Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Congress or the President?

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

  • The Congress or the President?

    Who gets to decide whether we stay in Iraq or not? The Congress or the President? I have heard time after time over the last month, from all sectors of the media, the following: it's the president's decision unless the congress "cuts the purse strings". Which they would never do, because they don't want to seem to be anti-military. Well, here's what the constitution says:

    Section 8. The Congress shall have power...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...
    AND

    Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...

    He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
    To me this reads as pretty much a slam dunk that Congress has full authority to decide whether we stay or go in Iraq. I may be missing something, but why couldn't congress just get a simple majority for a bill saying, "Get the hell out now". I don't expect they will do that, but they certainly could. He's the commander in chief, but he can only act in accord with the will of the congress.

  • #2
    Re: The Congress or the President?

    Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
    Who gets to decide whether we stay in Iraq or not? The Congress or the President? I have heard time after time over the last month, from all sectors of the media, the following: it's the president's decision unless the congress "cuts the purse strings". Which they would never do, because they don't want to seem to be anti-military. Well, here's what the constitution says:



    AND



    To me this reads as pretty much a slam dunk that Congress has full authority to decide whether we stay or go in Iraq. I may be missing something, but why couldn't congress just get a simple majority for a bill saying, "Get the hell out now". I don't expect they will do that, but they certainly could. He's the commander in chief, but he can only act in accord with the will of the congress.


    Well first of all I had to go look up what the hell "grant letters of marque and reprisal" to find out what that meant.

    Did anybody else know or better yet was anybody else as suprised as I am to find that our constituion grants congress the right to hire mercenarys? I am not suprised we use them but I was suprised that it was in the constitution.

    As to your main point.

    What part are you seeing that makes this a slam dunk in your mind? Congress has the right to declare war but nowhere do I see where congress has the right to retreat or withdraw.

    Congress has the right to make rules for & regulate the military but I don't see where it can make rules regarding the use of the military once it's been cleared by congress for war.

    To me, & maybe this is where you see it differantly, the commander in chief is exactly that, commander. Once he is given the power to go to war it is his war to run. BTW, this isn't just a Bush thing this is across the board.

    I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just honestly don't see what says to you congress even has the right to withdraw or demand action by troops or naval units.

    But, there deffinately is a part in there that they have to make spending for every two years. So for fact they control the purse strings.


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

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Congress or the President?

      There is always the threat of impeachment, too, if a President (Any President) goes off half-cocked militarily without the support of Congress AND the American people. There has to be a bi partisan consensus reached about what to do in this situation, or we are headed for real trouble. I think there will be enough consensus to govern.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Congress or the President?

        The decision is the presidents.

        My prediction: Bush will "bring the dems into the decision making" Make them a part of this - make them have some ownership in this situation. (although they did authorize Bush to go to war in the first place, but we don't want to remember that. Now that the dems have more decision making authority, do you notice the "cut and run" talk has ceased.


        There is a better chance that I become the next president of the US then the dems will cut off funding. That would be political suicide

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Congress or the President?

          What exactly would impeachment do? Clinton was impeached. Did it really do anything lasting to him? It was like a slap on the hand.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Congress or the President?

            Originally posted by Gyron View Post
            What exactly would impeachment do? Clinton was impeached. Did it really do anything lasting to him? It was like a slap on the hand.
            If a Republican was impeached his party would force him to resign - not so with the democrats

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Congress or the President?

              Originally posted by Gyron View Post
              What exactly would impeachment do? Clinton was impeached. Did it really do anything lasting to him? It was like a slap on the hand.
              There is a difference between being impeached and being convicted. Mr. Clinton was not convicted. You're right though, it turned out to be a slap on the hand and nothing more. Which is what he deserved in my humble opinion.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Congress or the President?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                If a Republican was impeached his party would force him to resign - not so with the democrats
                I would hope that is not true, if he or she didn't deserve to be convicted. But we've seen Republicans to be a pretty weak and conflicted bunch recently, so who knows? You could be right.

                For the record, too, for my money Bill Clinton didn't deserve to be removed from office and he wasn't removed. Holy batman, he lied about a BJ in a kangaroo court gathered for one purpose: to hang him! For all the discomfort I felt with Bill Clinton's tawdry behaviour, it is worth it to see his enemies still embittered by the one who got away.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Congress or the President?

                  YAY!!!!! I can commit perjury and not worry about going to jail because it's just a lie about a BJ YAY!!!!!

                  You can't lie to a grandjury no matter what the lie is about, end of story. If it was you or I we would be looking at jailtime.

                  Whether it was about getting head in the oval office, or covering up a double murder, it doesn't matter. Lying to the grandjury is a no-no that should carry consequences.

                  A lie is a lie is a lie.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Congress or the President?

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    YAY!!!!! I can commit perjury and not worry about going to jail because it's just a lie about a BJ YAY!!!!!
                    I doubt you will go to jail if you deny sex with an "of age" female under oath, but I guess anything is possible.

                    You probably won't lose your job though. Maybe your wife, if you are married.

                    You are confusing legal action in a court with the business of Congress.

                    It was the job of Congress to decide if there was sufficient reason for firing - removal from office. Congress had nothing to do with assessing jail time or whatever else you wanted as justice, other than conviction on impeachment.

                    In my opinion, Bill Clinton's bigger sin was not leveling with the American people about this matter. We deserve much better. I started to write a sentence or two about Mr. Bush's failure to level with us, but I'll leave that rant for another time and better place.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Congress or the President?

                      Originally posted by sixthman View Post
                      I would hope that is not true, if he or she didn't deserve to be convicted. But we've seen Republicans to be a pretty weak and conflicted bunch recently, so who knows? You could be right.

                      For the record, too, for my money Bill Clinton didn't deserve to be removed from office and he wasn't removed. Holy batman, he lied about a BJ in a kangaroo court gathered for one purpose: to hang him! For all the discomfort I felt with Bill Clinton's tawdry behaviour, it is worth it to see his enemies still embittered by the one who got away.
                      Clinton should have been censured by Congress, not impeached IMO.

                      However, I have interns who work in my office and I guarantee that if I was getting blown by one of them and someone found out I'd be fired.

                      Not to mention that it was a classic case of sexual harrassment.

                      The thought that Bush has done anything to be impeached for is ridiculous - based on what we know right now anyway.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Congress or the President?

                        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                        Clinton should have been censured by Congress, not impeached IMO.
                        No argument from me there. Obviously, though, it's safe to say that wasn't good enough for the get-Bill Clinton-crowd, or they would have sought and won censure in the first place.

                        The thought that Bush has done anything to be impeached for is ridiculous - based on what we know right now anyway.
                        Maybe that wasn't directed at me, but nowhere have I tried to imply or said that I think, on the basis of what we know now, that Mr. Bush should be impeached.

                        My insertion of the impeachment issue was supposed to be an addition to the list of "tools" that Congress has in the event of an unfortunate split over military policy with a President, any President.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Congress or the President?

                          Originally posted by sixthman View Post
                          My insertion of the impeachment issue was supposed to be an addition to the list of "tools" that Congress has in the event of an unfortunate split over military policy with a President, any President.
                          It was wrongly added then.

                          In order to impeach there must be an offense. Simple intransigence would be a massive, massive leap. That's why it's worded in the Constitution as:

                          Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

                          Now there may be instances where Congress could in theory initiate impeachment proceedings vs Bush. Frex, if the domestic wiretapping ends up being deemed unconstitutional. However in that case Bush evidently consulted with leaders in both parties and in both houses of Congress so his butt's fairly well covered. There may be some detention issues that haven't been uncovered yet. In this case you could impeach him for stepping beyond the bounds of Presidential authority.

                          The articles of the Patriot Act that were later found to be unconstitutional doesn't work because Congress passed it.

                          If they start impeaching Presidents simply because Congress disagrees with them, we're in for a whole bunch of impeachments. And yes, I know the Lewinsky scandal was a thin covering for Republicans witch-hunting Clinton but my point is that, to date, Bush hasn't done anything illegal (that we know of) that could be considered an impeachable offense - there's no cover the Dems could use for that kind of action.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Congress or the President?

                            But what does an impeachment do? I always thought immpeachment meant the person was removed from their office. But that wasn't the case with Clinton.

                            So what exactly does an impeachment accomplish? A strongly worded scolding of said official? And if thats all it is, why do we have to spend thousands, probably millions of dollars for the investigations and trails that go along with it?

                            What exactly would they call it if they were removing said person from office?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Congress or the President?

                              Originally posted by sixthman View Post
                              I doubt you will go to jail if you deny sex with an "of age" female under oath, but I guess anything is possible.

                              You probably won't lose your job though. Maybe your wife, if you are married.

                              You are confusing legal action in a court with the business of Congress.

                              It was the job of Congress to decide if there was sufficient reason for firing - removal from office. Congress had nothing to do with assessing jail time or whatever else you wanted as justice, other than conviction on impeachment.

                              In my opinion, Bill Clinton's bigger sin was not leveling with the American people about this matter. We deserve much better. I started to write a sentence or two about Mr. Bush's failure to level with us, but I'll leave that rant for another time and better place.
                              They didn't try to impeach him for just denying he had "sex" with her. They tried to impeach him because he committed perjury.

                              Perjury

                              A crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth.

                              The common-law crime of perjury is now governed by both state and federal laws. In addition, the Model Penal Code, which has been adopted in some form by many states and promulgated by the Commission on Uniform State Laws, also sets forth the following basic elements for the crime of perjury: (1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive.

                              The punishment for perjury in most states, and under federal law, is the imposition of a fine, imprisonment, or both. Federal law also imposes sentencing enhancements when the court determines that a defendant has falsely testified on her own behalf and is convicted. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the court is required to automatically increase the defendant's sentence.
                              http://www.answers.com/topic/perjury

                              He lied to save his own skin, so the punishment would have been required to increase. How can you not impeach a president for breaking a federal law? He is in charge of the branch of government that enforces the law, and is required to act under those laws or face the same punishment as you and I would.

                              I couldn't care less about what he does with legal consenting adults. I would prefer it didn't happen in the White House and he would have enough respect for the position to take it else where, but that's not illegal and doesn't concern me.

                              You can't lie to a federal grand jury and not expect punishment. If he was going to go to jail, then he certainly couldn't hold office.

                              It's not about "sex." It's about committing a federal felony.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X