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

Nirvana's place in the world of music....

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

  • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
    And apologies for not being able to read the full thread, but when you say Twain, are you referring to Shania Twain?
    Yes, she is.

    Comment


    • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

      Oh. I don't know how to repond to that. Shania Twain has as much artistic merit as a Burger King Whopper.

      It's an insult to both Cobain and Tupac to mention her in the same conversation. Both Cobain and Tupac railed AGAINST this kind of manufactured crap.

      It's no mystery that ****** music often sells, especially when you get a model-thin girl singing in a cut-off t-shirt and painted on jeans.
      “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


      • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

        The idea that because Shania Twain and Garth Brooks at one time outsold Nirvana, Tupac, or whoever; and therefore belong in the same conversation is absolutely preposterous. I'm sure that there have been periods of time where Danielle Steele outsold Jonathan Franzen, but no one with more than 5 brain cells would ever put Steele on Franzen's level. I'm sure there was ephemeral crap out there outselling John Steinbeck and F. Scott Fitzgerald early in the last century, but guess what, no one remembers it.
        Last edited by idioteque; 08-07-2011, 04:49 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

          Exactly. I guess the Columbus comparison wasn't very strong. How about was the Vietnam War an unpopular war? It is opinion based but because of what the media documented we recognize it as an unpopular war. How is this any different than Nirvana being considered one of the greatest bands of all time? Why would the media go out of their way to distort history?

          Comment


          • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

            Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
            WHOA. Now this is a giant curve ball.This entire time, we've been talking about rock and roll. "Voice of his generation" applies to his influence on rock and roll fans. If we were talking about classical it would be Yo Yo Ma and if we were talking about Jazz, we'd be discussing the Marsalis brothers. Tupac was a hip hop artist. While Cobain and Tupac may have had some "overlap" fans that listened to both of them, we're still left with a serious apples and oranges problem.

            Now we're facing a pretty serious cultural bias discussion, and I fear that this goes outside the boundaries of Pacers Digest's anti-political discussion policies.

            I will gladly discuss this via PM if you are interested or we can continue to discuss this over at infullpursuit.com , where we have a more relaxed approach to discussing political and cultural issues.

            I will give you one thing: All those lists by NY Times, Rolling Stone and VH1? Tupac is consistently featured on them, albeit usually much lower than cobain. But even a sideways glance at these lists show a clear favoritism to older artists and to mainstream/rock artists. They barely consider hip hop, but when they do, Public Enemy, Tupac and Dr. Dre are the ones they mention.
            I thought it was a music discussion. *shrug* Country and Rap artists were consistently featured on Rolling Stone, and Shania Twain has been mentioned before in this thread. I didn't think the discussion was simply rock and roll. If it was, I'd probably agree that Cobain was easily the biggest Rock Star of the 90s.

            btw: I think Shania has done more for music in general than Cobain has. I've already said that Shania Twain started Cross-over country. This has had a much much more significant impact on the music industry than Cobain and grunge music. So yea, I think we can compare Cobain to Twain, if you want to talk biggest impact artist of the 90s. Whether you want to call if "manufactured" or not, the fact is, she essentially started cross-over country, and you can't ignore that impact.

            This whole idea that people liked Nirvana because it's genuine reminds me of the kids who are part of the grain that goes against the grain. If you don't like Shania, that's fine. Honestly, I like Nirvana, Shania, and Tupac probably all around the same. But you can't ignore her impact, which was huge. And the bottom line is you could easily find people who feel the opposite. That Nirvana and Tupac don't belong in the same sentence as Shania Twain and Garth Brooks.

            It's like Harry Potter. Great books. They weren't works of literary genius though, we aren't going to put JK Rowling in the same category as Charles Dickens. But her impact was huge.
            Last edited by Sookie; 08-07-2011, 05:43 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

              Originally posted by billbradley View Post
              Exactly. I guess the Columbus comparison wasn't very strong. How about was the Vietnam War an unpopular war? It is opinion based but because of what the media documented we recognize it as an unpopular war. How is this any different than Nirvana being considered one of the greatest bands of all time? Why would the media go out of their way to distort history?


              Just drop it man. You have your opinion, we have ours. Agree to disagree.

              Comment


              • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                My point (which is unprovable and an opinion) is that no one will remember Shania Twain or cross over country in 100 years any more than they will remember the Backstreet Boys. Probably a footnote in popular culture but nothing else because their music essentially said nothing. By contrast, music historians will discuss and debate the impact of Nirvana for a long time.

                Comment


                • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                  Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                  My point (which is unprovable and an opinion) is that no one will remember Shania Twain or cross over country in 100 years any more than they will remember the Backstreet Boys. Probably a footnote in popular culture but nothing else because their music essentially said nothing. By contrast, music historians will discuss and debate the impact of Nirvana for a long time.
                  My point throughout this entire thread is that Shania twain had a larger impact than Nirvana. The Backstreet boys probably did too, to be honest.

                  15 years later, where's grunge in popular music? Where's cross-over country? The whole point of this thread was throughout the entire music world, Nirvana's impact wasn't nearly the greatest of any musician in the 90s. They may have been the biggest Rock and Roll band. But Rock stars have pretty much died out with him. Mean while, cross-over country, whether people like it or not, has absolutely exploded.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                    My point throughout this entire thread is that Shania twain had a larger impact than Nirvana. The Backstreet boys probably did too, to be honest.

                    15 years later, where's grunge in popular music? Where's cross-over country? The whole point of this thread was throughout the entire music world, Nirvana's impact wasn't nearly the greatest of any musician in the 90s. They may have been the biggest Rock and Roll band. But Rock stars have pretty much died out with him. Mean while, cross-over country, whether people like it or not, has absolutely exploded.
                    Grunge is alive in nearly every rock band today.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                      Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                      My point (which is unprovable and an opinion) is that no one will remember Shania Twain or cross over country in 100 years any more than they will remember the Backstreet Boys. Probably a footnote in popular culture but nothing else because their music essentially said nothing. By contrast, music historians will discuss and debate the impact of Nirvana for a long time.
                      I've got to agree with Sookie on this and believe me I list country on the far end of my music choice. While many rock bands have struggled to sell out concerts these country cross over bands have been kicking butt for a long time. Now it is possible ticket prices could be a determining factor but you can't ignore how Garth Brooks, Alan Jackson, Carrie Underwood, Brad Paisley, Kenny Chesney and the rest of Country Pop/Rock rakes in the cash.

                      Of course this really isn't something new. While southern rock had a slightly harder edge with bands like Skynyrd, 38 Special, and Molly Hatchet you can't deny they had a country and blues influence from a band like the Allman brothers who were not exactly pure rock. I still have a hard time trying to put the Eagles in a category.
                      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                      Comment


                      • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post


                        Smells Like Teen Spirit was a declaration embraced by millions. It stated: The 80's were over. Hair mousse was over. Shoulder pads were over. 'Fake' emotions were over. Synthesizers and drum machines were over. Michael Jackson was over. And hair metal was over. Nirvana didn't just kill these things. They burned the body.
                        I find this interesting in the respect was Michael Jackson a voice of a generation? He certainly was not mine, but damn it is hard to argue considering how many people wanted to learn how to moon walk (even movies Back to the Future) and those that thought Beat It with the Eddie Van Halen solo was the greatest rock song ever.
                        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                        Comment


                        • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                          Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                          Grunge is alive in nearly every rock band today.
                          And what is the popularity of rock music today?

                          Rock music trails Country, Pop, Rap/Hip-Hop. By a LARGE margin. Rock isn't anywhere near as popular as those other 3 genres.



                          Yes, you're correct that grunge is alive in nearly every rock band. I'll concede that point.

                          The argument needs to shift from saying how it impacted rock music, to how it impact music in general. And the impact is pretty limited. Yes, it changed rock music. It didn't change it to the point where people wanted to buy it, or listen to it. (Yes, some people want it, but not most or anywhere near it.)


                          We can agree Nirvana was a pretty important band for rock music, but you also have to discuss where rock music, in general, ranks in the discussion.

                          That's why Nirvana isn't as important, IMHO, to rock music. Because when Nirvana was around, rock music was dying. It went from THE music genre, to the 4th most popular.

                          Nirvana cant be compared to other rock bands, like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and all the other bands that were atop rock music while rock music was atop the music scene. It doesn't make any sense.

                          If you want to start throwing more phrases into the statements, we'd find a more middle ground.

                          Nirvana is the voice of a rock music generation. I can live with that.

                          I can't live with "Nirvana is the voice of a generation." They are two completely different things, and they can't be packaged together.

                          Bill keeps telling us how we're ignoring Nirvana's impact. No, I don't think so. No one is saying Nirvana sucked. No one is saying they didn't have some good albums. No one is saying they would have turned into Oasis.

                          But they aren't the Beatles. They aren't Chuck Berry. They aren't Buddy Holly. They aren't Elvis.

                          They aren't anywhere near that height.

                          If rock music was still king, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But rock isn't king.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                            If what you say is true, rock was a second rate genre as far as popularity, wouldn't that make Nirvana's rise as a cultural phenomenon and number one artist, essentially over night a point against your argument?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                              Sure, for however long they were #1. Once they were replaced, it's over.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                                Kanye West: Bigger impact on music/culture than Kurt Cobain?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X