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

A thought on war casualties

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

  • A thought on war casualties

    This forum contains two separate threads keeping track of US military casualties in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Here's a Boston Globe story noting that amputations are occurring at twice the rate of previous wars:

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._of_past_wars/

    The article doesn't tell what the rate of injuries leading to amputation among our soldiers is, which seems like a curious ommission. But that information is provided in the December issue of National Geographic.

    Before I share the number of soldiers who have lost limbs during the past four years of war, let me note that in the United States there are about 4.2 million debilitating accidents or injuries in the workplace every year, and about 133,000 amputations. About 50,000 of those are amputations of a limb (rather than a finger or toe).

    OK, so, given the violent nature of war, how many amputations do you suppose have occurred in Iraq during the past four years? 30-thousand? 40-thousand?

    http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0612/feature3/

    The answer: 468 amputations in four years.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22126.pdf

    This military report tell us, among other things, that 10% of all military injuries leading to amputation during the past four years have happened to soldiers who weren't even deployed!
    My point is not to diminish the significance of those 468 life-changing injuries, or the 3,000+ who have died. But ordinary Americans are getting hurt everyday at their work and their play. Life isn't safe.

    A reasonable person can oppose the war. It is reasonable to lament the lives lost and bodies injured in the war.

    But it is not reasonable to talk as though the war casualties are an extraordinary tragedy, as if those people would live for ever if they hadn't died or been injured in combat. Especially when you don't consider that most of them were where they wanted to be, doing what they freely chose to do.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: A thought on war casualties

    That's.... startlingly lower than I'd expected. I've heard a ton of stories about people losing limbs... 468 seems less than I'd thought.

    Agree that 468 is 468 too many, but people talk about Iraq like it's Vietnam. It's nowhere close.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A thought on war casualties

      Interesting observation! For one thing, it's an amazing testament to advances in battlefield medicine. Injuries that would have been life-threatening or require amputation just 30 years ago can now be fully repaired. I wish that the blue collar workers who are the bulk of the amputees in the US had access to good medical care.

      A note on the math. There are about 1.4 million in the armed forces (I believe). 468 amputations in 4 years is 117 a year is about 1 amputation for every 12,000 troops. 50,000 a year in a country of 300 million is one amputation for every 6000 individuals. Wow.

      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
      A reasonable person can oppose the war. It is reasonable to lament the lives lost and bodies injured in the war.

      But it is not reasonable to talk as though the war casualties are an extraordinary tragedy, as if those people would live for ever if they hadn't died or been injured in combat. Especially when you don't consider that most of them were where they wanted to be, doing what they freely chose to do.
      Well, I think it's reasonable to consider the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis to be a tragedy at least, right?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A thought on war casualties

        When I was a kid, growing up on a farm in Wells County, at least half of the grown-up men living on neighboring farms had prosthetic arms. A couple of others had "wooden" legs.

        I can still remember the day I realized that this was not normal, and that something wrong must have happened to cause all those guys to lose a limb. I asked my dad, and he told me which ones had farming accidents and which had been soldiers in Korea or WWII.

        Incidentally, two-thirds of amputations in the US result from diabetes, and only one-third from trauma.

        Originally posted by 3Ball
        Well, I think it's reasonable to consider the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis to be a tragedy at least, right?
        Yes, so long as we don't go on immediately to cast blame for those deaths...


        "For the king purposes not their deaths
        When he purposes their service."

        Shakespeare, Henry V
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A thought on war casualties

          You mean to tell me that Earl's service record was very special because he happened to have an injury not seen very often?

          Wow, my apology goes out to Earl and his grandchildren for the psychological abuse we must have put them through.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A thought on war casualties

            If I recall, Earl claimed to have lost "some limbs." The armed forces keep data on soldiers who've lost one or two limbs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks thje same kind of numbers for the workplace, and the Center for Disease Control for the general population. Any of those could tell you the number of persons who've lost a finger, an eye, a hand, etc. or a particular combination of those.

            But as a guy who lost an indefinite number of limbs, Earl stands alone.

            Let's move on.
            And I won't be here to see the day
            It all dries up and blows away
            I'd hang around just to see
            But they never had much use for me
            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A thought on war casualties

              Who the hell is Earl?

              No, really.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A thought on war casualties

                Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                Who the hell is Earl?

                No, really.
                http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=12377
                Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A thought on war casualties

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  Especially when you don't consider that most of them were where they wanted to be, doing what they freely chose to do.
                  Well said.This is something that many people who oppose the War don't say.They all say in public that they support us and want us home. Many of us though in the Military don't quite believe them.Then again we think that Many Americans want to see us fail.

                  In the end we are the ones who signed up, we are the ones who decided to fight and go in harms way. Nobody lied to us when we signed that dotted line.We knew that there might be a chance post 9/11 we might find ourselves being in a two or three front war. Most of us don't have a problem with it yet the majority of Americans do.

                  If Americans truly support us then back it up by getting behind us 100%.Once we accomplish the mission and were home then you ask the questions, then place the blame on the Administration if you believe they were wrong, have congressional hearing ect.All this bickering does little for morale for my brothers still fighting overseas and it only emboldens the enemy knowing that all they have to do is wait us out therefore making our job tougher then it has to be.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A thought on war casualties

                    A classic Bin Laden quote:
                    Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.

                    After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our men no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our men were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ...
                    It's not the American military that's a paper tiger. It's the American public.

                    p.s. He was running a terrorist training camp in Sudan, while claiming to build roads.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A thought on war casualties

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post


                      It's not the American military that's a paper tiger. It's the American public.
                      And a left leaning media...

                      -Bball
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: A thought on war casualties

                        Wow, hilarious read! I really need to pay more attention during the off-season.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A thought on war casualties

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          A classic Bin Laden quote:


                          It's not the American military that's a paper tiger. It's the American public.
                          I've heard some say that the Beirut bombing showed that the armed forces are a paper tiger.
                          Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                          I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A thought on war casualties

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            It's not the American military that's a paper tiger. It's the American public.
                            With this statement, can we now officially close the book on which side of the isle it is that hates America?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A thought on war casualties

                              Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                              With this statement, can we now officially close the book on which side of the isle it is that hates America?
                              Huh? What does that quote -- distinguishing our military from our often parisan civilians that make up the "American public" -- answer about "which side of the aisle" hates America? (I see you are still defensive about the recent polling, and what it reveals about Dems who make up a large segment of the American public, that touches on that question, eh 3B?)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X