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

Counting: It's Fun.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

    Originally posted by sweabs View Post
    62422

    Right on (re: technology stuff)! I was going to post something similar, but I've pushed enough buttons lately. I bring a small memo-pad that can fit in my back pocket wherever I go. Works beautifully. Has yet to let me down.

    Battlestar Galactica? What is that?

    I agree with you that there unquestionably needs to be an introduction to the 'classics' for students today. But, I also believe in giving the student an opportunity to find their own 'classics' - their own favourite author(s). Up until the start of University, I was drilled with the Shakespeares and Dickinsons. That is not to say I didn't enjoy reading them - because I did - but then I began to read the works of Ralph Ellison (completely changed me), John Henrik Clarke, James Baldwin, Richard Wright - and I felt reinvigorated with my passion for reading. When so many people of today's generation are turning away from reading altogether, perhaps they just need to be given that freedom to choose who they read. These authors that I had found (or, who found me) were completely wiped away from highschool English altogether...among so many others.
    I do the back-pocket memo thing too! Nifty as hell. And it kind of bugs me when someone's pounding away at their laptop when in a meeting or class. Is that really necessary? My mother is a salesperson, and she says that meetings are infested with colleagues who can't go one second without checking in on one of their myriad gadgets.

    Sometimes I feel like we rush head-first into New Technology w/o pausing to think how it's really serving us.

    62431

    And re freedom: How do you mean? Most college students have access to a bigass library and plenty of spare time. Most of them choose to fill that time with goofy resume-padding extracurriculars, or by just sitting on their ***. And most colleges (or at least my college) do not even "drill" you with the classics. If anything they're cursorily covered in some hyperfast survey, and from there most of the classes aren't very concerned with them.

    I still think that the constant feeding upon (or even just nibbling upon) of the "Great Literary Texts" of our culture should be the foundation of any sort of education. Most thinking is metaphorical (or figurative) in some nature, and there's no better way to exercise your thinker than by absorbing the strongest tropes to come before you.

    I mean, really - is there any reason why a student can't wake up 30mins early each morning in order to read a little poetry? I don't understand why so many disciplines have shifted away from our authentic literary culture (which includes more than just dramatic and poetic stuff—there's the entire philosophic canon, there's incredible scientific writing, nonfiction writing. . .) and have instead aligned themselves with the corporate-produced faux-culture ("pop" culture). Culture Studies, Gender Studies, Literary Theory, etc.—all of these seem to have adopted the "disseminate info and introduce a paradigm" model, which to me is sadly lacking. Not that they aren't worthy disciplines, of course, but that they seem to eschew traditional humanities scholarship, which was always about the imaginative study (and ingestion) of past tropes and then the eventual refinement of said tropes. Which is to say that I think we have mostly given up hope on the visionary aspect of scholarship; it seems more and more we are satisfied with political engagement, the developing of a social consciousness. (Which is fine and admirable of course—but there are realms of consciousness that lie beyond the social, though more and more we deny all that does not fall within the social domain as a fiction, like we all read Wittgenstein with one eye closed.)

    " Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views, which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon, have given, forgetful that Cicero, Locke, and Bacon were only young men in libraries, when they wrote these books."—Emerson

    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
    You left out "c) nor can they recognize the timeless verities and essential human truths

    62420
    I think that this basically is originality. I think of originality as something like "of the origins." What originality most often is passed off as I like to call uniqueness.
    Last edited by SoupIsGood; 06-03-2010, 12:19 PM.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

      62432

      Sweabs just do the wolf game. I want to be able to kill you!

      Comment


      • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

        62433

        Now that's one helluva count, Soupy.

        Sorry I did not make this clear, but when I was speaking of being 'drilled' with the classics, I was referring to the high school years. Speaking from my own personal experience, we were not given the freedom to find our own authors, or even told of what existed beyond the "Great" literary texts - great to whom? Everyone was told what was important to read, everyone had to read it, and subsequently many students were left with little passion to read.

        Yes - for SURE, these great works can inspire one to think in new ways - and part of that rests in the pedagogical methods employed. But we can't be so naive as to think that a set of 'best works' will resonate with every single being. There are other works that exist 'out there' that can spark one to think in new, imaginative ways that students need to be given the opportunity to find. I just felt, that through our experience in high school, there was not enough inclusiveness as far as even demonstrating what "else" was out there. And I think that led many to reject even looking for those works - which is really, really unfortunate.

        As for the rest of your post, I am now beginning to see what you are getting at. And, I can't really argue with a lot of what you said! But, to be clear, are you saying that these disciplines are lacking in visionary scholarship so long as they restrict themselves to the more theoretical paradigms/models that are so often plopped into a work? I think one of the great things about bringing pop culture into scholarship is that it has provided us with a new understanding for social consciousness - an area that has up to now been completely neglected and ignored. And by taking it into account, while embracing a truly interdisciplinary (or anti-disciplinary?) perspective that incorporates all sorts of theoretical underpinnings - is that not visionary in some sense?

        Originally posted by Soupy
        And it kind of bugs me when someone's pounding away at their laptop when in a meeting or class.
        Hahaha! Agh, powerpoint is the devil and needs to be banned from Universities. Professor is at the front of the room saying brilliant things, while the class stares blankly or is busy checking fantasy stats on the laptop. But rest assured, when they press the button for the next slide - CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK!

        Or, "write that down" - one of my favourite little clips from The Office.

        Last edited by sweabs; 06-03-2010, 01:05 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

          62434

          Oye, so much work and hard study needed this time of the year!

          Comment


          • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

            62435

            I wish I wish I hadn't eaten that fish.

            Comment


            • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

              62436

              Sweabs,

              I meant when people engage in the study of pop culture (or contemporary culture in general) while utterly dismissing the critical/literary tradition that has preceded them. A lot of the work I've seen here at Butler (and the classes I've been to) amounts to basically a covert alliance with the supposed glories of pop/contemporary culture. Occasionally someone will give lip service to transgression or subversion, but in practice none of it is even close to real subversion. Maybe I should have said revisionary instead of visionary. Because I don't think truly creative work (in any discipline) ever arises absent the (mostly) intuitive revision of past work. Most contemp writers seem to have very little interest in the work that came before them, which usually means they're all talking directly into each other's ********. It's really hard to see huge congregations of people my age praising obviously cliched and sentimental poems as "great" or "phenomenal," and in general it just makes me really angsty, because I feel like our appreciation for imaginative literature is pretty much circling the drain.

              Yeah, I'm never really sure what I think about high school lit. In my experience most of the teachers don't have a clue, and a lot of the work they teach is also pretty crappy. For better or worse I think, nowadays, that a person's literary education must start at the college level. And at that level I don't give much truck to the "we need to pick work that will resonate with them" thing. You do not need to "like" a work to appreciate it, and learning the art appreciation is a huge part of a lit education.

              How has the study of social consciousness been completely ignored up to now?

              Though I'm still not convinced by the freedom angle, even at the HS level. How many texts can you really teach in one HS semester? Seems like it's bound to be exclusive. And as for freedom - most towns have a public library. . . ? Classes were never meant to be the whole of a person's literary education, more like a foundational supplement. If someone read Hamlet or Huck Finn in HS, disliked both, and thus decided that their entire "passion for reading" had been killed, then . . . ? To what extent—assuming the teacher wasn't an outright arsehole—is this something we can affect by changing the curriculum? Do your lower your standards and feed them Harry Potter, Stephen King, Alice Walker? Because in that case you're getting them to read, but you're not educating them. In fact you've basically given up on them.

              I think maybe I come off as more anti-theory than I really am. A good theorist is indispensable, and I love reading them. It's intoxicating. Maybe it's more accurate to say I'm anti-Theory, meaning Theory the institution. It seems to me that most teachers and students of theory have gotten really good at literalizing their own metaphors. The second that we forget that any given theory is only one cog in a fluid and constant theoretical evolution—theories before, theories to come—then I get pretty hostile, because IMO this is the prettied-up version of anti-intellectualism. As Emerson would say, power lies only in the constant evolution, not any one given cog. Theories are useful only for a brief moment, and we should be anxious to replace them. Most students and teachers I interact with seem very much the opposite, being essentially ideologues of whatever new Theory grabbed them by the curlies in grad school.

              I'm generally leery of interdisciplinary departments, though I really have no good reason for that. Much of the work I eventually hope to do will be interdisciplinary-ish, but I feel that before attempting anything like that, one should have steeped themselves good and long in at least one fruitful discipline.
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

                62437

                I'm NOT reading that.

                Comment


                • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

                  62438

                  Soupy One,

                  Excellent points. You have clearly given this topic of discussion more thought than I have - and you've opened my eyes to some things to consider in my own work (thanks!).

                  First off, I misspoke when I said the study of social consciousness has been ignored up to now. What I meant to say was the effects that popular culture has on our social consciousness has largely been ignored in academia - it has definitely not received the kind of attention it deserves.

                  Anyway, in my particular area of interest I have actually found many of today's scholars do recognize the literary geniuses who came before them, and often allude to their work and expand on those ideas. That said, I'm not blind to the fact that there are people out there who are doing exactly what you're referring to.

                  But, as I have said before - theory must have a practical use. Otherwise, what good is a theory? Moreover, through its practical application, we see a theory evolve. When you begin to examine a real problem through a particular theoretical lens, do we not see a theory begin to change shape? To exclusively look at past theories and immediately begin philosophizing how they should/could be different would seem rather 'ivory-tower-esque'. I believe that it is important for scholars to engage with the groups whom they seek to help - and through this process, one can better understand the limits and potential for any given theory.

                  With regards to teaching & high school lit - I agree that University is a time where "liking" is not important in terms of ones appreciation for an author. But I truly believe that in high school, students cannot afford to be turned off reading. And unfortunately, I think this happens. How often than not do you see someone finish high school English, only to never take a lit class ever again? To never pick up a real book outside of the Harry Potters, Stephen Kings, etc. (even worse, to never pick up a book at all)? Hell, I had a student come up and tease me when they saw 'tropic of cancer' on my desk. "Do you have to read that for something?" they asked - as if you only read great works if you are forced to. Why is this the mentality? I really think it has something to do with their experiences in high school with these types of work - and people decide to just shun them altogether.

                  Don't get me wrong - I agree with your main point...but I do see it as somewhat idealistic. How many high school students are going to venture off to the public library and ask for Macbeth to read in their spare time? Instead, I just think high school English needs to be taught with more inclusiveness. There needs to be a much wider focus on providing students with the full spectrum of 'what is out there' for them to explore - and then embracing that notion and allowing them the freedom to choose something that interests them. Because otherwise, it seems to have some serious consequences. JMO, of course!


                  PS - no love for that 'office' clip?!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

                    62439

                    The Office is good.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

                      62440

                      Why, yes it is!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

                        62441

                        I'm bringing the liking into here.

                        I like soup. I find it good.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

                          62442

                          I like soup but I hate SoupIsGood that guy is a DOUCHER

                          Comment


                          • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

                            62443

                            He's a man of many words.

                            At least he throws a number in there too.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

                              62444

                              Come play the wolf game ya bums.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Counting: It's Fun.

                                62445

                                I agree with the above statement. Trophy you would LOVE the wolf game my man. Do it up BUDDY!!!!! Sweabs is too big an ******* to join in the fun. What a dickhead.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X