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?

    The Hobbit - it was ok. Felt just like another LOTR movies, but not nearly as good. It was harmless entertainment, but nothing more. Felt like not much was getting accomplished. Well made movie, and I suppose that is what made it entertaining. No desire to see the next one though


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Neverending Story - still a fantastic movie

      Casa de mi padre - got some laughs out of this. probably a movie you enjoy once, but won't have a desire to really see it again.
      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        Currently watching the Batman 1949 series. Just think Batman in Mayberry.
        Follow me at @Bluejbgold


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Went on movie marathon today.

          Kill Bill Vol. 2
          Follow me at @Bluejbgold


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            DJango - I actually really liked this movie. Very funny but in a crude sort of way. The actors were all excellent, and a cameo made me happy. (That scene was hilarious.) There were definitely parts of that movie where I covered my eyes because it was a little graphic.

            Les Mis - I thought I'd like this more than Django, but I didn't. It's a great story, and Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman were outstanding (especially Anne), and Helena Bonham Carter and Borat were perfect for their parts. But a few of the singing voices irritated me. I also think this movie would have been better with dialogue. That said, I'm hoping Anne gets a well deserved award for this. She was really fantastic in it.


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Am I wrong for thinking that "Lincoln" is getting tremendous reviews in part because people are predisposed to thinking that a film done by one of the most famous directors ever about one of the most famous figures in our nation's history with a highly acclaimed actor playing him is automatically going to be great? I do think there are people out there who think it would be taboo to criticize a Speilberg movie with Daniel Day Lewis playing Abraham Lincoln. IE, how could any movie about an iconic American figure with so much star power be anything but fabulous?

              Maybe I'm just searching for loony reasons to explain why I'm a tiny minority who didn't like the film......
              I haven't seen it yet, but this explains pretty well why I've felt so reluctant to see it. It just looks a little too self-important to stomach, and the very final scene of Schindler's List just really pissed me off in how pompous and self-important it felt, and I am deeply suspicious of any "grand projects" by Spielberg after that. I'm hoping to like it since I enjoy DDL, but I have a feeling it will be Spielberg all over the place. And I'm a total sucker for Lincoln so I hope I can just sit back and enjoy this like a fanboy.

              It think it'd be correct to say that the marketing push behind the movie was very much of a pre-ordained greatness kind of thing. "You already know that this movie is legendary, it is inevitable, and you may as well accept it already." I feel that way about many movies with Oscar Bait promotions though.


              Saw The Hobbit. Really liked it. I found this Bilbo to be more enjoyable a character than any of the LOTR movie characters. I could really feel his reluctance to leave the comfort of the shire. It felt real. I loved the "I do think often of Bag-End" after the goblin caves. Even in the LOTR books I always thought the "oh these silly hobbits long only for the simple comforts of home and would NEVER go on adventures!" thing was pretty contrived, a false attempt at eliciting emotion, but here it felt pretty real. Loved this Bilbo. I liked that the movie was lighter in tone at times. I haven't read or watched LOTR in quite some time, but I don't remember them as very light. Oh, and I love depictions of dragons where they really make you feel the immense sense of disaster that a dragon invasion would bring. Dragons, they are the best.

              Saw Pitch Perfect. Man, I really liked this movie. Maybe that's goofy of me. Anna Kendrick is quickly becoming one of my favorite actresses. Her big old teeth are adorable, and I think she's pretty talented. She was great in 50/50 as well. I need to see Up In The Air sometime.

              Saw The Dark Knight Rises again. Fun and great and all, but a second viewing just points out to me how much it pales in comparison to TDK. TDK is easily one of my favorite movies ever, and I nearly pee myself in joy just watching youtube clips of Ledger as the Joker. Whereas with this movie I found myself mentally groaning at the writing several times, I never really cared about Bane like I did the Joker, and the role of Catwoman--while played well--just didn't seem to have much of a point in the movie. And no Alfred! I know TDK had flaws, but I connect to that movie for so many sentimental reasons. Really I just wish Ledger hadn't died. "I think you and I are destined to do this forever." I would have watched them do it forever.

              Saw Ted. Forgettable. I expected more out of a McFarlane thing.

              Saw The Words. WTF was this? Dennis Quaid, man, I just don't even know.

              Saw Ides of March again. I would watch as PSH watched somebody else who was watching paint dry. I don't even care about the rest of the movie anymore, I instantly love it if PSH is in it. *****.
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                I guess I'm in the tiny minority, but I was unimpressed with "Lincoln". I like U.S. and Presidential history, so I was expecting to be entertained. But I wasn't. Spielberg had been wanting to do a movie on Lincoln for years and I was expecting something greater. Why did they devote the entire film to the arm-twisting involved in getting a piece of legislation through when they could have made a more broad film that expanded into other important events of his Presidency? With a 2:45 length film, they could have easily expanded into many other issues. There were barely any scenes devoted to the fascinating Civil War strategy. They should have incorporated the war more into the film. There could have been some incredibly dramatic scenes about the the end of the war and the emotion Lincoln must have felt as it ended. They also should have brought in Gettysburg and the Emancipation Proclamation. Also should have re-created the assassination instead of showing his son find out about it in a theater. I just don't get why you'd do a three hour film on Lincoln and devote it entirely to a tiny span of a monumental Presidency that expanded four years. There was so much you could do with this film that would have been more entertaining than three hours of arm-twisting on legislation.

                The dialogue was also way too verbose. I felt like I was watching a play for much of the film instead of a movie that is attempting to portray realistic conversation. I don't think people in 1865 put so much dressing on their language.

                The acting was great and the period detail was nice. But I feel like an opportunity was squandered and that the movie would have been way better if it talked about multiple historic events over his Presidency instead of devoting a 3 hour movie to arm twisting over one piece of legislation. I felt like the movie took place in two rooms.

                I'm obviously in the minority though. Everyone else seems to like it.

                I realize my reply is a little late.

                The movie was 2 hours and 29 minutes long.

                The movie was what I consider an emotion based movie. And generally I think those movies either you feel it or you don't. You didn't I did. In fact I probably enjoyed it even more the second time. I too was a little surprised that the whole movie was focused on passing the 13th amendment, but now that I have seen it twice I agree with that decision, better to devote proper time to do a topic well than to rush through.

                Overall I love the movie and found it very emotional. I think I like Argo a little better, but clearly Lincoln and Argo were the two best movies I've seen this year and now that I think about it, last year too
                Last edited by Unclebuck; 12-31-2012, 03:15 PM.


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  Searching for Sugar Man - Not sure I've seen a more recommendable movie this year. It doesn't delve deeply into a fascinating subculture or reveal amazing truths about humanity, but it's pretty much impossible to watch this movie and not walk away beaming and ecstatic about being alive. Just a wonderfully touching, life-affirming story that you would have to be really pissed off not to enjoy. Like watching the Elmo documentary but for a whole country. Recommended like a mother****er.
                  You Got The Tony!!!!!!


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    I feel like Elaine in "Seinfeld" when she doesn't like "The English Patient". It seems like everyone I run into thinks this movie is awesome, aside from my two friends who I saw it with and also didn't like it.
                    I am a huge fan of Lincoln (the person). I have read multiple biographies and have studied the Civil War era quite a bit. So naturally, I had sky high expectations for this film. I, too, left a little underwhelmed. Day-Lewis, as usual, mastered his role as Abraham Lincoln. Everything I have ever read about him, including the voice, his humor, the stories--Day-Lewis nailed it. The movie was a little slow and I thought there was a number of ways they could have gone with it. It was still a good film, but I think it could have been much better.


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      Captain America- Love this film. I believe it to be my favorite of the Marvel films.

                      Going to have my usual movie marathon on my day off, looking like

                      1. Zombieland

                      2. The Boondock Saints

                      3. Kill Bill Vol.1
                      Follow me at @Bluejbgold


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        This weekend I have seen both the Hobbit (MEH) and Lincoln (silent jawdrop). It's been a long while since I read the book but IIRC the movie didn't follow the book The Hobbit very closely. It seemed as though they were more interested in visuals for 3D than in actually making a story. I was underwhelmed.

                        Lincoln.....we went to the 96th street theater which was about 1/2 full. This is no **** the end NOT ONE person made a sound. It was stone dead silent for at least a minute. My wife and I both commented that we wanted to applaud but couldn't break the silence. When people did finally get up to leave it was the quietest most orderly exit I have ever seen (we left last as we had my handicapped morther-in-law with us.). I look forward to seeing this again soon but there are some others I want to see first.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?


                          My favorite pixar movie. My wife's family hadn't seen it, so we all watched it together. What a beautiful movie.
                          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Les Mis. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It grabbed me from the very first scene and I never lost interest at all. Normally I don't like musicals, but I thought this movie was great.

                            Was it perfect? Of course not, no movie is. But I don't judge movies on whether it is perfect or close to perfect. (IMO the criticism this movie is receiving is unwarranted)

                            And no Russell Crowe cannot sing, but after the first few times he sings you get used to it.
                            Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-03-2013, 11:02 AM.


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Les Mis. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It grabbed me from the very first scene and I never lost interest at all. Normally I don't like musicals, but I thought this movie was great.
                              I love musicals. I'll have to check it out.
                              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                I've seen the following movies and enjoyed them all:

                                - Bourne Legacy
                                - Moonrise Kingdom
                                - Safety Not Guaranteed
                                - Dredd
                                - Looper