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

    I'm not really sure how they plan to make multiple seasons of it but the new Fargo series started off pretty damn strongly

    Comment


    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

      Bates Motel is still awesome as usual. It has compensated for the fact that Lost is no longer on the air.

      Comment


      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

        Originally posted by presto123 View Post
        Bates Motel is still awesome as usual. It has compensated for the fact that Lost is no longer on the air.
        Yes, it was very good again this week. I'm not sure how any of them will survive the rest of the season though.

        We watched the latest Resurrection last night. Like the pace of the show, but as mentioned before, the preacher's wife character seems as self centered as the busy body who divided the church. I'm not getting ho she has no empathy for what her husband is going through. She acts like she found out he has been cheating on her for months instead of the ex? fiance having returned from the dead a few days before. Now as i think about that, maybe he has since he never told her about the ex and probably has been i his mind. Crazy weird show. Hope it gets renewed.

        Comment


        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          I'm not really sure how they plan to make multiple seasons of it but the new Fargo series started off pretty damn strongly
          It was intended to be a limited series...a one-off 10 episode event series (if ratings blow) but the door is left open for future seasons. Sounds like if there would be multiple seasons it would be in the the American Horror Story / True Detective anthology model.
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment


          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

            So, apparently there is an alternate ending to HIMYM that is going to be included in the DVD set.

            Comment


            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Has anyone watched that Resurrection show on ABC?
              I watched it for a little bit but got bored and turned it off.

              Comment


              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                I'm not really sure how they plan to make multiple seasons of it but the new Fargo series started off pretty damn strongly
                Fully agree. I liked the film, didn't love it, so I didn't expect to really feel one way or the other by this. But I thought it was one of the strongest pilots I've seen in recent memory. Love the cast and writing. It's not perfect (it's supposed to be for comedic effect anyway) but I'm shocked Freeman can pull off that Dakota accent as well as he can.

                Comment


                • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  So, apparently there is an alternate ending to HIMYM that is going to be included in the DVD set.
                  So, they took a page from Bioware after the Mass Effect debacle. The difference of course, is that the new ending for Mass Effect was a free download, where here they expect you to pay $200+ for the full series box set. I'm sure it'll end up on YouTube, but that's still pretty ridiculous.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                    Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                    So, they took a page from Bioware after the Mass Effect debacle. The difference of course, is that the new ending for Mass Effect was a free download, where here they expect you to pay $200+ for the full series box set. I'm sure it'll end up on YouTube, but that's still pretty ridiculous.
                    Oh, I won't buy it. But I will get it.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                      So, they took a page from Bioware after the Mass Effect debacle. The difference of course, is that the new ending for Mass Effect was a free download, where here they expect you to pay $200+ for the full series box set. I'm sure it'll end up on YouTube, but that's still pretty ridiculous.
                      I will just wait till it leaks to check it out. I would like to see what they did, but no way am I buying the box set just to see it.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                        I wanted AMC's Turn to be really good. Like Patriot with Mel Gibson good. But so far it is too hard to follow and really slow.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                          Curious to get thoughts on that controversial scene from GoT last night.

                          I just think it's honestly a drop in the bucket in terms of my larger complaint with the series, which is that the sexposition has spiraled out of control. I totally get sexposition in the first season. They were trying to claim a demographic, convince them it wasn't just Lord of the Rings, etc. I get it. It's not pretty, but it's effective, so I get it.

                          By season four, do we really still need the countless unnecessary brothel monologues? If you weren't already watching before S4, you weren't gonna watch. They're not working to draw curious channel-flippers into the fold now. It's an encyclopedia of sorts at this point, and either you're invested or you aren't. Frankly, when something is this dense, I just HATE it when they waste time. Hate it with a passion. And over the series' run, you probably could have fit another 1-2 episodes in all the time the sexposition takes up.

                          Hey, I'm a guy in my mid-20s. I get the appeal of nudity. But porn exists for a reason. With something as epic and dense as GoT, I want story and character-building, not sexposition which only serves to distract from any point.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                            I'm a show apologist, so I'll get that out right there. However, I don't think the show has done more than two or three "sexposition" scenes over the course of the show. Just because there's a scene where sex happens doesn't mean that there's sexposition. Sex is a part of the world and it can be vital to particular characters. IMO there were no sexposition scenes in yesterday's episode.

                            I didn't think the controversial scene in question worked exactly by itself, but I think it worked really well for the episode. Which was kind of a slap in the face to the audience that reminded us, oh yeah, these people do a lot of bad things...and get rewarded for it. Most of the scenes featured someone we've grown sympathetic towards or even outright rooted for do something terrible. To me, that's the essence of GoT.

                            I'm not surprised at the Internet's reaction to the Sept scene, and I think it could have been done better, especially the sound editing. But the hypocrisy of the book readers continues to drive me crazy. I really hate that I've read the books because of these people. Last episode, everyone was so happy and soooooo righteous. And now, there's a slight (if we're being honest) change from the book and a chance to yell, "Rape!", and be super righteous about how in touch they are. The difference in reaction between two horrific things happening in the same show to similar characters is very much in tune with the Internet, and that predictability has been a bummer since last night.
                            You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                            Comment


                            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                              Btw, Mad Men was amazing last night, as was Orphan Black on Saturday. With Veep also being on Sundays, I'm not sure there is a better collection of shows in such a short timespan.
                              You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                              Comment


                              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                                All caught up on Agents of Shield. We saw Cap 2 this past weekend which allowed us to get up to speed. Not sure where the series will go from here, but the twist has made it interesting for now. Love how they tied the movie in.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X