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

Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
    I thought your assessment of what I did or did not forget meant you read my mind. I'm very happy you took some time out from the Psychic Friends Network to let me know about my forgetfullness.

    I haven't forgotten anything. I haven't forgotten a smear campaign until the girl refused to testify in the criminal case. I also haven't forgotten that as part of the settlement of the civil suit Kobe Bryant made a statement that he had sex with a girl who didn't want to have sex.

    So no, I haven't forgotten that Kobe has a lot of money, that he's willing to have his lawyers smear a victim or that he himself stated he forced a girl to have sex with him.

    You might want to work on refreshing your own memory rather than worrying about mine.

    Or here's a thought: Maybe I was just only pointing out the difference between the fact that Vick and Ruben by a court of law were actually found liable for what they did while Kobe was not ergo. Kobe wouldn't be an apt comparison for this.

    Now Mike Tyson would be and like Vick he too served time.


    No need to be a complete a-hole about it but I guess that's impossible for you.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
      Or here's a thought: Maybe I was just only pointing out the difference between the fact that Vick and Ruben by a court of law were actually found liable for what they did while Kobe was not ergo. Kobe wouldn't be an apt comparison for this.
      We're talking about people's behavior and personally I find what Kobe did to be much more reprehensible than what Vick did.

      It's an extremely appropriate comparison.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
        So no, I haven't forgotten that Kobe has a lot of money, that he's willing to have his lawyers smear a victim or that he himself stated he forced a girl to have sex with him.
        I apparently missed where he admitted guilt. I saw him admit to adultery, but that's not rape.

        So out of curiosity, when did this actually happen?

        -- Steve --

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

          Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
          I apparently missed where he admitted guilt. I saw him admit to adultery, but that's not rape.

          So out of curiosity, when did this actually happen?

          -- Steve --
          Couldn't give you an exact date but you can read about it just about anywhere. Here's Wikipedia's link:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Br...l_assault_case
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

            Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
            There should be tougher punishments for animal abuse. It often leads to even worse crimse and shows how cold hearted a person is. One of the kids who went in and shot up his school (can't remember which one, not Columbine though) tied up his dog inside a sack, hit it multiple times, and lit the sack on fire, burning the dog alive. There is a definite correlation between animal abuse and human being abuse.
            I'm with you. Granted he served his time, but he got off way too easy.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

              Originally posted by Kraft View Post
              Vick is what he is, but this part isn't his fault.

              Sorry, Michael, there's no room in the halfway house, so you're staying in prison?
              I completely agree with you here. If there truly is no room in a half-way house for an animal killer like Vick, why not leave him in prison until there is an opening rather than letting him return to his plush home environment. In our state thay call it a waiting list.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                Couldn't give you an exact date but you can read about it just about anywhere. Here's Wikipedia's link:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Br...l_assault_case
                I've looked it up, all I got was people trying to twist his words from a written statement to make it sound like that. He never came out and said he did it. You touted it as though it was fact, and he blatantly admitted guilt afterwards.

                What he did say out right was that he performed adultery, not rape. I'd be fine with saying that YOU believe he IMPLIED he did it, but to blatantly say he admitted to it, is entirely false. Unless there's something else I missed, which I'm not going to say is impossible, but even searching after the fact I found nothing. Which is why I asked you to specify, and you didn't say anything leading me to believe I missed anything.

                -- Steve --
                Last edited by Pacersfan46; 03-02-2009, 10:42 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

                  Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                  I've looked it up, all I got was people trying to twist his words from a written statement to make it sound like that. He never came out and said he did it. You touted it as though it was fact, and he blatantly admitted guilt afterwards.

                  What he did say out right was that he performed adultery, not rape. I'd be fine with saying that YOU believe he IMPLIED he did it, but to blatantly say he admitted to it, is entirely false. Unless there's something else I missed, which I'm not going to say is impossible, but even searching after the fact I found nothing. Which is why I asked you to specify, and you didn't say anything leading me to believe I missed anything.

                  -- Steve --
                  "Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

                  They had sex. According to this statement Kobe admits she didn't consent to it.

                  I'm sorry you don't understand what the above statement says.
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

                    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                    "Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

                    They had sex. According to this statement Kobe admits she didn't consent to it.

                    I'm sorry you don't understand what the above statement says.
                    My compliments to the atty who crafted that because it really says both things. The reader can take whichever slant they want on it. Do you ride the horse that is the opening line, or the horse that is the closing line? And then it gets into a Clintonesque definition of 'feels' and 'believes' to parse it even further.

                    I read it much like DK did, although it was composed in a slick way to leave wiggle room both for Kobe supporters and Kobe himself (should he ever wish to address it again) yet also to give the girl the admission of guilt she wanted...
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      My compliments to the atty who crafted that because it really says both things. The reader can take whichever slant they want on it. Do you ride the horse that is the opening line, or the horse that is the closing line? And then it gets into a Clintonesque definition of 'feels' and 'believes' to parse it even further.

                      I read it much like DK did, although it was composed in a slick way to leave wiggle room both for Kobe supporters and Kobe himself (should he ever wish to address it again) yet also to give the girl the admission of guilt she wanted...
                      He didn't leave himself that much wiggle room. He can attest to his own mental state that night which was his belief that it was consensual. That's fine - I can't judge how true that is or isn't.

                      However he can't testify to her mental state - and by stating that he believes she did not consent to it, it becomes a non-consensual encounter.

                      Now I suppose you can wiggle it into a, "she changed her mindset a day later or a week later . . ." but it's pretty much an admission of wrongdoing that stops just short of where a prosecutor could expect to be able to win a case against him.

                      I don't see how you can read it any other way without pulling a Bill Clinton.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

                        She was leaving and he rushed up to her from behind, bent her over a chair, and without any lubrication or foreplay or kissing, he thrust himself into her and just went at it. Two things got him to stop: 1) She started balling, and 2) the blood.

                        He wiped himself off on his shirt, the blood on which was a key piece of evidence.

                        The defense planned on using the "Giant Black C***" defense (The man's so huge, he could make the grand canyon bleed) a la Mike Tyson. But their first line was to paint the girl as the "nutty slutty golddigging simpleton".

                        It worked before it even went to trial.

                        Take my words for what you will, just know that I have confidence in them.
                        Last edited by Los Angeles; 03-03-2009, 01:04 PM.
                        “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


                        • #27
                          Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

                          Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                          Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart animal lover, but I see killing or maiming an animal as intelligent and capable as a dog as a pretty heinous crime. We're not talking about stomping on a cockroach here. No, abusing a dog is not as bad as abusing a human being, but I do believe that killing a dog or being responsible for actions that directly lead to a dog's death is just as bad as slapping around a person.

                          There should be tougher punishments for animal abuse. It often leads to even worse crimse and shows how cold hearted a person is. One of the kids who went in and shot up his school (can't remember which one, not Columbine though) tied up his dog inside a sack, hit it multiple times, and lit the sack on fire, burning the dog alive. There is a definite correlation between animal abuse and human being abuse.

                          Michael Vick is a sick, sick human being and anyone that rallies behind him like some of of his fans down in Atlanta did are animals. He is disgusting and I'd love to be in a room with him alone for five minutes (with his arms tied up of course ). If I was a DE in the NFL I'd be going for his knees whenever he comes back, and have no remorse.
                          I agree.

                          Although I do disagree with the part about abusing a dog not being as bad as abusing a human being. If anyone can give me a credible reason why, it'll be the first time.

                          You're spot on about animal abuse being a precursor to other violent crime however. Abuse of an animal is a sign of an overall lack of respect for another living creature.

                          I don't think Vick has redeemed himself. He never will in my eyes. He deserves more punishment than what he got and any team that signs him will hopefully regret it.

                          He's a waste of life. Just like Leonard Little and Pacman Jones etc.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

                            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                            They had sex. According to this statement Kobe admits she didn't consent to it.

                            I'm sorry you don't understand what the above statement says.
                            That statement has more than 3 words in it, I'm sorry you can't find the rest of them.

                            -- Steve --

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Michael Vick to be released to home confinement

                              I think this thread is only going to further go into UnPD territory, and it certainly isn't discussing football. I'm going to shut it down.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X