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

Darfur is the result of global warming?

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

  • #16
    Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

    Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
    I understand what you are saying but that's like like saying slavery in the South wasn't a racist institution.
    The economic need came first. Indentured servants (from England), Irishmen, and Native Americans weren't economically feasible. Racism allowed slaveowners to justify their practices, and since they were the very upper tier of Southern society (constituting less than 10% of the population), they needed to instill the same hatred among their poorer kin. I'm an American history major, so I kind of study these things. Granted, I concentrate on post-Reconstruction history, I did take two semesters of African-American history (taught by a descendent of slaves) and I feel it's safe to say racism came second. Not that one doesn't always hold his own in higher esteem, but the complete subjugation of another people based solely on skin color is a stretch. It worked economically, and Northern shippers made enough money on the slave trade to not interfere. Plus, sending so many barrells of cotton back to the Motherland didn't hurt either. Clearly, my argument would favor a reading of history put forth by historians Edmund Morgan ("American Slavery, American Freedom") and David Roediger ("The Wages of Whiteness"). Of course, this isn't the only viewpoint available, but it speaks to me.

    Obviously, race is important in both cases, but my argument is that genocide is instigated by much larger forces, namely economic ones.

    Just because they are fighting over scarce resources doesn't mean it's justified. Killing another man is never justified. The question becomes "why are they dehumanized?" and who is responsible. (I like to go to the root of the problem, as you can tell) And overwhelmingly, the cause is economic, not ethnic, and the perpetrators are those with power. But wars within an ethnic group can and have occured. The Civil War, for example.
    Last edited by LG33; 06-20-2007, 05:11 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

      Economic is a relative term as someone always wants more and is usually willing to kill for it. Being greedy is just as hard to solve as being racist.

      Also it isn't the have-not's who commit genocide. It is the people in power.
      "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


      • #18
        Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

        Maybe you aren't reading me right. Or maybe I'm saying it wrong. Either way, what I mean to say is that people in power start wars for economic reasons, but they convince the have-nots to fight them for "higher" goals - like racial purification, to save the civilization, or to preserve a religion.

        Why do people always want more?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

          If you want to say for philosophical reason that it is economic that's fine. If you are trying to say that pragmatically it is a better label because it is more solveable I disagree.

          In the end were we are dealing with these horiffic events it is because people are people be that greedy or racist. In the end it is irrational.
          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

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

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

            So there's no solution and no need to talk about it. How convenient!

            In truth, the greatest irrationalities are, in fact, extremely rational: Nazis. After all, the Holocaust of the Jewish peoples of Europe is the "gold standard of genocide". Plus, I'm trying to end this thread. (a la Godwin's Law)
            Last edited by LG33; 06-20-2007, 05:56 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
              So there's no solution and no need to talk about it. How convenient!

              In truth, the greatest irrationalities are, in fact, extremely rational: Nazis. After all, the Holocaust of the Jewish peoples of Europe is the "gold standard of genocide". Plus, I'm trying to end this thread. (a la Godwin's Law)
              Ah ah ah

              http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Quirk's+Exception
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

                Yes, I saw that in the other thread...Hush hush!
                JayRedd =

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

                  Yes, I support genocide. I'm glad I took the time to responed to you.
                  "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

                    Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                    Yes, I support genocide. I'm glad I took the time to responed to you.
                    Whatever man. You are entitled to your own opinion. I, for one, am against genocide.


                    I'm not sure why you react so angrily. What country are you from?
                    (What did I do wrong?)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

                      Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                      So there's no solution and no need to talk about it. How convenient!

                      In truth, the greatest irrationalities are, in fact, extremely rational: Nazis. After all, the Holocaust of the Jewish peoples of Europe is the "gold standard of genocide". Plus, I'm trying to end this thread. (a la Godwin's Law)
                      If I misread it I'm sorry. What I read was, "You don't care about the problem. Nazis. I done with this thread."
                      "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


                      • #26
                        Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

                        What I meant to say is that one of the greatest irrationalities of all-time, the Holocaust of Jews during WWII (and of course they weren't the only ones slaughtered by Hitler) was actually carried out with an extreme degree of rationality.

                        I also don't see where the argument can go if you say "people are people be that greedy or racist". I'm not sure if that leaves anything left to say, because if that's inherent to human nature, then it's going to happen eventually. When I said it's economic, I don't mean - I want two computers, my neighbor has one, I'll kill him. It's more along the lines of - I'm starving and struggling to feed my family, the wealthy (wealth is, of course, very relative in these nations) leader in my neighborhood says the blame lies with the other, I should kill him to save my family and my race. Even here, I wouldn't call the leaders evil, but their actions are what you and I would clearly label irrational. However, looking a little closer, they are acting "rationally" - figuring out the best way to get more power and more wealth without regard for emotions. Everybody who kills has to rationalize what they are doing, because our first instinct as human being is not to murder another. Granted, some people are crazy. But the vast majority are sane and rational. (If you disagree with any of these assumptions, let me know). So, if I join the army, the first thing I have to do is rationalize killing an enemy combatant - and it's very hard. Obviously, the veterans in WWII had it easier than those in Vietnam or even Iraq, but it was still very difficult (those who couldn't cope with it, who couldn't rationalize what they saw and/or what they did, came down with a little ditty called PTSD). In conclusion, I don't believe in pure "ethnic conflict". What I saw in your responses (and this is probably what offended you) is what I would consider rationalizing non-action or inaction - that's why I reacted strongly. But of course, I myself have only donated small amounts to end the bloodshed, which will help very little in reality. I, too, am rationalizing my distance from the issue - I can't protest because I've got too much school work to do, I'll protest in the summer. Summer's here now, oh, but I've got work now, and I'm separated from most of my more liberal friends - but deep down, we all have that feeling of "I must", "I must do something to help these people". We know it's not natural. (Tell me if I'm generalizing, and you don't feel the same way). Our first (best) instincts tell us we need to act, but we find some way to suppress such feelings.

                        To take a step back, I would like to just say that all rationalization is not bad (that is usually where my critics at college attack first). Of course, rationality drives progress - technology, organization, efficiency and what not. But when emotions and feelings are left completely out of the picture, that's where we start running into serious trouble and serious consequences. My favorite example here is a major corporation exploiting Third World workers, let's say 14 year old girls. The managers may rationalize "well, they need jobs and we provide them", forgetting that 1) they wouldn't need jobs if their traditional way of life wasn't threatened by all this progress (and this we can discuss or not discuss in a different thread, since we are way off topic already it seems) and 2) that the 16 hour days at 5 cents an hour don't exactly provide the best standard of living. Why do they do this? To reach the highly rational "bottom line" of making profit for the shareholders. I fear we're way off topic here, but I think I've given you (and others) the basics (which you probably are already aware of).

                        Hopefully, some of what I just said helped to clarify my earlier statements. My whole point with the Nazis was that their methods and goals were highly rational, but of course the result appears, from the outside, extremely irrational. Many Germans (and I still have family there) could not rationalize the genocide (I guess Schindler would be a good example), but most either didn't know about it or found some way around it. Like Mr. Edmund Burke said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (or something along those lines). I like to think that all people are inherently good by nature (and you can easily disagree here), so the trick is that we rationalize our excesses somehow. For Darfur, I think the race angle is the only way, because they have so little else. I hope I've given you something to work with here.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

                          Well, I don't want to get into the Holocaust at all but this idea that all wars - or even the vast majority of them - begin primarily for economic reasons is completely misguided.

                          Some certainly are - maybe even a majority but I'm not going to add them up. Many are not. We can find those examples throughout history.

                          For example, many of the Roman Empire's Wars of conquest were carried out for no reason other than that an Emperor or General wanted to be able to celebrate a triumph. Purely for personal reasons of enhancing stature. Britain, the Balkans, Pannonia, Germany - all of these were net economic drains on the Empire. The cost of maintaining garrisons always exceeded revenues in these areas which was why Rome was so quick to get rid of them when things got tight.

                          Many other wars were fought simply to establish dominance. Other than along the March, Scotland was not of any economic benefit to the English Crown but Balliol gave homage to Edward I for it in the late 13th century and battles were fought over it for the next couple of hundred years simply because the crown wanted to establish its rights - rights which didn't have much to do with economics.

                          The Crusades had an economic element to them but I don't know of anyone in this day and age who believes that was the primary motivator for the vast majority of participants. Most people were inspired by religious fervor and the promise of papal indulgences though some of the nobility also wanted to make a few bucks or get new lands along the way.

                          By the 2nd Crusade the idea that Crusades were for economic reasons goes from wrong to laughable - by that time everyone knew that the lands in the Levant were relatively poor and there wasn't a lot of money in it. But Kings such as Richard I, Philip Augustus and Frederick Barbarossa nearly paupered their kingdoms to go.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

                            Ok, money and power and glory. But even these can be seen in an economic light - you conquer a foreign land, your empire grows, your reach is extended, fewer middle men, more open markets, etc. I just think race and religion (and even political ideals) are used primarily as a means to inspire the masses to fight. I don't know much about the Crusades, so I'll take your word there. But I would still wager that it was framed differently to appeal to the many combatants who fought it. How about this: All modern wars have an economic aspect, often providing the primary motive. See, I can compromise.

                            Oh, and thanks for ending the back-and-forth dialogue between me and Arcadian. Not that it hasn't been worthwhile, but more voices are of course always welcome.
                            Last edited by LG33; 06-21-2007, 11:34 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

                              Look, LG, I have been exposed to what you believe. I just disagree. I had a catholic freind tell me that if a person doesn't believe catholicism it is because they just don't understand it. I found that offensive because it implied that I'm either catholic or dumb or indifferent. It is possible to be none of those things or all of them.
                              "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


                              • #30
                                Re: Darfur is the result of global warming?

                                Eh

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X