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?

    I'm really torn on Man of Steel. I thought Cavill was great when he actually got to do something, but there was way too much mass destruction for the movie to have any gravity. Like Supes bent over backwards to save some of the soldiers in Smallville, yet he and Zod smashed through like 100 skyscrapers in Metropolis, seemingly killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process without a single ounce of sorrow or regret by any of the characters. They're still rebuilding the World Trade Center after 9/11... in Metropolis, they have decades upon decades of work to do. What is he supposed to defend in the sequel? He did a terrible job protecting Metropolis the first time around.

    Snap take: Superman Returns was better. Superman had more defining characteristics, was a lot closer to the character I remember from the comics/cartoons as a kid, and jesus... compare the two scenes where Metropolis is under attack. Routh's Superman was in a frenzy trying to protect every single person, whereas Cavill's Superman was punching Zod through buildings like they were dominoes.

    The visuals were spectacular, though, and I think this version of Superman is a much more natural foil for a cynical Batman that secretly has reservations about the amount of power Superman could use if he went sideways. I would love if the Man of Steel sequel was centered around Lex Luthor leading the relief efforts in helping to rebuild Metropolis and using the publicity against Superman. Could be a great angle, especially if they somehow wove Bruce Wayne into the mix. As many things as I didn't like about this movie, one thing I will say is that it really sets the table, potentially, for some compelling sequels and shared-universe movies.

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      I've seen some online speculation that the Metropolis destruction could potentially play into Man Of Steel 2 where Lex Luthor does a ton of rebuilding and whatnot and gets all sorts of goodwill and it leads to his rise. Then he could publicly paint Superman as something of a villain while he keeps his nefarious world domination plans a secret.

      Y'know, or not at all.

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?


        Dare you not to laugh at that. Put these guys out to pasture already.

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Yeah, the ending to Man of Steel seemed a bit strange. Supes rode his bike to work, and everything we saw, which wasn't much, seemed like the city was back in order. Wouldn't there still be chaos? Wouldn't there still be a lot of debris from falling buildings that people shouldn't breathe? I know it's not real, but I'm sure they wanted to ground it in reality as much as possible.

          I still liked it 1000X's better than Superman Returns.
          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            I guess the destruction didn't bother me because:

            A) This isn't a veteran Superman, this is literally his first time trying to be a hero, so he's clumsy and inconsiderate compared to what he will become. (The Superman in 'Returns' was a pro who had done that stuff many times before for years).

            B) I assumed those buildings were evacuated because I thought not everyone was as stupid as the Daily Planet staff and just chilling out in a skyscraper within viewing distance of an alien ship drilling into the earth while its sister ship did the same on the other side of the world. AKA, most folks, I'd think would get the **** out of the immediate dodge long before that.

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Man of steel flying scene was pretty bad too, I thought I was watching Christopher Reeve at some point, didnt like the girl either, I was reading the reviews online and I'm glad I'm not the only one that hated the movie.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                Man of Still was ruined by all the mind-numbing action scenes towards the end. The first half was interesting because it actually told a story. I give it a C+
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Man of steel flying scene was pretty bad too, I thought I was watching Christopher Reeve at some point, didnt like the girl either, I was reading the reviews online and I'm glad I'm not the only one that hated the movie.
                  Yeah the flying looked a little weird to me... I like that Cavill added a sort of signature to the beginning, where he does a two-handed punch to get started, but the times that he was flying and smiling he looked really creepy.

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    I have yet to see the man of steel, I plan on it this week. But everything I have read as a complaint just goes further into what Denny O'Neil (he was the editor in chief of DC among other things) said about Superman years ago. He is the single hardest character to write for in all of comic books. It only goes even further I assume when it comes to writing him for movies as well.

                    He has that single problem that he is so powerful that to give him a physical equal will only ensure mindless violence and will often end up with him looking weaker than he really is. (see any episode of Justice League for reference as he was the only character who routinely got the crap beat out of him).

                    Conversely making him fight an intellectual foe borders between monotony and tedious. Thus why virtually ever single superman before this one often times was down right boring because while Lex Luthor works in Comic Books (I assume I never read DC) he just does not translate into the movies all that well. While Spacey did a better job IMO than Hackman they both still made him to, well someone described him as a used car salesman before and I think that is pretty apt. The Justice League cartoon did a good job of getting him but at the end of the day, believe it or not, one of the best Lex Luthors was actually in the early seasons of Smallville.

                    I guess if it has to be one or the other right now I think I will take a little to much action as opposed to not enough as every Superman has suffered from that very thing.

                    I just wish they would have had the guts to do Doomsday.

                    Also any updates on if the Justice League movie is still in the works or has that been scrapped?


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

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      The Perks of Being a Wallflower - not the most realistic coming of age high school drama, but very effective anyway.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        I have not seen superman yet, but I believe the movies are taking comic books way too seriously these days. Then again, maybe comic books are taking themselves too serious as well. I remember, old man mode now, when humor was a part of almost every story. They were for kids after all. I guess since the audience has grown up the comics and movies had to as we'll. didn't mean to sidetrack the thread, but Pecks post to me thinking.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          I liked the Nolan Batman films because they DID take it seriously, personally. And they did manage to inject a tad bit of humor into each film, though obviously just a minor amount. I think taking it seriously is a very cool approach, but that doesn't guarantee it's a good movie. I just think that's a great road to travel if you're trying to find emotional investment by means of strong characters, character growth, 'believable worlds' and theoretically more engaging plots.

                          But you can also do something campy like Kick-***, of course, which is another comic book movie I like.

                          I also liked the first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies, which are more of a mix between serious and humorous. Ditto for Iron Man.

                          That's one of the strengths of the source material: There's several different twists/spins to put on the same general material and still make a good flick.

                          Another example of course is the Tim Burton Batman movies. Those are quirkier and weird and more fantastic, but also well done and engaging in their own way.

                          I would also take a moment to praise (while not live-action, of course) the recent animated movie (well they split it into two pieces, but really it's one movie) The Dark Knight Returns that came out recently on home video. Highly recommended.

                          As much as I loved Batman Begins and the Dark Knight and to a lesser degree Rises, I'm also intrigued by the possibilities for new directions they can take the next generation/reboot of Batman. One I've thought about before is making a more personal / character-based set of stories that revolve around an extended 'Bat Family' (Batman, Robin, Batgirl and/or Oracle, Nightwing, and in their own ways of course Alfred and Jim Gordon; make even the first movie a story where all of the above or most of the above are already well-established; enough with the origin stories already!) and make it more about those internal relationships mixed with the villains representing direct threats to those people and/or playing them against one another.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Rob Zombie's Halloween: Just as bad and un-scary as I remember it. Why even mess with a masterpiece like the original is?

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              This is the end​. Hilarious
                              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?

                                The Purge... if you're bored and have nothing better to do then purge yourself. Otherwise save the money and rent it on Redbox. For some reason they try to advertise this in the horror genre. Nothing scary, just a typical action movie.
                                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X