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?

    Burn After Reading

    Not what we expected, but good none the less. The events are to the extreme, but it reflected life in the whole concept.

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Outlander

      All i could think about while watching this movie was the South Park episode where the kids get rid of their parents by saying their parents molested them. And through all the chaos Cartman ends up yelling "Outlander, Outlander" multiple times so I just kept repeating the title in my head in Cartman's voice.

      But the movie it self I did not like. Some very terrible acting, terrible story, terrible job at making me think it took place in 706A.D. what with the language and way they talked. Just a big ****ing waste of my time.

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        Frost/Nixon

        Now I am not one who usually enjoys a political movie but this movie was excellent. I now understand why it received the nominations it did. Being Canadian I had no idea about Watergate and what it was all about. It was cool to learn something and learn it from a movie that was worth watching. I highly recommend this one.

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Ratatouille- I finally got to see it, and I loved it. Well done Pixar
          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            Pride and Glory

            What a nothing movie. Nothing new to add to the cop genre of movies. Poorly acted outside of Edward Norton and just a stupid story. A total waste of my time. If you have seen a cop movie before don't bother watching this unless you are a die hard fan of one of the actors. Stories were told that didn't need to be, overacting throughout, unbelievable characters, poor make-up effects and just not directed or shot very well.

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Sharkwater

              Please watch it.

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                Human Highway

                Neil Young, Devo, Dennis Hopper, Russ Tamblyn, Dean Stockwell, radioactive waste - they sure don't make 'em like this anymore.

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Taken

                  Good show. Always like Liam Neeson though I think there was time enough for a little more investigative depth to be worked in. And they may have overdone the odd shutter speed thing a little.
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    Miracle at St. Anna - it was frustrating because parts were good, but overall it was very disjointed - seemed almost 2 or 3 movies were pasted together into one movie. There were some very good exciting and heartwarming moments, followed by scenes that makes you just want to scratch your head.

                    W - It was OK - Josh Brolin as W was excellent. Surprised Rice didn't sue for defammation and the same with Dick Cheney. I have no idea how accurate the movie is seems to be inaccurate in pretty much all the current day stuff. Overall though I was rather bored
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-09-2009, 10:21 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      New in Town: My wife drug me off to see this. If you've ever watched one of those ABC family channel christmas movies (God love you if you have not btw) where big city girl goes home for christmas, initially hates the hicks but then falls in love with the burly local stud (who later turns out to be a college educated person who chose a simplier life style) and decides to stay there then you have already seen this movie.

                      Honestly it had a few funny moments but overall it was a sappy snooze fest.

                      Now on another level it reminded me of how people on the coast view mid western people. This was based in MN however it could have been any any state from OH to CO. It's always great when people paint other people with a broad paint brush.


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

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Miracle at St. Anna - it was frustrating because parts were good, but overall it was very disjointed - seemed almost 2 or 3 movies were pasted together into one movie. There were some very good exciting and heartwarming moments, followed by scenes that makes you just want to scratch your head.

                        W - It was OK - Josh Brolin as W was excellent. Surprised Rice didn't sue for defammation and the same with Dick Cheney. I have no idea how accurate the movie is seems to be inaccurate in pretty much all the current day stuff. Overall though I was rather bored
                        I don't mean to turn this political, but I thought Cheney was pretty well portrayed, for a movie. Seems pretty accurate from what I've heard from people "in the know" in the Bush White House. I think we're going to be shocked decades from know when the Bush records get declassified at just how big Cheney's role was. That's it for the political here.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                          I don't mean to turn this political, but I thought Cheney was pretty well portrayed, for a movie. Seems pretty accurate from what I've heard from people "in the know" in the Bush White House. I think we're going to be shocked decades from know when the Bush records get declassified at just how big Cheney's role was. That's it for the political here.
                          Cheney - big role - yes, sinister and menacing as he was in the movie - no .

                          I do wonder what Stone's source materal was on the several high level meetings that were portrayed in the movie. Overall I thought the movie offered no real insight into Bush or his presidency

                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Zack and Miri x3

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                              Miracle at St. Anna ... C+
                              i really wanted to like this film. i did. but i couldn't. there are lots of great moments, but the film is infuriatingly unfocused. too much time is spent on characters that really mean very little (or in the case of john leguizamo absolutely nothing) to the story. i give it a C+ because despite the problems, Spike clearly had a vision and a story that he wanted told on his terms - and he did that, clearly without the interference of an editor.
                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Miracle at St. Anna - it was frustrating because parts were good, but overall it was very disjointed - seemed almost 2 or 3 movies were pasted together into one movie. There were some very good exciting and heartwarming moments, followed by scenes that makes you just want to scratch your head.
                              after reading your review i went back to remember what i had posted. looks like we came out of it on the same page.

                              Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                              W. ... C-
                              really didn't enjoy this. it just felt slapped together - a series of stories scattered like buckshot without bothering to find a solid narrative. it plays like a cliff's notes re-enactment of a bob woodward book / maureen dowd column hybrid. i was disappointed because there are a handful of great stories for films about this man: his administration, the Iraq war, the Bush family complex, etc. stone chooses to use the daddy/jeb inferiority but only superficially - he never fully commits to telling that story just has james cromwell keep saying "i'm disappointed, junior." performances were equally mixed. brolin gave a great performance. i enjoyed dreyfuss also. the rest were just caricatures (especially condi). as for the timing question:

                              i don't mind the way stone ends the movie: an open-ended question about where W. stands in the history books, especially considering the number of times W. himself has used "history will tell" as justification for a variety of decisions. that being said, i do think a significantly stronger movie could (and probably will) be made years from now.
                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              W - It was OK - Josh Brolin as W was excellent. Surprised Rice didn't sue for defammation and the same with Dick Cheney. I have no idea how accurate the movie is seems to be inaccurate in pretty much all the current day stuff. Overall though I was rather bored
                              we seem to agree overall that it wasn't a good film but our reasons seem to differ.

                              also, a defamation lawsuit would require cheney and rice to prove that A) they suffered hatred or financial loss as a direct result of this film and B) they'd have to prove the people involved with the film were reckless with the truth in their portrayal of public figures (like tabloids often get sued by celebs). both are laughable considering, as you say later, this movie doesn't cover any new ground.

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              I do wonder what Stone's source materal was on the several high level meetings that were portrayed in the movie.
                              ask and the google will provide... from Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily

                              How accurate is the movie about George W Bush's life and presidency?
                              Stone is telling the press that Stanley Weiser's script based the movie primarily on materials in the public domain. But that only means that Stone, who's notoriously cavalier about using exclusively reported material from books and then claiming it's all public domain, didn't bother to buy the movie rights from any of the non-fiction authors (which would have been the incredibly expensive but also legally proper thing to do). Production insiders tell me that the key sources for the screenplay and film were all these books: Plan of Attack, Bush at War, and State of Denial by Washington Post investigative journalist Bob Woodward; The Price of Loyalty and The One Percent Doctrine by the former senior national affairs writer for the Wall Street Journal, Ron Suskind; The Family: The Real Story Of The Bush Dynasty by the queen of the unauthorized celebrity biography Kitty Kelley; Fortunate Son by paroled felon J.H. Hatfield (the book was eventually recalled by its first publisher and the author committed suicide); The Faith of George W. Bush by former Washington Post feature writer and biographer Stephen Mansfield; Oil, Power and Empire by the long-time correspondent for the Revolutionary Worker communist newspaper Larry Everest; First Son by Texas journalist and University Of Texas journalism professor Bill Minutaglio; A Charge to Keep written under George W. Bush's name by ghostwriter Michael Herskowitz; State of War by New York Times intelligence beat reporter James Risen; Hubris by liberal The Nation columnist David Corn and Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff; and The Greatest Story Ever Sold by New York Times liberal columnist Frank Rich.
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                                I don't mean to turn this political, but I thought Cheney was pretty well portrayed, for a movie. Seems pretty accurate from what I've heard from people "in the know" in the Bush White House. I think we're going to be shocked decades from know when the Bush records get declassified at just how big Cheney's role was. That's it for the political here.
                                Without getting political, Angler, the Barton Gellmann book has some really interesting insight into Cheney's VP.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X