Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

What movie did you last watch?

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

  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

    Originally posted by ECKrueger View Post
    I can't believe how obsessed people are over the Star Wars movies. I saw it, and I liked it. I by no means need to see it two, three, or more times though. I know several people who have gone multiple times already with plans to see it again.
    To each his own, until Disney bought it I thought I would never get to take my son to see a Star Wars movie in the theater. He is really into it and so we have seen it three times and will see it a fourth. I see that your age is listed at 24 so you were way to young to have seen the original trilogy in the theater, and the prequels just sucked so bad that I can see your generation just not being as into it. The first one came out when I was six and was just a huge part of my youth there had certainly been nothing like it before.

    Comment


    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

      Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
      To each his own, until Disney bought it I thought I would never get to take my son to see a Star Wars movie in the theater. He is really into it and so we have seen it three times and will see it a fourth. I see that your age is listed at 24 so you were way to young to have seen the original trilogy in the theater, and the prequels just sucked so bad that I can see your generation just not being as into it. The first one came out when I was six and was just a huge part of my youth there had certainly been nothing like it before.
      Plenty of the people I am referring to are my age or younger, and I was obsessed with episode V (I think that was the one) when I was younger and I liked all of them. I just don't have the same obsession by any means over this series or any other for that matter. I guess I just don't see the greatness of the movies.

      Comment


      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

        Originally posted by ECKrueger View Post
        Plenty of the people I am referring to are my age or younger, and I was obsessed with episode V (I think that was the one) when I was younger and I liked all of them. I just don't have the same obsession by any means over this series or any other for that matter. I guess I just don't see the greatness of the movies.
        One time is plenty for me for about any movie in the theater. I might watch something again on HBO or something... And a select few movies I will buy for my collection and will watch again after some time.
        But seeing a movie on Sunday and going back Monday isn't something I can imagine doing for any movie. To each his own though....
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          One time is plenty for me for about any movie in the theater. I might watch something again on HBO or something... And a select few movies I will buy for my collection and will watch again after some time.
          But seeing a movie on Sunday and going back Monday isn't something I can imagine doing for any movie. To each his own though....
          That's my feeling as well. The only thing I watch repeatedly is Christmas Story and that's only one day a year.

          Comment


          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

            Originally posted by ECKrueger View Post
            That's my feeling as well. The only thing I watch repeatedly is Christmas Story and that's only one day a year.
            Got to watch the greatest Christmas movie of all time each year, Die Hard!

            Comment


            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

              I watch Planes, Trains, Automobiles around every Thanksgiving. I also watch Halloween(original) every October and Christmas Vacation every December.

              Comment


              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                I saw sisters the other day. Poehler and Fey worked well and the movie had its share of funny moments.

                Comment


                • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                  My only gripe about Star Wars was that Rey was a Mary Sue character. She was just too good at so many things. While Kylo's training wasn't complete, he still learned up Snope and Luke. She was better than Han at fixing the Millennium Falcon.

                  I don't understand why Kylo just didn't force pull and push Rey or even freeze her in order to take her out. Some choices were clearly there just to move the plot along.

                  Maybe she has a ***** ton of luck and is super powerful. Hopefully some of that gets explained in 8/9.

                  But it's nice having such a great female lead. Daisy really nailed the role of Rey. All the new characters were well done, imo.
                  First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                  Comment


                  • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                    http://io9.gizmodo.com/please-stop-s...tar-1749134275

                    Over the weekend, even as most of us were celebrating the fact that a new Star Wars movie did not in any way suck, some portions of the internet got sucked into a pointless, silly debate. Is Rey, the film’s hero, a “Mary Sue”? The answer is no. Next question?

                    Some spoilers for The Force Awakens ahead...

                    I wrote about this on my Tumblr, but wanted to get into it in a bit more depth. So here goes.

                    “Mary Sue” is one of those terms that had a useful meaning in fan culture at one point, long ago, and has now become both vague and toxic. Originally, a “Mary Sue” was an author surrogate, inserted into fan-fiction. The “fan fiction” thing is important, because part of the fantasy of the “Mary Sue” was the fan-fic author getting to live at Hogwarts or travel on board the U.S.S. Enterprise. And this thinly veiled copy of the story’s author is incredibly good at everything, to the point where all the established characters marvel at her (usually it’s “her”) wonderfulness.

                    The “Mary Sue” is a very specific wish-fulfillment fantasy, in other words. It’s about getting to hang out with Harry, Ron and Hermione, and having them admire you. There’s nothing wrong with that kind of fantasy—we’ve all had it, when we get especially invested in a particular universe—but the term acquired a pejorative meaning because people felt it made for bad stories. Fair enough.

                    Over time, the term “Mary Sue” has broadened until it means “any female character who is unrealistically talented or skilled.” Which is insane for a couple of reasons: It makes this “trope” so vague as to be meaningless, and this is also purely a way at tearing down female characters who are good at stuff.

                    So without getting into heavy spoilers, Rey has one element of the “Mary Sue” character locked down: She’s a newly added character in an existing universe. But she’s among a bunch of new characters in the first chapter of a new story, so it’s not like she was introduced halfway through Return of the Jedi and suddenly started out-Lukeing Luke.

                    Meanwhile, is Rey unrealistically competent? She’s good at fixing machines, having spent her entire life as a scavenger taking apart the crashed spaceships on Jakku. She’s a good pilot, and maybe figures out how to fly an unfamiliar spaceship rather quickly. And she’s strong in the Force, learning to use Force powers incredibly fast. Just as most of The Force Awakens is pretty explicitly patterned on A New Hope, Rey is basically this movie’s answer to Luke Skywalker. Luke touches a lightsaber for the first time about 45 minutes into A New Hope, and is using the Force pretty brilliantly by the end of the movie.

                    But still, Rey’s prowess in this film is pretty incredible, considering that she doesn’t have Obi-Wan to train her. There are lots of hints that she had some training when she was a child, but in any case, this seems to be one of those “just go with it” things.

                    (I’d also argue that—SPOILER ALERT!—Kylo Ren teaches Rey a lot about using the Force. Every time she gets better at using it in this film, it’s right after Kylo Ren has tried to use it against her. She sees what he’s doing, and copies it. I thought it was fairly explicit that Kylo Ren is Rey’s “teacher” in this movie.)

                    But in any case, this is a convention of these sorts of movies. Kingsman also has a protagonist who is useless at the start of the movie and is an invincible badass by the end of the film. Most superheroes have a freakishly steep learning curve, even if they don’t have any powers. (Especially if they don’t have any powers.) If you are worried about realism, go watch My Dinner With Andre.

                    The thing about Rey, and characters like her, is that she subverts the actual awful trope that is ruining everything: the female character who is badass until the final act of the movie. Most films, with a character like Rey, would have her be ridiculously competent and brilliant until the final 20 or 30 minutes of the film, at which point she suddenly becomes useless and Finn has to solve everything. This is a trope that I have seen in approximately seven billion movies: the super-awesome woman who becomes suddenly less awesome as the male hero takes control of his power.

                    So yes, Rey is a tad unrealistic. Not unlike everything else in this universe with a magic space elf and fantasy mind powers and spaceships that can jump across the galaxy at the push of a button. What she isn’t, is more unrealistic than most of the other characters.

                    What the “Mary Sue” thing shows—other than that people will find any craptastic excuse to tear down female characters—is that memes have a decay rate. After a while, they wear out and you gotta find new ones. Fan culture is good at putting its finger on that one thing that’s bugging us at this one specific moment, but then absolutely terrible at generalizing and extrapolating, until you reach the heat death of criticism: total loss of information. This is a failure mode of fan culture, and it’s something to watch out for.

                    Charlie Jane Anders is the author of All The Birds in the Sky, coming in January from Tor Books. Follow her on Twitter, and email her.
                    Play Mafia!
                    Twitter

                    Comment


                    • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                      Today, for the first time ever, I saw a character called a "Mary Sue". Never before had I heard that term and had no idea what it meant.
                      Then within a few minutes I learned what the name originally was meant to imply and how it had been used so much that now it has lost its original meaning. As well as now know the gist of the meaning when it's used these days.

                      Yet I'd never heard it before!

                      I think this says something about me.... But I'm not quite sure what.... LOL....
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                        I think it became part of the popular lexicon when the Twilight movies started to come out. Bella is special and perfect for no particular reason, everything in that universe is catered to and centered on her. Mary Sues often have minor "flaws" like being clumsy or socially awkward that only further endear themselves to all of the other characters.
                        Play Mafia!
                        Twitter

                        Comment


                        • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                          Luke was a Mary Sue too if we're really gonna be honest.

                          But really none of what Rey does is unrealistic when you consider her role as a scavenger on Jakku. Her ability to be handy and a jack of all trades would seem like a necessary trait in that world. When you consider that she is obviously extremely force sensitive, it's really not surprising that she is so powerful. Especially when we consider her likely lineage, where as Kylo is emotionally unstable (something that can unsettle the force) and comes from a lineage that while force sensitive is probably not as sensitive as Rey's
                          Last edited by Trader Joe; 12-30-2015, 04:08 PM.


                          Comment


                          • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                            Originally posted by Pig Nash View Post
                            I think it became part of the popular lexicon when the Twilight movies started to come out. Bella is special and perfect for no particular reason, everything in that universe is catered to and centered on her. Mary Sues often have minor "flaws" like being clumsy or socially awkward that only further endear themselves to all of the other characters.
                            Ok, wow. No, Bella is not a Mary Sue. Mary Sues are supposed to be perfect, not damsels needing to be rescued/protected every 10 seconds. Yes the male leads all obsess over her for no good reason but her character itself is the epitome of useless.
                            Last edited by Kstat; 12-30-2015, 04:00 AM.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Luke was a Mary Sue too if we're really gonna be honest.
                              I believe the term is Gary Stu. And he he really wasn't one in Empire Strikes Back.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: What movie did you last watch?

                                She's useless but the story acts like she isn't. First time I ever heard the term was in reference to her. Reading through the TV Tropes page, I guess she's more of an anti-sue.
                                Play Mafia!
                                Twitter

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X