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 DisplacedKnick View Post
    Depends what you're looking for too. The visual effects evolution has allowed films that are visually stunning but with mediocre acting. Go back even 25 years and the great films generally had great acting. Today you can have films like Titanic or LOTR where the visual effects and cinematography are great but the acting is pretty mediocre (I never realized just how bad the acting was in Titanic until I watched it a second time with a GF).
    i will admit that films 25 years ago as there was no michael bay were 90% less awesome.

    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
    If you value acting performances over visuals I think the cupboard is pretty bare.
    that is 17 different types of ridiculous

    Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
    C'mon...That's nuts.

    Rescue Dawn, The Fountain, Last King of Scotland, Adaptation, Mystic River, Memento, Good Night and Good Luck, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 21 Grams, The Constant Gardener, American Splendor and The Pianist all feature truly great acting.

    Then there's Leonardo DiCaprio's incredible four-year run (Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, the Aviator, the Departed and Blood Diamond), Crowe and Clooney's consistency/occasional greatness, and even an acting schlep like Tom Cruise coming strong in Collateral and being pretty decent in Vanilla Sky (though both movies completely fall apart towards the end). Daniel Craig played the best James Bond yet from an acting standpoint in Casino Royale. DDL's Daniel Planview and Bill the Butcher are both historically great performances. Viggo and Clive Owen are both impressing me more by the day. And all that is mostly just the big Hollywood fodder.

    Throw in foreign films like City of God, Amelie, Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Downfall and Maria Full of Grace I still say there are by far more great acting performances occuring today than ever before -- and they are certainly easier to find given Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Netflix, etc.
    i completely agree.

    philip seymour hoffman in capote, the savages, owning mahoney?
    laura linney in the savages, the squid and the whale, kinsey?
    don cheadle in hotel rwanda, talk to me, crash?
    johnny depp in pirates, sweeney todd, finding neverland?
    kate winslet in little children, eternal sunshine, finding neverland?

    and we're just scratching the surface. we haven't even touched on people like chiwetel ejiofor, djimon honsu, maggie gyllenhaal, peter sarsgaard, joseph gordon levitt, catherine keener, maria bello...
    This is the darkest timeline.

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
      C'mon...That's nuts.

      Rescue Dawn, The Fountain, Last King of Scotland, Adaptation, Mystic River, Memento, Good Night and Good Luck, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 21 Grams, The Constant Gardener, American Splendor and The Pianist all feature truly great acting.
      I haven't seen all of those but of those I have seen only Last King of Scotland had truly great acting. Memento didn't - they utilized the scrambled narrative thread/POV to build tension, The male lead in Constant Gardener was good (not great), Weis (sp) was mediocre, and I forgot Eternal Sunshine within days after seeing it. 21 Grams wasn't bad acting but great?

      ]Then there's Leonardo DiCaprio's incredible four-year run (Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, the Aviator, the Departed and Blood Diamond),
      Man - I wouldn't call any of those great acting. DDL was the far superior actor in Gangs as was the black male lead in Blood Diamond. In fact, IMO DiCaprio's one of the most overrated actors around - he's perfected the art of overplaying a role to where they should rename that "Pulling a Dicaprio".

      Crowe and Clooney's consistency/occasional greatness, and even an acting schlep like Tom Cruise coming strong in Collateral and being pretty decent in Vanilla Sky (though both movies completely fall apart towards the end). Daniel Craig played the best James Bond yet from an acting standpoint in Casino Royale. DDL's Daniel Planview and Bill the Butcher are both historically great performances. Viggo and Clive Owen are both impressing me more by the day. And all that is mostly just the big Hollywood fodder.
      Crowe was great in Cinderella Man and had great moments in Perfect Mind (definitely NOT Gladiator) but Clooney? Viggo was spectacular in Eastern Promises - maybe the best performance of the year for me. History of Violence gave hints of what he could do. LOTR didn't though that's a poster child for cinematography over acting (other than Ian McClellan).

      Throw in foreign films like City of God, Amelie, Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Downfall and Maria Full of Grace I say that not only is there plenty of good acting out there...there is by far more great acting performances occuring today than ever before -- and they are certainly easier to find given Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Netflix, etc.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        I thought Benicio Del Toro was spectacular in 21 Grams. Sean Penn was pretty good himself and Naomi Watts on a bad day is pretty far above the bar.

        I thought what Guy Pearce did in Memento was fantastic (and Pantoliano was good.)..but okay, yeah, I shouldn't have included that one.

        Ralph Fiennes was great in Constant Gardener. Not his fault the film fell apart.

        Jim Carrey and especially Kate Winslet are pretty much universally lauded for Eternal Sunset.

        I just say I disagree about Leo. He's great, IMO. You gotta at least give him The Aviator.

        Clooney is Clooney. Not amazing, but has a Cary Grant charm and glib demeanor that makes his roles generally memorable. But, okay, Paul Newman/Marlon Brando he is not. The fact that he can play the Dapper Dan guy in O' Brother, Danny Ocean and the guy in Syrianna with equal ease and enjoyability, however, does show that he's got some real chops.

        And, yes, Cinderella Man (and The Insider, which I guess was actually 90s) was what I was talking about with Crowe.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
          I forgot Eternal Sunshine within days after seeing it.
          That was funny.
          You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
          All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

          - Jimmy Buffett

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
            philip seymour hoffman in capote, the savages, owning mahoney?
            laura linney in the savages, the squid and the whale, kinsey?
            don cheadle in hotel rwanda, talk to me, crash?
            johnny depp in pirates, sweeney todd, finding neverland?
            kate winslet in little children, eternal sunshine, finding neverland?

            and we're just scratching the surface. we haven't even touched on people like chiwetel ejiofor, djimon honsu, maggie gyllenhaal, peter sarsgaard, joseph gordon levitt, catherine keener, maria bello...
            Dear Lord.

            With the exception of PSH, none of those performances can come even close to what folks like Dustin Hoffman & Meryl Streep used to throw out 25 years ago, every time they performed. And anyone who put any performance from Crash out there . . .

            Want a great performance? Hoffman in Kramer vs Kramer or Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon or Streep in Sophie's Choice. Throw in DeNiro for The Deer Hunter or Dafoe & Berengar in Platoon. Or look at Richard Gere - his best performance is "Officer and a Gentleman" nothing he's done since comes close and it isn't because he can't act, it's because much of the emphasis on making motion pictures today isn't on acting.

            There have been a few recent ones - Charlize Theron in Monster, Jodie Foster in Silence of the Lambs, Morgan Freeman in a variety of roles, Denzel Washington. But even those aren't great on the level of some of the truly monumental performances.

            I attribute it to two things, mainly (these two may be related), though a third is contributing

            Mainly, we no longer have a generation of actors who were stage trained. They can't carry a presence for a long scene. They're used to scenes where at most they have to carry 2-3 lines of dialogue before the director breaks down the scene, resets the camera and shoots from another angle.

            The art of the long, single-take scene where two actors are captured in a panoramic view and feed off each other through multiple pages of dialogue is gone. Look at the great, memorable scenes (acting scenes) and those are what grab you. That's when two actors can build and feed off emotion. Today acting consists of reciting your lines while the other actor (or a staff member) reads the other part off-camera.

            And of course the other issue is films where, as I've said before, visual effects and cinematography take precedence over acting. LOTR and Titanic are the two Blockbuster examples - watching each of those the second time the poor quality of acting, poor timing, etc just stuck out.

            The good side of things is that there's less truly horrible acting going on today too (Nick Cage's recent performances notwithstanding). B movies and creature features used to be truly awful acting - generally we don't see as much of that. Even creature features have people who generally can at least give you something.

            And that's it from me on this - I don't want to hijack this thread any more.

            Edit: I will give The Aviator as Leo's best recent performance. I think the Howard Hughes role fit his strengths much better because that character's emotions were largely directed inward. My monster gripe with him is he has no subtlety - when he wants to show emotion he way overemotes vocally and gives expressions that almost look like he's doing a stand-up caricature by trying to twist his face into some new form. The next time he emotes by adding a subtle tone to his voice or just by softening his eyes will be his first - especially intensity which he does with a squeek/screech he should patent.
            Last edited by DisplacedKnick; 07-25-2008, 01:47 PM.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Leo's best role IMO was Catch Me if you Can.


              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                Watched Eastern Promises again. Mainly inspired by the previous discussion. Still love the performance by Viggo and the raw brutality of the fight is impressive - so many movie fights aren't real at all - obviously written by someone who's never been in a fight.
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Guys this arguing over now vs. 25 years ago is nonsense.

                  It is just purely generational. Back in the 80's someone who was in thier 40's would have been talking about how crappy films are now compared to the 60's and back in the 60's people would have talked about the 40's etc., etc.

                  Each generation has thier own flavor and often times it does not translate into people from the previous generation.

                  As an example this brand new type of movie that has no ending and is almost cartoon type violence is just beyond alien to me. NCFOM, TWBB, etc., etc.

                  However I understand how this is appealing for many of you.

                  I just understand that it just isn't meant for me.

                  One thing though that I just do not understand is this whole "independant film" thing.

                  Frankly I think it is just a buzz word people like to use. For God's sake Lionsgate film releases more films a year than all other studios combined.

                  Mirimax and others also produce a high volume of films.

                  I guess just as long as it doesn't say Warner Bros. or New Line Cinema it makes it Independant.


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

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    Originally posted by Indy View Post
                    Leo's best role IMO was Catch Me if you Can.
                    For me it was "the man in the Iron Mask".


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

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      For me it was "the man in the Iron Mask".
                      Is that because you don't like to see his face and it's your favorite in the same way that Meet Joe Black is my fave Brad Pitt movie because he gets hit by a car? Or did you seriously dig his performance?

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        No, believe it or not I actually liked him in that role.


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

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          Just watched Jumpers.

                          Far better than I thought it would be. I had almost zero expectations going into this film so I guess anything would have been acceptable.


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

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            My wife and I watched Invasion of the Body Snatchers last night.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Just got back from watching X-Files: I want to believe.

                              To me this was like visiting an old friend I haven't seen in years. It was not outstanding and in fact would really have been better as a TV episode, however it did rekindle a little of that old magic that was once part of one the best tv shows of the early and mid 90's.

                              I don't want to give away any spoilers, not that I think many of you will see it, but I will say a couple of things.

                              1. If you know anything about the show you will know that there were always two differant X-file episodes.

                              a. The mythology episodes that dealt with the Government cover up and aliens.

                              b. Paranormal episodes that dealt with the occult, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, the devil, etc.

                              This particular movie dealt with neither and I know that a lot of people are going to be dissapointed in that.

                              I think it was a very smart move to get away from the mythology. They pretty much killed any relevance in season 6 for me with that and frankly I thought the last x-files movie was lousy.

                              However this was a nice plot, well written, well acted and wonderfully shot.

                              BTW, do stay past the end credits for a special treat at the end.

                              I will admit I am a fanboy when it comes to the first 7 seasons of x-files, only DS9 and American Gothic surpass it IMO. But frankly the the last two seasons of the show sucked and the last movie was bad.

                              So to me it was nice to just get back to the very basic story of faith.

                              I will say though that whoever was the genius who decided to release this the week after Batman should be shot.

                              Tonight for a primetime showing at 7:30 on a Saturday night there was my group I went with and 3 other people.


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

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                Suprt man


                                “I can be a much better player. I’ve got a long ways to go."LaurenJackson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X