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

Clinton announces bid for the White House

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

  • #16
    Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

    Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
    Socialism? How do you figure? I don't think she'll be much different from her husband (do we really want Bill as America's 1st "First Man"?) in terms of policy - and we certainly don't need another Bill Clinton.
    How can you even question it? She's one of the more socialist in our government.

    I'm still holding out for Newt on the other side. If not, I'll settle for McCain.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

      Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
      The further Left seems to dislike her more than the further Right does.
      Yes, this is true, and for a pretty simple reason: Clinton is not on the left of the political spectrum, even in the United States.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

        Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
        Yes, this is true, and for a pretty simple reason: Clinton is not on the left of the political spectrum, even in the United States.
        Thank you. She only plays one on TV.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

          So does the Left consider Hillary more right leaning than her husband?

          I think many on the Left don't like her because she hedges her bets on stances. She's seen as playing politics to get broad appeal rather than representing progressive princibles.

          This is also a instance where a woman gets more grief over doing this than a man does. When she does this it is manipulative. When her husband, Arnold or Obama do this they are centrist.
          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

          "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

            Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
            So does the Left consider Hillary more right leaning than her husband?

            I think many on the Left don't like her because she hedges her bets on stances. She's seen as playing politics to get broad appeal rather than representing progressive princibles.

            This is also a instance where a woman gets more grief over doing this than a man does. When she does this it is manipulative. When her husband, Arnold or Obama do this they are centrist.
            Well, she is also married to the former president. And let's not forget the whole Monica Lewinsky Scandal. Many people see her as cold and calculating - if she had any real feelings she might have left the ******* (after he cheated on her (numerous times) and lied to the nation), but instead she's rode his coattails into Congress!

            By the same token, Arnold married into a political family too (Shriver was somehow related to Kennedy), so that part of my argument might not be up to snuff.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

              Originally posted by Manuel View Post
              How can you even question it? She's one of the more socialist in our government.
              Is she?

              Socialism presumes the collectivization of every industrial resource and every social service. That is the essential first step for socialism.

              Has Hillary Clinton ever advocated that? She wants national health insurance that would cover more people -- possibly everybody. But has she ever said she would nationalize health care delivery?

              Hillary is a big-government liberal. She is not socialist.

              In short, you can't be "more socialist" than someone else. Socialism is not liberalism and unless you advocate the princi[ples and policies of socialism, you are not a socialist, no matter how liberal you are.


              (I hate it when I agree with 3Ball!)
              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


              • #22
                Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

                Hillary is more liberal than her husband, she is a true believer. My source on this is Dick Morris who should know he was very close to the Clintons when they were in the white house

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

                  Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                  Well, she is also married to the former president. And let's not forget the whole Monica Lewinsky Scandal. Many people see her as cold and calculating - if she had any real feelings she might have left the ******* (after he cheated on her (numerous times) and lied to the nation), but instead she's rode his coattails into Congress!
                  I try to not be judgmental in these matters but why hasn't Bill Clinton recieved the same criticism for staying in a marriage which is politically advantageous for him? I think he loves being married to a senator and would love to be the First Gentleman considering how much influence the First Lady had in his administration.
                  "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                  "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

                    Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                    I try to not be judgmental in these matters but why hasn't Bill Clinton recieved the same criticism for staying in a marriage which is politically advantageous for him? I think he loves being married to a senator and would love to be the First Gentleman considering how much influence the First Lady had in his administration.
                    One thing Hillary has going for her over any other nominee is that she's the only one who has lived in the White House during the term of an active president. Not only that, she'd be bringing Bill with her, and although it's not a huge selling point, no way does he not give her advice on how to handle certain situations that might be daunting for a 1st term president. It's like she's got a "pocket President" on hand to bouce ideas off of.

                    Having said that, I am a huge Bill Clinton supporter and I find Hillary cold, distant, and calculating. I'd take Bayh and McCain over her, and probably Obama, but I haven't heard enough about him to really form an opinion.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

                      I'll be honest... I flat-out don't like her. This isn't about her positions, for me at least. I just don't want her to be my president.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

                        Check out the YouTube clip of SNL's spoof of a Chris Matthews-HRC interview:
                        http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/2...llary-on-iraq/

                        HRC is tough, and can survive lots of things -- but I'm not sure ridicule is one of them. If SNL is blasting her I'm not sure it bodes well for her electability prospects.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

                          Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                          Check out the YouTube clip of SNL's spoof of a Chris Matthews-HRC interview:
                          http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/2...llary-on-iraq/

                          HRC is tough, and can survive lots of things -- but I'm not sure ridicule is one of them. If SNL is blasting her she may be in trouble.
                          Look, I agree with you on many things, but lets be real here. We are talking about SNL.

                          Not to steal from a NFL coach or anything but "SNL?!?! We are talking about SNL?!?!?!"

                          I am sure she could care less if SNL does a spoof of her, hell she probably finds it flattering that they even care enough to do such a thing.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Hillary is more liberal than her husband, she is a true believer. My source on this is Dick Morris who should know he was very close to the Clintons when they were in the white house
                            Not that I know a great deal about this situation, I saw this quote in a Crikey, an Australian blog/zine.

                            Morris pulls a swiftie on Hillary. Dick Morris, long-time former aide to Bill Clinton, is soliciting funds to finance an expose - documentary film of Senator Hillary Clinton who announced last week her intention to run for president in 2008, according to the Right Bias website. Morris has sent a letter to Republican mailing lists this week asking for contributions of $25 to $100 to assist with his efforts. "If you liked how the Swift Boat Veterans turned the tide against John Kerry, you understand how a top Clinton aide can turn the tables and stop a Clinton style liberal from becoming the next president of the United States," it reads. Of course, it might have something to do with how Hillary reacted when his dalliances with a lady of the night – receiving oral ministrations while on the phone to Bill – were revealed. Morris was out the door double quick.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

                              Hillary would clearly be a step up from our current president, but she wouldn't be my choice either. She is a war supporter, and she has never had the guts to say that voting for the war was a mistake. It's fine to criticize Bush for running the war poor -- clearly it's true, but I wouldn't vote for anyone (in a primary anyway) who isn't man enough to clearly say that the war was a fundamental error no matter how it was run.

                              I admire that she has the guts to try to take on health care, but her plan was no good, and I don't hear any real reform on her ideas there, either. We need a single payer system, and all this fiddling around with private plans has never done us any good.

                              It's clear to everyone that the only reason she is a frontrunner of any kind is her husband. That's not her fault it's just how it goes. That's the only reason Bush got the nomination in 2000. Name recognition and celebrity. There were far more qualified Republicans with better ideas then, and there are far better choices now. But the powers that be know that big names win big elections. Not experience and certainly not big ideas.

                              In '04 the Dems bailed on the exciting candidate with new ideas to go with the warhorse that we thought could win. I liked Kerry, and I think he would have been a far better choice than Bush, but I hope that the same kind of thinking doesn't lead us to Clinton out of resignation. I know we probably won't get a Kucinic or Sanders, but I would really like to see a candidate with a little fire that is a lefty for heaven's sake. The Repulicans have fielded nothing but hard right candidates for decades. We need to be voting with our hearts a little more, and get candidates that are exciting and have big new ideas to help this country. Not center-right Big Name characters with bulging war chests. That's my two cents.

                              By the way, does anyone remember how the Clinton chapter of the Dick Morris story ended?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Clinton announces bid for the White House

                                Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                                Look, I agree with you on many things, but lets be real here. We are talking about SNL.

                                Not to steal from a NFL coach or anything but "SNL?!?! We are talking about SNL?!?!?!"

                                I am sure she could care less if SNL does a spoof of her, hell she probably finds it flattering that they even care enough to do such a thing.
                                I get your point, and I really didn't mean to emphasize that it was SNL -- it is a comedy, after all. But I did mean to make a serious point here, even if I did so badly -- the most damaging thing to politicians, especially the highly image conscious, "serious," stage managed personna that she is portrayed as having in the skit, is ridicule. If SNL is poking fun at her, and doing so in a way that emphasizes all the nasty features reported about her over the years (as they did here, with the emphasis on how she is the beneficiary of a left leaning, fawning media, who insists on controlling the interviewer, has a nasty temper and foul mouth, smears political foes, etc.), this is a departure from what she is used to receiving. You're correct, SNL is hardly CBS Evening News or McNeil, but this particular sort of ridicule is new to her.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X