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

"Lost" is a very good show

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

    Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
    All I know is for a freakin' month we had Cindy saying, "We're here to watch." Now, the episode has come and gone, and I still don't know what the hell they were supposed to be watching.
    Kate & Sawyer.

    It's an educational show ...
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

    Comment


    • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

      Originally posted by indytoad View Post
      The most interesting addition was the Sheriff lady, I thought. She's got a good, creepy vibe going.
      She showed up as Desmond's jeweler last week. You KNEW she was going to pop up again.

      Might be the next major character.

      That or she's an unemployed former employee of the US embassy in China.

      As for Locke - it's just about time for someone to go psycho and really screw things up. The problem is, Locke already had his turn in season 1. Last year it was Eko.

      All signs lead to Charlie right now but I don't think it'll be him - too obvious. Plus we need the nutjob to be more formidable. I vote Sayeed (he was all set up to go Rambo on everyone last year) and he and Locke at some point engage in Mortal Kombat.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
        She showed up as Desmond's jeweler last week. You KNEW she was going to pop up again.

        Might be the next major character.

        That or she's an unemployed former employee of the US embassy in China.
        Different people. Check IMDB.

        Comment


        • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

          The producers said that ABC got carried away at promoting the last episode. They said there were really only one and a 1/2 questions that were answered. The Tats, and if the kids were still alive.

          Ya, Cindy and the tailies were there to watch the trial of Juliet. And apparently, the marking they gave her is kinda like what they do in China? It shows you have committed a crime.

          I thought it was interesting that Alex brought up the Eye for Eye thing with Juliet killing Danny. With all the symbols and word in Lost being related to buddism somehow, I thought it was interesting that she brings up the Old Testament(I think?).

          Another thing is, Alex doesn't like to refer to Bed as 'Dad'. And actually wants him dead!

          I read somewhere that when Ben said he was going to let Jack go home, that Ben meant to the other Island back with the other survivors.

          I thought it was a decent episode, a few minor details that you can pick up on, but it was nothing HUGE.

          Anyone else notice in the promo of next weeks episode, that the bus that was being driven had a dharma logo on the front?
          AKA Sactolover05

          Comment


          • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

            Originally posted by Mr. Pink View Post
            I stand corrected. I saw a picture of the guy's red shoes..and it wasn't the dharma logo. it was something else.
            Did it look like this?

            Comment


            • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

              ya, stupid PF Flyers. You know they did that on purpose.
              AKA Sactolover05

              Comment


              • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                It was nice to have the old cast back last night. I actually enjoyed the episode more than I had any in a while.
                Narf!

                Comment


                • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                  When it first started I thought they had preempted Lost with an old episode of Nash Bridges or something...at least until the background music started. I did like the casting choice, though.

                  IndyToad
                  Switching platforms midway

                  Comment


                  • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                    Originally posted by Mr. Pink View Post
                    The producers said that ABC got carried away at promoting the last episode. They said there were really only one and a 1/2 questions that were answered. The Tats, and if the kids were still alive.

                    Ya, Cindy and the tailies were there to watch the trial of Juliet. And apparently, the marking they gave her is kinda like what they do in China? It shows you have committed a crime.

                    I thought it was interesting that Alex brought up the Eye for Eye thing with Juliet killing Danny. With all the symbols and word in Lost being related to buddism somehow, I thought it was interesting that she brings up the Old Testament(I think?).

                    Another thing is, Alex doesn't like to refer to Bed as 'Dad'. And actually wants him dead!

                    I read somewhere that when Ben said he was going to let Jack go home, that Ben meant to the other Island back with the other survivors.

                    I thought it was a decent episode, a few minor details that you can pick up on, but it was nothing HUGE.

                    Anyone else notice in the promo of next weeks episode, that the bus that was being driven had a dharma logo on the front?
                    I still think many of the characters and objects are created by the island from the character's memories, thus the "coincidences". I'm sticking with the Vanilla Sky/Open Your Eyes version of a mental hospital (or alien testing facility to observe human behavior).

                    The show plays up how much each character has SERIOUS hangups, not just being written with depth or something. They go out of the way with the backstories to say that each person is trying to overcome 1 or 2 issues and just by chance they are challenged on those issues by the island.

                    Mental ward, either legit or gone out of control.

                    I was waiting for Hurley to crash in the van once he was able to believe in faith. Obviously though he probably won't die till he realizes the numbers aren't cursed.

                    And the only reason those numbers are on the island is because he brought them there in his memory. I mean the mini-van has an 8 track of the same song that was tied to his memory of his father leaving? Yeah, right.



                    In my opinion of course. I just know that my focus is less on "WTF is going on" and more on "what are the details of each character's hangups". The "facts" can't be trusted at this point. They are being put there artificially.

                    That allows me to enjoy it without being frustrated by the continued process of leaving out actions and comments you would expect, like it has from the start.


                    Hey, at least this time Kate told them details about her experience with the others. By season 1 standards its a freaking breakthrough. Used to be she wouldn't even mention where she's been (she did skip on telling them she was going to find the French lady, though it was obvious to viewers this was her plan). I still hate that part of the writing, there is no reason not to tell them.


                    Anyway if they end it after 5 seasons I think they'll be okay. The ratings drop actually helps protect the integrity of the show by killing off the temptation to continue too far out.

                    Comment


                    • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                      Originally posted by Robobtowncolt View Post
                      It was nice to have the old cast back last night. I actually enjoyed the episode more than I had any in a while.
                      QFT.....
                      PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                      Comment


                      • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        I haven't been talking about it here, but it's really obvious to me that the goal (for whatever reason) is to overcome your serious personal issue/hangup, and then once you do you leave the island by "death".
                        Funny, I think Eko's death was exactly the opposite. He was given a chance to overcome his issues - to repent through confession, and chose not to. Too proud, too certain that his way was right, that he had no sins to confess. In the end, he chose destruction, not salvation. And the "island" took care of the "destruction" part. His brother was his guide back to his "salvation" and he chose not to follow.
                        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: "Lost" is a very good show

                          I just loved the Dharma logo on the front of the bus.

                          Yes, I'm shallow.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                            Sure, I'm finally caught up and NOBODY posts anything after the show.

                            Anyway, I thought last nights was pretty good. There were a few nuggets about the nature of the "others". Some sort of "rebellion" in Dharma or something. I thought it was interesting that the "training tape" on the computer mentioned "hostiles" - so there were other factions on the island 11 years ago? But Dharma's been there at least 16 if Alex is at least that old and she was taken at birth by Dharma. And Julliet's only been on the island for 3, so the whatever was going on had to be up and running then? But the Dharma installations look like they've been abandoned for more than 3 years.

                            Very confusing.
                            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: "Lost" is a very good show

                              Originally posted by Doug View Post
                              Sure, I'm finally caught up and NOBODY posts anything after the show.

                              Anyway, I thought last nights was pretty good. There were a few nuggets about the nature of the "others". Some sort of "rebellion" in Dharma or something. I thought it was interesting that the "training tape" on the computer mentioned "hostiles" - so there were other factions on the island 11 years ago? But Dharma's been there at least 16 if Alex is at least that old and she was taken at birth by Dharma. And Julliet's only been on the island for 3, so the whatever was going on had to be up and running then? But the Dharma installations look like they've been abandoned for more than 3 years.

                              Very confusing.
                              Don't forget Ben said he had been on the island all his life. And what was the date on the orientation film? The Flame video looked like it was filmed around the same time (and it was awfully good quality for that old of a monitor...was kind of an obtuse interface altogether).

                              I also didn't quite get Sayid's flashback. If he did remember torturing the woman, why did he lie about it to her husband? I don't understand what that accomplished.

                              Here's a translation of the Russian dialogue, for anyone interested:

                              Klugh: Mikhail. Mikhail! You know what to do.
                              Mikhail: We still have another way [out].
                              Klugh: We cannot risk it. You know the conditions.
                              Mikhail: There is another way.
                              Klugh: They captured us. We will not let them get into the territory.
                              Klugh: You know what to do. That's an order.
                              Mikhail: We still have another way!
                              Klugh (in English): Just do it, Mikhail.
                              Mikhail: Forgive me. (shoots)

                              And a translation of the manuscript:

                              .. were lost in his country, and they must
                              ...by force and, if necessary, through complete social
                              (break)
                              ...
                              ...in some way pushed away Andrei (underlined). Nadji was not
                              ... Afghan resistance, however he was an excellent
                              ... He was a second cousin of an influential
                              ... who controlled one of the north-western
                              ... specialist, who helped
                              ... mojahedins used against Soviet
                              ... Nadji made up for [lack of] courage with intelligence and
                              ... fundamentalist. As all radicals of that time, Nadji
                              ... his medrese believed that they were holding back the West and...
                              ... preparing the road for Allah, so he could wipe the unbelievers off the face of the earth
                              whereas Andrei thought, that the fall of Afghanistan will become an impulse to...
                              ... [worldwide] social revolution
                              ... 'Pakistanis arrived today', Nadji said in grandiloquent Russian with a strong accent.
                              ... We knew that ISI would be involved in this.
                              ... say this?' Andrei knew that
                              ... 'I thought that you...

                              IndyToad
                              Once more, from the top

                              Comment


                              • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                                Originally posted by indytoad View Post

                                I also didn't quite get Sayid's flashback. If he did remember torturing the woman, why did he lie about it to her husband? I don't understand what that accomplished.
                                The flashbacks were a nice tool the first season for character development - and still good for new characters.

                                Other than that they're worthless - you further develop the character through his or her reactions and responses to current situations - what's going on now. Instead they're using them to waste time which could better be spent advancing the plot.
                                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X