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

George Floyd Protests and Riots

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

  • Too funny. I guess they haven't talked to the bazillion suburban women I know. They are not interested in voting for a racist (I hope I don't have to repost the dozen youtubes of Biden wearing his white KKK hood) and corrupt invalid who belongs in the county home, not the White House.

    Despite Trump's Pleas, Suburban Women are Done
    https://news.yahoo.com/please-trump-...141835062.html

    Comment


    • Voted this afternoon. I arrived in the morning but the lines were long, so I cut out. Came back 2 hours later and the line was 50% of what it was in the morning. Still took 33 minutes to get it done.

      First time voting straight line GOP. The Communist wing of the Democratic Party is the scariest thing I've seen in politics since Jimmy Carter was in the White House.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

        I watched about the last 15 minutes and clips of other parts. What was it, an hour? I just saw a lot of Guthrie vs Trump. More than I have ever seen in a Town Hall. Even just taking the clips alone.

        Edit: There were a lot of exchanges but the one where she said "You're the President. It's not like you're someone's crazy Uncle and can retweet whatever."....she injecting her negative opinion about Trump directly into the Town Hall. I realize some think he's a nut. That's fine. But she was supposed to moderate a Town Hall and allow "the people" to ask questions, not demonize Trump because her bosses are leftists. This is way over the top and it was a planned comment she made. We know this.
        The crazy uncle bit was after she asked him about Qanon, and his retweet of the conspiracy theory that Bin Laden is alive, and that SEAL Team 6 didn't get the job done. Yeah a crazy uncle sounds about right....
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

          The crazy uncle bit was after she asked him about Qanon, and his retweet of the conspiracy theory that Bin Laden is alive, and that SEAL Team 6 didn't get the job done. Yeah a crazy uncle sounds about right....
          It's not about whether she's right or not. Her role was to moderate, not debate.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            A couple things about Jerushah DuFord. She was Jerushah Armfield a year or so ago prior to divorcing Chris Armfield, a pastor. She turned around and married an e-commerce dude with tattoos running up and down his arms. Now she's involved in the Lincoln Project. I guess she went off the deep end.

            I am not sure when she started judging white evangelicals. Maybe it was part of that transition. Anyway, while casting judgment on other people, she apparently forgot divorce is a sin. Maybe she needs to extract the log from her eye? Not to mention she's voting for the party of abortion and homosexuality which are also sins in the Bible. Not sure how she reconciles that.

            So...she can thump her Bible all she wants but her grandfather does not approve of her choices. Neither does Franklin Graham who will always be a far better man than she is a woman.

            As for Trump, nobody is voting him to be Pastor of the USA. They are voting for him to be President of the USA. Or not. Fact is, his actions as an elected official align more with conservative values than the left...and that right there is what matters. Amy Coney Barrett is the poster babe of what Trump brings to the office. While DuFord probably idolized RBG, she probably hates ACB. That's fine. She can have her narrative crap on the family name while she's at it.


            Lots of Christians fail to live up to the teachings, That's why you practice your religion no? Even her uncle has said some damn crazy hateful stuff over the years that would make Jesus cry. Franklin Graham...my daddy was the best, and I have a charity, and so I can say all sorts of hateful **** about Gays and Muslims.

            Not sure what her new husbands tattoos have to do with anything. Lots of Jesus bros have tattoos every where, and You really don't know anything about her failed marriage. Maybe he screwed an alter boy? Maybe he was holding scripture over her head and expected certain wifely duties all the time. Maybe he was trying to hold her back from accomplishing her goals? Maybe she wanted a more quiet life having grown up around a tel-evangelical celebrity and her husband was all about wanting to elevate his status to the next Billy and Franklin Graham. Or maybe he couldn't provide the type of life she was accustom too?
            Lots of reasons why people get divorced there bud.
            Last edited by graphic-er; 10-17-2020, 07:52 PM.
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • At a rally in Michigan, President Trump supporters chanted "Lock Her Up" after Trump's comments about Governor Gretchen Whitmer, just 10 days after a domestic terrorism plot to kidnap her was foiled.

              https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ts/3697599001/

              This kind of stuff is very dangerous and scary, and honestly a threat to Governor Whitmer's life.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post


                Lots of Christians fail to live up to the teachings, That's why you practice your religion no? Even her father has said some damn crazy hateful stuff over the years that would make Jesus cry. Franklin Graham...my daddy was the best, and I have a charity, and so I can say all sorts of hateful **** about Gays and Muslims.

                Not sure what her new husbands tattoos have to do with anything. Lots of Jesus bros have tattoos every where, and You really don't know anything about her failed marriage. Maybe he screwed an alter boy? Maybe he was holding scripture over her head and expected certain wifely duties all the time. Maybe he was trying to hold her back from accomplishing her goals? Maybe she wanted a more quiet life having grown up in a tel-evangelical celebrity world and her husband was all about wanting to elevate his status to the next Billy and Franklin Graham. Or maybe he couldn't provide the type of life she was accustom too?
                Lots of reasons why people get divorced there bud.
                All Christians fail to live up to the teachings. Of all things, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christians actually think.

                So what did her father say that was hateful? Who do you think her father is? It's not Franklin Graham.

                Now if you think it's about homosexuality, I hope you know that the Bible forbids it.

                Funny story. OK, not so funny but it's true. Millennial Christians have been so brain-washed by society they think their religion doesn't ban homosexuality. I know people like this. They kind of avoid that part of the Bible. Maybe just decide to trim out a few pages. And no, don't get me started posting scripture. It's not just banned in the Old Testament.

                So, if you were born anywhere between say 1980 and 1997 you may just be brain-washed. No offense to anyone. It is what it is.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shags View Post
                  At a rally in Michigan, President Trump supporters chanted "Lock Her Up" after Trump's comments about Governor Gretchen Whitmer, just 10 days after a domestic terrorism plot to kidnap her was foiled.

                  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ts/3697599001/

                  This kind of stuff is very dangerous and scary, and honestly a threat to Governor Whitmer's life.
                  She is a threat to the American Way and needs banned from office. Stalin would be proud of the woman.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                    She is a threat to the American Way and needs banned from office. Stalin would be proud of the woman.
                    What the fcuk is wrong with you? People tried to kidnap and possibly kill her, and may have been inspired by Trump's rhetoric.

                    But that seems to be okay with you, and because you disagree with her politics. That's pathetic!! You would be fine with her being murdered. My god.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shags View Post

                      What the fcuk is wrong with you? People tried to kidnap and possibly kill her, and may have been inspired by Trump's rhetoric.

                      But that seems to be okay with you, and because you disagree with her politics. That's pathetic!! You would be fine with her being murdered. My god.
                      No I would not. I don't believe she was in any danger and no Trump's rhetoric had nothing to do with it. Her insistence on dictating lockdowns had everything to do with it. It's not like people are after Holcomb.

                      Comment


                      • Defense says Gov. Whitmer kidnap plot was just 'big talk between crackpots'

                        There was no real plan to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, but only "military wannabes" who engaged in "big talk" and played with guns in the woods, defense lawyers argued in federal court Tuesday.

                        As one defense lawyer suggested, the case appears to be one of "big talk between crackpots," or "people who talk a lot ... but are never going to do anything."

                        "Have you ever dealt with big talkers?" defense attorney Scott Graham asked an FBI agent on cross-examination, adding: "There's kind of a military-wanna-be theme that runs between the militias."

                        The agent had no specific answer, beyond saying there were audio recordings of the suspects discussing a plan to take Whitmer to another state, among them Wisconsin.

                        Graham then asked the agent what the suspects planned to do with Whitmer after they left her in the lake. The agent had no specific answer, beyond testifying that the accused ringleader, Adam Fox, wanted to "take her out on a boat and leave her in the middle of Lake Michigan."


                        https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...ks/3639980001/

                        There was nothing there in terms of planning. It was a false flag operation by the FBI. IOW, just a bunch of 85 IQ moron red necks combined with more fake news.
                        Last edited by BlueNGold; 10-17-2020, 08:26 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                          No I would not. I don't believe she was in any danger and no Trump's rhetoric had nothing to do with it. Her insistence on dictating lockdowns had everything to do with it. It's not like people are after Holcomb.
                          What do you think they were going to do with her? Make her a meal and send her home. Decorate her house. The Michigan attorney general said they intended to kidnap her and commit violence with the hopes of sparking a civil war.

                          https://www.mlive.com/public-interes...n-whitmer.html

                          And also, I don't believe you when you say you don't want harm done to Governor Whitmer, especially after your initial comments. And I'm going to post a link to Peck's warning in the COVID-19 thread after President Trump contracted COVID. The same applies to Governor Whitmer. She's a human being with kids. So you better be VERY CLEAR, without qualifiers, about your feelings towards Governor Whitmer. I have no qualms turning your initial post in to the administrators for them to decide.

                          https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...95#post3524473

                          Comment


                          • well, if that's what their defense lawyer says, that's the end of story, you gotta let them go....

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shags View Post

                              What do you think they were going to do with her? Make her a meal and send her home. Decorate her house. The Michigan attorney general said they intended to kidnap her and commit violence with the hopes of sparking a civil war.

                              https://www.mlive.com/public-interes...n-whitmer.html

                              And also, I don't believe you when you say you don't want harm done to Governor Whitmer, especially after your initial comments. And I'm going to post a link to Peck's warning in the COVID-19 thread after President Trump contracted COVID. The same applies to Governor Whitmer. She's a human being with kids. So you better be VERY CLEAR, without qualifiers, about your feelings towards Governor Whitmer. I have no qualms turning your initial post in to the administrators for them to decide.

                              https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...95#post3524473
                              You are free to believe what you want and be dead wrong at the same time. In no way have I approved of even a hair on her head being disturbed. That does NOT change the fact I think her way of governing is a threat to the country. I am sure Peck can distinguish this even if you cannot.

                              As for a civil war, here is some moron claiming that Trump being re-elected will start one. See this is the cancel culture at work. They cannot accept his 2016 victory. They will not accept him pulling it out in 2020 either.

                              Diddy warns of a 'race war' if Trump wins reelection, announces new political party
                              https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...182430878.html

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                                well, if that's what their defense lawyer says, that's the end of story, you gotta let them go....
                                Innocent....no make that completely innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. One may claim they are guilty of planning a kidnapping. Doesn't mean it happened.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X