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

    The new Beavis and Butthead.

    Comment


    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

      Are we closer to the movie? My gut is telling me no... but my gut is also very hungry.

      'Arrested Development' to return on Netflix
      Netcaster, 20th TV and Imagine close deal to revive comedy

      By ANDREW WALLENSTEIN


      Netflix is licensing new episodes of the TV series "Arrested Development" from 20th Century Fox Television and Imagine Television.

      The sides struck a deal with the streaming service that will launch new episodes of the Emmy-winning comedy in early 2013, the studio confirmed.

      The prospect of "Development" returning in both TV and film forms was raised last month when the show's creator, Mitch Hurwitz, announced in an appearance at the New Yorker Festival that he was intent on reuniting the series' original actors, including Jason Bateman and Will Arnett, for another go-round.

      "Arrested" had a critically acclaimed run on Fox from 2003-2006, but the network canceled the series given its ratings were always modest at best.

      All of the series regulars have expressed interest in returning and are expected back, though no deals have been done. How that will work will be interesting given many of them are maintaing busy careers. "Arrested" player Arnett is currently on the NBC series "Up All Night" and another alum, Portia de Rossi, is attached to a high-profile project in development at the Peacock.

      Where this leaves the proposed "Arrested" feature film isn't clear. While one source familiar with the project said it is currently in development at Fox Searchlight, another source at the studio denied it was an active project. Hurwitz's vision of the film was to schedule it after the series run in order to drive interest at the box office, but at the very least it seems that the film and TV aren't attached to each other.

      Hurwitz was executive producer of "Arrested" with Imagine principals Ron Howard and Brian Grazer. The producing pair issued a statement: "Bringing a series back from cancellation almost never happens, but then, 'Arrested' always was about as unconventional as they get, so it seems totally appropriate that this show that broke the mold is smashing it to pieces once again."

      That Netflix has emerged the winner of a bidding war that reportedly included pay-TV player Showtime will be seen as a real coup for the service, which already gave Hollywood notice in March that it was in the original programming business in a big way when it ordered a 22-episode adaptation of the BBC drama "House of Cards" set to premiere next year. Analysts estimated "Cards," which comes with Kevin Spacey attached to star and David Fincher to executive produce, cost Netflix $100 million to get the rights from Media Rights Capital.

      Financial terms of the "Arrested" deal are not known but could be substantial given the caliber of talent involved.

      While Netflix's market capitalization was sent reeling in recent months after ill-advised decisions regarding its pricing, the need for original programming is all the greater as content companies have held the line at giving the service TV shows that are in-season.

      Since Netflix started licensing original series, the service has been seen as a potential savior for ill-fated productions that get shuttered over the objections of a cult following too narrow to sustain them. But rescuing a show that comes with a built-in audience--albeit one too small to survive on TV--may be a safer strategy than creating a new property out of whole cloth.

      The hedge on "Cards" is that its narrative has already gotten a test run in the U.K. but with different talent on both sides of the camera.

      Ted Sarandos, chief content officer at Netflix said of the deal, "'Arrested Development is one of the finest American comedies in TV history and its return through Netflix is a perfect example of how we are working closely with studios and networks to provide consumers with entertainment they love,'" said Ted Sarandos, Netflix Chief Content Officer.

      The return of "Development" would be a stunner given it is rare that a series comes back after a protracted absence, though 20th and Fox have seen precedent here: Animated series "Family Guy" was canceled in 2001 only to be revived three years later after the series fared well on DVD and in syndication.


      (Variety)
      This is the darkest timeline.

      Comment


      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

        You Got The Tony!!!!!!

        Comment


        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

          Still liking Dexter this season.
          Spoiler Spoiler:


          Still watching Homeland... Man, I wish they'd cut out some of the personal drama. I don't care about Saul's homelife to that degree nor anyone else's on the show. They could make the point with these characters that they have personal lives and they aren't exactly fairly tale lives but quit dwelling on it.
          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

            Spoiler Spoiler:
            Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-21-2011, 01:32 PM.


            Comment


            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

              Without going into a lot of detail at the moment I agree a lot with Joe here.

              You guys who keep saying this season has been a redemption from the previous one are far different than I am. I think this season has been totally thrown together as though it were either rushed or group think or they had run out of ideas & were just throwing whatever out there to see what sticks (if that last is true it is going to be a long next couple of seasons as Dexter was just renewed for not one but two more seasons).

              I hate to use the term jump the shark but I think it kind of jumped the shark for me when Dexter stuck that guy with a pitch fork. I mean we are supposed to believe that a guy holding a gun is not only going to stand there and not use it when Dexter has to turn around and get the pitchfork off of a nail hook on the wall but that he is not even going to try and move when he turns around and thrust it at him? I could buy if they said the guy wasn't going to shoot Dexter but was trying to scare him, but to stand there and be rammed with a pitchfork? Nope, to over the top for me.

              I have several other issues but I just don't have time to go over them.

              It's still a good show, I still watch and enjoy it but frankly the magic is kind of gone from it for whatever reason.


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

              Comment


              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                Spoiler Spoiler:
                Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-21-2011, 04:21 PM.


                Comment


                • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                  Anybody else disappointed with the walking dead this season?

                  Spoiler Spoiler:

                  Comment


                  • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    Without going into a lot of detail at the moment I agree a lot with Joe here.

                    You guys who keep saying this season has been a redemption from the previous one are far different than I am. I think this season has been totally thrown together as though it were either rushed or group think or they had run out of ideas & were just throwing whatever out there to see what sticks (if that last is true it is going to be a long next couple of seasons as Dexter was just renewed for not one but two more seasons).

                    I hate to use the term jump the shark but I think it kind of jumped the shark for me when Dexter stuck that guy with a pitch fork. I mean we are supposed to believe that a guy holding a gun is not only going to stand there and not use it when Dexter has to turn around and get the pitchfork off of a nail hook on the wall but that he is not even going to try and move when he turns around and thrust it at him? I could buy if they said the guy wasn't going to shoot Dexter but was trying to scare him, but to stand there and be rammed with a pitchfork? Nope, to over the top for me.

                    I have several other issues but I just don't have time to go over them.

                    It's still a good show, I still watch and enjoy it but frankly the magic is kind of gone from it for whatever reason.
                    I guess it all depends on where they go with it. If they play up a lot of this stuff and then it turns out to be suspense/drama built from cheap writing tricks then I'm going to be let down. But I think the 'ride' this season is much better than last season. But, that's based on the premise that the writing really has a point and direction. Not just spaghetti thrown against the wall and intentional distractions.

                    Spoiler Spoiler:


                    Dexter has always had scenarios that were a reach so I can overlook some things here and there. I totally get what you're saying about the pitchfork but I'm willing to accept 'something' happened that would explain that while the camera only showed us the scene in Dexter's mind. In fact, the scene could've been explained so easily... somehow... that I suspect the script probably did explain it but the directing ended up cutting that for brevity and 'dramatic effect'.

                    I had more trouble with the opening scene of the current season....

                    Spoiler Spoiler:
                    Last edited by Bball; 11-23-2011, 05:41 AM.
                    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

                      latest episode of Dexter - this season is going to be either really good or really bad - all depending on these final episodes and how they tie everything together...there is plenty of potential to redeem this season but there are also so many things just hanging around that can bring this down to the low quality of season 5...we'll see how the writers have managed soon enough. Maybe I just got spoiled by Breaking Bad lately...

                      Comment


                      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                        A Very Gaga Thanksgiving special.

                        Say what you will, but Lady Gaga is F'in talented. If you don't recognize that, I'm sorry, you suck at life.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                          Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                          Anybody else disappointed with the walking dead this season?

                          Spoiler Spoiler:
                          Not any more than last season. It's a mediocre-ly written and acted show with great makeup, effects, and set pieces. I watch it because, for 5-10 minutes every episode, there might be something that's never been on TV before. I don't get disappointed as much as I just smh, thinking, "Oh, there goes one of the other unlikable characters going and doing something irrational and uninteresting."


                          All caught up on Parks and Rec and Happy Endings. Mee-yax is one of my favorite characters on TV; a great hang-out show in general.
                          You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                          Comment


                          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                            Dexter.

                            Called it.


                            Comment


                            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                              The Walking Dead. What a punch in the gut.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                                Now I'm scared to watch the episode. ^^


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X