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

    Besides the fact she may never have handled a gun, part A probably has a lot to do with the fact 500 angry people just invaded their quiet, private street. I think that would put most people on edge. It may even justify her shooting it if she felt her life was in danger. For example, if they started to rush her. Who do they think they are that they can just invade someone's property like that?
    No excuse for part A. Period. If you have never handled a gun you should not be handling it in that situation

    I have not seen the videos but on the news they said people were walking by the house on their way to another home (I think the mayors). That is far from “invading”; especially if they don’t have weapons.

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    It may even justify her shooting it if she felt her life was in danger.
    See above.

    I am a big proponent of castle doctrine but if folks simply walking by (and I have heard conflicting reports of if they broke the gate or if they simple walked through a broken gate) is justification for shooting someone that is a problem. As to your above point, the fact the guy is a lawyer and is already making statements about how “in fear” he was shows he knows simply brandishing a weapon for folks walking by his house is a bad look (if even legal)

    For example, if they started to rush her. Who do they think they are that they can just invade someone's property like that?
    If they started to rush her? Then all bets are off.

    However lets be real: walking by someone’s house (who confronts you, or re-confronts you [with weapons] depending on whose version you believe) is a far cry from “invading” someone’s property.

    EDIT: I will say, on the flip side, the protestors are getting a lot of sympathy from what I have heard. A big part of that is they are saying they were simply walking by and didn’t argue with the lawyer guy when he came outside and told them they were not welcome and should leave. I have a REALLY hard time believe protestors (who are normally upset and fired up in general) in that situation does interact at all and simply keep walking.
    Last edited by vapacersfan; 06-30-2020, 08:17 AM.

    Comment


    • The couple has been identified as Mark and Patricia McCloskey. Both are attorneys who have defended their actions, saying they felt threatened by the "mob" that broke through the gate to their property and refused to leave. "The only thing that stopped the crowd was my rifle," Mark McCloskey told 5 On Your Side.

      But according to Saint Louis University Lawyer John Amman, the couple's actions could possibly be classified as an assault by putting protesters in fear of their safety.

      "People have a right to threaten force if they are threatened," Amman said. However, if a group of protesters is walking by a home and not doing anything to the homeowners specifically, then they don’t have the right to threaten lethal force without an imminent threat.

      https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/lo...5-c270a0fd2879

      Comment


      • https://thebulwark.com/the-missouri-...mpression=true

        The Missouri Gun-Toting Lawyers Are Screwed

        Yes, this is a private community. Mr. McCloskey tells KSDK that “There is nothing public in Portland Place. Being inside that gate is like being in my living room.” Except that’s not true at all. Members of that community are not empowered to enforce trespass laws by pointing guns at unarmed people. This is why you call the police.

        Did the McCloskeys call the police? (Editor’s note: Yes, though it’s unclear when they called the police and what the circumstances were when they did so.)

        Crimes committed on private property are not exempted from legal scrutiny. Brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner on private property is not like an exemption for a farm vehicle in the Missouri countryside. There are exemptions, and then there are crimes.

        However, because they are—again—clever trial lawyers, the McCloskeys have already begun their legal defense, suggesting that they were in fear for their safety.

        Mr. McCloskey told local TV station KMOV:

        "A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought iron gates of Portland Place, destroying them, rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside, and put us in fear of our lives.”

        ————————————————————


        Cassandra Fairbanks@CassandraRules
        In this livestream footage you can clearly see the STL black lives matter mob entered through the gate to a private community. This was not a public sidewalk. https://twitter.com/cassandrarules/status/1277417169979146243 …

        Cassandra Fairbanks@CassandraRules
        Leftist Lunatics Dox and Threaten Armed St. Louis Couple Who Protected Their Home From Black Lives Matter Mob https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...sitesharingbut tons …

        14.9K
        5:54 AM - Jun 29, 2020
        Twitter Ads info and privacy

        Comment


        • After the live stream video (appears we have gone from 100 to “a few”):



          Last edited by vapacersfan; 06-30-2020, 08:37 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
            The couple has been identified as Mark and Patricia McCloskey. Both are attorneys who have defended their actions, saying they felt threatened by the "mob" that broke through the gate to their property and refused to leave. "The only thing that stopped the crowd was my rifle," Mark McCloskey told 5 On Your Side.

            But according to Saint Louis University Lawyer John Amman, the couple's actions could possibly be classified as an assault by putting protesters in fear of their safety.

            "People have a right to threaten force if they are threatened," Amman said. However, if a group of protesters is walking by a home and not doing anything to the homeowners specifically, then they don’t have the right to threaten lethal force without an imminent threat.

            https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/lo...5-c270a0fd2879
            Its a brave new world we are entering. Did the police show up? Nope. Going to be even worse for the people it is supposed to be helping, ie defunding.
            How many murders and violence is it going to take before the light bulb comes on?
            {o,o}
            |)__)
            -"-"-

            Comment


            • Originally posted by owl View Post

              Its a brave new world we are entering. Did the police show up? Nope. Going to be even worse for the people it is supposed to be helping, ie defunding.
              How many murders and violence is it going to take before the light bulb comes on?


              I am confused. From the articles below police were called and did in fact respond to the incident:

              The pair called the St. Louis Police Department shortly before 7:30 p.m. Sunday. They told arriving officers that they had heard a “commotion” and, upon investigating further, “observed a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs.” according to an incident summary provided to Fox News by the department.

              The police report does not identify the McCloskeys as the victims.

              “Once through the gate, the victims advised the group that they were on a private street and trespassing and told them to leave,” the police summary further states. “The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims. When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”

              Based on the couple’s account, police labeled the incident a case of trespassing and assault by intimidation, according to the incident summary. No other police reports were filed that night, a department spokesperson told Fox News.

              https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-c...52007bfc8.html

              https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-c...52007bfc8.html

              Comment


              • Isn't it true the police came later...or were they on scene? That's rather important. In other words, they may have been picking up bodies had things gotten carried away.

                Now, don't tell us these protesters are peaceful all the time because we all know they like to burn down things. Considering they broke into private property, there was valid reason to believe they were a threat..

                I think Owl is absolutely right. We are beginning to enter that phase where people will be arming themselves. It's just a matter of time before we see an incident. You just cannot barge onto private property with hundreds of people, yell obscenities at the owners and think they're not going to be seriously concerned about that. This is ridiculous I even have to say that.

                Worse, it might get to the point we see militias organizing. Just keep pushing people.

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=vapacersfan;n3506691]



                  I am confused. From the articles below police were called and did in fact respond to the incident:


                  +++++++++++++++

                  My mistake. Original report I heard was no police.




                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Isn't it true the police came later...or were they on scene? That's rather important. In other words, they may have been picking up bodies had things gotten carried away.
                    They were called and arrived later. Thankfully for both sides (including the lady who needs some serious range time and safety classes/refreshers) things did not escalate.

                    Now, don't tell us these protesters are peaceful all the time because we all know they like to burn down things. Considering they broke into private property, there was valid reason to believe they were a threat..
                    I never said they are peaceful all the time. However, marching/protesting in a “upscale gated community” while trespassing is not the same as “breaking into private property” (at least in the sense of breaking into someone’s home)

                    I think Owl is absolutely right. We are beginning to enter that phase where people will be arming themselves. It's just a matter of time before we see an incident.
                    I think that’s a bit of an over-reaction. Did these two lawyers just buy guns recently?

                    You just cannot barge onto private property with hundreds of people, yell obscenities at the owners and think they're not going to be seriously concerned about that.
                    Who said otherwise? The most I have heard is folks who have said “Yelling at someone does not justify getting shot”. I tend to agree with that line of thought, although, if you go trespassing IMO you are looking for trouble and cant be shocked when people (especially upper class in a gated community) get nervous.

                    This is ridiculous I even have to say that.
                    What is ridiculous is that people (not saying you specifically) are equating trespassing to automatically justifying getting shot/killed. I understand being annoyed by the trespassers, and even confronting them (although I think that is stupid personally), however his response after the incident was caught on film/picture proves if he had shot and injured/killed he would have been in a world of trouble.


                    Worse, it might get to the point we see militias organizing. Just keep pushing people.
                    I imagine we could see that, but I think that’s a rather huge jump from “two lawyers pulled guns out when a large crowd showed up” to “armed militias”.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                      That has serious teeth, alright.

                      Without getting too specific, I am a government contractor. I have liability insurance. Qualified immunity would be very, very important if I ever took a job with the government. It would be a determining factor because of the pay cut. Just keep that in mind. People will weigh that. The ignorant who are more likely to do that kind of thing, may well not be weighing it. IOW, you may trim out the good people and be left with the bad people.
                      Not surprised at all.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                        I never said they are peaceful all the time. However, marching/protesting in a 'upscale gated community' while trespassing is not the same as 'breaking into private property' (at least in the sense of breaking into someone's home)
                        I don't claim to know the answer to this - but what are the 'rules' when it comes to a gated neighborhood ?? Is it indeed private property or are the signs and gate just a suggestion to people ?? I know some around Indy have their own security that patrols the area.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

                          I don't claim to know the answer to this - but what are the 'rules' when it comes to a gated neighborhood ?? Is it indeed private property or are the signs and gate just a suggestion to people ?? I know some around Indy have their own security that patrols the area.
                          I am not a lawyer but this is what I could find on Google (emphasis on front/back yard vice walking down a sidewalk):


                          https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/lo...5-c270a0fd2879

                          The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine that allows residents to use deadly force against anyone, based on the notion that their home is "their castle." ... This means that if someone illegally enters your front porch or backyard, you can use deadly force against them without retreating first.
                          As far as the sign this is the only photo I could find and it is from the other side of the gate. It appears a sign was posted was whenever this was taken

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

                            I don't claim to know the answer to this - but what are the 'rules' when it comes to a gated neighborhood ?? Is it indeed private property or are the signs and gate just a suggestion to people ?? I know some around Indy have their own security that patrols the area.
                            Go out to Zillow and you will see the property lines cover the entire area. It's their yard. Not one inch of ground is public. This is entirely legal where the parcels probably have easements that allow only residents of that area to travel on that street.

                            So the protesters didn't just trespass on one person's property but as they walked down the street they trespassed on each one. Legally, they may as well have sat on their front porch.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                              Go out to Zillow and you will see the property lines cover the entire area. It's their yard. Not one inch of ground is public. This is entirely legal where the parcels probably have easements that allow only residents of that area to travel on that street.

                              So the protesters didn't just trespass on one person's property but as they walked down the street they trespassed on each one. Legally, they may as well have sat on their front porch.
                              I would love to have a lawyer chime in.

                              I am going off of my law class freshman year of college (over a decade ago now) but I THINK I remember discussing that roads are privately owned by the community but are not the private property of any individual.

                              Using above I don’t believe you are correct. If you came and sat on my front porch I have a right to defend my house using the castle doctrine. If you simply stand on the street and call me names I don’t have that same right. Now if they broke a gate down on the families private property its game on. I don’t believe the same is true for simply walking down a street on a private neighborhood.

                              Initially the husband claimed they came onto his lawn and got into his face. I don’t believe the video released later on backed up that claim.

                              Like I said above, I would love to have a lawyer chime in and got into his face however I think the video released later on did not back that version up.



                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X