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 TV Show Did You Last Watch

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

  • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

    Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
    Game of Thrones has butchered Stannis. The writers are able to do great things with so many other characters, but they make Stannis look like a jerk and a zealot. He is neither. He just uses Melisandre because her magic works, not because of religious beliefs. The way he acted with Gendry was totally out of character.

    The ending was disappointing because they had other options that they could have used to continue the "what the hell just happened?" season ender they had in the first two seasons. The Arya scene was actually a recreation from the second book, except it was a guard at Harrenhal. I was happy to see Aemon back too.
    I think they have to do that with Stannis especially in season 3 because he didn't have many scenes. They needed to make his threat to Gendry real IMO. I still don't see him as a jerk and a zealot personally, just extremely conflicted. He is like bizarro Ned Stark brutally married to honor and duty. I am the rightful king, but I am also a guy who doesn't inspire much loyalty, he is just cold and distant and I would say that it is true in books and TV if you can get past Davos's love for him in the books.

    And I think the Arya scene was supposed to combine the Harrenhal scene and the book 3 tavern scene, but I suppose the tavern scene could still occur.
    Last edited by Trader Joe; 06-18-2013, 10:06 AM.


    Comment


    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

      Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
      Ugh, Nip/Tuck & True Blood come to mind. Not enough fire in the world to have given those shows the mercy kills they needed after first few seasons.
      I watched the first two seasons of TB, and then pretty much gave up on it in season 3, whenever I see a preview for it now, I am thinking to myself, How the hell did I watch 20+ eps of that?


      Comment


      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

        Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
        Eh, Stannis comes off that way in the books because we are seeing him through Davos' perspective. The show has had him say and do pretty much everything he's said and done in the books. Thing is, other than being the actual rightful heir, he hasn't done anything but flee the capital, lose his big battle, and sit at Dragonstone. They fleshed him out this season by showing Lady Selyse and Shireen.
         
        Plus, I think they're very conscious of making sure no one feels like the obvious choice for who should lead. And despite his loss, he still had many badass moments in the Battle and has kept Ned S-I mean, Ser Davos, as Hand of the King despite multiple mistakes (betrayals). So I'm withholding judgment on Stannis to see how he does next season.
        Agreed, it is important to remember that Davos loves Stannis more than life itself in the books, Stannis is his god, so when read through his perscpective Stannis comes off a little different, but in the end I think he's basically the same dude.


        Comment


        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

          As far as cliffhangers, I mean personally, I think Dany now having thousands of new slaves to feed and care for is pretty big cliffhanger in and of itself. At least with the unsullied when she freed them, they were all warriors. Now she just basically freed a whole city, women, children, elderly, ill, etc. That is pretty freaking important unless they just suddenly act like it never happened next year, possible I guess, but improbable IMO That changes her game and her timeline IMO.


          Comment


          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

            Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
            I'm sure the Internet won't abuse or otherwise overuse this one . . .

            Comment


            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

              So I was just watching an awesome series of videos by 'comicbookgirl19' on YouTube covering a lot of the history of Game of Thrones world/families/characters that DOESN'T talk about story lines to come that have already played out in the books. Well, mostly. Read on for an explanation, though I'll warn of vague spoilers.

              I knew a good chunk of this already because of some well done bonus materials on the blu-ray releases of Season 1 and Season 2.

              However, there were still things I did not know and others that I now have better clarification on.

              I generally highly recommend watching these videos, but a few serious caveats:

              1) They are NOT safe for work. Subject matter and naughty language make these a no-go in a work or school environment.

              2) At least one of the backstories has not been revealed yet on the show (not this part, anyway), so on the one hand it's stuff that happened in the past and in that sense is not a spoiler, on the other hand it involves a prophecy the character was told about them, and if I heard it correctly, it's proven true thus far into the story, therefore what it GOES ON to say about this person's future is PROBABLY a relatively big spoiler, though it's obviously a vague prophecy so while you get the 'what', you're not going to get the context of 'how' and 'why' or 'when'.

              3) Based on all of the history, it leads her to talk about a THEORY amongst the fans of the books that HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED OR REVEALED in the books that are already published. So if the theory is true, it's a pretty big spoiler (not as big as Ned or as big as The Red Wedding, but would be a pretty cool/big revelation/discovery), but if not, then, well, it's not. I will say this. I love this theory, I hope it's true, and you know what, I doubt we're going to know (at least not on TV) for a long, long time yet to come, either way, so I'm not really sweating it. I suppose if nothing else it suggests that a certain someone ISN'T going to die any time soon, though. Anyway, I do love this theory.

              4) Obviously I've been pretty anal about being spoiler-free, and I've tried very hard to not know anything, and I did not dare look down at the YouTube comments while watching these out of that same fear. I didn't know I was going to learn any of these things while watching the videos, so I wasn't seeking this stuff out, either. The backstory prophecy caught me by surprise, but I could have turned it off when they talked about the theory, but I figured "hell, it's not fact, so why not hear it out". And I'm mostly glad I heard it because I like it so much.

              So how do I feel about learning what I've learned? Well . . . it's probably more than I wanted to know, yet it's not NEARLY everything that is to come, because the world is just so big and there are so many characters, and again it's some big 'whats' but doesn't go into 'when' 'why' or too much 'how' (with one exception, though even that's not precise as it sounds at first), so at the same time I only kinda feel spoiled. Basically, it boils down to some big deals involving some of the characters, but even though they're big deals, that cannot be the entire story, or probably even most of the entire story, so I don't feel like I'm truly that spoiled, either. I'm feeling kind of ambivalent about that right now. I am quite confident there's a ton that I don't know, though, so I'm feeling okay overall.

              I will say this, I don't want to learn anything else. This was plenty.

              I think I watched them out of order, but I ran through them like this:

              Lannister history part 1 & 2
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9q4Ht-W164
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLXmhA0jVOI

              Stark history part 1
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hVrlvRXGxg

              Targaryen history (single video)
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnfYj-cHM5c

              Start history part 2
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7yeYWax7EE

              I'd say that's as much spoilage as I am willing to take while still feeling majority-spoiler-free for what is to come. So if you don't think you want to even go that far, stay away, but otherwise, I highly recommend them as they're fascinating and well done.

              I believe she will be producing one about the history of the Baratheons next. Looking forward to it!

              Comment


              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                I've heard many good things about Deadwood over the years.

                But I've never seen a minute of that show because I did not have HBO the years it was around.

                Well, it looks like Amazon has it on sale on blu-ray for a cheap price (for the whole series in one package set), so I'm taking the plunge.

                http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...pf_rd_i=507846

                Retail is $179.99, and while I'm sure it never goes that high in Amazon, I also doubt it's usually 64% off and being sold new for $64.99, either. *edit* Apparently last week Amazon sold it for $113.61. Sweet!

                I'm excited to see what this is about; it reminds me a little bit of how I got into Game of Thrones; I still didn't have HBO when Season 1 came out, but heard people buzzing about it, and one day Amazon had S1 on BD for $19.99 so I took the plunge, and boy am I glad I did!

                Comment


                • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                  Hey Hicks at work so can't watch but is number 3...

                  Spoiler Spoiler:


                  Comment


                  • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    I've heard many good things about Deadwood over the years.

                    But I've never seen a minute of that show because I did not have HBO the years it was around.

                    Well, it looks like Amazon has it on sale on blu-ray for a cheap price (for the whole series in one package set), so I'm taking the plunge.

                    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...pf_rd_i=507846

                    Retail is $179.99, and while I'm sure it never goes that high in Amazon, I also doubt it's usually 64% off and being sold new for $64.99, either. *edit* Apparently last week Amazon sold it for $113.61. Sweet!

                    I'm excited to see what this is about; it reminds me a little bit of how I got into Game of Thrones; I still didn't have HBO when Season 1 came out, but heard people buzzing about it, and one day Amazon had S1 on BD for $19.99 so I took the plunge, and boy am I glad I did!
                    Honestly this is an either or show. In other words your either going to love it or hate it I've never really heard a single person be down the middle of the road about it.

                    Personally I love it, I mean to the tune of it being one of my favorite TV shows of all time in particular that first year. But I know people who just hate it as well.

                    I'll say this though you've never seen another show like it or even close.


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

                    Comment


                    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      Hey Hicks at work so can't watch but is number 3...

                      Spoiler Spoiler:
                      Yes. I love this idea. Not just in and of itself, but
                      Spoiler Spoiler:


                      I took a gamble even clicking on that. What if you had some completely different plot or character you were thinking of?

                      Comment


                      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        Yes.
                        Spoiler Spoiler:


                        Comment


                        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                          I'm assuming you've read the books TJ?
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            I'm assuming you've read the books TJ?
                            I finished book 3 last Friday.


                            Comment


                            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Honestly this is an either or show. In other words your either going to love it or hate it I've never really heard a single person be down the middle of the road about it.

                              Personally I love it, I mean to the tune of it being one of my favorite TV shows of all time in particular that first year. But I know people who just hate it as well.

                              I'll say this though you've never seen another show like it or even close.
                              Very much this. And I think it stems from the characters. You either fall in love/hate with these characters, form bonds, find yourself invested in what they say & do...or you don't. Deadwood has a way of making Mad Men look action-packed. It's the quintessential character drama.

                              One word of note, too: don't be too put off by the dialogue. It seems unnecessarily vulgar, and unnecessarily Shakespearian throughout -- but you get used to it, and at least in my case, you learn to appreciate the beauty of David Milch's writing. There really is a certain poetry to Deadwood, unlike anything else I've ever seen written for TV. It can be a lot to digest on a first sit-through, and when it starts getting into the politics of Yankton etc. I found myself kinda lost, but it's absolutely worth a watch the first time for the characters alone, and in subsequent viewings for more appreciation of them in relation to the dialogue/plot.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Agreed, it is important to remember that Davos loves Stannis more than life itself in the books, Stannis is his god, so when read through his perscpective Stannis comes off a little different, but in the end I think he's basically the same dude.
                                Yup, and I haven't had a chance to look at this specifically because my books are loaned out, but in many of Davos' chapters, he's watching Stannis completely surrounded by Lord of Light fanatics. His wife and bannermen (I'm thinking the Florents) are shrilly screaming about how Stannis is the savior chosen by the One True God. Stannis comes off as honorable and steadfast contrasted with these lunatics, but that's also Davos differentiating everyone else from Stannis. If Selyse and Axel Florent were in the show screaming about how awesome R'hllor is in every scene, Stannis would seem much less devout; though viewers would probably hate his wife more than Joffrey.
                                You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X