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

"Lost" is a very good show

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

  • #16
    Re:

    Tonights show was good, as stated above. I looked up and couldn't believe it was over already. I love the way they are filling us in on the characters little by little.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re:

      I missed it!

      I always do this. Once I find a new show I like, I watch perhaps the first few episodes and then forget when it's on!

      Someone want to remind me when it's on?

      I think it'll be re-run on Saturday, correct?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re:

        Episode 2 was every bit as good as the first episode.

        I loved the little twist although I guess it wasn't really a twist, I would cal it a reval on one of the main characters. Very surprising, but extremely interesting.

        All the characters are great

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Re:

          Originally posted by MSA2CF
          I missed it!

          I always do this. Once I find a new show I like, I watch perhaps the first few episodes and then forget when it's on!

          Someone want to remind me when it's on?

          I think it'll be re-run on Saturday, correct?

          Yeah they are gonna show both episodes again on Saturday


          Comment


          • #20
            Re:

            Saw it for the first time last night - very entertaining.
            The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re:

              Lost was great tonight, as usual......

              The ending was a tad sick..... typically, when you shoot a terminally ill patient, he's supposed to die.......

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #22
                Re:

                Damnit. I watched Smallville again, but I did tape Lost. I'm going to watch it in a little while.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Re:

                  Originally posted by Stryder
                  If they go the route of dinosaur(s), I will puke.

                  I am hoping they venture into a twilight zone-ish plot.

                  Maybe, alternate reality or world. Langoliers-esque, for you Stephen King fans.
                  I would rather see some dinosaurs than the show get to weird to believe.

                  Already the plot is far fetched with animals knocking down trees. I could see some kind of plant eating dinosaurs doing that. but not meat eaters. Meat eating animals need animals as big as their selves to feed on. Meat eaters would soon exhaust their food source on an island. But of course that fact wouldn't matter to TV.

                  I looked around the Internet to see if I could find out what the animals are but I couldn't find anything.

                  I did find one site that advertised spoilers but it was more like TV Guide show descriptions.

                  Here's the site, WARNING, COULD CONTAIN SPOILERS!

                  http://primetimetv.about.com/library...%20DESCRIPTION

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    No Subject

                    Episode List
                    There is only one show after Nov. 17th, I think that is a bumber, maybe ABC will ask for more episodes.


                    Jump to season: 1
                    Episode # Prod # Original
                    Air Date Episode Title

                    ------------------------------------------------------



                    Season 1
                    1. 1-1 100 22-Sep-2004 Pilot (1)
                    2. 1-2 101 29-Sep-2004 Pilot (2)
                    3. 1-3 102 06-Oct-2004 Tabula Rasa
                    4. 1-4 103 13-Oct-2004 Walkabout
                    5. 1-5 104 20-Oct-2004 White Rabbit
                    6. 1-6 105 27-Oct-2004 House of the Rising Sun
                    7. 1-7 106 03-Nov-2004 The Moth
                    8. 1-8 107 10-Nov-2004 Confidence Man
                    9. 1-9 108 17-Nov-2004 Solitary
                    10. 1-10 109 15-Dec-2004 Raised by Another

                    Here's the Lost homepage.

                    http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet.../showid-24313/
                    [edit=91=1097144970][/edit]

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re:

                      Here's the Lost homepage.

                      http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet.../showid-24313/

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Re:

                        Originally posted by Will
                        Originally posted by Stryder
                        If they go the route of dinosaur(s), I will puke.

                        I am hoping they venture into a twilight zone-ish plot.

                        Maybe, alternate reality or world. Langoliers-esque, for you Stephen King fans.
                        I would rather see some dinosaurs than the show get to weird to believe.

                        Already the plot is far fetched with animals knocking down trees. I could see some kind of plant eating dinosaurs doing that. but not meat eaters. Meat eating animals need animals as big as their selves to feed on. Meat eaters would soon exhaust their food source on an island. But of course that fact wouldn't matter to TV.

                        I looked around the Internet to see if I could find out what the animals are but I couldn't find anything.

                        I did find one site that advertised spoilers but it was more like TV Guide show descriptions.

                        Here's the site, WARNING, COULD CONTAIN SPOILERS!

                        http://primetimetv.about.com/library...%20DESCRIPTION
                        I think the directors have already said that the "animal" or "monster" on the island is NOT a dinosaur.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Re:

                          Originally posted by Stryder
                          I think the directors have already said that the "animal" or "monster" on the island is NOT a dinosaur.
                          After reading the below article I think a dinosaur is very unlikely.

                          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6184335/

                          Millions of viewers get ‘Lost’
                          No phones, no lights, no motor cars, just good ratings

                          COMMENTARY
                          By Brian Bellmont
                          MSNBC contributor
                          Updated: 2:00 p.m. ET Oct. 5, 2004

                          Only two weeks into ABC’s new plane-crash-survivors-on-a-tropical-island thriller “Lost” and already the mysteries are flying fast and furious. Are the castaways alone? Is that really a polar bear? And what’s that huge, growling thing in the jungle, flattening trees and sending the island’s new residents scrambling in terror?

                          Yet the most intriguing mystery is less about the adventure and more about the people watching it unfold: How has “Lost” attracted such a huge audience? Nearly 18 million viewers found the Sept. 22 premiere — making it ABC’s most-watched drama debut in nine years. The ratings for the second installment weren’t as sky-high as the highly hyped premiere, but the still impressive numbers (16.3 million viewers) suggest that the initial spike in viewership was no fluke.

                          ‘Lost’s’ first episode actually added viewers as the show went on, indicating that phones and computers were busy with word-of-mouth suggestions to ‘Turn to ABC. You’ve gotta see this show!’



                          Scoring big — or, let’s be frank. even respectable — ratings has traditionally been an uphill struggle for a show like “Lost,” the latest offering from J.J. Abrams, creator of “Alias” and “Felicity.” Genre-bending TV — programs that combine several hallmark elements from distinct styles of shows — is more often than not relegated to cult status, pulling in a tiny but enthusiastic audience.

                          Most cult shows are all but ignored by mainstream America, who’d rather while away the hours with tepid fare like “America’s Next Top Accountant” or “Last Pork Roast Standing.” “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Angel,” for instance, were extremely well-crafted horror-comedy-drama-thrillers — and attracted a middling viewership in only the single-digit millions each week.

                          So what’s “Lost” got that other hyphenated (and now cancelled) shows didn’t? If the number of billboards and bus placards is any indication, it’s got the support of its network behind it. More importantly, it’s got several buzzworthy elements designed to appeal to a large number of people — and get them talking. In fact, “Lost’s” first episode actually added viewers as the show went on, indicating that phones and computers were busy with word-of-mouth suggestions to “Turn to ABC. You’ve gotta see this show!”

                          Genre-bending thriller
                          Ostensibly, “Lost” is about 48 plane crash survivors fighting to stay alive on a tropical island, a basic premise which has been done again and again, from “Robinson Crusoe” to “Lord of the Flies” to the exploits of a certain skipper and his little buddy. But it’s already shaking out to be much more than a “Gilligan’s Island” retread. Viewers of the show’s initial hours already know that “Lost” is a competent, high-concept thriller. But it’s also a character-driven drama, a compelling mystery, and maybe even — stay tuned — a sci-fi adventure.

                          Just when viewers think they’ve got ‘Lost’ figured out, it zigs, then zags, then zigs again. It’s ‘Jurassic Park’ one minute, ‘Gosford Park’ the next.

                          And that’s the beauty of “Lost.” It’s made up of seemingly dissimilar elements that each appeal to a specific audience. And the sum of its parts is all the more impressive.

                          It’s tough to be all things to all people. But “Lost” seems to be enough things to enough viewers to draw in plentiful, if disparate, audiences, each looking for something particular out of the show. From cheesecake and beefcake — good-looking people showing plenty of skin in a tropical setting — to harrowing disaster scenes, tense suspense and smart comic relief, “Lost” is delivering the goods. Something about it is familiar enough to attract mainstream viewers. And it’s unique enough to give fans of genre shows plenty to chew on.

                          Sure, “Gilligan’s Island” employed many of the same basic plot elements. But I’m confident enough in Abrams to know that a group of robots isn’t going to challenge the Harlem Globetrotters to a basketball game anytime soon. But, who knows? Just when viewers think they’ve got “Lost” figured out, it zigs, then zags, then zigs again. It’s “Jurassic Park” one minute, “Gosford Park” the next. If television has taught us anything, it's not to pigeonhole J.J. Abrams.

                          His “Felicity” started as a girl-moving-to-the-big-city show, and ended as a time-traveling fantasy (seriously). “Alias” is at its core a globetrotting spy procedural. But it's also a science thriller that beats the pants off anything Michael Crichton has come up with recently, as well as an is-it-or-isn't-it-sci-fi-meets-historical-prophecy-techno-jumble that would have “Da Vinci Code” author Dan Brown scratching his head.

                          So maybe a coconut phone or bamboo jet pack is indeed in “Lost’s” future. With Abrams, you never know. And that’s part of the fun.

                          Characters to care about
                          Still, all the rollercoaster plots in the world aren’t going to amount to much if the characters riding them aren’t worth worrying about. While Abrams can craft multifaceted characters, much of the depth can likely be attributed to another co-executive producer on the show, Damon Lindelof, who co-produced the talkier “Crossing Jordan.” Even without the taut suspense and breathless thrills, the characters on “Lost” stand on their own as interesting people, layered with interesting quirks, questionable motivations and, no doubt, plenty of secrets.

                          If some, or all, of the original bunch of lead castaways are rescued — or picked off by the hungry thing in the woods, there are three dozen other characters hanging out on the beach, just waiting for their time in the spotlight.

                          And the acting is on par with the slick writing. Matthew Fox (“Party of Five”) delivers a sympathetic-yet-heroic turn as a beleaguered doctor who finds himself in the middle of this nightmare. Newcomer Evangeline Lilly is a likable and levelheaded woman who’s harboring at least one big secret. Former hobbit Dominic Monaghan plays a helpful-yet-shifty musician who was up to something when the plane crashed. And nearly a dozen other characters, many of them familiar TV faces, play roles of varying importance. On the surface, anyway. It’s plainly clear that a bit player now could become integral to the plot as the series continues.

                          But don’t get too comfortable with these specific castaways. Abrams has killed off major characters before. What’s especially intriguing about “Lost” is that if some, or all, of the original bunch of lead castaways are rescued — or picked off by the hungry thing in the woods, there are three dozen other characters hanging out on the beach, just waiting for their time in the spotlight.

                          Is this finally a horror-sci-fi-suspense-thriller that Great-Aunt Marge can feel comfortable admitting that she watches? Early returns say yes indeed. Abrams has disregarded the traditional rules of these standard genres, deconstructed them, then reassembled them into something wholly new and appealing.

                          Of course, we still don't know what's lurking amid the foliage or many of the other surprises the show has yet to unleash. But no matter what the producers have planned, it seems that they’ve already learned how to dress up what have typically been dismissed as nerdish elements in normal-people clothes so they appeal to the masses.

                          It’s still early in the game, but “Lost” apparently knows exactly where it’s headed.
                          ------------

                          What I find interesting is, "Abrams has killed off major characters before." So, I'm figuring Kate or Jack is going to die. Right now my money is on Kate, but I reserve the right to hedge my bet.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re:

                            Once again, tonight's episode was excellent.

                            SPOILERS AHEAD:






















                            DON'T READ BELOW:




















                            WARNING:

































                            John Locke. Hmmm. Tabula rasa?

                            The ending was very touching and sad, yet happy all at the same time.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re:

                              Tabulsa Rasa?

                              Mele Kelekimaka!
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re:

                                for those who are desparate about missed episodes: contact me.



                                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X