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

Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

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

  • Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

    The liberal-slanted media and Barack Obama would have you believe that Obama has been 100% against Iraq and has never wavered. Thankfully, there is fair and balanced Fox News to straighten everything out.

    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03...s-has-wavered/

    From Obama "“I am running for president because it’s time to turn the page of a failed ideology … so that we can make pragmatic judgments to keep our country safe,” he said. “That’s what I did when I stood up and opposed this war from the start.”

    Yet Obama publicly acknowledged in his 2006 memoir, “The Audacity of Hope,” that he once harbored doubts about his initial anti-war posture. After watching the famous statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down by jubilant Iraqis and seeing President Bush declare the end of major combat operations aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, “I began to suspect that I might have been wrong,” Obama says in the book.

    And...

    During the 2004 Democratic Party convention, Obama declined to criticize the party’s presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, for having voted for the war, saying: “What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.”

    The next day, Obama told the Chicago Tribune: “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”


    And finally...... And that November, Obama echoed the president, telling PBS’ Charlie Rose: “Once we go in, then we’re committed.” Obama added: “We’ve got to do everything we can to stabilize the country to make it successful because we’ll have too much at stake in the Middle East.”

    That doesn't sound like a candidate who by his very own account has "opposed the war from the start." I don't see how you could have opposed the war from the start yet state that "there isn't much difference between my and George Bush's position." Sounds to me like Obama is deliberately deceiving voters. Sounds like Obama is a semi-John Kerry.

    Obama didn't have to make the decision. Obama implies that he doesn't know exactly what he would have done. Obama himself said that we have to do everything we can to stabilize Iraq because we have so much at stake in the middle east. But now he just wants to begin pulling out immediately? It looks to me like Obama is out for votes and really has no clue as to what he would have done if he were in Bush's shoes. I think Obama thinks that if we pack up and leave that the terrorists won't follow us.

    Have these inconsistencies been mentioned on the likes of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc? I'm not for sure, but I would doubt it as just a couple days ago they were hailing his desperation speech.

    Clearly Obama can't be trusted with our security. His comments show that he doesn't have a clue as to exacltly how he would have reacted in this situation. He changes comments based on the political tide. That is what I repect about Bush, he does what he thinks is right regardless of what popular opinion might be.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-21-2008, 04:25 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

    Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
    That is what I repect about Bush, he does what he thinks is right regardless of what popular opinion might be.

    To each his own as your example is exactly why I'm not fond of the current President's policies.


    Thankfully, there is fair and balanced Fox News to straighten everything out

    Regardless of popular opinion I'm not on board with the idea Fox News is fair and balanced.
    Last edited by RWB; 03-21-2008, 03:27 PM.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

      Originally posted by RWB View Post
      To each his own as your example is exactly why I'm not fond of the current President's policies.
      Well why don't we just hold a public poll every time a decision needs made and just do away with the presidency all together? That way public opinion reins supreme.

      He was voted into that office to make decisions. If you don't like the decisions, you can vote for your choice or even run yourself. But it's his job to do, to make decisions that he thinks is best for the country whether or not public opinion agrees with him. The public doesn't know everything that needs to be known to make decisions. I don't envy the job of president one bit, no matter who is in office.

      It's easy to be a sideline judge.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

        Well, I don't think W can be trusted with the world's security seeing as he led the charge to a war with no pretext whatsoever that's draining taxpayer money an costing plenty of innocent lives. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't even be having this Iraq conversation.

        The sooner the withdrawl begins the better.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          Well, I don't think W can be trusted with the world's security seeing as he led the charge to a war with no pretext whatsoever that's draining taxpayer money an costing plenty of innocent lives. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't even be having this Iraq conversation.

          The sooner the withdrawl begins the better.

          I hope you have the same views if we ever go into the Darfur, since genocide and breaking international law equals no pretext on going in.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

            Normally I think we vote people into office who usually support our thoughts. Is it too much to ask that they make smart decisions?
            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

              Originally posted by RWB View Post
              Normally I think we vote people into office who usually support our thoughts. Is it too much to ask that they make smart decisions?
              His view on the war has been the same since it started, we're the ones who have changed.

              Kerry wanted out, Bush won the election when he said we should stay. He won the election saying that he thought we needed to stay until the job is done. The American people knew exactly what they were getting when they voted in him for his second term.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                The American people knew exactly what they were getting when they voted in him for his second term.
                This we can agree on. It was called the lesser of two evils, but only my opinion.
                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                  It's easy to be a sideline judge.
                  A sideline judge? We invaded based on shoddy intelligence. A assessment of what we were invading based on and a quick reading of history would have told us that this wasn't a good idea. Oh, and maybe having a coherent policy as what the heck to do after we defeated Saddam's armies would have helped.

                  It's as simple as that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

                    Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                    A sideline judge? We invaded based on shoddy intelligence. A assessment of what we were invading based on and a quick reading of history would have told us that this wasn't a good idea. Oh, and maybe having a coherent policy as what the heck to do after we defeated Saddam's armies would have helped.

                    It's as simple as that.
                    Shoddy intel on what? I think you'll find that we were surprised about how easy it was to overtake Saddam. He folded like a house of cards.

                    We were gonna see the same thing in Afghanistan as we're seeing now. The fighting where ever we go in the region is going to be the same. Instead of having two seperate wars, we pretty much combined the two. The Iraq War is now the War on Terrorism.

                    We're not fighting Iraqis. We're fighting foreigners who follow Bin Laden, or just jihadism in general.

                    If you want to pull of Iraq and go to Afghanistan? That's fine. We're gonna have another Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban in Iraq while fighting the exact same fighters next door.

                    Obama was right at one point, there is too much at stake in the region to just pull out.

                    It doesn't matter the reasons why we went in, because we're already in. What matters now is the future.

                    It will take another attack on US soil, to make the American people rah-rah again unfortunately.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

                      Yeah that wavering can be bad, kind of like the confidence John McCain had last year.

                      updated 2:07 p.m. ET, Wed., April. 18, 2007
                      MURRELLS INLET, S.C. - Republican presidential candidate John McCain told voters Wednesday that if he becomes commander in chief he’ll brief the public biweekly from the Oval Office on developments in the Iraq war.

                      “I would tell them exactly what the battlefield scenario is,” McCain told about 450 people packed into a VFW post in this town south of Myrtle Beach.

                      The Arizona senator emphasized that he wasn’t guaranteeing victory in Iraq.

                      “Am I telling you we’re going to succeed? No. But I’m telling you I think we’ve got a good chance of succeeding,” he said.
                      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I hope you have the same views if we ever go into the Darfur, since genocide and breaking international law equals no pretext on going in.
                        So who's side will we be going in on? I agree the dispalcement and death is horrible. How do we do this?

                        Now, back to Iraq. So, by your logic we should just declare war against anybody in the "axis of evil" and beyond. North Korea, China, Iran, Venezuela.

                        And what of genocide's that we've been indiretly involved in. For example, supporting and or training repressive leaders and their troops in Latin America in our government's obsession with halting the spread of communism. See Chile, Argentine, Guatemala.

                        How about genocide against native american population? I think at least a public apology by our goverment would be good.
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

                          Originally posted by RWB View Post
                          Yeah that wavering can be bad, kind of like the confidence John McCain had last year.

                          updated 2:07 p.m. ET, Wed., April. 18, 2007
                          MURRELLS INLET, S.C. - Republican presidential candidate John McCain told voters Wednesday that if he becomes commander in chief he’ll brief the public biweekly from the Oval Office on developments in the Iraq war.

                          “I would tell them exactly what the battlefield scenario is,” McCain told about 450 people packed into a VFW post in this town south of Myrtle Beach.

                          The Arizona senator emphasized that he wasn’t guaranteeing victory in Iraq.

                          “Am I telling you we’re going to succeed? No. But I’m telling you I think we’ve got a good chance of succeeding,” he said.
                          Well, you know changing your position on an issue is a sign of weakness in our political climate today in this country. In some cases it's done to gain votes. Not good because it's a hollow change of perspective. If it's based on true reflection and consideration, it could be good. People are allowed to change their minds.

                          Edit: Not disagreeing with your post. I think it makes a good response to the initial post. My point is the idea that one has a change in view or position over time for sincere reasons of what he/she believe right should not be attacked for "wavering".
                          Last edited by D-BONE; 03-21-2008, 04:07 PM.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

                            I do know one thing, bylines like this are getting old.

                            March 17

                            • Two Army soldiers died in Baghdad when their vehicle struck an explosive. Both were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.

                            Killed were Staff Sgt. Michael D. Elledge, 41, Brownsburg, Ind., and Spc. Christopher C. Simpson, 23, Hampton, Va.
                            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Obama's wavering Iraq opinions.

                              Originally posted by RWB View Post

                              Thankfully, there is fair and balanced Fox News to straighten everything out

                              Regardless of popular opinion I'm not on board with the idea Fox News is fair and balanced.
                              Does Fox generally lean towards the right? Yes. Do CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC lean heavily toward the left? Yes.

                              Fox is a minority in the media as far as the viewpoints it gives. While the other networks blatantly lean toward the left, Fox makes an effort to give both sides of the story (but I agree that it does lean toward the right).

                              I would argue that Fox makes more of an effort to get liberal guests/opinions than the other networks do to get conservative viewpoints. Hannity and Colmes has Alan Colmes and Susan Estrich amongst several other liberals that have regular time on the show. But I could see where people would think that the show leans conservative because Hannity is much more aggressive than Colmes.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X