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

John Kerry belittles US troops

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

  • #31
    Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    It is good to hear that you were listening to Rush.
    I am slowly learning to appreciate the wisdom of listening to the other sides of the issues. I check in fairly often for brief listens to hear the latest spin.

    I truly believe that a decent % of democrats hate the military - it might be 25% I don't know, but there are some who hate it.
    I doubt the percentage is over 1 percent. I know of no one who doesn't think we need a military.

    On the other hand, do I think the military is bureaucratic, wasteful, and mindless at times. Yep. Those at the top have far different goals than those at the bottom who are left to do the real work.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

      A summary of what the pundits and spiners had to say last night.

      http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.c...ter_d_112.html

      CNN's Cooper: "Election 2006, it is beginning to look a lot like election 2004 -- Bush vs. Kerry all over again" ("AC 360," 10/31).

      Washington Post's Milbank: "It's sort of this made-for-Fox News Halloween thriller. It only runs in even years, but Karl Rove casts some spell. John Kerry turns into the Grim Reaper, and the Democrats all look as if they've seen a ghost" ("Countdown," MSNBC, 10/31).

      FNC's Kondracke: "I think that he was criticizing the troops, but I don't think that he meant to do it" ("Special Report," 10/31).

      FNC's O'Reilly: "I don't believe John Kerry meant to demean any American military member. I just don't. I think that fair-minded people know that that would be political suicide for the senator. He wouldn't do it" ("O'Reilly Factor," 10/31).

      National Journal's Cook: "I don't know what Kerry meant. ... Frankly I don't think that there is anything that John Kerry could say or do that could positively or negatively significantly affect this election, because frankly I don't think he's terribly relevant to this election" ("Tucker," MSNBC, 10/31).

      CNN's Quijano: "Clearly Senator Kerry's comments a political gift for Republicans" ("Lou Dobbs Tonight," 10/31).

      Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "John Kerry should apologize to the brave young men and women who are serving this nation in Iraq. Thousands of them risking their lives, putting them on the line, not because of any other reason but patriotism and certainly not because of any academic deficiencies. Some have high school diplomas. Some have graduate degrees, but they're all serving. I'm grateful for them. And to somehow suggest that only those who are lacking academic credentials are the ones who are serving is an insult to every one of those young people and brave, young and old, who are serving in what I believe is a noble cause. So, that's my view, and I hope that Senator Kerry will apologize quickly so that we can get this issue behind us" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 10/31).

      Pat Buchanan: "Kerry has probably been more permanently damaged than he was in 2004. I don't know how it's going to impact this election, but I will say this. It's going to be the big news tomorrow and it's going to be on a lot of these shows this weekend. And that is not good news for Democrats, and a lot of them are going to be asking to disassociate themselves from Kerry" ("Scarborough Country," MSNBC, 10/31).

      Dem strategist James Carville: "It is much easier to say, I botched a joke, than to say, I botched a war. And he was very frank. ... He gave an explanation. And, as I say, Senator Kerry is one of the great war heroes to ever serve in the Congress. He has about a 100 percent record when it comes to the veterans. So, I don't understand exactly what the problem is. He didn't owe anybody an apology. He owed an explanation" ("Situation Room," CNN, 10/31).

      FNC's Barnes: "If it was a botched joke, what did he mean to say?" ("Special Report," 10/31).

      Rep. Ben Cardin (D-MD): "John Kerry has clarified what he said. And I think it was the wrong choice of words. I'm sorry he did what he did. But I think the issue, that we want to make sure it doesn't confuse the subject of the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq, we need a new plan. I voted against the war in Iraq four years ago. But we need a plan to get our troops home" ("Situation Room," CNN, 10/31).

      Dick Armey: "I would say to John Kerry, look, you live by the P.C., you die by the P.C. I mean, the P.C. was a Democrat creation, so share and share alike" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 10/31).

      Tom DeLay: "I don't think he intended to insult the troops at a campaign event, but he did. I don't think he intended to call them stupid, but he did." More, on Kerry's apology: "I saw it on the news conference, and it was very clear to me. He blamed everybody else but himself" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 10/31).

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

        I keep reading news reports thinking I'll be wrong on this. IMO, if Kerry just issues a public statement apologizing today the story will blow over by Friday or Saturday and will have much less of an impact on the election.

        If he waits until tomorrow or Friday (and I firmly believe he'll apologize eventually because Rove and Co are THE masters at fanning brushfires) this will be the lead story on Meet the Press, Face the Nation and all the other weekend news shows and will be the lead election story right to Tuesday unless some other big surprise awaits us.

        And Republicans will flock back to the polls. It'll bring back most of the "I'm so disgusted by the Foley scandal" people and a lot of the folks, such as myself, who fit in with the "I'm so disgusted by this party as a whole" people.

        Because a lot of people are disgusted by John Kerry and have been for years.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

          I suppose this is an apology



          http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22


          Kerry makes direct apology to troops
          Wed Nov 1, 2006 4:28 PM ET



          WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. John Kerry apologized directly to U.S. troops on Wednesday for comments about Iraq that had prompted a firestorm of criticism from Republicans and President George W. Bush.

          "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended," Kerry said in a statement.

          Kerry said earlier in the day he was sorry for a "botched joke" about Bush that was interpreted as a slam on the U.S. military. Republicans demanded a more direct apology and seized on Kerry's comments to students as a sign of Democratic weakness on national security.

          Kerry told students in California on Monday that if they study hard they could do well but if they did not, "you get stuck in Iraq." His office said he misread his remarks and intended to say "You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

            That'll do it then - the Republicans can probably still use this tomorrow but if they go past that it'll look like beating a dead horse out of desperation. Still helps the Republicans but not nearly as much as it might have if he hadn't issued the apology.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: John Kerry belittles US troops
              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I suppose this is an apology



              http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22


              Kerry makes direct apology to troops
              Wed Nov 1, 2006 4:28 PM ET



              WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. John Kerry apologized directly to U.S. troops on Wednesday for comments about Iraq that had prompted a firestorm of criticism from Republicans and President George W. Bush.

              "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended," Kerry said in a statement.

              Kerry said earlier in the day he was sorry for a "botched joke" about Bush that was interpreted as a slam on the U.S. military. Republicans demanded a more direct apology and seized on Kerry's comments to students as a sign of Democratic weakness on national security.

              Kerry told students in California on Monday that if they study hard they could do well but if they did not, "you get stuck in Iraq." His office said he misread his remarks and intended to say "You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
              do you believe it? (that it was a botched joke?)

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                Originally posted by lumber man View Post

                do you believe it? (that it was a botched joke?)
                No, not at all.

                You know what though, maybe it was, maybe the telepromter went down, but that is even worse, he was going off script and giving us some insight into what he truly believes.

                So whether it was a botched joke or he just miss-spoke I believe that he believes what he said. He didn't think it would offend anyone though. I'm sure in his circles this is a very common thought that many believe in.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                  I'm going to make this comment before reading the two pages of responses: I'd heard from my conservative (very) Republican grandmother about him making some comments, but this is when I've finally heard what he said.

                  My immediate response was "Oo" as if he'd done something wrong, but within a couple of seconds I realized he was referring to Bush being uneducated.

                  Now, what needs to be admitted by his supporters (direct supporters or otherwise) is that it DID come out in a way that lets the message be taken differently than it was intended. But I believe that he was belittling Bush, not the troops.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                    I still don't understand what's wrong with what Kerry said.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                      Originally posted by abington View Post
                      Yes Peck, it is great news for you republicans. Now you can continue to help the very rich, screw the poor, mock the diseased, and kill brave American troops for oil profit. These are great times indeed.


                      Well at least you didn't say brave uneducated American troops for oil.


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: John Kerry belittles US troops
                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        I'm going to make this comment before reading the two pages of responses: I'd heard from my conservative (very) Republican grandmother about him making some comments, but this is when I've finally heard what he said.

                        My immediate response was "Oo" as if he'd done something wrong, but within a couple of seconds I realized he was referring to Bush being uneducated.

                        Now, what needs to be admitted by his supporters (direct supporters or otherwise) is that it DID come out in a way that lets the message be taken differently than it was intended. But I believe that he was belittling Bush, not the troops.
                        exactly. i don't support him or care about his stance on any issue. but, it seemed obvious to me that he just worded a bad joke the wrong way.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          My immediate response was "Oo" as if he'd done something wrong, but within a couple of seconds I realized he was referring to Bush being uneducated.

                          But Bush isn't uneducated - not at all.

                          After obtaining an MBA from Harvard University (Bush is the only US President to serve holding a Master of Business Administration degree [11]),

                          Getting an MBA from Harvard is not uneducated. If that is the point Kerry was trying to make then he is delusional

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                            It was an insult, not a factual statement. Although I did hear Bush had something like a C average. But that's not the point (I just felt like throwing it out there to see if it might be true or not; figured one of you would know), nor if true would it make him uneducated.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post


                              Well at least you didn't say brave uneducated American troops for oil.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: John Kerry belittles US troops

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                Although I did hear Bush had something like a C average.
                                Let the record show that Bush had better grades than John Kerry.

                                Link to a blog I sometimes read.

                                Dumb assumption number two: Republicans differ from Democrats because Republicans are immoral and Democrats are moral. Broadly speaking, the Ds, the party that brought you a mushroom cloud in a TV ad in 1964, generally wail the loudest about unfair attack ads (and Evil Genius Karl Rove, heir to the Lee Atwater legacy, who produces every single one of them). This is, of course, the opening line of their own attack ads.

                                Kerry is now complaining that Bush is attacking him about his joke, by which he now claims he was merely attacking Bush. Is Bush's attack that Kerry insulted the American military less fair than Kerry's attack that Bush is dumb?

                                Well, it is if Bush is just being mean but Kerry is being fair. And in the absence of supporting evidence, the nature of which one cannot even imagine, we can get to that conclusion only if we allow that by nature Bush is morally bad and Kerry morally good.

                                Once again, it doesn't work. Both parties are completely filled with bad people. Republicans alone didn't corrupt the electoral system with their evil attack ads, any more than Democrats alone did. Voters know this. They distrust politicians, not just Republicans or Democrats.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X