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:
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

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

The Cabin in the Woods discussion (Spoilers, duh!)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Cabin in the Woods discussion (Spoilers, duh!)

    As with my Mass Effect thread, I'd just as soon dispel with the spoiler tags. As I said in the Movie thread, if you haven't seen it, you do yourself a diservice seeking out any info beforehand. If you're the least bit interested in this, back out, go see it, and come back. We'll still be here.

    Now, with that out of the way, did anyone else get the feeling that the third act was a direct result of Whedon's tv budget limitations on Buffy? I feel like the elevator doors opening were the release off all his pent up creative juices that had built up over the years.

    The movie's not perfect by any means, but the structure, the layering that goes on throughout is pretty darn close, in my opinion. Really gets me pumped to see what Joss learned from this experience and applied to The Avengers.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

  • #2
    Re: The Cabin in the Woods discussion (Spoilers, duh!)

    It certainly felt like it could have been a continuation on ideas touched upon on Buffy/Angel. More monsters, wilder monsters, giant monsters, giant Gods, those kinds of things.

    This almost feels like it could belong in the same universe, to a point.

    It all gets so big/wild that in a way I'm glad they didn't have the budget to go in this direction on the shows.

    All in all, it's a really good flick if you're into these sorts of movies (which I more or less am).

    I've come to realize that I'm usually about 90% on board with what Joss and his folks do, and this was no exception. I know it's just a movie/show, but it bugs me how they'll have a character get stabbed or caught in a bear trap, but within seconds of screen time they're moving around like it never happened (only the blood stains are left to remind us). I wish there would be more physical consequences to those attacks beyond the second in which they occur.

    By the way, jumping back a bit, am I the only one who felt like this was somewhat of a continuation of what The Initiative would be up to if they were still around in 2012? Ten years ago they were capturing and dissecting monsters to better learn how to stop them, but once they learned about these agent gods, this is totally what I could see them setting up to deal with it.

    If I want to get nerdy-nitpicky (and why not, I suppose), I have to ask: Assuming this is the government behind this (which I think it's meant to be), how the hell would they learn about this before it had already blew up in the world's face? Why is this the only solution they could come up with? There's these ancient demon gods or whatever, yet no positive/good gods to counter them? And why are these gods content with young adults who are only roughly the archetypes they are looking for the blood of? Wouldn't it have to be completely authentic (rather than chemically-affected people who maybe/kinda/sorta fit the stereotypes)? Why is the virgin dying last an either/or option in terms of whether or not she survives? Plus, why is it not okay to just set them up with one type of monster ('they have to choose'), yet in so many other ways it's okay for it to all be contrived? I mean it's not like they went out of their way to stir up ANY kind of monster to begin with; that was all set up by these folks (no matter which they happened to inadvertently select in the end).

    I dug the Hellraiser/Pinhead ripoff sphere and monster.

    I know, most of this falls under "it's just a show, I should really just relax," but hell it's a forum thread to talk about it, I'm enough of a dork to ask, so what the hell; I'm asking.

    I kind of wish they'd have kept Thor's character around longer; I enjoy him on screen (cue someone making a joke here).

    I really enjoyed Fran Kranz in his role; well done (though you get the sense this is probably [this and his role as Topher] the only type of character he probably plays this well, to be cynical)

    I hit the restroom right afterwards before heading out, and I heard someone else who had just seen it say to someone he was with "I have to admit it was a really good movie, but the ending sucked".

    I wonder how many people will agree with him on that.

    Personally, I didn't really have a problem with it. I mean what the hell else were they going to do with it that would have been any better? At least that's how I felt about it.

    Speaking of which, I was pretty sure that was Sigourney when I heard her doing the voice over, and it was fun to see I was right.

    I can't leave without acknowledging how well they inject humor into this whole thing without it becoming a true full-on parody of a horror movie; it walks that line pretty damned well. I'm in particularly referring to all of the comedy played by the behind-the-horror-scenes guys as things gear up and then move along.


    • #3
      Re: The Cabin in the Woods discussion (Spoilers, duh!)

      I've read the argument that the ending is "the end", so to speak, because Joss didn't want any chance of this turning into a franchise. That could have been done very easily, be it the scenario plays out more or less as it should, all the way up to Dana shooting Marty. And obviously you have the other offices as well.

      But, the argument goes, Joss didn't want another Saw, he wanted to draw a line in the sand. Like the rogue showing how magic tricks work to get magicians to raise their game, Joss wants horror to evolve, and stop doing the same things over and over again. I do think that's a good argument, I just don't know how successful he'll be.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


      • #4
        Re: The Cabin in the Woods discussion (Spoilers, duh!)

        Regarding the Initiative comparison, I thought that as well. Actually, I thought more along the lines of "Holy ****, he just fixed Season 4!" Now he just needs to make a movie to fix Season 6. Maybe the sequel to Dr. Horrible will be a musical about Felicia Day's character coming back from the dead, that could do it.

        As for the government "learning about this", I felt they had always done it. Note the beginning credits showing sacrifices during the ages. TPTB in each culture do it, they've just become more coordinated and advanced as the years progress. Building a better mouse trap, so to speak.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


        • #5
          Re: The Cabin in the Woods discussion (Spoilers, duh!)

          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
          I've read the argument that the ending is "the end", so to speak, because Joss didn't want any chance of this turning into a franchise. That could have been done very easily, be it the scenario plays out more or less as it should, all the way up to Dana shooting Marty. And obviously you have the other offices as well.

          But, the argument goes, Joss didn't want another Saw, he wanted to draw a line in the sand. Like the rogue showing how magic tricks work to get magicians to raise their game, Joss wants horror to evolve, and stop doing the same things over and over again. I do think that's a good argument, I just don't know how successful he'll be.
          I completely agree with you and with what Joss did. It doesn't help that the first Saw sucked (Cary Eweles was especially poor), but much like other brilliant original horror films the sequels end up becoming parodies of themselves and it ruins people's mindset of the original.

          This might be his funniest film. I was surprised how funny it was in fact.

          The over the top stuff was too much cheezy CGI, but it was worth it to have that elevator hall reaction scene when the 2nd set of guards shows up, plus tying into the "Ding" in general.

          The hallway and them hiding in the room while it went on really reminded me of In the Mouth of Madness with Sam Neill stepping out of his asylum room to find nothing but destruction left again by the "old gods". And of course Mouth of Madness basically has the same final fate for the world which is interesting (and perhaps not accidental).

          The brilliance of the film to me was two fold:

          1) Juxtaposition of violence and comedy/disinterest. A specific example was where she's being beat to death on the dock while they party to REO. A typical director would use this as a means of making them the fools (as a character type I mean) where in the background the audience would see her getting away or being saved while they failed to pay attention, thus turning the tables on them switching her role with their role in the story (foolish victim).

          But that's not what he does. They have made an error but they find out before she's saved. What Joss does is make a point about how complacent they (and we) are about the suffering she is undergoing. It's background noise to them, a post-game commercial after their team just won the big game.

          They have no remorse or reflection on it at all. And the audience is lured into being just like them by keeping the focus in the room with them, full of music and funny quips, but without letting us off the guilt-hook by not having her suffering visible in the shots.

          2) The pure blending of comedy, horror, sci-fi/fantasy and action. Again the hallway scene borders almost on being The Matrix in gun action, or certainly Aliens (a classic horror/action blender). The film is excellent at intermixing all of these genres without being a sub-type of any of them. It's not really a horror-comedy, for example.

          But again the comedy...."am I on speaker phone?" Oh man, that is great parody. Taking the ominous, all-knowing "punisher" character and giving him a virtual wedgie. Joss just walks in and both celebrates and undercuts all of these classic horror staples.

          It's got to go in the mix with Shaun of the Dead and Scream as the top films to inventively embrace and mock horror at the same time.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-15-2012, 08:32 PM.


          • #6
            Re: The Cabin in the Woods discussion (Spoilers, duh!)

            PS - I never watched Buffy, so all those references are lost to me. I saw the film, but never the series.

            I did catch up on all of Firefly after Serenity came out.

            I kind of wish they'd have kept Thor's character around longer; I enjoy him on screen (cue someone making a joke here).
            I'm man enough to agree on this. Chris Hemsworth has just the right amount of charm to be the cool, big tough guy you want to hang out with rather than resenting him for having so much going for him. I thought as Thor he did a pretty good job of conveying arrogance, but even still he has a natural charm that's going to make it tough for him to pull of any "jerk" characters. The Rock is similar but has enough edge that he can more easily slip into that mode I think.

            Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford were both used well too. Jenkins has been on fire with roles the last few years. He's had solid turns in a lot of interesting films and across a decent range. I mean Let Me In and his role couldn't be a more different "horror" film and role from Cabin in the Woods.

            Also, not to derail this but it looks like only 3 of us are talking film in here, have you had the chance to see The Raid: Redemption?

            I mention it since Raid and Cabin have been the two buzz films this spring. I caught Raid early by seeing it in Houston after the Rockets game. It's freaking brilliantly directed and equally as worth seeing.

            Cabin has the script (story and dialog) but Raid is directed at a much higher, artful level. It's really beautiful and innovative to watch. Oh, and there's about 8000 hours of action packed into less than 2.

            They are both great surprises, or rather both were great at living up to the hype, but I give the edge to Raid just barely. It's nice when you get quality films released before summer tent poles break out (though Hunger Games has to kinda count as the starting point).
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-15-2012, 08:27 PM.


            • #7
              Re: The Cabin in the Woods discussion (Spoilers, duh!)

              So you saw Serenity before you saw Firefly, and you've seen the Buffy movie, but not the Buffy TV show?


              • #8
                Re: The Cabin in the Woods discussion (Spoilers, duh!)

                I saw it with three others yesterday. One hated it, one loved it, and two of us thought it was very good but has little to no re-watch value. So I'm giving it a very solid B+.

                I agree that it felt a bit like something that could have been done on Buffy or Angel, if they'd had a larger budget. I thought it was very inventive, the humor was almost always perfect, and the monsters were memorable, even as cliches. Nicely done.

                (I stayed until the end of the credits, but alas, no "Grr.. Argh!"... damn.)
                Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.


                • #9
                  Re: The Cabin in the Woods discussion (Spoilers, duh!)

                  Spoiler Spoiler: