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 Wire" starts Sunday night at 10:00. There was a review in Friday's Indystar saying it is the best season yet, wow that is really saying a lot.

    I cannot recommend this series enough, but if you decide to give it a try, you must give it two full episodes (it is like reading the first two chapters of a new book) and be prepared to be lost, bored, confused and almost ready to turn the channel, but slowly the show will pull you in and once it does you will never leave.

    http://www.newsday.com/entertainment...sion-headlines

    'The Wire' weaves its own world

    BY VERNE GAY
    Newsday Staff Writer

    September 7, 2006

    A critic for this paper once declared "The Wire" "the greatest dramatic series ever produced for television" and as the fourth season gets under way Sunday night, there's no reason to quibble with that assessment. Maybe a word here or there could stand a trim - "ever" does seem awfully generous while there are nights, and seasons, when "The Sopranos" is superior - but "The Wire" was and indisputably remains one of TV's very finest creations.

    What "The Wire" doesn't have, and never has, is "approachability," proving yet again that all the magnificent acting, writing, editing and directing in the world might put critics into a swoon but not necessarily viewers. Their fault? Hardly: "The Wire" seems to revel in its impermeability, its plot loop-de-loops, its street talk that's so sharp it cuts. What are poor viewers to do? Embrace this porcupine?

    In fact, they should, and the fourth season is as good a place as any to start. Here's why: Several new doors open Sunday, revealing fresh dimensions in the Baltimore created by David Simon and Ed Burns - the former cop, now "Wire" writer, upon whose experiences this series is broadly based. Burns became an inner-city high school teacher after his tour in blue ended. Former Det. Roland "Prez" Pryzbylewski inaugurates his first day at a West Side school by scraping gum off the bottom of seats. "Prez" (Jim True-Frost) was a wiz at wiretapping - for which the series is named - but had (shall we say) personal control issues. As a teacher, he's calm, gentle, and generous though utterly ineffectual in the chaos of the classroom. Prezbo, as the kids take to calling him, desperately wants to sow his idealism, but this season reasonably asks, will he be able to?

    Then there are the kids, four newcomers to "The Wire" who are absolutely terrific. In the allegory of "The Wire," Simon and Burns are clearly fascinated by this foursome because they are perfectly poised between two worlds - of "the corner" and of a legit life outside of crime. Which way will they go? Namond Brice (Julito McCullum) already appears consigned to the corner, the innermost circle of hell in "The Wire," but not Duquan Weems (Jermaine Crawford), Randy Wagstaff (Maestro Harrell) or Michael Lee (Tristan Wilds). School as much as character will determine their fate but in the tightly interlocked world of Baltimore, the school itself is as impotent as anyone or anything else.

    Meanwhile, councilman Tommy Carcetti - brilliantly played by Aiden Gillen - is making a run for mayor. Carcetti is a glorious condensation of the whole world of "The Wire" in one human frame: Smart, grim, realistic, funny, romantic, and utterly soaked in a cynicism that nearly incapacitates him. He knows he can beat Mayor Clarence Royce's (Glynn Turman) butt in a televised debate but will still wake up the next morning a white man in a city that's almost all black. Royce? You wonder if this corrupt political hack ever had a scintilla of the idealism of Carcetti, or if he is perhaps a mirror image of Carcetti's own future?

    Quickly, catching up with some of the other characters from seasons past: Det. "Herc" Hauk (Domenick Lombardozzi) gets cushy duty as the mayor's chauffeur and later witnesses his boss in a compromising position, which (naturally) leads to a big promotion. Det. Lester Freamon (Clarke Peters) of Major Crimes fast-tracks some investigations of Royce cronies, which (naturally) leads to a big demotion. Det. Shakima Greggs (Sonja Sohn) gets busted down to Homicide where she must endure the endless razing of "Bunk" Moreland (Wendell Pierce), another one of "Wire's" classic characters.

    On the street, Marlo Stanfield (Jamie Hector) is a growing kingpin, and may be TV's most menacing hood, unless you prefer Omar (Michael K. Williams), "The Wire's" gay street cowboy, or Marlo triggerman Chris Partlow (Gbenga Akinnagbe).

    Finally, let's talk about difficulty. It's the common rap on "The Wire" - that the street talk can be indecipherable, or the cop talk just as knotted, or the plot lines too twisted. For you newbies, here's some advice: Just stick with it. "Wire" demands that you enter its world, unlike other TV series, which try to insinuate themselves into yours. There's not much exposition here but everything is revealed drop by drop, like a leaky faucet. Clarity finally emerges, and the view is splendid.

    THE WIRE. Returns for a fourth season as good as ever. Sunday at 10 p.m. on HBO.
    Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

    Comment


    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

      Stargate SG1, and Stargate Atlantis
      PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

      Comment


      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

        Seinfeld - The one where George parks in the handicap parking space and his fathers car gets destroyed.

        Comment


        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

          Anyone watch "The Wire" Sunday night. I didn't as I'm still working my way through season 3. But many of the reviews I've read about season 4 indicate that season 4 is the best season yet.

          Comment


          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

            Finished rewatching season 4 of Smallville last night, I've got Season 5 in hand right now (came out today on DVD) and season 6 is out near the end of Sept.

            Comment


            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

              Cosby Show. Same old same old

              Comment


              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Anyone watch "The Wire" Sunday night. I didn't as I'm still working my way through season 3. But many of the reviews I've read about season 4 indicate that season 4 is the best season yet.
                It looks good. In fact it looks better than season 3 so far.

                However there are some major changes in the character makeup of the show. No new B.P.D. officers but some of them have new weird job assignments. (see Hurk).

                Overall though episode 1 gets two thumbs up from me.


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

                Comment


                • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                  Originally posted by Peck
                  It looks good. In fact it looks better than season 3 so far.

                  However there are some major changes in the character makeup of the show. No new B.P.D. officers but some of them have new weird job assignments. (see Hurk).

                  Overall though episode 1 gets two thumbs up from me.

                  I would say at least through the first 5 episodes, season three is weaker than 1 or 2. Of course it is all relative, even at its worst the Wire is highly additive and highly watchable.

                  The decision to focus season four on 4 school kids and the school system is a brilliant decision. Ed Burns who is one of the executive producers, and really second in command behind David Simon, is a former Baltimore school teacher, so he knows of what he speaks, and writes.

                  Comment


                  • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                    Big Brother 7: All-Stars Finale.

                    Glad to see that Mike won over Erika. Will deserved to win but stupid Janelle kicked him out last week like a fool that she is. Diane was right in saying that Janelle and Will deserved to be the final two. At least one of the Chill Town members won.

                    House

                    Some kid had some brain problems and house was trying to fix it. I had to tape it and i missed the first 10 minutes cause I forgot about it but I was glad to see the rest of it.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                      The Sopranos

                      Comment


                      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                        Tonight Show with Jay Leno

                        Comment


                        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                          Watched The Wire season 3 episode 6 and 7 . Wow just when I thought season 3 was a little lackluster, Avon gets out of prison and things pick up. Looks like the last 5 eps are going to be excellent

                          Comment


                          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                            The Wire will end after season 5. I wish it would go on forever. The fact that only 1.5 million people watched the season 4 premiere is troubling to me, what do people want to watch on TV.

                            The media will be the focus of season 5, that should be interesting

                            http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-th...p-tv-headlines


                            HBO Stays Up on 'The Wire'
                            Acclaimed series gets a fifth and final season
                            Zap2It.com

                            September 13 2006

                            Following mountains of critical praise that have called it perhaps the best work ever produced for television, HBO has renewed "The Wire" for a fifth season.

                            The novelistic drama about cops, drug dealers and the people caught in between in Baltimore began its fourth season on Sunday. Only about 1.5 million people watched the episode, down some from the 1.8 million who saw the third-season premiere in 2004. Still, HBO, which is less beholden to ratings than ad-driven networks, opted for quality over quantity.

                            The audience numbers for the show also don't include people who watched the premiere on demand. HBO is making each episode this season available on demand six days before its scheduled Sunday airing on the network.

                            "We are delighted -- though not surprised -- at the initial critical response to the new season of 'The Wire,'" says Carolyn Strauss, president of HBO Entertainment. "[Series creator] David Simon and his remarkable team have created a riveting and thought-provoking series that's unlike anything else on TV."

                            The current season of "The Wire" examines the education system, focusing on four West Baltimore boys (new cast members Julito McCullum, Maestro Harrell, Tristan Wilds and Jermaine Crawford) who may have a chance to escape the drug culture that surrounds them, though the odds are not in their favor.

                            Season five -- which will be the show's last -- will deal with the role of the media within the city.

                            "The last question we want to ask is this: For four seasons, we have depicted that part of urban America that has been left behind by the economy and by the greater society, and chronicled entrenched problems that have gone without solution for generations now," Simon says. "Why? What is it that we see and sense about these problems? To what are we giving attention, and what is it that we consistently ignore? How do we actually see ourselves?"

                            Comment


                            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                              King Of The Hill
                              Cosby Show

                              Comment


                              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                                The season finale of Blade, The Series

                                All in all, highly enjoyable, though I fear they spent half their budget on this last episode. I heartily recommend the show to anyone who even remotely enjoyed the movies.
                                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X