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

VA Tech Shootings

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

  • #31
    Re: VA Tech Shootings

    Originally posted by Stryder View Post
    Not to be mean, but you do realize that the movie is full of misrepresentations and lies and half-truths, don't you?
    Yes a million times over, I just didn't know that they edited that part of it too.

    I've read a couple different sites debunking it, but I either don't remember reading about that part, or it isn't talked about much.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: VA Tech Shootings

      Originally posted by naturallystoned
      Doesn't it seem weird that the most egregious acts involving guns take place where gun control is the strictest? Obviously no one can honestly propose allowing guns in a school setting, but 32 people died because the only ones with guns were the gunman and the police.
      Well... I don't know the statistics for the UK, but I am pretty certain that the number of violent acts involving guns translated to the same number of people is higher in the US then in my country, while we have a lot more strict gun laws here, so that theory maybe applies to the US, but not in general.

      Personally, I think the whole "culture" around guns and weapons posession in the United States is one of the major problems, made worse by an easy access/availability.

      I'm sure people who live isolated need to have some means to protect themselves, but in the suburbs and the city centres?

      Regards,

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

      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: VA Tech Shootings

        Originally posted by Mourning View Post
        I'm sure people who live isolated need to have some means to protect themselves, but in the suburbs and the city centres?

        Regards,

        Mourning

        What's even more messed up, is the farther you get out in the country the safer people generally feel.

        My parents live a mile away from a small town, about 4000-5000 people, and they don't even lock their doors when they're not home. Honestly, I don't know of a lot of people around there that do lock their doors, even if they actually live in town.

        Out around where we live, you have guns to hunt, not to protect yourself.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: VA Tech Shootings

          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
          I'm sure people who live isolated need to have some means to protect themselves, but in the suburbs and the city centres?

          Regards,

          Mourning
          If anything, the people in the city are the ones who need the guns. The cops in Atlanta take 5+ minutes to make it to your house, sometimes even more.

          I go to southern Georgia and Alabama every now and then and it is generally a hell of a lot safer out on the country side then it is in the city. Like Since86 said, Most people who live away from the cities don't even lock their doors and don't have guns for self defense..they just have them for hunting season.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: VA Tech Shootings

            I can also vouch for the fact that generally people who live away from the big cities feel safer and carry guns more for hunting than protection.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: VA Tech Shootings

              Conversely, one of my best pals here in LA grew up as an Oregon ranch hand and has a collection of maybe 50 weapons, the majority of which are handguns.

              Number of guns in his house here in crime-ridden Venice? Zero.

              Why? He says that if he has a gun here, even if it is under lock and key, it's just a matter of time until it's used on someone. "It could be me that fires it, it could be somebody else. Doesn't matter. Either way, everyone is safer with the collection in Oregon."

              Words to live by.
              “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


              • #37
                Re: VA Tech Shootings

                Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                Conversely, one of my best pals here in LA grew up as an Oregon ranch hand and has a collection of maybe 50 weapons, the majority of which are handguns.

                Number of guns in his house here in crime-ridden Venice? Zero.

                Why? He says that if he has a gun here, even if it is under lock and key, it's just a matter of time until it's used on someone. "It could be me that fires it, it could be somebody else. Doesn't matter. Either way, everyone is safer with the collection in Oregon."

                Words to live by.
                If he ever needs one to protect himself in Venice, that's going to be a long reach to grab one in Oregon!

                -Bball
                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


                • #38
                  Re: VA Tech Shootings

                  If you need to protect yourself in Venice, you better move somewhere else.

                  I defer to Marion Deputy about gun theft. The easiest way to keep guns out of city neighborhoods is to not bring one in.
                  “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


                  • #39
                    Re: VA Tech Shootings

                    Maybe we need tougher city laws?
                    "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


                    • #40
                      Re: VA Tech Shootings

                      I'm not sure if what I wrote came across really well, so I will try to make it a little more clear.

                      What I meant or assumed with:

                      Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                      I'm sure people who live isolated need to have some means to protect themselves, but in the suburbs and the city centres?
                      Is that in those areas that are more isolated the reaction time for authorities (police, etc) is probably a lot higher then it is in densely populated urban areas.

                      That's why I could understand the people living there wanting a fire arm of their own to be able to protect themselves, loved ones or possesions, not because I think they are more likely to use it, but because they are more dependent on them IF push came to shove.

                      In my country the rural areas (the few small parts we still have) are less criminal aswell compared to the densely populated western parts of the country where Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Haarlem, etc are situated.

                      The more people are around, basically, the more important the police should be in protecting the people in their areas of responseability.

                      I rather not get shot by an amateur who, in a rash, thinks he has the right to blow my brains out when I accidentally step one foot on his property .

                      Offcourse, a ridiculous example, but the point I want to make is that the more people are around in a relatively small area where the culture amongst them is generally more aggressive, assertive and movement of new people inside and outside that area is much higher (as opposed to having half the village living in the same village for generations and knowing each other inside-out) the LESS amateurs I want to see having the option of picking up a (or more ) gun(s), because the likelyhood of "accidents", "incidents" and emotional "explosions" happenning would be exponentially bigger.

                      Some guy going "over the edge", because he just got told his neighboor has been screwing his wife could just walk upstairs get his gun and shoot the neighboor in an instant, just like that. I'm pretty sure those kind of shootings happen quite a lot more in the States then they do over here in Europe. There's no potential "cooling down" period, I guess.

                      Consequently the role of the authorities in protecting its citizens and keeping its credibility and trust from its citizens should be the top priority always in such an urban area where gun laws are more strict, hence they should REALLY be in a street where there's a fight or something else more then quick.

                      Hope this makes my position a little more clear. Btw I'm not trying to be the "smart *** foreigner", I'm genuinely interested how you people see all of this.

                      Regards,

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

                      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: VA Tech Shootings

                        No, I basically agree with you Morning. I just don't see any change in violence happening regardless of gun laws. I'm skeptical that any gun law is going to take guns off the streets or change people's desire to kill one another.
                        "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


                        • #42
                          Re: VA Tech Shootings

                          I do think handgun laws should be tightened. The problem is that pesky 2nd amendment with the RIGHT to bear arms. Of course then we have to figure what the term "arms" really means. I mean, I was born with arms and am happy nobody can just cut them off ...

                          What I'd like goes along these lines:

                          1 - You have to apply to own a handgun and show cause for why you should be allowed to have one. Doesn't have to be just self-defense - collectors would also be allowed.

                          2 - You should be expected to take a training course in safe use, storage, etc. Not sure this shouldn't also apply for long weapons as well - certainly all rifles should be registered. The written part could be online or something but some time needs to be spent at a range.

                          3 - Make the penalties for adults stricter if a child gets hold of a handgun

                          4 - Increase safety regulations - gun locks and a ballistics test/database at a minimum. I also think this would be useful for rifles. Ballistics can be overrated but would still help.

                          5 - I think the whole "permit to carry" thing is useless

                          6 - In order to purchase ammo you need to show your weapon registration - including for long arms

                          7 - The sharing of info across state lines needs to change drastically. IMO registering rifles isn't that tough - put together a form, dealers make you fill one out, then they turn it in to local law enforcement. But that needs to be in a national database.

                          Keep in mind that criminals will still be able to get weapons though - and they won't care if it's registered since it's not registered to them. There would be fewer weapons in circulation but the border trade would probably increase.

                          I don't get as excited about gun control as over the DP or rights of the unborn so I haven't worked through everything as fully for myself.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: VA Tech Shootings

                            There has been a lot of talk about creating a ballistics data base as well, where each firearm during testing would have to submit the ballistic data for each weapon to an agency like the BATF as it is produced. This would allow them to track who the owner or registered dealer was supposed to be in charge of a gun when it is used in a crime. The NRA is emphatically against this but I don't see much of an infrigement of privacy.

                            Your guys thoughts?
                            "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

                            --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: VA Tech Shootings

                              My question is, isn't the point of the 2nd Amendment to allow we the American people to revolt against the government if/when we feel it is time to do so?

                              If the answer to that is at least partially "yes", then I think it needs to be done away with for this simple reason: We will never, ever, be able to compile enough of a militia with the weapons available to us to have ANY chance of successfully fight a war against our government. Not unless we want to make RPG's, grenades, mines, and other more devastating weapons easy to own legally.

                              My reasoning for saying that is, what the 2nd Amendment was put in for, is no longer plausible. So why allow a violent culture to continually stock up as we currently do? Why not change the law?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: VA Tech Shootings

                                Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
                                There has been a lot of talk about creating a ballistics data base as well, where each firearm during testing would have to submit the ballistic data for each weapon to an agency like the BATF as it is produced. This would allow them to track who the owner or registered dealer was supposed to be in charge of a gun when it is used in a crime. The NRA is emphatically against this but I don't see much of an infrigement of privacy.

                                Your guys thoughts?
                                I think it's only fair to document as much as possible the use and movement of arms as long as we're going to make it so common to be able to purchase and carry guns.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X