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

  • #91
    Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

    Originally posted by Constellations View Post
    Could I say the same about Lennon?

    I won't because it's just wrong btw.
    No. Lennon's career was on the downswing when he got killed. He was shot over a decade after The Beatles broke up IIRC. Cobain's suicide kind of fed into his music and his psyche, which has always interested people.

    Edit: Sorry, haven't kept up with this thread and didn't see the next page of responses. I see TJ and others have already hit on this.
    Last edited by cdash; 07-31-2011, 09:08 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

      Originally posted by billbradley View Post
      And Sonic Youth is still doing it MC! I love the Beatles and i love Nirvana, but the Beatles were so many different things that transcended music and I view them on an iconic level that really has not been matched. I think Nirvana's sound made distortion and a "dirtier" sound listenable while Beatles mastered song composition /melody. Sonic youth is the truth, but while I find them to be more talented than Nirvana, you can't just throw on an experimental Thurston album, it will clear a room. Kurt Cobain taking a sound like that and making it catchy / popular is what makes so highly rated. Someone aligned them with Joy Division, I don't know. I just think the Beatles number one, while being in a top tier of bands and singers along with Bob Dylan, Jimi, etc. And I think Nirvana is in that top tier as well.

      Rolling Stone has The Beatles at #1 Nirvana #30 Top 100 artists of all time
      http://www.rollingstone.com/music/li...atles-19691231

      Lennon #5 and Cobain #45 for 100 greatest singers
      http://www.rollingstone.com/music/li...ennon-19691231

      Cobain #12 and George Harrison #21 100 greatest guitarists
      http://www.rollingstone.com/music/li...rison-19691231

      Rolling Stone top 500 albums of all time, Beatles have 5 in top 20 while Nirvana has 1 in top 20 at #17.
      http://dj-funktual.hubpages.com/hub/...ms-of-All-Time

      Although Rolling Stone is not the final authority on music, I would say Nirvana matches up better than most would think.
      Interesting lists..I find them to be a bit sexist though.

      edit: okay..not "a bit" I'd say more like "really"
      Last edited by Sookie; 07-31-2011, 10:17 PM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

        Originally posted by Sookie View Post
        Interesting lists..I find them to be a bit sexist though.

        edit: okay..not "a bit" I'd say more like "really"
        elaborate?

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

          Originally posted by billbradley View Post
          elaborate?
          Well, for example, in the 100 greatest Artists there's one female artist in the top 20.

          Eminem is named before Stevie Nicks, Patsy Cline, Celion Dion, Whitney Houston, Judy Garland and Ella Fitzgerald. All of which are better artists then him. And I don't believe any are actually listed. (And I know I'm forgetting some..)

          Janis Joplin is number 46. Carol King not even on there?

          And I think there's less then 10 female artists in the entire list. I know it's Rolling Stone..but dang..

          The singers are a bit better, but quite frankly, that's a list that should almost be dominated by women. (And I have to *side eye* at Mariah being number 79, although Steven Tyler at 99 is even worse.)
          Last edited by Sookie; 07-31-2011, 11:07 PM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

            there needs to be more women represented, but i think they put a high value on the artist writing or composing their own music, especially with Michael Jackson being 35. Joplin was for sure robbed. I also think the music industry wasn't allowing the same opportunities for women as men for so long that it kind of hindered women creatively making it harder to be represented on the list. Most of my favorite bands of the last 20 or so years have women lead singers or band members. I can't say that for pre 1980.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

              Originally posted by billbradley View Post
              there needs to be more women represented, but i think they put a high value on the artist writing or composing their own music, especially with Michael Jackson being 35. Joplin was for sure robbed. I also think the music industry wasn't allowing the same opportunities for women as men for so long that it kind of hindered women creatively making it harder to be represented on the list. Most of my favorite bands of the last 20 or so years have women lead singers or band members. I can't say that for pre 1980.
              I agree with early stuff, although you had Ella, Judy Garland ect... My thoughts were just that the women were woefully unrepresented. And not that I expect it to be 50/50 just because, but simply..a lot of women are missing from those lists..or are way down those lists..

              Comment


              • #97
                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.
                No.

                Pearl Jam is a classic rock retread. Nothing wrong with that.

                Pixies, Jane's Addiction, Nirvana all eclipse Pearl Jam, in my opinion.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                  Originally posted by Constellations View Post
                  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.
                  We can't say for sure that Nirvana has impacted generations of people. There is not nearly enough evidence to suggest that IMO.


                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                    One other thing...Radiohead...full of win.


                    Comment


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

                      Would some of Maroon 5's earlier stuff fall into a successful rock band of the past 10 years? Just tossing it out there.


                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                        No.

                        Pearl Jam is a classic rock retread. Nothing wrong with that.

                        Pixies, Jane's Addiction, Nirvana all eclipse Pearl Jam, in my opinion.
                        I don't really care for Pearl Jam all that much, but I think it should be noted that when Pearl Jam and Nirvana were going head to head in the early 90s, Pearl Jam was the more popular group. Just sayin'.

                        Comment


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

                          Going back to Rolling Stone lists, I went back and read some of the articles on the artists. After realizing all of them where written by other top artists and the list was made by 55 top musicians, I have more respect for that list.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            I still don't see how Kurt Cobain is the John Lennon of the 90s.
                            these statements are likely to get this thread locked, but...

                            To me that line is not even so much about musical genius as it is about how each lived his life. And I indeed think that Lennon was indeed a musical genius.

                            My parents and everyone over 40 hated John Lennon.

                            He had the audacity to say the war in Vietnam was a farce.
                            He had the audacity to suggest that maybe religion isn't "all that" since an awful lot of people since forever have focused upon killing, trying to (in their mind) follow a religious doctrine.
                            He had the audacity to suggest that greed is not great.
                            He had the audacity to suggest that in general governments are not looking out for the best interests of people.

                            Now, I don't really agree with socialist agendas, but you have to admire him, in a turbulent time, having the stones to stand for things that were in no way going to help his popularity.

                            I'm just not so much up on Kurt Cobain, musically or otherwise. I think I can recognize that one song. As an artist, he doesn't do it for me.

                            Even if I couldn't stand John Lennon's music, I would respect him as an influential social force and strong-willed voice who took a stand. Thus for someone to be the John Lennon of anything, that's a big role filled with lots of expectations, musical and otherwise. That Cobain, or Michael Jackson, or anyone else falls far short doesn't need to be construed as an insult.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                              Going back to Rolling Stone lists, I went back and read some of the articles on the artists. After realizing all of them where written by other top artists and the list was made by 55 top musicians, I have more respect for that list.
                              Yea, even knowing that though I still don't think much of the lists. However its not just their lists I have issues with.

                              One time I was watching the top 100 rock bands of all time on VH1 and they had the band Husker Du listed one spot above Lynard Skynard.

                              Now I'm sorry but that is just musical elitist snobbery there. Don't get me wrong I don't love L.S. or anything but even I know that they have produced two of the most recognizable songs of all time and Husker Du has produced nothing beyond what their own core group of fans like.

                              As an example take the most popular song ever made by Husker Du and start it in a room of 100 people all of different race/backround and musical taste and I bet not a one of them will have a clue as to who or what you are playing. Then just go play the opening notes to Sweet Home Alabama & I guarantee that almost everyone will know the song if not the group.

                              I just think lists are subjective and obviously we all put down what we like and don't like best.


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

                              Comment


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

                                I see your point, but I don't think you should use popilarity on a list like top 100 artists unless its top 100 Pop artists. When you have the top performers in the industry making the list, thats credability. I think Keith Richards or Elton John knows more about music than me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X