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

    It would be funny of they shot alternate endings/storylines and then purposedly leaked those episodes...
    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

      Originally posted by LG33 View Post
      Anyone else here watching Fox's The Last Man on Earth? I'll watch anything Forte does.
      Not sure if I like it or hate it, but I keep watching.
      "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

      Comment


      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

        Letterman interview talking about the final shows and his career:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/ar...sion.html?_r=0

        Snippets below:

        Did you have any involvement in choosing Stephen Colbert as your successor?

        No. Not my show. When we sign off, we’re out of business with CBS. I always thought Jon Stewart would have been a good choice. And then Stephen. And then I thought, well, maybe this will be a good opportunity to put a black person on, and it would be a good opportunity to put a woman on. Because there are certainly a lot of very funny women that have television shows everywhere. So that would have made sense to me as well.

        But you were not consulted?

        [shakes head no] Mm-mmm.

        Did that bother you?

        Yeah, I guess so. Just as a courtesy, maybe somebody would say: “You know, we’re kicking around some names. Do you have any thoughts here?” But it doesn’t bother me now. At the time, I had made the decision [to leave] and I thought, O.K., this is what comes when you make this decision.
        When you moved to CBS, so much was made of your rivalry with Jay Leno. In retrospect, do you feel like this was overblown?

        No, I don’t think so. It would have happened if I’d have gotten the “Tonight” show, and he would have come here. I think people are curious to see, well, what will happen? And we prevailed for a while, and then I lost my way a little bit. Quite a little bit. And at that point, there was not much I could do about it. People just liked watching his show more than they liked watching my show.

        You feel that something, philosophically, at your show, caused this viewership shift?

        Yeah. And it’s just my judgment. Before, I felt pretty confident in what we were up to, because there was no competition to speak of, whatsoever. In the beginning [at CBS], we came out of the chute, going a million miles an hour. And then when that was all done, we just sort of said, “Really, can we go a million miles an hour again?” And we tried, and we couldn’t. I think we had gone way down the road, maybe way down the wrong road.


        How did you get back on the right track?

        I don’t know that we ever did get back the right way. It didn’t start to settle down until it couldn’t be more clear that Jay was the more popular show. And when we all realized that there’s not much we can do here — you can’t put toothpaste back in the tube — then we started going our own way again. I think it was just inevitability. The guy in the race who spends more time looking over his shoulder, well, that’s the mistake. For two years, I made that mistake. We ran out of steam.
        Some interesting comments by Letterman. Long interview. I would've liked to have seen some things elaborated on more. I don't think it's explained well what he means about what he did wrong that then required him to put the toothpaste back in the tube. What did he do to initially beat, but then lose to the Tonight Show? It he saying they played it conservatively? They didn't play it conservatively? Not enough consistency? Too much consistency and things grew stale? It's interesting to hear him think he and the show did something wrong, but it would be more interesting to know what that something was. (And he's talking about the early days of the CBS show, not later when IMHO he grew too one sided politically, and when he practically just phoned the show in... I would've liked to have heard this addressed although I'm not sure how the interviewer could've tactfully opened that door... IMHO)..

        The interview does seem to give some credence to the idea that once Leno topped him, and topped him for good, and then he knew for certain he was never going to host The Tonight Show, nor could he beat it, it finally took some wind out of his sails.
        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

          So, I love this season of GoT so far. LOVE it. As a book-reader, it's a thrill to see something new and surprising now, and some of the changes (Sansa) make a lot more sense to me than the book version. I've been shocked how much I've enjoyed this season so far.

          But last night ... the whole introduction of the Sand Snakes? Man, that was pretty cringe-inducing. Everything about it. It was like Disney cartoon villains suddenly landed in the middle of Game of Thrones. The accents, the dialogue, the heavy-handed exposition, and really just the direct contrast to Oberyn clearly saying "we don't hurt little girls in Dorne" ... it was pretty much the only moment to really pull me out of the story this season.

          Comment


          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

            I like some of the changes, like Sansa that you mentioned, but not sure about Tyrion's storyline. They're missing some important character introductions.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

              HOLY GOTHAM SEASON FINALE
              "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

              "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

              Comment


              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                Bates Motel has been totally awesome in season 3. Only two more episodes left this season. Started watching Secrets and Lies and other than not believing Juliette Lewis as a Police detective, it's not too bad so far.

                Comment


                • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                  Almost caught up with Arrow and Flash. Just 1 episode behind now. Both shows are rocking in!
                  First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                  Comment


                  • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                    Letterman special last night. Damn Letterman use to be interesting and funny.
                    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                    Comment


                    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                      Originally posted by RWB View Post
                      Letterman special last night. Damn Letterman use to be interesting and funny.

                      I was glued in the 80's, but haven't watched him in a long time. I wonder if he started mailing it in after he didn't get the Tonight Show gig?

                      Comment


                      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                        Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                        I was glued in the 80's, but haven't watched him in a long time. I wonder if he started mailing it in after he didn't get the Tonight Show gig?
                        I'm not sure when he started phoning it in, but at some point he surely did. Read the article I linked to a few posts back to the Letterman interview.

                        I don't think he started mailing it in immediately after not getting the Tonight Show gig. I think he was pretty fueled and on top of the world for a while as he became a hot commodity and in demand by the other networks to go up against the Tonight Show. I think he was pumped to show them they made a mistake and unseat the Tonight Show. Even NBC was having second thoughts about their decision to go with Leno... or so the story goes.

                        Letterman says they did great out of the gate (which is true) but then he acknowledges there was some kind of misstep on their part and they could never get it back. I'm of the mind that somewhere in the 'never could get it back' part is where he started fading because that is when both the dream of hosting the Tonight Show and the subsequent dream of beating the Tonight Show both died. And he just seemed to start mailing it in AND got extra politically one-sided to the point of reaching for jokes in insulting ways.

                        I think The Late Show was fine for several years. I don't really know when I noticed the decline and lost interest. I sort of wonder if it was around the time of Leno's first departure and subsequent return. Because that could've been the opening for Dave to regain supremacy... but it didn't happen. And Leno returned without missing a beat. So maybe that is really when it set in to Dave that even with an opening to regain viewers, overtaking the TS still wasn't going to happen. But part of me thinks Letterman was sliding before all of that. And maybe that slide is why he wasn't able to capitalize on that opening.

                        But I say all of that to say this.... Because of that slide a lot of people forget just how good Letterman was. I think once his show is off the air we're all going to realize what Dave brought to late night. He was Johnny's chosen successor. He was clearly the heir apparent. And then NBC decided to upset the apple cart, leave Dave on Late Night, and move Leno from guest host to permanent host. Dave had other ideas.

                        Nobody had truly mounted a successful challenge to the Tonight Show on the other networks. Arsenio came closest. In fact, before Arsenio the networks thought the Tonight Show's supremacy might be impossible to top so they simply counter programmed it with programming 180deg opposite, or so cheap that they didn't have to win the slot to make money. Everything else failed. CBS had failed mightily before with Pat Sajak being their last attempt at a late night talker to go against the Tonight Show.

                        So Letterman at least was able to split the audience and finally prove that it was possible to go directly head to head with the Tonight Show. Even, for a while, beating it.

                        TV is going to miss David Letterman. Unfortunately, it was already missing him because Dave Letterman hadn't really been that David Letterman for a few years now.
                        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

                          Speaking of late night TV....

                          Fallon and Jack Black totally copping Extreme's "More than Words" video.... LOL

                          https://youtu.be/1ISYT6EeUM0
                          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

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            Speaking of late night TV....

                            Fallon and Jack Black totally copping Extreme's "More than Words" video.... LOL

                            https://youtu.be/1ISYT6EeUM0
                            Really good and Fallon is a really talented guy, but.......... my problem with Fallon and the current version of TS is they're trying so hard to be Saturday Night Live lite at times.
                            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                            Comment


                            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                              Penny Dreadful is back for season 2. I still see this show as a beautiful mess. It's gorgeously shot and surprisingly more intelligent than you think it should be when the camp elements start lining up, but the plot is often a mess and there doesn't ever seem to be much of a connection between characters other than the Scooby Doo monster-hunting expedition of the week.

                              But anything Rory Kinnear does on this show is worth it alone. And I'm consistently engaged by this show despite its weaker elements.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                                Can't get enough Agents of Shield. Ever since Winter Soldier they've been excellent at keeping things fresh using the movies as a slingshot. Last night finally transitioned away from the Hydra storyline to Inhumans. Looking forward to where things are at when season 2 ends next week.

                                Also, I appreciate this show's unpredictability. Every time you think you have a new character figured out...you realize you were totally wrong.
                                Last edited by Kstat; 05-06-2015, 12:15 PM.

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X