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....

    psssshhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! You people and your punk rock.... I'll give you punk rock. Bonus points for anybody who actually has seen this move (besides me).

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
    Bill, your timeline is really messed up.

    Around 1985 and 1986 the punk scene was completely taken over by testosterone fueled thugs, many of which were neo-nazis. Every important punk band suddenly stopped making records and dropped out of the scene. Punk had transformed into a genre of music called Hard Core.

    It was no longer safe for guys like Jello Biafra and Henry Rollins to go to punk shows. That's right, the guys who created the scene couldn't check out new bands without fearing for their lives.

    The movie American History X takes place in this dark era of punk/hardcore, I strongly encourage that everyone check it out. You might get a sense of what I'm talking about.

    Bleach was not a punk record. Because it didnt sound one bit like any of the punk music played in the punk scene at the time. Bleach was an indie rock record. That's what it was called then. That is until the term "grunge" was coined as a new descriptive classification, and that what it's called now. Bleach leaned heavily on the golden age of punk (67-80) but it was not a part of punk. The same way that a country artist might lean heavily on the Eagles but are not 70's southern rock. They're something else.

    I hope this made sense.

    It took a lot of hard work by bands like Green Day and Rancid to bring punk back from the dead.

    But Nirvana wasn't part of punk. They were a part of the Pacific Northwest Grunge scene. That's the genre.
    It makes sense, I just don't understand where my timeline is messed up. The Thurston, CBGB, Ramones, Basquiat talk is all from the 80s. I know violence helped the fall of CBGB (and you are saying it was racist violence?). I don't understand why The Ramones went on a Punk rock tour with Nirvana, Sonic Youth, and Dino Jr if it was considered racist? And what was Sonic Youth's Evol or Daydream Nation?

    I understand what you are saying about punk being racist (American History X), but again, that has been there since the Oi! days. I think it's unfair to lump The Ramones and what they were doing with bands into that. Then to go on and say those bands weren't apart of punk.
    Last edited by billbradley; 09-26-2011, 05:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Merz View Post
    Don't worry I don't consider Seether as punk...I don't even consider them. (and why are you bringing up seether, anyway?


    I thoroughly enjoy your contributions to this thread.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Constellations View Post
    If you think Seether is punk, you're just being ridiculous.

    Don't worry I don't consider Seether as punk...I don't even consider them. (and why are you bringing up seether, anyway?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Bill, your timeline is really messed up.

    Around 1985 and 1986 the punk scene was completely taken over by testosterone fueled thugs, many of which were neo-nazis. Every important punk band suddenly stopped making records and dropped out of the scene. Punk had transformed into a genre of music called Hard Core.

    It was no longer safe for guys like Jello Biafra and Henry Rollins to go to punk shows. That's right, the guys who created the scene couldn't check out new bands without fearing for their lives.

    The movie American History X takes place in this dark era of punk/hardcore, I strongly encourage that everyone check it out. You might get a sense of what I'm talking about.

    Bleach was not a punk record. Because it didnt sound one bit like any of the punk music played in the punk scene at the time. Bleach was an indie rock record. That's what it was called then. That is until the term "grunge" was coined as a new descriptive classification, and that what it's called now. Bleach leaned heavily on the golden age of punk (67-80) but it was not a part of punk. The same way that a country artist might lean heavily on the Eagles but are not 70's southern rock. They're something else.

    I hope this made sense.

    It took a lot of hard work by bands like Green Day and Rancid to bring punk back from the dead.

    But Nirvana wasn't part of punk. They were a part of the Pacific Northwest Grunge scene. That's the genre.
    Last edited by Los Angeles; 09-26-2011, 02:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
    Hey man, for a guy who likes to give history lessons, I'm actually a little surprised at that you would fire such a ****** rhetorical question at me.

    So let me refresh your memory.

    From 85 to 90, the last thing anyone wanted to be was punk. Punk was overrun by thugs and the worst of those guys were neo-nazis. Yes, actual NEO-NAZIS. To say you were punk was to encourage association with outright scum. A patron saint of political punk, Jello Biafra was actually beaten senseless by these ****s. Punk was absolutely DEAD to all free-thinking practitioners.

    Just like how the blues and country were combined to make rock and roll, Alternative music of the late 80's and early nineties combined punk, funk, hip-hop, pop and metal to create new forms of music.

    Nirvana combined pop lyricism with punk aggression - but slowed it a bit down to more of a metal speed to bring us their sound.

    Was Bleach lo-fi? Yes. A lot of punk was lo-fi, too, so I understand your confusion.

    Was Bleach angry? Yes. A lot of punk was angry, too, so I understand your confusion.

    Was Bleach on an independent label and made on a shoestring budget? Yes. A lot of punk was inexpensively produced, too, so I understand your confusion.

    Was Bleach a punk record? Hell no. Bleach used punk as an influence, sure. but it wasn't punk. Calling it punk is a disservice to it's legacy, and when it came out, making the comparison would have caused an argument about neo-nazism.
    First off,I wasn't firing off anything, let alone a rhetorical question. I simply wanted to know what Bleach was classified as when it came out. I don't know if I got an answer for that yet.

    I am confused by the punk = racism thing. I thought there was always that perceptive for some, but from the beginning of punk with Oi! punk. From what I understand of the CBGB and american punk I did not know this. So Thurston Moore following the Ramones or Basquiat to the punk/new wave scene club CBGB could of been confused for a Hitler youth club? Was Black Flag racist? I don't understand...

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Merz View Post
    Disclaimer - I am NOT saying Nirvana is punk. I am not jumping on either side of the disagreement.


    I just want to know what elements do you think make a band "punk"?
    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.

    Originally posted by billbradley View Post
    At any rate, not ever making the charts doesn't change that MF DOOM is a rapper. Your one point that doesn't exist is very weak.
    You trying to explain what the punk sound actually consists of, is very very weak.

    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.
    Last edited by Constellations; 09-26-2011, 08:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    100% AGREE

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
    Oh, and Nirvana wasn't punk. It just came from a scene that embraced punk angst and punk values when it came to commercialism, etc.
    I personally don't like to put music in it's "category", because it seems the categories get too broad and people don't agree on what makes something belong to a certain group. The only categories I use are "music I like" and "music I dislike".

    I've heard arguments that "punk" is the attitude, values, and anti-conformity of the movement. I've also heard people claim that punk is nothing but the sound (fast, short, simple, a few chords, etc.) It's probably a little of both (or a lot of both). Though Nirvana is not typically labeled as punk they can fit in there somewhere. I'm fine with just considering them as Rock and putting them in my "music I like" group.
    Last edited by Merz; 09-26-2011, 01:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Hey man, for a guy who likes to give history lessons, I'm actually a little surprised at that you would fire such a ****** rhetorical question at me.

    So let me refresh your memory.

    From 85 to 90, the last thing anyone wanted to be was punk. Punk was overrun by thugs and the worst of those guys were neo-nazis. Yes, actual NEO-NAZIS. To say you were punk was to encourage association with outright scum. A patron saint of political punk, Jello Biafra was actually beaten senseless by these ****s. Punk was absolutely DEAD to all free-thinking practitioners.

    Just like how the blues and country were combined to make rock and roll, Alternative music of the late 80's and early nineties combined punk, funk, hip-hop, pop and metal to create new forms of music.

    Nirvana combined pop lyricism with punk aggression - but slowed it a bit down to more of a metal speed to bring us their sound.

    Was Bleach lo-fi? Yes. A lot of punk was lo-fi, too, so I understand your confusion.

    Was Bleach angry? Yes. A lot of punk was angry, too, so I understand your confusion.

    Was Bleach on an independent label and made on a shoestring budget? Yes. A lot of punk was inexpensively produced, too, so I understand your confusion.

    Was Bleach a punk record? Hell no. Bleach used punk as an influence, sure. but it wasn't punk. Calling it punk is a disservice to it's legacy, and when it came out, making the comparison would have caused an argument about neo-nazism.
    Last edited by Los Angeles; 09-26-2011, 01:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
    Oh, and Nirvana wasn't punk. It just came from a scene that embraced punk angst and punk values when it came to commercialism, etc.
    Then what kind of album was Bleach LA?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Oh, and Nirvana wasn't punk. It just came from a scene that embraced punk angst and punk values when it came to commercialism, etc.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Sirius/XM had a really long Q&A with Jon Stewart hosting and featuring Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic and Butch Vig. It lasted many hours.

    And they shared many stories.

    Butch Vig shared a story about throwing a party. Billy Corrigan was there. Anyway, Nevermind wasn't released yet and everybody is having a good time and all. And Butch decides to put on this new record that he'd been working on. Smells Like Teen Spirit is the first track. The entire party goes silent. They listen to the whole record in silence. After the record is over, twenty seconds go by and then someone says "play it again."

    Butch rewinds the tape (yes, it was on tape) and the entire party listens to the whole record a second time.

    Billy Corrigan approaches Butch Vig and tells him "This record is going to change music forever."

    And it did.
    Last edited by Los Angeles; 09-26-2011, 01:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Constellations View Post
    You need to tighten up your ears to what the punk sound actually is.

    Disclaimer - I am NOT saying Nirvana is punk. I am not jumping on either side of the disagreement.


    I just want to know what elements do you think make a band "punk"?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Constellations View Post
    You're not right and check the charts. Clearly not made up. Nowhere on the charts. So go ahead and spend another 30 minutes searching through countless information for next strike. I can't wait to read it in a few days.
    What charts? There isn't a punk rock billboard? Link?

    At any rate, not ever making the charts doesn't change that MF DOOM is a rapper. Your one point that doesn't exist is very weak.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X