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

  • The whole Franken resignation pisses me off. It's precisely the reason Democrats lose. They beat themselves down every time and allow republicans to set the narrative.

    The only real shred of evidence against franken was the photo of him air-groping a sleeping women on a military plane. FAKE GROPING....FAKE! Over a flack jacket! Yet it was treated like he ripped off her shirt.
    The other accusers are telling stories of him grabbing butts during a photo op or trying to sneak a kiss. He didn't lock people in a room or threaten their careers or expose himself. He made a move on some gals and he failed. Dude is a senator and before that a successful comedian. He has probably had countless women flirting with him because of this position of influence. I wonder how many women grab him at the state fair and demand a hug and a photo? He is/ was very popular in Minnesota. Many of these women would not even use their real name. One women said he grabbed her waist pulled her close to him during a photo? Really? That's now sexual misconduct?

    I wish he would have been defiantly brash about Tweedens claims. Say, yeah I overtly kissed her during a rehearsal for our performance. It's called comedy and you have to embellish when you are on stage so that the soldiers in the back of the room get the joke to. And about the photo, he should of said, we were on a very long flight with nothing to do, we were all goofing off, tweeden fell asleep, the pranks began. And i took a stupid photo. I never touched her. Heard she is pretty comfortable getting photographed with less than a flak jacket on though.


    Trump supporters are the most hypocritical bunch I've ever seen. Your President is accused of the same type of behavior by more women and a few of the accusations are much worse, and he bragged about doing these thing on tape. You voted for him anyway. But Al Franken....oh he is just a pig, terrible man, not worthy of being a senator! blah blah blah.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • Donald Trump just murdered the entire MSM, the entire DNC, and every leftist on Twitter in a single Tweet.



      The hypocrisy and faux outrage doesn't get any more transparent than that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

        Thanks Obama.
        2.2 million jobs since the election......

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

          2.2 million jobs since the election......
          Less than last year but sure (and that is not the right number).


          Thanks Obama again.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Muller time



            Mueller's investigators, according to a court filing, have obtained the following in their investigation in Manafort and Gates:
            15 search warrants
            400,000 financial, corporate records, emails
            2,000 "hot" documents
            36 laptops, electronic devices
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

              nope, but just repeating what your Grammy told you about your family isn't racist either. Context matters.
              Let me get this straight. Someone can be racist and it not be really racist if it's merely reciting what you were told?

              When your *only* evidence for your heritage is a racist stereotype, it doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to figure out that it's probably not something you should be saying.

              ​​​​​​It's stupid as it can get. "Im Native American. How do I know? I have high cheek bones"

              Think about that for a second. Think about how utterly stupid that sounds. That is what Warren told people and went on freaking public record with it.
              ​​​​​​
              Absolutely moronic. Trying to say you said it because you were told it, is even dumber. Anyone with a shred of common sense would realize how stupid it is to be saying publicly let alone privateprivately.

              If someone asks you how you know you're Scandinavian, don't tell them because you're blonde and blue eyed. People will think you're silly, because it's something silly to hinge a belief on.


              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              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.
              She's attacked because she stupid enough TO GIVE A RACIST REASONING.

              It highlights to stupidity of it. There's a while DNA commerical about how people are often confused to what genetic makeup they have. Im guessing if one of them said they thought they were part African American and gave a racially stereotype for the reason it would upset some people. Don't you think so? Saying "hey my grandmother told me!" isn't a defense of saying something racial.

              And I find it interesting how.you go from saying Warren didn't tell people, so it wasn't used in her favor, to acknowledging that she did in fact tell people.

              She was listed by multiple universities on their diversity roll. Isn't it just one big coincidence that she was used to show diversity by multiple universities and she just had zero clue about it?

              Its absolutely hilarious that youre saying Scott Brown was being racist for saying what Warren said, as you argue Warren wasn't being racist. Warren could say it, because she was told it, but Brown can't even though Brown was told it. That's quite the logical circle to go around in.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Amd then your Frankenstein rant. I now see logic and common sense isn't going to do much for ya if you try to defend sexual assualt by pointing out Tweeden posed for Playboy and saying it's merely comedy.

                Guess racism and sexual assualt is okay as long as there's a D after the name.

                Trump is disgusting and so is Al Franken. If you want to see a hypocrite, peek in a mirror after that one.
                Last edited by Since86; 12-08-2017, 05:04 PM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Only Trumpfters use the “Frankenstein” nickname,come out of the closet already man.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                    Let me get this straight. Someone can be racist and it not be really racist if it's merely reciting what you were told?

                    When your *only* evidence for your heritage is a racist stereotype, it doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to figure out that it's probably not something you should be saying.

                    ​​​​​​It's stupid as it can get. "Im Native American. How do I know? I have high cheek bones"

                    Think about that for a second. Think about how utterly stupid that sounds. That is what Warren told people and went on freaking public record with it.
                    ​​​​​​
                    Absolutely moronic. Trying to say you said it because you were told it, is even dumber. Anyone with a shred of common sense would realize how stupid it is to be saying publicly let alone privateprivately.

                    If someone asks you how you know you're Scandinavian, don't tell them because you're blonde and blue eyed. People will think you're silly, because it's something silly to hinge a belief on.




                    She's attacked because she stupid enough TO GIVE A RACIST REASONING.

                    It highlights to stupidity of it. There's a while DNA commerical about how people are often confused to what genetic makeup they have. Im guessing if one of them said they thought they were part African American and gave a racially stereotype for the reason it would upset some people. Don't you think so? Saying "hey my grandmother told me!" isn't a defense of saying something racial.

                    And I find it interesting how.you go from saying Warren didn't tell people, so it wasn't used in her favor, to acknowledging that she did in fact tell people.

                    She was listed by multiple universities on their diversity roll. Isn't it just one big coincidence that she was used to show diversity by multiple universities and she just had zero clue about it?

                    Its absolutely hilarious that youre saying Scott Brown was being racist for saying what Warren said, as you argue Warren wasn't being racist. Warren could say it, because she was told it, but Brown can't even though Brown was told it. That's quite the logical circle to go around in.
                    You latch on to one aspect of it all, high cheek bones, but that's not the only thing she talked about. She mentioned hearing various family stories about her relatives when she was growing up.

                    High cheek bones.....I'm not sure I would even call it racist. Sure it's a stereotype,but it's not a negative one. It doesn't demean NA in the slightest bit. A racist stereotype would be like saying all young black men are thugs. For something to be racist, it has to have a negative connotation. It has to be intended to suppress, or demean, or abuse.

                    i'd give you the idea that she told the university's she had NA heritage. But in what context was it said. The people she interviewed with at those university, have all come out and said it wasn't even discussed. So again it the universities used it for their diversity program without having her prove the claim, then that is a problem with their own integrity. Not warren's who is merely acknowlegding what her family has told her about her heritage. Again there is no proof that she has falsely claimed having NA heritage.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Amd then your Frankenstein rant. I now see logic and common sense isn't going to do much for ya if you try to defend sexual assualt by pointing out Tweeden posed for Playboy and saying it's merely comedy.

                      Guess racism and sexual assualt is okay as long as there's a D after the name.

                      Trump is disgusting and so is Al Franken. If you want to see a hypocrite, peek in a mirror after that one.
                      wow, you really like to deal in mischaracterization.

                      Lets examine the the truths about the Franken and Tweeden scandal.

                      truth- the kiss occurred during rehearsal of a USO comedy sketch, that Franken wrote, and tweeden agreed to be in. The kiss was in the script. Franken planted the kiss, tweeden got offended by the kiss and told him to not to do it again.

                      That does not equal sexual assault.

                      lets now examine the context of this kiss.
                      being a comedic performance, one could reasonably assume that the kiss should have some humorous effect. A bloke that looks like Franken planting a nasty wet kiss on an attractive women would accomplish this. Tweeden's offense must mean that Franken did not layout the terms of the kiss before rehearsal. Shame on him. But again that doesn't equal sexuall assault.


                      now what do know to be true about the photo?
                      he did not actually grope her, it was clearly intended to be a joke based on this grin to the camera. There were several people on the plane and none of them had come forward to say that he actually groped her.

                      This does not equal sexual assault.

                      you should apologize for trying to demean my character.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • It looks like you were right! Good lord how dumb can this woman be? Said she filled the date and location of the year book note. But insists the note was still written by him. She just destroyed an credibility, and Gloria Allred be disbarred.


                        Originally posted by Just The Facts View Post
                        Now that the trolls have been sent to Blockatraz (The Block, as some call it), let's continue on . . .

                        https://twitter.com/MooreSenate/stat...94418239639552

                        Roy Moore's been challenging Gloria Allred and company to release the yearbook for a third-party examination. Apparently, they refuse. How odd.

                        Here's the real kicker . . .



                        These con artists took Moore's signature from the accuser's 1999 divorce papers, assumed the D.A. on said paper stood for "Distract Attorney" (a job Moore didn't even hold until after 1977), and added it to the yearbook signature.

                        It turns out, the D.A. is actually the initials of his former secretary/assistant (1987-2000), Delbra Adams, and is something she would add to his stamped signature for verification purposes (a normal procedure).

                        HO. LEE. *BLEEP*

                        This, on top of the two-toned ink and inconsistent numbering style.

                        This has to be one of the biggest goofs in the history of false accusations.

                        Gloria Allred and the accuser should both be thrown in jail.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • the worst thing about all this is that Roy Moore is a legitimate ****ing nutball on basically every policy, he's a flat out moron that's a walking caricature with his pea shooter and leather howdy doody vest. but it's gotten twisted into this he said/she said good ole boy thing. this **** is just massive tribalism at the most base level. this dude is not a person anyone in their right mind should support to hold public office. it's Kim Davis times a million.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                            the worst thing about all this is that Roy Moore is a legitimate ****ing nutball on basically every policy, he's a flat out moron that's a walking caricature with his pea shooter and leather howdy doody vest. but it's gotten twisted into this he said/she said good ole boy thing. this **** is just massive tribalism at the most base level. this dude is not a person anyone in their right mind should support to hold public office. it's Kim Davis times a million.
                            And he's a lock to win. Welcome to Trump's America.

                            Comment


                            • At this point, anyone who says it's a "he said, she said situation" is either deeply ignorant of the facts, and has absolutely no business partaking in this discussion, or much worse, an outright liar.

                              Moore's accuser has repeatedly made demonstrably false claims. She's lied about where she lived at the time. She's lied about where she worked at the time (a crucial element to the story). She's lied about the details of nearly all locations. She's lied about Moore being banned from a local mall due to his behavior. Now, she's presented a yearbook signature which, after weeks of being called out on, she's finally been forced to admit she's altered.

                              This woman has no credibility, and can't possibly be believed by a rational human being. Her own stepson and ex-boyfriend (at the time of the allegations) have both called her out for lying.

                              Yet liberals, being their usual power-hungry, control-freak selves, are desperately pretending otherwise, and are willing to let a decent, in1n1ocent burn in a desperate attempt at stealing a senate seat. Hey, that's much easier than, you know, getting better policies and better candidates, and EARNING their senate seats, the way those on the moral right have.

                              No, this isn't a "he said, she said" situation. This is a "she lied, and we called her sorry *** out on it" situation. As we should have.

                              This eats democrats up inside. The truth always does.

                              Comment


                              • Wow. Just . . . wow.

                                Lord help these people, they're just not very bright (or decent).



                                Anything Chelsea can do, Keith can do dumber:

                                Last edited by Just The Facts; 12-10-2017, 12:27 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X