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

Nirvana's place in the world of music....

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

  • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    I hesitate to answer this because I don't really consider myself to have great knowledge of music per se. I just like to listen to a lot of it. But from what I know, both Foo Fighters and Dave Grohl are highly thought of. Actually, to be perfectly honest, I think Dave Grohl's success with the Foo Fighters actually benefits the memory of Nirvana as well. Something along the, "Oh wow, look how much talent that band had. Even without Cobain, Grohl was able to front a highly successful band." I know the album the Foo Fighters released this year was well received.
    I know I was already a well-established fan going in, but if you like their work at all, I definitely recommend Wasting Light.

    Actually, I've been very happy with their last two albums (three if you count the acoustic one, Skin and Bones): Echoes Silence Patience & Grace, and now W.L.

    Comment


    • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      How about Dave Grohl in particular?
      I know for a while Dave Grohl was considered one of the best guitarists to have in the studio. Bands wanted him on their album.

      Comment


      • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

        I've always kind of wondered by I've never heard F.F. do any covers of Nirvana songs. Maybe Dave and Pat just don't "want to go there". I think it'd be fun to hear them do S.L.T.S, and I could totally imagine Dave leading in "Rape Me".

        Comment


        • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

          [QUOTE=billbradley;1271098][QUOTE=cdash;1271085]The only parallels that you can make between the two are that they are more accessible, but the internet hasn't led to a surge in independent movies the way it has in music. Movies cost a lot more money to make so grassroots films lack production quality and name actors that people recognize and enjoy.

          Most of this is wrong. I own the same camera that was used for some scenes done by the DP in Black Swan. It's easier than ever for an independent filmmaker to match the quality of mainstream."Name actors" get their start or chose to be in indie films all the time. Also indie films continue to be critically acclaimed, often receiving awards over big budget pictures and I would guess they share around 20% of total box office intake of all films while spending billions total less.



          I've cited respected musicians, critics, sources and the US government authority on what is culturally relevant and what should be preserved in American history as such. What more could I offer?

          You have just offered how you feel about something because you happen to own only two Nirvana songs.
          I applaud your ownership of what is surely an awesome camera, but that proves nothing to me. I could own the same guitar that the guys in Kings of Leon use but that doesn't mean I can play it the same way. By the way, I would love to see some stats that support that 20% of the total box office statement. If you said they win 20% of the Academy Awards, I'd probably buy that, but not the box office.

          I repeat: I'm not arguing that Nirvana isn't culturally relevant. I'm arguing that their popularity and legacy was greatly enhanced by Cobain's death. We are arguing different things. I don't think I'm the first person to make this argument either.

          You are offering how you feel about the band every bit as much as I am. You are just offended that I don't share your enthusiasm.

          Comment


          • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

            Originally posted by billbradley View Post
            I never really liked Foo Fighters. I loved Big Me when it came out when I was a kid and that Colour Shape album had Everlong? That video by Goundry was amazing. I generally felt they were a little watered down. I think after Cobain committed suicide, I read that Grohl promised himself he wouldn't make music that could be depressing.
            I'll defer to you on this one. I don't know that much about the Foo Fighter's/Grohl's history.

            Comment


            • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              I've always kind of wondered by I've never heard F.F. do any covers of Nirvana songs. Maybe Dave and Pat just don't "want to go there". I think it'd be fun to hear them do S.L.T.S, and I could totally imagine Dave leading in "Rape Me".
              Dave Grohl, in my mind, is simply a musical genius. I've never really gotten into F.F. But I've always thought they sounded great. Dave was blessed with every musical talent, and in return, he gives us what he loves to do.
              Follow me at @Bluejbgold

              Comment


              • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                I know I was already a well-established fan going in, but if you like their work at all, I definitely recommend Wasting Light.

                Actually, I've been very happy with their last two albums (three if you count the acoustic one, Skin and Bones): Echoes Silence Patience & Grace, and now W.L.
                I have Wasting Light, and I really like it. I'm just a casual fan, but I like the album.

                Comment


                • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                  Originally posted by Constellations View Post
                  Really? Disputing the fact that Nickelback is one of the biggest bands,, if not one of the biggest from the genre from 2000-2010, is just ridiculous.
                  Okay. Comparing Kurt Cobain to John Lennon is equally as ridiculous. But that's your opinion, and I have mine regarding Nickelback, which is admittedly biased. Chad Kroeger's voice is grating and I can't stand any of their music. They have sold well, but I think to have a lasting legacy you not only need to sell well, but you need to be critically acclaimed. Not sure Nickelback's music will be remembered as anything more than radio fodder.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    Okay. Comparing Kurt Cobain to John Lennon is equally as ridiculous. But that's your opinion, and I have mine regarding Nickelback, which is admittedly biased. Chad Kroeger's voice is grating and I can't stand any of their music. They have sold well, but I think to have a lasting legacy you not only need to sell well, but you need to be critically acclaimed. Not sure Nickelback's music will be remembered as anything more than radio fodder.
                    Believe me, I AGREE! I can't stand Nickelback personally. They sound very good, great music, and even more talented musicians, but I don't dig at all.
                    Follow me at @Bluejbgold

                    Comment


                    • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                      Originally posted by Constellations View Post
                      Believe me, I AGREE! I can't stand Nickelback personally. They sound very good, great music, and even more talented musicians, but I don't dig at all.


                      There we go!

                      Let's get back to this discussion of great rock bands today, because it really got me thinking. I know my musical tastes lean towards the indie rock spectrum quite a bit, and to me the lines get blurred between what is a "rock" band and what is more alternative or pop. Take for instance Maroon 5...are they a rock band? Their sound is very poppy to my ears.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        I applaud your ownership of what is surely an awesome camera, but that proves nothing to me. I could own the same guitar that the guys in Kings of Leon use but that doesn't mean I can play it the same way.
                        Your guitar analogy isn't the same because industry standard equipment for movies would be a camera. Industry standard equipment for music would be a recording studio. Guitars for music or lights for film have always been made available to the public fairly easily. Cameras, editing systems, home recording studios etc. that meet industry standard quality have only recently been made available to the public.

                        By the way, I would love to see some stats that support that 20% of the total box office statement. If you said they win 20% of the Academy Awards, I'd probably buy that, but not the box office.
                        In 2005, about 15% of the U.S. domestic box office revenue was from independent studios.
                        Thats wiki for indie film.

                        You are offering how you feel about the band every bit as much as I am. You are just offended that I don't share your enthusiasm.
                        Man, Nirvana is not even in my top 20, I just understand where they stand in history by people that write it. I'm not offering anything "just as much as you are" because I use facts to back up my statements. I'm not offended that you don't understand cultural relevance.
                        Last edited by billbradley; 08-02-2011, 11:08 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                          I really wish we could revisit this thread in 20 years, and interview 20 year olds from then. I'd bet a huge chunk of money that those kids are still talking abotu the Beatles, but that they're not talking about Nirvana. Obviously, I can't prove that, I'd be willing to bet it's the case. The Beatles have already stood up for 40 years. Nirvana is already losing it's impact and it's only been 18 years.

                          It would also be an interesting comparison because I was born 18 years after the Beatles officially disbanded. And someone born today who would be 20 in 20 years would be born 18 years after Cobain's death and the end of Nirvana. I'm still talking about the Beatles, will they talk about NIrvana? I don't see it. Smells like teen spirit, sure, will be there, but Come As You Are, Rape Me, etc? Dust in the wind, folks, dust in the wind.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                            Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                            Your guitar analogy isn't the same because industry standard equipment for movies would be a camera. Industry standard equipment for music would be a recording studio. Guitars for music or lights for film have always been made available to the public fairly easily. Cameras, editing systems, home recording studios etc. that meet industry standard quality have only recently been made available to the public.





                            Thats wiki for indie film.



                            Man, Nirvana is not even in my top 20, I just understand where they stand in history by people that write it. I'm not offering anything "just as much as you are" because I use facts to back up my statements. I'm not offended that you don't understand cultural relevance.
                            The guitar analogy is fine. To make a good movie you need a lot more than a camera, and to make good music you need a lot more than a good guitar. Industry standard or not, you still need good acting, a solid script, an artistic eye, good production value, etc to make a good movie. Likewise to make good music, you need to write good music, have decent lyrics, decent production quality...you get the idea.

                            That 15% number is still not 20%, and I wonder how many of those independent studios are owned by one of the major studios. I guess it's the same way with music though. That number is still higher than I thought. I figured it would be closer to 5%.

                            Oh get off your high horse. You conjured up a dictionary defintion and googled a few Rolling Stone articles. Truly some groundbreaking facts. I offered up a theory from the beginning and acknowledged as much. I understand cultural relevance just fine. You keep glossing over this, but I have said in just about every single response to you that I am not arguing against Nirvana's cultural relevance. For someone with your research skills, you sure do skip over things that I repeatedly wrote.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                              Cdash I'm not on a high horse, you said their status was overblown, "halfway joked" about them being one hit wonders. I knew you were wrong and I was already aware of the things I cited, thats why I chose to get involved in this thread. I will agree you did begin to back peddle.
                              Last edited by billbradley; 08-02-2011, 11:42 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                I really wish we could revisit this thread in 20 years, and interview 20 year olds from then. I'd bet a huge chunk of money that those kids are still talking abotu the Beatles, but that they're not talking about Nirvana. Obviously, I can't prove that, I'd be willing to bet it's the case. The Beatles have already stood up for 40 years. Nirvana is already losing it's impact and it's only been 18 years.

                                It would also be an interesting comparison because I was born 18 years after the Beatles officially disbanded. And someone born today who would be 20 in 20 years would be born 18 years after Cobain's death and the end of Nirvana. I'm still talking about the Beatles, will they talk about NIrvana? I don't see it. Smells like teen spirit, sure, will be there, but Come As You Are, Rape Me, etc? Dust in the wind, folks, dust in the wind.
                                I think there's a better chance that they'll be still talking about Britney. And I'm not joking.

                                Nirvana..great band. But they are a niche band.
                                Beatles..global icons. Still. 40 years later.
                                Last edited by Sookie; 08-03-2011, 09:23 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X