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 Kid Minneapolis View Post
    Ehhhhh.... Comparing individuals to companies doesnt work. Companies and industry lobbyists not only lobby and do under-the table crap with legislators to get sneaky stuff passed through the small print in bills to get further tax breaks that benefit them specifically, they then set up off-shore junk to avoid paying anything at all, a few of many loops.

    So while Joe Schmoes like you and I and Bernie are scraping to use our tax breaks to save 10% on our relatively meager incomes, corporations are dodging on millions upon millions of taxable revenue.
    Which would make sense if Bernie only railed against corps taking tax cuts. But he doesn't, he continually criticizes both corps and individuals for taking loopholes.

    This is a guy who, by his own released tax information, paid 13.5% in taxes in 2015.

    Let me repeat that. This is a guy who paid 13.5%.http://thehill.com/policy/finance/do...derss-tax-rate

    That's a lower effective tax rate than I pay, and I make no where near the $175,000 that he does.

    Bernie Sanders is all for making everyone, corps and individuals, pay their "fair share" as he takes advantage of every loophole he can find.

    Here is Bernie talking about Mitt Romney and his 47% comment.
    http://www.politicususa.com/2012/09/...7-percent.html

    Mitt Romney released his taxes and showed he paid 30% in Federal taxes.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/charles...-income-taxes/

    So you're objecting to me calling Bernie a massive hypocrite on taxes while Bernie attacks a man who pays 30% for taking loopholes while Bernie paid 13.5% when they're in the same tax bracket......

    Good one.

    And thanks for proving my point about how Bernie skips out of his fair share and how he's defended for it. I guess it's good to be a tax cheat as long as you have a D behind your name.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Political News and Policies

      https://youtu.be/JdiYPgN_EbA


      He argues that a 90% tax rate isn't too high while he pays 13.5%!!!!

      That alone should disqualify him from having any ground whatsoever to stand on when talking tax policy. To try and argue that businesses and individuals are different, when he thinks both pay to little because of "loopholes" is f'ing hilarious.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Political News and Policies

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Which would make sense if Bernie only railed against corps taking tax cuts. But he doesn't, he continually criticizes both corps and individuals for taking loopholes.

        This is a guy who, by his own released tax information, paid 13.5% in taxes in 2015.

        Let me repeat that. This is a guy who paid 13.5%.http://thehill.com/policy/finance/do...derss-tax-rate

        That's a lower effective tax rate than I pay, and I make no where near the $175,000 that he does.

        Bernie Sanders is all for making everyone, corps and individuals, pay their "fair share" as he takes advantage of every loophole he can find.

        Here is Bernie talking about Mitt Romney and his 47% comment.
        http://www.politicususa.com/2012/09/...7-percent.html

        Mitt Romney released his taxes and showed he paid 30% in Federal taxes.
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/charles...-income-taxes/

        So you're objecting to me calling Bernie a massive hypocrite on taxes while Bernie attacks a man who pays 30% for taking loopholes while Bernie paid 13.5% when they're in the same tax bracket......

        Good one.

        And thanks for proving my point about how Bernie skips out of his fair share and how he's defended for it. I guess it's good to be a tax cheat as long as you have a D behind your name.
        But you were comparing individuals to corporations. That's what I was talking about. You can't compare those. And why do you fault people for taking advantage of tax breaks - you do it, I do it, we all do it. It's part of tax code.

        That said I haven't dove into Bernie's tax statement so I don't know how he got 13 and a half percent but if it was legit then what's the beef?
        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

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          I think Bernie is correct that corporate tax cuts do not grow jobs. Job growth is largely dependent on increased demand. Companies might take that tax cut and reinvest in new technologies, which would create demand for other companies. But doesn't mean the other company would need to hire more workers to full fill that demand.

          Very dubious for GOP to ascribe corporate tax cuts as the economic panacea.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
          Tax cuts can, and do, create job growth. The problem with the argument is that it's argued that it's viewed as an automatic growth.

          Allowing businesses to keep more of their own money allows them to reinvest it how they fit. Do they always reinvest into the company? No. But every dollar spent in taxes is a dollar that cannot be reinvested. That is a fact that will never change.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Political News and Policies

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            But you were comparing individuals to corporations. That's what I was talking about. You can't compare those. And why do you fault people for taking advantage of tax breaks - you do it, I do it, we all do it. It's part of tax code.

            That said I haven't dove into Bernie's tax statement so I don't know how he got 13 and a half percent but if it was legit then what's the beef?
            Again, Bernie continually lumps them together. So I am.

            And I have absolutely no beef with anyone keeping as much of their own money as possible. The problem is the blatant hypocrisy of Bernie that gets ignored in order to prop up his stupid, outlandish ideas.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Political News and Policies

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Tax cuts can, and do, create job growth. The problem with the argument is that it's argued that it's viewed as an automatic growth.

              Allowing businesses to keep more of their own money allows them to reinvest it how they fit. Do they always reinvest into the company? No. But every dollar spent in taxes is a dollar that cannot be reinvested. That is a fact that will never change.

              The reinvesting thing is such bs is not even funny, there is a reason why there are billions of dollars stuck out of the country because this "job creators" have decided to keep that money out unless they get another tax break (they were amnestied during the Bush era).


              I remember listening to the originator of the phrase "job creator" the guy explained that using those two words instead of "rich people" makes it easy for regular people (right wingers love the phrase) to be OK with cutting taxes to rich people, it sounds better, I mean who is going to be against a "job creator" right? the guy did an amazing job to fool millions of people.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Political News and Policies

                Here is an example of all the money "job creators" have offshore because they don't want to pay taxes (most of them don't pay taxes anyways).

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

                Comment


                • Re: Political News and Policies

                  It was called "repatriation tax holiday" and it created 0 jobs but sure let's do it again..


                  A repatriation tax holiday is a tax holiday specifically directed towards individuals and businesses in one country who repatriate to that country income earned in other countries. The theory supporting such an action is that multinational companies

                  headquartered in one country, but which earn income in a second country will be unlikely to bring income from the second country back to their home country if high taxes will be assessed on this income when it is brought back. By allowing those companies to

                  bring income back to the home country at a reduced tax rate, money will be injected into the economy of the home country that otherwise would remain in the second country.

                  In 2004, the United States Congress enacted such a tax holiday for U.S. multinational companies in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA)) section 965, allowing them to repatriate foreign profits to the United States at a 5.25% tax rate, rather than the

                  existing 35% corporate tax rate.[1] Under this law, corporations brought $362 billion into the American economy, primarily for the purposes of paying dividends to investors, repurchasing shares, and purchasing other corporations.[1] The largest multi-national

                  companies, Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp., Alphabet Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., and Oracle Corp., recalled only 9% of their cash possessions following the 2004 act.[2] In 2011, Senate Democrats, arguing against another repatriation tax holiday, issued a report

                  asserting that the previous effort had actually cost the United States Treasury $3.3 billion, and that companies receiving the tax breaks had thereafter cut over 20,000 jobs.[3] A second repatriation tax holiday was defeated in the United States Senate in 2009.[1]
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Political News and Policies

                    Should have given them more tax breaks poor company ...



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

                    Comment


                    • Re: Political News and Policies

                      This is real simple math, dumbed down to make it extremely easy.

                      You have $100. $30 goes to taxes, how much you got left to hire someone?
                      You have $100. $15 goes to taxes, how much you got to higher someone?

                      When you can explain to me how letting a company keep $15 more of their money, how it can't be used to higher more people, your "bs" line will carry some merit.

                      After you figure out how math works, then you can try to attempt to explain why states like Texas has carried job creation in this country for almost a decade.

                      No matter how much Socialist warriors deny basic economics facts, reality keeps churning.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Political News and Policies

                        Taxes don't create (private sector) jobs. Taxes limit job creation, because they suck out money from the business. This is basic economics. You can't raise someones taxes and think they'll hire more people, because they have less money to hire. Owners are going to get their shake out of it first. No one starts a company to pay others and not make money for themselves. Common sense.

                        When you limit how much money a company has, you limit their hiring abilities. Will they hire more if they have more money? Maybe not. But you give them the ability to do so if they have the resources. If they don't have the resources, then theyre not going to hire.

                        This is basic stuff. Denying it happens makes you look a fool.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Political News and Policies

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          This is real simple math, dumbed down to make it extremely easy.

                          You have $100. $30 goes to taxes, how much you got left to hire someone?
                          You have $100. $15 goes to taxes, how much you got to higher someone?

                          When you can explain to me how letting a company keep $15 more of their money, how it can't be used to higher more people, your "bs" line will carry some merit.

                          After you figure out how math works, then you can try to attempt to explain why states like Texas has carried job creation in this country for almost a decade.

                          No matter how much Socialist warriors deny basic economics facts, reality keeps churning.
                          That means I have $15 to send offshore and I'm going to wait to see who is the next republican president that is going to amnesty my company once again so I can "create more jobs".
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Political News and Policies

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            This is real simple math, dumbed down to make it extremely easy.

                            You have $100. $30 goes to taxes, how much you got left to hire someone?
                            You have $100. $15 goes to taxes, how much you got to higher someone?

                            When you can explain to me how letting a company keep $15 more of their money, how it can't be used to higher more people, your "bs" line will carry some merit.

                            After you figure out how math works, then you can try to attempt to explain why states like Texas has carried job creation in this country for almost a decade.

                            No matter how much Socialist warriors deny basic economics facts, reality keeps churning.
                            Logic must consistently apply, so you are really saying that companies should have to pay no taxes at all. Right! Same would apply to people's individual income. So you must be in support of only a national sales tax.


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

                            Comment


                            • Re: Political News and Policies

                              flipping channels and saw the MSNBC chyron say something about Trump not wanting the Comey letter to come out to the public or something, can't remember it verbatim, for a split second thought it said Trump didn't want letter of his coming out to be made public and said whaaat now lol

                              Comment


                              • Re: Political News and Policies

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                This is real simple math, dumbed down to make it extremely easy.

                                You have $100. $30 goes to taxes, how much you got left to hire someone?
                                You have $100. $15 goes to taxes, how much you got to higher someone?

                                When you can explain to me how letting a company keep $15 more of their money, how it can't be used to higher more people, your "bs" line will carry some merit.

                                After you figure out how math works, then you can try to attempt to explain why states like Texas has carried job creation in this country for almost a decade.

                                No matter how much Socialist warriors deny basic economics facts, reality keeps churning.
                                This is way oversimplified, but say you are a low income neighborhood grocery store owner. Taxes are lowered on rich corporations. Programs like SNAP suffer. The local grocery store makes less money. Can't buy as much local produce and products, farmers and manufacturers suffer, also can't hire neighborhood employees. All the while the neighborhood is low income, so of course the lowered taxes for the rich is going to hurt them the most.

                                Will the lower taxes for big corporations reach this neighborhood? Probably not. Probably raises for CEOs. As a business owner myself, I'm going to expand because I have more demand for my product in more areas, not because of a tax rate.

                                And BTW, cities give absurd tax breaks to companies creating jobs, its called corporate welfare. Many of the companies don't even follow through with the job promises and still get the tax breaks. So with or without lower taxes, there are still plenty tax incentives when creating jobs.

                                But these tax breaks are purely to make rich people richer. Can't believe people honestly believe that politicians (dem and republican) actually are thinking about job creators when they lower taxes for the rich. How easy would it be to pass a bipartisan law that lowers taxes only if you create jobs? It would never happen, because the job creator claim is ********.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X