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

Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

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

  • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

    Didnt even notice.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      I wasn't even going to address it. I've wasted more than enough time leading the horse to water. If he doesn't want to drink, then that's on him.
      ITs tricky Since86. I have personally studied MSC's and people claim stuff all the time and there is a reason why the US won't allow certain therapies here. IT may work for nerves but multiple clinical studies have to be done and that takes a long time. As far as I can find Lima has one publication which wouldn't comfort me if I had to go under his knife.

      ITs not unheard of that a Quad could get marginally better over time but again its hard to say this was due to the cells especially when you can't track them. I have seen enough crappy scientific articles in my day to not believe any publication out right. In fact I can send you a 100 publications right now that I fully know are incorrect on one a specific stem cell type.

      This guy started in 2001 and thats enough time for others to repeat and for it to be a proven therapy. I guess it could be held up by patents but I doubt it.

      Comment


      • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        I wasn't even going to address it. I've wasted more than enough time leading the horse to water. If he doesn't want to drink, then that's on him.
        The Lima article i s not even close to a quad walking again. These are small steps and I have no problem accepting small steps that will lead to cures someday.

        Comment


        • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
          ITs tricky Since86. I have personally studied MSC's and people claim stuff all the time and there is a reason why the US won't allow certain therapies here. IT may work for nerves but multiple clinical studies have to be done and that takes a long time. As far as I can find Lima has one publication which wouldn't comfort me if I had to go under his knife.

          ITs not unheard of that a Quad could get marginally better over time but again its hard to say this was due to the cells especially when you can't track them. I have seen enough crappy scientific articles in my day to not believe any publication out right. In fact I can send you a 100 publications right now that I fully know are incorrect on one a specific stem cell type.

          This guy started in 2001 and thats enough time for others to repeat and for it to be a proven therapy. I guess it could be held up by patents but I doubt it.
          You are correct that it has to be demonstrated that the therapy actually caused the improvement and not mother nature. I am a believer in stem cell therapy for a host of maladies but I would like to see what results others found using olfactory mucosa. If you have studied this are there mouse experiments to verify Lima's results.

          Comment


          • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
            You are correct that it has to be demonstrated that the therapy actually caused the improvement and not mother nature. I am a believer in stem cell therapy for a host of maladies but I would like to see what results others found using olfactory mucosa. If you have studied this are there mouse experiments to verify Lima's results.
            Ask and you shall recieve. Here is a pilot study from India and Lima trained the group.

            http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v47.../sc200954a.pdf

            Pretty much doesn't verify his results.

            As far as mouse studies here is one for hippocampal lesion which is not the same but shows the potential. JCI is also not a bad journal.

            http://www.jci.org/articles/view/44489

            Comment


            • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
              You are correct that it has to be demonstrated that the therapy actually caused the improvement and not mother nature. I am a believer in stem cell therapy for a host of maladies but I would like to see what results others found using olfactory mucosa. If you have studied this are there mouse experiments to verify Lima's results.
              One thing I should point out when you read publications is the MD or PhD next to the name. MD's can take a different scientific approach and can be under trained IMO.

              My quick explanation for this is that their career path is different and of course is more clinical.

              PHD career path is like this.. 4 undergraduate, 4/5 years grad, 2 years post doc and maybe an additional 2 years before they get a PI job. Then they still have to try to get tenure LOL..

              MD's that want to do research basically skip the 4/5 years training and do a condensed 2 years (sort of like a postdoc) and a lot of times have clinical repsonsibilities as well. They can get more on the job training but there is a difference there that often times gets ignored and shows up in the research.

              Don't get me wrong I know plenty of MD's that do a fantastic job but I also know some that do a terrible job and don't think through things. I mean just think if a PhD wanted to be a clinician you wouldn't expect him to great doctor after 2/3 years of training would you?

              Hsu is a good example of what I am talking about. The guy used fantasy football stats to do analysis of performance. Over half the study included defensive players and his only way to measure was your typical FF stat line of sacks, picks, and return TD's.

              Its sort of appalling when you think about it. I mean he could have easily looked up tackles, tackles for losses, pass deflections etc. and did a much better job. IT was a easy sloppy approach that is far to common IMO.

              Comment


              • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                One thing I should point out when you read publications is the MD or PhD next to the name. MD's can take a different scientific approach and can be under trained IMO.

                My quick explanation for this is that their career path is different and of course is more clinical.

                PHD career path is like this.. 4 undergraduate, 4/5 years grad, 2 years post doc and maybe an additional 2 years before they get a PI job. Then they still have to try to get tenure LOL..

                MD's that want to do research basically skip the 4/5 years training and do a condensed 2 years (sort of like a postdoc) and a lot of times have clinical repsonsibilities as well. They can get more on the job training but there is a difference there that often times gets ignored and shows up in the research.

                Don't get me wrong I know plenty of MD's that do a fantastic job but I also know some that do a terrible job and don't think through things. I mean just think if a PhD wanted to be a clinician you wouldn't expect him to great doctor after 2/3 years of training would you?

                Hsu is a good example of what I am talking about. The guy used fantasy football stats to do analysis of performance. Over half the study included defensive players and his only way to measure was your typical FF stat line of sacks, picks, and return TD's.

                Its sort of appalling when you think about it. I mean he could have easily looked up tackles, tackles for losses, pass deflections etc. and did a much better job. IT was a easy sloppy approach that is far to common IMO.
                My experience with MDs especially those who have both degrees is pretty much the opposite. Most MDs would not go near a research facility but those interested in research bring alot. Right there they separate themselves from the rest of their herd. Take a look at some of the really great researchers at medical schools, the NIH, and private research institutes and you will see very talented trained physicians. MDs have access to patients which PhDs don't so that makes a tremendous difference. They can move beyond the stage of working with rodents which is a real limitation in translating research into practice. Lots of Phds suck at research too.

                Comment


                • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                  Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                  My experience with MDs especially those who have both degrees is pretty much the opposite. Most MDs would not go near a research facility but those interested in research bring alot. Right there they separate themselves from the rest of their herd. Take a look at some of the really great researchers at medical schools, the NIH, and private research institutes and you will see very talented trained physicians. MDs have access to patients which PhDs don't so that makes a tremendous difference. They can move beyond the stage of working with rodents which is a real limitation in translating research into practice. Lots of Phds suck at research too.
                  Md phds are different than mds alone. They go through much more training on the phd side. Just take it from a guy who has worked with plenty.

                  Having one or two publcations tells me these guys are more on the clinical side of things and are not experts. Atleast that's my take on lima.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                    Md phds are different than mds alone. They go through much more training on the phd side. Just take it from a guy who has worked with plenty.

                    Having one or two publcations tells me these guys are more on the clinical side of things and are not experts. Atleast that's my take on lima.
                    Very hard to judge MDs from different countries like China where in some places it is no more than a 4 year degree. The training is really different and not to be too chauvenistic we do a fairly good job training MDs in this country. So who knows what's Lima's equivalent education. So many MDs from foreign countries have to spend a few years before they can be certified here.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                      Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                      Very hard to judge MDs from different countries like China where in some places it is no more than a 4 year degree. The training is really different and not to be too chauvenistic we do a fairly good job training MDs in this country. So who knows what's Lima's equivalent education. So many MDs from foreign countries have to spend a few years before they can be certified here.
                      I have personally worked with mds from china and germany and the US. There is a difference between mds and phds. The mds that are sold out for research have the publications to show it.

                      Lima and hsu don't have it imo.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 03-05-2012, 10:49 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        I have personally worked with mds from china and germany and the US. There is a difference between mds and phds. The mds that are sold out for research have the publications to show it.

                        Lima and hsu don't have it imo.
                        The next question is whether you believe that their research has merit. Some of these guys are just opportunists.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                          The next question is whether you believe that their research has merit. Some of these guys are just opportunists.
                          Hsu has a lot more publications than Lima and he is not engaging in some questionable therapies. A lot of his studies are imaging based or technique based which are useful for the clinical side but are not stem cell based.

                          His only stem cell based study is on fat derived cells to enhance spinal fusion. Its not converting them to nerves.

                          His MLB, NFL, NHL studies are just collecting data and analyzing it. Most of the time they pay someone to track down all the information and then they do the analysis and write up the paper. Its helpful but his analysis for perfomance is weak.

                          My opinion is that I believe Hsu reports about having a fusion increases your chances of returning to play but I don't believe that he did an adequate job showing that players return to a similar level of play before they had an injury.

                          Lima trained the group in India and they didn't see the same results. I think most people would look at that and question his results with stem cells.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                            No. He's a quack equivalent to third world cancer curers.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              No. He's a quack equivalent to third world cancer curers.

                              See #192
                              His only stem cell based study is on fat derived cells to enhance spinal fusion. Its not converting them to nerves.


                              Not a quack but not a nerve specialist either.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                Hsu has a lot more publications than Lima and he is not engaging in some questionable therapies. A lot of his studies are imaging based or technique based which are useful for the clinical side but are not stem cell based.

                                His only stem cell based study is on fat derived cells to enhance spinal fusion. Its not converting them to nerves.

                                His MLB, NFL, NHL studies are just collecting data and analyzing it. Most of the time they pay someone to track down all the information and then they do the analysis and write up the paper. Its helpful but his analysis for perfomance is weak.

                                My opinion is that I believe Hsu reports about having a fusion increases your chances of returning to play but I don't believe that he did an adequate job showing that players return to a similar level of play before they had an injury.

                                Lima trained the group in India and they didn't see the same results. I think most people would look at that and question his results with stem cells.
                                The mouse studies seemed to suggest some positive results however. I don't quite get why more investigators haven't tried to confirm Lima's work unless they think he's not reputable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X