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

    So you are calling Van Jones a right winger?
    So much people don’t know he was friends with people in the administration, again just because somebody is pro something doesn’t make them “lefties”

    https://twitter.com/farewell4now/sta...524809216?s=21



    https://twitter.com/wrightlyrics/status/1351928361346609154?s=21
    Last edited by vnzla81; 01-24-2021, 12:53 PM.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

      Yet this exact same thing can be said about CNN (I remember when it was “jokingly” called Clinton News Network) when Clinton and Obama were POTUS
      Well I’m pretty sure that Jim Acosta their top reporter is very fond of Trump.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

        Yet this exact same thing can be said about CNN (I remember when it was “jokingly” called Clinton News Network) when Clinton and Obama were POTUS
        That was the label that Limbaugh put on it... Because he didn't want his listeners listening to CNN and having his conspiracy theories about the "Clinton Body Count" being shot down.
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

          Too easy and this was not an article but a whole week.


          https://youtu.be/KPhsSqXHRAs



          LOL that whole CNN panel in the video is just a bunch of right wingers
          In addition to the crazy talk that Van Jones might be a right winger, I actually posted 3 articles. You still got work to do. And let's just say I have hundreds to good luck wit dat.

          The idea that CNN is even right of center is some good S.

          Comment


          • So what's up in Portland and Seattle? Domestic terrorists? Why isn't the media all over them?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

              This is the problem of living in a bubble and listening to Rush Limbaugh calling everybody “the enemy”, fact is Rush is in the same club with CNN, MSNBC clowns they all go to the same parties and laugh at the same poor people.


              It's a major problem because people in rural communities, where Limbaugh has really resonated, and his schtick of creating the "radical left" bogeyman... and making "democrats" the "enemy" of "God and Government" really has created a problem. People that don't listen to Limbaugh, get treated to the echo chamber and don't even realize it in these communities. Their local newspaper comment section is filled with people quoting Limbaugh and Fox News, et al, and don't even realize it.
              The same for the local social media sites replacing the dwindling local news options.
              And what local news remains, fears giving the remaining subscribers and listeners the truth versus what they want to hear.

              Their local races are politicians are running on platforms or ideas developed by exposure these sources, either directly, or indirectly, and then statewide and nationwide policy by the party.
              And that is where Qanon comes in.

              The people at the top of the party, and this modern propaganda machine, who could do something about it, become scared of the Frankenstein they all allowed to be created. Fox CAN'T tell the truth to Hannity's viewers because they don't want the truth. Top GOP politicians, who still know better, can't tell the truth because they don't want to lose those voters. And if they do lose them, they risk being primaried by a Trumper or a QAnon'er. And there's a LOT of overlap there!

              When Trump came along, he empowered an entirely different corner of the base, radicalized them, cult-ified them and the genie got out of the bottle. Fox had to go more into the tank to give the audience that they had cultivated what they wanted to hear. OAN and Newsmax saw an opportunity to go in even more, trying to gamble on the door Fox left open by having an actual news division, even though it's over-shadowed by the magazine shows.

              So now the GOP has QAnon running for local offices... and winning... and for state offices... and winning... and for national offices... and winning!!

              While, there was a point where those people weren't really 'true believers' and were just playing the game, but IMHO we've moved beyond that now. We're now getting true believers

              And few in power are ready and willing to rip that bandaid off.

              The cult of Trump now owns the GOP... even if Trump himself might not.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                In addition to the crazy talk that Van Jones might be a right winger, I actually posted 3 articles. You still got work to do. And let's just say I have hundreds to good luck wit dat.

                The idea that CNN is even right of center is some good S.
                I literally gave you videos proving what I’m saying but doesn’t fit the Rush narrative so you are going to pretend you never saw it

                VanJones was close to Ibanka and her husband and s***, they are all a big club.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                  If you had posted this before the riot at the Capitol I would have 100% agreed with you.

                  I feel strongly, however, that we cannot allow anyone (including but not limited to the President of the United States) to incite a riot and simply say “no consequences” because they are no longer in office.

                  I fully recognize my position may lead to a new party of even more extreme republicans. That is a risk I am willing to take to ensure we never have an incident like the one that happened at the Capitol again
                  First, if this happens again with another President it will be so far into the future that any action taken now will be forgotten. So no, I don't believe it would be a deterrent. And no I don't think it's setting a precedent.

                  Second, any punishment for this particular non-crime isn't going to be much. Trump didn't have intent for it to happen nor did he control it. All he did was gin up a crowd. If that's enough to put him in prison we don't live in the country that I think we do.

                  So...this is more about getting a piece of Donald Trump's azz. I understand the left wants him so bad. But what did Trump really do wrong? He ignored the federal courts and claimed the election was rigged at a rally. At worst, he was reckless by holding a rally and arguing against the results of the election even though he had his day in court. On that basis, as president, I think he should be removed. But I don't think he knew they would actually be able to enter the Capitol and do what they did. It's just too much of a reach. People get so caught up in his red meat rhetoric. The reality is, he has freedom of speech too and no he did not suggest violence at that rally. His legacy will pay for his actions but I don't think any kind of criminal prosecution could possibly stand. The result? Division and more Mueller type stuff where the left is chasing the wind again.

                  And then there is the practical cost of going after a guy whom 75 million people voted for....it will be very, very high. It will deepen division in this country and it cannot possibly help Democrats at the polls in 2 years. It will have me...someone who is actually quite pleased with the prospect of Trump fading away...instead strongly supporting him through it, looking for Tea Party or MAGA rallies to attend.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                    Rachel is not left she is establishment.
                    This ain't true. She has the squad on quite often. She's far more liberal than some the other older white dudes you posted videos of.



                    Comment


                    • The original comparison was with Rachael and Breitbart which is why I stuck up for her. Re-reading now it looks he was only comparing their bias POV which I can allow but as far as journalism goes they're not comparable. Breitbart would be better compared to a militant Antifa news letter or something.

                      And Rush and Hannity really are just a couple fear and hate mongering morons I'm sorry. Neither one can hold a candle to Rachel when it comes to their character and intelligence.

                      Journalism with bias is normal but you have tell the truth. Rush and Hannity can't even be considered a legit news source because they're not bound by facts.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        So what's up in Portland and Seattle? Domestic terrorists? Why isn't the media all over them?
                        Because the president isn't encouraging them to overthrow a democratic election?

                        Sure, arrest and prosecute the ones who destroy stuff. That's terrorism, IMO. But you're still talking about a lot smaller number of people overall and a lot less people breaking state/federal law at once than what happened on Jan. 6th.

                        A sitting leader of the United States inciting a mob to march on the capitol to stop election results? The stuff you're talking about pales in comparison.

                        The story of the Capitol attack isn't right-wing domestic terror. We've known about that for some time. Our President actually taking advantage of and manipulating an extremist group's ideology and emotions to overthrow the results of a clean, democratic election like some kind of dictator? Thank goodness the media didn't cower to Trump.

                        The Seattle protest yesterday was 50 people and no reported violence.
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                          First, if this happens again with another President it will be so far into the future that any action taken now will be forgotten. So no, I don't believe it would be a deterrent. And no I don't think it's setting a precedent.

                          Second, any punishment for this particular non-crime isn't going to be much. Trump didn't have intent for it to happen nor did he control it. All he did was gin up a crowd. If that's enough to put him in prison we don't live in the country that I think we do.

                          So...this is more about getting a piece of Donald Trump's azz. I understand the left wants him so bad. But what did Trump really do wrong? He ignored the federal courts and claimed the election was rigged at a rally. At worst, he was reckless by holding a rally and arguing against the results of the election even though he had his day in court. On that basis, as president, I think he should be removed. But I don't think he knew they would actually be able to enter the Capitol and do what they did. It's just too much of a reach. People get so caught up in his red meat rhetoric. The reality is, he has freedom of speech too and no he did not suggest violence at that rally. His legacy will pay for his actions but I don't think any kind of criminal prosecution could possibly stand. The result? Division and more Mueller type stuff where the left is chasing the wind again.

                          And then there is the practical cost of going after a guy whom 75 million people voted for....it will be very, very high. It will deepen division in this country and it cannot possibly help Democrats at the polls in 2 years. It will have me...someone who is actually quite pleased with the prospect of Trump fading away...instead strongly supporting him through it, looking for Tea Party or MAGA rallies to attend.
                          Of course you want the "Trump fading away" route. Just like all the other apologists and ennablers. You'd be supporting those movements either ways anyway.

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

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post

                            This ain't true. She has the squad on quite often. She's far more liberal than some the other older white dudes you posted videos of.


                            She has the squad to ask them about right wing talking points.

                            Rachel: “so tell me AOC how are you going to pay for free health? do you know this ain’t free? tell me”

                            Rachel: “so tell me AOC why are you against blowing up venezuela? are you friends with Maduro?”

                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Crazy thing is that I used to watch Rachel and s*** I used to post videos of her as I was trying to dunk on Sollozo Years ago

                              Glad I’m not longer blinded by those people f*** that
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                                First, if this happens again with another President it will be so far into the future that any action taken now will be forgotten. So no, I don't believe it would be a deterrent. And no I don't think it's setting a precedent.

                                Second, any punishment for this particular non-crime isn't going to be much. Trump didn't have intent for it to happen nor did he control it. All he did was gin up a crowd. If that's enough to put him in prison we don't live in the country that I think we do.

                                So...this is more about getting a piece of Donald Trump's azz. I understand the left wants him so bad. But what did Trump really do wrong? He ignored the federal courts and claimed the election was rigged at a rally. At worst, he was reckless by holding a rally and arguing against the results of the election even though he had his day in court. On that basis, as president, I think he should be removed. But I don't think he knew they would actually be able to enter the Capitol and do what they did. It's just too much of a reach. People get so caught up in his red meat rhetoric. The reality is, he has freedom of speech too and no he did not suggest violence at that rally. His legacy will pay for his actions but I don't think any kind of criminal prosecution could possibly stand. The result? Division and more Mueller type stuff where the left is chasing the wind again.

                                And then there is the practical cost of going after a guy whom 75 million people voted for....it will be very, very high. It will deepen division in this country and it cannot possibly help Democrats at the polls in 2 years. It will have me...someone who is actually quite pleased with the prospect of Trump fading away...instead strongly supporting him through it, looking for Tea Party or MAGA rallies to attend.
                                1.The point of a deterrent is to make sure it never happens again. The obvious hope is this is never allowed to happen again

                                2. Non-crime for who? I assume you mean the POTUS? Assuming so, then I think the most he would get would be found guilty and the vote will proceed where he is never allowed to run for office again. The man is a billionaire: no freaking way he does any jail time.

                                2B. POTUS may or may not have had intent, but he definitely added fuel to the fire. You keep giving him a pass that he doesn’t deserve (and frankly one you wouldn’t give if he was a democrat)

                                2C. I think he did suggest violence, even if it was a subtle suggestion. However that is all semantics at this point

                                someone who is actually quite pleased with the prospect of Trump fading away...instead strongly supporting him through it, looking for Tea Party or MAGA rallies to attend.
                                All due respect you were going to do this no matter what.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X