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

Do you believe in Bigfoot?

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

  • #61
    Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

    Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
    Bigfoot is real. But it definitely is not just some ape. It is smarter than us, thus why it can completely avoid capture and detection. I truly believe that it is a highly telepathically advanced species and can travel inter-dimensionally. They literally seem to vanish, and not always be there. But there are too many eye witness accounts for them to be false. An experienced hunter recalls shooting one at close range and it instantly disappeared into a flash of light. I am not going to put it all out there, but I have had at least four really close, unexplainable supernatural things happen to me in my life. Plus I watched a show where they found DNA and hair samples. The hair was from a mammal unknown to North America, and the blood was much closer to humans than apes, but slightly different, and also an unknown species.

    That seals it for me. I think the 1967 film is legitimate and it is too bad no one can ever prove it for sure because it is still the best video evidence we have.
    I seriously can't explain how disappointed I will be if you do not expand on this. I have to know more.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
      I seriously can't explain how disappointed I will be if you do not expand on this. I have to know more.


      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

        Midcoasted be honest with us. Is your real name Giorgio Tsoukalos?
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

          Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
          Bigfoot is real. But it definitely is not just some ape. It is smarter than us, thus why it can completely avoid capture and detection. I truly believe that it is a highly telepathically advanced species and can travel inter-dimensionally. They literally seem to vanish, and not always be there. But there are too many eye witness accounts for them to be false. An experienced hunter recalls shooting one at close range and it instantly disappeared into a flash of light. I am not going to put it all out there, but I have had at least four really close, unexplainable supernatural things happen to me in my life. Plus I watched a show where they found DNA and hair samples. The hair was from a mammal unknown to North America, and the blood was much closer to humans than apes, but slightly different, and also an unknown species.

          That seals it for me. I think the 1967 film is legitimate and it is too bad no one can ever prove it for sure because it is still the best video evidence we have.

          Put down the dissociative and psychedelic drugs and back away slowly...

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

            Ancient Aliens had an episode on Bigfoot and the possibilities of it being something made by Aliens. (And no, I'm not making fun of Midcoasted for having a different opinion)

            Just because someone goes away from the crowd with something that seems a bit out there, doesn't really give you the right to just hate on the guy. (I know most of it is in jest but come on)
            Super Bowl XLI Champions
            2000 Eastern Conference Champions




            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Midcoasted is on to us.

              BTW, my name is Hee-Bopp Shnu-Bopp from the planet Bigfoot X11. We HomoSquatchi (our preferred scientific name) have been on your planet for some time. We are very advanced and can manipulate time and space with our testicles. Females do not have this capability so we do not let them out of our homes in the Pacific Northwest. We just love the weather!


              If you have seen the documentary "Men In Black" and it's documentary sequels you will notice us hiding in some of the frames at MIB HQ, we refused to sign the release waivers to appear in the film.

              While biologically similar to you, we are much more advanced and our blood actually is filled with pure hate for other so called "fantasy creatures". The chupacabra? I mean seriously people who are you kidding?

              You may be asking yourself, why would such an advanced species walk around with hair all over our bodies and not groom better? It is widely known that reported sightings of our people is often accompanied by the distinct smell of human ***. Well folks, I can't go into too much detail but let's just say the hairy bodies and our *** scent drive our advanced ladies wild.

              Stay musky my friends.

              Hee-Bopp out.
              My name is Bibble and I am from the Planet Harklon 4. I would like to tell you Earthlings that my species is solely responsible for the great boost in technology you have seen since the 1950's. Color TV, Playstation 1, 2 and 3 and the upcoming 4, and Viagra.

              Regards,
              Bibble (YA YAAA)
              Super Bowl XLI Champions
              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

                Here is a rambling post that I hope maybe rings a bell and someone can point us to the show I am thinking of...

                First of all we've all seen the famous Patterson Bigfoot video from the Northwest. Late 60's, early 70's... whatever year it was.

                There was some fact or fiction Bigfoot show that tried to get to the bottom of the film. I've seen so many of these over the years that I can't remember if this one did any video analysis or that type of thing or not. What I do remember is they went to the filmmaker's neck of the woods and interviewed people there. At least one person was quoted as saying it was 'common knowledge' in those parts that it was a man in a suit. And they named the man. Now when I say 'common knowledge' I mean this person was saying everyone was certain of this for one reason or another but not necessarily that they actually heard an admission of this. But the selling point was the walk of the 'bigfoot'. They claimed to recognize that 'walk'.

                So the camera crew goes out to interview the guy that was alleged to be in the suit.... IIRC he wouldn't talk... but they did catch him on camera walking away or walking around his farm/ranch. And yes, it was dead on to the way the bigfoot moved in the video. If someone remembers the show... can link it on YouTube... whatever... I'd like to see that part again. I wasn't really expecting that and would like to get a 2nd look. On first watch it seemed fairly compelling.
                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


                • #68
                  Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  Here is a rambling post that I hope maybe rings a bell and someone can point us to the show I am thinking of...

                  First of all we've all seen the famous Patterson Bigfoot video from the Northwest. Late 60's, early 70's... whatever year it was.

                  There was some fact or fiction Bigfoot show that tried to get to the bottom of the film. I've seen so many of these over the years that I can't remember if this one did any video analysis or that type of thing or not. What I do remember is they went to the filmmaker's neck of the woods and interviewed people there. At least one person was quoted as saying it was 'common knowledge' in those parts that it was a man in a suit. And they named the man. Now when I say 'common knowledge' I mean this person was saying everyone was certain of this for one reason or another but not necessarily that they actually heard an admission of this. But the selling point was the walk of the 'bigfoot'. They claimed to recognize that 'walk'.

                  So the camera crew goes out to interview the guy that was alleged to be in the suit.... IIRC he wouldn't talk... but they did catch him on camera walking away or walking around his farm/ranch. And yes, it was dead on to the way the bigfoot moved in the video. If someone remembers the show... can link it on YouTube... whatever... I'd like to see that part again. I wasn't really expecting that and would like to get a 2nd look. On first watch it seemed fairly compelling.
                  See the thing with all these documentaries over the years, is some of them could be false. A lot of these "reality" shows pay people to say stuff or make stuff up. The pay a couple locals to say they know it was faked and make up some story in hopes to gain viewership. I'm not saying the documentary you watched paid locals off, but they could have. Or maybe some guy just claimed he as the on that faked to gain notoriety. People are strange like that sometimes. From what I've researched, no true video expert can dispel that video. Something about the size of the guy in the costume would have to been substantial. Plus that would have been a damn good costume for that day and age. It would have taken an expert designer to pull one off that looks that good. Seems like that part of the story would have broke for sure if it was just some costume because likely someone with no interest in the hoax would have made the costume. Plus the way it moved effortlessly through the rough terrain makes a small costume wearer unlikely as well.

                  Maybe the video was fake, but I don't think that would necessarily prove Bigfoot didn't exist.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    Here is a rambling post that I hope maybe rings a bell and someone can point us to the show I am thinking of...

                    First of all we've all seen the famous Patterson Bigfoot video from the Northwest. Late 60's, early 70's... whatever year it was.

                    There was some fact or fiction Bigfoot show that tried to get to the bottom of the film. I've seen so many of these over the years that I can't remember if this one did any video analysis or that type of thing or not. What I do remember is they went to the filmmaker's neck of the woods and interviewed people there. At least one person was quoted as saying it was 'common knowledge' in those parts that it was a man in a suit. And they named the man. Now when I say 'common knowledge' I mean this person was saying everyone was certain of this for one reason or another but not necessarily that they actually heard an admission of this. But the selling point was the walk of the 'bigfoot'. They claimed to recognize that 'walk'.

                    So the camera crew goes out to interview the guy that was alleged to be in the suit.... IIRC he wouldn't talk... but they did catch him on camera walking away or walking around his farm/ranch. And yes, it was dead on to the way the bigfoot moved in the video. If someone remembers the show... can link it on YouTube... whatever... I'd like to see that part again. I wasn't really expecting that and would like to get a 2nd look. On first watch it seemed fairly compelling.
                    I'd seen one or a few like that back in the late 90's. I thought one of them had the guy or guys involved confessing that they'd faked it and talking about how they did it. Easy for me to believe; I always thought it looked like a guy in a suit myself.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

                      Isn't the only guy directly involved claiming it is still real the guy the video is named after? I thought everyone else had outed it.
                      Last edited by Trader Joe; 03-06-2013, 12:24 PM.


                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Isn't the only guy directly involved claiming it is still real the guy the video is name after? I thought everyone else had outed it.
                        It depends upon which dimension you're talking about.
                        Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 03-06-2013, 03:35 PM.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

                          Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                          I'd seen one or a few like that back in the late 90's. I thought one of them had the guy or guys involved confessing that they'd faked it and talking about how they did it. Easy for me to believe; I always thought it looked like a guy in a suit myself.
                          Can't remember on the suit but I do remember one on three guys who had went out and made several fake footprints. Kind of like the guys confessing to the crop circle phenomenon and then demonstrating how this is easily done with a rope and a board.
                          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


                          • #73
                            Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

                            Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                            See the thing with all these documentaries over the years, is some of them could be false. A lot of these "reality" shows pay people to say stuff or make stuff up. The pay a couple locals to say they know it was faked and make up some story in hopes to gain viewership. I'm not saying the documentary you watched paid locals off, but they could have. Or maybe some guy just claimed he as the on that faked to gain notoriety. People are strange like that sometimes. From what I've researched, no true video expert can dispel that video. Something about the size of the guy in the costume would have to been substantial. Plus that would have been a damn good costume for that day and age. It would have taken an expert designer to pull one off that looks that good. Seems like that part of the story would have broke for sure if it was just some costume because likely someone with no interest in the hoax would have made the costume. Plus the way it moved effortlessly through the rough terrain makes a small costume wearer unlikely as well.

                            Maybe the video was fake, but I don't think that would necessarily prove Bigfoot didn't exist.
                            There's a guy claiming Patterson ordered a suit from him back in the 60's just prior to the film coming out. I stumbled across that last night looking for info about the documentary I had watched.
                            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


                            • #74
                              Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

                              Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
                              My name is Bibble and I am from the Planet Harklon 4. I would like to tell you Earthlings that my species is solely responsible for the great boost in technology you have seen since the 1950's. Color TV, Playstation 1, 2 and 3 and the upcoming 4, and Viagra.

                              Regards,
                              Bibble (YA YAAA)
                              Please help the Pacers, then. You must have some sort of flubber or something, right? Give Tyler 2x the hops of Gerald Green.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Do you believe in Bigfoot?

                                Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                                ...highly telepathically advanced species and can travel inter-dimensionally.
                                That is very appealing in terms of its simplicity, sort of an Occam's razor explanation, you know. vbg
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X