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

  • So the latest is that Chauvin and Floyd knew each other and did not like each other. We knew that they had worked together at night club before but it was unclear if they even knew each other. Now we know that they did and there was animous between them.

    So it was apparently a personal thing rather than just a cop using his power against just anybody.

    Comment


    • Minneapolis is going to go with the Camden approach. Camden was able to cut crime and issues by a lot in 5 years

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        So the latest is that Chauvin and Floyd knew each other and did not like each other. We knew that they had worked together at night club before but it was unclear if they even knew each other. Now we know that they did and there was animous between them.

        So it was apparently a personal thing rather than just a cop using his power against just anybody.
        Right. So if I'm a cop, I know you, and I don't like you, it somehow makes it less egregious and somehow more acceptable or understandable that I would kill you in a choke hold? Pretzel logic?
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post
          Minneapolis is going to go with the Camden approach. Camden was able to cut crime and issues by a lot in 5 years
          Camden actually expanded the scope of their jurisdiction to the county. The stories I read implied they really didn’t defund anything. They dismantled the city and just made it County.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

            Right. So if I'm a cop, I know you, and I don't like you, it somehow makes it less egregious and somehow more acceptable or understandable that I would kill you in a choke hold? Pretzel logic?
            Did I say that makes the crime less egregious, acceptable or understandable? No I didn't. In fact, he may well get murder-1 now. I think this makes Chauvin look even worse.

            But it does change the calculus. The entire foundation of the protests are undermined if this incident was just about Chauvin specifically wanting to kill THIS man (regardless of race). That is, this apparently wasn't about him being a cop but more about his relationship with Floyd.

            While this buries Chauvin it probably helps the other officers. Chauvin who specifically wanted to kill this man may have tried to hide this from the other guys. Maybe telling them, as the senior officer, this is fine and implying he wasn't pressing on him that much. We just don't know. What we do know is that Chauvin is in deeper trouble now. If I'm one of those other officers this helps my case. No doubt about it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

              But it does change the calculus. The entire foundation of the protests are undermined if this incident was just about Chauvin specifically wanting to kill THIS man (regardless of race). That is, this apparently wasn't about him being a cop but more about his relationship with Floyd.

              .
              Imagine thinking these protests are about one incident.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shags View Post

                Imagine thinking these protests are about one incident.
                I know the protests are about more than one incident. But let's be honest here. Had that incident not happened, the protests would have been nothing compared to what they are now. No?

                What we had was an incident that could make major changes to the way policing is done in this country. I'm not arguing that isn't needed. I am appalled that Minneapolis's city government kept an officer on after 18 complaints. Seriously, Floyd's death is on their hands too. There should certainly be protests based just on that fact.

                But as for this incident, it doesn't appear to be the text book case many thought it was when they saw the video. The real incident may have happened anywhere had Chauvin had the opportunity. We just don't know for sure now. Perhaps he really thought, as a cop, he could get away with killing someone (in particular). That's exactly what I think happened. That's very, very different than , as a cop, deciding on the basis of race to kill some dude on the street. That's what people assumed. Whether or not that's true is now more in question.

                edit: lol...supposedly armed volunteers are going to guard part of Seattle. Hmmm. Isn't this how civil war starts?
                Last edited by BlueNGold; 06-10-2020, 09:29 PM.

                Comment


                • I am thoroughly enjoying the thought of liberal cities de-funding and dismantling the police. These morons think it will help but amazingly it is like shooting themselves in the head because:

                  1) The radical views will drive moderates to stay home or vote for Trump
                  2) The result of no police will be pure chaos. People who otherwise might think they are liberal will see it fail hard up close.

                  This is one of the best ways to force feed conservatism. People who don't even want it are actually going to learn that liberalism doesn't work.

                  Edit: ...and this idiocy will not happen in conservative areas so we get to watch from the sidelines. Pacer / Colts are not available so I suppose this is the next best option.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    liberalism doesn't work.
                    What we are seeing has nothing to do with liberalism. These are pure authoritarians, they do not care about freedom or justice. These are the same people who would have been performing the Spanish Inquisition if they lived in the 1600's, or the Jewish priests who brought Jesus to Pilot to be killed. These people believe their morality is superior to others, and that makes them, their cause, and their actions righteous. For them the ends justify the means. This playbook has been used many times over history. Every single one of them, that I am aware of, resulted in a dictator. (see Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, and Mao)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      I am thoroughly enjoying the thought of liberal cities de-funding and dismantling the police. These morons think it will help but amazingly it is like shooting themselves in the head because:

                      1) The radical views will drive moderates to stay home or vote for Trump
                      2) The result of no police will be pure chaos. People who otherwise might think they are liberal will see it fail hard up close.

                      This is one of the best ways to force feed conservatism. People who don't even want it are actually going to learn that liberalism doesn't work.

                      Edit: ...and this idiocy will not happen in conservative areas so we get to watch from the sidelines. Pacer / Colts are not available so I suppose this is the next best option.
                      Thing is though, those driving the defunding/eliminating the cops aren't even liberals. They are leftists. And yes, they do hate this country and most who live in it.
                      I agree if they get their wish, they will quickly change their mind when the gangs of "protestors" show up to their doors demanding they give up their property.
                      I wonder who they'll call for help?
                      I'll have a good laugh at Minneapolis as it quickly turns into a real life version of escape from New York. They've been voting in these clowns for many years and deserve what is coming their way!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by clownskull View Post

                        Thing is though, those driving the defunding/eliminating the cops aren't even liberals. They are leftists. And yes, they do hate this country and most who live in it.
                        I agree if they get their wish, they will quickly change their mind when the gangs of "protestors" show up to their doors demanding they give up their property.
                        I wonder who they'll call for help?
                        I'll have a good laugh at Minneapolis as it quickly turns into a real life version of escape from New York. They've been voting in these clowns for many years and deserve what is coming their way!
                        You guys are right. I had to look into this. What we have with the hardline protesters are people who really don't believe in what America has ever done. I thought this was a decent description:

                        It’s the difference between a candidate who believes capitalism, with just a little refereeing, will eventually provide what working people need, versus a candidate who believes serious intervention in the capitalist economy is necessary.

                        Serious intervention like dismantling institutions of government. The scariest part is what they want to replace that with...which like Eleazar said is a dictatorship. I don't throw that term around lightly like some people. No US president including Obama, Clinton, Carter in recent history wanted to become a dictator. Pardon the pun, but left to its devices these nuts we've somehow let into the country including that Muslim rep from Minnesota are not American at all. Even if they have citizenship, they stand for the opposite.

                        But back to the real impact. What will letting these crazies run wild for a time do? It cannot hurt Trump. There will be people mad and they will lash out by voting Trump. This is whether they consciously would say they are mad or not.

                        Comment


                        • Trump's closest thing this country's ever had to a dictator. Stop with the all the hyperbolic babble. The police won't cease to exist. They will likely (hopefully) face stringent penalties for unnecessary use of excessive force. Chokeholds banned, reduced levels of weapons of war, greater levels of tracking and transparency, etc. But law enforcement undoubtedly has a role.

                          Here's a great start: Louisville's mayor expected to sign legislation eliminating no-knock warrants and requiring police to turn on body cameras when serving a warrant. Hope that becomes the national norm.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                            Trump's closest thing this country's ever had to a dictator. Stop with the all the hyperbolic babble. The police won't cease to exist. They will likely (hopefully) face stringent penalties for unnecessary use of excessive force. Chokeholds banned, reduced levels of weapons of war, greater levels of tracking and transparency, etc. But law enforcement undoubtedly has a role.

                            Here's a great start: Louisville's mayor expected to sign legislation eliminating no-knock warrants and requiring police to turn on body cameras when serving a warrant. Hope that becomes the national norm.
                            Well, they are in the process of trying to eliminate the police in Minneapolis and the nutjobs who took over that 6 block section in Seattle are trying to force the same thing.and the thing is, lefty politicians are either willing to try it or considering it. Any places that do, deserve what comes next. And it won't be pretty.

                            Comment


                            • Gun nuts don't know where to stand, first they say they need guns to fight a "dictatorship", as soon as the government implements martial law they cry to daddy government about needing more protection, more troops and more police because the poor babies can't handle people of color protesting


                              Note this are also the same people that claim to want "small government", they want "small government" as long as this government has enough armed police to protect their fragile a** and their properties.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                                Trump's closest thing this country's ever had to a dictator. Stop with the all the hyperbolic babble. The police won't cease to exist. They will likely (hopefully) face stringent penalties for unnecessary use of excessive force. Chokeholds banned, reduced levels of weapons of war, greater levels of tracking and transparency, etc. But law enforcement undoubtedly has a role.

                                Here's a great start: Louisville's mayor expected to sign legislation eliminating no-knock warrants and requiring police to turn on body cameras when serving a warrant. Hope that becomes the national norm.
                                Really? How is he close to being a dictator? He legitimately won the election. Every president has immense power. None in the US with exception of maybe FDR started to move in that direction.

                                I agree with some changes but I would be pretty careful thinking through the ramifications of those changes. Don't just think about the upsides to them. You might get a surprise.

                                Again, I do think changes are needed. No way do I believe someone should use a knee on another person's neck especially when they are that much outnumbered and under control.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X