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 Since86 View Post
    The guy Russell Crowe portrayed actually came and gave a guest lecture in one of my classes 3yrs ago. He came in and talked about all the research he did. One was were they hooked up a nicotine injector to lab rats who were trained to realize if they pushed a button on the side of their cage they would be given a shot of nicotine. Said some of the rats would hit it so much that they would actually poison and kill themselves.

    He talked about when he was fired and went back to his office they were in the process of destroying all his results and stuff. Said they had clauses in their contract were they couldn't even talk to other employees about what they did, and their office's windows were covered so you couldn't see in. He also talked about how when it went public, he recieved a call from Pres. Clinton directly.

    He also shed light on what makes "light" cigerettes light, and how they circumvent it. Said a laser punches holes in the filter but they use a special glue on the filter paper that shuts off the holes when it gets wet from your lips and then pinched from your fingers, so they're just like smoking a non-light one.

    His speech was way better than the movie, he really got detailed about his work while there, what nicotine really does to the body, and his personal experience during the whole ordeal. It was the most informative 50mins I've ever spent in a classroom.
    Nice. The movie didn't really get into the specifics of his work. It mostly just showed the drama involved and the torturous processes that Pacino's and Crowe's characters went through. Good lookin out.

    Magnolia. Wow. Liked it, but not sure if I loved it. Extremely convoluted and ambitious. Definitely on a Ph. D. level of film if you will. Possibly Cruise's best; great cameo by Luis. Just wish Hoffman was in it more (might be the best in the game right now). Great jobs by both Macy and Reilly. It's long but it's definitely worth a look.
    You Got The Tony!!!!!!

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Yup! "Magnolia" is really good too. I do love that movie. Very good stuff. Good music-picture combination too.
      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        Originally posted by Stryder View Post
        C'mon now, Gingerbread Man is hilarious!
        indeed

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Originally posted by rcarey View Post
          Yes, the entire time I was thinking that I'd watch it again...because I felt as though I missed some parts.

          And I plan on watching part 2 as well. Might do that back to back some day during the upcoming holidays.
          I watched Godfather I and II about 5-6 times before I no longer felt like I was missing anything yet whenever I watch it - there is always something new that comes up...one of the few movies worth watching again and again...and gets better with each viewing

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            Originally posted by Pig Nash View Post
            Fargo, quite good.

            Buscemi's kinda funny lookin, more than most people donchya know?
            Fargo is actually one of those movies that gets better everytime you see it. The first time I saw it I liked it, but I didn't understand what all the fuss was about. As some critics were calling it one of the best movies of all time. But the second time I watched it, I liked it better than the first. and I enjoy watching it again and again.

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Originally posted by Mourning View Post
              Yup! "Magnolia" is really good too. I do love that movie. Very good stuff. Good music-picture combination too.
              That is one of those movies that I have always wanted to see, but never have. I should make a point of it

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                I disagree with all the Godfather part 3 hate. Hard to argue that it matches 1 and 2, but I also liked it a lot.
                Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Home Sick so I watched some older movies

                  XXX-State of the Union. Cool Special effects but some of them were just WAY too out there. The CGI was very apparent this time.

                  Last Holiday-Still a funny movie to me.

                  Elmo goes to Grouchland(My son's favorite movie and he was home sick with me.....so we watched it 3 times)

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    Ocean's Thirteen.

                    I did like it, but it was probably the worst of the three (Unlike most people, I actually enjoyed Twelve quite a bit). Not sure what the problem was, but I think the caper plot was maybe a little too complex and they had to explain everything in great detail, so they didn't have as much time where everyone was just hanging around and saying clever lines.

                    All in all, nothing really stood out aside from the (underused) Clooney/Pitt exchanges, Linus and Funkhauser, and the Utah brothers Mexican adventures. Not enough Basher either. Or Yen. And no Julia Roberts or CZJ, which wasn't really disappointing as much as just surprising.

                    But either way, it was still fun and worth checking out. And Pacino actually wasn't even that over the top, which was a nice surprise.
                    Last edited by JayRedd; 12-08-2007, 07:34 PM.
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:

                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      Ocean's Thirteen.

                      I did like it, but it was probably the worst of the three (Unlike most people, I actually enjoyed Twelve quite a bit). Not sure what the problem was, but I think the caper plot was maybe a little too complex and they had to explain everything in great detail, so they didn't have as much time where everyone was just hanging around and saying clever lines.

                      All in all, nothing really stood out aside from the (underused) Clooney/Pitt exchanges, Linus and Funkhauser, and the Utah brothers Mexican adventures. Not enough Basher either. Or Yen. And no Julia Roberts or CZJ, which wasn't really disappointing as much as just surprising.

                      But either way, it was still fun and worth checking out. And Pacino actually wasn't even that over the top, which was a nice surprise.
                      stop having my reactions to movies. it isn't healthy for either of us.

                      i think we are 2 of the 7.5 people that enjoyed 12. but 13 is easily the worst. why the hell even bother with vincent cassel? should have had more clooney/pitt banter and by far the funniest part was the malloy mexican adventures.


                      also watched the wendell baker story from a trio of wilsons. it doesn't elevate the genre or even enhance it but it wasn't unenjoyable. nice dialog and good performances from seymour cassel and wilsons.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        Perfume - The Story of a Murderer

                        I'm very intrigued after watching this film, and I feel as though there are many more meanings that I'm missing. I'm going to give the book a try.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          All The President's Men

                          For about the 30th time. One of my favorites and further proof that Robert Redford doesn't get nearly as much credit as he deserves as an actor. Dustin Hoffman and Jason Robards are both great too.
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:

                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                            i think we are 2 of the 7.5 people that enjoyed 12. but 13 is easily the worst. why the hell even bother with vincent cassel? should have had more clooney/pitt banter and by far the funniest part was the malloy mexican adventures.
                            I can see why people wouldn't like Twelve since the ending isn't nearly as rewarding or tidy as Eleven was. But the journey of getting to the end in Twelve and all the natural, clever and glib dialog (which is pretty much the whole point of this series) was just as good as -- if not better than -- Eleven.
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:

                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                              All The President's Men

                              For about the 30th time. One of my favorites and further proof that Robert Redford doesn't get nearly as much credit as he deserves as an actor. Dustin Hoffman and Jason Robards are both great too.
                              Yeah, absolutely a great movie!
                              2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                Bee Movie

                                It was pretty good. I would recommend it to everyone. The Jerry Seinfeld humor is very present in this film so if you are a fan of Seinfeld the TV show or the comedian than spend the theatre dollars to get out and see this one or make sure it is on the rental list when it comes out. Quick breakdown for those who may not have heard about this one yet. Barry the Bee (Seinfeld) finds out the humans are stealing honey and selling it for profit and he sues the humans for all the honey to be returned to the bees so that they dont have to work anymore, Hilarity ensues 8.5/10

                                In The Land Of Women

                                Weird movie but it was also ok. If you ever watched The O.C. and liked the character of Seth than Adam Brody's character in this movie is pretty much the Seth person. The main younger female Lucy (Kristin Stewart) was not great in this movie, Seems like she has a speech impediment or something. Her mouth looked awkward as she spoke. Meg Ryan was also in this film and her character and acting was actually pretty good. If you are a Meg Ryan fan than this might be worth if for you. But I would give it a 4.5/10 at best from a male perspective.
                                Last edited by N8R; 12-10-2007, 08:11 AM. Reason: Bunny Peanut Cheese

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X