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?

    Baby Mama

    What you would expect. Not that great. Not that funny, Was pretty bored during it. On the plus side I recognized a signer from the soundtrack and I am torrenting his new CD so that is always good. An artist named Zach Gill from a band called A.L.O. (Animal Liberation Orchestra) and he also plays the keyboard and a few other instruments on Jack Johnson's last CD. Hoping it is good so that watching Baby Mama wasn't a complete waste.

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Taxi Driver

      I didn't know what to expect going into this movie. I knew he was deranged but I didn't know it was going to be that crazy. This was the first time I have seen DeNiro in a movie from the 70's. He looks very young. I could only picture him in his more recent comedy films and that is a far cry from the character in this movie.

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        I watched Shoot 'Em Up over the weekend.

        I also lost 20, maybe 30 IQ points while watching said movie.

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Watched Monster's Ball because, well, I was extremely bored and thought watching Halle Berry squirming around naked was as good of a way to pass the time as anything.

          Surprisingly, I liked the overall film a lot better this time around - didn't remember caring for it all that much the first time, other than said Halle Berry moments.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            from the last couple weeks...



            Hamlet 2 ... B
            i went in with rock bottom expectations because i wasn't very amused by the trailer and i walked out pleasantly surprised. both catherine keener and amy poehler were under-utilized. as was elisabeth shue - all three were enjoyable though when on screen. david arquette -- why? i'm not entirely convinced steve coogan can carry a movie - i've gone back and forth. the songs are oddly unfunny. but i think the best part of the movie involved the drama critic from whom coogan desperately seeks both advice and approval.


            Tropic Thunder ... B+
            i'd rank this a little above Pineapple Express though i enjoyed danny mcbride more in PE. ben stiller (who has a habbit of really annoying me) wasn't as annoying as i expected. jack black on the other hand did really annoy me. the groups that are protesting this film are retarded (both literally and figuratively.) what they object to is clearly satire - not taking cheap shots at the mentally handicapped - but about Hollywood and actors and method, etc. RDJ was nothing short of amazing and tom cruise has a remarkably funny cameo.


            Traitor ... B-
            despite the protagonist being an american muslim, this is a fairly by the numbers action/thriller. it is solid for what it is (don cheadle, guy pearce and saïd taghmaoui are good.) but even a semi-sentient being can unravel the plot within the first 10 minutes. it also doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be - some of this was explained during a Q&A that followed the screening with writer/director jeffrey nachmanoff and pearce but that still doesn't fix the actual movie.


            Vicky Cristina Barcelona ... B
            i haven't watched any of woody allen's recent offerings -- mainly because, starting in the 90s with stuff like deconstructing harry and small time crooks, woody started sucking. hardcore. and i have watched very little from him. i didn't have a lot of interest in seeing this one but went because it was free. the narrator was obscenely annoying - very intrusive. that being said, it was certainly the most enjoyable thing woody allen has done in the last 15 years (although friends insist i watch match point as well as sweet & lowdown.) scarlett johansson still can't act. javier bardem and penelope cruz definitely can. actually it is easy to see how terrible this movie could have been without those two (specifically javier) in their roles.


            Transsiberian ... A-
            this is a fairly limited release that caught my eye specifically because of director brad anderson. having enjoyed his film the machinist with christian bale i decided to check it out and wasn't disappointed. quite influenced by hitchcock. emily mortimer is great. kingsley is solid.




            i think elegy might be up next.

            also if i see either the lakeland terrace or what just happened trailers again i'll start punching puppies.
            Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 08-25-2008, 06:52 PM.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Things we lost in the Fire

              Thought Del Toro was good.

              Still not sure about the movie.

              Thought it was ok

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                Originally posted by Newman8r View Post
                This was the first time I have seen DeNiro in a movie from the 70's. He looks very young. I could only picture him in his more recent comedy films and that is a far cry from the character in this movie.
                That's borderline felonious. And I really hope it doesn't include Godfather II. The other two must-sees are Raging Bull and Deer Hunter. People seem to dig Mean Streets, too, but I just saw it for the first time recently and was overwhelmingly underwhelmed. I guess Scorsese did some camera work and a few other revolutionary things that are worth noting...but since they aren't particularly unusual now, it really didn't impress me. The story is pretty dull, DeNiro is pretty annoying and the ending is pretty dumb. Harvey Keitel and some toplessness were really the only things I enjoyed.

                Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                Vicky Cristina Barcelona ... B
                i haven't watched any of woody allen's recent offerings -- mainly because, starting in the 90s with stuff like deconstructing harry and small time crooks, woody started sucking. hardcore. and i have watched very little from him. i didn't have a lot of interest in seeing this one but went because it was free. the narrator was obscenely annoying - very intrusive. that being said, it was certainly the most enjoyable thing woody allen has done in the last 15 years (although friends insist i watch match point as well as sweet & lowdown.) scarlett johansson still can't act. javier bardem and penelope cruz definitely can. actually it is easy to see how terrible this movie could have been without those two (specifically javier) in their roles.
                Match Point is very good. The first hour actually sorta sucks, but that's sort of necessary to the overall feel of the film so don't be put off. I also actually just saw Scoop a few weeks ago though and, yeah, feel free to skip that one. I like Woody in general (Crimes and Misdemeanors is his best, IMO) so I didn't hate it and it had it's clever moments, but it was definitely in the Small Time Crooks, Jade Scorpion and Hollywood Ending category of "meh."
                Last edited by JayRedd; 08-25-2008, 08:55 PM.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Watched a bunch of movies in the last couple of days.

                  Reds
                  I thought this was superb. I've never cared for Warren Beatty outside of Bonnie and Clyde, but I hafta say I was very impressed with his direction on this film. He does a lot of subtle things to show the failings of organized socialism. Diane Keaton is rather good and even though he has a small role for him, this might be one of Jack Nicholson's best performances.

                  Wall Street
                  Saw it like 10 years ago. Still good. And if nothing else, it gave us that great scene from Hot Shots Part Deux.

                  The Painted Veil
                  Not bad. Not great. Rather melodramatic and predictable, but anything with Ed Norton and Naomi Watts can't be that bad. I also enjoy Toby Jones.

                  Casablanca
                  Yup...still the best movie ever.

                  Notorious
                  Watching it now. Probably my third favorite Hitchcock after Vertigo and Strangers on a Train.
                  Last edited by JayRedd; 08-25-2008, 09:21 PM.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    When I get home I will get Raging Bull and Deer Hunter going on the computer.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      Wall Street
                      Saw it like 10 years ago. Still good. And if nothing else, it gave us that great scene from Hot Shots Part Deux.
                      fantastic

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      Notorious
                      Watching it now. Probably my third favorite Hitchcock after Vertigo and Strangers on a Train.
                      you'd probably enjoy transsiberian then. reminded me a bit of strangers and part of it kind of like a twisted lady vanishes.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        Watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail - was in Borders and decided this was another VHS to replace.

                        DVD is actually a 2-disc set. It has a few extras but nothing too remarkable IMO. There are a few additional minutes in the film, some add to it, some don't.

                        The biggest advantage - it took seeing a DVD to realize that the residents of Castle Anthrax are wearing nearly transparent clothes - never knew that from the tape.

                        Still part of my trilogy of great movies with The Princess Bride & Labyrinth. And in its way, more factually correct than Braveheart.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          Gone Baby Gone.

                          A reasonably capable crime drama that lost its power towards the end ...
                          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Originally posted by Spicoli View Post
                            I watched Shoot 'Em Up over the weekend.

                            I also lost 20, maybe 30 IQ points while watching said movie.
                            But I'm sure you had fun Should try Hot Fuzz too if you liked it.
                            Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                            Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              The Babe

                              been a while since I watched this movie. It was on TV while I was at work so I caught most of it. Still a great bio flick.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                Jackass 2

                                Still hilarious.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X