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 Bball View Post
    Gus is definitely coming back. The first letter of the show's titles formed an anagram that said "Fring(')s Back"

    I have a feeling they are setting up things so that Jimmy, trying to do the right thing (in his mind) is going to be trumped by Chuck, which will cost Kim her reputation if not law license. Which will cost Jimmy the girl... And lead us to Saul.

    But this show, just like BB, manages to do things that you don't see coming, but when it happens makes all the sense in the world.

    And it's funny how Chuck is really doing the 'right' things, but is coming off as the bad guy while Jimmy is doing the wrong things, but coming off as the good guy. That's partly the quality of the writing, and partly the quality of the acting.

    Of course there's the undercurrent if Chuck would just be a decent brother and feel good for Jimmy, stop the rivalry that is mostly on him, then Jimmy wouldn't be doing 'bad' things in the first place. And again, they are both playing it perfectly.


    And as I said above.... the show is shot brilliantly. There are times I just get lost in the framing of a scene and the use of light. You don't hardly see this quality of direction and production work in movies, let alone a cable TV show.
    Completely agree. I love how is just a big gray area between Chuck and Jimmy. Yes, technically Chuck is doing the right thing because Jimmy did commit fraud, but his motiviation is not to protect the law. It is solely to bring down Jimmy because he is jealous of him. It is all because of sibling rivalry and not to do the right thing. Jimmy thinks he is doing the right thing because Chuck is punishing Kim because of his anger towards Jimmy.

    This show was such a slow burn this season, but I loved it.

    Comment


    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I have a feeling they are setting up things so that Jimmy, trying to do the right thing (in his mind) is going to be trumped by Chuck, which will cost Kim her reputation if not law license. Which will cost Jimmy the girl... And lead us to Saul.

      But this show, just like BB, manages to do things that you don't see coming, but when it happens makes all the sense in the world.
      I think the that may be the original intent from the writers but she is so good in this role that I suspect her story arc and air time may track really similar to what happened with Hank in BB.

      Comment


      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

        I'm terrified of whatever happens to Kim. The character's great, Rhea Seehorn is great, and somewhere along the line she goes away and that's going to be an awful episode. I mean, it'll probably be a great episode, but you know what I'm saying.

        Comment


        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          But it's basically a blander version of TWD.
          TOTALLY agree with this (abbreviated for your best point, but agree on all points).

          I mean, I still watch because I usually have an hour to kill on Tuesday evenings while I'm eating dinner or something. But yeesh, this show is pretty bad. It occurred to me last night: there is not a single character I care about in any fashion at this point. Like, by 3-4 episodes into TWD, I was invested in Rick's character at least, and others were starting to grow on me. But a season and change into FTWD ... nope, I just don't care about any of these people.

          Consequentially, it also occurred to me that the reason TWD doesn't kill off anyone ever (or maybe does, in a totally obnoxious and cynical fashion, in a finale...) is that AMC is terrified of isolating fans of certain characters. Like, for all of TWD's many flaws in logic, pacing, overall story arc, writing etc. (and there are MANY flaws), at least they have dynamic characters to play with, characters who would genuinely upset an audience if they were killed off.

          FTWD is, by comparison, a total sandbox then. Nobody cares about any of these characters. So they could actually kill any of them off, suddenly and shockingly, if they really wanted to, and they wouldn't really risk isolating anyone.

          Now, does FTWD actually do anything with that freedom? No. A million people survive a million close encounters. Just like TWD...

          Comment


          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

            As someone who has only seen the first season of TWD, is it worth going any further?

            Comment


            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

              Originally posted by Shade View Post
              As someone who has only seen the first season of TWD, is it worth going any further?
              No. Unless you like the same badly written circular story arc, then TWD is the perfect show.
              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 Shade View Post
                As someone who has only seen the first season of TWD, is it worth going any further?
                I think it is, I really like it. In my top 5 series of all time.

                I think it's well written for the most part, with good acting. It can be picked to death. There may be no end game, but with the ratings it gets why would they have one.
                "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                Comment


                • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  As someone who has only seen the first season of TWD, is it worth going any further?
                  Yes. No. Maybe.

                  First off, the show went thru a metamorphosis. If you liked S1 then you'll be fine continuing on with the series but understand that S2 and S3 will be a bit disjointed. But, since you stopped watching after S1 then maybe you didn't like the show in the first place and I'm not sure as it gets to the other side of the transformation you'd like it any better.
                  Basically, S1 is Frank Darabont's reimagining of TWD comics. He had no intention of sticking close to the source material. And eventually that led to issues. Kirkman (comic creator) didn't really like what Darabont was doing. And apparently AMC had some budget concerns. This all led to a S2 that was scaled back and ultimately a different show runner. With Kirkman getting more input into the show.
                  And ultimately even a different show runner again at some point in there before or around S4.
                  So, some of the knocks on the writing and continuity error complaints are because some of the things Darabont introduced like smarter/faster zombies were done away with in subsequent seasons. The show began to track more with the comics.
                  And ultimately, the zombies aren't supposed to be the real threats anyway. It's other people. It's about who you can trust and not trust.

                  They also picked up the pacing of the show. Whereas S1 was building and S2 was probably slowed by budget, future seasons and arcs eventually moved quicker. While they still don't necessarily kill off the same comic book characters in the same way as the comics, they do tend to follow the framework and just move the pieces around a bit.

                  As the zombies become less of a threat due to dwindling numbers, more rotting, and just better understanding of them and dealing with them... they continue to meet more people and their world gets bigger. So the show continually builds on them learning more about the post ZA world and the different survivor groups they come across.

                  So if you want to watch it for Zombie battles, those fade over time (although always still a threat in some form). But if it interests you in seeing how disparate groups form and go on in the post ZA world then that is where it will take you. It's not ultimately about each group they meet being bad or good and just figuring it out. It's about those worlds getting bigger, with more tentacles and webs, and building society from the lower rungs of the ladder. Expansion.
                  Do leaders lead by diplomacy or fear? Wisdom or savagery? Culture regressing and then progressing again? Is it better to lead by fear and intimidation? Thinking versus action? Trust no one? Community building... Society building... Conquering. Being conquered. Who lives... who dies...
                  What groups can they work with and what groups threaten them and/or other groups and allies?

                  So that is the grand plan overall. No idea what the end game is though.

                  There's a lot of consistency in S4, 5, and S6 as far as pacing, direction, continuity, and feel go compared to S1-S3.

                  But all that said.... S6 really started with much promise. The current show runner has been there for a while and they've transitioned the show these past 3 seasons or whatever it's been into the pace and style it is. And closely aligned with the comics and Kirkman's vision. But there's some fear the show has lost its guts. Or taken itself too seriously. Or become too worried about not pissing off the fans and given too many cast members plot armour. To the point they've pissed off the fans anyway. They played some headgames for drama this season which is something they hadn't really done. And then the cliffhanger. IMHO they let too much of the cliffhanger play out if they were going to do a cliffhanger at all. Or else they shot it in a way that just made the cliffhanger more frustrating when you hear the showrunner explain it (read: Trying to defend it).
                  In any case, S6 had potential... and has some great moments... And setup what should be future great moments. But also could be the season it's shown to have jumped the shark. TBD!

                  So there's your answer
                  Last edited by Bball; 04-27-2016, 10:59 PM.
                  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

                    Game of Thrones


                    At least that finally happened.

                    Next week,

                    Spoiler Spoiler:
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                      Just caught up on the 1st 2 episodes of Season 3 of Silicon Valley. The show hasn't missed a beat and is still a hilarious show.

                      If you haven't watched it, watch it from the beginning.

                      It's a really funny show from Mike Judge ( he's the creator of Beavis and Butthead / King of the Hill ). You'll appreciate this show if you are familiar with the tech industry and/or coding.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                        Binge-watched Jessica Jones. Not bad.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                          at least GoT didn't drag that thing about that thing out past the 2nd episode

                          Comment


                          • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                            Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                            at least GoT didn't drag that thing about that thing out past the 2nd episode
                            I was surprised they did it so quick. Guess there is a ton of **** to get to this season

                            Comment


                            • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                              Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                              I was surprised they did it so quick. Guess there is a ton of **** to get to this season
                              Yeah they wasted no time with that person in the first three episodes. Not that I am complaining as I figured they would drag that thing out way longer than they needed to.

                              Game of Thrones spoilers from last night below.
                              Spoiler Spoiler:

                              Comment


                              • Re: What TV Show Did You Last Watch

                                Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
                                Yeah they wasted no time with that person in the first three episodes. Not that I am complaining as I figured they would drag that thing out way longer than they needed to.

                                Game of Thrones spoilers from last night below.
                                Spoiler Spoiler:
                                GoT spoilers

                                Spoiler Spoiler:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X