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 TV Show Did You Last Watch

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

  • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

    Justified is a great show. Easily one of my favorites. I think Timothy Olyphant is perfect in this role. Kinda funny he is once again so good with a gun, like in Hitman.

    FX has some very good shows. Justified, Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Archer, Rescue Me and some others as well.

    Comment


    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed "The Pacific" although I do have some of the same questions Peck had with some plot decisions.

      For the most part I thought the episodes could've been 90 mins instead of 60 mins. Some things could've used some more explanation or simply had more time spent on the story.

      I didn't think the Lecke character was all that interesting or compelling either. I can't really put my finger on why although more than anything I think the script failed him a little. OTOH, just as Peck said Sledge and Snafu were both compelling characters.

      When taken as a whole all the episodes interlocked but this isn't a mini-series where I think you could just start watching in the middle of a random episode and get hooked.

      There were some excellent stories told but to fully appreciate them you needed the backstory that was provided along the way.

      That said, if there was one episode that missed the mark I'd say it was the episode with them all in Australia (or was it New Zealand?). That just seemed to linger past the point of making its point.

      Another nit to pick was the handling of the bombings that brought the war to an end. I wished they would've opened up the story focus to include some of that and the decisions being made back at home about it. You could've had these marines wondering what was next for them and how bad the invasion of the Japanese mainland could be... against a backdrop of TPTB debating/planning the bombings and their hope it would bring the war to an end.

      But in any case, I liked how the final episode tied things up and filled you in on the lives of these men (and women) after the war.
      I agree with most of this. There were parts of the Pacific that were incredibly great, other parts that were very boring. Like Peck, I think they should have just stuck with the 2nd Marines, but they probably wanted to make Basilone and Guadalcanal part of the story.

      I was much more intrigued with Sledge and Snafu. In fact, they could have scrapped the portrayal of Leckie altogether and replaced that part of it with Snafu. The actor (who is a U. of Evansville alum) did a superb job.

      Comment


      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

        Have all episodes of Justified on my DVR and have watched the first two. I enjoy it, but don'ty feel any real need to watch each episode, except maybe it is just an enjoyable show to watch. I tend to like show buiild from 1 episode to the next more like Dexter or the Wire.

        But I'll keep watching for now

        Comment


        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

          I was out of the country when Community started so I havent seen any episodes other than the pilot which I downloaded. It was alright. The Season finale was on but I wasnt paying attention to it.

          Comment


          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

            Chuck season finale- holy crap. This was such a terrific 2 hr finale. I say this for many things, but if you haven't watched this show, you're really missing out. What a great show, and an action packed ending. This season technically had 2 endings, but this 2nd one was just as good as the first. And a great way to end in the last 2 minutes.
            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

            Comment


            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Have all episodes of Justified on my DVR and have watched the first two. I enjoy it, but don'ty feel any real need to watch each episode, except maybe it is just an enjoyable show to watch. I tend to like show buiild from 1 episode to the next more like Dexter or the Wire.

              But I'll keep watching for now
              That was my thought for the first 3-4 eps.

              Like you I want an actual arcing story line and can't stand the shows that are wrapped up in a single episode. Hence why I can't stand procedural shows.

              That was my fear with this show after about 2 eps. in but then we start to get to the arcing story line with Boyd Crowder (played brilliantly by Walton Goggins *Shane Vandrell from the shield*).

              I think if you keep watching you will see there is a purpose to the show and it's not just a villain of the week type of show. This may have more humor that you would like but it's still pretty good.

              It's not good on the level of Deadwood or the Shield but since neither of those are on then this is a fairly decent replacement.


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

              Comment


              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                watching Canada's Worst Handyman and I just found out they filmed this last season in London which is pretty cool.

                Comment


                • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                  Just finished season #1 of Damages Yes I now understand peck why you said i need to watch this show in its proper order.

                  Really enjoyed season 1, I just love the tone and pace of this show. And it proves why procedurals miss the mark, as there is no way a procedural could have a plot as complicated.

                  They are re-showing season 2 on FX so I'm good to go

                  Comment


                  • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                    started with first season of 30 Rock...Alec Baldwin is doing his thing in this show...liking it so far....

                    Comment


                    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                      Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
                      started with first season of 30 Rock...Alec Baldwin is doing his thing in this show...liking it so far....
                      The latter part of season #1 is great as is season #2 and then it gets a little too over-the-top for me

                      Comment


                      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                        I think they've toned it down a bit this past season with Liz and Jack being the focus again and only a few recurring guest stars instead of the "celebrity of the week" they were doing for a while.
                        Play Mafia!
                        Twitter

                        Comment


                        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                          Seeing a lot of re-runs lately. Of course it is that time of the year. Seinfeld is all over the place here. The only new show I have been seeing is America's Got Talent and that William Grimm who they found in LA was very talented.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                            Not too sure about season #2 of Damages. Still like it but doesn't seem as good as season #1

                            Comment


                            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                              I watched The Good Guys last night it was an ok show. I am going to give it a few more episodes, but it was nothing amazing.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                                Treme episode 8. I might be the only one still on this board watching but it has been worth it. I can't wait to see how they close out this season.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X