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?

    The Green Mile

    Great movie. It was on TV and I was watching it during commercials and I caught just about all the parts you think about when watching the movie. It is just a great film.

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      "Eddie and the Cruisers II: Eddie Lives" (this has been released as a 2 sided DVD with Eddie and the Cruisers I and Eddie and the Cruisers II on the same disc).

      For those that don't remember, way back when there was a movie called "Eddie and the Cruisers". It was based on a fictional 60's rock band and their driven leader "Eddie Wilson".
      Spoiler Spoiler:
      The original film was probably a bust at the box office (though I don't recall for sure) but it became a cult classic once it hit the cable movie channels. It made for a few hits for the band that actually provided the soundtrack for the movie.

      It was one of those movies that from the outside looking in had nothing going for it (simple story, ample opportunities for cliches), but once you started watching it something about it pulled you in. Maybe it was "Eddie's" (Michael Pare's) passion for the music and the intensity he portrayed. Maybe it was the music itself. It was just one of those movies that's sum was greater than its parts. Easy to watch... easy to follow... didn't pretend to be something it wasn't... no never ending hype to leave you expecting too much. It just entertained.

      Sooooooo apparently they made a sequel and quite frankly, I had no idea it existed.

      FWIW, as much as the title of the movie "Eddie Lives" could be considered a spoiler it's not necessarily.... "Eddie Lives" is the name his former record label used to promote some previously unreleased music that they had recently acquired. ...There are flashbacks utilized as well as a few 'new' scenes filling in some holes from before.

      I don't think the sequel was as good as the original... but again... there was a certain charm and appeal to the sequel and I can't put my finger on it.
      Spoiler Spoiler:
      They (record company) wanted to create a buzz that maybe he wasn't really dead to really ramp up interest in the 'new' previously unreleased material.

      The new band members couldn't have been more cliched and just a notch over the line... and yet still there was a certain charm with the movie.

      As a stand alone... I don't know how it would play but for anyone that watched the first one and liked it, I think you'll like this one too... IF you don't expect -too- much. I think the strength of both of these movies is that they just kept them simple and Michael Pare found his perfect role.

      Pop some corn, turn the lights off, and put the DVD in. You could do worse...

      Music is John Cafferty and the Beaver Brown Band.

      Ah yes Michael Pare.

      I can't get past this classic.



      Funny thing is there are a lot of actors in this movie who went on to big careers. William Dafoe, Diane Lane, Rick Moranis, Amy Madigan, Robert Townsend & Bill Paxton.

      Although the movie was awful, the soundtrack really wasn't that bad. I liked the meatloaf version of nowhere fast much better though.


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

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        I never even heard of Streets of Fire. Now I wonder if I need to watch it just to so I don't miss out on some pop trivia question down the road? I gotta say... when the trailer sucks that bad you KNOW the movie doesn't have much hope!

        -Bball
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          I never even heard of Streets of Fire. Now I wonder if I need to watch it just to so I don't miss out on some pop trivia question down the road? I gotta say... when the trailer sucks that bad you KNOW the movie doesn't have much hope!

          -Bball
          you should never deprive yourself of seeing a movie that sports both ducktails and mullets.


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

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            Cars

            Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone.

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Had to sit through the new Babylon movie over the weekend - truly a wretched movie. It was almost like they didn't try

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                Ah yes Michael Pare.

                I can't get past this classic.



                Funny thing is there are a lot of actors in this movie who went on to big careers. William Dafoe, Diane Lane, Rick Moranis, Amy Madigan, Robert Townsend & Bill Paxton.

                Although the movie was awful, the soundtrack really wasn't that bad. I liked the meatloaf version of nowhere fast much better though.
                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                I never even heard of Streets of Fire. Now I wonder if I need to watch it just to so I don't miss out on some pop trivia question down the road? I gotta say... when the trailer sucks that bad you KNOW the movie doesn't have much hope!

                -Bball
                When the movie was in production, they approached Bruce Springsteen to see if they could use his song of the same name (from the "Darkness on the Edge of Town" album).

                He refused.

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Vantage Point. Complete waste of my time. Had the bad guy figured out within 2 minutes. There was a decent car chase but that was pretty much it.
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                    Vantage Point. Complete waste of my time. Had the bad guy figured out within 2 minutes. There was a decent car chase but that was pretty much it.
                    Yeah, that was pretty obvious, but I thought it passed the time.

                    However, it still doesn't match "General's Daughter" for most obvious bad guy. Timothy Hutton came on the screen, and I turned to my wife and said, "he did it".

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      I'd like to add that the most obvious bad guy candidate would have to be Keifer Sutherland in Phone Booth, it was made during the height of 24 Mania and my flatmate ruined it after the first call, maybe we were supposed to know, I can't recall but it seemed bizarre at the time and still does.

                      Watched Felon last night, I enjoyed the movie, worth watching that’s for sure, it's about a successful self employed family man accidentally kills a home intruder and documents what happens after and his battles in the penitentiary system after he pleads guilty to involuntary manslaughter. Features Stephen Dorff and Val Kilmer in a supporting role

                      Watched Love Guru also last night, didn’t do anything for me, Mike Myers is losing his touch, not very funny but others may disagree
                      Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          Evan Almighty.

                          Meh.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                            last movie i watched was vantage point - a film so pointless, ill-conceived, frustrating and overall terrible.
                            i said this a while ago but i do think that the movie is so pointless, ill-conceived, frustrating, and overall terrible that it deserves discussion.

                            the premise of the movie holds up for about the length of the trailer. when shifted to feature-length it completely falls apart quickly.

                            sigourney weaver starts the film off as the producer of a 24hr news network. the symbolism to the rest of the film (albeit fairly obvious) is effective - watching the president shot and the explosion from many feeds in the truck. weaver should be commended - she recites her lines, adds some inflection, but never misrepresents the script/dialogue as actually being good.

                            then rewind 20 minutes. literally. rewind noises and everything. classy.

                            we rewind 20 minutes to see dennis quaid - which most likely means kevin costner was busy. he's a secret service agent who is recovering from taking a bullet for the president -- which more than anything illustrates just how ****ty these people are at their jobs to have an attempt on the President's life then immediately let it happen again. quaid proceeds to pretend to act nervous, let the president get shot and then tackle the first foreign person he sees. the man claims to be a spanish police officer. the secret service believes him to be the assassin because they assume that after shooting the president with a high-powered sniper rifle, the killer would immediately jump out of a third-story window and sprint on stage to make sure he was dead.

                            REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWIND

                            we meet forrest whitaker who is playing an estranged father and creeps everyone out by knocking over the ice cream cone of a young girl and INSISTING on buying another. i imagine this is to illustrate his love for his own estranged children and how he misses them but it just comes off as somewhat pedophilic. mainly what this demonstrates is despite his oscar for idi amin, this is still the man that signed up for travolta's scientology propaganda film.

                            REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWIND

                            ahh hahaha -- now you see the president wasn't shot. it was a stunt-double. the president is safe in a hotel.

                            but wait -- ahh hahaha -- the terrorists KNOW this and PLANNED for this. they killed the stunt-double anyway. then set off the bomb under the stage.

                            quick question: just from a practical standpoint why shoot the president then like 5 minutes later set off a bomb? why create chaos sending the crowd off running THEN blow the place up? it's a little like unloading a 12 gauge into the air to corral everyone in for a group photo.

                            but back to the terrorists real goal: killing everyone and kidnapping the president. the terrorists force a special ops guy into helping them by kidnapping his brother. the special ops guy gets to the president and kills the secret service team with ease - because when hiring security the more inept the better. the ops guy demands that the terrorists release his brother. little does he know that they have already killed his brother, yet another example of the time-honored lesson: never trust a terrorist. besides they needed his special ops skills: wouldn't his time be better spent rescuing his brother from the terrorists' compound instead of killing somewhere near 7000 ridiculously terrible secret service agents, drugging and kidnapping the president? sometimes special ops dude, we bring these things on ourselves.

                            the finer, umm, nuances of the story aren't worth the time so basically what happens is the president is kidnapped and put into an ambulance. the little spanish girl whitaker obesses about looking for her mother after the explosion wanders around the city and decides to look in the middle of a busy street. whitaker himself decided to chase the spanish police officer who escaped that crack secret service team's clutches to chase after his ex-girlfriend (who he discovers is one of the terrorists) and witnesses the officer who is almost run over by cars no less than 50 times ultimately get shot under the bridge. whitaker then sees the little girl in the middle of the street and the speeding ambulance heading towards her. so he tries the rescue the girl. the ambulance tries to swerve to miss the girl in a bizarre attempt to keep these terrorists from being completely one-dimensional (?). the ambulance crashes, whitaker saves the girl and quaid who has been following rescues the president.

                            basically the screenwriter dug himself a hole and in order for an ending to make sense, makes a character act completely outside the realm of logic. in this case it is the spanish girl who decides to look for her mother MILES away from where she last saw her AND in the middle of a busy street. what other illogical and dangerous locations could her mother be hiding at? did she check broken glass avenue or look in used syringe park?

                            also why bother having the terrorists try to avoid hitting the girl? they already set a bomb off where she and her mother had been? they've shown no resistance to killing everyone else in sight. why not just go for gold here? what is stopping them at this point?

                            these characters and their various motivations are so illogical and ridiculous it actually hurts me. never see this movie. never. ever. no.

                            to sum up: vantage point is pointless, ill-conceived, frustrating and overall terrible.
                            Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 09-06-2008, 01:35 PM.
                            This is the darkest timeline.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              That was editing-room-esque, atc. Nicely done.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                Good stuff. I find the following hard to believe, however.

                                Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                                we rewind 20 minutes to see dennis quaid - which most likely means kevin costner was busy.
                                Read my Pacers blog:
                                8points9seconds.com

                                Follow my twitter:

                                @8pts9secs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X