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

What movie did you last watch?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

    Originally posted by Mourning View Post
    I actually did like "The Thin Red Line" a lot, though the FFG in the back is a little annoying if you pay attention to it (I chose to ignore it ).
    That was only a small part of why I didn't like the movie (which I don't want to get into. Heck, it's probably earlier in this thread somewhere.)

    For some reason, the FFG made me think that shot was in the present day. It took me a while mentally to realize it was supposed to be 1942. I expected some kind of flashback.
    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

    - Jimmy Buffett

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Just watched The Science of Sleep.

      This one teeters the line between greatness and incomprehensible. Artistically and thematically it's incredibly lofty, and it certainly hits on all cylinders in many places. And indeed, a lot of the dialogue and scenes are captivating, and the actors are really good across the board.

      On the other hand, however, it's all over the place. Essentially, we're watching Gael Garcia Bernal (who's really great as always) go back and forth between being awake and his own eccentric dreamworld, and its increasingly blurry which one we're seeing.

      It's quite a bit different than much else you'll ever see (I haven't seen Eternal Sunshine yet). At any rate, it's worth a viewing if you're into this sort of unconventional cinema.
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:

      @8pts9secs

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        Speaking of unconventional filmmaking, watched Mulholland Drive. Had to do some imdb'ing to get that all down. Gotta watch it again to fully absorb everything (and the bedroom scenes ). Recommended.
        You Got The Tony!!!!!!

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          Juno is turning into the surprise hit for this time of the year. I'll have to go see it.

          No Country for Old men was excellent. Haven't seen "There will be Blood" yet.

          Has anyone seen "Atonement" yet. is it too much of a chick flick. The trailer I saw was pretty good.
          CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED.

          My GF and some of her friends went to see it and said that there was no way I would be able to sit through it.

          And I thoroughly enjoyed "Closer."

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            Just finished watching Juno. It was not what I expected. However, I came away from it feeling good.

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Originally posted by Mourning View Post
              "Kingdom of Heaven" I HATED that one. Talk about moving a 21st century attitude and love story into the medieval time frame.
              Yeah - especially since Balian actually returned to Jerusalem to rescue his wife - he wasn't running aroung shagging the most convenient Muslim girl he could find. I've come to accept SOME journalistic license in filmmaking but in this case it isn't even necessary. What really happened was he asked Saladin for permission to re-enter Jerusalem while it was under siege to get his wife. Saladin said OK. When he got there he found the defenses in such pathetic shape that he felt compelled to stay but first he sent a letter to Saladin asking permission, which was granted.

              That's a great story and a lot to work with. Instead they decided to invent some crap about him getting his happy on with a random girl.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                What? A random girl? That wasn't a random girl, or a Muslim. That was Saladin's sister. His wife was already dead in this movie. Furthermore, I don't go into these expecting them to be historically accurate, just that they're slightly based on something that happened. Usually smaller details (sets/costumes/props) are accurate to various degrees. Now, if they advertised themselves as bringing history to life, I'd be upset, but they didn't and I'm not. I thought the movie was OK in theaters, but the director's cut (which adds a lot back in) is much better. Listen to the audio commentary of the DC; they (Director & Writer) know it's not what happened. They weren't trying to be accurate.

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Originally posted by Mal View Post
                  What? A random girl? That wasn't a random girl, or a Muslim. That was Saladin's sister. His wife was already dead in this movie. Furthermore, I don't go into these expecting them to be historically accurate, just that they're slightly based on something that happened. Usually smaller details (sets/costumes/props) are accurate to various degrees. Now, if they advertised themselves as bringing history to life, I'd be upset, but they didn't and I'm not. I thought the movie was OK in theaters, but the director's cut (which adds a lot back in) is much better. Listen to the audio commentary of the DC; they (Director & Writer) know it's not what happened. They weren't trying to be accurate.
                  Ridley Scott has crawled all over himself describing it as an accurate depiction of the conflicts of that time. It is not - it completely misrepresents the tenor and tone of the Crusades. Pretty much garbage.

                  Just about the only historically accurate item in the entire film was that Guy of Lusignan lost the Battle of Hattin. Beyond that it's pure fiction - starting with Balian being a blacksmith and not a mid-level noble.

                  That's OK. Historical films are always fictionalized somewhat - heck we don't know enough details about those people to stick to the facts for film. But in this case Balian going back to Jerusalem to rescue his wife would have created as good, or better of a plot line than the one they threw in. Not sure why they felt the need to throw in the Muslim girl - maybe to give the impression that if it wasn't for those meanie Templars, Christians and Muslims would all get together and sing Kumbaya - never mind that they'd been killing each other for 500 years by the time the film was set.

                  But at least it was better than Braveheart - particularly since Gibson defends that film as historically accurate. And on a positive note, I thought Saladin was portrayed fairly well - maybe a little too sympathetically since he wasn't above mass slaughter when it suited him but not too bad.
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    Finally worked up the courage to watch United 93.

                    I thought I'd be ready to watch it. But I guess I wasn't...or I guess this is just the reaction most people get. Because I haven't shed tears from watching a movie in a long time.

                    I went through so many different stages during the movie. For about the first 20 minutes, I kept telling myself to turn it off. That way I wouldn't have to see.

                    For about the next hour, I was stressed. I have no other way of putting it...sounds weird - being stressed during a movie. But it was painful to watch. I knew what was going to happen - but I kept hoping it would turn out different.

                    For the last part, I was just done. I don't know - I can't imagine everything going through the people's heads. I can't imagine that situation. But it happened. From the chaos on ground and in air-traffic centres, to the chaos on the plane...and the communication problems on the ground and on the plane. I couldn't imagine. It offends me when people say that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

                    God Bless all those who lost their lives on 9/11/01.
                    Last edited by sweabs; 01-17-2008, 10:00 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      Hit me just as hard, rcarey.

                      I watched Good Luck Chuck tonight. Pretty cheesy, but I finally put it together that Dane Cook is the restaurant grill guy in Waiting....the one who puts his pubes on as a garnish for the lady who was being a beyotch.

                      I thought the movie was pretty cute, and it was all the more bearable because Jessica Alba is the hottest woman on the PLANET. That phrase is overused, and hyperbole always waters down statements of this magnitude. Regardless of all that, Jessica Alba is the hottest woman on the PLANET. It is insane how hot she is. No human being, man or woman, should be that attractive. Sigh.




                      RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        A History of Violence.

                        Way too short. I liked the direction it was going in...but it finishes, and I'm left with a bunch of questions.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                          Ridley Scott has crawled all over himself describing it as an accurate depiction of the conflicts of that time. It is not - it completely misrepresents the tenor and tone of the Crusades. Pretty much garbage.

                          Just about the only historically accurate item in the entire film was that Guy of Lusignan lost the Battle of Hattin. Beyond that it's pure fiction - starting with Balian being a blacksmith and not a mid-level noble.

                          That's OK. Historical films are always fictionalized somewhat - heck we don't know enough details about those people to stick to the facts for film. But in this case Balian going back to Jerusalem to rescue his wife would have created as good, or better of a plot line than the one they threw in. Not sure why they felt the need to throw in the Muslim girl - maybe to give the impression that if it wasn't for those meanie Templars, Christians and Muslims would all get together and sing Kumbaya - never mind that they'd been killing each other for 500 years by the time the film was set.

                          But at least it was better than Braveheart - particularly since Gibson defends that film as historically accurate. And on a positive note, I thought Saladin was portrayed fairly well - maybe a little too sympathetically since he wasn't above mass slaughter when it suited him but not too bad.
                          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Even though I haven't seen it, I'm thinking that there may have to be an extra thread for Cloverfield. It looks like it may be one of those movies that just needs its own thread.

                            I won't be able to see it until next weekend though.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Animal House.

                              It was okay.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                Originally posted by rcarey View Post
                                Animal House.

                                It was okay.

                                It was a house and they lived and partied like animals... what more did you want?




                                -Bball
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X