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

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

    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
    No. That's college rock. Very soon to be known as indie rock. REM, Throwing Muses, Mojo Nixon, early Flaming Lips, Camper Van Beethoven, Violent Femmes and a whole slew of other bands learned lessons from punk and even referenced it directly, as the Dead Milkmen do here.

    But they aren't punk.

    One really clear thing about punk was that it was very anti-mainstream rock from the beginning. In the early days, if you were punk, you had to hate Zeppelin. Zeppelin went around in a giant jetliner and banged teenagers.

    Punks hated that stuff.

    But eventually the kids grew up to like BOTH the Ramones AND Zeppelin. Those kids blended punk and metal to make something that wasn't punk anymore.
    Well I guess 1980 was not at the beginning.


    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    Honest question. Is this a punk rock song? If so, why? If not, why not?

    No. That's college rock. Very soon to be known as indie rock. REM, Throwing Muses, Mojo Nixon, early Flaming Lips, Camper Van Beethoven, Violent Femmes and a whole slew of other bands learned lessons from punk and even referenced it directly, as the Dead Milkmen do here.

    But they aren't punk.

    One really clear thing about punk was that it was very anti-mainstream rock from the beginning. In the early days, if you were punk, you had to hate Zeppelin. Zeppelin went around in a giant jetliner and banged teenagers.

    Punks hated that stuff.

    But eventually the kids grew up to like BOTH the Ramones AND Zeppelin. Those kids blended punk and metal to make something that wasn't punk anymore.

    EDIT - this of course is just my opinion. In the end of the end of the end, The Dead Milkmen were embraced by the punk scene and I had all their albums (and I had a mohawk). So I guess it's punk. But the Dead Milkmen were mostly brainy and funny. They were satirists, not pure practitioners and in my mind that puts them in the "college rock" mold with REM and CVB.
    Last edited by Los Angeles; 09-28-2011, 12:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Merz View Post
    and off topic, you're probably the first person I've come across that acted like a musical elitist and listed bands like breaking benjamin as an influence.
    Speaking as a musical elitist, I completely agree. I'll expand on that shortly, but first I'd like to discuss why Deep Blue Something was the most important band of the 90s...

    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
    Were the Ramones around? Yeah, sure. But so was Donna Summer. That didn't make the late 80's the age of Disco.
    Indeed, for 'twas the age of Billy Ocean.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
    Well, I know that Henry Rollins was sketched out and less active in the punk scene in the late 80's because that's what he told me. In person. To my face.

    Like how I know what it's like to play at CBGB's because I played CBGB's.

    All i've tried to do in this thread is share the perspective of a guy who was very active in the scene while it was happening.

    Quote all you like, but if you weren't there, you really just have to take our word for it.

    Punk was really in a bad way from 86-90. In such a bad way that it needed to be called something else in order for the good parts of its spirit to live on.

    Were the Ramones around? Yeah, sure. But so was Donna Summer. That didn't make the late 80's the age of Disco.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Honest question. Is this a punk rock song? If so, why? If not, why not?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
    In such a bad way that it needed to be called something else in order for the good parts of its spirit to live on.
    I shouldn't speak for him but I think BillBradley is talking about punk as in the spirit. The name of the style might of been different but Nirvana was in that vein...or something like that.

    Kind if like that saying "A Rose by any other name would still smell as sweet".

    Leave a comment:


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

    Well, I know that Henry Rollins was sketched out and less active in the punk scene in the late 80's because that's what he told me. In person. To my face.

    Like how I know what it's like to play at CBGB's because I played CBGB's.

    All i've tried to do in this thread is share the perspective of a guy who was very active in the scene while it was happening.

    Quote all you like, but if you weren't there, you really just have to take our word for it.

    Punk was really in a bad way from 86-90. In such a bad way that it needed to be called something else in order for the good parts of its spirit to live on.

    Were the Ramones around? Yeah, sure. But so was Donna Summer. That didn't make the late 80's the age of Disco.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Constellations View Post

    Punk Music- A faster tempo of music with brighter riffing.

    .
    Ok, that's what I was looking for when I asked what you considered punk. You're on the "Punk is only the sound" side...which if I had to choose a side (like I said in another post I don't like to label) I would be more on the side of "Punk is the attitude of the song".

    Hopefully I'm making sense here, but I would consider a song with the Punk attitude but sung like a normal rock song as closer to punk than a punk "sounding" song sung about rainbows and lollipops (just an example, not saying such a song exist).

    and off topic, you're probably the first person I've come across that acted like a musical elitist and listed bands like breaking benjamin as an influence.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Constellations View Post
    These quotes make me laugh.

    I don't think Nirvana was NOT punk. I know they aren't. I know the punk sound. Nirvana had a punk-minded attitude with the rebellion and anarchy-like motives.

    Punk Music- A faster tempo of music with brighter riffing.

    Punk bands- Blink 182, Ramones, Dropkick Murphys, The Sex Pistols, Yellowcard, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, etc.

    Does Nirvana sound like them? Yes or No

    It's right there. That's as a musician, and highly intelligent within music.

    I'm finished discussing this with you Bill.

    ...
    None of those bands sound like the Clash, and the Clash are the only punk band that matters. So your only point still means nothing.

    Originally posted by Constellations View Post
    Not a single song or album made it to punk charts.
    This is still nonsense, no punk billboard.

    But you can debate with Cobain's words, not mine...

    “Punk is musical freedom. It's saying, doing and playing what you want. In Webster's terms, 'nirvana' means freedom from pain, suffering and the external world, and that's pretty close to my definition of Punk Rock.” -Kurt Cobain
    But I'm guessing you know more about Nirvana's sound than Cobain right?

    Last edited by billbradley; 09-27-2011, 11:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by billbradley View Post
    Constellations points

    -as an amateur musician, I think Nirvana was rock not punk
    -look at the punk rock charts

    [B]Your opinion as an amateur musician means nothing

    Nobody said anything about Seether. You are confused!

    You have no points. If you do, type them instead of saying "I have already offered plenty."
    These quotes make me laugh.

    I don't think Nirvana was NOT punk. I know they aren't. I know the punk sound. Nirvana had a punk-minded attitude with the rebellion and anarchy-like motives.

    Punk Music- A faster tempo of music with brighter riffing.

    Punk bands- Blink 182, Ramones, Dropkick Murphys, The Sex Pistols, Yellowcard, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, etc.

    Does Nirvana sound like them? Yes or No

    It's right there. That's as a musician, and highly intelligent within music.

    I'm finished discussing this with you Bill.

    ...

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    I thought you were done with this thread about 5 weeks ago?
    I was, and I am. I'm done being serious in this thread. Now I'm just going to make sassy comments and antagonize you guys, because it seems to be incredibly easy to do

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by billbradley View Post
    You know what, I am going to go through your comments and show you why "I don't understand." That was a nice way of telling you that it is impossible to disagree with you and have a convo about it because you are all over the place about non issues and can't simply bullet what your point is.

    LA got a little chippy, but that's fine. He had clear points.

    -Punk was dead, so there weren't punk artists during that time
    -Punk was considered racist, so nobody wanted to be affiliated with it
    -Punk was too violent because of the racism, running Black Flag away from what they created

    So then I can retort,

    -Punk wasn't dead, Ramones were touring
    -If Punk was considered racist, why did Nirvana, SY, Dino & Ramones go on a punk tour?

    and of course







    Constellations points

    -as an amateur musician, I think Nirvana was rock not punk
    -look at the punk rock charts

    Your opinion as an amateur musician means nothing and there is no Billboard punk chart.



    Nobody said anything about Seether. You are confused!



    I don't care about the sound, I care about the history. I never made a case about the sound. I clearly outlined why and how Nirvana became pioneers for mainstream punk.



    This is ridiculous. Your music has nothing to do with anything. And you're a "rock based guy?" What does that mean? But do you notice you say that Nirvana and A&C are just rock bands, yet that doesn't make your music just rock. No, no. You are above that, metalcore/progressive.

    You have no points. If you do, type them instead of saying "I have already offered plenty."
    The ****ing points are right there in the quotes. You're just choosing not to read them.
    Last edited by Constellations; 09-27-2011, 05:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Constellations View Post
    Because you choose to have no idea what it means. Pathetic.
    You know what, I am going to go through your comments and show you why "I don't understand." That was a nice way of telling you that it is impossible to disagree with you and have a convo about it because you are all over the place about non issues and can't simply bullet what your point is.

    LA got a little chippy, but that's fine. He had clear points.

    -Punk was dead, so there weren't punk artists during that time
    -Punk was considered racist, so nobody wanted to be affiliated with it
    -Punk was too violent because of the racism, running Black Flag away from what they created

    So then I can retort,

    -Punk wasn't dead, Ramones were touring
    -If Punk was considered racist, why did Nirvana, SY, Dino & Ramones go on a punk tour?

    and of course

    Nirvana arguably knocked that door down, and then old geezers like me coat-tailed. - Punk legend Henry Rollins
    His punk purism was a religion, but it was also a shtick, his version of showbiz. - Rolling Stone
    The exhibit features rare and unseen artifacts and photography from the band, their crews and families. Nirvana: Taking Punk to the Masses -EMP Museum
    Constellations points

    -as an amateur musician, I think Nirvana was rock not punk
    -look at the punk rock charts

    Your opinion as an amateur musician means nothing and there is no Billboard punk chart.

    Originally posted by Constellations View Post
    My friend is a die hard Seether fan. Calling that a punk album would result in a punch to the face. If you think Seether is punk, you're just being ridiculous.
    Nobody said anything about Seether. You are confused!

    You trying to explain what the punk sound actually consists of, is very very weak.
    I don't care about the sound, I care about the history. I never made a case about the sound. I clearly outlined why and how Nirvana became pioneers for mainstream punk.

    Have you listened to the music I've put on here? I'm a rock inspired musician. Nirvana, Alice In Chains, Breaking Benjamin, etc, were all my influential bands, does my music sound even remotely close to them? I'm a rocked based guy, but does that make my Metalcore/Progressive just a Rock band? Or just the rock genre? The answer, is neither.
    This is ridiculous. Your music has nothing to do with anything. And you're a "rock based guy?" What does that mean? But do you notice you say that Nirvana and A&C are just rock bands, yet that doesn't make your music just rock. No, no. You are above that, metalcore/progressive.

    You have no points. If you do, type them instead of saying "I have already offered plenty."
    Last edited by billbradley; 09-27-2011, 04:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Since86
    replied
    Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

    I thought you were done with this thread about 5 weeks ago?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X