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

Political News and Policies

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Expanding a little more on the "Trump always wins while his opponents suffer humiliation" observation:

    Trump beat the entire rest of the Republican Party two years ago after being opposed from many different angles. Trump hilariously mocked and humiliated Jeb Bush throughout the entire campaign, who unquestionably had the most pathetic campaign and candidacy in the history of the two major parties. He also got the best of Rubio and Cruz. Remember when Romney the pious one gave that nasty anti-Trump speech two years ago? After Trump won, he invited Romney to dinner under the guise that Romney was in serious consideration for a cabinet job. Obviously it appeared to be a way of mocking Romney by forcing him to witness Trump's power in person, power in which Romney had failed to achieve in 2012

    In 2016, it was all supposed to be Hillary's. The Democrat elite tossed her aside in 2008 when a far more attractive Obama came along, but 2016 was finally supposed to be her turn. All the mainstream polls said she had the election against Trump in the bag. Then Trump shocked the world, leaving her to be haunted by the defeat for the rest of her life. I don't think there's a more tortured soul in the history of American politics. In 2008, she would have EASILY crushed McCain on the heels of the unpopular Bush presidency and economic crisis, but she was yesterday's news when Obama came to the scene. Then she finally gets her chance in 2016 and loses to a reality TV star. Amazing.

    Trump has had opposition from Hollywood, the mainstream liberal media, and the NFL. Trump was supposed to be brought down by the Access Hollywood video, but it's been Hollywood heroes and TV anchors whose careers have been ended by damning allegations. Meanwhile, Brian Ross at ABC had a false report, which completely validates Trump's "fake news" comments and energizes the base. Trump completely baited NFL players into protesting in mass, and they took it hook-line-and sinker. It's amazing that they fell for his trap. The NFL is littered with obnoxious off-the-field crap that has alienated fans and hurt ratings.

    Meanwhile, President Trump is looking very presidential as he announces that the US is recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and he's on the heels of major tax legislation. I can't think of anyone who has ever faced so much opposition from so many different angles, much of it from his own party. Yet he's always the winner. Those who try to bring him down seem to collapse like dominoes while he somehow always keeps chugging along. It's a fascinating story.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-06-2017, 04:13 PM.

    Comment


    • He is winning so much that people around him are getting arrested left and right #maga
      Last edited by vnzla81; 12-06-2017, 05:25 PM.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • And meanwhile the left got two important congress people to quit because of harassment while the so called "Christian values party" is pushing to elect a child molester and keep supporting the rapist in chief
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Since86 View Post

          https://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...f-color-123526

          Warren and her employers tauted her as a minority and used her claim to show how diverse they are.

          I can only imagine the outrage if a Conservative claimed to be a minority, and the only proof they offered up was to say they had stereotypical physical features.

          Elizabeth Warren, a white woman, claimed to be a minority, because she had "high cheek bones", and then was put on display by her employers, who she told she was a minority, for their diversity.

          The outrage isn't about her using racism to defend her obvious lies, no, the outrage is for those who mock her.
          Its an unfair characterization in my opinion. She has described hearing family stories about her Cherokee relatives growing up. Her grand mother told her she has high cheek bones. She has never publicly touted her heritage or publicly called her self a minority. Only a mere acknowledgement that she has some Cherokee heritage in her family. The law schools touting her as a minority or woman of color is a failure of integrity on the schools part. This was the mid nineties, the internet was barely off the ground. It’s entirely possible that Warren would not of known how the school would write about her in an article, until the article was published.

          the narrative that she has had used her heritage in a dishonorable way to prop up her career is just flat out wrong.

          Maybe she had a great affinity for her family history in the 90’s and embraced it. According to family history told to me growing up, I am about 1/4 or 1/8 Scandinavian. I fully embrace that, and have a great deal of interest through out my life in the culture and history of Scandinavian country’s. But I don’t have proof of this claim , only stories from grand parents who have the right kinda of last name.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

            Its an unfair characterization in my opinion. She has described hearing family stories about her Cherokee relatives growing up. Her grand mother told her she has high cheek bones. She has never publicly touted her heritage or publicly called her self a minority. Only a mere acknowledgement that she has some Cherokee heritage in her family. The law schools touting her as a minority or woman of color is a failure of integrity on the schools part. This was the mid nineties, the internet was barely off the ground. It’s entirely possible that Warren would not of known how the school would write about her in an article, until the article was published.

            the narrative that she has had used her heritage in a dishonorable way to prop up her career is just flat out wrong.

            Maybe she had a great affinity for her family history in the 90’s and embraced it. According to family history told to me growing up, I am about 1/4 or 1/8 Scandinavian. I fully embrace that, and have a great deal of interest through out my life in the culture and history of Scandinavian country’s. But I don’t have proof of this claim , only stories from grand parents who have the right kinda of last name.
            this is really, really well put. Oklahomans, especially of Warren's generation, growing up being told they've got Native American ancestry isn't exactly rare.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              And meanwhile the left got two important congress people to quit because of harassment while the so called "Christian values party" is pushing to elect a child molester and keep supporting the rapist in chief
              It took weeks and a barrage of irrefutable evidence for either to step down. If the same level of evidence existed with the Moore accusations, every conservative would be calling for his dropping out of the race. Conservatives are, after all, the party of morals and decency, hence why they give so much more to charitable causes, and are far less likely to commit felonies.

              And let's not play dumb here. We know the democrats calling on Franken to resign is a dog-and-pony show designed to allow them to do exactly what vnzla81 just did. This is about politics, not principles.

              Vox's head soy boy, low-testosterone Ezra Klein, pretty much confirms it:



              They're sacrificing Franken, not because they feel his actions warrant his removal, but to gain positioning against their President and Roy Moore.

              I'm not sure whether to laugh at the juvenile transparency of the act, or to cry at the underlying psychopathy that resides in so much of the democratic party. It's just sad, man. It's just sad.

              Geez . . as I sit here writing this, I look in my inbox and see a new accusation is in about Conyers, and it's absolutely deplorable:

              Woman Says Rep Conyers Brought Up Missing Intern's Case When She Denied His Advances

              Morse explained to the Post that she quit her internship after the liberal Democrat “wrapped his hand around hers as it rested in her lap, and told her he was interested in a sexual relationship.” When Morse turned Conyers down, she said the lawmaker brought up the investigation of the disappearance of intern Chandra Levy.

              “He said he had insider information on the case. I don’t know if he meant it to be threatening, but I took it that way,” she recalled. “I got out of the car and ran.”

              Morse’s story was corroborated by her friend Matthew Salomon, who she lived with during the internship. He backed up the former intern’s account and noted he approached Conyers’s car to confront the congressman, but he drove away.
              **** you, John Conyers. Burn in hell.
              Last edited by Just The Facts; 12-07-2017, 06:49 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post



                I have no idea why you keep commenting on something you have no idea about
                A Socialist confused by economics. Not shocked at all.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

                  Its an unfair characterization in my opinion. She has described hearing family stories about her Cherokee relatives growing up. Her grand mother told her she has high cheek bones. She has never publicly touted her heritage or publicly called her self a minority. Only a mere acknowledgement that she has some Cherokee heritage in her family. The law schools touting her as a minority or woman of color is a failure of integrity on the schools part. This was the mid nineties, the internet was barely off the ground. It’s entirely possible that Warren would not of known how the school would write about her in an article, until the article was published.

                  the narrative that she has had used her heritage in a dishonorable way to prop up her career is just flat out wrong.

                  Maybe she had a great affinity for her family history in the 90’s and embraced it. According to family history told to me growing up, I am about 1/4 or 1/8 Scandinavian. I fully embrace that, and have a great deal of interest through out my life in the culture and history of Scandinavian country’s. But I don’t have proof of this claim , only stories from grand parents who have the right kinda of last name.
                  And when.asked about your heritage, I doubt you'll point out stereotypical features. Or do you?

                  You say she didn't tout it, then how did Harvard know she claimed to be a Native American. Unless they have the special ability to guess what people claim without claiming it to them, it doesn't make any sense to say she wasn't.

                  Not to mention, the article I cited says she claimed to make the self identification because she wanted to meet more people like her. So obviously she was telling people, and obviously her employer was using said information for their diversity

                  Not to mention that she told two schools, U. Texas and Penn, before Harvard she was NA. And th fact she wrote a cookbook saying she was NA.


                  I think she gets cover in the exact same way Shaun King gets cover. At least he avoids the "I have x racial stereotype" defense and instead just points out his mom slept around a lot so he doesn't really know who is father is....

                  Sounds familiar.

                  Im guessing the claim by Warren was limited because if she had used it for applications and such she would have to actually provide evidence. It's a little bit coincidential that she started claiming it is when the burden of proof dropped away.

                  I find it really hard to believe that Warren didn't know that her employers we're using the NA line when she was obviously th one telling them. I find it hard to believe that she's th victim of mere ignorance, when a racist reason is something she hinges her defense on.



                  ​​​​​​
                  Last edited by Since86; 12-07-2017, 07:55 AM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                    A Socialist confused by economics. Not shocked at all.
                    You keep using "socialism" like is something bad this is not the 70's anymore my guy.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Your countrymen starving from Socialist dictator is 2017 and soon to be 2018. Unfortunately the horrors of Socialism wasn't stamped out in the70s.

                      At least you didn't call me comrade.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • 32% approval rating for the orange clown so much winning
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          32% approval rating for the orange clown so much winning
                          Always cracks me up that liberals tout approval ratings instead of you know, actual election results.

                          Obama's approval ratings were always touted even though he left the Democratic Party in shambles because of three horrifying elections for the Dems (10,14,16). He could win, but his policies couldn't win without him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                            Always cracks me up that liberals tout approval ratings instead of you know, actual election results.

                            Obama's approval ratings were always touted even though he left the Democratic Party in shambles because of three horrifying elections for the Dems (10,14,16). He could win, but his policies couldn't win without him.
                            The election result was Hillary getting 3 more million votes.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                              The election result was Hillary getting 3 more million votes.

                              And losing.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                                And when.asked about your heritage, I doubt you'll point out stereotypical features. Or do you?
                                nope, but just repeating what your Grammy told you about your family isn't racist either. Context matters.

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                                You say she didn't tout it, then how did Harvard know she claimed to be a Native American. Unless they have the special ability to guess what people claim without claiming it to them, it doesn't make any sense to say she wasn't.

                                Not to mention, the article I cited says she claimed to make the self identification because she wanted to meet more people like her. So obviously she was telling people, and obviously her employer was using said information for their diversity

                                Not to mention that she told two schools, U. Texas and Penn, before Harvard she was NA. And th fact she wrote a cookbook saying she was NA.


                                I think she gets cover in the exact same way Shaun King gets cover. At least he avoids the "I have x racial stereotype" defense and instead just points out his mom slept around a lot so he doesn't really know who is father is....

                                Sounds familiar.

                                Im guessing the claim by Warren was limited because if she had used it for applications and such she would have to actually provide evidence. It's a little bit coincidential that she started claiming it is when the burden of proof dropped away.

                                I find it really hard to believe that Warren didn't know that her employers we're using the NA line when she was obviously th one telling them. I find it hard to believe that she's th victim of mere ignorance, when a racist reason is something she hinges her defense on.



                                ​​​​​​
                                Yes I'm sure her heritage came up in the getting to know you part of an interview or even the new faculty luncheon or something. But that's not the same as saying.....oh by the way I'm NA, that makes me so much more valuable to your university.

                                a cookbook about NA inspired recipes from her family. What's wrong with that. If she was touting her NA heritage to further law career we would have accounts of this from other lawyers and law professors she has been colleagues with over the years and I've heard of no one coming forward to say anything about it. Lawyers are fiercely competitive and wouldn't hesitate to drag her down if they thought she was doing that.

                                so many people in this country have the same type of family stories about being German, Irish, Scottish, English,Italian, polish, etc.... But she is attacked as being a fake because she don't have stereotypical complexion of NA. So who is actually falling back on racist reasoning? I mean Scott Brown's entire attack on her during the debate was in reference to he physical appearance.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X