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

Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

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

  • #61
    Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Horrible analogy. When you get a ticket for speeding, you're given the minimum fine. Here in IN it's $1 fine for ever MPH over the limit between 1-15 MPH, and $2 for 16-30.

    You're advocating that if you get busted for doing a 40 in a 35 that you should pay wreckless driving charges, like you would if you were doing 100 in a 35. The state gives you the fine according to how you were driving. His phone company defaulted into the stiffest penalty.
    .
    Except it wasn't a penalty. It was the rate for customers who opted not to have international calling enabled on their phone. BIG DIFFERENCE.

    Lets deal with another hypothetical, say the state allowed you to opt into a speeding program, where you could pay a monthly fee and be able to speed 20 mph over the limit anywhere and everywhere, and lets say that fee was only $10 a month. Sounds great right? Now what if you were a person who said, well i never really speed so why would I waste my money on that? Just so happens you get caught speeding....now according to your philosphy, the moral thing to do would be to let that person pay the $10 monthly speeding charge, instead of paying the hefty'er ticket. Oh great thanks officer! I'll be on my way! Wow I really lucked out you say to yourself speeding away.
    Now word gets out that you can just pay the monthly fee instead of paying for a ticket, now everyone wants in on that deal. Where does that leave the people who already pay for the monthly speeding program, well shucks they are now paying for a program that could have just bought when it was necessary. Now everyone opts out of the program and the state is no longer making the revenue they wanted out of the program.

    So doesn't ATT face the same problem if they just allow people to bump up to the next cheapest calling plan. Why would anyone buy into the International Calling plan and pay the monthly premium associated with it if they could just make all the calls they wish and make a simple phone call and get their bill reduced for that month.

    There goes your immoral argument out the window. Companies create plans to get you to subscribe to the service. Not to offer it to you as an insurance policy when you make a mistake. Its like being able to buy insurance after you get really sick and half to go to the hospital, you can't do it. Companies don't make money that way.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

      I assume everyone here has read Slick's AT&T contract in its entirety, right?

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

        I have no doubt that some of the leniency of AT&T was that they believed that no responsible adult would have purposefully made those calls, that this was indeed the actions of a minor, and that this was a mitigating circumstance that made "rate remediation" (their term) quite reasonable when considering the fact that there had never been, in 5 years, any other instances of such calling, any late payments, or any other issues. Customer loyalty was surely a factor. The fact that they felt I was being honest with them was probably another factor. It would have been easy to play dumb and insist "I don't know how those calls got on my bill".

        I don't think that any speeding analogy is quite appropriate.

        If I had to come up with one, let's say that I owned a trucking company and I had a deal with my community government up front, assuring them that I would be a good citizen and not disrupt traffic with my large fleet of vehicles, as a promise to ensure that I get a business license. In my promise, I assumed responsibility for the ability of my drivers to follow the law, at the risk of losing my business license. Say I have had the company for 5 years with 10 drivers employed, and all with a spotless record. Then one day one of my drivers' trucks was taken by his teenaged son and he was seen going 70 in a 55 mph zone and to make matters worse he was scared and fled the cops.

        City council says "Hey Slick, you can't control your drivers and your business is a menace-- no license renewal for you!"

        Don't you think I would stress my good record, the value of my business to the community, and the extenuating circumstances? I would have paid the ticket (or have the driver do so, likely) showed them that I had taken procedural steps to ensure that my drivers will not allow anyone to operate their vehicles. I would stress that my drivers bought homes in their town, pay property taxes, eat at their restaurants, shop in their stores. Would I be wrong to point all of this out and to ask them to cut me a break with my business license, even if by the letter of the law in my agreement with the town it was fully within their right to nail me?

        It would be in the towns' best interest to cut me some slack, at the risk of me moving my good business to the next town. I was in AT&T's best interest to cut me some slack, at the risk of me moving my good business to the next phone carrier.
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 06-30-2010, 05:42 PM.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

          ATT did the right thing and Slick did the right thing. ...And somehow that = the wrong thing?

          Neither side forced the other into anything. Nobody is taking up any slack for ATT "losing money" on this transaction. The fact is, they just made less money than they intended to. Moreover, by working with Slick they kept him as a customer and losing him could've cost them more than the 2500.00 on this one issue alone ever did. And Slick didn't have to make a "Rot in Hell ATT" post... Instead he's on here praising ATT with some very good free advertising.

          In fact.... something smells fishy.... Slick is working for ATT and we're all part of their evil viral marketing campaign!!!!

          Curse you Slick!!!!
          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


          • #65
            Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

            a lot of stuff has been said and I agree with alot of both sides... all I want to say is..

            Common Sense prevailed and at the end of the day no harm, no foul

            Slick has to pay a big phone bill because of his daughters innocent all be it naive mistake and the phone company gets reimbursed for providing a service, a service at reasonable price...

            I'm glad the result has suited everyone,

            I guess what Graphicer could have been leaning towards meaning, what happens to the older lady that doesn't speak well, or the guy on a pension whose grand daughter who racks up a phone bill, they may not have the capacity or intellect to be able to negotiate a better deal, and well there is no equity then is there.... but having said that, it's a sad fact of live, that some people get lucky and others don't
            Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

              Life is strongly biased in favor of those people who can effectively argue on their own behalf. I suppose that some might consider that to be grossly unfair, and others might just accept it as a fundmental reality for which the concept of fairness has no real relevance.

              If AT&T had not budged from their position that I owed $2500, I would have been very disappointed but I would not have felt as if they cheated me. I was at fault, legally, and that is clear. There were a number of mitigating circumstances, however, such that even AT&T, the party "in the right" in this case, felt that a compromise was reasonable. I am grateful for that, and cognizant that maybe I was lucky in also at some point getting on the line with a person able to appreciate those mitigating circumstances. My exact same argument could well have fallen on deaf ears had I been transferred, for instance, to the supervisor on line 4 instead of to the supervisor on line 5.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 06-30-2010, 07:26 PM.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

                here is something that happened at my work.
                we have a lot of foreigners employed.
                and they are provided with mobile phones and mobile internet.

                this one foreigner went on a trip to Austria (Im in Hungary) for a trip and used the internet services...including downloading music/movies/etc....which was on ROAMING.

                the company was hit with a bill of over $8000 USD. Think we paid it in full amount? hell no. why? cause they overcharge it cause they can.

                Imagine - you are using unlimited browsing for $50 a month...but take it outside the country and it becomes $8000USD? sure...they just get away with it cause they dont have to show anyone the real costs.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

                  Let's move on....

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

                    Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
                    here is something that happened at my work.
                    we have a lot of foreigners employed.
                    and they are provided with mobile phones and mobile internet.

                    this one foreigner went on a trip to Austria (Im in Hungary) for a trip and used the internet services...including downloading music/movies/etc....which was on ROAMING.

                    the company was hit with a bill of over $8000 USD. Think we paid it in full amount? hell no. why? cause they overcharge it cause they can.

                    Imagine - you are using unlimited browsing for $50 a month...but take it outside the country and it becomes $8000USD? sure...they just get away with it cause they dont have to show anyone the real costs.
                    It doesn't matter what the real costs are. They charge what customers will pay...end of story; if customers did not buy the service at the increased prices, then prices would decrease...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

                      That is just how he lives his life. Lets please move on

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

                        Originally posted by Stryder View Post
                        It doesn't matter what the real costs are. They charge what customers will pay...end of story; if customers did not buy the service at the increased prices, then prices would decrease...
                        well if the customers can't find cheaper solutions due to the monopolization of services...then they can't really do anything about it....but this topic can become unPD quickly...so i shall shut up now.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

                          I know what graphic-er is trying to say but in this case I think Slick is the wrong person to apply it to. Slick seems like a good person in a bad situation who would've done the right thing regardless.

                          I know a lot of people who try to beat the system in everything they do. Credit Cards, Phone bills, Work wages and benefits, health care, etc. Lordy health care! Little things here and there don't annoy me so much and I'm guilty as well from time to time, but I work and see people like this every day and I'm with Graphic-er on this. (Again, not with Slick, but with Americans in general) Some people are weasels that will manipulate the system not because they feel slighted or wronged but because they can. Those dbags raise costs for the rest of us.

                          Again this is an UnPD topic already but I just thought I'd add my 2 cents in.

                          Congrats Slick and best of luck with your daughter and her boy friends!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

                            Originally posted by The Toxic Avenger View Post
                            I know what graphic-er is trying to say but in this case I think Slick is the wrong person to apply it to. Slick seems like a good person in a bad situation who would've done the right thing regardless.

                            I know a lot of people who try to beat the system in everything they do. Credit Cards, Phone bills, Work wages and benefits, health care, etc. Lordy health care! Little things here and there don't annoy me so much and I'm guilty as well from time to time, but I work and see people like this every day and I'm with Graphic-er on this. (Again, not with Slick, but with Americans in general) Some people are weasels that will manipulate the system not because they feel slighted or wronged but because they can. Those dbags raise costs for the rest of us.

                            Again this is an UnPD topic already but I just thought I'd add my 2 cents in.

                            Congrats Slick and best of luck with your daughter and her boy friends!
                            Slink is just the latest example, i mean nothing personal to him. I don't know him from anyone else. I'm sure he is probably a great guy, and a great father.

                            And just to show you all that I'm not trying to preach from soap box. Years ago when I was with sprint for my cell phone, my friends and I discovered that you could report like up 20 dropped calls a month and they would credit you 1 minute at the highest available rate which was 50 cents for each dropped cal. So that was $10 off your monthly bill every month. Well after a year I believe Sprint figured it all out and I thought to myself, I went to the golden goose to many times and it ran out of eggs.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              Slink is just the latest example, i mean nothing personal to him. I don't know him from anyone else. I'm sure he is probably a great guy, and a great father.

                              And just to show you all that I'm not trying to preach from soap box. Years ago when I was with sprint for my cell phone, my friends and I discovered that you could report like up 20 dropped calls a month and they would credit you 1 minute at the highest available rate which was 50 cents for each dropped cal. So that was $10 off your monthly bill every month. Well after a year I believe Sprint figured it all out and I thought to myself, I went to the golden goose to many times and it ran out of eggs.
                              No wonder my phone bill keeps going up.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Question for the lawyers or Holiday Inn express guests: my $2500 phone bill

                                I stopped reading on page 2.

                                However, I think you need to make your point to the daughter. Don't let her off as easy as $300. That's just me though. As a parent I would be livid over the event to where she'd be paying me back $1,000. It would be time for her to get a job, and call it child slavery if you like, but she wouldn't be getting much of those checks.

                                My point would be made, thoroughly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X