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 dal9 View Post
    ^^2/27/2020... still a moron tho
    I'm re-reading her Tweet and thinking about what I posted the other day. I was talking about certain posters who would make comments that were extremely condescending about topics they were clearly not exactly 'informed' about. But my theory was it didn't come from wanting to troll, or even particularly want to be condescending. Instead, I think it comes from such a certainty of being right and a certainty how wrong 'the opposition' must be in their mind.

    That condescension is in Candice's Tweet. Clearly, a year later from that Tweet and we can see how wrong she was, but I'm not sure it matters to followers. They just move the goalposts.
    The only question I have is whether Candice actually believed what she Tweeted, or whether she was playing a role. But, whichever case, with her prominent position as a conservative voice, she essentially condoned using condescension as a tactic against people who wanted to listen to experts and follow the science. And she's not the only one.
    It's a tactic. Intentional or not. And it's allowing a certainty to spread in misinformation because it's not using facts. It's using pseudo facts, misinformation, and incomplete information, mixed with some emotion to present and further a narrative.

    I guess what I'm saying, when people like her use that tactic from her rather large megaphone, should we be surprised to see true believers doing the exact same all of social media forums? And with all the confidence in the world it's OK to do that because they are right. Read those last two words either way you want.
    Last edited by Bball; 02-27-2021, 03:21 PM.
    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


    • Hindsight is always 20/20

      It is definitely a bad look now - however some (most?) back in February of 2020 thought this was something that would last weeks/months and then life would go back to “normal”

      If they were correct and scientists were wrong folks would be screaming about how the media overreacted to something that was not that big of a deal.

      Now, anyone repeating that rhetoric a year later.....my opinion is vastly different.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
        Hindsight is always 20/20

        It is definitely a bad look now - however some (most?) back in February of 2020 thought this was something that would last weeks/months and then life would go back to “normal”

        If they were correct and scientists were wrong folks would be screaming about how the media overreacted to something that was not that big of a deal.

        Now, anyone repeating that rhetoric a year later.....my opinion is vastly different.
        No really non cult people knew this thing was worse than the flu since day one.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

          No really non cult people knew this thing was worse than the flu since day one.
          By Feb 27th of last year the reality was very much coming into focus. There were still questions about whether masks would help or whether it was more transferred by touch, whether we could afford to have everyone buying up masks when the medical system was going to need more than was available. And whether improper wearing of masks and mask wearing in general could lead to issues including a false sense of confidence/security.

          The questions about whether it would reach the US and whether we could contain it via contract tracing and quarantine had already been answered too. We'd already missed it and it was in the wild with no tracing leading to any known contacts that would directly lead to an infected country.

          There had already been talk about how bad it COULD be IF certain things would happen. By Feb 27th, those things had happened. Containment potential lost.

          The reporting on legitimate news outlets had shifted away from 'maybe' or assuming it would be like other situations that we managed to handle, or didn't have the death potential and hospitalization (H1N1) that this was bringing, to starting to present experts explaining what we knew about the virus, what we knew it had done, what it was doing other places, what we knew we could expect here, and what we knew we could expect in a worst case scenario so that we weren't just focused on "It'll go away... like a miracle".

          Except Fox, of course.

          So, by the time Candice Tweeted that, she was well into science denial and feeding the Trump of Cult what they wanted to hear and believe.
          Last edited by Bball; 02-27-2021, 07:31 PM.
          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
            No really non cult people knew this thing was worse than the flu since day one.
            All due respect this is 100% MMQB at its finest

            My best friend form high school was/is in the military posted in South Korea. They saw this way earlier than most other countries and took it way more seriously. Even for them the guidance was take it seriously and our hope is this goes away in the near future.

            I dont have the best memory but I remember last Feb/March a lot of debate about is this was transferred via surface contact and the obvious early guidance from CONUS that masks should not be worn. This guidance, by itself, shows folks did not know exactly what we were dealing with “since day one”.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bball View Post
              By Feb 27th of last year the reality was very much coming into focus. There were still questions about whether masks would help or whether it was more transferred by touch, whether we could afford to have everyone buying up masks when the medical system was going to need more than was available. And whether improper wearing of masks and mask wearing in general could lead to issues including a false sense of confidence.
              I agree with most of that but I feel like the bolded part is revisionist history. I remember, I think the CDC, saying early on masks were not needed by the “common citizen” - the narrative of “dont buy all the masks because the medical community needs them” did not come out until much later”. Perhaps the CDC/govt/TPTB just did not want to cause an uproar, but IMO that was horrible messaging regardless of what the intent was

              There had already been talk about how bad it COULD be IF certain things would happen. By Feb 27th, those things had happened. Containment potential lost.
              I thought it hit CONUS in early March - however like I said my memory is admittedly not the best.

              The reporting on legitimate news outlets had shifted away from 'maybe' or assuming it would be like other situations that we managed to handle, or didn't have the death potential and hospitalization (H1N1) that this was bringing, to starting to present experts explaining what we knew about the virus, what we knew it had done, what it was doing other places, what we knew we could expect here, and what we knew we could expect in a worst case scenario so that we weren't just focused on "It'll go away... like a miracle".
              Two points:

              1. This whole statement seems to assume “legitimate news outlets” are never wrong.

              2. There was all kind of controversy with these numbers. To this day I think a lot of [smart] people argue how much those numbers were under/over reported (I think both happened but thats a topic for another day)

              So, by the time Candice Tweeted that, she was well into science denial and feeding the Trump of Cult what they wanted to hear and believe.
              I don't agree based on the timeline - however I would agree if she made that same post today.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                All due respect this is 100% MMQB at its finest

                My best friend form high school was/is in the military posted in South Korea. They saw this way earlier than most other countries and took it way more seriously. Even for them the guidance was take it seriously and our hope is this goes away in the near future.

                I dont have the best memory but I remember last Feb/March a lot of debate about is this was transferred via surface contact and the obvious early guidance from CONUS that masks should not be worn. This guidance, by itself, shows folks did not know exactly what we were dealing with “since day one”.
                By January last year we already had reports of people dropping dead because of the virus acting like we didn’t know (some of us watched news of this thing since November/December) is not accurate.

                Candace was obviously trying to sell some Republican bs.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  By January last year we already had reports of people dropping dead because of the virus acting like we didn’t know (some of us watched news of this thing since November/December) is not accurate.

                  Candace was obviously trying to sell some Republican bs.
                  I literally had to follow this for work but I didn’t think anyone (with the exception of the Chinese) started taking it seriously until February or March. I have a friend who is a scientist for the USG and he was talking about it in early January (more of a “did you hear about this crazy thing happening in China”).

                  This was one of the first articles I remember seeing about COVID: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50984025

                  If you were really tracking in November/December more power to you

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                    I literally had to follow this for work but I didn’t think anyone (with the exception of the Chinese) started taking it seriously until February or March. I have a friend who is a scientist for the USG and he was talking about it in early January (more of a “did you hear about this crazy thing happening in China”).

                    This was one of the first articles I remember seeing about COVID: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50984025

                    If you were really tracking in November/December more power to you
                    i went to an airport strip club mid-february, so yeah i don't think people knew what the hell this was (btw was sick as **** for a week+ after)...early- mid-march was a different story....2/27 i guess is borderline

                    Comment


                    • Wait. Hold on. What?!

                      Airports have strips clubs? Where? In the airport?

                      Asking for a friend

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                        Wait. Hold on. What?!

                        Airports have strips clubs? Where? In the airport?

                        Asking for a friend
                        well, not in the airport per se, but serving airport clientele...had like a 6 AM flight...anyway, it was fairly janky...plus maybe gave me covid

                        Comment



                        • 1. This whole statement seems to assume “legitimate news outlets” are never wrong.

                          Does it make it better if I say news outlets except for Fox and OAN and their ilk? Or the AP vs Hannity? Or NPR versus Tucker Carlson?

                          Your timeline is off. The Chinese doctor that first went public about this, was in December.

                          China itself raised the alarm Dec 31st 2019.

                          The first US case with contact tracing was Jan 19/21st in Washington State. More cases followed, but they could trace those.

                          Containment was lost and the first case of community spread was confirmed Feb 26th. This probably was what Candice's Tweet was in reply to.

                          But also known at this time was the poor state of testing. In fact, for much of this time you couldn't get a test unless you had contact with China.

                          I was following this at the time because I knew it could have a severe business impact if what ultimately happened, was to happen. We kept ticking the wrong boxes.

                          By March you had calls for the upcoming NCAAT to be played without fans.

                          The BTT opened under a cloud of uncertainty about fans attending... and after IU played it went from "no fans" to "no games". It was over. And soon the NCAAT would be canceled.

                          On or about March 12th, Indiana issued the first rounds of gathering restrictions. And so it began.

                          If you want to give Candice some benefit of the doubt, go ahead. But I won't be doing that. By that point, the alarm bells were ringing loud and clear. In fact, making a Tweet like that in response to the first case of known community spread was terrible timing. That should've been when logical people started recalculating and realized the best case scenario (containment) was off the table.

                          And where all the issues with our early testing were about to really cause issues.

                          We can argue how much of this would've been avoidable even with better testing and more serious containment, and better messaging from the top and the propagandists like Hannity and Candice, but giving Candice the benefit of the doubt for a Tweet like that AFTER containment was confirmed lost, is a bridge too far for me.

                          I have more to type... but I'm eating Nachos!



                          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




                          • another one @V

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              1. This whole statement seems to assume “legitimate news outlets” are never wrong.

                              Does it make it better if I say news outlets except for Fox and OAN and their ilk? Or the AP vs Hannity? Or NPR versus Tucker Carlson?
                              I guess, as long as you including the extreme left news sources like MSNBC and the CNN shows that have an obvious slant as well


                              We can argue how much of this would've been avoidable even with better testing and more serious containment, and better messaging from the top and the propagandists like Hannity and Candice, but giving Candice the benefit of the doubt for a Tweet like that AFTER containment was confirmed lost, is a bridge too far for me.

                              I have more to type... but I'm eating Nachos!
                              Your entitled to your opinion. I still think it’s a big time game of MMQB after the fact.

                              Now send me some dang nachos!

                              Comment


                              • Sooooo.....When are they going to just come out and admit that there are UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) that is not terrestrial?

                                https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzanne...h=3f56028849e1


                                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X