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

Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

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

  • #16
    Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

    Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
    Now you're really saying something dangerous...
    Let me guess the US during WWII, Korea and Vietnam with the Strategic Bombings?

    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


    • #17
      Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      We are fighting politically correct battles trying to be surgical in our strikes and minimize collateral damage.
      There is no such thing as a politically correct battle. By the way, our stated policy, at least at the beginning of the war, was that we could drop a bomb if we expected to kill only 30 or fewer civilians. That was our policy.

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I'm assuming you think 9/11 was a major attack altho your postings make me question whether you would condone the event as 'deserved').
      9/11 was a disgusting atrocity, and you damn well know I think that. I've said it many times before. Nothing can justify intentionally killing civilians. And to try to accuse me of saying it was deserved is really a slander, man.

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      And many of the 'hate America first' ilk will need to take a look in the mirror when they try and decide who to blame for this.
      And this is really, truly, below the belt. This is about the 20th time on this board I've responded to the ridiculous "hate America first" charge. I don't hate America. I hate it when America attacks other countries, but I love my country and I want to live and die here. We all love America, I just want her to take moral responsibility for what we do.

      Peck, Yes, Slate was the first of many articles I found debunking the Werewolf thing. Take a quick look and you will find many more including a cute Fox article that was supposedly satire but passed around the web as factual. Yes, plenty of soldiers died in Europe after WWII as they continue to today. Of illness, car wreck, and the like. Even if a few died in action, proof of which neither of us has found, it certainly looked absolutely nothing like Iraq today. I really don't see how the article you included that basically amount to post-war whining has anything at all to do with the mass slaughter we are seeing now. Yes, the Russians did rape and kill, but there was never anything like that sanctioned by the American troops. Yes, there were individual incidents, but nothing like the Russians. Frankly, articles like that could be found even during the war. Free countries are famous for bellyaching, even when things are going well. Just take a look at the conservative press in the 90s. It's called Samsara.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

        Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
        There is no such thing as a politically correct battle. By the way, our stated policy, at least at the beginning of the war, was that we could drop a bomb if we expected to kill only 30 or fewer civilians. That was our policy.


        9/11 was a disgusting atrocity, and you damn well know I think that. I've said it many times before. Nothing can justify intentionally killing civilians. And to try to accuse me of saying it was deserved is really a slander, man.


        And this is really, truly, below the belt. This is about the 20th time on this board I've responded to the ridiculous "hate America first" charge. I don't hate America. I hate it when America attacks other countries, but I love my country and I want to live and die here. We all love America, I just want her to take moral responsibility for what we do.

        Peck, Yes, Slate was the first of many articles I found debunking the Werewolf thing. Take a quick look and you will find many more including a cute Fox article that was supposedly satire but passed around the web as factual. Yes, plenty of soldiers died in Europe after WWII as they continue to today. Of illness, car wreck, and the like. Even if a few died in action, proof of which neither of us has found, it certainly looked absolutely nothing like Iraq today. I really don't see how the article you included that basically amount to post-war whining has anything at all to do with the mass slaughter we are seeing now. Yes, the Russians did rape and kill, but there was never anything like that sanctioned by the American troops. Yes, there were individual incidents, but nothing like the Russians. Frankly, articles like that could be found even during the war. Free countries are famous for bellyaching, even when things are going well. Just take a look at the conservative press in the 90s. It's called Samsara.

        You basically sidestepped the explanations in my post to feign indignation didn't you?

        I don't know where you got the part about the US using the number of 30 civilians being the line between bombing or not. I'm not disputing it nor am I agreeing with it. But I will defer to you on that number. That, to me, still smells of political correctness. A viable military target is a viable military target. While taking collateral damage into account is a worthwhile goal, putting a number on it is a just asking for trouble. Especially if your enemy knows that number. And I suppose if 3Ball knows the number then the enemy does as well.

        Secondly, what does that number really tell us? It's not saying we're going out to look for 30 civilians to kill. Is it saying that 30 is always allowable or is it saying 30 is the proverbial line in the sand? Could it be depending on the target maybe no civilian deaths would be acceptable under any circumstances?

        3Ball... what I get is you are a pacifist.... There is no battle worth fighting. Am I reading you wrong?

        As for your feigned indignation as being lumped in with the 'hate America first crowd'.... There's an old saying "If the shoe fits... wear it".
        You're going to have to do better than tearing America down at every turn and finding total fault with her before you escape looking like you deserve that label.

        And by the way- the label is "hate America first" which is saying people find a reason to hate/blame America first rather than looking at a bigger picture and taking anything else into account.

        -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


        • #19
          Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

          Look, bombing and destroying a "viable military target", while killing 200 school children in the proces, because this "viable military target" was placed on a school is just not a good idea. That has nothing to do with politicall correctness, but everything with PR and media reporting, which in this case would create a backlash from the homefront if these sort of things happen a little too often.

          Also an argument could be made that you just don't sink to the level of your enemy by not caring about civilians lifes in a war campaign. That's an ethical and moral call. You can't always go around "collateral damage", but sometimes you can and should or try to take out the target in another way, while sometimes there is no other option. This has nothing to do with political correctness.

          What worries me more is bombing exclusively from high altitudes to avoid any serious risks to your military pilots and thus avoid problem from the homefront. However, the effectiveness of strikes or waging war like this could seriously impact it in a negative way.

          Regards,

          Mourning 8)
          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


          • #20
            Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            You basically sidestepped the explanations in my post to feign indignation didn't you?
            No.

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            3Ball... what I get is you are a pacifist.... There is no battle worth fighting. Am I reading you wrong?
            No, I'm not a pacifist, and yes, you are reading me wrong. I've never even come close to saying that no battle is worth fighting. Do you see a moral distinction between fighting to defend yourself or your allies from attack and being the aggressor yourself? What I want is for us to stop attacking people. That is, after all, the gravest war crime as defined by the Nuremberg tribunal: meaning, mainly, us.

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            As for your feigned indignation as being lumped in with the 'hate America first crowd'.... There's an old saying "If the shoe fits... wear it".
            Ok then, you explain it to me. Why is saying that we should stop aggressively invade foreign countries mean that I hate America? Because frankly, I don't get it. If you said, "I think taxes should be lower" does that mean you hate America? And I am only saying something that to me seems like a pretty basic moral notion. So you explain it to me. Why do we need to invade and occupy foreign countries, and why do I hate America for not wishing to do so?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

              Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
              No.


              No, I'm not a pacifist, and yes, you are reading me wrong. I've never even come close to saying that no battle is worth fighting. Do you see a moral distinction between fighting to defend yourself or your allies from attack and being the aggressor yourself? What I want is for us to stop attacking people. That is, after all, the gravest war crime as defined by the Nuremberg tribunal: meaning, mainly, us.


              Ok then, you explain it to me. Why is saying that we should stop aggressively invade foreign countries mean that I hate America? Because frankly, I don't get it. If you said, "I think taxes should be lower" does that mean you hate America? And I am only saying something that to me seems like a pretty basic moral notion. So you explain it to me. Why do we need to invade and occupy foreign countries, and why do I hate America for not wishing to do so?

              3ball wants America to have a nuclear bomb go off in NYC or have a chemical attack in a subway system where millions of people die, then and only then we can attack because you see now we are defending ourselves. Isn't that just great

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                Originally posted by Diesel_81 View Post
                3ball wants America to have a nuclear bomb go off in NYC or have a chemical attack in a subway system where millions of people die, then and only then we can attack because you see now we are defending ourselves. Isn't that just great
                Wow! What a way to characterize someones opinion completely and 100% incorrect.

                Also what exactly and factually is the connection between "apocalyptic" terrorism threatening our way of life and Iraq?

                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


                • #23
                  Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                  Originally posted by Diesel_81 View Post
                  3ball wants America to have a nuclear bomb go off in NYC or have a chemical attack in a subway system where millions of people die, then and only then we can attack because you see now we are defending ourselves. Isn't that just great
                  Well, thanks Mourning. I probably shouldn't respond to a message like this, but just out of curiosity: attack who? Who exactly should we be attacking to prevent a nuclear weapon in NY? And why would that help?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                    I'm saying if a terroist group operating in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq,Syria had plans to set off a bomb in this country, and the United States to prevent it decided to launch a pre emptive strike to kill the terroists before they kill us.You would most likely be against it because:
                    1)they haven't attacked us yet
                    2)you don't trust the Governement and think they fabricated the story
                    3)Innocent civilians would die

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                      Originally posted by Diesel_81 View Post
                      I'm saying if a terroist group operating in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq,Syria had plans to set off a bomb in this country, and the United States to prevent it decided to launch a pre emptive strike to kill the terroists before they kill us.You would most likely be against it because:
                      1)they haven't attacked us yet
                      2)you don't trust the Governement and think they fabricated the story
                      3)Innocent civilians would die
                      For heaven's sake, Diesel_81, nobody I've heard on this board is saying that we can't run international law enforcement operations. But that is the difference between, say, working to take out this terrorist cell and invading Lebanon. Don't you have enough evidence from the last 50 years that starting wars is not a good method for bringing piece? Nobody is arguing against law enforcement.

                      By the way, just as an interesting bit of trivia: The very first bomb dropped by the Allies on Berlin during World War II killed the only elephant in the Berlin Zoo. Can you imagine how confusing that must have been for the Germans?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                        International Law enforcement operations. Are you kidding me. Are you even in Law Enforcement to begin with. That would be next to impossible to do with countries like Iran, Syria who support terroism.

                        As far as war not being effective in terms of bringing piece, sometimes it is, sometimes its not but one thing that doesn't work is sitting back and doing nothing.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                          Originally posted by Diesel_81 View Post
                          International Law enforcement operations. Are you kidding me. Are you even in Law Enforcement to begin with. That would be next to impossible to do with countries like Iran, Syria who support terroism.

                          As far as war not being effective in terms of bringing piece, sometimes it is, sometimes its not but one thing that doesn't work is sitting back and doing nothing.
                          Nobody is suggesting that we do nothing. But I think history has shown time and time again that aggressively invading countries does not help our security situation.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            I don't know where you got the part about the US using the number of 30 civilians being the line between bombing or not. I'm not disputing it nor am I agreeing with it. But I will defer to you on that number.
                            I'm not deferring on that. I don't believe it AT ALL and would like a from 3ball please.

                            seems like a made-up Al Frankenism to me.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                              [quote=3Ball;509997]Nobody is suggesting that we do nothing. quote]

                              That is exactly what you are saying if you are against our Military not taking the fight against Terroism.You want Law Enforcement to have the lead role, and Im telling you Law Enforcement agencies are ill equipped to handle it. Law Enforcement is reactive in nature and thats something we can't afford to do with Terroists.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Iraq Now Longer Than WWII

                                [QUOTE=Diesel_81;510209]
                                Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                                Nobody is suggesting that we do nothing. quote]

                                That is exactly what you are saying if you are against our Military not taking the fight against Terroism.You want Law Enforcement to have the lead role, and Im telling you Law Enforcement agencies are ill equipped to handle it. Law Enforcement is reactive in nature and thats something we can't afford to do with Terroists.
                                Then equip them. The military solution so far has been worse than useless. I'm NOT saying that we wait until after an attack to act. I think the British response to the gel bombers is the model for how we should be working. Going after terrorist groups works. Attacking countries does not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X