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

COVID-19

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

  • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post


    You wanna take this cocktail of drugs so bad to own the libs, do it for dear leader and let us know how it goes
    If I become infected, and it looks like it may turn severe, I will happily take the treatment. Then, once I'm healed in a matter of days, I'll do a round of media appearances and take a verbal dump on every leftist fighting the treatment.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

      Unlike cult followers some of us care about what scientist have to say, this drug cocktail the buffoon keeps telling his followers to take is nothing but some propaganda bs that dear leader keeps pushing.

      Call me when real scientists have done the normal protocols and try outs like they do for any drug, it takes years if not decades to know if a drug works or not and just because somebody somewhere got better doesn't mean this drugs work.
      It's just stunning that some of you are not aware of the positive things going on, but that really shouldn't be a surprise because you're all sucka's for the Fake Stream Media.

      Not sure why I need to post this to educate, but here are results and conclusions from the recent study in France:

      I realize fake news doesn't report on this even though the US government published it. They would rather people die I guess so Trump isn't re-elected.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32205204
      RESULTS:

      Six patients were asymptomatic, 22 had upper respiratory tract infection symptoms and eight had lower respiratory tract infection symptoms. Twenty cases were treated in this study and showed a significant reduction of the viral carriage at D6-post inclusion compared to controls, and much lower average carrying duration than reported of untreated patients in the literature. Azithromycin added to hydroxychloroquine was significantly more efficient for virus elimination.

      CONCLUSION:

      Despite its small sample size our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin.

      Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.

      Comment


      • Here is the process for a drug to be approved for something and how it should be, yes sorry but a buffoon saying that it works is not scientific proof.


        A pharmaceutical company seeking FDA approval to sell a new prescription drug must complete a five-step process: discovery/concept, preclinical research, clinical research, FDA review and FDA post-market safety monitoring.

        First, the company must conduct laboratory tests and try the drug on animals and then people to make sure it works and is safe.

        After testing the drug, the company then sends the FDA a new drug application (NDA), which must include:
        • The drug’s test results
        • Manufacturing information to demonstrate the company can properly manufacture the drug
        • Data gathered during the animal studies and human clinical trials
        • The company’s proposed label for the drug, which includes uses for which it has been shown to be effective, possible risks and how to use it
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mr. Mass View Post

          If I become infected, and it looks like it may turn severe, I will happily take the treatment. Then, once I'm healed in a matter of days, I'll do a round of media appearances and take a verbal dump on every leftist fighting the treatment.
          You want this to happen so bad
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Here is the process for a drug to be approved for something and how it should be, yes sorry but a buffoon saying that it works is not scientific proof.
            There isn't time for a 1 or 2 year clinical trial. By the time it's done, we will have herd immunity and millions will be dead. I'm not saying it's irrelevant but the current focus should be on immediate treatment options. No, it's not ideal and wasn't going to be ideal.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

              It's just stunning that some of you are not aware of the positive things going on, but that really shouldn't be a surprise because you're all sucka's for the Fake Stream Media.

              Not sure why I need to post this to educate, but here are results and conclusions from the recent study in France:

              I realize fake news doesn't report on this even though the US government published it. They would rather people die I guess so Trump isn't re-elected.

              CONCLUSION:

              Despite its small sample size our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin.

              Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.
              Very small sample no scientist worth a damn is going to take that and make a conclusion if dear leaders cocktail works or not.


              I think they are better off just taking Alex Jones supplements at this point and might get the same results.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                There isn't time for a 1 or 2 year clinical trial. By the time it's done, we will have herd immunity and millions will be dead. I'm not saying it's irrelevant but the current focus should be on immediate treatment options. No, it's not ideal and wasn't going to be ideal.
                There is a better chance for a vaccine to come quicker than for some medicine to be "discovered" at this moment.


                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                  The one gripe I have with Trump is him talking about an attempt to return to normalcy by Easter. That is not happening and shouldn't happen. Yet I don't expect him to actually do that as that would be a bad decision. I don't see him making actual bad decisions when it comes down to it. No I don't agree with everything he actually does. I just don't look for anything he happens to utter and try to make a political point over it.

                  It's true he just blurts out things and sometimes he's not right. That's just his nature. Is it good to have a president who does that? No.

                  But again, I need a better option. I would be very happy to have Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or even John Kasich be president. But he won the nomination fair and square.

                  As for the current options, I cannot vote for a mental patient who probably should be behind bars...and I will not vote for a Communist.

                  ...and a bag of stale cheeto's simply cannot function as president, so here we are.


                  I just wanted to rep this. I know we're not philosophically aligned on a lot, but this is the fairest I've seen from a Trump supporter tbh. I was clearly wrong to say you won't think critically, when you're acknowledging what you're acknowledging here re: his shortcomings and where he has erred in this process. So respect, even if we surely disagree on a lot.

                  I mostly just have issues with falsehoods at this time, like with testing rollout initially, like with ventilator numbers, like with the weird "it would be beautiful" Easter thing he did, as you alluded to. This is honestly a time to just be as sincere as possible (no Romney jokes etc.), acknowledge the gravity while providing reassurance that the government is taking it seriously and has qualified experts leading the charge ... then hand the mic over to Fauci.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    Here is the process for a drug to be approved for something and how it should be, yes sorry but a buffoon saying that it works is not scientific proof.




                    Considering this drug is already FDA approved for other diseases none of this is relevant. These requirements are for new drugs, and this is not a new drug. The only thing that needs to happen is approve it for this specific disease. The drug is already known to be safe at certain levels. So all that needs proven is that it is effective.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                      Very small sample no scientist worth a damn is going to take that and make a conclusion if dear leaders cocktail works or not.


                      I think they are better off just taking Alex Jones supplements at this point and might get the same results.
                      I’m guessing you don’t know squat about this drug aside from the cliff notes version you see on Twitter from the hateful batch of no-name losers who are rooting for this whole thing to bring the Trump presidency down.

                      I don’t know squat about it either, but I’m also not trying to act like I know anything about it. Leave it to the medical professionals on the scene to make the decision. I’m guessing that Cuomo and the State of New York have received the most information on this since they have the most cases. And they have decided to try it in stare-approved clinical trials. It’s not like they are handing it out like candy.

                      Seems reasonable. This is what a leader does who is trying to help his people. He’s not governing out of creepy blind hate like we’re seeing in Michigan.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                        Considering this drug is already FDA approved for other diseases none of this is relevant. These requirements are for new drugs, and this is not a new drug. The only thing that needs to happen is approve it for this specific disease. The drug is already known to be safe at certain levels. So all that needs proven is that it is effective.
                        And to be approved for this specific diseases needs more than just somebody telling people that it works, they need to do trials and it takes years for that.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                          And to be approved for this specific diseases needs more than just somebody telling people that it works, they need to do trials and it takes years for that.
                          Again you are talking about a new drug, not an established drug.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                            Im guessing you dont know squat about this drug aside from the cliff notes version you see on Twitter from the hateful batch of no-name losers who are rooting for this whole thing to bring the Trump presidency down.

                            I dont know squat about it either, but Im also not trying to act like I know anything about it. Leave it to the medical professionals on the scene to make the decision. I’m guessing that Cuomo and the State of New York have received the most information on this since they have the most cases. And they have decided to try it in stare-approved clinical trials. It’s not like they are handing it out like candy.

                            Seems reasonable. This is what a leader does who is trying to help his people. He’s not governing out of creepy blind hate like we’re seeing in Michigan.
                            Nobody knows squat about the drug that's the point and is going to take a long time to know how good that drug is or not.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                              Nobody knows squat about the drug that's the point and is going to take a long time to know how good that drug is or not.
                              So what New York is doing seems reasonable. State-approved clinical trials, which I’m sure were approved only after consulting experts and medicinal professionals.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                                Again you are talking about a new drug, not an established drug.

                                Even an established drug needs a certain amount of time to see if it works for that specific diseases.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X