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

The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

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

  • The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

    The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

    3 of the past four presidents have been Republicans, so Americans must really like them, right? Well, not so much. In fact, what's been most notable about the last 25 years is how remarkably unpopular Republican presidents, including Reagan, have been when they were actually making decisions.

    For example, during his first year (before his economic give-aways began in earnest), his approval rating was 58%. Far higher than Bush's now, of course, but lower than Eisenhower's (69%), Kennedy's (75%), Nixon's (61%), and Carter's (62%).

    His second year was even worse at 44% (with a low of 41%) compared to Eisenhower (65%), Kennedy's (72%), Nixon's (57%), and Carter (47%). For his entire first term he averaged only 50%, or about the same as Ford and Carter (47% each). Far lower than Kennedy (70%), Eisenhower (69%), or Nixon (56%).

    In his second term, his approval shot up to 68% (his high), but by 1986 had fallen back to 46%.

    Reagan's average for his presidency was 52%, compared to Kennedy's 70% average, Eisenhower's 66%, Roosevelt's 68%, and even by Johnson (54%). Remember, Johnson's was so low that he decided not to run for a second term!

    It's true that he left office with 65% approval rating, and probably by comparison with the guy about to take over he did seem pretty good. But even this was lower than Clinton's, in the midst of so-called "Clinton fatigue."

  • #2
    Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

    And yet Republicans keep getting elected.

    I'd vote for a Democratic candidate if the party didn't keep running fruitcakes.

    I can't imagine the conversation that lead to the conclusion that Kerry was presidential material.

    ------------------

    EDIT: More on point, you don't think a change in media culture has anything to do with it? Today's media is far more likely to criticize both parties, and the contant attack status of both sides seems higher today than it was 50 years ago. Not that I was around then.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

      I guess it's an issue of semantics. Was/Is Reagan popular? Yes. Two demolishing landslide victories should tell you that.

      Was he the MOST popular guy ever? Well, no. But he still is firmly planted in the popular column.

      There is no "myth" here. Reagan was/is popular. Your own statistics prove it.
      “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


      • #4
        Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

        http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1192

        Polls are to politics as stats are to sports.
        "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


        • #5
          Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

          Wow, Carter's popularity looks a little high... unless you forgot a negative sign or something.

          Reagan won in a landslide. That would seem to be a good poll right there.

          -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


          • #6
            Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

            3ball no offense but you sure do pay a lot of attention to polls.

            To me, being a die hard Reaganite, it was always both ironic & sad to see the same people who brutalized Reagan when he was alive and the President go out of their way to memorialize the man when he died.

            Ronald Reagan is my hero. I like President Bush just fine but there was something about Reagan that transcended politics and he really invoked a movement.

            How do I know this? Simple I'll utter one statement to you & you find me the counterpart.

            Reagan Democrats.

            I'll wait for as long as it takes for you to find me the Clinton Republicans or even the Johnson Republicans or any other one.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              3ball no offense but you sure do pay a lot of attention to polls.

              To me, being a die hard Reaganite, it was always both ironic & sad to see the same people who brutalized Reagan when he was alive and the President go out of their way to memorialize the man when he died.

              Ronald Reagan is my hero. I like President Bush just fine but there was something about Reagan that transcended politics and he really invoked a movement.

              How do I know this? Simple I'll utter one statement to you & you find me the counterpart.

              Reagan Democrats.

              I'll wait for as long as it takes for you to find me the Clinton Republicans or even the Johnson Republicans or any other one.

              Johnson won by the highest popular vote percentage ever in 1964 with a 61.1 percentage of the vote. Someone from the Republican aisle had to like him in order for him to get such a high percentage.

              Granted, Kennedy was assassinated just a year before, so you can blame that for the high popularity of Johnson. He was able to successfully able to associate himself with the policies of the popular Kennedy.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

                Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                Johnson won by the highest popular vote percentage ever in 1964 with a 61.1 percentage of the vote. Someone from the Republican aisle had to like him in order for him to get such a high percentage.

                Granted, Kennedy was assassinated just a year before, so you can blame that on Johnson successfully associating himself with Kennedy's popularity.
                I had to read that twice because I thought you were trying to say that I could blame Kennedy's assassination on Johnson.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

                  Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                  I guess it's an issue of semantics. Was/Is Reagan popular? Yes. Two demolishing landslide victories should tell you that.
                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  Reagan won in a landslide. That would seem to be a good poll right there.-Bball
                  Weeeeeeeell...Reagan beat the hated Carter with a whopping 50.7% of the vote. It's true that he did pull up the in the second election to 58%, less than Nixon in 72 (60.2%) or Johnson in 1964 (61%), but still a solid majority. Of course, this was in the middle of a huge economic resurgence for which Reagan deserves little credit.

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  3ball no offense but you sure do pay a lot of attention to polls...Ronald Reagan is my hero....
                  You are absolutely right that I've been paying a lot more attention to polls these days, particularly historical polls. Basically, I have decided that American democracy isn't functioning very well, because it does a poor job of translating the political will of the American people into change. Reagan was a likable guy, and people voted for him in large numbers despite the fact that they mostly opposed his policies. I understand that you like the guy, and I think that's fine.

                  Mostly when I think about him, the think that first comes to my mind is Central American terrorism. Reagan was a passionate supporter of Central American terrorists, and he fought hard to bring murder and devastation to the region. He also fought hard to keep apartheid in South Africa, and supported genocide in East Timor. So I don't really mind people that sully his record a tad. But he did give good face.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    I had to read that twice because I thought you were trying to say that I could blame Kennedy's assassination on Johnson.

                    I worded that horribly, I'll fix it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      To me, being a die hard Reaganite, it was always both ironic & sad to see the same people who brutalized Reagan when he was alive and the President go out of their way to memorialize the man when he died.

                      Ronald Reagan is my hero. I like President Bush just fine but there was something about Reagan that transcended politics and he really invoked a movement.
                      For those of us that were old enough to be adults during the Carter years all that we have to do is remember that we actually had something called the "Misery Index"... think about that... there actually was an index to gauge how bad things were. Ronald Reagan brought us out of that, with his optumism, his beleif in the dream of America. There was talk of the Dream being over, that this democracy, would not last,it was failing, and living through that time there was something to be said to that.

                      He talked to the American people, there was a reason he was called the great communicator. He gave us hope and pride again. Now I want to say that this is a good time to to pile on the Carter record, but that is not my point.

                      I guess that my point is that Reagan just my have saved this nation, and people know this, especially now. The problem with the recent era polls is that the pudints pile on so high and hard with all of those lies, so much of the electorate know longer know what the truth is, and it was like that in the Reagan years too. and another example is this war, as an example, not to fire up that argument again, all they hear is the bad, there is no honest debate with informed people about that, so it drives opinion down, but when it comes to pulling the lever in important times they seem to see the light, enough that it forces electorial landslides.

                      okay, I am rambling, and again I am really tired of typing again.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

                        Originally posted by dubyacop View Post
                        For those of us that were old enough to be adults during the Carter years all that we have to do is remember that we actually had something called the "Misery Index"... think about that... there actually was an index to gauge how bad things were. Ronald Reagan brought us out of that, with his optumism, his beleif in the dream of America. There was talk of the Dream being over, that this democracy, would not last,it was failing, and living through that time there was something to be said to that.

                        He talked to the American people, there was a reason he was called the great communicator. He gave us hope and pride again. Now I want to say that this is a good time to to pile on the Carter record, but that is not my point.

                        I guess that my point is that Reagan just my have saved this nation, and people know this, especially now. The problem with the recent era polls is that the pudints pile on so high and hard with all of those lies, so much of the electorate know longer know what the truth is, and it was like that in the Reagan years too. and another example is this war, as an example, not to fire up that argument again, all they hear is the bad, there is no honest debate with informed people about that, so it drives opinion down, but when it comes to pulling the lever in important times they seem to see the light, enough that it forces electorial landslides.

                        okay, I am rambling, and again I am really tired of typing again.

                        The only thing I'll add to your wonderfull post is this.



                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

                          Thanks Peck, great pi of the great one, will use it for Wallpaper

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

                            And I'll just leave it at this. Here is a quote from a Jinotega villager who had witnessed an attack by the Contras which Reagan loved so dearly and supported through it all: "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Myth of Reagan's Popularity

                              The difference in vote % between candidates has very little to do with how good a president is, and is more indicative of how much better than his opponent he is. Reagan won in a landslide. If JFK were on the ballot running against Reagan, would it have still been a landslide? I think not. If you want a true indicator, look at percentages, and also look at what percentage actually came to vote. That at least shows you that a lot of people felt an urge to vote for Reagan.

                              Having said that, I appreciate Reagan as a president. He did a lot of things that didn't have an impact until after his term. During a good portion of his term, we weren't sure if we'd win the Cold War. Reaganomics, guns or butter, and the impetus that led us from being a manufacturing country to a service/technology country were all Reagan, but they were hard concepts for the everyday voter to grasp. I don't think you'll see another president who was liked so much more after his term for a long time, if ever. People saying Bush will be the same way, or Clinton will be the anti-Reagan in this regard, are besmirching the legacy of the first major movie star-turned-politician.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X