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

  • Biden’s approval has dipped below 40% and thats despite having most of the corporate media in his corner (broadcast networks, most major publications, entertainment, pop culture, etc). The networks bury most of the bad news for the administration. If they were telling the truth then his approval would probably be around 20% because this Truman Show presidency has been that bad.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-08-2021, 02:13 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Biden’s approval has dipped below 40% and thats despite having most of the corporate media in his corner (broadcast networks, most major publications, entertainment, pop culture, etc). The networks bury most of the bad news for the administration. If they were telling the truth then his approval would probably be around 20% because this Truman Show presidency has been that bad.
      Corporate media? In his corner? Biden is weak sauce. Agree Demos shouldn't expect anti-Trump to work post-Trump. But you're drifting here. You sound really Fox-like. Not unlike Vnzla saying the infrastructure bill helps nobody. I get the point, but it's disingenuous to say it doesn't help anyone. If you are progressive, of course, there is much more that was proposed that could be accomplished at this point. But I don't agree the infrastructure bill doesn't help anybody. That's hyperbole.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

        Corporate media? In his corner? Biden is weak sauce. Agree Demos shouldn't expect anti-Trump to work post-Trump. But you're drifting here. You sound really Fox-like. Not unlike Vnzla saying the infrastructure bill helps nobody. I get the point, but it's disingenuous to say it doesn't help anyone. If you are progressive, of course, there is much more that was proposed that could be accomplished at this point. But I don't agree the infrastructure bill doesn't help anybody. That's hyperbole.
        I watch the start of The Today Show every morning because I generally like their format and a lot of the general news stories that they do. They were harsh on Biden for Afghanistan, but that’s about the only thing that they’ve been too tough on him about. They’ll regurgitate some of the administration’s talking points on domestic issues, but other than that you’d barely even know who the current president is right now when you watch a broadcast network format. It’s bias by omission.

        Trump’s sinking poll numbers were always huge news, whereas Biden’s at most are mentioned in a few second clip (even though some of the failing polls are done by these large corporate media outlets....it’s not as if every bad Biden poll is done by Fox).

        The easiest way to see that the Virginia race was going the Republican’s way is that the networks simply ignored it in the weeks leading up to the election even though a close Governor race in an off year is big political event...especially since it was the first large scale referendum on this presidency. If you only watched their show, you wouldn’t have known an election was taking place until it was Election Day and they were forced to cover it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post


          The easiest way to see that the Virginia race was going the Republican’s way is that the networks simply ignored it in the weeks leading up to the election even though a close Governor race in an off year is big political event...especially since it was the first large scale referendum on this presidency. If you only watched their show, you wouldn’t have known an election was taking place until it was Election Day and they were forced to cover it.
          I happened to follow CNN in the last couple of weeks and their evening programs focused pretty hard on the Virginia election, Biden's poll numbers, Youngkin's ascension... Democrat support slipping among independents, and democrats as well. It was pretty easy to know Youngkin had a great shot at winning from I saw on CNN.

          No idea about the networks though... Just happened to be an aligning of the stars that I had CNN on quite a bit recently after midnight when the primetime schedule replays for the west coast.

          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


          • Originally posted by Bball View Post

            I happened to follow CNN in the last couple of weeks and their evening programs focused pretty hard on the Virginia election, Biden's poll numbers, Youngkin's ascension... Democrat support slipping among independents, and democrats as well. It was pretty easy to know Youngkin had a great shot at winning from I saw on CNN.

            No idea about the networks though... Just happened to be an aligning of the stars that I had CNN on quite a bit recently after midnight when the primetime schedule replays for the west coast.
            interesting. Thanks for sharing.


            Comment





            • https://twitter.com/kingjosiah54/sta...005081601?s=21
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Well, I've watched the CNN take on Rittenhouse and the Fox News take (Tucker Carlson and Judge Jeanine).

                CNN from a couple of different interviews with... Paraphrased "Rittenhouse had to take the stand, even though it's unusual, due to needing to to bolster his defense" "The jury has a difficult job and has to balance the two sides" "Very unlikely the judge will rule in favor of the defense's motion to dismiss..." "..Rittenhouse was disingenuous on the stand, but it was effective" (this was a guest) "Prosecution did a good job of attacking his credibility and pointing out his lies" "Putting him on the stand was a good idea and humanized him, regardless of whether you think he was honest or not. And he explained himself well" "He turned himself, and that shows he didn't feel he was guilty of anything. In balance, I think it was self defense". "I think, once the totality of the facts are considered, he was considered a threat with that AR15 in a situation he never should've inserted himself in, and could easily be found guilty"

                Fox News "This young man feared for his life and should not be found guilty and won't be found guilty!" "It was definitely self defense" "He was there to protect property!" "He was a medic, trained in CPR, there to help people" (And something about some Junior police organization he belonged to or something along those lines).
                And it was that over and over, with Jeanine really getting worked up. And Tucker had that Tucker Carlson incredulous stare as he pretends to take the guest's words as gospel and then made sure and agree and act appalled that this is even happening to Rittenhouse.

                --------------

                So, if I was a Fox News only viewer, and Rittenhouse would be found guilty, I'd be pretty angry at the system if the Tucker Carlson narrative was all that I was fed.

                And AFAIK and have heard, he had a first aid kit, but he was not a medic and has no credentials. But, that is pretty much a Fox thing where they just embellish something that is really just a lie, in this case calling him a "medic". I guess I need to fact check this to make sure what I heard from another couple of sources is actually the truth.

                On balance, I'm giving this one to CNN. I heard much more balance from the "liberal, left leaning MSM mouthpiece" than what I got from Fox this evening.
                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


                • It's hard to search Rittenhouse and medic because one of the people he shot was a volunteer medic who has paramedic training. So it's muddying up the searches.

                  From NYT article today.
                  ...where Mr. Rittenhouse carried his weapon and falsely told people in the crowd that he was a trained emergency medical technician.
                  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


                  • Agree with Bball from what I've seen of late in CNN coverage of Biden's approval and struggles, etc. They haven't been ignoring it. Biden and Biden-related issues don't garner near the coverage or derision generally because he doesn't court animosity the way Trump did. It was a two-way street and Trump brought a lot on himself with his belligerence, incompetence, and outright lying.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • I noticed one of my Fox News viewing friends just posted expected Rittenhouse to be acquitted because "he did nothing wrong" and then file defamation suits against everyone including the current administration for the things they have said... and that the state never should've brought this to trial. Essentially, just parroting the Tucker Carlson/Judge Jeanine stuff I saw the other night.
                      '
                      I'm not saying Rittenhouse will or will not be acquitted, but there's no way this case didn't deserve to go to trial... IMO. But, the above is what I've continued to say about a 'news' source that presents only one POV, and that has no qualms with lies, or allowing a guest to lie with nobody to challenge them. If they do allow someone to challenge them on a subject, the host makes sure and takes the side of the desired talking point to shout down the opposing viewpoint. Viewers love it when they 'own the libs' like that...
                      Obviously, this stuff comes from the Fox entertainment/opinion divisions, but that is the stuff these people watch and take as 'news' on a 'news' channel.

                      But those same viewers find themselves very uninformed in the end. If Rittenhouse would happen to be found guilty, they will lose their minds and not understand how that possibly could be... well except for "an unfair jury made up of libs!".

                      Anyone that's watched actual news, or opinions that presented both sides and views discussing the issues back and forth, know that there IS a case here, and that the jury could agree with the state in the end. Or not. Nobody should be thinking there's a slam dunk either way in a case like this when other factors are at play that could sway a jury. But the in the tank style Fox News viewers think it's s slam dunk he gets off... because that's what Fox News told them...
                      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


                      • Saw this on another site. The video wont load for me but interesting different perspective

                        So, went looking. Found the video his defense team put together.

                        https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/kyle-r...defense-claim/

                        sorry. That’s self defense. He’s clearly chased and attacked by multiple people, at least one of which had a gun and pulled it on him. (Who’s buddy then went on Twitter and let the world know the guy wish he had killed rittenhouse)

                        I get the lead up. But none of those people should have been there. Apply your standard equally. Either people were allowed to be there despite curfew or they weren’t. And it looks like there were tons of guns there, including victim #3 and many other people supposedly on the side of the BLM movement.

                        Clearly people went looking for trouble, and the found what they wanted.

                        If you’re going to be an aggressor and go after other people to harm them, then you get no sympathy from me when you get your *** kicked.

                        go after someone with a gun? With your own weapons? Well then you’re a ****ing moron.

                        You would need a strong case by the prosecution to get me to vote guilty after watching the video the defense team put out. A very strong case. And this hasn’t been a strong case by the prosecution.

                        I don’t even need to factor in the judges antics. The video is quite clear what’s going on. I’m curious if there’s some other video that depicts a completely different story - because that’s exactly what I would need, considering witnesses in this situation are so blatantly bias.

                        it’s gonna **** people off but I think not guilty is the right call. Most of this is on the police in my opinion. They let it get out of control and they clearly didn’t fo anything about an obnoxiously obvious presence of guns

                        you could convince me of the firearm charges but I think that once you dig through the more serious charges, and get to this point, it’d be hard to get all 12 people to vote to get him on gun charges. My gut says at that point most wouldn’t see that as appropriate, and would think the kid went through enough to prove he’s not a murder but was just defending himself.

                        I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying that’s my gut feeling on how people would work in that situation.
                        https://es.redskins.com/topic/433288.../154/#comments

                        Comment


                        • Rittenhouse will walk free, get a bunch of millions from cult followers and we will see him in congress in a couple of years Representing Kentucky, Alabama or some s*** like that.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X