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

The Origin of Life/Evolution?

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

  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Not when you believe God placed us here on Earth.
    When you believe that and ignore all science that suggests this simply is not true, there can be no discussion because you have already closed your mind to everything else. That is how religion works. One must be brainwashed and no longer capable of thinking deeply about anything at all...

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Not when you believe God placed us here on Earth.
      And all logic and reason flies out the window. Because we were plopped here, in a garden with apples and a personified snake. AND WE WERE NAKED.
      Last edited by graphic-er; 05-02-2013, 04:57 PM.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
        Those were our ancestors, the mammals....
        Fair enough. I misunderstood you. My point was simply that no humans could have existed at that time.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I think you both are doing that from different points of view, actually. It looks like you're both letting science lead you to a point and then making assumptions. One of you is thinking God, one of you is thinking 'anything other than God'.
          I'm basing my assumption on the work and evidence of scientists using scientific methods. He's basing it on gaps in science and non-testable claims.

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I don't know about setting out to try to falsify an assumption . . .
          I'm not asking him to falsify an assumption. I'm asking him (and other ID proponents) to falsify abiogenesis or provide a scientific alternative.

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Is it truly an explanation in the sense that it's the truth, though? It sounds more like another way of playing the 'it must be X' card, since they can't seem to definitively prove it, no?
          It's only true in that it's based on what evidence is available. But like I said, it's not 100% certain. There's no "must" in there. Scientists have been studying this for a while. If there were any other viable scientific alternative, it would be studied also.

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          It seems to boil down to alternative sets of assumptions based on different points of view, with both attempting to base those assumptions on the agreed-upon science without agreeing on the rest. Then again, I'm no expert on abiogenesis, so I could be mistaken.
          Except one set of assumptions is based on scientific evidence and study and the other is not.

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            Fair enough. I misunderstood you. My point was simply that no humans could have existed at that time.
            I purposely didn't mention the mammals to try and make someone think about how species change into other species. Those humble ground dwelling mammals eventually involved into human beings....

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              And all logic and reason flies out the window. Because we were plopped here, in a garden with apples and a personified snake. AND WE WERE NAKED.
              I have dealt with these kind of folks for a long lifetime and there is not talking to them. They will ignore all logic and evidence to keep their belief in a supreme being.

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                If you believe we magically manifested on earth, there's really no discussion to be had. There nothing logical or scientific in that discussion. It's religious brainwashing overriding critical thinking.
                I'm sure you can find another way to be less offensive, while getting your point across. Things like this is why these discussions devolve into just name calling.



                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                Obviously, the universe had to be created from something. in that regard, the existence of god is a logical question. But there is no evidence to suggest earth itself was directly created by an omnipotent being that used "god magic" to place us here. None.
                I don't think that the Earth just suddenly appeared, fully formed and ready to go. I don't think the BBT is a competing theory with Creationism. To me, the BBT can be used to explain how God created the Universe.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                  And all logic and reason flies out the window. Because we were plopped here, in a garden with apples and a personified snake. AND WE WERE NAKED.
                  And it's a logical conclusion that something was created from nothing? Hardly.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Since86 View Post




                    I don't think that the Earth just suddenly appeared, fully formed and ready to go. I don't think the BBT is a competing theory with Creationism. To me, the BBT can be used to explain how God created the Universe.
                    You can't play both sides of this. There is evidence to believe that humanity could not have existed at various points in earth's history. When you say "god placed us here," you're implying he did so directly. That has nothing to do with the BBT, and flies in the face of every shred of scientific evidence we have.

                    I'm willing to go along with you on the BBT/God thing. That's a decent theory. But limited to humanity and the earth itself, there's no logical argument to be had.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 05-02-2013, 05:12 PM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      So how far back does microevolution account for before you dismiss it as Macroevo-junk science? Centuries? Millienum? I mean come on....If you can admit that some evolution is going on then that means it must have always been going on.
                      The micro-macro distinction is a very real distinction, despite what many people will tell you. The distinction is this:

                      Microevolution involves minor, usually cosmetic, change.
                      Macroevolution involves major change; bodyplans, organelles (cellular machinery).

                      For example, if you look at the different breeds of dog, you'll see that while they have pretty drastic cosmetic differences, they're all fundamentally identical. Now, compare that to the differences between, say, a fish and a human being. Drastic, fundamental differences, inside and out.

                      The argument is that you can't extrapolate microevolution into macroevolution. A lot of cosmetic change will not amount to fundamental change. For example, if I paint my car and change its tires every year, those changes will never amount to my car evolving into, say, a submarine. That would require a total re-engineering. The same logic applies in biology.

                      The distinction between micro and macro is probably around the taxonomic level of Order. That's where the major differences start to show, and those differences grow as you move up to class and phylum.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        You can't play both sides of this. There is evidence to believe that humanity could not have existed at various points in earth's history. When you say "god placed us here," you're implying he did so directly. That has nothing to do with the BBT, and flies in the face of every shred of scientific evidence we have.
                        Genesis says God created animals and man on different days, man after animal. If you don't take the Bible literally, and think it means 24hrs, the idea that humans coming after dinosaurs dying off, isn't contradictory to man not being here during the times of dinosaurs.

                        Convenient? Sure.


                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        I'm willing to go along with you on the BBT/God thing. That's a decent theory. But limited to humanity and the earth itself, there's no logical argument to be had.
                        That's why I don't understand trying to limit the conversation to just humanity and Earth.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Genesis says God created animals and man on different days, man after animal. If you don't take the Bible literally, and think it means 24hrs, the idea that humans coming after dinosaurs dying off, isn't contradictory to man not being here during the times of dinosaurs.
                          ...since god did not write the bible, taking anything genesis says seriously, even in the metaphorical sense, is absurd.

                          Genesis is a fairy tale. It was written by people who obviously were not around to witness the events depicted. There is no reason at all to believe anything genesis says other than simply wanting to believe it.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 05-02-2013, 05:42 PM.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            That theory could be true, but it philosophically just kicks the can further down the road.

                            As for the creation of the moon, my question about that is that is something so violent were to happen that could cause that, why do both the earth and moon today essentially look like nicely shaped spheres? Something that devastating, I would think, would leave one or both looking like some jagged or otherwise misshapen or mangled hunk of rock versus the result being two pretty clean spheres. That part always seemed pretty strange to me.
                            Or our knees (see basketball) or our eyes (I wear glasses and almost everyone I know has a problem with their sight) cancer, mental illness and all the other genetic shortcomings inherent in who we are.
                            If we humans (and the rest of all life) were created by some deity, it sure did a shoddy job. Especially since we humans now know how to fix the genetic defects that this supposed deity screwed up on. But yea, that's not what happened.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              ...since god did not write the bible, taking anything genesis says seriously, even in the metaphorical sense, is absurd.

                              I suppose one should not bother him with things like if Adam and Eve were really the first humans as described in the Bible, who did Cain and Abel marry? How that part where they said there giants on the earth in those days, the men of old? I find most people who make his argument are woefully ignorant about what the Bible really says...

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                                So are you saying the "scientific model" is flawed?
                                If your "scientific model" is based around your dogma, then yes, it's deeply flawed.

                                Science is the reverse engineering of the universe and anything within it as a means of discovering how it works. It's a search for truth, at least provisionally. If you define science in a way which limits what is and is not an acceptable evidence-based conclusion, then you have corrupted science. You have turned science from a search for truth, to a search for truth... as long as it gels with what I believe to be so.


                                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                                We should just throw out Hypothesis, Theories and Laws.
                                Of course not. Don't be stupid.


                                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                                The one thing about science is that it is ever correcting. So when it is wrong, some other scientist will come along and correct it eventually. Its only a matter of time before the law of gravity itself is redined and corrected as new situations arise.
                                Sure, science has proven itself to be self-correcting, but it's often a long, drawn-out- ugly process. I already went over this earlier, but just read up on the history of scientific revolutions and you'll understand what I'm referring to.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X