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

    Here's my issue with The Walking Dead: it needs a Mount Doom.

    That could have been DC, but we saw that twist with Eugene coming from a mile away. We've gotten to the point, though, in this series, that there just isn't long-term momentum if the driving purpose is just survival, let alone "wandering survival".

    We've tried out the survive-in-a-sanctuary part (the farm, the prison, Woodbury ... thankfully Terminus was short-lived), and we've pretty much run through all the plot tropes on that. We've tried the wander-around-and-survive part, and there's not much to add there. We've tried the separate-the-characters gig, and that felt like even more time was wasted.

    It's not a fault of the writers so much as the inherent difficult in creating meaning in a series where the sole endgame is just surviving that day/night.

    So in the same way LOTR needed Mt Doom to be an endgame, a finish line, somewhere the plot had to end up eventually (thus creating intrigue in how they got there, who they met along the way, the various challenges in the journey), so too does TWD.

    Comment


    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      Dear Walking Dead,
      Please kill the baby off.
      -------

      As with most shows, the baby becomes a plot anchor. Just as in last night, you have two main characters separated from the rest mainly because of the baby. Common sense tells you that the group could've used their help, but instead 2 main characters have to hang back with the baby. Then you have a scene with Carl who has the baby in the 'baby backpack' and it's clearly a fake prop baby. Just one more reason to write the baby out of the show. I don't care how they do it... leave it with someone (Could've left it with Beth at the Atlanta hospital but that ship has sailed), let a Walker get it.... Or force Rick to kill it himself to silence it to save the group. Or take it upstairs to put it to bed and just never mention it again like a soap opera or Ritchie Cunningham's brother.

      Just get rid of the baby...
      Read how the shows writers thought it would be too heartless (I forget the term they used, but that's close enough) to kill off a newborn. In the graphic novel, Judith dies with Lori.

      Why in the hell would you leave Michonne with Carl/Judith when Tyrese has been doing nothing but wallowing in self-pity for the past 10 episodes? If you're in a group fighting to get your own back, do you take the bad-*** that never hesitates or do you take the guy who's in the middle of a breakdown trying to figure out his feelings?

      Spoiler Spoiler:
      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 Dr. Hibbert View Post
        Here's my issue with The Walking Dead: it needs a Mount Doom.

        That could have been DC, but we saw that twist with Eugene coming from a mile away. We've gotten to the point, though, in this series, that there just isn't long-term momentum if the driving purpose is just survival, let alone "wandering survival".

        We've tried out the survive-in-a-sanctuary part (the farm, the prison, Woodbury ... thankfully Terminus was short-lived), and we've pretty much run through all the plot tropes on that. We've tried the wander-around-and-survive part, and there's not much to add there. We've tried the separate-the-characters gig, and that felt like even more time was wasted.

        It's not a fault of the writers so much as the inherent difficult in creating meaning in a series where the sole endgame is just surviving that day/night.

        So in the same way LOTR needed Mt Doom to be an endgame, a finish line, somewhere the plot had to end up eventually (thus creating intrigue in how they got there, who they met along the way, the various challenges in the journey), so too does TWD.
        Ya I think/hope that is how the next season begins. At least I'm trying to give the writers enough credit, and assume they know that there needs to be a point, a goal, like you said. They haven't even left the greater Atlanta area yet, so I think it'd be nice if they actually went somewhere.

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Why in the hell would you leave Michonne with Carl/Judith when Tyrese has been doing nothing but wallowing in self-pity for the past 10 episodes? If you're in a group fighting to get your own back, do you take the bad-*** that never hesitates or do you take the guy who's in the middle of a breakdown trying to figure out his feelings?

        Spoiler Spoiler:
        I think Tyrese is capable if need be, and I think Sasha needed him. As we saw before, you also cannot afford to leave Tyrese with your child, and Michonne and Carl have obviously bonded. In regards to the spoiler I agree. The scene was impactful when I watched, but then I wondered where that emotion had been all season.
        Last edited by ECKrueger; 12-02-2014, 07:49 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

          Find a settlement, dump the baby and Tyreese there. The baby's a baby, that's dead weight but you can't kill a baby on a show this popular (or...you can ONLY kill a baby on a show this popular...). Tyreese serves no purpose other than exposition, which is the preacher's purpose the rest of the way most likely, and wasting Sasha's time. Dump Eugene there too since they dropped that bomb pretty quick, surprisingly.

          This last half season cleared the low bar of being the best season in a good long while, but the fetch quests are getting long in the tooth. NO SPOILERS, seriously, but I'll be interested if they follow the same route the comics have taken more recently to get outta the repetitive rut in the sixth season. AMC's got the last half season of Mad Men, the Better Call Saul spinoff which who knows if it'll be worth a damn, and then the Walking Dead juggernaut. They're gonna ride it til the wheels fall off. They need something other than wandering around SEC country. Hell, head to Big Ten country and have them run into de facto white walkers in Michigan jerseys, those robust midwestern folk that can handle the cold despite having no blood pumping through them.

          Comment


          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

            That's the problem with writing a baby into a show, especially one like this, how do you get rid of it when it becomes a plot anchor? And you knew it was going to happen that it would become a problem eventually. Whatever emotional payoff the baby made early on is now long gone. It should've happened a long time ago IMHO and it's already causing viewers to need to suspend a little more belief (when that's already a pretty tall order) than they should have to. Things like the baby not crying when you know normally the baby would be a freaking walker calling siren. Except the one time when they used it as a plot point... And now we're seeing "We need to go whoop some a$$!..." "Not me, it's my turn to watch the baby so I'll just hang back with a couple of people you could probably use for your a$$-whooping adventure!". That gets old. Quick.

            They should've just let the baby die during birth. Give Rick his emotional scene when he learns what happened, let him have even more of a reason to crack, and then we move on. But now, at some point, they are gonna have to kill the baby outright. Or dump it somewhere. And therein lies another plot issue... If the place is good enough to leave the baby, then why aren't they all staying there? About the only thing I could envision is for them to find a settlement (for once) where there's no madman leader. Where it really is what it seems. Secure. Good people. Strong societal nature. Then let Rick come in with his twisted mindset of not trusting anyone, jump to some conclusion, actually be the trouble-maker, and get himself exiled.... Let him have his moment of understanding where he sees he focked up and yet understands that he can no longer stay at this place because of what he's done. But he realizes it's good for the baby and the others. Let the others decide they will follow Rick if they want... And let Rick make the sacrifice to leave the baby where he knows it'll be safe (or safer than with him and his group, plus safer for his group if they don't have a plot anchor to drag around).

            Whatever... kill the baby...
            Get rid of the baby...
            Make it happen TWD!!

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

            ------

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

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

              While I don't care for the baby, I don't care if it lives either. Basically just takes a couple characters largely out of the plot (i.e. Michonne and Carl). There would likely be a couple people hanging back anyway. If they just mostly cut out the people staying with the baby I'd be okay.

              Comment


              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                I thought it was odd the baby survived because in the book it's completely different, then from the show perspective I figured they thought the baby was maybe a sign of hope but it's really become a burden and can see why it was written with the baby not surviving

                Comment


                • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                  Originally posted by ThA HoyA View Post
                  I thought it was odd the baby survived because in the book it's completely different, then from the show perspective I figured they thought the baby was maybe a sign of hope but it's really become a burden and can see why it was written with the baby not surviving
                  This is how I see it too...

                  The baby might've worked as a sign of hope if the show had an endgame and was nearing that end. But there's no way the baby is anything but a logistical burden at this point on both sides of the camera IMHO. Too much ground to be traveled with that baby nothing but a burden.
                  Last edited by Bball; 12-04-2014, 01:46 AM.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

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

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                    In the church Rick was sold a future with Judith having a normal future.
                    Spoiler Spoiler:

                    Comment


                    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      This is how I see it too...

                      The baby might've worked as a sign of hope if the show had an endgame and was nearing that end. But there's no way the baby is anything but a logistical burden at this point on both sides of the camera IMHO. Too much ground to be traveled with that baby nothing but a burden.
                      I'm not trying to argue that I want the baby to stay alive, but I do think there can be some uses for her.

                      She can give some insight to newcomers, or opposing groups. How they react or deal with the child can tell you a little about their mindset possibly. For example the guy with Tyrese threating to kill her.

                      I don't know how they could use this, but it can also show that there is more to the world than simply death, survival, and destruction. People may be hurt over losing poeple or just overwhelmed, but the baby could be something bigger than themselves. Again, I am not sure what benefit they could get from that, but there could be some point to keeping a baby around.

                      Oh, and also, Rick, Daryl, and Michonne are such badasses that they need Judith dragging them down or it wouldn't be fair to the walkers.
                      Last edited by ECKrueger; 12-04-2014, 11:31 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                        The Flash just keeps getting better and better. The crossover episodes with Arrow were great.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                          So why didn't Michonne just start sticking those walkers through the large crack in the door, seems like this group should be adept at head stabbing, they did it for months at the prison.

                          Spoiler Spoiler:
                          Last edited by graphic-er; 12-08-2014, 04:35 PM.
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                            Im sure a lot of people already saw it but damn, spoiler tag that.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                              Watched The Newsroom last night. My wife and I were just completely gut punched in the final minute there. Can't believe next week is the final episode. Pisses me off. HBO will keep around stupid shows for 5-6 seasons and yet gem like this one gets continual budget cuts and basically forced into retirement.

                              Spoiler Spoiler:
                              Last edited by graphic-er; 12-08-2014, 04:52 PM.
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                                SUCH SYMBOLOGY IN SONS OF ANARCHY MERCIFULLY ENDING

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X