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 Eleazar View Post

    Don't watch any of those. I mean legit practicing attorneys, not TV attorneys.
    The judge was a real practicing attorney...
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Those who were truly surprised by the verdict need better news sources.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by clownskull View Post
        Those who were truly surprised by the verdict need better news sources.
        Nobody was surprised we all knew what was going to happen.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • True is this case is going to be used in future cases as white vigilantes are going to start killing people at will with an excuse that they were protecting an autozone store or some bs like that.


          This was all about giving white right wingers more power to do whatever TF they want.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

            You are routinely the least informed and most biased person on this forum. You have no place to talk about anything dealing with the law, politics, or social justice. You live in a fictional bubble of lies.
            Are you looking in a mirror?
            You must be...
            Turn off Fox News, or at least widen your sources of info.
            Try critical thinking skills and logic. It makes these debates more interesting. As for what you're bringing now? Meh.... wasting my time.
            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 vnzla81 View Post
              True is this case is going to be used in future cases as white vigilantes are going to start killing people at will with an excuse that they were protecting an autozone store or some bs like that.


              This was all about giving white right wingers more power to do whatever TF they want.
              Eleazar said:

              "When truth and justice is not being upheld by those in power you will see more and more people take on vigilante roles as they try to protect themselves and their community from those trying to kill them and destroy their community."

              So, if Rittenhouse is a result of those in power not protecting their community, how are racial injustice protesters not also a result of the authorities and those in power not protecting their communities? And I don't buy geography as a particularly convincing determiner of community these days. I think that's evident with Rittenhouse and other "vigilantes". In other words, by that definition, people protesting racial injustices are also vigilantes and the inability of those in power to sufficiently protect their communities resulted in their violence.
              Last edited by D-BONE; 11-19-2021, 06:30 PM.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                There is no such thing as "assault weapons", there are only weapons.

                When truth and justice is not being upheld by those in power you will see more and more people take on vigilante roles as they try to protect themselves and their community from those trying to kill them and destroy their community.
                Well then. Let me change my statement. There are not such things as "weapons". There are only assault weapons.

                And there are certain levels of assault weapons that civilians don't need to have.

                And there are certain levels of assault weapons that authorities apparently turn a blind eye to a white, underage "vigilante" carrying.
                Last edited by D-BONE; 11-19-2021, 06:33 PM.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • Anyone with an understanding of the law knew there were issues here that had to be brought to court. They also knew that the defense could make a case for self-defense, and it be possible the jury would buy it. And possible the jury wouldn't buy it.
                  The jury pool would be important.
                  As would what the prosecution could bring to the table, or not, as part of its case.

                  Legitimate news sources, and opinion programs, brought both sides of this to the table.

                  The winds were blowing in the direction of Rittenhouse getting off as the case went along. That didn't mean the case didn't need to be brought, or even that a different prosecutor, or even different jury, couldn't have taken this case to a different conclusion. Or different judge deciding what's in and what is out.

                  For months prior to the case, right wing propaganda told us Rittenhouse was a hero. Social media memes distorted the case and circumstances, and in the tank consumers of that material re-posted it without fail or question. So, we already knew a political component to this case existed and was being stirred. That alone told anyone paying attention that the 'right' jurors would never find him guilty regardless of anything. But would he get those 'in the tank' jurors? Would he get jurors biased the other way?

                  Fox News viewers were fed a steady diet of both he was a hero, as well as a victim, and the prosecution had no case. Unlike legitimate sources that fleshed out the case, Fox News viewers were again the most ill-informed people following the case.
                  This allowed two possible outcomes for Fox News:
                  #1 He gets off and Fox and viewers say "See??? Told you!!"
                  #2 He's found guilty and Fox and viewers say "Political garbage!! He was railroaded! The Deep State had it in for him!!"

                  Both of those outcomes are a win for Fox News and the propaganda they spew at night. Plus, they'll tell anyone who will listen that "the MSM were wrong" and pretend regular media didn't present both sides of the case. Because that is what Fox News does...
                  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 vnzla81 View Post

                    Nobody was surprised we all knew what was going to happen.
                    Yep. As another poster already pointed out, even Eleazar scourge CNN was predicting this result.

                    Always be weary of a poster who professes on social media to live in reality, then equates CNN with Q'anon all the while claiming to live in some non-media "No Spin Zone".

                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      Anyone with an understanding of the law knew there were issues here that had to be brought to court. They also knew that the defense could make a case for self-defense, and it be possible the jury would buy it. And possible the jury wouldn't buy it.
                      The jury pool would be important.
                      As would what the prosecution could bring to the table, or not, as part of its case.

                      Legitimate news sources, and opinion programs, brought both sides of this to the table.

                      The winds were blowing in the direction of Rittenhouse getting off as the case went along. That didn't mean the case didn't need to be brought, or even that a different prosecutor, or even different jury, couldn't have taken this case to a different conclusion. Or different judge deciding what's in and what is out.

                      For months prior to the case, right wing propaganda told us Rittenhouse was a hero. Social media memes distorted the case and circumstances, and in the tank consumers of that material re-posted it without fail or question. So, we already knew a political component to this case existed and was being stirred. That alone told anyone paying attention that the 'right' jurors would never find him guilty regardless of anything. But would he get those 'in the tank' jurors? Would he get jurors biased the other way?

                      Fox News viewers were fed a steady diet of both he was a hero, as well as a victim, and the prosecution had no case. Unlike legitimate sources that fleshed out the case, Fox News viewers were again the most ill-informed people following the case.
                      This allowed two possible outcomes for Fox News:
                      #1 He gets off and Fox and viewers say "See??? Told you!!"
                      #2 He's found guilty and Fox and viewers say "Political garbage!! He was railroaded! The Deep State had it in for him!!"

                      Both of those outcomes are a win for Fox News and the propaganda they spew at night. Plus, they'll tell anyone who will listen that "the MSM were wrong" and pretend regular media didn't present both sides of the case. Because that is what Fox News does...
                      The MSM thing is so overdone. If you're talking propaganda, the Fox family of channels is off the hook. Not saying there is no bias/agenda in other outlets. But the idea of objectivity/reality in media is a pipe dream. Fox family of channels takes the cake in terms of extremism of propaganda. Go watch Hugo Chavez Show and tell me Trump doesn't follow the same playbook in a US context. Fox just amplifies that strategy/talking points.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

                        Yep. As another poster already pointed out, even Eleazar scourge CNN was predicting this result.

                        Always be weary of a poster who professes on social media to live in reality, then equates CNN with Q'anon all the while claiming to live in some non-media "No Spin Zone".
                        He is anti vaccine so expectations are low
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • This is absolutely going to happen, probably sooner than later.

                          https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/sta...72680491933711

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shags View Post
                            This is absolutely going to happen, probably sooner than later.

                            https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/sta...72680491933711
                            Yep. As I posted earlier in this thread, there is no longer any such thing as peaceful protest in this country anymore. But the role of firearms is only making this worse.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X