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

  • Re: Political News and Policies

    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    Basically you're saying it's beyond our science and about faith, which is exactly why abortion is legal.
    Just the opposite. It is a well defined and even scientifically repeatable process. Artificial insemenation is another example. I think this thing has run its course. I am more convinced now than ever on this subject.

    Comment


    • Re: Political News and Policies

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      And there it is. Admission in the first sentence; contradiction and self-agrandizing in the last. Classic.

      I'm sorry man, but it's just hard for me to think I or anyone else is better than anyone else. We're all in this together. Hope one day you realize that, too.
      Read what I posted again. I said I *think* I found the truth.

      Comment


      • Re: Political News and Policies

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Just the opposite. It is a well defined and even scientifically repeatable process. Artificial insemenation is another example. I think this thing has run its course. I am more convinced now than ever on this subject.
        Man, it's crazy that you speak as if you proven something when you haven't come close to making a coherent case in this post.

        You are no closer to factually defining when life begins than anyone else in the world.

        Comment


        • Re: Political News and Policies

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Read what I posted again. I said I *think* I found the truth.
          Oh, I read it, alright.

          You think you've found the truth.

          A wise man once told me: "Nobody has it figured out."
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • Re: Political News and Policies

            Many of the Conservatives in this thread have called abortion murder, and yet later on in thread said they accept certain situations, i.e.- life of the mother and unspeakable acts of violence , is the abortion that results from such events not murder? That's the problem with absolutes...most people really aren't that absolutely sure about anything, and if you deal in absolutes then you are most likely lacking the quality known has empathy and unable to view things from another's life experience and situation.

            Now I am ProChoice, just for the simple fact that I don't believe its my right to tell anyone what to do with their body. Being pregnant is a risky situation for a woman, It can result in long term damage to your body. Long term hormonal effects that affect your personality and ability to handle stressful situations, happiness, and of course you can die from being pregnant.

            That being said, i don't want abortions. I think kids are truly a blessing. Certainly in favor of the 28 week rule, and preventing late term abortions for fetus' that can survive outside the womb. But i don't support restricting it much more than that.
            Every woman and family's situation is different, and I don't think any women just views the decision with such cavalier apathy to what they are doing. I won't judge the teenage girl who gave into the raging hormones and the peer pressure of boyfriend. When her parents probably didn't properly prepare her for the consequences. Being a teenage mom is mostly likely resigning yourself to a life of poverty. And once you are forced into the cycle of poverty, it is unbelievably hard to work your way out it, especially in this time.


            Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • Re: Political News and Policies

              As a conservative, I'll attempt to give some objective insight on this topic:

              Conservatives mocked Obama's lack of meaningful experience before becoming President, while Trump's business success was heralded. Well Trump's administration has looked like a complete joke with all of the staff shuffling and leaks, while Obama's administration was smartly filled with dedicated people who were kept on task by the executive. When it comes to running a cabinet efficiently and preventing distracting noise, Obama completely dusts Trump.

              Like I said last week, it just boggles my mind that someone can get as far as the White House, but can't even have control over their staff.

              Comment


              • Re: Political News and Policies

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                As a conservative, I'll attempt to give some objective insight on this topic:

                Conservatives mocked Obama's lack of meaningful experience before becoming President, while Trump's business success was heralded. Well Trump's administration has looked like a complete joke with all of the staff shuffling and leaks, while Obama's administration was smartly filled with dedicated people who were kept on task by the executive. When it comes to running a cabinet efficiently and preventing distracting noise, Obama completely dusts Trump.

                Like I said last week, it just boggles my mind that someone can get as far as the White House, but can't even have control over their staff.
                Being a rich white man can get you pretty far obviously.

                Comment


                • Re: Political News and Policies

                  Imagine if Obama had multiple wives, kids from different women, and was running such a disorganized mess.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Political News and Policies

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    Being a rich white man can get you pretty far obviously.
                    He didn't become president because he's a rich white man. John Kerry and Mitt Romney never made it and had far less baggage. He became president because Hillary Clinton had a lot of baggage herself and she was not trusted, she lied and quite frankly she was a nasty unlikable woman. Trump's money actually had very little to do with his victory and if anything made it more difficult because the GOP fought him because they didn't own him. So no...I think you are way off why he won.

                    BTW, I only voted for Trump because I despise Hillary Clinton. I am very pleased the old, lying hag will never be back to the White House.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Political News and Policies

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      He didn't become president because he's a rich white man. John Kerry and Mitt Romney never made it and had far less baggage. He became president because Hillary Clinton had a lot of baggage herself and she was not trusted, she lied and quite frankly she was a nasty unlikable woman. Trump's money actually had very little to do with his victory and if anything made it more difficult because the GOP fought him because they didn't own him. So no...I think you are way off why he won.

                      BTW, I only voted for Trump because I despise Hillary Clinton. I am very pleased the old, lying hag will never be back to the White House.
                      I didn't say Trump became POTUS because he is a rich white man. I'm saying he is still allowed to run, win and be president despite all of the issues that we both admit he has because he is a rich white man.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Political News and Policies

                        How the hell did anyone get that I was saying "Trump won because he's a rich white man" from what I said lol???

                        All I'm saying is a minority man with multiple kids from different women and the complete distinction that Trump operates under would not be tolerated. Imagine if Mooch was a black woman working under Obama.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Political News and Policies

                          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                          I didn't say Trump became POTUS because he is a rich white man. I'm saying he is still allowed to run, win and be president despite all of the issues that we both admit he has because he is a rich white man.
                          I think his celebrity has more to do with that Freddie. I think you're way too focused on his money and his race.

                          BTW, It's the part where you said being rich and white and male that "can get you pretty far". The implication is that those qualities are why he has gotten so far. It was not described as "getting a pass". It was described as how he even got within sniffing distance of the presidency.

                          Edit: ...and the fact is, you don't get rich and stay rich and get richer without having something going for you. You can rip on Trump for many things but he is successful....and more successful than most people placed in the same shoes.
                          Last edited by BlueNGold; 08-01-2017, 06:57 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Political News and Policies

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            How the hell did anyone get that I was saying "Trump won because he's a rich white man" from what I said lol???

                            All I'm saying is a minority man with multiple kids from different women and the complete distinction that Trump operates under would not be tolerated. Imagine if Mooch was a black woman working under Obama.
                            But that's exactly what you are saying. You are emphasizing his race and class and claiming that's why he's gotten so far. You're not saying that's why he's getting a pass. I'm telling you it's because he's "The Donald".

                            Edit: BTW, I don't like his character. But I will admit there are times he can say and do very funny things. Those things might irritate liberals so I can understand how you don't relate. But he's not a TV personality because he's boring. The fact is, he's entertaining and in our culture that takes him pretty far. A lot farther than Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush who had all the money they needed...and were both far more presidential and respectful.
                            Last edited by BlueNGold; 08-01-2017, 06:59 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Political News and Policies

                              I think Trump is president because the dems tossed aside the actual people's choice (Bernie) to grease the skids for Hillary because (at least some in) the democratic hierarchy felt she was owed.
                              Also because Obama largely got a pass from the MSM (obviously not from the conservative corners of the media though) and a lot of people rebelled against that kid glove treatment.

                              Had Bernie been the candidate I don't think Trump would've won, and it would've been a thorough trouncing IMHO.

                              Hillary was hated by conservatives and not liked by much of her own party.

                              Hillary, and the democratic hierarchy, got Trump elected.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: Political News and Policies

                                Yes Bball. While Trump got a pass because he's Trump, he was only able to beat Hillary because of what you say. All of that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X