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?

    Btw, I'm going to see Halloween tonight. Can't wait.

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
      Snakes on a Plane.

      Turned it off half way through.

      What did you expect?

      It was a movie about a plane...

      That had snakes on it...

      And they were let loose...

      All while on an airplane...

      And it had Sam Jackson in it...

      And it had snakes...

      On a plane!

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        Originally posted by Shade View Post
        Btw, I'm going to see Halloween tonight. Can't wait.
        Let us know how it is. I really want to see Zombie's version of it. I loved House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects.

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Originally posted by Mal View Post
          I need to watch Blood Diamond again. I liked it so much in theaters that I bought the DVD, but it rests unused so far.
          Is your need to watch DVD list at 100+? If not then don't feel bad.

          I don't tell the wife the list is that long, otherwise I wouldn't be able to buy more.


          Halloween - early reviews I saw suggest it's just a ramped up gorefest version of the classic, despite his claims to be sticking to the original tension/tone. I appreciate some of what RZ is trying to do but I'm not sure if he's dialed it in just yet. I guess we'll see for ourselves on this one. I did like the casting of Malcom McDowell.


          I saw Stardust the other day - great. Like Princess Bride but not really as geared toward silly humor, little more on the adventure side of it. Still some pretty funny parts however.

          Simpsons underwhelmed me. It was fine for a matinee but it wasn't the knockout I'd hoped for.


          Snakes on a Plane wasn't as far off as I would have expected. Maybe tone down the CGI and the total snake count, knock off the sillier snake fights, and you've got a pretty fun thriller. Almost a great film...but where it missed it missed pretty badly. Shame to waste a great popcorn high concept idea like that.

          Just shows that some directors shouldn't be allowed near the computer geeks at all. If you can't do it in camera then maybe you shouldn't be doing it at all.


          If you liked The Departed but haven't seen the original (Infernal Affairs) yet you should really check it out. It's a bit more like an 80's flick in direction and music, but the plot is even tighter and more tense. When I saw it the first words out of my mouth was "someone MUST make a US version of this just so more people can see this story in action, it's too good to miss so many audiences".

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            Originally posted by Mal View Post
            You might want to make a Seth/Jack one while you're at it.

            Maybe one with me and Reggie wearing a Celtics #13 jersey, too.
            Jesus, the pile on takes off while I'm elsewhere.

            On the Jack thing, I think the rules stipulate a 1 year grace period on all outrage over bad team moves. I mean Peck is in his 8th renewal on the Dale trade isn't he? At least let me get through my first one, by next August I promise the end to all serious Jack or Rick rants (even though they will remain justified ).



            Titanic is by James Cameron. It features the highly talented Kate Winslet...oh and she gets semi-nude. It features the outstanding Leo DiCaprio, perhaps the best young actor working today (Basketball Diaries, Departed, Blood Diamond, Aviator, Catch Me...). It is an amazing story of how hundreds of people were killed in a massive sea disaster. The CGI work is excellent. Heck, throw in the likeable Billy Zane as the villian.

            I question the validity of any man who says they like film but doesn't like Titanic. I assume they think Lawrence of Arabia, Vertigo and Raiders of the Lost Ark also suck.

            It's the regulations. If we were in Germany then I could let it go, but we're in Italy so I can't.

            or does this require a total thread derail with...

            "Hold it, hold it, are you trying to trick me? Is this a kissing movie?"

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Snatch is great, though I do prefer Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels more. I like how the plot for that comes back around more. I think the appeal of Snatch is partially centered around Pitt as the pikey, which is admittedly a lot of fun.

              Anyway after Madonna I fear we may have lost him for good.

              Most people I've talked to either like 21 Grams a lot or don't at all. If you liked it, he has another one similar in style called Amores Perros that I also thought was really good.
              Great film, tough call between 21 and Amores, but be warned about dog fighting plot aspects in AP. It's not supporting the activity but it does display it. Kinda sensitive issue right now.


              QFT on the "if you thought 21 Grams was hot, you are going to implode when you see Muholland Dr" sentiment.

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                My God. Did some one throw in a work of David Lean's along with Spielberg and Cameron's?
                "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Okay, just got back from Halloween.

                  It was pretty good. Doesn't hold a candle to the original, though.

                  There were some things I really liked, such as delving into Michael's backstory and making the adult Michael a hard-core, stone-cold badass.

                  Things I didn't care for, however, were
                  Spoiler Spoiler:


                  I do love one thing about going to see horror flicks in the theater; n00bs who jump at every little thing. I laugh my *** off every time, and there were some good ones in this audience. I've gotten to the point where I can pinpoint exactly when and where the scares are going to come. I even muttered "boo" less than a second before one of them in the film.

                  Overall, I'd give it about a 7.5/10.

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    300.

                    Wasn't that impressed.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      Originally posted by rcarey View Post
                      300.

                      Wasn't that impressed.
                      I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one...
                      Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                      I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        QFT on the "if you thought 21 Grams was hot, you are going to implode when you see Muholland Dr" sentiment.
                        I was going out with the coolest girl in the world at the time. In some ways anyway - in others she was 100% crazy and I finally couldn't take it.

                        She decided to make me dinner one night and puts the tape in the VCR with a, "Watch this while I cook - I think you'll like it."

                        OK - so I'm watching for maybe 45 minutes and can't figure out what's so special - mention that to her. "Just wait."

                        Another 15 minutes, same thing - "You're sure impatient, just wait."

                        About 15 minutes later and my eyes are bugging out of my head.

                        Coolest girl in the world - and someone destined for a short, very interesting life.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          nice
                          Classic American cinema.

                          I laughed. I cried. It became a part of me.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Halloween, it was a well done remake, i really enjoyed the back story. I have really liked all of Robs films so far with Rejects as my my favorite. In fact Rejects is one of my top ten films.
                            then: adverb - at that time; at the time in question

                            than: conjunction & preposition - introducing the second element in a comparison

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Finally saw The Simpsons last night. Obviously it was pretty good, but the last half-hour was pretty "meh". First hour was classic Simpsons gags coming at a pretty good, laugh-out-loud pace, but pretty much once
                              Spoiler Spoiler:
                              , it moved to that boring, let's-actually-finish-this-plot-we've-been-working-on part. There's genearally that part in every episode too, but since it's only about 7 minutes per episode it's not so noticably boring as when you make it four times longer.

                              But basically, the flick is just an extended episode. No more, no less. If you like The Simpsons, you'll enjoy it. If you're looking for earth-shattering piece of history, you'll be disappointed.


                              What I thought was interesting was that Halloween was opening last night while I was there. Is there a reason they didn't just wait two months and open it during late October? Seems really odd to release it in August. I could maybe see them doing it in February or something cause it was done and they wanted to just get it out...but so close to October you'd think they'd just hold off a few weeks. Weird.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                The Butterfly Effect

                                Still like this movie a lot. I have it on DVD but I watched in on Late night TV cause the DVD is messed up and has been since i bought it. Such a **** off. Anyways I noticed that Sam Easton is in the movie. He plays the Pledge that gets yelled at. Not that that name should mean anything to anyone but I saw him do standup at Yuk-Yuks in London and he was Amazing. I just thought it was funny to see him in a movie that I have seen before but I actually figured it out that he was that guy pretty quickly. Just proud of myself.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X