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

  • Originally posted by Just The Facts View Post

    I'm just a guy who doesn't get drunk and break furniture and brag about it on the Internet like a moron.

    I don't think we'd get along.
    A+ work on not lowering yourself to people clearly beneath you hombre.

    You did answer my question though, so thank you for that. Didn't you know if you were somebody new to the forum or just somebody with a new name.

    Comment


    • Good news: Purdue's pathetic sports teams are no longer the most embarrassing thing about the university.

      Purdue Prof Oddly Links Academic ‘Rigor’ to Erections, ‘White Male Privilege’


      “One of rigor’s purposes is, to put it bluntly, a thinly veiled assertion of white male (hetero)sexuality… [it] has a historical lineage of being about hardness, stiffness, and erectness; its sexual connotations — and links to masculinity in particular — are undeniable.”
      Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight . . .

      Is academia being filled with nutjobs a new thing, or has social media just made it all public knowledge?

      Comment


      • black women won this vote. if this trend continues it really is going to be a wave. the question is if the turnout will keep up when it's not such a national fixation.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by cdash View Post
          Haven't poked my head in this thread in quite some time. Who the **** is this goober with the ironic name?
          BNG has two accounts.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

            BNG has two accounts.
            either that or TOP--remember him?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dal9 View Post

              either that or TOP--remember him?
              True but my bet is on BNG, he doesn't care if he gets banned with this new account as long as he can keep his regular one.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • I'm just fascinated by the evolutionary stasis point where some people progressed far enough to use Facebook, but never evolved enough to be information-literate in using it.

                Comment




                • Do we laugh at the absurdity?

                  Do we cry at the tragedy?

                  Do we just hang our heads in total despair knowing that, no matter how many times socialism fails, there will still be "people" who argue in favor of it?

                  It's such a sad state of affairs.

                  Comment


                  • For those of you naive enough to believe there's no left-wing bias in the media, here's a beautiful chart from Business Insider, via the nonpartisan CrowdPac, which tells a different story:



                    The above is the political leanings of members of the print media (websites and newspapers) based on their known political donations.

                    As you can see, the print media is almost unfathomably slanted to the left (so much for diversity, eh?). The bias is so overwhelming that it's perfectly reasonable to call the mainstream media a propaganda branch of the DNC, similar to what we saw in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or today's North Korea.*

                    When a nation's media, not to mention its entertainment and academia industries, are so heavily slanted to one side of the political aisle, it poses an ENORMOUS threat to our democracy.

                    The American people are not being given a clear and honest assessment of the issues. Instead, they're being bombarded with leftist spin and talking points, which leads to an uninformed, brainwashed public, thoughtlessly voting for democrats like lemmings walking off a cliff.

                    This is why I stand up and applaud President Trump's harsh treatment of the leftist media. These people have been bullies for decades; it's poetic justice that we finally have a leader alpha enough to stand up to them. There's a reason they've done everything they could do to try to stop Trump's presidency, including promote the biggest con in modern American politics, Russiagate.



                    *the common denominator, by the way, is socialism, which–surprise, surprise!–today's leftists are in favor of, despite it being the bloodiest, most-failed ideology in the history of humanity

                    Comment


                    • Wow, so journalists and professors have personal political beliefs just like everyone else? If you've taken a journalism class (no, education is bad) or worked in journalism (you obviously haven't), then you know those biases are not supposed to be present in your work unless you're working in the opinion/editorial section. Good editors are supposed to filter it out. The vast majority of journalists are good about this. Responsible adults can separate their beliefs from their work.

                      But I'm sure the outlets you visit have no ulterior motives at all when they tell you that the other media is bad and you should only consume their media. Also, everything you believe is correct and anyone who disagrees is stupid or evil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Just The Facts View Post


                        Do we laugh at the absurdity?

                        Do we cry at the tragedy?

                        Do we just hang our heads in total despair knowing that, no matter how many times socialism fails, there will still be "people" who argue in favor of it?

                        It's such a sad state of affairs.
                        I view Healthcare for everyone as the compromise for the unapologetic and blind greed of capitalism. In Capitalism there are winners and losers and the losers are often losers by no fault of their own. I am fine with people making as much money as they want, as long as we provide a good safety net for those who have been run over in their wake. Healthcare is apart of that Safety net in my opinion. Everyone should pay for it because everyone will need it eventually.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Just The Facts View Post


                          Do we laugh at the absurdity?

                          Do we cry at the tragedy?

                          Do we just hang our heads in total despair knowing that, no matter how many times socialism fails, there will still be "people" who argue in favor of it?

                          It's such a sad state of affairs.
                          We get it. You think Socialism is horrible and a failure. There are others who see it that way. Perhaps some who don't. At this point, however, this continual harping on the extreme situation in Venezuela seems to me more like an attack on Vnzla than anything else. Now, clearly he's engaged you and you think this is tit for tat. But it comes off to me as a rather cruel and insensitive tactic when we're talking about the well being of an entire country. Imagine what it would feel like if you were in that position and others around the world in more fortunate circumstances were using your suffering to raise the ire of an adversary on an internet message board or as an example in an arm-chair debate over socialism versus capitalism.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • It's not surprising that Jones beat one of the most despised candidates in history. What will be interesting to see though is how he votes once he's in the Senate. If he routinely votes with the radical left (i.e. pretty much every Democrat in the Senate), then he'll just be a two year lame duck. However, he moderates a little bit then he could have a chance at lasting. As long as the Republicans don't nominate a creep in 2020, he'll probably get smoked.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              It's not surprising that Jones beat one of the most despised candidates in history. What will be interesting to see though is how he votes once he's in the Senate. If he routinely votes with the radical left (i.e. pretty much every Democrat in the Senate), then he'll just be a two year lame duck. However, he moderates a little bit then he could have a chance at lasting. As long as the Republicans don't nominate a creep in 2020, he'll probably get smoked.
                              Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. Alabama is such a deeply red (crimson, if you will) state that I just can't see Jones with much staying power. The Trump backlash and the horror show candidate that Moore was created a perfect storm for the Democrats to temporarily steal a seat.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                                Wow, so journalists and professors have personal political beliefs just like everyone else?
                                The issue isn't that human beings have personal political beliefs; of course they do.

                                The issue is that inside some of America's most important industries, namely the media, the distribution of these beliefs is so heavily one-sided that it creates an echo chamber of groupthink, and makes bias an inevitability. Many may not even realize their own bias; one of the side effects of echo chambers is the inability to detect one's own bias.


                                Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                                If you've taken a journalism class (no, education is bad) or worked in journalism (you obviously haven't), then you know those biases are not supposed to be present in your work unless you're working in the opinion/editorial section.
                                That's exactly the point.

                                Of course bias isn't suppose to be present in the news (that's the whole point . . .). Yet it is, and not to a minor degree. The left-wing bias in the main stream media is so overwhelming that it's reached the level of propaganda.

                                The all-out assault on our president:




                                Some of the more egregious claims, off the top of my head, in the past few months:
                                • Leftist ABC News reporting anti-Trump fake news that temporarily tanked the stock market.
                                • Leftist media accepting, without a shred of credulity, the claims of Roy Moore's accuser, despite the obvious yearbook forgery.
                                • Leftist media claiming President Trump supported Neo-Nazis, despite his explicitly labeling them as evil.


                                And what about the revelations in the WikiLeaks dumps? Shall I take a week off of work so I can find the time to go over the staggering level of correspondence between the MSM and the DNC revealed in them?

                                You can bury your head in the sand all you want. Facts don't give a damn about your denial.


                                Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                                Good editors are supposed to filter it out. The vast majority of journalists are good about this.
                                This is just more of the fallacious question begging you used above.

                                "Media isn't suppose to be bias, therefor, media isn't bias. Nothing to see here!"

                                I highly doubt that argument is going to convince anyone except those who never needed convincing in the first place.


                                Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                                Responsible adults can separate their beliefs from their work.
                                Yes, they can.

                                Unfortunately, 90% of the mainstream media can't.


                                Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                                But I'm sure the outlets you visit have no ulterior motives at all when they tell you that the other media is bad and you should only consume their media. Also, everything you believe is correct and anyone who disagrees is stupid or evil.
                                I visit media sites left, right, and everything in between.* Most are transparent about their leanings; in fact, their bias is their primary selling point.

                                These sites fall under the category as new media, and aren't the media organizations I'm referring to.

                                What I'm talking about is the old media, the legacy media: NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, New York Post, etc. – the largest, oldest, most well-established media.

                                These organizations are nearly 100% leftist, and that's an enormous threat to democracy.





                                *This probably surprises you, as liberals tend to be intolerant and fearful of differing views (see graphics below), and so they assume others are, too. But, no. Conservatives tend to be both open minded and confident enough in their beliefs to expose themselves to opposing views. See the charts below.

                                ​​

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X