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

Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

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

  • #31
    Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    Guys, he's trolling. How do we all not see this by now?
    No, I'm teaching. George means well. He's trying to be a good person. Not sure why he has to advertise his good deeds, but anyway that's for another thread.

    While I did rain on the George Hill love fest, it is actually what I believe and is backed by people who understand the issues. It's a lot like all the people "in the know" who backed up Lance and said Roy was the problem. The truth isn't always the easy or popular narrative. Thank goodness players, coaches, Mark Boyle and Conrad Brunner have put this stuff in print. The strangest thing of all is that when the professionals post their thoughts it still doesn't get through to the masses.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

      Alls I know is, if Lance Stephenson gave a hamburger to a homeless person, BnG would be going on and on about how it is the greatest act any human could possible do.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

        Why the fast food though?? Guy makes $8 million per year and he buys them that junk?

        Btw, this was a joke. Good on Georgie

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          No, I'm teaching.
          Sounds a lot more like preaching to me.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
            Alls I know is, if Lance Stephenson gave a hamburger to a homeless person, BnG would be going on and on about how it is the greatest act any human could possible do.
            You got me. I'm not claiming to be objective about Lance. Yes, if he gave a burger, even a slider, it would be something that should make the national news.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              By living at a shelter where they also have work programs. Giving them food is a lot better than giving them cash. But a lot of them continue their substance abuse by living on the streets in avoiding the shelters where it is not tolerated and there are programs for them. So George is helping them stay homeless and addicted to alcohol and drugs all while he is trying to do the right thing.
              I work with homeless from time to time through our church, and you hear some interesting stories while talking to them. More impressive than the food is that George took the time to talk to them. They appreciate that more than anything you give them. Treating them human. One guy said he came here from out of state to escape meth. Not all stories are the same on the streets. Glad to see he was moved to action.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                I agree with a good part of this, but shelters are where people gain access to substance abuse services and work programs. Wheeler Mission has a couple different work programs for people. So forcing people to the shelter actually does end up finding some of them jobs and care. This is at the root of the reason why bringing food to their shanty under the overpass is a bad idea.
                Sometimes. But some the shelters here don't do all they could do to help these guys. I have friends there.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

                  Originally posted by NapTonius Monk View Post
                  Sometimes. But some the shelters here don't do all they could do to help these guys. I have friends there.
                  One thing that is often overlooked when it comes to our Indy shelters:
                  We have more homeless people than we have beds, especially for women. Many of our shelters are nightly and are on a first-come, first-served basis.

                  So, helping the homeless is a lot more than just suggesting they seek out a local shelter. Central Indiana has dozens of service organizations that provide products, services, even medical care to our homeless. Many, probably most, are not tied to shelters, and instead provide their products and services to our homeless wherever they can be found.

                  BnG, you have referenced a few articles that all promote one method of helping the homeless... and that is doing whatever is possible to direct them toward shelters.

                  But, shelters simply aren't for everyone. I'm not saying that shelters aren't helpful or that they don't serve a purpose. They do. But there a multitude of ways to help folks, as so many organizations have proven, whether those folks have set foot in a shelter or not.

                  But, I believe there are a couple of things that most of these organizations attempt to do to be truly successful with the homeless. They talk with the homeless, they show respect and they do everything possible to build genuine trust. It doesn't matter whether that is accomplished under the roof of a shelter or not. If you accomplish that you HAVE helped that individual and are then in a position to further help that individual.

                  Out on the street, how is that process initiated? By putting in the time. Oftentimes, having a conversation over a cup of coffee on a cold winter day or with a couple of burgers. The homeless don't want to be TOLD how to improve their lot in life; they want to be "seen", respected and have their immediate needs met. More often than not, only then do you have the possibility of gaining their trust and eventually being able to provide further assistance.

                  In my opinion, this is exactly what George Hill was attempting to do. He didn't ignore them, he provided something they needed and took the time to converse with them. In doing so, he probably learned what their problems and needs were while offering encouragement. In doing so, he certainly showed respect. Perhaps, we don't know for certain, he built trust and made further suggestions or even promised some action on his part that might lead to further assistance.

                  That is not something to take exception with. That is something to be praised.
                  Last edited by beast23; 09-22-2016, 11:00 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    No, I'm teaching.
                    You're teaching people how to be ignorant and judgmental, thats about it.

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Most cases are people who are actually able bodied but choose to do what they are doing.
                    This is ridiculous and not even remotely close to being accurate. Yes, there are some people who just refuse to help themselves, but in almost all of those cases, it is still something that can be chalked up to as a legit mental disorder. Secondly, being an addict is not a ****ing choice. It was a bad choice that led them to addiction, sure, but no one decides they want to be an addict. The fact that you think it is a choice, shows how ignorant you are. Lastly, and this is the most important, do you understand the number of veterans who end up homeless because of PTSD and other issues that make it very difficult for them to function in the regular world? I suggest you watch this video:


                    I really didn't care enough until I came across "I am teaching."

                    No, no you are not. The only thing that should be learned from your "teaching", is just how narrow minded you are.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

                      Your view, which is shared by far too many people, enables people to continue a destructive lifestyle which is why the professionals direct people to the shelters. It's not that I don't have compassion. Far from that. I know you want to paint me in that corner. I have actually setup and taken down rooms in my church for homeless people multiple times. The issue is that I have a different view on how to solve the problem and "feeding the bears" is NOT the way to do it.

                      There are actually a LOT of good ways to help. Compassion is donating to shelters and offering to transport them there, not handing them money and food on the street. As much as you want to get emotional about it, handing them a burger sounds like a nice thing to do. I guess it's better than handing them a $20. The fact is, however, there is indeed enough food at the shelters and transporting them there, since they really need to know where that is, is a far better idea. There are services that can help them get jobs and treat their substance abuse. If they are mentally ill, they can be helped rather than continue living on the streets.

                      Here is an example why you don't want to encourage people to live on the streets:

                      https://www.facebook.com/wheelermiss...54124896346026
                      Each year, men who graduated from our addiction recovery program (formerly known as the Hebron program) travel to our camp in Bloomington, IN for an annual Homecoming. There they celebrate the saving and transforming work that Jesus has done in their lives. The event is filled with fun and fellowship, but for us, hearing the stories of restoration, and seeing the growing number of families puts the work we do here in perspective. God is changing lives here every day, and we can't wait to celebrate with the more than 125 people expected tomorrow. Please join us in praying for the men and their families as they travel in for this incredible day.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

                        BlueNGold - what do YOU do to aid the homeless ?? Anything ??

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

                          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                          BlueNGold - what do YOU do to aid the homeless ?? Anything ??
                          I give about $18000 a year in charitable contributions. Some of that directly supports the homeless in addition to what I already posted above. That isn't all I do. I volunteer year round in the special needs community. I have two children with special needs and even they volunteer packing food that goes home with poor kids at an IPS school. I may be a little rough on George Hill here. I know he means well. I just would prefer that people be aware and not celebrate wrong ways of helping those in need. That is the wrong message people need to hear. Feeding people living on the streets makes the problem worse IMO.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            I give about $18000 a year in charitable contributions. Some of that directly supports the homeless in addition to what I already posted above. That isn't all I do. I volunteer year round in the special needs community. I have two children with special needs and even they volunteer packing food that goes home with poor kids at an IPS school. I may be a little rough on George Hill here. I know he means well. I just would prefer that people be aware and not celebrate wrong ways of helping those in need. That is the wrong message people need to hear. Feeding people living on the streets makes the problem worse IMO.

                            I have to admit reading this gives me pause to think I say this because I would only consider giving food or clothing to the homeless and I have on the street if its something I don't want or want to get rid of(food wise) I give it to a homeless person because why let it go to waste? However you appear to at least backup your talk.

                            I don't think what George Hill did was so bad he probably thought he was doing a good thing(which I think he was) however from your POV I can see why you would find it detrimental.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              I have to admit reading this gives me pause to think I say this because I would only consider giving food or clothing to the homeless and I have on the street if its something I don't want or want to get rid of(food wise) I give it to a homeless person because why let it go to waste? However you appear to at least backup your talk.

                              I don't think what George Hill did was so bad he probably thought he was doing a good thing(which I think he was) however from your POV I can see why you would find it detrimental.
                              George is like most people. I do think he cares and in this case it might have been a net positive. I just think a lot of people need to be shown the other side of the coin. Handing out money is far worse. It encourages free loaders who actually take away from what the true homeless and needy may get if those dollars were sent to shelters. We should support the people and volunteers who truly help those in need, not someone with a sign "I'm not lying, it's for buying beer". Those types come to the street because food and money is handed out on the street.

                              BTW, I have walked the same path to work for nearly a decade downtown past many, many people working the corners and sidewalks. Part of my skepticism is that I see them waiting until sunrise on their cell phones...because you cannot legally panhandle until sunrise. Also, there are fair weather bums out there who are not out unless it's obviously going to be nice outside. Also, it's a fact that a lot of people panhandling are not homeless. They are players. I do know there are needy people out there but it's impossible to filter through it and even if they are needy they should go to the shelter and get counseling or be helped to find work or be sent to a facility The bottom line is that I think it is far better to donate the money to legitimate organizations who do help the needy. JMHO.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Utah Jazz guard George Hill's random act of kindness

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                George is like most people. I do think he cares and in this case it might have been a net positive. I just think a lot of people need to be shown the other side of the coin. Handing out money is far worse. It encourages free loaders who actually take away from what the true homeless and needy may get if those dollars were sent to shelters. We should support the people and volunteers who truly help those in need, not someone with a sign "I'm not lying, it's for buying beer". Those types come to the street because food and money is handed out on the street.

                                BTW, I have walked the same path to work for nearly a decade downtown past many, many people working the corners and sidewalks. Part of my skepticism is that I see them waiting until sunrise on their cell phones...because you cannot legally panhandle until sunrise. Also, there are fair weather bums out there who are not out unless it's obviously going to be nice outside. Also, it's a fact that a lot of people panhandling are not homeless. They are players. I do know there are needy people out there but it's impossible to filter through it and even if they are needy they should go to the shelter and get counseling or be helped to find work or be sent to a facility The bottom line is that I think it is far better to donate the money to legitimate organizations who do help the needy. JMHO.


                                I've always been hesitant about giving $$$ away to any charity because I don't believe it goes to legitimate outlets. I give food/ toiletries etc. like I did for the Kokomo tornado victims but actual $$$ I still don't buy how legit they appear to be.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X