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

Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

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

  • Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

    So much for "green."

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20070613a.html

    Short version: ethanol refineries keep getting cited for air pollution.

    I really struggle with the idea of ethanol as a legitimate long-term fuel source.
    This space for rent.

  • #2
    Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

    The question is whether the ethanol plants pollute less than would an oil refinery producing the same amount of fuel in BTUs.

    Ethanol could be viable only if efficiancy of production is increased. Corn is not a good feedstock for efficient ethanol production. Some grasses seem to be a lot better, but still not so great.

    The most green solution for now, and for the past 40 years, has been nuclear fission.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

      I think people are enamored with the idea of reinvigorating the agriculture and becoming more green with one solution.
      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

        For me the attraction to Ethanol has nothing to do with pollution, I just want the profits of sold product to not go to the OPEC cartel.
        "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

        --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

          Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
          For me the attraction to Ethanol has nothing to do with pollution, I just want the profits of sold product to not go to the OPEC cartel.
          i agree completely. i am sick of our money going to loser jerks like chavez in Venezuela or that douche bag armenijahd or whatever his name is in iran. these f***ers are looking to become ever greater threats to this country on several levels and if we can ween ourselves off their oil, it would have a big impact on them since the u.s. is by far the greatest consumer of their oil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

            Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
            For me the attraction to Ethanol has nothing to do with pollution, I just want the profits of sold product to not go to the OPEC cartel.
            Well, that I can agree with. I'm talking strictly from an environmental perspective.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

              I notice everyone is upset enough to talk about it, but nobody is upset enough to accept an electric vehicle that has a 40 mile range, but can be powered by nuclear fission, corn, wind, dams, gas, and possibly even Jesus Juice.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

                Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                I notice everyone is upset enough to talk about it, but nobody is upset enough to accept an electric vehicle that has a 40 mile range, but can be powered by nuclear fission, corn, wind, dams, gas, and possibly even Jesus Juice.
                40 would be rough. But I'd buy an electric with a 80-100 mile range.

                There aren't any electrics on the market. GE had one out (rental only), and people that had one desperately wanted to keep it, but GE recalled them all.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  40 would be rough. But I'd buy an electric with a 80-100 mile range.

                  There aren't any electrics on the market. GE had one out (rental only), and people that had one desperately wanted to keep it, but GE recalled them all.
                  Yeah, let's be honest. The hybrid/electric market isn't great and interest groups are going to keep it that way.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

                    Electrics are supposedly making an impact in the high-cost space... the Tesla Roadster and others are supposedly selling as fast as they're produced. On the one hand, the small numbers don't really have much of an impact on carbon emissions or oil imports. On the other hand, it makes electric kind of cool, and also drives research (which will eventually help everybody).

                    I still think the long-term fix is a plug-in hybrid, and several companies have started testing those this year. The next few years should be interesting in the automotive space.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

                      Anyone who thinks electric will help reduce pollution isn't living in the real world. It will save fuel - they are roughly twice as efficient as combustion.

                      They won't help with pollution since most of our country's electricity comes from coal and coal is roughly twice as polluting (on an energy-output basis) as combustion engines.

                      Being as coal is cheap, the infrastructure is set up for coal and we have enough to last for hundreds of years, I don't see any reason to believe that most electricity will come from anything but coal in the forseeable future.

                      There are several sound reasons to go with an electric car but reducing pollution isn't one of them. And if the US moves toward stricter mileage standards, electric cars will end up becoming net polluters relative to combustion.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

                        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post

                        There are several sound reasons to go with an electric car but reducing pollution isn't one of them. And if the US moves toward stricter mileage standards, electric cars will end up becoming net polluters relative to combustion.
                        Boy... you are going to have to cite something before I bite on that one.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

                          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                          Anyone who thinks electric will help reduce pollution isn't living in the real world. It will save fuel - they are roughly twice as efficient as combustion.

                          They won't help with pollution since most of our country's electricity comes from coal and coal is roughly twice as polluting (on an energy-output basis) as combustion engines.

                          Being as coal is cheap, the infrastructure is set up for coal and we have enough to last for hundreds of years, I don't see any reason to believe that most electricity will come from anything but coal in the forseeable future.

                          There are several sound reasons to go with an electric car but reducing pollution isn't one of them. And if the US moves toward stricter mileage standards, electric cars will end up becoming net polluters relative to combustion.
                          Man, are we going to have to go through this again?

                          1. Power plants are far more efficient than internal combustion engines. The amount of pollution made to produce the kWh to drive a car 100 miles is less than the pollution made from a very inefficient internal combustion engine. I see you disagree, so we'll both have to go find sources.

                          2. What pollution is produced, is away from the city. So while you may not be decreasing total carbon output by a ton, you're drastically improving air quality in cities, which is where the majority of the population lives.

                          3. By decoupling the need for transportation with the need for gasoline, you're free to add electric capacity any way you want. Yeah, coal is real, but there are a LOT of nuke plants coming online in the next 10 years. Even if the majority (>51%) of our power comes from coal, you're still decreasing emissions by adding nuke.

                          4. Coal plants are getting cleaner. They're still more dangerous to live next to than a nuke plant, but far safer than they were 30 years ago. And there's plenty of room for them to get cleaner yet, if we'd just insist on using the technology we already have.

                          5. We'd pretty quickly move to a point where we're not dependent on other countries for oil. We'd still need some, sure, but the ratio would go way down.
                          Last edited by Anthem; 06-16-2007, 12:40 PM.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            Man, are we going to have to go through this again?
                            Apparently yes, as long as you keep offering up the same bogus information.

                            1. Power plants are far more efficient than internal combustion engines. The amount of pollution made to produce the kWh to drive a car 100 miles is less than the pollution made from a very inefficient internal combustion engine. I see you disagree, so we'll both have to go find sources.
                            Try this one: http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.html

                            Including, Figure 1 reveals that gasoline cars are responsible for the least CO2 emissions during manufacture, but the most during use, and therefore the most over the vehicle's total lifetime. Hybrid cars demand slightly higher CO2 emissions during manufacture, and electric cars the most. Electric cars' high emissions during manufacture are most likely related to their very large batteries. But certainly the most important lesson of this LCA is the importance of the source of electricity used to power an electric car. Coal-based electricity leads to CO2 emissions nearly as high as for a gasoline-powered car!

                            I have others in the office - those will have to wait for Monday though.

                            2. What pollution is produced, is away from the city. So while you may not be decreasing total carbon output by a ton, you're drastically improving air quality in cities, which is where the majority of the population lives.
                            Moving the goal posts - nice.

                            3. By decoupling the need for transportation with the need for gasoline, you're free to add electric capacity any way you want. Yeah, coal is real, but there are a LOT of nuke plants coming online in the next 10 years. Even if the majority (>51%) of our power comes from coal, you're still decreasing emissions by adding nuke.
                            Which nuke plants have been announced that you're talking about?

                            4. Coal plants are getting cleaner. They're still more dangerous to live next to than a nuke plant, but far safer than they were 30 years ago. And there's plenty of room for them to get cleaner yet, if we'd just insist on using the technology we already have.
                            Wrong. New coal plants must be much cleaner than the old ones but the old ones can emit just as much carbon as they ever have - the Clean Air Act very specifically exempts existing plants from having to follow the regulations (they did have to reduce sulfur) required of new ones. It's the same reason nobody builds new refineries - they just refit and expand the old ones. New coal plants aren't being built either.

                            5. We'd pretty quickly move to a point where we're not dependent on other countries for oil. We'd still need some, sure, but the ratio would go way down.
                            Yes - and that's a reason in favor of electric which has nothing to do with pollution. There are plenty of others but this screwball idea that electric cars=emissions reductions has to go.
                            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Reduce pollution! Don't use ethanol!

                              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                              But certainly the most important lesson of this LCA is the importance of the source of electricity used to power an electric car. Coal-based electricity leads to CO2 emissions nearly as high as for a gasoline-powered car![/i]
                              Ok, look man. I'm not trying to be argumentative. But isn't that exactly what I just said?

                              I said "The amount of pollution from electricity is less than the amount from an internal combustion engine."
                              You said "Coal-based electricity is nearly as high as [i.e., less than] internal combustion."

                              It doesn't look like we're in disagreement here.

                              Moving the goal posts - nice.
                              Why is this moving the goalposts? I see this as legitimate, especially since I don't particularly care about carbon output but DO care about breathable air quality. That's not moving the goal posts, that's me being completely consistent.

                              Which nuke plants have been announced that you're talking about?
                              I had dinner with a nuke guy last week who says his company has 4 in the pipleline, all based on NRC-approved standardized designs. I have no idea where they'll be located or when they'll come online.

                              Wrong. New coal plants must be much cleaner than the old ones but the old ones can emit just as much carbon as they ever have - the Clean Air Act very specifically exempts existing plants from having to follow the regulations (they did have to reduce sulfur) required of new ones. It's the same reason nobody builds new refineries - they just refit and expand the old ones. New coal plants aren't being built either.
                              Agreed that coal is a lot dirtier than nuke. Agree that old plants could and should be refitted, but Congress (and Cheney) specifically exempted them because it costs money. Still, I'm talking about "pollution" in a general sense, not just CO2 emissions. So we're talking about sulfur, particulates, and even radioactive isotopes (carbon/thorium/uranium) that are found in high quantities in coal and spewed into the air.

                              Yes - and that's a reason in favor of electric which has nothing to do with pollution. There are plenty of others but this screwball idea that electric cars=emissions reductions has to go.
                              Again, all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. CO2 emissions are a kind of pollution that could potentially, according to some climate models, have long-term detrimental effects on the environment. Fine. But what's more important to me is the stuff that actually craps up the air that my daughter has to breathe every day.

                              Here in Cincinnati we're getting air pollution alerts, and signs that say "Don't gas up before 6pm." That's a solved problem with lower-emissions cars.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X