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 movie did you last watch?

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

  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

    Spoiler Spoiler:

    I'm thinking I just misheard something.... or missed something....
    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 movie did you last watch?

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      Spoiler Spoiler:

      I'm thinking I just misheard something.... or missed something....
      Just watch it again. It explains it in the movie. It actually visions through a flashback explaining it very well.
      Follow me at @Bluejbgold

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        Originally posted by Bball View Post

        Do any of you serious followers of the triology and background know what if anything changed in TDKR's due to Ledger's death? Was there a story outline in place for 1,2, and 3 that Ledger's death forced a rewrite or total new outline? Was this roughly how it was always going to conclude?

        Check it out. I didn't know this.

        Originally posted by CableKC
        I actually liked Superman Returns and thought that Singer did a good job while Routh ( often lauded as one of the main reasons why the movie didn't do too well ) actually did a fairly good job of doing his impression of Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent/Superman. The only casting that I didn't like was the Kate Bosworth casting as Lois Lane. That and the whole Lex Luthor Real Estate Mogul.
        My thoughts EXACTLY. I thought the sequence where he was trying to stop the damage to the city was totally exciting and entertaining. It also got me to thinking, I think he's the first superhero I've seen to fly upside down while using his powers. Minor thing, but it was a nice touch. I've actually watched the movie several times. Too bad there wasn't a sequel. I would have liked to see them mess with the established mythos and do a story with his son and how he deals with that. I am REALLY apprehensive about yet another reboot for him. EVERYONE knows his origin. Why not skip over that. If I was in charge, I'd start it out like a James Bond film with some shenanigans going on, then as the viewer tries to figure out what's going on, it leads to Superman showing up and a great action sequence. That was the movie starts out full tilt. Go from there.

        Originally posted by constellations
        And I just watched "Kick ***". One of my favorite movies by far.
        Man, there was a trio of similar movie that I can't decide which I like better; Kick ***, Wanted or Scott Pilgrim. Highly entertaining with lots of action.
        Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Originally posted by Constellations View Post
          Just a few things here. For those of you who are really complaining about TDKR, are crazy. It was the best "movie" of the series. The funnest? Absolutely not. The most depth? No question.

          Everyone wanted another "The Dark Knight", but you should have known you wouldn't get the same product. I personally prefer "Batman Begins". Scarecrow is just a fascinating character, and the story of Ras Al Ghul and the "League of Shadows" is breathtaking.

          And I just watched "Kick ***". One of my favorite movies by far.
          I think Rises may have been the funnest of the movies, it was the most true action movie, but I don't think it had the most depth personally. TDK is extremely deep on many levels. It deals with lots of serious themes and is just in general an extremely disturbing movie.


          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            I think Rises may have been the funnest of the movies, it was the most true action movie, but I don't think it had the most depth personally. TDK is extremely deep on many levels. It deals with lots of serious themes and is just in general an extremely disturbing movie.
            Rent wins in the depth category no question. And t
            dk is the true action film. you have your titles backwards friend
            Follow me at @Bluejbgold

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I managed to stay outta here for the most part so I didn't get tempted and read a spoiler or accidentally see something I shouldn't.... until I finally saw TDKR. I agree with Peck. Maybe it helped that I did pick up on some complaining around the net and so that didn't leave me expecting too much... but for an ambitious film with a reputation to live up to I thought it hit a lot of points.

              Spoiler Spoiler:


              Overall I thought it was a fun movie. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

              Do any of you serious followers of the triology and background know what if anything changed in TDKR's due to Ledger's death? Was there a story outline in place for 1,2, and 3 that Ledger's death forced a rewrite or total new outline? Was this roughly how it was always going to conclude?
              Nolan said that he didn't want to put Ledger or his character into the new movie b/c that would be an insult to his memory and portrayal of Joker. Or something like that. Basically he was uncomfortable using him/his death in the movie. And by extension the Joker. I think if Ledger was alive, he would have either been in the movie or been mentioned.
              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                Originally posted by Constellations View Post
                Rent wins in the depth category no question. And t
                dk is the true action film. you have your titles backwards friend
                No way, Rises has nothing like the scenes where the Joker is talking about how he got his scars or the give and take between Batman and the Joker in the interrogation room or the scene where Joker and Dent are in the hospital or the scene with Joker and the gangsters (there's a them here...). The Bane/Bat fight 1 comes close as Bane is chastising him but it doesn't get on the same level. TDK takes much more time to slow down and examine what is going on with dialogue.

                Rises doesn't challenge the superhero genre the way TDK did. It just doesn't have anywhere near the depth of the second movie. That doesn't make it bad, just different.


                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  No way, Rises has nothing like the scenes where the Joker is talking about how he got his scars or the give and take between Batman and the Joker in the interrogation room or the scene where Joker and Dent are in the hospital or the scene with Joker and the gangsters (there's a them here...). The Bane/Bat fight 1 comes close as Bane is chastising him but it doesn't get on the same level. TDK takes much more time to slow down and examine what is going on with dialogue.

                  Rises doesn't challenge the superhero genre the way TDK did. It just doesn't have anywhere near the depth of the second movie. That doesn't make it bad, just different.
                  I do not approve of this.
                  Follow me at @Bluejbgold

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    Rises doesn't challenge the superhero genre the way TDK did. It just doesn't have anywhere near the depth of the second movie. That doesn't make it bad, just different.
                    I disagree, though they are pretty separate points in the context of the movies. The themes in TDKR are just more relevant. The actual fascist nature of Bane's terrorism (and Wayne's anti-terrorism for that matter) feels more modern-day than the things that the Joker did, which were cooler and more entertaining to watch. While Harvey Dent/Batman in the second movie does provide some allegory to dealing with terrorism/nihilism in present day America, there are just hints, not going deep enough to really delve. The conflict between Selina and Wayne (99% vs. 1%) isn't too Sorkin'd either, but it is explored. The true member of the proletariat here is actually a thief who steals from the rich and her potential romance serves as a metaphor for her conflict between the rights and wrongs of both sides and what she ultimately chooses. There's also the issue of transparency in regards to the end of the last movie. The movies as a whole seem to argue for transparency with the accompanying absolute power of a vigilante crime fighter, an odd mix these days. Nolan's British conservatism comes through enough to put these ideas out there, though not quite enough to give a solid answer (much like the final shots of his movies). God, this paragraph sounds douchey; thoughts from Ross Douthat.
                    You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                      I disagree, though they are pretty separate points in the context of the movies. The themes in TDKR are just more relevant. The actual fascist nature of Bane's terrorism (and Wayne's anti-terrorism for that matter) feels more modern-day than the things that the Joker did, which were cooler and more entertaining to watch. While Harvey Dent/Batman in the second movie does provide some allegory to dealing with terrorism/nihilism in present day America, there are just hints, not going deep enough to really delve. The conflict between Selina and Wayne (99% vs. 1%) isn't too Sorkin'd either, but it is explored. The true member of the proletariat here is actually a thief who steals from the rich and her potential romance serves as a metaphor for her conflict between the rights and wrongs of both sides and what she ultimately chooses. There's also the issue of transparency in regards to the end of the last movie. The movies as a whole seem to argue for transparency with the accompanying absolute power of a vigilante crime fighter, an odd mix these days. Nolan's British conservatism comes through enough to put these ideas out there, though not quite enough to give a solid answer (much like the final shots of his movies). God, this paragraph sounds douchey; thoughts from Ross Douthat.
                      Rises does have those themes. It also slams it down your throat, whether it's Bane deciding to "give the city back to the people" or Kyle's "You'll all wonder how you could live so fat and leave so little for the rest of us".

                      I'll take TDK themes any day of the week and also take the dialogue of TDK any day of the week. I just believe the one on one scenes in Rises pale to the one on one scenes in TDK. Those scenes give TDK more depth as a movie. Rises is at it's best when something action-y is going on. Whereas the best scenes in TDK are when the movie slows down and let's the characters speak.

                      I'll just speak frankly here, but the writing of Gordon's speech that Bane reads is utter ****. It doesn't sound anything like Gordon's character and it was the point where I really felt like Nolan was just pushing through the dialogue scenes in Rises to get to the next OH **** moment. TDK had those OH **** moments to, but the dialogue on the way there didn't feel so forced.


                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        or the scene where Joker and Dent are in the hospital
                        If you're talking about where Dent flips that seemed much too quick and easy. I always had a little suspension of disbelief problem with that scene. That was pretty quick I thought for Dent to turn so easily at the Joker's suggestions. Not that I didn't see it happening, just needed to be more difficult or another puzzle piece thrown in I thought.
                        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 movie did you last watch?

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Rises does have those themes. It also slams it down your throat, whether it's Bane deciding to "give the city back to the people" or Kyle's "You'll all wonder how you could live so fat and leave so little for the rest of us".

                          I'll take TDK themes any day of the week and also take the dialogue of TDK any day of the week. I just believe the one on one scenes in Rises pale to the one on one scenes in TDK. Those scenes give TDK more depth as a movie. Rises is at it's best when something action-y is going on. Whereas the best scenes in TDK are when the movie slows down and let's the characters speak.

                          I'll just speak frankly here, but the writing of Gordon's speech that Bane reads is utter ****. It doesn't sound anything like Gordon's character and it was the point where I really felt like Nolan was just pushing through the dialogue scenes in Rises to get to the next OH **** moment. TDK had those OH **** moments to, but the dialogue on the way there didn't feel so forced.
                          I believe you're confused as to what depth of the film means. I'm a Bat forecaster and trust me.Tdkr wins.

                          I love the joker. But he doesn't have much depth.
                          Follow me at @Bluejbgold

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Spoiler Spoiler:

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              If you're talking about where Dent flips that seemed much too quick and easy. I always had a little suspension of disbelief problem with that scene. That was pretty quick I thought for Dent to turn so easily at the Joker's suggestions. Not that I didn't see it happening, just needed to be more difficult or another puzzle piece thrown in I thought.
                              It's a leap, but considering his massive frustration, extreme pain (both physical and emotional/psychological from the experience and losing Rachel at the same time; and all because of being betrayed by corrupt police officers, and ones he warned Jim Gordon about earlier, no less), he DID suffer a MASSIVE amount of darkness and disappointment in a condensed period of time. It wasn't too much of a reach for him to be driven mad by it. Or at least to the extent that he just gave up and embraced a sort of dark, nihilistic view to life. His idealism and hope had been stomped by an enormous boot and set on fire. Still somewhat of a leap, but not a huge one IMO.

                              Personally, my complaint was that they went cartoonish with the damage to his face. I'd have preferred realistic, severe burns instead. Fits more with the mold of these movies, would have been harder to look at, and wouldn't have seemed kind of silly/odd.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                Originally posted by Constellations View Post
                                I believe you're confused as to what depth of the film means. I'm a Bat forecaster and trust me.Tdkr wins.

                                I love the joker. But he doesn't have much depth.
                                Define depth.

                                I strongly disagree with the idea that the Joker doesn't have depth. At least as I understand the word. He's clearly had a severely traumatic past, he's utterly psychopathic and twisted, he's an enormous hypocrite (complaining about schemers when he's one of the best schemers ever), a constant liar, he changes his mind on what he wants to do mid-stream, yet always seems emotionally sincere with whatever he's up to at the moment, he's a blend of grim blackness and humor/levity, he's intelligent and somewhat philosophical, a flair for the dramatic, imaginative, he seems to want something and nothing at different moments, etc.

                                Bane, on other hand, is mostly just plain evil/cruel
                                Spoiler Spoiler:
                                , from his own very traumatic upbringing. Beyond that, obviously he's very strong and skilled, very smart and very articulate with a lot of ambition, which is cool. I have nothing against Bane, and I thought he had a good presence in this film. I liked him. I think Nolan and Hardy did a very good job of elevating the character beyond his past in the movies/books, but he's not nearly as interesting or deep as the Joker to me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X