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

Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

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

  • #31
    Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

    Racial profiling or just an arrogant entertainer? Cops deciding that people in fancy cars have to be more careful than you and me does not give me comfort.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      I-75/I-85 is a major drug running corridor. Lamborghini with dealer temporary plate (meaning it is unidentifiable) ... you dam betcha they'll find a reason to pull it over to check it out.
      Yeh, because drug dealers regularly move merchandise in freaking Lamborghini's. That's always a good way to avoid attention.
      Last edited by Hoop; 04-08-2011, 10:23 PM.
      "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
        Racial profiling or just an arrogant entertainer? Cops deciding that people in fancy cars have to be more careful than you and me does not give me comfort.
        no me either, but i see it...i usually drive a mid 90s corolla that i have never gotten pulled over in, over like 10 years...but it seems like every time i drive something better (rental, friends car, whatever) or even just more conspicuous, i get pulled over for some bullsh*t--like last time it was crossing over the line marking off the shoulder, in the right lane on the highway?!

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
          Racial profiling or just an arrogant entertainer? Cops deciding that people in fancy cars have to be more careful than you and me does not give me comfort.
          Good luck finding perfect people to risk their lives on a daily basis for 25K/yr.

          Yes, you will get some cowboys who love the firearms, cars, badges, uniforms and the mandate to intimidate....but for the most part they are just good old boys from their home towns...regardless of race. If people stopped committing crimes we wouldn't need them.

          BTW, many years ago my best friend was busted for DUI while parked in his own driveway. He was pulled out of his car and roughed up. Fact is, he should have got out of the car and into the house. Stinks, but that's life baby. You have to take the good with the bad because nobody is perfect, not even you.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

            Can there ever be a discussion involving a minority where someone doesn't play the race card?

            I've been pulled over (and ticketed) for switching lanes without signaling and, last I checked, I'm white. It happens. It was probably more a case of the cop being a dick than it was racial profiling. Or of, God forbid, Iverson actually driving like an idiot. He already has a negative reputation for a reason.

            I don't deny that racial undertones still exist, but the frequency with which the race card is played is absurd.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

              Originally posted by GrangerRanger View Post
              Huh? It seems like you're saying that black men legitimately earn stuff there like it's an oddity. Wow.

              It's pretty clear that Allen was the brunt of racial profiling here. I don't care if his actions seemed childish, but I would be pissed too if I had the same thing happen to me.

              I know who you are Allen. A citizen of the United States. Not a black one. Not a rich one. When it boils down to it, he's a simple citizen that was most likely on the receiving end of racial profiling.

              Don't believe that happens? A cousin of mine was a police man and avid racist, who used to tell me stories of how he witnessed and even took part in such activities. Pulling over a white dude in a Rio for not signaling with a button up shirt is seen as something not being worth their time. Chances of actually finding anything wrong is low ( at least in their eyes). Successful black dude in a brand new car? Oh no, he HAS to be doing something wrong.

              Bah.. sorry for ranting.
              Funny how profiling is ok for a traffic violation, but not ok for identifying terrorists...it's why the TSA Nazis at the airport are allowed to put their grubby fat hands on me and put me thru their intrusive body scanner.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

                Originally posted by kellogg View Post
                Funny how profiling is ok for a traffic violation, but not ok for identifying terrorists...it's why the TSA Nazis at the airport are allowed to put their grubby fat hands on me and put me thru their intrusive body scanner.
                I hate flying, and I hate the TSA more than corrpupt blatantly racist carmel cops. Ok that last part is not true. I hate the TSA more than cops, but not Carmel cops. That's a gross exaggeration.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

                  Just to get this thread back onto basketball, sort of...guess the gig in Turkey or China or wherever AI was playing didn't work out? Is he retired now? Not that I care, since I never gave AI a thought until this.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

                    http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/iver...ps-904074.html

                    Iverson's friend: Atlanta cops made up their Lamborghini reportShareThisPrint E-mail .By Ty Tagami


                    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

                    Antwuan Clisby told the AJC Friday that, contrary to the official police report, Iverson didn't swear at a cop or ask her a boastful question about his fame.

                    "It's not right how they're trying to portray this whole thing," Clisby said.

                    Clisby is one of several people who've come forward to dispute the details of the police report.

                    Clisby, 35, was cited for failure to signal and for driving a car with expired tags after an officer pulled him over in Iverson's gray 2007 Lamborghini Murcielago. Clisby, a friend of Iverson's from Virginia, was handcuffed after he grew "angry" during the March 30 encounter, according to a police officer's report of the incident.

                    Officer S. J. Durham called for backup and, according to Clisby, five squad cars and eight more cops came to the scene, in the parking lot of the Ruth's Chris Steak House and Embassy Suites Hotel on Peachtree Road in Buckhead.

                    The car had a dealer tag, and after running the vehicle identification number through a computer, Durham realized the tag had been expired for two years, she wrote in her report.

                    When a tow truck was called, Iverson became upset.

                    "Take the vehicle, I have 10 more," he told Durham, according to her report. "Police don't have anything else [expletive] to do except [expletive] with me. ... Do you know who I am?"

                    For the next 20 minutes, according to the officer's report, Iverson "went on and on" about who he was.

                    But Clisby told the AJC that neither he nor Iverson behaved as the officer reported.

                    "I'm not going to be rude when I get pulled over, because I'm not trying to get a ticket," Clisby explained. He said Iverson did not swear and did not boast about his fame.

                    "‘Do you know who I am?' Who would say that? Only an [expletive] would say that," Clisby said.

                    Clisby said he did ask the officer early in the encounter if Iverson, the passenger, could get out of the car and go to Ruth's Chris, where he had a take-out order waiting. Clisby said he made the request to shield his friend from the publicity. A crowd was gathering around the Lamborghini and people were taking pictures, he said.

                    The request was denied. Instead, Iverson and Clisby were ordered from the car and searched. Clisby said an officer asked where they were keeping the drugs and guns.

                    Ernest West, a courtesy van driver for the Embassy Suites, was parked next to the Lamborghini and witnessed the incident. He said Iverson has been a regular at the hotel and restaurant, so he recognized him immediately.

                    "He didn't curse at all," West told the AJC. "I mean, he was upset by the situation. But he didn't curse."

                    When asked about this, an Atlanta Police Department spokeswoman said Clisby called Thursday, claiming Durham fabricated her report.

                    "We told him that he will have his day in court, and if there is something in that report that he feels is not true, he could testify and she would testify," Officer Kim Maggart told the AJC Friday.

                    Maggart said Clisby didn't appear to appreciate the response, and started cursing at her and the other two police employees -- one a sworn officer -- who were participating on speakerphone. She wouldn't repeat what he said, but said he used words like those attributed to Iverson by Officer Durham in her report: "Everything she stated he said in the police report is pretty much everything he [Clisby] said to us last night."

                    Clisby also denies that the tags were expired. He said Iverson bought the car in Georgia two years ago and left it undriven at his home in Philadelphia, and recently had it shipped back to his home in Atlanta after asking the same dealer to give him new drive-out tags while he got permanent tags. The drive-out tags expired in early April, he said, days after the car was impounded.

                    Another witness offers some corroboration of that claim. Andrea Dzeda wasn't there the night of the traffic stop, but 10 days earlier she and her husband, both visiting from their home in Austin, met Iverson and his friends at the bar of the Embassy Suites. They hung out together, and Iverson and his friends were polite, even calling her ma'am, she told the AJC.

                    On their way out of the hotel, Dzeda snapped photos of Iverson's gray Lamborghini with her cellphone. She provided a copy of one of the photos. It shows a car with dealer drive-out tag that was dated April 3, 2011 -- four days after Clisby was given the expired tag citation.

                    The AJC had no way of verifying the authenticity of the photo.

                    The public likely will not see a resolution about the accuracy of the police report or the underlying traffic violation though. Clisby said he won't be fighting any of this in court. It'll be less expensive to just pay the fine, he said.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Good luck finding perfect people to risk their lives on a daily basis for 25K/yr.
                      .
                      I guess I'm missing the low pay, nobody is perfect, and discriminatory behavior as justification. Would you justify this behavior for 50K/yr. 75K/yr.?
                      Last edited by speakout4; 04-09-2011, 02:31 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

                        Originally posted by GrangerRanger View Post
                        Huh? It seems like you're saying that black men legitimately earn stuff there like it's an oddity. Wow.

                        It's pretty clear that Allen was the brunt of racial profiling here. I don't care if his actions seemed childish, but I would be pissed too if I had the same thing happen to me.

                        I know who you are Allen. A citizen of the United States. Not a black one. Not a rich one. When it boils down to it, he's a simple citizen that was most likely on the receiving end of racial profiling.

                        Don't believe that happens? A cousin of mine was a police man and avid racist, who used to tell me stories of how he witnessed and even took part in such activities. Pulling over a white dude in a Rio for not signaling with a button up shirt is seen as something not being worth their time. Chances of actually finding anything wrong is low ( at least in their eyes). Successful black dude in a brand new car? Oh no, he HAS to be doing something wrong.

                        Bah.. sorry for ranting.
                        So now the police are guilty of car profiling?Blacks can't be the only ones who drive nice cars now are they.Iversons car was pulled over because the driver failed to signal just like if you were driving a 2000 nissan maxima and a cop is behind you and you forgot to signal guess what your probably going to get pulled over and if you start the converstation with sucking your teeth at the police officer and saying "Do you know who I am" I don't think cop is going to give you the courtesy to get out of a ticket.Doesn't matter what car your driving, or what color your skin is.

                        In Iversons case he could have just said "yeah its my car I let my tags expire I didn't feel like paying the fee" instead of giving the officer more work to do and having him conduct an investigation on who the true owner of the car is. Maybe the car wouldn't have been towed and just a ticket would have been issued.Being polite when you get stopped goes along way to getting yourself out of a jam but if you start up combative right away that never ends up well.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

                          "‘Do you know who I am?' Who would say that? Only an [expletive] would say that," Clisby said.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

                            So... Police fabricated reports? Nice.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              So... Police fabricated reports? Nice.
                              Note to self...don't live in ATL.


                              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Allen Iverson to police: 'Do you know who I am?'

                                Unless it is way out of line, one should probably comply with an LEO's orders...just sayin'...it makes for an easier night with less hassles.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X