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

Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

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

  • #16
    Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

    Still is disgusting to me. Soup next time you are in a crowded public restoom, where kids are present, imagine a couple having sex in one of the stalls and making enough of a disturbance that everyone in the room notices and if you are's disgusted, then I don't knpow what to say to you.

    If that makes me a self-righteous and puritanism. then I say in this case I'll wear that badge with honor

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

      Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
      Seth may smell of beer but I have a hard time visualizing him in a t-shirt.
      You got that backwards.

      And it was almost worth having to sit through a crappy Sox game.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

        BTW, I don't find it sick at all. It's just sex. I'd say the normal use of that stall at Sox field is probably 100 times more disgusting. Seriously, if that stall had glass windows and you were forced to watch what was going on, which are you going to choose: that couple or the 300 lb dude that just had the Italian beef sandwich and PBR beer?


        Now it IS a pretty over the top and therefore annoying PDA though.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

          Originally posted by billbradley View Post
          cheering for someone getting it in is weird.
          I'm guessing that you meant to say 'getting it on.

          But, I suppose he was getting it in. Maybe you were right all along.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

            Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
            . . .the strain of self-righteous puritanism present in these responses (as well as in the sensationalist tone of the article).
            That's John Kass at his "finest". The Bob Kravitz of the Chicago news desk.

            Usually, his topic of disdain is Mayor Daley. But he's usualy got a topic. And disdain.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
              That's John Kass at his "finest". The Bob Kravitz of the Chicago news desk.

              Usually, his topic of disdain is Mayor Daley. But he's usualy got a topic. And disdain.
              . . . . and people wonder why the newspaper business is tanking. Too much gets lost in the whole New Media v. Old Media debate, I think, and what gets overlooked is the fact that most newspaper writing now flat-out blows. I mean, this article was written for the Chicago Tribune, and it's a freaking steaming pile of horseshat. The New York Times Sunday Book Review—the one newspaper-related thing that I, as a lit-freak, should hold absolutely holy—is maybe the biggest joke going. That M.Kakutani and J.Wood are our two most "eminent" book reviewers is an insult. (Seriously, those two couldn't read and critique a book if their lives depended on it.)

              When editors decided to sacrifice high standards of quality for "entertaining" crap such as the article above—and thus following in the entertaining-over-informative model that works for TV- and radio-news, as well as almost anything on the net—is when they lost the war. Newspapers won't ever sell on that model—it's too easy to flick on the TV, or open the laptop. They have to offer a kind of quality and thoroughness that isn't available elsewhere—that IMO is their one main business advantage. (And employing guys like Kravitz or Kass sure as hell isn't making use of that advantage.)

              (Of course part of the problem with this is the fact that most people of my generation—the people who will eventually be staffing the newspapers—don't really care to read. Even within my fellow English majors, it's rare to find someone who's interested in reading as a way of exposing and altering and enlarging the self, of bettering one's imagination. The idea that the works of guys like Milton and Emerson have survived for a reason—because they represent the very apex of human imagination—is more or less foreign. I have yet to meet anyone my age who would read Milton in their spare time. [And a disheartening amount of current professors wouldn't either, dismissing him as a Dead White Male.] So, while I wish newspaper would in the future by and large conform to higher standards of literacy, those who are inheriting them are mostly only literate in the sense that they can read, but very nearly illiterate in the sense that they can imaginatively engage with a poem, or delight in the keen nuances of irony. . . . We're ****ed.)

              edit - guess this wasn't the greatest rant to go on inside a thread I've been accused of being self-righteous w/in. (Interesting, by the way, that Hicks has said nothing further about his odd outburst.) But before you think I'm being snobby—because it's almost impossible these days to talk about literature and literacy w/o seeming snobby—think about this: heightened literacy = increased fertility and intensity of imagination, which not only = a better overall cognitive power but also = increased "visionary" ability—the ability to generate solutions, and not just find them. Many of the issues we're saddled with right now will not be resolved by mere problem-solving, by searching for and finding the right solution out of many already extant possibilities. The imagination generates, and the deep engagement with literature has been time-tested as maybe the very best way of nurturing one's imagination. (Possibly because written language is a mostly non-sensuous medium, and the imaginative distance between the medium and the sense-impressions evoked in the mind is the greatest of all art-mediums). If our ability to generate new ideas and solutions falters, our society as a whole is going to continue straight down that drain we're currently circling. Further, a democracy depends greatly on each individual person's ability to think and reason and wisely choose—all of which requires a fertile, engaged imagination. If we continue to devalue deep prolonged reading—and thus devaluing the individual imagination—then 8-year ****bombs like GWB's presidency will continue to haunt us, and eventually become the norm. (And I'm not trying to make this overtly political: both the left and right—especially the left—are guilty when it comes to this act of devaluing.)
              Last edited by SoupIsGood; 04-12-2010, 06:38 PM.
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

                The Tribune has been blatantly obnoxious for the past year with sensationalist coverage around all of the political corruption in Illinois. Yes, we've got plenty of corruption. Our last two elected governors were two of the biggest crooks you'll ever encounter (don't worry, each party gets a representative, that's not a "political" statement.)

                Anyway, we've cancelled the Tribune again. I thought it might be better since they sold the Cubs and thus the sports page wouldn't be a big advertising section for the below-0.500 baseball team. But if the sports page has improved (and its debatable, their Bears' coverage is even more laughable that their Cubs coverage. Every March the Bears are declared the favorites for the next Super Bowl by the Tribune... althougth the SunTimes gets into that act as well), the legit news section of the paper is even worse.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  BTW, I don't find it sick at all. It's just sex. I'd say the normal use of that stall at Sox field is probably 100 times more disgusting. Seriously, if that stall had glass windows and you were forced to watch what was going on, which are you going to choose: that couple or the 300 lb dude that just had the Italian beef sandwich and PBR beer?


                  Now it IS a pretty over the top and therefore annoying PDA though.

                  I really don't think either is gross. I find defecation weirdly fascinating, and even more fascinating in how we're all so hush-hush about it. When my doggy (or I guess my roommate's doggy) goes poo, he has this little dance he does. He can't squat and keep his balance, so he kind of crab-walks around while he goes. I don't know, stuff like that just makes me smile.

                  I love animals. I should have been a vet.
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

                    I think it's 10 times worse when people don't flush there left overs, that's a real visual nightmare.....

                    I have been to a few public venues and while no prude I don't approve, it's pretty gross both in Hygiene and personal manners, but having said that.... that kid will/could go to a life time of games and never see that again, better chance of winning lotto...

                    I'm more concerned with, once the woman screamed, did he hang around them few minutes before they opened the door..... because that is more disturbing...
                    Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

                      While I don't find sex disgusting, I do find the venue rather disgusting. The more we consider ourselves as just animals the more we accept behavior like this as "awesome".

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

                        I think it's 10 times worse when people don't flush their left overs ..... I find defecation weirdly fascinating ...... if that stall had glass windows and you were forced to watch what was going on, which are you going to choose: that couple or the 300 lb dude that just had the Italian beef sandwich and PBR beer? .........
                        WTF has this thread turned into ??

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

                          We have no right to judge what goes on in the privacy of a public bathroom stall!!!
                          Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                          I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

                            The only thing I find disgusting is the fact they did it on the public bathroom floor. You know with the number of drunken fans that go in there a few of them had to miss the toilet. Lying in urine is kind of a turn off.

                            It's unfortunate the kids had to see it. It's also unfortunate that sex is considered more dangerous (in the US) to children than viewing violence on tv or seeing a bunch of hammered idiots at a ball game.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

                              Anybody think that it's odd that a guy with an MD doesn't have the brains to peak under the stall and then would be able to figure out what's actually going on and then exit the bathroom with son before the son figures it out?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Sexual Hijinks in White Sox Park bathroom taint opening day

                                Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                                Anybody think that it's odd that a guy with an MD doesn't have the brains to peak under the stall and then would be able to figure out what's actually going on and then exit the bathroom with son before the son figures it out?
                                Just to make sure I understand - if you're in a bathroom and hear a commotion, you want to get down on the ground and look inside a mysterious bathroom stall?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X