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

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Just got done watching Breaking Bad season 5, can't wait for next season to start on Sunday.
    I am working through season five right now. I have a lot of shows to cram in between tonight and Sunday night to be ready.

    I am so excited to see how they close this book, but at the same time so sad to see it go because it is easily the best show on TV for me.

    Comment


    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

      But don't forget that season 5 IS the final season of Breaking Bad... they just split season 5 out over 2 years...
      Yeah... I agree. You should get 1 season per year!

      No idea what they were thinking to call this the 2nd half of season 5.... But whatever... Bring it on! I'm ready!!!
      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, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

        Joe Rogan Questions Everything

        New show with 3 episodes out. You know the guy from Fear Factor. Kind of reminds me of Fact Or Faked but without the home video aspect. Joe talks to all kinds of experts and tries to get to the bottom of the world's mysteries. First show was on Bigfoot. I'm still waiting on the alien/Roswell type episode I know is coming.

        Comment


        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

          Weeds is also a good show, really funny always something crazy is happening, I also like that all their seasons are on Netflix so I don't have to wait
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

            Originally posted by presto123 View Post
            Joe Rogan Questions Everything

            New show with 3 episodes out. You know the guy from Fear Factor. Kind of reminds me of Fact Or Faked but without the home video aspect. Joe talks to all kinds of experts and tries to get to the bottom of the world's mysteries. First show was on Bigfoot. I'm still waiting on the alien/Roswell type episode I know is coming.
            What did they say about Bigfoot? Your answer will determine if I watch the show or not.

            Comment


            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

              Well almost 16 years after it debuted and almost 10 years since it has been off of the air I am now watching for the first time Buffy the vampire slayer. I have actually motored threw the first 3 seasons (actually I am on the last episode of season 3) and so far I really enjoy this show.

              It took me reading Whedon's concept of the idea of Buffy and his rebuke of the movie (which I had seen and that alone made me not watch the series live) to actually decide to give this a try & so far I like the ride. The most striking thing to me is that since this was made in the 90's (well at least the episodes I've seen so far) how much music taste's have changed. This clearly was at the height of grunge & other forms of rock. Also it is kind of weird at how many people who went on to do other things either got their start or made an appearance on this show.

              You do have to overlook some of the very cheesy and poorly done makeup jobs (sometimes it's so bad I wonder if they didn't do it on purpose as some form of irony) and frankly the character of angel is just a little to overly angst ridden all of the time for my taste.

              Also it's really kind of weird watching all of this as new and seeing the very young Sarah Michelle Geller and then to see a commercial the other day for some new sitcom she is in with Robin Williams and her to be in her mid 30's it's kind of like I'm in a time warp or something.

              Did anyone watch angel? Was it any good? I know I am right now at the point where he leaves the show so do I need to jump back and forth or can I go back and watch it later if I want? Or should I just skip it altogether?


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

              Comment


              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                Definitely give Angel a watch. There are some crossovers in Season 4/Season 1 and sort of in Season 5/Season 2, but not really Season 6/Season 3. I do recall crossover again in Season 7/Season 4, and then Buffy was over but we got one more season of Angel, season 5. In some ways I came to like Angel better than Buffy later on.

                Angel Season 1 takes a while to find itself, but I thought it was pretty solid from there on, with some nice peaks and never really any serious valleys from season 2 on, though I'm sure others would disagree.

                In any case, I would definitely recommend seeing for yourself.

                We've been on an extended hiatus from watching it, but I was guiding Roaming Gnome through these shows over the past couple of years. We're stopped midway through Buffy S4 and Angel S1. Hopefully we can get that going again before too long.

                I use this blog as a good reference guide for when the shows start crossing over. I recommend checking it out and using their viewing order:

                http://buffyfest.blogspot.com/2009/0...ing-guide.html

                Comment


                • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                  Been watching Graceland. Its good but I feel like they have introduced this Odin plot line too early in the series. Once this plays out, where in the world could they go next. They'll either all be criminals in the end or they will all get re-assigned. Then what do you call the show? Does not seem to be a show that will have a long run.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                    Falling Skies - this show has really irked me this season. Its like these people can't get a freaking break. The amount of hardship they go through every episode is just terrible.
                    Not to mention the new Aliens offered them a safe zone to rebuild their civilization while the war is fought and the humans spaz out like dumb asses. The freaking Volm have an intergalactic space ship as big as a city. Your most reliable weapon is a .50 cal technical, and yet you want to fight along side them? I hate when TV shows present an obvious solution that must be ignored or protested to drive the story forward.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                      Originally posted by Stryder View Post
                      What did they say about Bigfoot? Your answer will determine if I watch the show or not.
                      Joe interviews so called "experts" on both sides of the fence. The believers and the non believers. Joe does give some of his opinion. They did go to the Washington woods themselves and did some investigating.(obviously they didn't find too much) I think this is the type of show where they find all the knowledgeable people on both sides of the fence and let the audience make up their own minds.
                      Last edited by presto123; 08-09-2013, 08:20 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                        Comment


                        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                          The killing season finale.

                          There better be a season 4 because that is a huge mistake to leave the show with that as the final scene. Honestly if it gets cancelled (again) then I will be really disappointed that they brought it back for this season, they should have just wrapped it up last year when everything was done.

                          As it was I liked this season well enough however I don't think I'm to happy with what now appears to be nothing more than a TV version of "the life of David Gale" sort of. In other words I see no reason at all for that entire death row part of the show to be there other than the producers trying to make a political statement about the death penalty since they killed an innocent man.

                          Strongly acted as were the first two seasons and while the end twist was spotted by me a mile away it did fool my wife who usually picks up on these before I do so maybe it wasn't as obvious as I thought (I told her who the real killer was 3 episodes ago & she didn't believe me till the end).

                          I enjoyed the season, probably not as much as season 1 but overall it was really good.


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

                          Comment


                          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                            Peck, in regards to Buffy/Angel, Hicks is right. There's no need to watch the shows concurrently, the crossovers are light and not the least bit impactful to either series. There are some very good character moments, but they can be experienced outside of continuity.

                            However, I'd still recommend starting Angel now, and it has nothing to do with plot. Right now you're at the apex of Buffy, and once you start season 4 you'll see the show struggle with it's premise. I can't think of a teenage show that got better when they graduate. That transition is doubly hard here, because they also have to change the metaphor from "high school is a horror movie" to "life is a horror movie".

                            That's not to say it's all downhill from here. There are still arcs and standalone episodes left that will blow you away. But there's some real painful stuff, as well.

                            Back in the day of watching live, if Buffy wasn't any good, I could at least count on Angel to pick up the slack. That doesn't apply here, where you can just watch the next episode immediately. However, I still feel like you'd be missing something if you didn't experience both at the same time, to see how the symbiotic nature of the shows behind the camera play out in the material (IOW, how the shows divide Joss' time.)

                            Again, you don't need to switch back and forth every episode. I would recommend that after you watch Buffy s4 you go back and watch Angel s1, and then alternate the way out. Of course, you can throw Firefly in before Buffy s7 and Angel s4, just to get all the casting jokes.

                            [edit] Just to be clear, Angel is arguably the better show from here on out, so yes, you are going to want to watch it.
                            Last edited by Kegboy; 08-10-2013, 10:07 AM.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                              Just imagine how much pain could have been avoided if BRODY JUST PLAYED CARDS WITH CHRIS!

                              Seriously, though, I'll be excited for Homeland to get back in the mix. I think it became the cool thing to trash it after it started winning awards and getting hype, but it's an excellent series when it doesn't over-obsess with Carrie or family dynamics.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                                Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                                Just imagine how much pain could have been avoided if BRODY JUST PLAYED CARDS WITH CHRIS!

                                Seriously, though, I'll be excited for Homeland to get back in the mix. I think it became the cool thing to trash it after it started winning awards and getting hype, but it's an excellent series when it doesn't over-obsess with Carrie or family dynamics.
                                I honestly kind of forgot all about it until the trailer popped up on my youtube subscriptions. I dunno, maybe it's just me but it just doesn't have a lot of staying power for me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X