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

So... Dollhouse?

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

  • #76
    Re: So... Dollhouse?

    Caught ep 7 online. I won't comment much except to mention that Whedon had always steered as clear as he could from political/social questions in his other shows - in this one Echo's backstory's right in the middle of one.

    The new active was so friggin' obvious - I thought he'd just show up in a subsequent ep with a "How's our new active coming along?" comment from someone.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: So... Dollhouse?

      I watched about a half hour of this show last night. Eliza Dushku in thigh-high stockings was fantastic, but other than that it seemed incredibly stupid.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: So... Dollhouse?

        Yeah, it was potentially a very bad episode.

        I think it was set up to have some explanation as to why actives begin to carry on thoughts of their own beyond Echo, and in Echo's case making it even more difficult to ignore her thoughts of previous events.

        I'll chalk it up to a setup of something to come .... nothing more. If it wasn't a setup to advance to story somewhere down the road, then it was just a suck *** episode.

        -- Steve --

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: So... Dollhouse?

          I'm giving up on this program.... the stories just bore me to no end.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: So... Dollhouse?

            Interesting ep.... haven't wrapped my mind around it yet. Does this mean the actives really all go back to zero? Have we lost all forward momentum inside the dollhouse? Does the plot switch more to Ballard?

            We'll see.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: So... Dollhouse?

              I start to write this or that about this show...wondering where the plot is going, or if even Whedon knows where it's going to go, without weekly feedback from focus groups or Fox executives. And then I watch a show like Life, or The Sarah Connor Chronicles, or Life on Mars, and I think, 'Wow, that's the way to develop a show.'

              Yeah, I don't know if I'll stick with this one much longer. It's steadily working its way down the prioritizer list on my DVR.


              [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: So... Dollhouse?

                Thought we were going to get into more of an arc after ep 6 but the last 2 have been back to the "blah" stand-alone's. The only plot advancement was the phone call. I guess you can point to the 4 featured active's and talk about some sort of character development since we saw something of who they were at their core (and it's a very obvious hint that those will be the 4 to make a breakout when the time comes) but it's yet another episode that left me feeling very empty.
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: So... Dollhouse?

                  Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                  I start to write this or that about this show...wondering where the plot is going, or if even Whedon knows where it's going to go, without weekly feedback from focus groups or Fox executives. And then I watch a show like Life, or The Sarah Connor Chronicles, or Life on Mars, and I think, 'Wow, that's the way to develop a show.'

                  Yeah, I don't know if I'll stick with this one much longer. It's steadily working its way down the prioritizer list on my DVR.
                  It's funny you mention Sarah Connor....I really thought there was an exciting moment between Weaver and Ellison in the elevator in the last episode:

                  Spoiler Spoiler:


                  I agree that Life is fantastic, and Life on Mars was decent, but I thought it showed some of the same problems that Dollhouse is showing. It was kind of erratic, and the stand alone eps were pretty weak.

                  Spoiler Spoiler:


                  I thought Life on Mars had a tendency to be too cartoony and too desperate for ratings with some kitchy stuff.

                  Life and Sarah Connor have advantages over Dollhouse in that they have better storyline material to develop. Dollhouse is going to have to really get creative to break out of some of the limits they've placed on themselves in concept. Life on Mars was always going to have a limited shelf life, because how long could you keep him in 1973 without it turning into Gilligan's Island?

                  The thing that Life and Life on Mars have on Dollhouse is the characters. Charlie Crews and Dani Reese were instantly likable. I also really enjoy the Ted Earley character, and Donal Logue's Lt. was a nice addition this year. Sam Tyler was a good character, and the others were pretty solid. I haven't been a huge fan of the characters on TSCC to this point, but I really like John Henry. (Garret Dillahunt is rapidly becoming my favorite character actor.)

                  This is what disappoints me most about Dollhouse. Buffy, Angel, and Firefly were all good shows primarily because of well-drawn characters, literally from the get-go. Dollhouse has yet to present a character that really captures my imagination. There could be a decent backstory with the handler or with the Amy Acker character, but I'm less than impressed with Ballard.

                  There will obviously be backstories with the dolls, but how interesting will they be. It's really hurting the series that the main character, Caroline, is largely not herself and helpless all the time...by the nature of the premise. It doesn't help that the glimpses we've seen of the real Caroline seem to indicate a foolish extremist.

                  In addition to all that, I've become convinced that both Whedon and Minear are gunshy. They seem to be stuck somewhere between trying to make the show that we want, and trying to keep from getting canceled, and their not doing a good job of either. I'm pleased to see Jane Espenson's name on the last ep and on ep 10.

                  I don't know...it needs to get a few solid eps in a row...I keep thinking of Tru Calling...which was ok-mediocre for the first two thirds of the season, then really took off in the last 4-6 episodes...only to be canceled.

                  I'm disappointed in Dollhouse, but it's better than any reality TV show ever made, and I really would love to see shows like it, and King, Life, Life on Mars, and TSCC get the number of seasons that shows like Buffy, Angel, and XFiles (which I never particularly cared for) got, just to keep us from turning into a complete Idiocracy of ActorWannabes living on an island or in a mansion doing stupid **** for the cameras.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: So... Dollhouse?

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    This is what disappoints me most about Dollhouse. Buffy, Angel, and Firefly were all good shows primarily because of well-drawn characters, literally from the get-go.
                    That and the dialogue - in those shows the dialogue was always good with moments of brilliance. This show's had none of that.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: So... Dollhouse?

                      I gotta thank you guys. I've been reading every post in this thread. I was all geeked up for Dollhouse, but missed the premiere. Then I started reading the posts here and decided not to watch.

                      I guess I feel a little burnt by shows going astray. I think it goes back to X-Files. When I realized how much time I wasted staying with that show, even though it got pretty clear they didn't know where they were going....Let's just say I've gotten picky with my TV affections.

                      I gotta say, despite how uneven it got for a period there, I loved Life on Mars. I felt like the the final 6 minutes was hugely disappointing, but I loved how soulful it could be at times. (Too bad they didn't just end with the kiss. It would have been corny, but at least satisfying.
                      Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: So... Dollhouse?

                        I look at it like I looked at BSG. I don't mind if the writers want to take me for a ride, as long as the ride doesn't suck. I view the ride/journey and the destination as two separate things to either like or not like. I can comprehend the frustration of watching the X-Files for so long while expecting a mind-blowing reveal, and not getting it, though.

                        By the way, were you at the Spurs game? I thought I saw you walking in, but I wasn't sure.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: So... Dollhouse?

                          Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
                          I gotta thank you guys. I've been reading every post in this thread. I was all geeked up for Dollhouse, but missed the premiere. Then I started reading the posts here and decided not to watch.

                          I guess I feel a little burnt by shows going astray. I think it goes back to X-Files. When I realized how much time I wasted staying with that show, even though it got pretty clear they didn't know where they were going....Let's just say I've gotten picky with my TV affections.

                          I gotta say, despite how uneven it got for a period there, I loved Life on Mars. I felt like the the final 6 minutes was hugely disappointing, but I loved how soulful it could be at times. (Too bad they didn't just end with the kiss. It would have been corny, but at least satisfying.
                          I was thinking during the kiss that it would have been a decent place to end it.

                          As to X-Files, I just never thought it was particularly good. I liked Millenium a little better, but it did have kind of a trudging toward death type of feel...on of my main complaints about the new BSG.

                          I really think that this show could be saved if Whedon just said, "**** it," and wrote like a 6-episode arc himself, true to whatever vision he had.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: So... Dollhouse?

                            Ultimately, I can take or leave a serial-style or a stand-alone style, it doesn't matter much to me right now, but if they keep the status quo much longer they MUST make these stand-alone situations more interesting. I don't know if that's possible or not.

                            I do know that what I would like them to do is add more layers to the plot (not necessarily running the current plot out faster, but giving us more to chew on). Right now I'm just not enthralled with what appears to be the soul of the show: "What makes you you?" I could suspend my disbelief with vampires and spaceships because those are interesting and fun, but making up the ability to program people as efficiently (almost) as machines just doesn't do it for me. Maybe for a movie, but not a TV series.

                            I don't even know why I like this show. I do, to a degree, but I'm hardly in love with it. It's probably just familiarity with Whedon, Acker, and Dushku. If those were three names I didn't know from previous work instead of them, I don't know if I'd care.

                            At least Terminator got out of it's multi-episode "boring" arc and has gotten interesting again the last few weeks. But it's probably going to get cancelled, too......

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: So... Dollhouse?

                              I've liked it so far and I like what they did with Acker's character this week. I think it will get better but I wouldn't be crushed if it got cancelled.
                              Play Mafia!
                              Twitter

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: So... Dollhouse?

                                I don't think Sarah Connor's going to get cancelled...not with another Terminator movie coming out soon. On that show, to count's comment, I think it's pretty much established that John Henry is not SkyNet...I think.

                                And I loved the ending to Life on Mars...it tied every little hint through the season together. But I was surprised, because that had to be it, right? I mean, the end of the show. Period. No more.


                                [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X