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?

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    I was so turned off by the "teacher" and his behavior during his introduction that I think it served as a major buzzkill. The movie was pretty flat for me. (Not just because of that.)
    This is interesting because I have a friend who is studying to be dentist and also hated the movie. Granted this friend is a girl, but I think part of her dislike was the way they ripped on dentists.

    Personally, I thought it was frickin' hilarious. Galifinakis was funny every time he said something pretty much.

    Spoiler Spoiler:
    Last edited by Trader Joe; 06-17-2009, 06:15 PM.


    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      I was so turned off by the "teacher" and his behavior during his introduction that I think it served as a major buzzkill. The movie was pretty flat for me. (Not just because of that.)
      I laughed at that because I have known teachers like that and, I hate to say it, have been there a couple times myself. Teachers party harder than most people realize.

      Spoiler Spoiler:
      Last edited by SycamoreKen; 06-17-2009, 10:42 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        I was watching aliens this evening and had a damage control moment when my daughter who I thought was asleep walked in and freaked out a bit.

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
          I was watching aliens this evening and had a damage control moment when my daughter who I thought was asleep walked in and freaked out a bit.
          My daddy always told me there were no monsters, no real ones, but there are.....

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            just saw up. absolutely pixar's finest work. great storyline. I'd give it a 9.5/10
            Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Pirates of the Caribbean 3
              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?

                I rented Passengers last night.

                Wish I hadn't.
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                  I laughed at that because I have known teachers like that and, I hate to say it, have been there a couple times myself. Teachers party harder than most people realize.

                  Spoiler Spoiler:
                  Some of my best teacher's have ended up being the ones that didn't really want to be teaching, if that makes sense.


                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    The Visitor This is the type of movie I usually like, but this was a little too slow, a little too restrained for me.

                    The Proposal No this wasn't any good.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      My Bloody Valentine 3D

                      Sooooo bad.

                      4/10

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

                        Standard Bay fare, just like the first flick. Lots of special effects, lots of explosions, and lots of immature humor. I liked this one slightly more simply for the battle sequences, most notably those involving Prime.

                        The robot designs are still horrendous and it's still hard to tell what's going on at times during battles because of those terrible designs.

                        Nice to see
                        Spoiler Spoiler:
                        make an appearance. Too bad that
                        Spoiler Spoiler:
                        sucked balls.

                        And the part with the dogs was completely unnecessary.

                        Fun flick for casual fans. Horrible adaptation for old-school Transfans.

                        8/10

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          The reviews for Transformers are horrible. For many that I read it isn't just that the reviewers didn't like the movei, they actively hated it. Really, I would rather sit through 2.5 hours of root canal than watch Transformers 2. I still have nightmares from the first half of the first Transformers that I saw and I blame every other of my problems on having watched Armageddon. Really I think what Bay has done to the summer blockbuster movie is criminal.

                          This is my favorite review.

                          http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.ph...4&reviewer=389
                          by Peter Sobczynski

                          And yet, despite having lowered the artistic bar to Death Valley levels, director Michael Bay has somehow managed to figure out a way to slither beneath with the flexibility of the pole dancers-in-training that he prefers to hire as his female extras. This isn’t just the worst of the summer mega-movies--this utterly incoherent craptacular is one of the worst things of any type to come along in a while. In fact, I almost feel as if I should go back to my reviews of such other summer misfires as “Wolverine,” “Terminator Resurrection” and “Year One” and give them an extra star apiece on the theory that while they are all dreadful measure, they are at least run-of-the-mill bad and not the kind of apocalyptically awful garbage seen here.

                          Unfortunately, this film is far worse than your typical stab at four-quadrant foolishness--this represents one of the most complete abdications of artistic principle that I can recall in all of my years of moviegoing. Simply put, not only does nothing work right here, everything is so bad in so many different ways that you get the sense that all involved privately decided make one of the most nightmarishly awful movies ever produced on purpose as some kind of sick private joke. The screenplay by Ehren Kruger and Robert Orci & Alex Kurtzman is an atrocity for the ages--it doesn’t make a lick of sense at any given point, even on an individual scene-by-scene basis, the story goes absolutely nowhere and there isn’t a single line of dialogue heard (not that you can hear many of them over the explosions that dominate the soundtrack) that you would ever want to quote to someone unless it was out of pure derision for what passes for screenwriting these days. (In that regard, the high/low point would probably have to be the moment when an Autobot taunts its enemy with the semi-immortal “Punk-*** Decepticon.” Even more bewildering is the borderline racist tone that is on display throughout--besides the aforementioned jive-talking Autobots, virtually everyone in the film who isn’t a true-blooded American type is portrayed in a stereotypical manner that makes “Mandingo” look like a lesson in cultural sensitivity by comparison.



                          The acting from all involved is on a level not seen since the days of Irwin Allen--everyone just screams their dialogue in the laziest manner possible and then ducks from whatever is currently being tossed at them. Even John Turturro, who was the most entertaining aspect of the first film simply because he alone seemed to realize the ridiculousness of his surroundings and responded in kind with a deliberately hammy turn--this time around, he just looks mortified to be there, never more so than in the moment in which he is inexplicably forced to reveal that he is wearing a jockstrap. The only performer worth watching is Megan Fox and that is only when she is standing around while the other actors are talking around her--the sight of her patiently awaiting her cue while trying to look anything other than bored beyond belief is borderline hilarious. Then again, you can hardly blame the actors for not really trying since they have been given some of the least developed characters outside of the porn industry or an Uwe Boll film to portray. Yes, all of the actors surely cashed big paychecks this time around and while that is as pure as a motive for doing something as anything, the results here are so bad that everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

                          For starters, the fight scenes are as bad as they come--between the fact that all the robots pretty much blend together after a while and that the brawls have all be captured via spinning cameras and rapid-fire editing, it is virtually impossible to figure out who is fighting who and who is winning at any given time. Then there is the fact that while the army of technicians have been able to create imaging programs that allow the robots to transform in an instant, they have failed to depict them in even the most slightly convincing manner--since these lumbering contraptions have no real sense of mass or weight to them, it is impossible to buy into their reality for a second. As for Michael Bay, who once displayed a keen visual eye in such genuinely enjoyable films as “The Rock” and “Armageddon” (both of which I will admit to liking), his skills have atrophied to such a point that not only is there not a single interesting image to be found in any of its 150 minutes, his inability to depict even the slightest amount of competent spatial geography that would allow us to get a sense of where everyone is in regards to everyone else during the big battles is so glaring that if he turned this in as a class project in a community college film course, it would get a failing grade. (If you want an example of the importance of proper spatial geography within the context of an action movie, I urge you to wait a couple of weeks and check out Kathryn’s Bigelow’s stunning “The Hurt Locker”--that film writes the book on the subject while this one never even bothers to crack it open


                          “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is such an assault on the senses that the experience of watching is not unlike being in “The Accused”--the audience members are the brutalized victims while the film serves as both the savage attackers and the relentlessly pounding pinball machine. In fact, the best thing that I can possibly say about it is that it isn’t the single worst film that Bay has made to date and that only because, unlike the odious “Bad Boys II,” this film doesn’t have an extended car chase scene in which the corpses of dead hookers begin spilling out of the back of a morgue truck in order to serve as speed bumps. Then again, there is always the inevitable extended DVD to look forward to, I guess.
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-24-2009, 08:37 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            it is interesting to see how the critics' reviews for Transformers has been brutal while regular movie goers seem to have liked it *A- in yahoo user reviews*...have to wait till Saturday to see it...

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Yikes, that is a harsh review...
                              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?

                                I know some of you might argue, who cares what the critics say - and that is fine, if you want to see a movie, you shouldn't let a critic talk you out of going to see it. But also, some of you might suggest something like, "critics never like the big summer blockbuster movies". But that isn't true, they loved Dark Knight , Star Trek and Iron Man .

                                I think critics do a pretty good job analyzing the big blockbuster movies - where you have to be careful is when they give a great review to "smaller" movies that they often like just because they are different or unusual. If you don't like offbeat character study type movies then don't go see those even though a critic gives it 5 stars. But I think if you like the summer blockbusters then I think it is worthwhile to see what movie critics think of the movie
                                Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-24-2009, 10:06 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X