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

"Lost" is a very good show

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

  • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

    I wouldn't say Hurley is the most Useless....I'm sure he's going to do something sometime that will move the plot further.

    Plus, him and Sawyer are kinda of like the comedic relief for the show. I, personally, love hurley's character. I'd rather see charlie go. He's always busy and getting into other's people business.

    Did any of you notice that the music Desmond kept hearing in his flashbacks was the same music in the opening episode of season 2? Also, the guy with the red shoes had a dharma logo on them.

    I was reading that the tatoos are very signifcant to the story. The tats of Jack I mean. And apparently they are his real tatoos and they have found a way to intergrate them into the story.

    It's going to be interesting to show what some of the tailend of losties have been up to since they've been kidnapped. Also, it seems like they hinted at it, but they have done with the kids when they are kidnapped. If this next episode doesn't move the plot with answers...then people are really really going to be disappointed. But Lost doesn't just close one door without opening a couple more windows.
    AKA Sactolover05

    Comment


    • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

      I stand corrected. I saw a picture of the guy's red shoes..and it wasn't the dharma logo. it was something else.
      AKA Sactolover05

      Comment


      • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
        We should start a "Kill Hurley, Save Charlie" movement.

        Hurley remains the most useless character in this entire show - the school teacher who blew himself up with the dynamite has had more impact on the show's plot than he has.
        Sorry, I took Charlie's immenent death as a good thing. Not a fan of that character.

        But I bet that this is just a faith test in which Desmond must finally give up trying to save Charlie, and when he can do that and stop trying to be an important man (which was the personality flaw that kept him from being with Penny) he'll quickly be killed by the island (if dying on the island is really dying anyway).

        Charlie will then not be killed even though Desmond learns to not interfere (if he can learn that lesson of course). Just part of another test.

        Comment


        • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

          Is Ben really Alex's "father?"

          In the 6th episode, when Kate and Sawyer are breaking and hauling the rocks. Alex comes in shooting people with rocks from her slingshot. And then Alex says,"WHAT DID YOU DO WITH HIM?" Meaning Karl. Then she says, "I wanna speak to BEN!" If Ben "adopted" Alex from the get go...wouldn't she call him dad? I mean there is the possiblity that she just doesn't call him DAD, but why would she need to request to see her "dad?"
          AKA Sactolover05

          Comment


          • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

            Charlie's in insecure pain in the @ss who's gonna get someone killed sometime by trying to be something he's not.

            Hurley's someone who just wanders around saying, "Dude."

            I don't particularly LIKE Charlie - but he's actually caused some things to happen and has the potential to do more. Hurley hasn't - other than to point out the significance of the numbers in season 1 (in a very passive manner). I can't think of a single substantial piece of the story his character has had any effect on. Unless you like hearing the word, "Dude." I thought Michael killing his would-be GF might finally inspire him to do something but it didn't.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

              It's getting to the point where I enjoy watching the previews at the end of the show more than watching the actual show.............
              PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

              Comment


              • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                It's getting to the point where I enjoy watching the previews at the end of the show more than watching the actual show.............
                Sadly. But at least they answered 3 big questions! Although I could only count 2......and neither were big......and were things I actually didn't care about at all.
                Narf!

                Comment


                • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                  Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                  It's getting to the point where I enjoy watching the previews at the end of the show more than watching the actual show.............
                  LOL - usually when watching TV I have a book I read during commercials. Last night I read it during all of Jack's flashbacks. I think my actual viewing time was somewhere between 10 and 15 minutes.

                  All I know is, for some reason Jack was on a beach, some little kid was shouting at him, he did the horizontal hokey-pokey with an oriental chick and he got the crap kicked out of him.

                  Beyond that, now he lives in Sawyer's cage, and Sawyer, Kate and the crying kid are on a boat ride. Oh - and there's an old chick into guys with tattoos. Maybe the next flashback will show her at Sturgess.

                  It was pretty bad. Fortunately, by the time I had to decide between it and the PU-Iowa game, that wasn't a game.

                  But I got a lot of reading in.
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                    The tatoo thing would have made sense if you had actually watched the episode.
                    Play Mafia!
                    Twitter

                    Comment


                    • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                      Originally posted by Pig Nash View Post
                      The tatoo thing would have made sense if you had actually watched the episode.
                      Yes - a psychic oriental chick decided he's a leader so his tattoo "Doesn't mean what it says."

                      It was edifyingly useless.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                        What were the questions that got answered?
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          What were the questions that got answered?
                          1) Where does Jack's tattoo come from? Answer:
                          Spoiler Spoiler:


                          2) Where do the Others live? Answer:
                          Spoiler Spoiler:


                          3) Are the kidnapped tailies still alive?
                          Spoiler Spoiler:


                          That's my guess at least. All of the answers were lame and full of "who gives a ****". But I guess the questions were too.
                          Narf!

                          Comment


                          • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                            All I know is for a freakin' month we had Cindy saying, "We're here to watch." Now, the episode has come and gone, and I still don't know what the hell they were supposed to be watching.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                              All I know is for a freakin' month we had Cindy saying, "We're here to watch." Now, the episode has come and gone, and I still don't know what the hell they were supposed to be watching.
                              I think it was Juliet's trial/execution?
                              PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                              Comment


                              • Re: "Lost" is a very good show

                                Yeah, not much happened in that episode, other than revealing that the kidnapped tailies seemed to be mostly integrated into Otherdom (which has been implied for a while), and creating more sparks between Jack and Juliet. Hopefully now that we've gotten Jack's last great mystery out of the way, we won't have to suffer through any more of his boring flashbacks.

                                The most interesting addition was the Sheriff lady, I thought. She's got a good, creepy vibe going.

                                It feels like it's been forever since Locke did anything. Hope he gets some action soon.

                                IndyToad
                                This is the story of a boy

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X