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

  • There is going to be a documentary about the guy so right wingers get wet dreams about him


    https://twitter.com/jeremymbarr/stat...605798912?s=21
    @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 going to be a documentary about the guy so right wingers get wet dreams about him


      https://twitter.com/jeremymbarr/stat...605798912?s=21
      Sickening if true.
      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".
        I only saw it on Twitter but CNN and WAPO both said this would be a really tough case to get guilty verdicts from right as opening statements were being made.

        I will be curious to hear the jury speak out (if they choose to do so).

        I also saw on twitter the judge has run unopposed in every election. I wonder if that changes after this trial

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          Of course if he was injured or killed by people attacking him while he was trying to escape I would have a very tune. I do not want innocent people being harmed.
          I think innocent is a stretch but I never said he should not be allowed to defend himself. What I did say, however, was:

          Originally posted by vapacersfan
          You are correct.

          However it doesn’t change how many bad decisions [some by adults who should def know better] were made that night that led to a lot of deaths.

          Imagine how different your tune would be if one of those protesters had shot and seriously injured/killed him.
          EDIT: I am not sure I have ever had so many errors posting on a VBulletin forum. It is really painful to try to post a reply when you get five or 10 “DB errors” before it finally lets a post go through

          Comment


          • Does not change my opinion one way or the other but a bad look (just as bad as the kid saying he was out there to “administer first aid”)

            https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...video.amp.html

            About 15 minutes before the first shooting, police officers drive past Mr. Rittenhouse, and the other armed civilians who claim to be protecting the dealership, and offer water out of appreciation.

            Mr. Rittenhouse walks up to a police vehicle carrying his rifle and talks with the officers.

            He eventually leaves the dealership and is barred by the police from returning. Six minutes later footage shows Mr. Rittenhouse being chased by an unknown group of people into the parking lot of another dealership several blocks away.
            Family behind Kenosha car dealership says Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't asked to guard their property
            https://www.insider.com/brothers-say...source-2021-11

            Two brothers from the family-owned car dealership Kyle Rittenhouse said he was guarding on the night of the Kenosha shootings testified on Friday that neither had requested armed protection that night, from Rittenhouse or anyone else.

            Sahil and Anmol Khindri said they both encountered Rittenhouse and other armed men on August 25, 2020, the day of the shooting, but only briefly.

            The Khindri brothers' testimony is significant for prosecutors' efforts to paint Rittenhouse as a vigilante who recklessly and needlessly brought an AR-15 rifle into a dangerous situation. Rittenhouse's defense attorneys have sought to portray their client as a Good Samaritan who was providing much-needed protection to a family business that had requested it.

            Comment


            • This is amazing





              Lord of the Roths: How Tech Mogul Peter Thiel Turned a Retirement Account for the Middle Class Into a $5 Billion Tax-Free Piggy Bank — ProPublica
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • I am sure the car dealership denies any request for protection due to the extended legal liability from civil lawsuits. Though it would seem pretty easy to prove they asked his militia group for help via emails and texts.

                now the gun law issue I don’t fully understand, it might not be the right type of barrel to meet the law’s standards, but surely there is law about minors openly caring rifles in public spaces with out a legal guardian? It one thing to allow a 17 year to possession of a rifle on his own property. Wisconsin is a very rural state, sure these details would have been spelled out with more specifics when making a law.

                Its unfortunate situation, but outside of just being there with a weapon (note: lots of others were there with a weapon too!) the kid actually did nothing wrong. He wasn’t threatening people or waving his rifle around carelessly. A small mob of people started chasing him and harassing him for having a rifle and a few decided to play hero and lost.
                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                Comment


                • My only argument is the mob came after him after he shot someone (I think)

                  Hard to follow all the facts in this one.

                  Either way as I have said numerous times he (and his family) are idiots and made bad choices. So many ways to have a conversation with your 15-17 years old: “Let’s talk about ways to have an impact”, “Lets talk about protests you can go to locally”, “lets talk about groups you can join that want to advocate”.

                  Or “lets go to another state with a firearm and look for a fight”…….

                  Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

                  And yes, sadly this will make some folks question the firearm laws. However as you said above there are two sides to every story and he was not the only one with a weapon that night

                  Comment


                  • The idiocy of people defending him, making him a hero, rather than making him out to be the end result of a sad cautionary tale is the really troubling thing here. It's not like the protests didn't exist for a legitimate reason. Meanwhile, the militant, hyper-patriotism and sheer ignorance of why he would go there in the first place, armed, is a moral and cultural problem.

                    The lesson that needs to be taken away is that we don't get to arm ourselves and go look for something to protect. That's lunacy. You protect yourself and your family... you don't go out protecting other people's stuff as an individual or some loose group. That is the same as looking for trouble. But instead, that type of thing is being celebrated by the very people that need to learn the lesson. Idiots.
                    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


                    • A lot of you really do not know much about this case, and need to broaden your news sources. You need to understand that all news sources are biased, and lie to you. There are many things you do not know about this case, and maybe you should be looking at sources that you would not usually listen to to get a complete understanding of what happened that night, why the gun charges were thrown out, and why the verdict is not guilty. You should not trust CNN or MSNBC anymore than you trust FOX or OAN. All of these sources have a strong political bent, and cannot be trusted. I will give credit to TYT, a notoriously far-left source, for admitting they were wrong about Rittenhouse after watching the trial. If you guys actually go watch the trial and listen to all the evidence, not just what was selectively presented by your preferred news source. You will see that the jury made the right call, and it isn't even close.

                      It is disturbing and sickening seeing how many people, especially prominent leftist politicians, come out and decry the results. They are putting politics above the law and justice. This has been an increasingly disturbing trend from the left.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        A lot of you really do not know much about this case, and need to broaden your news sources. You need to understand that all news sources are biased, and lie to you. There are many things you do not know about this case, and maybe you should be looking at sources that you would not usually listen to to get a complete understanding of what happened that night, why the gun charges were thrown out, and why the verdict is not guilty. You should not trust CNN or MSNBC anymore than you trust FOX or OAN. All of these sources have a strong political bent, and cannot be trusted. I will give credit to TYT, a notoriously far-left source, for admitting they were wrong about Rittenhouse after watching the trial. If you guys actually go watch the trial and listen to all the evidence, not just what was selectively presented by your preferred news source. You will see that the jury made the right call, and it isn't even close.

                        It is disturbing and sickening seeing how many people, especially prominent leftist politicians, come out and decry the results. They are putting politics above the law and justice. This has been an increasingly disturbing trend from the left.
                        The law, maybe. Justice. Not so much. Change the law when it's not just.
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • Here is right wing hero beating a girl a couple of years ago


                          https://twitter.com/vicbergeriv/stat...053896193?s=21
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            A lot of you really do not know much about this case, and need to broaden your news sources. You need to understand that all news sources are biased, and lie to you. There are many things you do not know about this case, and maybe you should be looking at sources that you would not usually listen to to get a complete understanding of what happened that night, why the gun charges were thrown out, and why the verdict is not guilty. You should not trust CNN or MSNBC anymore than you trust FOX or OAN. All of these sources have a strong political bent, and cannot be trusted. I will give credit to TYT, a notoriously far-left source, for admitting they were wrong about Rittenhouse after watching the trial. If you guys actually go watch the trial and listen to all the evidence, not just what was selectively presented by your preferred news source. You will see that the jury made the right call, and it isn't even close.

                            It is disturbing and sickening seeing how many people, especially prominent leftist politicians, come out and decry the results. They are putting politics above the law and justice. This has been an increasingly disturbing trend from the left.
                            Agree with the assertion that there is no unbiased news outlet / info source. But what about the right's making a martyr and now a hero out of Rittenhouse? What about the Tucker Carlson Productions film? Stop this sham of being ultra conscious of all media bias and then just calling out the left. That's disingenuous as hell. The PD equivalent of the "No Spin Zone".
                            Last edited by D-BONE; 11-20-2021, 11:20 PM.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • You can be biased and still be truthful. You can be biased and still be critical. You can be biased and still present a more complete picture.

                              But Fox News sees no reason to do that. At least during the entertainment parts of their schedule.

                              Other than it 'sells', I don't understand the desire by Fox News or some in the GOP to paint Rittenhouse as a hero, nor as a victim. He should be a cautionary tale about extremism and emotional maturity (or lack thereof) and how taking gasoline to a fire is not a good idea. Especially for a 17 year old kid who believed himself to be some kind of Junior Policeman, complete with a gun, going to a protest that he was on the complete opposite side of.
                              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
                                The idiocy of people defending him, making him a hero, rather than making him out to be the end result of a sad cautionary tale is the really troubling thing here. It's not like the protests didn't exist for a legitimate reason. Meanwhile, the militant, hyper-patriotism and sheer ignorance of why he would go there in the first place, armed, is a moral and cultural problem.

                                The lesson that needs to be taken away is that we don't get to arm ourselves and go look for something to protect. That's lunacy. You protect yourself and your family... you don't go out protecting other people's stuff as an individual or some loose group. That is the same as looking for trouble. But instead, that type of thing is being celebrated by the very people that need to learn the lesson. Idiots.
                                Ok, that 2nd paragraph... ugh. You protect yourself and your family? So if some guy or a mob jumps on a friend of yours or any innocent person, and they're punching, kicking and stomping his/her brains out, you have to just let them do it?
                                and this idea Kyle was doing the same thing as "looking for trouble" No, the rioters WERE looking for trouble. They were the ones looting, burning stuff down and tearing the town apart all over a guy they didn't even know (since apparently that matters according to some unwritten law)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X