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

  • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

    Cool

    A whole lot of words to say “Fact checks are never wrong and have no bias”
    No, it was a lot of words to say "The default position shouldn't be that fact checks are always wrong and filled with bias and so it's OK to ignore them"

    If you get fact checked the assumption should at least be "Maybe I just gullibly posted BS and just did my small part to dumb down the world and feed more BS into it helping it go viral. I better study this topic more and be prepared to delete what I posted if it turns out it's BS"

    Too many people IGNORE fact checks. Many people even see them as a sign the BS they just shared is correct because a fact check says it's not. Most of this stuff we're talking about is NOT subjective. It's either a true statement/quote, presented in context, or it's not.
    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


    • No one said they agreed with the statement “fact checks are 100% wrong”. Nor did anyone say you should view posting rambling that is tagged as “untruthful” as a badge of honor.

      What I did say, and I think you know this, is “Fact checks can have bias and fact checkers are human and can be wrong”.

      LOTS of stuff is fake news (someone at work just told me a story about some junk going around about the Confederate flag and how her family members were sending it out as fact).

      LOTS of stuff is also subjective and a fact checker (just like you, or Dal9, or anyone else) is human and can be wrong or have a different interpretation
      Last edited by vapacersfan; 10-20-2021, 12:58 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
        No one said they agreed with the statement “fact checks are 100% wrong”. Nor did anyone say you should view posting rambling that is tagged as “untruthful” as a badge of honor.

        What I did say, and I think you know this, is “Fact checks can have bias and fact checkers are human and can be wrong”.

        LOTS of stuff is fake news (someone at work just told me a story about some junk going around about the Confederate flag and how her family members were sending it out as fact).

        LOTS of stuff is also subjective and a fact checker (just like you, or Dal9, or anyone else) is human and can be wrong or have a different interpretation
        I don't know what you're going on about. Talk about rambling...

        If something is untrue... it's untrue. If it's opinion, it's opinion. If it's an opinion that states a bunch of untruths to support it as an opinion, then it's an opinion with statements that don't pass a fact check.

        I'm TELLING you some people wear a fact check as a badge of honor on social media. It makes them believe BS even more. They don't even pay attention to what the fact check is pointing out. That in and of itself is a fact. When you see one of these posts, and someone then replies "They put a fact check on this! Obviously, it's true and they are scared of the truth!". And then people reply with some form of "You know it!".
        And then anyone with a brain and critical thinking process can follow the sources, use them as springboards even, and see... it's BS that was posted.

        What exactly is your problem with wanting misinformation and disinformation to be countered?

        Lastly, there is no one fact checker. There are multiple sources of fact checks. And there are actual recorded quotes and context that can be found and referenced. Plus, (and this is the important part you seem to be ignoring: It opens the door for you to actually look into what you posted a bit deeper on your own). It's not like one person says "That not true" and it's supposed to be settled. You're acting like there's one fact checker and he or she is the one and only source of a fact check and does it via opinion 100% of the time.

        I just read someone saying "this 'vaccine' isn't even a vaccine. They had to change the definition just to call it one". Stated as a matter of fact reply in an answer, with no caveats. People believe BS and they repeat it and we're going to have to figure out something to stop this type of thing. Apparently, critical thinking skills is off the table as an answer.
        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


        • Wow

          All due respect you enjoy going on and on about how “CNN”, ‘MSNBC” or other sources you like that are “never wrong”. I dont really care about personal bias but its kind of funny when you have this attitude but have no problem calling people out from the other side (aka any republican or conservative POV). You clearly really want to get the last word so please feel free to do so, I really dont care to continue this dialogue if all you want is an echo chamber.

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          I'm TELLING you some people wear a fact check as a badge of honor on social media. It makes them believe BS even more. They don't even pay attention to what the fact check is pointing out. That in and of itself is a fact. When you see one of these posts, and someone then replies "They put a fact check on this! Obviously, it's true and they are scared of the truth!". And then people reply with some form of "You know it!".
          Yes, I already said I agree with this. They are called idiots

          And then anyone with a brain and critical thinking process can follow the sources, use them as springboards even, and see... it's BS that was posted.
          As stated above, yes, I agree with this

          What exactly is your problem with wanting misinformation and disinformation to be countered?
          Please point out one place where I said I had a problem with misinformation being correct. I will Venmo you $1,000 on the spot if you can do so. HINT: you cant.

          Lastly, there is no one fact checker. There are multiple sources of fact checks. And there are actual recorded quotes and context that can be found and referenced. Plus, (and this is the important part you seem to be ignoring: It opens the door for you to actually look into what you posted a bit deeper on your own). It's not like one person says "That not true" and it's supposed to be settled.
          Did you read any of the links I posted where Facebook and other sources (I use FB because they are the most popular) admit to bias? In both the auto systems and in the human checks? I dont care if its 1 person or 1000 people: bias does exist. CNN leans left. Fox News leans right. MSNBC and OEN are crazy lunatics. They are all entities that employ “more than one person” and they can still have a bias

          You're acting like there's one fact checker and he or she is the one and only source of a fact check and does it via opinion 100% of the time.
          Two can play this game. You are acting like Facebook and other tech companies deal with the truth and nothing but the truth 100% of the time and there is never ever personal bias and other bias in general.

          I just read someone saying "this 'vaccine' isn't even a vaccine. They had to change the definition just to call it one". Stated as a matter of fact reply in an answer, with no caveats. People believe BS and they repeat it and we're going to have to figure out something to stop this type of thing.
          I have heard this numerous times. I have also heard (a fairly smart classmate) of mine notate its more of a “flu shot” then a “vaccine”. Its all semantics and I personally dont care what folks call it. If thats the reason you cite for not getting vaccinated IMO it is merely an excuse and you weren’t going to get it anyways

          Apparently, critical thinking skills is off the table as an answer.
          This isn’t exactly something new. Most folks just tune into whatever pundit/news channel/source they want to believe and regurgitate what they already believe.
          Last edited by vapacersfan; 10-20-2021, 03:19 PM.

          Comment


          • I don't even think you disagree with me all that much... Yet you think you do because you've created a dialogue that I never said. I never said how CNN or MSNBC are "never wrong". This is not even about being "wrong". Mistakes happen. I haven't said they are perfect either.
            I've even said I've hardly ever watched MSNBC so I can't really speak much one way or the other about them.

            What I have said is Fox News, in the evening especially (once untethered from their actual 'news' portion of the schedule, flat out lies. They know they are telling lies, or allowing guests to lie and mischaracterize things, and they don't care nor correct it. I will stand by that. It's propaganda and they support it. It's not sins of omission. It's not just telling you the parts of the news they want you to hear. It's lies.
            When they aren't lying directly, they are implying a lie, or something nefarious, and couching it as a "question" (I'm looking at you Tucker Carlson).
            It's dangerous territory they and entities like OAN are treading in.

            CNN doesn't regularly flat out lie. Nor does any of the traditional "MSM". Have they all lied at one point or another? It would be naive to say they have not. But far and away they don't lie like Fox News, the late Rush Limbaugh, or OAN do.... I'll stand by that. Or get things 'wrong' if you prefer.

            But I'm also not sure what this has to do with my point that misinformation and disinformation needs dealt with head on. I would think you could agree SOMETHING needs to be done about it... not get off into the weeds about CNN vs Fox like you've taken this discussion. I'd rather be discussing options to address this problem.

            If CNN lies, they need called out on it each and every time. I don't accept what they say as gospel just as I don't accept what Fox says. And I can separate opinion shows from news. Some people obviously can't.
            And I can get input from multiple sources to better separate fact from fiction. I can apply critical thought to what I read and see. I can see red flags in stories that tells me to double check things even more.
            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


            • Rittenhouse is one of the first times I really knew things were off the rails. If there was one thing I thought most people could agree on, it was that things had went too far and this dweeb with a gun was a self-styled , deluded vigilante, murdering people, and clearly a sign things had gone too far (in society and it was time to reel it back in (rhetoric/divisiveness)). Instead, social media was lit up with people celebrating him and proclaiming him a hero and patriot.
              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


              • Glad the goat is back






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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Glad the goat is back





                  RE: Stewart on Bailouts/Problem with Socialism

                  Fan****ingtastic!
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • Huge win for Youngkin in Virginia against the entitled brat McAullife and Democrat machine. Biden won the state by 10 points and it’s been blue for a while, but Virginia voters easily saw that Biden’s putrid Truman Show presidency has been an abysmal failure across the board. The Democrat Party is complete trash and that’s why Youngkin won in blue-leaning state.

                    Regardless of what ultimately happens in New Jersey, the fact that this race is much closer than almost anyone could have envisioned helps spell further doom for Democrats in 2022. Barring something drastically unforeseen, Republicans are going to win big time in 2022. Biden’s presidency has just been so awful across the board by virtually every objective measure that it will be almost impossible for Republicans to not win by default.

                    The only thing that could mess it up for Republicans going forward is if Trump gets too involved and muddies the water, but thankfully he’s mostly shut up since leaving. All Republicans have to do is use literally anyone else on the planet besides Trump to make their case. The Biden presidency has just been so bad that it won’t be hard to keep winning going forward.

                    Remember when Biden was sold as some “unifier”? Lol he can’t even unite his own party to get his legislation in year one. It’s a Truman Show Presidency. He’s just kind of there and the results have been a complete train wreck.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Huge win for Youngkin in Virginia against the entitled brat McAullife and Democrat machine. Biden won the state by 10 points and it’s been blue for a while, but Virginia voters easily saw that Biden’s putrid Truman Show presidency has been an abysmal failure across the board. The Democrat Party is complete trash and that’s why Youngkin won in blue-leaning state.

                      Regardless of what ultimately happens in New Jersey, the fact that this race is much closer than almost anyone could have envisioned helps spell further doom for Democrats in 2022. Barring something drastically unforeseen, Republicans are going to win big time in 2022. Biden’s presidency has just been so awful across the board by virtually every objective measure that it will be almost impossible for Republicans to not win by default.

                      The only thing that could mess it up for Republicans going forward is if Trump gets too involved and muddies the water, but thankfully he’s mostly shut up since leaving. All Republicans have to do is use literally anyone else on the planet besides Trump to make their case. The Biden presidency has just been so bad that it won’t be hard to keep winning going forward.

                      Remember when Biden was sold as some “unifier”? Lol he can’t even unite his own party to get his legislation in year one. It’s a Truman Show Presidency. He’s just kind of there and the results have been a complete train wreck.
                      There is no doubt that Republicans are winning big time next year and that the orange clown is back in 2024 with vengeance, thanks Obama #bluemaga
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • And yes Biden has been horrible and incompetent, failure all around that is going to give this country back to the radical right for decades to come.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                          There is no doubt that Republicans are winning big time next year and that the orange clown is back in 2024 with vengeance, thanks Obama #bluemaga

                          I don’t think Trump will be back in 2024 because I don’t think Trump could live with losing twice. I think he would rather forever die on the cross of “2020 being stolen” and doing some select appearances here and there. I certainly hope Trump doesn’t run again.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post


                            I don’t think Trump will be back in 2024 because I don’t think Trump could live with losing twice. I think he would rather forever die on the cross of “2020 being stolen” and doing some select appearances here and there. I certainly hope Trump doesn’t run again.
                            Oh I think he is coming back, specially after hosing his followers into giving him billions by opening some fake company.


                            He now has the money to do it easily, of course Biden is making it easy for him anyways.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X