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 do agree with the lack of tension in scenes like that. That's how I felt about some of the more emotional (or should be emotional) ones: They just sort of happen.

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      They could have changed the insides of the Shack in order to fit the need, instead of coming up with a totally new place to have the scene. If you're going to change it, why not change it as little as you can instead of changing the whole thing?

      But it still doesn't explain why the stone was an actual stone, instead of a ring. Or why they decided to change the diadem. Or why Luna is in the Room of Requirement already when Harry and Co. show up.

      I really need to stop, because I'm pretty sure I can write a couple thousand words about this.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        Uh, it's a stone in the book, too; it was only with the ring until, I believe, when Dumbledore destroyed it when it was still a horcrux. I even just looked it up again in the book; it describes a stone, not a ring, at that point.
        It's still a ring, they just call it a stone. It talks about how it cracks down the middle of the stone, right along the line that represents the Elder Wand.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Can you reference anywhere that it says it's still a ring? Because the moment it pops out of the snitch, it just describes the stone. I'm not sure you're correct about this. And given that it's a ring in the 6th movie, I see no reason why they'd just change it for no reason.

          Furthermore, it's called the resurrection stone, not the resurrection ring, and the implication is that one of the descendants of the family who had it eventually made it into a ring.

          http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Gaunt%27s_Ring

          Also, what's wrong with the diadem? And why should anyone care, given that it's not as if they replaced it with a tambourine or something equally jarringly different? Looked like a woman's crown / tiara to me.

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            I'm working off memory, but I have read each book atleast 4 times and reread the last book just days prior to going to see the film. I don't think the book says it turned back into a stone, so without being told that it was, I would assume that it kept it's form. I'm pretty sure she describes it as being in perfect condition, except for the crack down the middle that splits the wand. Either way, there wasn't a crack, and it didn't have the rest of the Deathly Hallows symbol.

            And I'm pretty sure, like 99%, that it even talks about the ring sitting on Dumbledore's desk in HBP. Harry asks about it, and Dumbledore shrugs him off and say's something like "that tale is for another day" and it's one of the questions Harry beats himself up over not asking him again after his death.

            As for the diadem, I can't desribe it exactly, since she uses fictional things like gnargls and stuff like that but it has flaps over the ears. Has something that dangles from the forehead of it.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              The idea is that it was broken off of the ring before being place inside the snitch. That's how I read it.

              Also, it was a stone when death allegedly gave it to one of the brothers; it wasn't described as a ring then, either. One of the brother's ancestors fashioned it into the ring.

              I'll end with asking: Who really should give a ****? It works just fine / the same either way.

              This reminds me of the kind of **** I used to read Trekkies complaining about; levels of detail that just don't mean anything to me.

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                I'm focusing on just small, minute details. The final fight between Harry and Voldemort took place in the Great Hall for a reason. That reason was lost in the movie.

                If I had to give my thesis on the series, I would say Love. Personal sacrifice for the greater good.

                But watching that final fight between them, you'd never know. Harry TAUNTS Voldemort at the end. He wraps up the entire book with what he said. I'm diving way further into than I really should.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  What was the significant of it being in the great hall beyond of course that room playing as a key centerpiece for many of the previous stories? I liked it being in there, too, but it didn't bother me much that it was moved.

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    Whoa, I didn't care about the stone or changing the location of Snape's death. I was way more put off by deaths of major characters just getting a 10 second view on screen and then being pushed away. It could have been so much more epic. I would have much rather seen a huge fight culminating in their deaths rather than just being like oh hey, here they and they're dead...lame. And a cop out. That would have only added about 10 minutes on what was already a long movie. That was a mistake.
                    Last edited by Trader Joe; 07-18-2011, 03:00 PM.


                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      Oh I do agree with Since that the final fight should have been in the great hall. I don't get why they changed it. It made it seem a lot more like Harry was actually fighting for and with his friends. And in this way he's now being chased all around the castle by himself, I didn't like that.

                      Spoiler Spoiler:


                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        If I recall correctly, the book just kind of tells you those people died, too. Not saying that makes it better, though. They could have gotten more out of it on screen; I agree.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Oh I do agree with Since that the final fight should have been in the great hall. I don't get why they changed it. It made it seem a lot more like Harry was actually fighting for and with his friends. And in this way he's now being chased all around the castle by himself, I didn't like that.

                          Spoiler Spoiler:
                          The only thing that confused me was why they make it seem like Harry can now almost go toe to toe with him. I thought the whole point was that he won on a technicality (so to speak), yet by the last moment, it almost seems like Harry is overpowering him.

                          As for

                          Spoiler Spoiler:

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            What was the significant of it being in the great hall beyond of course that room playing as a key centerpiece for many of the previous stories? I liked it being in there, too, but it didn't bother me much that it was moved.
                            It's not so much the room it took place in, but rather because everyone else is there to watch it.

                            Harry explains it all to Voldemort, taunting him about what Voldemort didn't care enough to understand. (love)

                            It ties everything together. It literally gives everything the whole series is about, which is love for your fellow man, and personal sacrifice for the greater good.

                            They completely did away with Dumbledore's background which establishes that. He and Grendlewald (spelling?) were focused on the greater good, and making people conform to it. Whereas once Dumbledore's sister died, he realizes that the innocent get caught up, and then you're just a murderer. Personal sacrifice (love) vs sacrificing others.
                            Last edited by Since86; 07-18-2011, 03:03 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              If I recall correctly, the book just kind of tells you those people died, too. Not saying that makes it better, though. They could have gotten more out of it on screen; I agree.
                              Spoiler Spoiler:


                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                The only thing that confused me was why they make it seem like Harry can now almost go toe to toe with him. I thought the whole point was that he won on a technicality (so to speak), yet by the last moment, it almost seems like Harry is overpowering him.

                                As for

                                Spoiler Spoiler:
                                Harry is overpowering him because the elder wand is not giving all its power to Voldemort. But at the same time Harry should be recognized as a great wizard, Rowling has even said as much that Harry one of the best or the best dueler of any of the characters.

                                Spoiler Spoiler:


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X