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

PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

    The same people making and enforcing these laws are also the same people creating jobs. Something has to give before we become a bunch of citizens dependent on the government. Because you cannot work for an arrest you had 20 years ago.

    Indiana is not a good state to be honest w/ the police when we have 15% of our citizens with felonies.

    Comment


    • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

      Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

      Not saying you are wrong, but how often is "often". I hear stories like this from myths of friends of friends, but how often does this really happen. Now I agree even one time out of a million is too many when it comes to taking someones freedom, but I would love to know how often people are actually wrongly accused due to going to a interview without lawyering up
      It is hard to say what "often" is (though it is more than one in a million), because definitively proving one's factual innocence is difficult: once a crime is pinned on someone, the authorities are not going to continue investigating. However, with DNA testing we have one way of showing that someone is actually wrongfully convicted. Of course, one problem is that there is no DNA evidence in most cases.

      See:
      Link
      Originally posted by Radley Balko, Reason Mag.
      Since 1989, DNA testing has freed 268 people who were convicted of crimes they did not commit. There are dozens of other cases, like House’s, where DNA strongly suggests innocence but does not conclusively prove it. Convicting and imprisoning an innocent person is arguably the worst thing a government can do to one of its citizens, short of mistakenly executing him. (There’s increasing evidence that this has happened too.) Just about everyone agrees that these are unfathomable tragedies. What is far less clear, and still hotly debated, is what these cases say about the way we administer justice in America, what we owe the wrongly convicted, and how the officials who send innocent people to prison should be held accountable.

      How Many Are Innocent?

      According to the Innocence Project, an advocacy group that provides legal aid to the wrongly convicted, the average DNA exoneree served 13 years in prison before he or she was freed. Seventeen had been sentenced to death. Remarkably, 67 percent of the exonerated were convicted after 2000, the year that marked the onset of modern DNA testing. Each new exoneration adds more urgency to the question that has hovered over these cases since the first convict was cleared by DNA in 1989: How many more innocent people are waiting to be freed?

      Given the soundness of DNA testing, we can be nearly certain that the 268 cleared so far didn’t commit the crimes for which they were convicted. There are hundreds of other cases where no DNA evidence exists to definitively establish guilt or innocence, but a prisoner has been freed due to lack of evidence, recantation of eyewitness testimony, or police or prosecutorial misconduct. Those convictions were overturned because there was insufficient evidence to overcome reasonable doubt; it does not necessarily mean the defendant didn’t commit the crime. It’s unclear whether and how those cases should be factored into any attempt to estimate the number of innocent people in prison.

      In a country where there are 15,000 to 20,000 homicides each year, 268 exonerations over two decades may seem like an acceptable margin of error. But reform advocates point out that DNA testing is conclusive only in a small percentage of criminal cases. Testing is helpful only in solving crimes where exchange of DNA is common and significant, mostly rape and murder. (And most murder exonerations have come about because the murder was preceded by a rape that produced testable DNA.) Even within this subset of cases, DNA evidence is not always preserved, nor is it always dispositive to the identity of the perpetrator.

      Death penalty cases add urgency to this debate. In a 2007 study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, the Seton Hall law professor Michael Risinger looked at cases of exoneration for capital murder-rapes between 1982 and 1989, compared them to the total number of murder-rape cases over that period for which DNA would be a factor, and estimated from that data that 3 percent to 5 percent of the people convicted of capital crimes probably are innocent. If Risinger is right, it’s still unclear how to extrapolate figures for the larger prison population. Some criminologists argue that there is more pressure on prosecutors and jurors to convict someone, anyone, in high-profile murder cases. That would suggest a higher wrongful conviction rate in death penalty cases. But defendants also tend to have better representation in capital cases, and media interest can also mean more scrutiny for police and prosecutors. That could lead to fewer wrongful convictions.
      edit: continued at link.

      Basically, it is not a risk that I would take--but that is a personal choice. However, people should at least be informed about what risks they are taking when talking to police.
      Last edited by dal9; 07-14-2011, 03:31 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

        Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
        Wow. The depth of your lack of knowledge is beyond staggering. I try to give you some insight and here you have a person with actual decades long intimate knowledge of the inner workings of how police work is done work and you can pick my brain to find out any number of things and you base your facts on youtube? Really?

        I knew better than to try it impart a little wisdom on you, but I had to try. Keep getting your learn on through You Tube and innuendo and in a few decades I am positive that much coveted GED will be withing your grasp!

        Now where's that ignore button.

        (Seriously. Wow. That was a stunning display..of...I don't know what that was.)

        Discounting somebodies opinion based on the mentioning of youtube is truly the ignorant play. There are plenty of legit videos on youtube of these subject matters, your first hand accounts do not discredit them. I hope for societies sake that's not a reflection of your decades of detective work.
        Last edited by graphic-er; 07-14-2011, 04:24 PM.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

          Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
          Extreme cases, but yes, I think both articles show our system has flaws.

          I kept hearing on the news about a town that had a prison built but it was never funded. Never heard anything else about it, and now I cannot think of what state that was in
          i think i remember that...it was in Montana or something...

          Comment


          • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

            Thaks Dal9.

            I actually just read a big story in the WAPO about old crimes overturned w new DNA.

            Of course, as you pointed out, part of the problem is the fact that DNA was not around back then

            Comment


            • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

              Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
              Thaks Dal9.

              I actually just read a big story in the WAPO about old crimes overturned w new DNA.

              Of course, as you pointed out, part of the problem is the fact that DNA was not around back then
              It seems in most states an inmate would be lucky to find a Judge who would agree to see exonerating evidence.
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                I very much respect LEO and DAs but I would not wager my life and liberty on their kindness or discretion. I place my trust in the adversarial process and the Constitutional guarantees.

                I have advised my wife the following: Never consent to a search. Never answer questions without me or another attorney present. Always ask if you are under arrest or free to leave. Never lie. Always be respectful. Always be patient and stay calm.

                As far as I'm concerned, those are the ground rules. LEOs know those are the rules and they can perform their job abiding by those rules. It may be easier to trick someone into forfeiting their Miranda rights or to consent to otherwise unconstitutional searches, but I have faith in their ability to perform without those types of shenanigans.

                Comment


                • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                  Originally posted by judicata View Post
                  I very much respect LEO and DAs but I would not wager my life and liberty on their kindness or discretion. I place my trust in the adversarial process and the Constitutional guarantees.

                  I have advised my wife the following: Never consent to a search. Never answer questions without me or another attorney present. Always ask if you are under arrest or free to leave. Never lie. Always be respectful. Always be patient and stay calm.

                  As far as I'm concerned, those are the ground rules. LEOs know those are the rules and they can perform their job abiding by those rules. It may be easier to trick someone into forfeiting their Miranda rights or to consent to otherwise unconstitutional searches, but I have faith in their ability to perform without those types of shenanigans.
                  Can't agree more, but you know that those "shenanigans" happen more often than we hear about.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                    It seems in most states an inmate would be lucky to find a Judge who would agree to see exonerating evidence.


                    I hear cases all the time (I love watching trutv, formerly courtv) about cases overturned.

                    As a matter of fact, I just found a show the other night dealing with this exact subject matter. I think it was called "forensic files"

                    Comment


                    • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      In your opinion, when would it actually make sense to lie in this type of a situation?
                      I'd venture a guess- if you (police) thought the 3 people last known to see the girl are hiding something you get them in separate rooms, and either let the one claiming blackout wait a while or have one detective interview him for a while when in pops a second detective. Maybe carrying a thick file with some papers probably having nothing to do with the case in reality....

                      And he says "The prosecutor's offered your pals a deal for info and they are putting this all on you. Are you gonna take the fall all by yourself or do you want to get ahead of this and tell us your version?"
                      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


                      • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                        Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                        They may know how prison "life" is better then a judge, but no, I can assure you they do not know the "ins and outs" of a prison better then anybody.

                        Hell, if anyone knows the system like the back of their hands, it would be the lawyers who prosecute and to a much greater extent the public defenders who defend anyone in the system.

                        I will grant you judges are hands off, but most judges come up in the system (normally as lawyers, but sometimes in other fields of LE before they get into law)
                        A lawyer will not tell you who gives the best tattoo. Who runs a store. Who is gay. Who is not afraid to boot up. What to tell the dr to get your meds.

                        There is a whole system the lawyers have an idea of but are not players in the game. Till you have lived it & done it you shouldnt comment on prison life.

                        Comment


                        • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                          I don't know which is sadder. The completely random disappearance of Lauren, or the attitudes displayed in this thread.

                          We live in a wonderful society.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                            Originally posted by Lou Bega View Post
                            A lawyer will not tell you who gives the best tattoo. Who runs a store. Who is gay. Who is not afraid to boot up. What to tell the dr to get your meds.

                            There is a whole system the lawyers have an idea of but are not players in the game. Till you have lived it & done it you shouldnt comment on prison life.
                            So, you're an ex-con then? (or maybe not so ex?)
                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment


                            • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                              Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                              So, you're an ex-con then? (or maybe not so ex?)
                              Does it make me any less than you?

                              Comment


                              • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                I don't know which is sadder. The completely random disappearance of Lauren, or the attitudes displayed in this thread.

                                We live in a wonderful society.
                                We do. I can debate you and prove you wrong on a message board and you can only pout and take a superior moral stance to me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X