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

COVID-19

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

    And the Trump rally is indoors with no apparent attempt to consider social distancing. If the weather forecast was good, could they have considered moving it to a football stadium to provide more distancing?
    I didn't realize it was indoors. That's a nightmare scenario. There's a reason the NBA may not have fans in the stands in the 2020-21 season. I honestly think for the NFL and MLB you could have 25 to 50 percent crowds (in outdoor stadiums) provided spectators wear masks because it's outside. Six Trump staffers tested positive yesterday I believe.

    And his next rally is indoors in Arizona, which is the hotspot of all hotspots right now.

    But that's why Peck was right in saying that they should have told them they were at protests. It would have been nice to have the data of people attending Black Lives Matter protests outdoors where anecdotally 90 percent of people wore masks to Trump rallies indoors where likely 10 percent of people will wear masks.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shags View Post

      I didn't realize it was indoors. That's a nightmare scenario. There's a reason the NBA may not have fans in the stands in the 2020-21 season. I honestly think for the NFL and MLB you could have 25 to 50 percent crowds (in outdoor stadiums) provided spectators wear masks because it's outside. Six Trump staffers tested positive yesterday I believe.

      And his next rally is indoors in Arizona, which is the hotspot of all hotspots right now.

      But that's why Peck was right in saying that they should have told them they were at protests. It would have been nice to have the data of people attending Black Lives Matter protests outdoors where anecdotally 90 percent of people wore masks to Trump rallies indoors where likely 10 percent of people will wear masks.
      Just to be clear, I am not against Trump holding a rally. What could happen - although clearly not consistent with Trump's M.O. on Covid - would be to apply some harm reduction strategies.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

        Just to be clear, I am not against Trump holding a rally. What could happen - although clearly not consistent with Trump's M.O. on Covid - would be to apply some harm reduction strategies.
        And I agree with you completely. I just wish it was outdoors with masks, like the protests. I've seen Trump 2020 masks.

        But it's indoors with the vast majority of people maskless. That seems dangerous. And I'd like to see the data to back that up, which we didn't get because, as Peck said, they didn't ask whether they were at a BLM protest.

        Comment


        • Yea I am sort of skeptical on the whether it is negligent to leave out the BLM protest question. Contact tracing is the surgical knife to isolate people you know by name to stop the spread of the virus.

          Comment


          • Apparently, thanks to the teens of this country, there was much more room to social distance inside the arena, so mask less people should be less of a concern. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-hundreds.html

            Trump's still likely to win in November, but in this rough year, it's nice to have something to put a smile on your face.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shags View Post
              Trump's still likely to win in November
              the wha

              Comment


              • Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                the wha
                People have very little interest in voting for Biden.

                Comment


                • Based on today... Trump has zero chance of winning in November. Lots can change between now and then, but Trump's trajectory is spiraling the wrong way. Covid-19 has exposed what many already knew, and the current social crisis has circled it and highlighted it.

                  He has terrible political instincts and no leadership skills. He's squandered two opportunities in these crises to get himself off the ropes, and instead went the other way. He's still playing politics and campaigning 24/7/365 with red meat for his base and no unity attempts at all.

                  But I digress... The question I have is how can he possibly be gambling on a denial strategy for Covid-19 at this point (let alone the bad optics and tone deafness of his "law and order president" remarks currently without context or caveats)?

                  Let's put it into perspective, he lied and denied Covid-19 all the way to 120,000+ US deaths. He's denied science and realism for an attempt at skewing perceptions. He abdicated a leadership role to governors and then undermined them, especially with Covid-19 lockdowns and reopenings. Chaos and mixed messaging has followed.
                  This might be playing well to his sewn up base, but that is not even the entirety of the GOP, let alone voters in the center and democrats that are willing to step across the line.

                  If the election was in July, I maybe could understand lying and denying at this point. Throw the eggs into one basket, and take advantage of the summer months, the spring mitigation methods and hope seasonality allows you to keep the numbers in the box.

                  But, the election is in Nov. By all accounts, that is likely second-wave time. It has all the possibility of being worse than before because we have months of prime respiratory illness spread, and not just Covid-19. And by abdicating the true leadership role, undermining his experts, allowing mixed messaging across platforms, he sets the wheels into motion to make that coming fall second wave potential, not only more likely, but worse than it would have to be. People ignoring social distancing, not wearing masks at all, pushing for their states to open more and pretend things are over... let alone the conspiracy theories that spring from all of that.

                  So even if that strategy could work (which it's not working now for him), he could find himself embarrassingly on the wrong side of the issue in Sept or Oct and need to pivot quickly.

                  Worse, let's assume he pulls off a miracle and does win. He's winning with a minority of the total votes, that should be obvious. What's he going to do, with 4 more years in front of him, and an entire fall and winter of Coronavirus on the plate? He'll be elected by people who believed it was a democrat hoax and he was a hero for pointing it out. He's not left himself any caveats. It's not a campaign of optimism but keeping our eye on the ball "just in case". It's a campaign of total denial. What are those people going to do when Covid-19 comes back in that environment?

                  I don't understand why he can't play up optimism in American spirit, US science, even worldwide science "with America's leadership", even a hope that the disease can just burn itself out... But with the caveat, we can hope for the best and plan for the worst to cover our bases.... Why not take that tactic? Why not allow some wiggle room and not just this denial message?

                  The worst answer I can think of is because he's truly this ignorant. He's the Dunning-Kruger president. He doesn't just spew this stuff because he thinks it 'sells' to his base. He spews it because he believes it. That's truly frightening.
                  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


                  • One can hate Trump and his rhetoric. They can think he’s a fool. But Joe Biden has dementia. Joe will not even be able to function as president for a year let alone a full term. Once he is forced to go toe to toe with Trump in debate people decide they cannot vote for Biden.

                    Comment


                    • Bball, I think even that's too optimistic (from Trump's perspective). His putative base seems to have had enough too (witness Tulsa rally attendance), and then note that there is a good chance the stock market takes a **** before Nov too.
                      BnG, I don't think Biden even needs to agree to any debates at this point. Plus, it's unclear Biden is any more demented than Trump:

                      https://twitter.com/i/status/1274748265376907265

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                        People have very little interest in voting for Biden.
                        Not according to the polls, a white turd polls better than the buffoon at this point.


                        All dementia Biden has to do is hide in his basement that's it.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • They might have to start making a no mask self check out station that is located furtherest from the door. That way all the non mask wears can walk further, and wait in a longer line. It straight up kills me how stupid people are at this point. I see it every time I go to the grocery. Half the people not wearing a mask, or they wear the mask and then take it off to talk to somebody...even the owner of my work place does it.

                          We here in Indiana have the ability to starve this virus out of existence here locally our cases keep trending down even as we do more testing, and folks don't want to wear the damn masks.
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X