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

What movie did you last watch?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

    Just watched Iron Man again for like the 11th time last night. That movie is just plain awesome. Didn't really care for the second as much, but it was still decent.

    Probably going to see the King's Speech this weekend.
    First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Pandorum. Sci-Fi fans might find it somewhat entertaining, but not a classic.


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        GET LOW, with Robert Duvall. might be a little slow for some, as it is a drama, but i loved it!! great story, and Duvall CAN ACT!!!


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          I am number 4.


          This movie had every single cliche known to mankind. Honestly this would have been much better as a tv show on the cw than a movie.

          This really is nothing more than Smallville & Roswell rolled into a very poor movie.

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


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            Night Catches Us - Cool debut movie about a Philadelphia neighborhood in 1976 after the Black Panthers had mostly dissolved. Strong lead performances by Anthony Mackie and Kerri Washington, and good supporting work by Jamie Hector and Wendell Pierce (Marlow and Bunk from The Wire, respectively), though the script could have been rewritten to give them more time. A nice dramatic, Afrocentric, period piece. Some very good contributions from The Roots for the soundtrack as well.
            You Got The Tony!!!!!!


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Last night me and the wife watched 3 movies in a row.
              Starting with....

              It's Kind of a Funny Story: I think Zach Galifinakias is a funny guy so we decided to give this movie a chance. A couple of scenes that made me chuckle but it left me feeling like I've seen this movie before.

              Unstoppable: About as much action as you can imagine with 2 people stuck on a train. Denzel plays in a his usual role and Chris Pine didn't do too bad of a job. The side story of Pine's character and his wife and kid didn't really add much to the story for me.

              My Soul to Take: This was one of the worst "scary" movies I've seen in a long time. I'm still not sure what happened, as the story seemed so rushed, and the plot twists left me yawning.

              Last Friday we also went to see I Am Number Four in theater, and I 100% agree with Peck's take on this movie. I would have liked a little more of a backstory on where they came from. Timothy Olyphant is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors, and he does his role as best he can with a supporting cast of nobodies.

              "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                Batman Returns.

                Hadn't watched that all the way through in a LONG time. I remember begging my mom to take me to see it in theaters, when I was just done with 2nd grade. She hated it, and she didn't like that I saw it either.

                Looking back on it, I can't say I blame her. There's some dark/sick (though still tame in some ways by today's standards) stuff going on in that thing. Of course, 90% of that stuff didn't register when I was that young, so most of that didn't matter at the time.

                Fascinating to watch it as my 27 (soon) year old self. One of my favorite things is how a movie or TV show you've seen before, maybe several times before, can seem so different when you reach a different age. I love that.

                Anyway, some stupid things, some silly thing, some fantastic things (some of them serious, some of them funny), and every bit as surreal as I remember it being.

                I'm a Nolan guy now, but there was a time when I swore by the Tim Burton movies. Then again, at the time my choices were Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher.....


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  So, these are about the current Oscar odds, via some gambling site:

                  Oscars Best Director

                  David Fincher (The Social Network)
                  Tom Hooper (The Kings Speech)
                  Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan)
                  Ethan and Joel Coen (True Grit)
                  David O. Russell (The Fighter)

                  Oscars Best Picture

                  The Social Network
                  The King's Speech -700
                  The Fighter +3000
                  Toy Story 3 +10000
                  Black Swan +2500
                  Inception +4000
                  127 Hours +10000
                  True Grit +3000
                  The Kids Are All Right +10000
                  Winter's Bone +8000

                  I think I will turn to the dark side on The King's Speech if it wins. I enjoyed it, but it should not be remembered as the best movie of 2010. This feels like Shakespeare in Love all over again (even though I was only, like, 8 when that came out).
                  You Got The Tony!!!!!!


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                    I think I will turn to the dark side on The King's Speech if it wins. I enjoyed it, but it should not be remembered as the best movie of 2010. This feels like Shakespeare in Love all over again (even though I was only, like, 8 when that came out).
                    Even though I've only seen it and Inception, I tend to agree. It was a fine movie, but not exceptional by any means. I felt like I was watching a good Masterpiece Theatre, or more accurately, a play.

                    Speaking of Inception, I need to find the old thread and bump it with something I discovered last night.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      I think the Social Network and The Kings Speech are by far the two best movies of the year and I'll be happy if either win. The Social Network may be a "better" movie, but I loved the Kings Speech more.

                      I would say both are near perfect movies - the execution of what they were trying to do is perfect.

                      I will say the Kings Speech is one of those movies that you feel and if the story didn't touch your heart, then yeah I could see where you might not love it (appreciate it yes, but not love it). For example Fields of Dreams did nothing for me at all, I didn't like that movie, but I know others who loved it
                      Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-27-2011, 12:17 PM.


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        I Am Number Four was created in a sort of script-factory where James Frey (oprah book liar guy) signs aspiring novelists to sell-your-soul-to-the-devil-type contracts, has them rush out loads of work in ridiculously short amounts of time, and basically takes all the profit and credit for the thing. Number Four is their only success so far, and the author was barred from ever mentioning that he made it. Just an interesting little tidbit I thought I'd share.

                        The Social Network is a crap movie. I will never understand the mass excitement around it.

                        Saw Unknown yesterday--not bad. A typical mystery-thriller with little character development, but lots of action, and big goofy Liam Neeson as an action star is oddly compelling.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          Why didn't you like The Social Network?
                          Play Mafia!


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            I just didn't see anything of merit in the whole thing. It wasn't horrible, and I enjoyed watching it as a pseudo-history of Facebook almost, but as a movie it was just dull and overlong. What did people actually like about it? To me the whole thing was generic Hollywood crap, and I don't see what about this movie was supposed to distinguish it from all the other bland Hollywood flicks released in the past year.

                            As a comparison point, I thought the movie sucked in the exact way that Benjamin Button did. It was almost exactly the same viewing experience. It presses all the right "Movie of the year!!!" buttons, and passes itself of as a sort of epic, but it is only Hollywood-original in that every move it makes is either trite, bland, or way overdone. You know how people sometimes point out that Donnie Darko is not a "smart" movie, but the kind of movie that makes people think it's a smart movie? BB and TSN are movies that make people think they're great, epic movies.

                            The rotten tomatoes blurb for TSN claims the movie is a great example of modern filmmaking. It's a shining example of modern filmmaking in the same way that Jonathan Safran Foer's books represent the height of contemporary literature.
                            Last edited by SoupIsGood; 02-27-2011, 08:56 PM.
                            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                              I Am Number Four was created in a sort of script-factory where James Frey (oprah book liar guy) signs aspiring novelists to sell-your-soul-to-the-devil-type contracts, has them rush out loads of work in ridiculously short amounts of time, and basically takes all the profit and credit for the thing. Number Four is their only success so far, and the author was barred from ever mentioning that he made it. Just an interesting little tidbit I thought I'd share.
                              Yeah, I was going to go see it just for Agron and Olyphant, until I found out about all this. No way was I gonna give that guy any of my money.
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                And..... **** The King's Speech.
                                You Got The Tony!!!!!!