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

Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

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

  • #76
    Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

    Originally posted by Smooth_for_Pres. View Post
    Hey, man, you don't have to belittle the guy. He's just making a statement.
    you're right, it was fairly knee-jerk. sorry about that.

    but its a serious question really... why do people pick and choose what the bible supports and condemns? many say the bible says homosexuality is wrong so thats why homosexuals are second-class citizens and should be treated as such.

    "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

    Leviticus 25:44-46 (NIV)

    ~~

    "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

    Leviticus 25:44-46 (KJV)
    my point is, if you're going to use the bible to defend your dislike for homosexuality shouldn't you also use it to defend your ownership of slaves?

    EDIT: i didn't mean to post yet... my point is that the bible (if you believe in it) is a translation by humans - several times over. so it doesn't take any power away from the religion itself just know that humans are capable of messing things up especially with the number of translations there are when it becomes a long game of telephone
    This is the darkest timeline.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      It isn't a choice about who someone is attracted to. But it is a choice to act on that attraction.

      Hicks, I'm not suggesting anyone decides to be straight, but they decide to act on it.
      Give me a BREAK! So, if people told you heterosexuality is sinfull/degenerate/whatever ... you will stop having sex with your wife or girlfriend and become a "monk"?

      That's so easy to say for you, your not even close to beying in that position. You are in the luxurious seat.

      I'm a heterosexual male. I don't deny others the right to love someone of the same gender. Why? Because, it is NOT my business and I have NO right to deny them what I myself like to have (loving the person I love, who happens to have another gender) as long as that person doesn't act in a criminal or traumatizing way (for other persons) or brake the basic laws of society.

      People act like there's gays coming out of the (NBA)closet in dozens. It's the first guy to come openly out. That only now ONE person decides to talk about it is what should amaze people. It's 2007 not 1907.

      Regards,

      Mourning
      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        Los Angeles, thanks for this post, which confirms my earlier one. We all CAN choose to participate in that culture of fear (and hate) or not.

        But I've got a question for you. Is it also possible that sometimes discretion and privacy lead to keeping quiet, too?

        I've had a whole lot of really good sex in the past 21 years, and I've never talked about it with anyone except my wife. If I were homosexual, I think I would still feel the same about the propriety of privacy as I do now.
        OK, I'll swing at the pitch.

        You already speak openly about your sex life when you don your wedding ring.
        “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


        • #79
          Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

          avoidingtheclowns,

          I'm lazy, too lazy to quote your post again. haha.

          So i'll try and keep this short and sweet.

          Amachi has every right to write a book. If he can make money off of being the first gay basketball player to come out then hey go for it man. Get that paycheck because you only live once. However, I guess I don't know his opinion, but I know that there are people who wonder why it is such a big deal, well he wrote the book, he knew ESPN would hype it up, he knew it would sell, so that's why he wrote it.

          But my big point is, that some people out there wonder why it is hard for gays to be well gay in sports, and while I think most of it is not their fault I don't see any of them coming out while they are playing. I don't see anyone saying "hey i'm gay what are you going to do about it? not pass me the ball? tell management to trade me?" I believe that if the gay players would stand up for themselves while they are playing and on a team then it would make a difference. If you have fear of what others think than be straight. I don't want to hear any *****ing about well I can't admit i'm gay just look at what Tim Hardaway said. Man who gives a **** what Tim Hardaway thinks? I GUARANTEE you that if a player stood up in the locker room and said something like "i'm gay and ya'll are freaking ugly tall *******s who I would never date." that even if there was a player in that room that didn't like gays he wouldn't stand up and say it because there would be more players that wouldn't care like Charles Barkley than ones that do like Tim Hardaway.

          One thing about MLK and the whole civil rights movements is that he was fighting for equal rights. You know blacks can sit wherever they want ont he bus, go to whatever schools, eat at the same places, use the same bathrooms, drink from the same water fountains, etc. Gays have rights. It's not legal in every state to be married to the same sex however it might as well be. You can eat, sleep, ****, live, and do whatever you want with whoever you want. I guess my whole point is that I don't see the civil rights movement and a gay rights movement (whatever you wanna call it) as the same thing, somewhat but not totally.

          I think that myself, Amachi just wants to make that money. Not becuase he didn't sign a 120 million dollar contract, not because he wasn't a superstar, but just because he can make that money. However I don't look at him as some hero for gays. If he was really and trully all about equal treatment for gays in sports he would have done it when he was playing. In my eyes though, he just wants that money. And hey I don't blame him for wanting that money, I just don't care to have to listen to the whole gays in sports thing. They are out there and so what.

          I guess I didn't keep that short but oh well.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            I don't mean to get off topic, but this isn't right.




            Nope. The Bible does not promote slavery.

            Slavery is a human institution that existed before God called Abraham. The Bible acknowledges that slavery exists in a sinful world. That is not promoting it.

            The Bible contains passages that empowered certain western nations to put an end to slavery, which had never happened anywhere else in the non-Christian parts of the world. Read William Wilberforce and William Lloyd Garrison (England's and America's leading abolitionists) and see where their inspiration came from.
            there are passages that say both. my post was knee-jerk and i apologized for it, my point was that if you comb thru the bible you find ways to justify whatever you want to do or believe. it is more about preconceived beliefs than it is about evidence to backup. it led the KKK to form just as it enabled abolitionists to justify their cause. that was my point, and i should have taken the time to actually explain myself.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

              avoiding the clowns,

              Those verses from Leviticus are instructions to the ancient Hebrews and do not pertain to us.

              Originally posted by avioding theclowns
              if you comb thru the bible you find ways to justify whatever you want to do or believe.
              We shouldn't "comb through the Bible." We should read it honestly and wisely. I can't defend anyone who starts with presuppositions, and then snips out the bits that are useful.
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                Originally posted by Moses View Post
                QFT.

                At the end of the day, just about every religion known to man frowns upon homosexuality. If god really intended for gay's and lesbians to interact with one another physically, the anatomy of human beings would be different.
                Actually, the human body is designed in a way that is VERY conducive to homosexual interaction.

                The clitoris is on the outside, not the inside.

                The prostate is easily stimulated from the rectum.

                The human mouth is still a powerful source of stimulation and pleasure regardless of gender.

                The ONLY thing that supports your claim is the potential of conception between opposite sex partners.
                “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


                • #83
                  Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                  Originally posted by Putnam
                  I want to respond to this:
                  It is not simply a question of speech.

                  The principle of individual liberty on which America was founded means some folks will do things differently and hold different values than others. But I think people today make an assumption that was never there in the beginning, and that is that we will all be happy about each others' decisions and habits.

                  If you believe in individual liberty, then you have to equally defend the homosexual and the homophobe. Because each is, in his own way, practicing individual liberty. There is no defense of the one that does not also cover the other.
                  I assume you have religious and state marriages in the US. Am I correct in that?

                  IF true... then obviously for the state gays don't have the same rights as heterosexuals as state marriages between gays are not allowed in all of the US's states. Correct?

                  IF so, I am not sure here, then isn't that in direct violation of the Founding fathers principle of individual liberty and the principle of equality you just mentioned?

                  Or is that argument only meant to be used for people who oppose gay state marriages and/or legislation?

                  I'm not sure, about all this I simply don't know enough of the US constitution and legal system, but it strikes me as "odd" at best and "preferential" or "discriminatory" to one side at worst.

                  Btw interesting discussion!

                  Regards,

                  Mourning
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                    Originally posted by Moses View Post
                    QFT.

                    At the end of the day, just about every religion known to man frowns upon homosexuality. If god really intended for gay's and lesbians to interact with one another physically, the anatomy of human beings would be different.
                    Maybe religions want to spread themself too? Maybe marriages with couples that can have kids naturally is a good way of doing that? When did these religions come to us and ... do we still do all things the same as we did back then...? Do we still share all of the same values that were "delivered" to us by those religions? Has how we looked at religion remained the same?

                    The fact that I am an atheist ... does that mean I have to "suffer" from inequality because of other people's religious rules and values that I don't share yet are somehow part of law?

                    Regards,

                    Mourning
                    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                      A portion of the ESPN article about Hardaway:

                      "Every comment that [Hardaway] made is labeled with hate," Amaechi said. "The percentage of e-mails I've received overnight that are going to have to go into a little box somewhere just in case I end up dead are unbelievable. He's been a lightning rod for people to finally open the floodgates and decide that they can say some pretty awful stuff."


                      Are death threats infringing on anybodys personal freedoms? In fact, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, aren't they technically illegal?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                        Actually, the human body is designed in a way that is VERY conducive to homosexual interaction.

                        The clitoris is on the outside, not the inside.

                        The prostate is easily stimulated from the rectum.

                        The human mouth is still a powerful source of stimulation and pleasure regardless of gender.

                        The ONLY thing that supports your claim is the potential of conception between opposite sex partners.
                        The #1 goal of sex is to reproduce, not the second, third, or even farther down the list.

                        The good feeling of it, is used to promote reproduction, not the reason for it.

                        Sex is designed for a man and a woman, or male and female, and is like that for all species that aren't asexual.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                          The #1 goal of sex is to reproduce? Not to get off topic but ****. I'll stop here.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            The #1 goal of sex is to reproduce, not the second, third, or even farther down the list.

                            The good feeling of it, is used to promote reproduction, not the reason for it.

                            Sex is designed for a man and a woman, or male and female, and is like that for all species that aren't asexual.
                            Explain kissing to me.
                            “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


                            • #89
                              Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                              Explain kissing to me.
                              It's not entirely sexual in nature...
                              Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                              I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                                There's only two things I can't stand in this world, people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch. (Austin Powers)



                                Also I hate anti-dentites, next they'll be saying dentists should have their own schools!
                                (Seinfeld)


                                http://www.theonion.com/content/news..._out_as_former


                                That would be my take on this.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X