine.


      back to top
      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Man fired for failing a drug test... for nicotine!

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Do they just spring up after planting a seed or what then?

        I wonder how Microsoft was made then. I always thought that company was founded/created by a college dropout who tinkered with computers in his garage.

        Maybe it was a robot.

        I found this very interesting:


        http://www.answers.com/topic/company

        Every single definition is intertwined with people, because PEOPLE run companies. People start companies. Companies are made up of people.
        I have no idea what this even means. Nobody is arguing that there are people in companies. The question is whether people and companies should have the same rights. Answer: people have rights, companies should only have whatever power the people choose to give them. And right now, companies have way, way too much power.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Man fired for failing a drug test... for nicotine!

          You're taking away an individual's right's to do what they think is best for his/her company, if you place restrictions on that company.

          As long as I don't discriminate through race or sex, I should be able to pick what type of employees I hire.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Man fired for failing a drug test... for nicotine!

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            As long as I don't discriminate through race or sex, I should be able to pick what type of employees I hire.

            So you would be OK with these policies:

            1) Sorry, Bill. We can't hire you since from your medical form, your parents both had heart problems. You are a high risk and that would drive up our insurance costs. We cannot hire you.

            2) Sorry Sally. Your sister has breast cancer. You are high risk. We cannot hire you.

            3) Sorry Sandy. You have had 2 speeding tickets in the last 10 years. You are at higher risk of being injured in an accident so we can't risk that. We cannot hire you.

            4) Sorry Don. You drive a motorcycle and that is too risky for us to have you on our insurance. We cannot hire you. No, you can't just promise to quit riding. You desire to ride puts you in the category of "risk-taker" and we can't have that.

            5) Sorry Suzy. Your love of rock-climbing on the weekends is contrary to our safety-first policy. We cannot hire you.

            6) Sorry Ed. Your physical showed high cholesterol. That puts you in a risk group too high for our comfort. We cannot hire you.

            7) Sorry Amanda. You say your mother was an alcoholic? That puts you at high risk. We cannot hire you.

            8) Sorry Charlie. Since you used to play football, our stats show that you are more likely to have joint problems that would drive up our insurance. We cannot hire you.

            9) Sorry Cindy. Our research shows that you are a member of the NRA. We have a policy that nobody who works here may have guns or use guns. We cannot hire you.

            10) Sorry Dan. We have records to show that you have frequented tanning booths. You thus have a higher risk of skin cancer. We cannot hire you.

            11) Sorry Ellen. The genetic testing part of your physical showed you are 2X more likely that the general population to have early-onset Alzheimer's disease. That's a risk we cannot take, to have to pay for your potential disability. We cannot hire you.



            ------

            Now lets assume that you are OK with all of these restrictions on hiring. Would you be comfortable with the same conditions to be used in firing?

            Hey Don. Sorry to hear you mom had a stroke. That also means you are at higher risk due to family history. We will have to let you go...
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Man fired for failing a drug test... for nicotine!

              Wow, PacerTom, great post. Here's another one: Hey Joe, I heard you have a Democrat/Republican/Green political poster in your yard. That doesn't appeal to our customer base. No job for you here.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Man fired for failing a drug test... for nicotine!

                I guess the line has to be drawn somewhere. Obviously employers can regulate legal activity. The Pacers certainly have clauses to prevent players from skydiving or other things like that.

                I guess I have no issue with controlling BEHAVIOR that is in fact controllable by the employee. This would rule out firing somebody due to a genetic screen, due to a past medical condition, or due to family disease history. Those should not be allowed.

                I see no problem with demanding that employees not drink or smoke. I have no issue with them demanding that employees not be visible spokespersons for controversial groups like the KKK, the ACLU, or even the NRA. I’m not sure how I feel about insisting that people that work for them not even belong to any of these groups at all.
                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Man fired for failing a drug test... for nicotine!

                  Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                  So you would be OK with these policies:

                  1) Sorry, Bill. We can't hire you since from your medical form, your parents both had heart problems. You are a high risk and that would drive up our insurance costs. We cannot hire you.

                  2) Sorry Sally. Your sister has breast cancer. You are high risk. We cannot hire you.

                  3) Sorry Sandy. You have had 2 speeding tickets in the last 10 years. You are at higher risk of being injured in an accident so we can't risk that. We cannot hire you.

                  4) Sorry Don. You drive a motorcycle and that is too risky for us to have you on our insurance. We cannot hire you. No, you can't just promise to quit riding. You desire to ride puts you in the category of "risk-taker" and we can't have that.

                  5) Sorry Suzy. Your love of rock-climbing on the weekends is contrary to our safety-first policy. We cannot hire you.

                  6) Sorry Ed. Your physical showed high cholesterol. That puts you in a risk group too high for our comfort. We cannot hire you.

                  7) Sorry Amanda. You say your mother was an alcoholic? That puts you at high risk. We cannot hire you.

                  8) Sorry Charlie. Since you used to play football, our stats show that you are more likely to have joint problems that would drive up our insurance. We cannot hire you.

                  9) Sorry Cindy. Our research shows that you are a member of the NRA. We have a policy that nobody who works here may have guns or use guns. We cannot hire you.

                  10) Sorry Dan. We have records to show that you have frequented tanning booths. You thus have a higher risk of skin cancer. We cannot hire you.

                  11) Sorry Ellen. The genetic testing part of your physical showed you are 2X more likely that the general population to have early-onset Alzheimer's disease. That's a risk we cannot take, to have to pay for your potential disability. We cannot hire you.



                  ------

                  Now lets assume that you are OK with all of these restrictions on hiring. Would you be comfortable with the same conditions to be used in firing?

                  Hey Don. Sorry to hear you mom had a stroke. That also means you are at higher risk due to family history. We will have to let you go...

                  Umm one name and one team pops up into my head: Eddy Curry and the Chicago Bulls.

                  That description fits perfectly for what they did. They did not want to sign him, until they were fully aware of his health risks, so no I have zero problem with it.

                  He didn't want to give out that information, and signed with a team that was willing to take the risk. Translatation: Your not forced to work at a certain company, so go somewhere else.

                  For my major, we are taught all kinds of screens like family history health (primary health risks) and controllable health risks (secondary health risks) to screen out potential employees/people who take part in studies.

                  If I'm making an investment in someone, which is what an employee is, then I should be fully aware of the risks that they carry.

                  EDIT: I guess you think life insurance policies are discriminating against people too. Why in the world should someone pay a higher premium if they're 65 and have smoked for 40yrs compared to someone that is 30 and has never smoked?

                  I have the right to protect myself from bad investments that could cost my company thousands upon thousands of dollars. If you don't like it, then there's the door. Cya.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Man fired for failing a drug test... for nicotine!

                    Every employer I have ever worked for has made me sign a document giving them the right to fire me at any time for any reason at all or for no reason at all, and by signing I forfeit all my rights to pursue legal action aginst them over the termination of employment.

                    I thought this was pretty standard.

                    Companies long ago decided that drawing a line in advance was legally too risky, so they would give themselves the option of drawing the line wherever and whenever they see fit.

                    Still I think to fire someone for some of the reasons I stated would be very unethical, though not illegal if such a contract were signed.
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X