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 BlueNGold View Post
    It's not that America has a few warts to these people. It's not about fixing a few things. If it was, I would understand and support that. Because some change is needed. But they want to fundamentally change the nation.

    "Progressivism" is just another name for fundamentally changing America and there are a lot of those nitwits running around right now like AOC and her radical sisters and others who hate America. If they didn't, they wouldn't want to completely overhaul it.
    I am confused. You are saying you want change but only the change that you deem is needed, not the change other folks want due to their respective life experiences.

    Just admit it. They hate America. They are coming out of the closet in droves.
    Sorry, but I simply disagree.

    Are extremist a real thing? 100%. That is true for both sides. Folks who say “Nothing is wrong with the system, if you don’t like it then leave” are just as bad to me as folks who say “Defund the police is not enough. We need to strip the system and start from scratch”.







    Comment


    • Here's a piece that I thought explains well the idea that bias/racism being systemic in criminal justice is irrelevant of the attitudes and/or biases of whatever individuals or groups that comprise it may or may not have. It mentions that awareness and attention via diversity and bias trainings has not had much affect on changing things because the issue is within how law and order/control policing is conceived of in the first place.

      https://www.nationofchange.org/2020/...is-not-enough/

      It does not go into suggestions for what types of changes would enact progress. I can't speak for the author, but I would imagine integrating more social services into policing responsibilities, reducing militarization of policing, de-escalation, and philosophically reducing the criminalization focus of law enforcement might be components of a re-imagined approach.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

        If you go look at the actual statistic they show there is no widespread systemic racism by the police in this nation. That does not mean you will not find individual instances of racism by police, or an individual department that is racist. Finding such examples, though, are not evidence of systemic racism. It is just examples of individual racism. For racism to be systemic it has to be pervasive in the system. As of 2020, the statistic do not show any pervasive racism by the police.
        Police departments originated from slave patrols in the south. I understand the two are different but that is where it came from in this country

        Comment


        • V posts kid who was probably caught committing a crime. No parents around. Fact is, kid shouldn't have been left alone at that age. So, the cops are basically filling the role of parents.

          The harassers claim they are on the kid's neck but the cop was holding his head so he didn't get slammed into the door while he fought trying to get away. What a future for kid that age who doesn't go quietly with the cops. Man at no age in my life time would I have ever fought with them.

          Cops were perfect. Onlookers harassing them should have been arrested too.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

            Your talking points are a the reason why people out of the US make fun of americans, having it good for so long has made an entire generation very ignorant (boomers), so ignorant they ended up choosing the king of the buffoons to represent them.
            Probably so because they are envious of our status. If it were not for AOC-type thinking, we might have been able to maintain our status at the top. I don't think that continues. Waaaay too many leftists.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

              Oh, the ones who were told to "go back where they came from" even though they are U.S. citizens?

              So these defacers are "the left"? Rev. Wright is "the left"? "The left" is purely the most extremist actions one can fish out of the entire progressive community?
              So, you are saying that Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years has "the most extreme views"? And he sat in that pew for decades buying into it? Or was he just not paying attention?

              That's concerning because Obama isn't even that liberal compared to the many people who want to burn it all down. No question they would all sit and nod their heads to what Wright had to say.

              IOW, the views being expressed are pretty widespread. This isn't some tiny fringe on the left. If it were, the city of Seattle would have shut that thing down, but they didn't.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                I am confused. You are saying you want change but only the change that you deem is needed, not the change other folks want due to their respective life experiences.

                Sorry, but I simply disagree.

                Are extremist a real thing? 100%. That is true for both sides. Folks who say “Nothing is wrong with the system, if you don’t like it then leave” are just as bad to me as folks who say “Defund the police is not enough. We need to strip the system and start from scratch”.
                I do think some change is needed but what people don't know is that there has been a lot of efforts in the last decade to reform policing and corrections. That's on top of what was done many years ago to right many of the wrongs. For example, evidenced based practices have been a big focus for the brightest minds in criminal justice over the last decade. These are the people actually trying to solve the problems fairly and justly.

                Still, there are some practical changes that could be made like banning the use of the knee when restraining someone unless absolutely necessary. But really, just minor adjustments. Maybe go as far as having a federal review of officer complaints. Like a complaint database that is fed to the federal government. Some measure of oversight but make it entirely public including any discipline or I would never support it.

                As for extremists, the only people burning down buildings in recent years have been leftists. For every white supremacist group that pops up every few years in one city, you have dozens of violent protests by leftists all over the country. There really is no comparison in terms of the number of protests and volume of people...or the property damage. I hope you can admit that.

                As for telling people to leave the country, it depends on their views. If they are anarchists like many that are burning down buildings or they support that type of violent protest, yes, I would say they should leave or be imprisoned. I have no tolerance for people destroying property just because society doesn't function the way THEY want it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                  Probably so because they are envious of our status. If it were not for AOC-type thinking, we might have been able to maintain our status at the top. I don't think that continues. Waaaay too many leftists.
                  Imagine thinking this in 2020 lol
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                    Imagine thinking this in 2020 lol
                    So you prefer that other countries beat United States and that the US goes into a decline? And live here?

                    Comment


                    • Mississipi making plans to remove the southern cross from its flag. Good move Mississippi. That flag does stand for the confederacy and their ideals were defeated and their flag should have come down long ago. This is exactly the kind of change needed.

                      https://www.yahoo.com/news/mississip...141934097.html

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                        Here's a piece that I thought explains well the idea that bias/racism being systemic in criminal justice is irrelevant of the attitudes and/or biases of whatever individuals or groups that comprise it may or may not have. It mentions that awareness and attention via diversity and bias trainings has not had much affect on changing things because the issue is within how law and order/control policing is conceived of in the first place.

                        https://www.nationofchange.org/2020/...is-not-enough/

                        It does not go into suggestions for what types of changes would enact progress. I can't speak for the author, but I would imagine integrating more social services into policing responsibilities, reducing militarization of policing, de-escalation, and philosophically reducing the criminalization focus of law enforcement might be components of a re-imagined approach.
                        I want to try and remember to read this later.

                        One thing I think would help, and probably dovetails with what you're saying, is we need (or they need) to dial back the propaganda on how dangerous being a police officer is. It might be a decent driver for raises and advancement, and surely it buys some benefit of the doubt, with the public, and with superiors (if they believe the hype), for mistakes. But it's also just as certainly creating unnecessary fear and attitudes in the ranks of police as they buy into it. Then you add in the militarization of police, the idea of the "warrior cop", the war on drugs, the profiling, the lowered threshold for probable cause that goes with some of this, and you get into an "us vs them" mentality. You also see it creating this idea that all that really matters is that the police are able to go home after their shift. If there's a life or death decision to be made, with that thinking, then it's quickly made by the policeman in his own favor.
                        But how many of the situations were really life or death vs the police making a mistake and misreading a situation in the first place? THAT is a problem. Let alone the mentality that it's OK to make that mistake because the policeman was able to go home that night. IOW, his decision to use deadly force will always (in his mind) be justified because only life actually mattered in that moment.
                        It's a fine line, but it's an important line.

                        If citizen rights were more respected, profiling less accepted, assuming guilt and approaching every contact as a guilty individual frowned upon, it would begin to change some of the ingrained attitudes in the system. Strangely, we've been making some things worse over the years not better. We've given the police more powers and equipment, without reining in their inclination to use it all. Let alone encouraging it and/or rubber stamping it when they do use it and/or step over the boundaries.
                        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


                        • The left and progress will not be the downfall of this country. It will be the pushback from the far right, an over-reliance and belief in conservatism, and the fear of change. The fear of societal progress. The stopping of the evolution of society. All to remain or return to some darker time.
                          We must always be expanding our universe, figuratively and literally.

                          And when society says it's time to change, they should not meet resistance. There's a right side and wrong side of history. You never want to be standing on the wrong side. And trying to stop progress might just get your ran over by the bulldozer. People can choose to be part of the process, or to be left behind.

                          Right now, the Party of Trump is standing in the way of progress. It's no longer the republican party. It is conservative, but in all the wrong ways now.
                          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


                          • Wisdom from Charles Barkley: https://www.dailywire.com/news/charl...SHRMPHPX0j0-Ik

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              The left and progress will not be the downfall of this country. It will be the pushback from the far right, an over-reliance and belief in conservatism, and the fear of change. The fear of societal progress. The stopping of the evolution of society. All to remain or return to some darker time.
                              We must always be expanding our universe, figuratively and literally.

                              And when society says it's time to change, they should not meet resistance. There's a right side and wrong side of history. You never want to be standing on the wrong side. And trying to stop progress might just get your ran over by the bulldozer. People can choose to be part of the process, or to be left behind.

                              Right now, the Party of Trump is standing in the way of progress. It's no longer the republican party. It is conservative, but in all the wrong ways now.
                              I don't think it's fear on the right. I think it's simple disagreement between what people think is progress (what it is and what it is not) and separately what people think is potential progress (what is really possible).

                              The bottom line is, we expect personal responsibility, adherence to the rule of law and acceptance of your lot in life. That requires that a person be accountable for their own actions, responsible for themselves AND their family and not focused on what the other guy across town has acquired or achieved. It's called a little humility and compliance. That isn't much to ask.

                              Is that"standing in the way of progress"? No, I think that's essential for the progress we really need in this country.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                                So, you are saying that Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years has "the most extreme views"? And he sat in that pew for decades buying into it? Or was he just not paying attention?

                                That's concerning because Obama isn't even that liberal compared to the many people who want to burn it all down. No question they would all sit and nod their heads to what Wright had to say.

                                IOW, the views being expressed are pretty widespread. This isn't some tiny fringe on the left. If it were, the city of Seattle would have shut that thing down, but they didn't.
                                Sounds like somebody is feeling threatened that his way of life is going to be overturned. I don't think that's what's being sought.
                                Last edited by D-BONE; 06-27-2020, 09:19 PM.
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X