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 bellisimo View Post
    Hollywood must suck it dry till this genre is as dead as Western movies.

    I still can't believe that they're actually going to reboot Spider-Man this soon

    Westerns were exactly the comparison I had in my head as well...
    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?

      I had heard that we are seeing a lumping of the Marvel comic adaptations because the writer's strike a couple of years back really affected the production process.

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Actually they are kind of lumped together for some reason this year. Last year there were no major comic book movies that I remember at all.
        wasn't Iron Man 2 out last year?

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
          wasn't Iron Man 2 out last year?

          yes it was

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            I really think the market has become way too saturated with superhero movies. They are entertaining, but I just can't muster up any excitement over any of these movies coming out.

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              well considering the amount of movies coming out each year, how many are actually comic book movies? I'd say there are as many as romantic comedies if not more coming out...

              think comic book movies end up being seen like too much cause they're the ones with the biggest budgets/hype

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                I don't think there's an oversaturation at all. In actuality, Comic book movies is a genre that's been pretty much ignored and Hollywood has figured out there's a lot of stories and variations to tell.

                I'd say there's more hits than missed when it comes to comic book movies. Just look at the past year or so.

                We had Jonah Hex-Sucked
                The Losers-Entertaining
                Scott Pilgrim vs World-Clever and unique
                Iron Man 2-Entertaining, but wildly uneven
                Red-Good movie
                Kick ***-See Pilgrim
                Green Hornet-A different spin on the genre. Okay

                If they all were doing the same thing, then I think a valid arguement could be made about oversaturation. In reality, I think, each film has been pretty unique in the genre and shows different facets, unlike a lot of the aforementioned romantic comedies that pretty much plug in the same formula. NOW THAT is a tired genre. Same goes for slasher films, another genre with a plug and play mentality.

                Painting comic book movies, and Superhero with such a wide brush does them a disservice. All mysteries aren't the same, are they? Action films?

                Thor is a fish out of water tale with a Lords of the Rings kinda slant. How many films are like that?

                Captain America is ostensibly a WWII film about a soldier with super abilities. Once again, find another film like that?

                Priest is basically a horror film with an action film framework.

                Cowboys VS Aliens is another unique spin on a comic book movie.

                In terms of straight superhero movies in the classic, broad sense, there's really only Green Lantern, X-Men, Captain America and Thor coming out this year. Four Films.

                Four. Films.

                Out of the hundreds of films out there, that doesn't strike me as any kind of oversaturation, especially given that Thor and CA were purposefully put out around the same time for marketing reasons, as part of a bigger picture.. (Last year we only had two traditional superhero movies)

                And I leave you with this insightful quote:

                Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
                think comic book movies end up being seen like too much cause they're the ones with the biggest budgets/hype
                Far as I'm concerned, bring them on!! It's a genre that's been hugely ignored.
                Last edited by Skaut_Ech; 05-13-2011, 12:18 PM.
                Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Man was I ever dissapointed in Jonah Hex. So much to work with and they blew it.


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

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I thought Thor was pretty good, but overall seemed very disjointed. The first 30 minutes bored me, then I really enjoyed the milddle third a lot, and then the last 30 minutes was just OK.
                    I agree with this assessment. The Asgard stuff just didn't do much for me.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      I try to not judge a movie based upon what genre it is in. But on whether I enjoy the movie, whether it is a good movie.

                      I loved the Ironman and the two Dark Knight movies. Loved the three Lord of the Ring movies.

                      I look to see what the critics say about a movie before I go see it. That usually works for me. For example Bridesmaids is getting great reviews, so I'll probably go see it even though most think it is a chic flick

                      As long as it isn't a Michael Bay directed film. I'll see almost anything.

                      Green Hornet and Thor were both OK, not great , but not bad

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        Zombieland

                        It was pretty funny and kept me entertained.

                        The Zombie Kill of the week by the nun had me rolling. I definitely did not see that coming.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          The Oxford Murders (2008)

                          John Hurt and Elijah Wood in an intelligent who-done-it set on the Oxford campus in England.

                          While I watched this I kept thinking Umberto Eco had something to do with it, but it turns out it's adapted from a novel by Argentine mathemetician Guillermo Martinez. Neveretheless, I have to applaud and recommend a mystery that features the fibonacci sequence and the pythagorean sect.

                          Fun intellectually and viscerally, as the murders mount and the police receive notes featuring a sequence of symbols from the murderer. Predict the next symbol in the sequence, and solve the murders? Or is there a sophisticated misdirect taking place?

                          Also, Leonor Watling has nice boobs.
                          Last edited by kester99; 05-15-2011, 04:46 AM.


                          [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            "Planet of the Apes" (The original 1968 version).

                            I like it... What can I say?... And I'm not just monkeying around here!
                            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?

                              Bridesmaids. Funniest movie I have seen since The Hangover.

                              Laughed really hard.

                              Not a chick flick really.

                              Judd Aratow is the writer/director

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Bridesmaids. Funniest movie I have seen since The Hangover.

                                Laughed really hard.

                                Not a chick flick really.

                                Judd Aratow is the writer/director
                                Uh, nope.

                                Director: Paul Feig

                                Writers: Kristen Wiig, Annie Mumolo

                                Though Judd Apatow was a producer.

                                http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1478338/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X