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?

    Yeah, it did a great job at those things, but what makes the movie "important?"

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      A lot of the editing and scoring in that movie are considered very progressive, for example the crew scene in England during the race.


      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
        Oh come now. Facebook is much more important than the start of WWII.

        You forgot to put that in green.

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Lots of folks, including some who vote and some who are Pig Nash, feel the Best Picture Oscar should say something about the time/culture in which the award was given. Using that standard, obviously Social Network (which defines a generation) is more important than King's Speech (which is more about a man than WWII). I don't really buy into the belief that Best Picture must be a capsule of the time in which the film came out. I would, however, agree with Nash in saying that I would have given Best Picture to Social Network.

          The performances by Firth, Rush and Carter were fantastic, especially considering how paint-by-numbers the rest of the film felt. Ultimately, though, we've seen this type of story (not this specific story) told before...which is fine. At it's core, The Social Network is a pretty basic courtroom drama and we've seen that type of film hundreds of times too. But I think Social Network bests King's Speech in terms of writing, cinematography, editing, scoring and (though the Academy disagreed with me) directing (though I loved Hooper's Damned United). So, for me, Social Network did more to elevate a genre than King's Speech.

          Ultimately there were two things Social Network couldn't overcome. The first is a voting base that skews older that has a history of awarding more traditional films compared to something considered more unique (like comparing Trainspotting vs. Slumdog Millionaire). There are also certain themes that the Academy goes bonkers for: hope, history and love. King's Speech covers 75% of those three themes (it's not Titanic-esque epic love but profound friendship would fall under the love umbrella... coincidentally, Love Umbrella is the name of Pig Nash's next album).
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            ATC just said that much better than I could hope to. And I liked The Damned United a lot too!
            Play Mafia!
            Twitter

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Super - Actually went in a little skeptical since the superhero genre needs to end (i.e. it will last for another eight years and then there will be reboots of the ones that didn't make enough money, said the digression). For the most part it's super fresh. I really liked James Gunn's Slither, but it felt a little too content with itself, lacking bravery if you will. Seriously, will you? Super is a quirky indie dramedy on elephant steroids, taking so many opportunities to just **** with the audience, blowing the side of its head off every chance it gets. It's a very satisfying combination of Kick Ass and Special. The very end is kind of awful, oddly enough, too fantastical. Rainn Wilson, Ellen Page, Liv Tyler, Kevin Bacon, Nathan Fillion, great performances all around. Hopefully, Gunn gets the opportunity to something a little bigger with his next project; dude has a great eye for genre.
              Last edited by AesopRockOn; 04-30-2011, 05:15 AM. Reason: seriously, i can't say pissed off.... what the *bzzz* *bzzz*
              You Got The Tony!!!!!!

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                Kill the Irishman
                didn't go in to it with a lot of expectations but came out more than satisfied (TWSS)
                nice movie based on a true story.

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  The Fighter

                  Good movie... not great. The pacing felt kind of odd
                  Spoiler Spoiler:


                  Christian Bale again manages to put on another skin for a role. I still think Bale can have a tendency to overact or just go over the top at times but the physical effort he has to put into these roles surely shows a dedication to the craft.

                  Well worth a watch... and I'd think boxing fans would particularly enjoy the film.
                  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?

                    Secretariat

                    I'm a sucker for these type of sporting movies so I pretty much knew I'd find this enjoyable.

                    I think this movie could've been done a little better. There was a lot of background but not really meaty background.
                    Spoiler Spoiler:


                    So.... OK movie... Family friendly.... But doesn't rise to the level of Sea Biscuit.
                    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?

                      Got drug to see Rio.

                      Exactly what you would expect it to be. If you have kids this is a decent movie for them, if your an adult meh...


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

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        Christmas Vacation

                        Classic lol.
                        Follow me at @Bluejbgold

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          Devil

                          Much better than I thought it would be. I would recommend it.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Fast Five

                            Not a fan of the series (only seen the first and fourth, and wasn't impressed with either.) But I listened to the reviews and went, and was glad I did. Yes, it's still utterly ridiculous, but this one was actually a lot of fun. From an action standpoint, it reminds me a lot of older Michael Bay films like The Rock or Bad Boys, before he went crazy with CGI. The vault chase is really tremendous stunt work, and it's no 2-minute scene either, more like 20.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              The Fighter

                              Good movie elevated to very good by 2 great performances from Leo and Bale. Interesting stuff on the bluray about the actual Micky and Dicky was fun to watch too.
                              Play Mafia!
                              Twitter

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                When I first heard they were making a Thor movie I had very low expectations. I mean how do you make a Thor movie without it either be very cheesy ala the 70's Hulk TV show or without it being a complete & total CGI fest where it is basically an animated movie with just actors on a blue screen?

                                Then I saw a trailer for the movie & my expectations went from very low to being moderate.

                                Then I saw that J. Michael Strazenski was going to be one of the writers of the movie and my expectations went from moderate to hopeful.

                                I then went last night and saw the movie.

                                I'll say now that my expectations were waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to low.

                                I want to see it again before I go to overboard in praise. My first reaction upon leaving the theatre was to say that not only was this the best movie adaptation of a comic book hero of all time but it was one of my favorite films of all time.

                                I'm glad I waited before saying that because in all honesty while there were things that were done to perfection (the portrayal of Loki was so spot on that his performance actually overshadowed Thor's on many occasions) there might be a couple of things I want to think over before I declare Chris Hemsworth's version of Thor better than Toby Maguire’s Spider Man.

                                If you are a fan of the comic books of Thor at all then this movie is an absolute must. If you are an avengers fan but not a Thor fan this movie is still a must.

                                Also for those of us who are Avenger fans there were a couple of really fan boy geek out moments.

                                Spoiler Spoiler:


                                I won't give away anything to anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet, but I will give you the usual warning. As with all marvel movies you have to stay past the end credits as there is a very important scene for the future.

                                After a few day's I want to come back to this and see how I feel about the movie then. But right now I can't recommend it highly enough.

                                Caveat, obviously if you are a person who does not like the comic book genre of movie and prefer movies like snow falling on cedars then this movie may not be for you.


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X