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

United States Politics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The clown of Rubio is giving people tips in how to pay off student loans from been a corrupt politician like him to writing a book, easy s***


    https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1563...F5Dl4S-UYO5V2A
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • If you haven't been following this local story its quit a doozy.

      https://www.wthr.com/article/news/lo...b-1f807b81e2c3



      Author: WTHR.com staff

      Published: 8:48 PM EDT August 19, 2022

      Updated: 11:59 PM EDT August 26, 2022




      FISHERS, Ind. — Administrators with Hamilton Southeastern Schools selected an attorney to investigate a situation where a "Defund the Police?" poster was in a classroom that the brother of a fallen police officer attended.

      Elwood Police Ofc. Noah Shahnavaz was a Fishers native, graduating from Fishers High School in 2016. His younger brother still attends the high school.





      Shahnavaz was shot and killed during a traffic stop on July 31.

      A school spokesperson told 13News when he returned to class, one of his teachers had a sign on her desk reading "Defund The Police?" A photo of the sign was provided to Chalkboard Review by a student who wishes to remain anonymous.





      Credit: Chalkboard Review
      A poster with the heading "Defund the Police?" was displayed in a Fishers High School classroom.



      The school said the sign was a student's research project from last year that dug into both sides of the argument surrounding the defunding of police departments and that the poster was quickly removed.

      The school said they understand the impact was hurtful for individuals and they deeply regret the pain it caused, but they do allow teachers and students to examine relevant social issues in the classroom.

      On Aug. 26, the district announced it had retained attorney Daniel E. Henke to "lead an independent inquiry" into the "student-directed assignment and poster."

      Henke is not charging for his work as part of the "fact-finding process." His findings will be presented to the superintendent and the HSE Board of School Trustees.



      The district provided the following background on Henke:

      Henke currently serves as a municipal judge. He also was a chief deputy prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County for more than 18 years. Henke served as a town councilor for 11 years for the former Town of Fishers and is a volunteer for the HSE Schools “We the People” program.

      The decision to bring in an attorney to investigate came during a meeting between Superintendent Dr. Yvonne Stokes and members of the Fishers Police Department, Indiana State Police, Fishers Fraternal Order of Police, Indiana Fraternal Order of Police and Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police.

      On Thursday, Fishers Police Department also released a response video from April of a person experiencing a drug inducted crisis and a female witness.
      Sources have confirmed to 13News that the woman in the video is the teacher who had the poster on her desk.


      When asked why the video released, the department said it received multiple inquiries about the incident including allegations that the woman involved made certain statements. The department said it wanted to release the video to demonstrate what exactly happened.





      13News has requested the police report from the April incident.


      On Friday, Hamilton Southeastern School District said they are aware of the threats against the teacher on social media saying, “We are saddened by the threats circulating on social media and are in communication with this staff member. She is reporting any safety concerns to administration and law enforcement accordingly.”


      Previous school and school board statements



      The school sent the following statement about the incident to 13News:


      "Our teachers strive to incorporate student-driven, relevant lessons into curriculum while meeting the academic standards as set by the Indiana Department of Education.


      A student’s research project from the previous school year, listing the arguments both for and against the movement of “defunding the police” was left on display in a classroom at Fishers High School. As soon as the school was made aware of the issue, the concern was swiftly dealt with. However, we understand the impact was hurtful for individuals, and we deeply regret the pain it caused.


      While we allow teachers and students to examine social issues that are relevant to their lives, we affirm publicly through our partnership with local law enforcement that we stand in solidarity of the men and women who willing face dangerous circumstances each day to keep us safe."


      The Board of School Trustees shared a statement also apologizing for the poster's presence and affirmed a positive relationship with law enforcement:







      "The Hamilton Southeastern Schools Board of School Trustees deeply regrets the pain that was caused due to a student-made research poster that was displayed in one of our high school classrooms. As a district we recognize our responsibility to provide a safe environment for students to learn and we failed to provide that in this case.

      Losing Officer Shahnavaz, a young alumnus of HSE Schools, who not only served his country selflessly, but was protecting others in his job as a police officer, was devastating. HSE has let the Shahnavaz family know how deeply sorry we are to have contributed to more heartache for them. The teacher involved has apologized as well, and is deeply remorseful for causing additional pain to her student and their family.

      HSE does not advocate for defunding the police. HSE works closely with the Fishers Police Department with the resource officers that are present in our buildings, the officers who help with traffic at our schools, and the officers who help monitor our community 24/7 to keep our students safe. We are and continue to be tremendously grateful for their service. Our students, staff and community are much safer because of our relationship with our police department.

      HSE Schools will use this experience as an example of how we can and must do better in the future to ensure all our students feel safe, accepted, and supported."


      Last edited by graphic-er; 08-29-2022, 01:06 PM.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        If you haven't been following this local story its quit a doozy.

        https://www.wthr.com/article/news/lo...b-1f807b81e2c3



        Author: WTHR.com staff

        Published: 8:48 PM EDT August 19, 2022

        Updated: 11:59 PM EDT August 26, 2022




        FISHERS, Ind. — Administrators with Hamilton Southeastern Schools selected an attorney to investigate a situation where a "Defund the Police?" poster was in a classroom that the brother of a fallen police officer attended.

        Elwood Police Ofc. Noah Shahnavaz was a Fishers native, graduating from Fishers High School in 2016. His younger brother still attends the high school.





        Shahnavaz was shot and killed during a traffic stop on July 31.

        A school spokesperson told 13News when he returned to class, one of his teachers had a sign on her desk reading "Defund The Police?" A photo of the sign was provided to Chalkboard Review by a student who wishes to remain anonymous.





        Credit: Chalkboard Review
        A poster with the heading "Defund the Police?" was displayed in a Fishers High School classroom.



        The school said the sign was a student's research project from last year that dug into both sides of the argument surrounding the defunding of police departments and that the poster was quickly removed.

        The school said they understand the impact was hurtful for individuals and they deeply regret the pain it caused, but they do allow teachers and students to examine relevant social issues in the classroom.

        On Aug. 26, the district announced it had retained attorney Daniel E. Henke to "lead an independent inquiry" into the "student-directed assignment and poster."

        Henke is not charging for his work as part of the "fact-finding process." His findings will be presented to the superintendent and the HSE Board of School Trustees.



        The district provided the following background on Henke:

        Henke currently serves as a municipal judge. He also was a chief deputy prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County for more than 18 years. Henke served as a town councilor for 11 years for the former Town of Fishers and is a volunteer for the HSE Schools “We the People” program.

        The decision to bring in an attorney to investigate came during a meeting between Superintendent Dr. Yvonne Stokes and members of the Fishers Police Department, Indiana State Police, Fishers Fraternal Order of Police, Indiana Fraternal Order of Police and Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police.

        On Thursday, Fishers Police Department also released a response video from April of a person experiencing a drug inducted crisis and a female witness.
        Sources have confirmed to 13News that the woman in the video is the teacher who had the poster on her desk.


        When asked why the video released, the department said it received multiple inquiries about the incident including allegations that the woman involved made certain statements. The department said it wanted to release the video to demonstrate what exactly happened.





        13News has requested the police report from the April incident.


        On Friday, Hamilton Southeastern School District said they are aware of the threats against the teacher on social media saying, “We are saddened by the threats circulating on social media and are in communication with this staff member. She is reporting any safety concerns to administration and law enforcement accordingly.”


        Previous school and school board statements



        The school sent the following statement about the incident to 13News:


        "Our teachers strive to incorporate student-driven, relevant lessons into curriculum while meeting the academic standards as set by the Indiana Department of Education.


        A student’s research project from the previous school year, listing the arguments both for and against the movement of “defunding the police” was left on display in a classroom at Fishers High School. As soon as the school was made aware of the issue, the concern was swiftly dealt with. However, we understand the impact was hurtful for individuals, and we deeply regret the pain it caused.


        While we allow teachers and students to examine social issues that are relevant to their lives, we affirm publicly through our partnership with local law enforcement that we stand in solidarity of the men and women who willing face dangerous circumstances each day to keep us safe."


        The Board of School Trustees shared a statement also apologizing for the poster's presence and affirmed a positive relationship with law enforcement:







        "The Hamilton Southeastern Schools Board of School Trustees deeply regrets the pain that was caused due to a student-made research poster that was displayed in one of our high school classrooms. As a district we recognize our responsibility to provide a safe environment for students to learn and we failed to provide that in this case.

        Losing Officer Shahnavaz, a young alumnus of HSE Schools, who not only served his country selflessly, but was protecting others in his job as a police officer, was devastating. HSE has let the Shahnavaz family know how deeply sorry we are to have contributed to more heartache for them. The teacher involved has apologized as well, and is deeply remorseful for causing additional pain to her student and their family.

        HSE does not advocate for defunding the police. HSE works closely with the Fishers Police Department with the resource officers that are present in our buildings, the officers who help with traffic at our schools, and the officers who help monitor our community 24/7 to keep our students safe. We are and continue to be tremendously grateful for their service. Our students, staff and community are much safer because of our relationship with our police department.

        HSE Schools will use this experience as an example of how we can and must do better in the future to ensure all our students feel safe, accepted, and supported."

        This is obviously a tough one. But, in reading the Chalkboard Review take on the situation, they really are determined to paint the ELA teacher as an enemy, even though some of the potentially "ugly" allegations from here interaction with police apparently are shown to be not legit per body-cam footage.

        I can seen the family of the slain officer's POV to a point here. But if the research and poster displayed - as seems the case - made a good faith effort to look at arguments for and against, I'm not sure it justifies the hubub. People who MIGHT, based on the poster, agree or disagree with defunding the police, certainly could agree that a police officer (or anyone else for that matter), should not lose his/her life in carrying out the duties of his/her job (within reason).

        Perhaps the teacher should have been more perceptive/aware if the family member of the slain officer was in her class. But it sounds like the authorities did everything they could to turn this into a BLM/BLM (Black Lives/Blue Lives) issue, when that's an oversimplification.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • It is also worth noting they are razor focused on the ELA teacher's role in "activism". The pro-law-enforcment-take is equally "activist", despite it's different agenda. If the student's research poster is truly reasonably balanced, I'd say this is overreaction despite the tragic circumstances. Ultimately, in a free society, the presentation of the pros and cons of a controversial issue should be fair game as long as they are treated in a balanced, respectful way. I cant totally tell on the respectful part based on the poster, of course. I can't see clearly.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
            I'd say this is overreaction
            Isn't EVERYTHING anymore ??

            Comment


            • Would people quit looking for conspiracy theories in everything, please?

              "Big Oil" doesn't need a fire at a refinery if they want to raise prices. They can just raise prices.
              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


              • Trump and the classified documents at Mar-A-Lago just keeps getting more bizarre. Had his entire presidency not been one of chaos and a party structure trying to utilize him as a useful idiot (and later afraid of losing the base he energized (and radicalized)), maybe this entire thing would seem to be more of a story than it is. Between his own leanings thinking being president made him king with absolutely no limits on his power, his radicalizing a segment of a cult of followers, and the failure of the system to properly act, it has now created this Frankenstein.

                Moreso, WTF is his reasoning for having these docs and obstructing and refusing to return them? Incompetence? Dementia? Petulance? Perceived legal or financial leverage? And the elephant in the room: Actual Espionage?. Of course we're trying to understand the reasoning of a person without reason, so there's that.

                While I superficially understand the reasoning of the GOP to allow Trump to slip thru the clutches of impeachment... Well, wait, that goes for the first one, the second one is more fuzzy. Being already voted out of office and with an insurrection under his belt, a unified GOP effort to vote to indict would've not been a hard sell. But in both cases they put party over country. In fact, I'm not sure the 25th Amendment wasn't called for.
                Those are the sure-fire things that are cooked into the system to handle this situation (incompetent or worse president). Now it's in the legal system, outside of the natural boundaries that exist for this. It can now be perceived and argued as political. The pressure is there not to sully the office of the president without a united front. The GOP has Frankenstein's monster that they helped create, and they want that charged up base he provides. So they're not going to provide that united front. By not providing that, they make it more likely we all get to deal with Trumpenstein even more.

                I just don't know that the legal system has the balls to do what needs to be done. And even if they do, that Trump won't get that ONE radicalized juror that refuses to say "Guilty" regardless of the evidence. Of course the bigger question might not be whether he is guilty or innocent... Guilty of what and how much is probably the bigger question.
                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


                • Ok, to add to my previous post... I see something new being speculated upon. While technically it would fall into the espionage category, it wouldn't be as much to harm the US as to help Trump, and he wouldn't care if it harmed the US.
                  Using the docs as an enticement to foreign entities to help him in the 2024 election.
                  Essentially, potential payments for a disinformation and hacking campaign.
                  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


                  • Palin lost to a democrat in the US House Special Election. Overruling Roe v Wade is going to be a huge own-goal for the Pubs

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

                      This is obviously a tough one. But, in reading the Chalkboard Review take on the situation, they really are determined to paint the ELA teacher as an enemy, even though some of the potentially "ugly" allegations from here interaction with police apparently are shown to be not legit per body-cam footage.

                      I can seen the family of the slain officer's POV to a point here. But if the research and poster displayed - as seems the case - made a good faith effort to look at arguments for and against, I'm not sure it justifies the hubub. People who MIGHT, based on the poster, agree or disagree with defunding the police, certainly could agree that a police officer (or anyone else for that matter), should not lose his/her life in carrying out the duties of his/her job (within reason).

                      Perhaps the teacher should have been more perceptive/aware if the family member of the slain officer was in her class. But it sounds like the authorities did everything they could to turn this into a BLM/BLM (Black Lives/Blue Lives) issue, when that's an oversimplification.
                      I am not exactly sure how aware the teacher should have been. Perhaps the young man should have just talked with his teacher and asked her to take it down instead of making a big deal about it with his parents and having to contact the principal and schoolboard and possibly getting teacher fired or disciplined, and receiving death threats? When this happened, school at not even been in session for more than 2-3 weeks? It is a creative writing class with block scheduling and meets 2 times a week. So that means he was in that class like maybe 4-5 times before the events with this brother?

                      It also leads me to a deeper issue of what kind of young people are we bringing up here? You were triggered by a poster at school that had nothing to do with your family tragedy, and your mommy and daddy made a big stink about it all to protect your feelings? Even let him skip school over it for several days. Just because tragedy has struck your family does not mean the world must bend your grief and emotions. You don't get to walk around with the right to not be upset by something. This young man is not special, the world doesn't owe him anything. And the schoolboard had to issue a public statement and apology to him and his family over a poster. Many of the comments on social media are all about how this teacher is anti police and the school is anti-police, and how heartless they are towards this family, etc.... I could care less about that, and I bet many out here in Fishers are more concerned with how the "woke" school board decided to virtue signal and coddle everyone's emotions and make a big stink about it all to the media.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

                        I am not exactly sure how aware the teacher should have been. Perhaps the young man should have just talked with his teacher and asked her to take it down instead of making a big deal about it with his parents and having to contact the principal and schoolboard and possibly getting teacher fired or disciplined, and receiving death threats? When this happened, school at not even been in session for more than 2-3 weeks? It is a creative writing class with block scheduling and meets 2 times a week. So that means he was in that class like maybe 4-5 times before the events with this brother?

                        It also leads me to a deeper issue of what kind of young people are we bringing up here? You were triggered by a poster at school that had nothing to do with your family tragedy, and your mommy and daddy made a big stink about it all to protect your feelings? Even let him skip school over it for several days. Just because tragedy has struck your family does not mean the world must bend your grief and emotions. You don't get to walk around with the right to not be upset by something. This young man is not special, the world doesn't owe him anything. And the schoolboard had to issue a public statement and apology to him and his family over a poster. Many of the comments on social media are all about how this teacher is anti police and the school is anti-police, and how heartless they are towards this family, etc.... I could care less about that, and I bet many out here in Fishers are more concerned with how the "woke" school board decided to virtue signal and coddle everyone's emotions and make a big stink about it all to the media.
                        Yeah. It's a reasonable take. Personally, the poster doesn't bother me if it's in my kid's school. First, as you point out, it's in no way directly related to the personal situation the student and family are experiencing. As I mentioned in my original post, someone can investigate, debate, or even fully support defunding the police and still empathize with someone who's lost someone in the line of duty.

                        But it was also presented from a pro/con standpoint. Now that in and of itself might well have been a necessary condition in being able to do that topic at all given fear for potential blowback from the pro-police-at-all-costs crowd. But, ultimately, that's what the school board and teacher got anyway. And I think the apology comes down to precisely that. The school board didn't want to have to deal with the ire of that gang coming out of the woodwork and making their life miserable. I watched that happen in my kid's district with the anti-masking crowd during COVID before the vaccine was available. The board essentially cow towed to them because they were making the most noise and they didn't want the ongoing irritation.

                        I can completely get on board with your idea that there should have been an attempt to handle this starting with more discreet communication with the teacher. Unless that happened and they didn't get the response they wanted. But the whole thing is just another example of the levels of control/lack of academic freedom that teachers are operating under these days. It's no wonder there's a shortage. They are just running people off right and left.
                        Last edited by D-BONE; 09-02-2022, 04:10 PM.
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • https://twitter.com/Larissa84403556/...03155551113216

                          Comment


                          • Tourists.... touring the Capitol.
                            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


                            • As the overturning of Roe seems to be igniting some voting backlash, I'm going to make a few comments here. Abortion is one of those topics I tend to shy away from. It's an intense topic and one that I THOUGHT was settled to the point it might be a talking point, but real action wasn't ever going to be taken, or get far. And then we got THIS USSC.

                              I thought it would remain a topic where pro-Abortion people were probably going to be the majority, active or not. Meanwhile, anti-abortion sides might get fueled up but their best chance of change would be hearts and minds, but not legally. That politicians were more likely to be mostly talk but not really want to be the ones who actually changed the law. And SC justices would fall back on the precedent of Roe vs Wade so as not to actually allow any meaningful changes anyway. Possibly, justices in the conservative style of Roberts would allow some tweaking at the edges, but overall there'd be no change because it's simply too personal of a decision with too much hinging on religion to make the change.

                              Boy, was I wrong!

                              But technically, I think I was right... until I was wrong... I just didn't expect the current situation where a party could be dominant politically without being dominant overall. That a party would rule like it had a mandate when they don't.

                              I say all that to mention a letter I got from a State Rep. To me the letter read almost as giddy that Indiana would soon be a restrictive abortion state. No real caveats. Not calming words for the pro-abortion side to tell them he had no intention of letting things go "too far" or "too fast".

                              You'd think it was an extremely popular position among ALL people of Indiana by the way the letter was worded.

                              We've went from a place culturally where I didn't think politicians really wanted to touch this issue, except when trying to rally base voters, but also sprinkling in caveats to appease pro-abortion sides not to ignite any real opposition on the topic... to a point where politicians are not afraid of the topic and not afraid to take anti-abortion action. Well, at least until we see how it truly impacts elections. Here in Indiana, maybe being anti-abortion to the core is a good political strategy. I suppose it'll be republican women who really have the say on it going forward.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X