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

New Baby Bonus

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

  • New Baby Bonus

    Full Story - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/...any_baby_bonus

    German government has shaken up its financial assistance to parents in a bid to make it easier for working women to have children.

    The new "Elterngeld" — or "parent money" — program allows an adult who stops work after a child is born to continue to claim two-thirds of their net wage, up to a maximum $2,375 per month. Low earners can claim 100 percent compensation for lost wages.

    One parent can claim for up to 12 months; if both parents take a turn, they can claim the benefit for a total of 14 months — a tweak designed to encourage more fathers to help.

    Germany previously paid a flat $400 a month in benefits to needy parents for up to two years. The change is expected to raise the annual outlay in direct payments for parents with infants by about $1.2 billion per year to $5 billion.
    do you think the US will ever adopt a system like this?

  • #2
    Re: New Baby Bonus

    No, it will never happen. It needs to, but it never will. US employers would lobby this one to death. There's no way they would stand for it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: New Baby Bonus

      Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
      Full Story - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/...any_baby_bonus



      do you think the US will ever adopt a system like this?
      Is Germany's population really dropping so much that it has to pay people to have kids? Are they allowing people to take the same benifits if they adopt children? I doubt the US will ever do this. Too much money.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: New Baby Bonus

        Another thing I didn't see mentioned in the article: Does the employer have to guarantee the parent's job upon their return?

        If so, this is yet another reason it will never happen in the US. There is no employer that is going to invest the time, effort, and money to train someone else to do your job, only to be forced to give it back to you when you return. As I said, corporate lobbyists would make sure that something like this never gets out of committee.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: New Baby Bonus

          I'm not sure if it is law, but many companies give employees leaves of absence to care for their children after they or born, or if illness occurs. Of course, you don't get paid for it, but you do have your job waiting for you.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: New Baby Bonus

            If I had a hundred bucks for every time I pulled an all-nighter while my co-worker "had to" go do something for thier kids, I'd be a rich man.

            The people with children at work already force enough work on the childless people as it is. Now they want me to pay more in taxes to support them?

            **** that ****.
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: New Baby Bonus

              Why stop here? Why doesn't the government just send out checks to everyone?

              I'm sure we could find a reason if we needed to categorize it, but one way or the other let's just give everyone a check! Free money!

              The amazing thing to me is that some of the same people who'd yell the loudest for a balanced budget would also be all for expanding government entitlement programs like this.

              How about this idea...instead of looking for new entitlement programs we look to scale back the existing ones?

              Actually, goverment should penalize bad behavior and otherwise not look to play Santa Claus.

              -Bball
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: New Baby Bonus

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Why stop here? Why doesn't the government just send out checks to everyone?

                -Bball
                So I assume you were against the Bush tax refunds?
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: New Baby Bonus

                  Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                  So I assume you were against the Bush tax refunds?


                  Back on-topic: Yes, the number of births among ethnically born Germans is quite low. They actually had their population decreasing a few years back and the average age is going up. That's not a good thing for any society.

                  You need to keep enough young and working people to pay taxes, keep up social security, educational and health care systems or pay for fighting wars in Iraq .

                  Regards,

                  Mourning
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: New Baby Bonus

                    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                    So I assume you were against the Bush tax refunds?
                    The best part is, those weren't refunds. They were just allowing you to claim The increased portion of the Child Tax Credit early. This led to a lot of people trying to claim that $400 twice, once when they got the "refund", and once on their taxes.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: New Baby Bonus

                      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                      So I assume you were against the Bush tax refunds?
                      I'm ready to do away with tax refunds entirely. They should be outlawed. The government should never take more than whatever their 'cut' is. And people should be required to write a check to pay their tax bill, not this silly shell game we have now where people hardly notice what they are 'paying' and then they get all excited when they get their own money back that the government has used over the year, interest free. As if it was a some kind of 'free money' falling from the sky.

                      I might consider a system that has business withholding money but instead of sending it to the Fed they give you a check each month to send in yourself already made out to the IRS just so the average person SEES what they are paying and sees that government largesse is not 'free'. And 'feels' that check going into the mailbox instead of their wallet or bank account.

                      OTOH...
                      I suppose if the argument can be made that the government took in too much money then they should probably be required to refund it... with interest (as a penalty for overcharging). It really shouldn't roll over in the budget and be looked at as 'free' money for the next year. Government couldn't be expected to act responsibly with this 'extra' money. It's like the 20.00 dollar bill you find on the floor at the bar: You buy your friends a round of beers that you wouldn't have otherwise gotten, not take it home to pay on the phone bill.

                      And in reality there should be a flat tax... or a consumption tax...

                      I've heard lots of debate about what to exclude from a consumption tax to make it more fair. Here's an idea: exclude nothing. Make the tax as low as possible and exclude nothing. And make a constitutional amendment to cap the percentage that the government can charge... even tie it to something so that not only is it capped but government couldn't just charge it to the cap.

                      I'm really a radical...

                      -Bball
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: New Baby Bonus

                        Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                        I'm not sure if it is law, but many companies give employees leaves of absence to care for their children after they or born, or if illness occurs. Of course, you don't get paid for it, but you do have your job waiting for you.
                        It is law - if I was at work I could look in a file for the name (could do a web search I guess). Something like the Family Leave Protective Act but that isn't exactly it.

                        I'm not 100% familiar with the specifics of it.

                        edit: LOL - as soon as I got to the office I remembered it - didn't even have to look in a file. Funny how the brain works.

                        Family Medical Leave Act - requires employers to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for a new baby, illness, care of a family member, etc.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: New Baby Bonus

                          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                          So I assume you were against the Bush tax refunds?
                          Those were tax cuts but tax refunds. I agree with Bball on the tax refund game.

                          I do agree with your prior post though LA

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: New Baby Bonus

                            I agree with B-ball that the government shouldn't force you to pay your taxes by taking it out of your check, but that you should send them a check on April 15th. It is a joke that they don't give you the interest back when they send you a refund on the money that they have been holding, but when you are behind in paying they tack interest onto your amount due. If my wife and I owe any money this year, we will put it into a money market or saving account until April 15th and then cut a check. I'll keep as much intereset to myself as I can, thank you very much.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: New Baby Bonus

                              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                              It is law - if I was at work I could look in a file for the name (could do a web search I guess). Something like the Family Leave Protective Act but that isn't exactly it.

                              I'm not 100% familiar with the specifics of it.

                              edit: LOL - as soon as I got to the office I remembered it - didn't even have to look in a file. Funny how the brain works.

                              Family Medical Leave Act - requires employers to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for a new baby, illness, care of a family member, etc.

                              You know in few years it will be paid leave. I'm just predicting it, there has already been some talk of changing it. First they'll start with large corporations and certain parts of the country but in 15-20 years it will be a given that it will be paid

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X