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:
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

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 movie did you last watch?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

    Un-freaking-believable. Are kids today really this stupid?
    I've found you're best off pretty much ignoring anyone born after 2000.


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Originally posted by idioteque View Post
      I've found you're best off pretty much ignoring anyone born after 2000.
      Why are <12 year olds online? Don't they have a soccer camp to go to?
      Senior at the University of Louisville.
      Greenfield ---> The Ville


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        American Reunion followed immediately by Cabin in the Woods.

        Comments some other time when I'm not out at dinner using an iPhone.

        Husband's buldge.


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Okay, now that I'm sitting with a keyboard:

          I liked Am. Re., but that doesn't mean I thought it was a great movie, either. I had low expectations, and that was pretty much what I got. Fun for nostalgia's sake, some decent laughs, mediocre writing/story, all resulting in me giving it about a C.

          Cabin in the Woods, I'd give more like a B+. I'll hop over to its own thread for more.


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
            Wait, the Titanic was real?

            Spoiler alert.


            So there goes your H459 History of Transatlantic Ocean Travel class payoff, just when you were really starting to get into going to class.

            Pssst - the Lusitania doesn't make it either.

            It is pretty shocking to see those comments. I'm going out on a limb and say that NONE of them know that Led Zeppelin did Kashmir before it was a rap hook, and that the cover of Led Zeppelin I depicts the Hindenburg, and that the Hindenburg was an actual air-ship that exploded and crashed.

            Not until they make the film that is.

            And when they do you can damn sure bet I'll be the first in the audience to yell out "Oh, that's gotta hurt!"*

            * Seinfeld was an American situation comedy in the 90s....I'm sure there will be a film about it soon enough and you can find out everything you need to know about it then.
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-15-2012, 08:43 PM.


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              The Raid: Redemption
              I saw this in Houston after the Pacers game because Houston always gets arthouse/foreign films before Indy. It's awesome, innovative and beautifully shot. It's also very violent (lots of shooting, stabbing and breaking people with "stuff") so be prepared.

              The story itself is a little thin and slightly unsatisfying, but the basic premise of "cops must storm the castle of a fortified gang lord" is more than enough to carry the entire film and hang endless amounts of brilliant action scenes off of. There are moves you haven't seen before and there's definitely shots you haven't seen before. The film flat-out looks amazing at times.

              Cabin in the Woods

              It lived up to the hype, I'm glad I avoided any spoilers although really I knew most of it from the trailer and it didn't impact my enjoyment at all. There is blood, scares and violence. There is also a TON of humor, really good humor. Very fun film.


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                My only point is, movies today in general (note: pointing out exceptions do not disprove the general trend) are much faster paced and a lot more wordy than they were 20 to 30 years ago. Movies that were thought to be action packed and fast paced movies in the early 90's if you watch them today they seem much slower. Example - the Fugitive with Harrison Ford from 1993 at the time seemed like a movie that never stopped was tense and fastpaced from start to finish, but watch it today and it seems like a slow movie for that genre.

                Another good example is the movie Heat. That movie seems at the time fastpaced, not is seems rather slow.

                Another trend is movies used to be less wordy. That is why I think the movie Drive seems very different in 2012, that same exact movie in 1989 would seem more normally paced.

                TV has probably changed more than movies. Watch an action show from the 80's and compare to day and it is a huge difference. Even dramas and comedies are much faster. Scenes are so much shorter, they move from scene to scene much more rapidly.
                Well His Girl Friday outpaces all of them, especially in dialog, so it's cyclical at least. Or were the kids of 1940 so ADD that Grant and Russell had to deliver it that quick or they'd walk out?

                Some of that is driven by a success. Leone comes along and kills it and then everyone else wants to start doing long, lingering introspective scenes with 2 seconds of sudden violence at the end.

                QT goes tearing through dialog with R Dogs and Pulp and then everyone's trying to make quipster tough guy films or quirky multi-storyline interaction.

                Drive was clearly meant to be Michael Mann style, and not even Heat really. It was really similar in music and pacing to Manhunter which might be the pinnacle of Mann's "80s ness".

                But at the same time Mann also embraces minimal dialog between characters that should already know the information. Thus the breakneck speed of information exchange that made Miami Vice hard for some people to follow. Mann has this interest in the beats, rhythms and language codes of sub-cultures, especially cops or anti-cops (the organized bank robbers of Heat which are clearly mirrors of the cops).

                So he spends more time with characters reflecting and less time with them explaining every little detail to another character that should be saying "yeah, I know all this, why are you telling me".


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  The Raid: Redemption...It's awesome, innovative and beautifully shot. It's also very violent (lots of shooting, stabbing and breaking people with "stuff") so be prepared...The story itself is a little thin and slightly unsatisfying, but the basic premise of "cops must storm the castle of a fortified gang lord" is more than enough to carry the entire film and hang endless amounts of brilliant action scenes off of. There are moves you haven't seen before and there's definitely shots you haven't seen before. The film flat-out looks amazing at times.
                  Agreed on most counts. The cinematography wasn't as great to me, just very gritty/grainy with lots of 'God's eye view' shots. (Might have been our print?) The use of sound and editing to convey the brutality of the violence was great. Not sure if the story was supposed to seem so standard and cookie-cutter. The first scene was so cliched I thought, it was supposed to be humorous, though the movie is very straightforward throughout. The hand-to-hand is phenomenal, worth the price of admission alone. The writer/director is apparently Welsh; may have to check out his previous work. Pretty strongly recommended if you enjoy the action/martial arts.
                  You Got The Tony!!!!!!


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    The Visitor

                    I'm sad to say I've seen all three films directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent [2003], The Visitor [2007], and Win Win [2011]) and I'll probably have to wait until 2015 for the next one. They're all very good and I highly recommend them.


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      Oh Rian Johnson... how it seems I will always be excited for your movies and yet never forgive you for spelling your name like that.

                      This is the darkest timeline.


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        Just watched AVP for the first time. I'm gonna have to see Requiem now.
                        "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          Dumb and Dumber.

                          never gets old.


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            The Girl With a Dragon Tattoo

                            Heard it was supposed to be good but I found myself getting bored and didn't finish it. Will probably go back and watch it again at some point.

                            Sex Drive

                            Expected it to be kind of stupid but it was actually pretty funny. Seth Green as an Amish person was hilarious. "I love fixing people's s*** for free".
                            "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."


                            • Captain America

                              Watched it as much to be up to speed for the Avengers movie as anything. It was fun, over the top, and entertaining. Cap never came off to me as that bad *** in the comic books, but i didn't read him as much as I did Iron Man outside the Avengers books.

                              The ending was ok. Wish they would have shown him finding her having aged or at least learning what happened. But that would be too chick flicky I guess, but definitely in character.


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                MI4: Ghost Protocol

                                Overall, it was a good movie. I'm getting a bit bored though cause at no point do I think any of the "good" guys are in any real danger since they don't get killed. I can't recall all of the past films, but I don't think any of the main team members get killed, at least since the first movie. Wish they would add that back in and give us a bit more tension/suspence.
                                First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.