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

  • #61
    Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

    Pointing out that Nevermind opened against Use Your Illusion 1 brings up another interesting point. At the height of that album's popularity, GNR charted two songs on the Billboard hot 100 for a few weeks with Don't Cry and Live and Let Die. That would be the same Live and Let Die that was written and performed by Paul McCartney during his after Beatles career with Wings. You see, music comes full circle. What's old is new again and influential music and musicians will always be influential. I can safely say that I enjoy both The Beatles and Nirvana and still hear their influences on music every day.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

      Originally posted by Stryder View Post
      Late 60s-early 70s...

      The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, The Who, Fleetwood Mac and even the Yardbirds and the Eagles overlapped each other somewhat...talk about competition...
      I know, I've been thinking.."the competition" music was significantly BETTER at that point in time.

      Nirvana has one song that most people know. And to be honest, my guess is the next generation won't know it. (Smells Like Teen Spirit)

      They were one of the better bands in the 90s. But they can't touch the Beatles..

      You'd be hard pressed to find any band that could touch the Beatles..but if you're gonna try..start with Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones or Aerosmith. Or Heck, MJ..maybe Madonna. Don't go with Nirvana.

      Were they a great band, yea. Significantly better than Britney's rein of terror in the 2000s (And I love Britney..but seriously..) They aren't touching the Beatles though. Although as Trader said, they certainly weren't the greatest music movement in the 90s, that would be rap, and I'd argue bubblegum pop in the late 90s. (Which has transformed into the electro-pop)
      Last edited by Sookie; 07-30-2011, 12:03 AM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

        Now that Nirvana vs the Beetles has been settled, now we can compare them to their more realistic peers.

        Pearl Jam! The true best band of the 90's alt rock genre.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          Now that Nirvana vs the Beetles has been settled, now we can compare them to their more realistic peers.

          Pearl Jam! The true best band of the 90's alt rock genre.
          I prefer Alice in Chains. They had it all. Great songs, great musicians, and a truly great front man and lead singer. Too bad he died.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

            You can't forget the other competition the Beatles had.... American society as a whole. Yeah there were beatniks but guys were still wearing the close cropped haircuts during that time. Four foreigners with mop tops being embrassed by this country is no easy feat. Just look how audiences turned on Bob Dylan when going from a folk guy to using electric guitars.

            I'm sorry, but for a band that started out with the simple Love Me Do and to evolve into a band that released A Day in the Life is amazing.
            Last edited by RWB; 07-30-2011, 01:41 PM.
            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Let's put it this way, if the Beatles don't exist, Nirvana doesn't exist, modern rock doesn't exist, music as we know it would be fundamentally changed FOREVER. Nirvana wasn't even the biggest music movement of the decade or the biggest death of an artist of that decade. That was the rap movement and the biggest musical death of that decade was Tupac.
              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Originally posted by Constellations View Post
              The Beatles wouldn't exist if Johnny Cash and Elvis didn't exist.
              False. The Beatles emerged from England pretty much on their own, playing in clubs. They are undoubtedly the most influential music act of all time.
              Joe you're talking in circles. First you argue without the Beatles there would be no Nirvana (which can be accurately said about most bands from the late 60s on). But I don't understand your contention that the Beatles just dripped down from the ether and just happened to be amazing (or, if not the ether, they arrived on a flaming pie...).

              It's asinine to suggest that The Beatles weren't deeply influenced and inspired by Elvis. Lennon, in particular, said, "Nothing really affected me until Elvis", "Before Elvis there was nothing" and "I always wanted to be this tough James Dean type, but Elvis was bigger than religion in my life". The Beatles wore their influences (Elvis, Little Richard, Fats Domino, Buddy Holly) on their sleeves just as heavily as Nirvana wore theirs (Lennon, Pixies, Sabbath, Melvins).

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              ...and Pet Sounds was inspired by the Beatles....
              ...and Sgt. Pepper was inspired by Pet Sounds...
              Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 07-30-2011, 03:09 PM.
              This is the darkest timeline.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                As for Beatles v. Nirvana / Lennon v. Cobain... there's just really not a serious discussion to be had.

                Cobain was the face (for the masses, at least) of a new musical movement and obviously meant something to many people, musicians that followed. But Nirvana's place in music history is probably closer to Joy Division than the Beatles. And there's nothing wrong with that.
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                  I personally think with their last album, Foo Fighters, are a more musically versatile and entertaining band than Nirvana.

                  And to say that Nirvanna is up there with the Beatles is pretty ignorant and musically negligent. To say that Nirvanna had more competition is ludicris. Beatles came on the cuspe of modern music with Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Little Richard.

                  All the while, the Beatles competed with MoTown(the conglomerate is astounding), Rolling Stones, Doors, Led Zeppelin, CCR, Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix, Kinks, Bob Dylan, Elvis, The Who, and the Byrds.

                  To say that the early 90's were far more competitive is truly far fetch. The one important thing Nirvana and Gangsta Rap did together is help us end this:



                  and



                  and




                  The 60s were followed by half a decade of good music that ushered in Disco. Which spiraled out of control into the 80s. The 90s could not get worse than that. It was the truly the dark ages of music. And since the grunge we have enjoyed a solid era of music peppered with the POP market. But at least there is good music out there. In the Disco to the early 90s era the best was Pop.

                  Nirvana was adequate enough to wake up a generation to the threat of losing music altogether. But even Fred Durst could have done that.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                    Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                    I personally think with their last album, Foo Fighters, are a more musically versatile and entertaining band than Nirvana.

                    And to say that Nirvanna is up there with the Beatles is pretty ignorant and musically negligent. To say that Nirvanna had more competition is ludicris. Beatles came on the cuspe of modern music with Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Little Richard.

                    All the while, the Beatles competed with MoTown(the conglomerate is astounding), Rolling Stones, Doors, Led Zeppelin, CCR, Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix, Kinks, Bob Dylan, Elvis, The Who, and the Byrds.

                    To say that the early 90's were far more competitive is truly far fetch. The one important thing Nirvana and Gangsta Rap did together is help us end this:
                    I'm not here to sound all high on mighty, but I know more about music, that's what my life has been ran by. Please bfore trying to prove anything, spell the names right, (OCD). And they should be compared to an extent. They effected generations of people. Period.
                    Follow me at @Bluejbgold

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                      I am officially done on this topic.
                      Follow me at @Bluejbgold

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                        I personally think with their last album, Foo Fighters, are a more musically versatile and entertaining band than Nirvana.

                        And to say that Nirvanna is up there with the Beatles is pretty ignorant and musically negligent. To say that Nirvanna had more competition is ludicris. Beatles came on the cuspe of modern music with Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Little Richard.

                        All the while, the Beatles competed with MoTown(the conglomerate is astounding), Rolling Stones, Doors, Led Zeppelin, CCR, Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix, Kinks, Bob Dylan, Elvis, The Who, and the Byrds.

                        To say that the early 90's were far more competitive is truly far fetch. The one important thing Nirvana and Gangsta Rap did together is help us end this:



                        and



                        and




                        The 60s were followed by half a decade of good music that ushered in Disco. Which spiraled out of control into the 80s. The 90s could not get worse than that. It was the truly the dark ages of music. And since the grunge we have enjoyed a solid era of music peppered with the POP market. But at least there is good music out there. In the Disco to the early 90s era the best was Pop.

                        Nirvana was adequate enough to wake up a generation to the threat of losing music altogether. But even Fred Durst could have done that.
                        Wow, this post is both 100% right & 100% wrong all at the same time.

                        You are correct that the ascension of grunge did kill off some of the popular light fair of the day and for awhile it was the main stream of music (which I used to always get a kick out of them proclaiming to be alternative rock, alternative to what by the mid 90's that was the only rock that was left other than very very hard metal which was never main stream).

                        However what it did do more than anything else, it never really killed pop music it just made it go away for awhile, was kill what has affectionately become known as hair metal. You know the bands that attempted to fool you by having a good guitar player but then would have a singer who would sing love/power ballads.

                        Grunge not only killed that it also desecrated its grave, which is fine and needed to be done.

                        However, and this was my original point I was trying to make when the statement was made that Nirvana saved Rock & Roll, my take on this is once grunge killed off most other forms of main stream rock the problem was that when it's time in the sun began to fade not only did it go away but pretty much all of rock & roll went away (from the popular music, I'm not saying it's gone altogether).

                        So while you are right that it did kill Rick Astley, Wham & others what it did do was unleash Hanson, Britney Spears, N'Sync, Backstreetboys, etc. on the world with no one able to take them down for years and years and years.

                        So here we are 10 years later after the rise of pop music and to this day Rock is still not a popular form of music. It's all mostly hip hop/club music/country music that is sped up with a beat added or on occasion a rap song.

                        Has there been a rock band or singer popular over the past 10 years? I mean a real rock band or singer?

                        I suppose the closest thing would be nickleback. Sadly I just have never liked them but I will concede they sort of are rock and they are popular.

                        However where I will disagree with you 100% on is that music from Disco till the mid 90's was all crap. Most of it was crap, but there were some really great songs and groups that hit in the early 80's.









                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                          Foo Fighters?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Foo Fighters?
                            Well honestly being old and out of touch to a point I guess I never really considered them popular beyond people who like Rock.

                            As an example, Don't stop believing by Journey is by a band that for the most part is a rock band. Yes they have their share of songs that were made for popular consumption but overall they were a rock band.

                            That song, and many of their songs, were not only popular with people who liked Rock but that was just a popular song overall, in fact it is the all time leader in downloads on itunes.

                            Best of me by foo fighters topped out at 18 in the top 40, which is the only song from them that has even charted. Suprising to me as well as I would have thought everlong or that one song with the mentos commercial for a vidio would have charted.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Foo Fighters?
                              U2?
                              Red Hot Chili Peppers?
                              Radiohead?
                              White Stripes?
                              The Strokes?
                              The Killers?
                              Incubus?
                              Weezer?
                              Linkin Park? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYNRhzX6gw8 (<--Funny stuff)


                              And for every Hanson you through at me I raise you an Alanis Morisette. Who was rock and pop and succeeded. And you can say Backstreet Boys and I will say Refugee Allstars.

                              The Pop will not die because music is now marketing. It is easier to sell the package more than the content when the youth are the major consumers. MTV is geared towards a youth generation who have never had their hands on so much money to throw around. Albeit that trend is declining, but when kids age 10-19 are spending more money on music there is a reason why the industry is watered down.

                              It is interesting that the same consumers who were buying Brittney, Christina Aguilera, and Backstreet Boys are now buying Katy Perry, Gaga, and Owl City (they are crap). It is moving trends into eras. And it is more calculated with as many venues as the music industry has.

                              Now Peck I agree the 80s had amazing music. I liked MJ until he died and got overplayed by the kids today. But then there was David Bowie, Chicago, Bob Seger, R.E.M., and some that you listed.

                              But the prevalence of Pop was way out of whack in the 80s. And yes it has come back to a certain extent. But the Ipod has allowed us to chose what is our sound track of life. No longer are we subject to what the radio station plays, MTV saturates us with, or Wal-Mart stocks. If we want the new Snow Patrol album, we download it.

                              Music is liberated. It is free. It is individualized. Which all can describe what Grunge signified. Thank you Nirvana. But the Cranberries would have done the same.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                                P.S.

                                Sonic Youth was doing it before NirvanNa.



                                Last edited by Major Cold; 07-30-2011, 05:14 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X