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

  • BlueNGold
    replied
    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

    The bolded part is where I disagree. It is not the most accurate indicator of the severity. It merely shows a slice of the people effected in the worst way but that does not mean that it is scoring all severe outcomes. Public health officials do not place all their statistical eggs in one basket to make a public health decision and why would they? Its completely negligent to do so.

    The area where I agree is that certain elected procedures should continue and I can also tell you Methodist jumped ahead of the governors orders in doing certain procedures for the very fact that you stated. To me the nation should open up based on available data and keep pushing forward with testing more people and tracking more people to prevent more infections. It should be on a county or local level if the data warrants such an approach. The bolded part to me is not just semantics since it gets at the very root of what is being monitored and how we move forward to opening up.
    I am not ignoring the complications. I know someone who was on a vent for over a week and is on a slow recovery. I fully realize there will permanent damage to people. The point I'm making is that the death count is the best measure of how bad it is with the understanding that a certain percentage also has these complications.

    For example, if you know that for every death you have one person with significant complications and two with mild complications, you can extrapolate those numbers. Where a jurisdiction has 100 deaths, there are 300 people with complications. Where there are 1000 deaths, there are 3000 people with complications. It may not be a perfect correlation, I understand. But again, I think it's the best metric to assess the entire situation.

    Hospitalizations is also very, very high on my list of things to look at. I don't look at positive tests nearly as much because I don't know what flavor of test they took, if the test has improved, etc. Too many moving parts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

    I fully understand that. I will briefly explain why I bring it up...and then I have something else to say.

    Death counts due to Covid-19 are the most accurate indicator of the severity of the problem. We know there are people who have long term complications. That kind of goes along with the issue.

    Now to a part I think many don't consider. There are countless, literally millions of people who have not been able to get what are called "elective procedures". Believe it or not, many of these procedures are very important, life saving measures. One example is colonoscopies delayed for months. I happen to know some of these are diagnostic in nature where the person is at considerable risk of colon cancer. Over 53,000 people are projected to die of colon cancer this year. This is just one issue with lockdown.

    So to me, it's not an all or nothing situation. All I ask is that we open up everything as much as possible while monitoring the situation. Maybe we will learn a thing or two. Yes, there will be costs but there are going to be costs. Be smart but don't live in fear.
    The bolded part is where I disagree. It is not the most accurate indicator of the severity. It merely shows a slice of the people effected in the worst way but that does not mean that it is scoring all severe outcomes. Public health officials do not place all their statistical eggs in one basket to make a public health decision and why would they? Its completely negligent to do so.

    The area where I agree is that certain elected procedures should continue and I can also tell you Methodist jumped ahead of the governors orders in doing certain procedures for the very fact that you stated. To me the nation should open up based on available data and keep pushing forward with testing more people and tracking more people to prevent more infections. It should be on a county or local level if the data warrants such an approach. The bolded part to me is not just semantics since it gets at the very root of what is being monitored and how we move forward to opening up.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueNGold
    replied
    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

    Again it is not about deaths. This was one of lead doctors who treated Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/NickHartThorax/s...875529728?s=20

    He calls it our generations Polo. Huge number of young and old people will have long lasting effects from this which is why limiting spread is the way to go until a vaccine.

    Lung functional impairment will stress almost every organ in your body. This will lead to long term health problems in people who would not have had them if it wasn't for the infection that was moderate to severe.

    I mean I would not stress these points so much if lungs healed at a high rate but they don't. Basically we could easily see a couple of million people in the USA die years later of complications to this virus. Will it happen to every person? No but will it happen to so many people that we will regret not doing more. This is almost certainly true. There will be entirely new category of people for the health field to deal with and everything from health insurance to life insurance will classify these people in a disease category of there own.
    I fully understand that. I will briefly explain why I bring it up...and then I have something else to say.

    Death counts due to Covid-19 are the most accurate indicator of the severity of the problem. We know there are people who have long term complications. That kind of goes along with the issue.

    Now to a part I think many don't consider. There are countless, literally millions of people who have not been able to get what are called "elective procedures". Believe it or not, many of these procedures are very important, life saving measures. One example is colonoscopies delayed for months. I happen to know some of these are diagnostic in nature where the person is at considerable risk of colon cancer. Over 53,000 people are projected to die of colon cancer this year. This is just one issue with lockdown.

    So to me, it's not an all or nothing situation. All I ask is that we open up everything as much as possible while monitoring the situation. Maybe we will learn a thing or two. Yes, there will be costs but there are going to be costs. Be smart but don't live in fear.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    It's good news if there are more cases. It means more immunity.

    It's good news if there are less cases. It means less potential death.
    Again it is not about deaths. This was one of lead doctors who treated Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/NickHartThorax/s...875529728?s=20

    He calls it our generations Polo. Huge number of young and old people will have long lasting effects from this which is why limiting spread is the way to go until a vaccine.

    Lung functional impairment will stress almost every organ in your body. This will lead to long term health problems in people who would not have had them if it wasn't for the infection that was moderate to severe.

    I mean I would not stress these points so much if lungs healed at a high rate but they don't. Basically we could easily see a couple of million people in the USA die years later of complications to this virus. Will it happen to every person? No but will it happen to so many people that we will regret not doing more. This is almost certainly true. There will be entirely new category of people for the health field to deal with and everything from health insurance to life insurance will classify these people in a disease category of there own.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peck
    replied
    https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavi...qla-story.html

    First day since March in NY with zero confirmed Covid-19 deaths.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueNGold
    replied
    It's good news if there are more cases. It means more immunity.

    It's good news if there are less cases. It means less potential death.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    A couple of things here.

    Do we know if a high viral exposer gives worse outcomes? Unless you do the study for that you can not claim that it does. There was a flu study looking at that with volunteers but I am pretty sure that study hasn't been done with covid 19.

    Second point is that it is not just about limiting deaths. They still do not know of the long term health consequences of the more severe infections so limiting deaths is great but in the end exposing healthier adults before a vaccine may shave off years off a persons life expectancy.

    Lastly the numbers game of percentages and limiting spread of the virus is dependent in developing immunity and viral replication rate. By in large the difference of 20% to 10% is not going to significantly slow down the virus if the replication rate is 3 to 5. In addition no one knows if a high level of immunity is achieved with people that have no symptoms or very mild symptoms.

    In the end I do not believe you can achieve the desired goal which is to slow down the virus and limit deaths. You will no doubt increase deaths and increase the level of the second wave by starting out with more infections nation wide in the fall.

    The best course is to get the vaccine as soon as possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eleazar
    replied
    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

    This is basically a herd immunity proposal and again that is often times determined if people are able to have long term immunity and if the immune population reaches around 80%. The likelihood of that happening in the first year of a novel pandemic is almost 0. The higher the Ro or reproduction rate of the virus the higher herd immunity has to be according to articles I have read.
    Well yes, that is the whole goal. The sooner we can get there while reducing deaths to a minimum the better. Allowing greater spread during a time period where lower viral loads are being transferred will move us towards that goal faster while reducing deaths. A big indicator of how bad the disease will be is by how much of the virus you are exposed to. The higher the initial virus count the more likely the disease will be worse. While we do not know how long people are immune at this point, even if it is short term having a higher percentage of people immune even for a short period of time can help to limit the spread of the virus during the months when the virus is going to be worse.

    Keep in mind, this isn't about gaining true herd immunity at this point. It is only about reducing the amount of spread vectors. If only 25% of people are immune, that is better than if only 10% are immune. Every time a new person becomes immune that is one less vector the virus can use to spread to other people.

    Leave a comment:


  • vapacersfan
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

    ...and this is what I've been saying. It's like a natural vaccine. OK, maybe I don't have any science to back that up...but statistically George continues to look good.
    I have read it takes 70% to have effective herd immunity

    United States population - 330,867,126. 70% would be 231,606,988. Last I heard the United States was at around 1.8M infections (accepting testing numbers are far from accurate).

    It seems to me like we are a long, long way off from reaching that numbers.

    Here is an article I found on the topic: COVID-19 AND THE LONG ROAD TO HERD IMMUNITY https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/04/30/herd-...9-coronavirus/

    Leave a comment:


  • vnzla81
    replied
    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    Brazil racked up over 30,000 deaths fairly quickly.
    Brazil is becoming a mess.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
    Some information out of Italy shows that new patients are showing lower viral load amounts compared to a month or so ago. Lower viral loads tend to cause more mild disease, which results in fewer deaths per 1,000. I believe this falls in line with the idea that things will be better during warmer months, but could get worse during fall. I think it would be advantageous to open things up allowing it to spread more while it is resulting in more mild cases, and hope that stems the spread in the fall when it will probably be worse. Would still need to be very careful when interacting with elderly people.
    This is basically a herd immunity proposal and again that is often times determined if people are able to have long term immunity and if the immune population reaches around 80%. The likelihood of that happening in the first year of a novel pandemic is almost 0. The higher the Ro or reproduction rate of the virus the higher herd immunity has to be according to articles I have read.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

    Oh I’ve never thought it was high outdoors, but the media and others absolutely told us it was high (which is why pretty much every organized outdoor event under the sun was shutdown and other groups who have gathered were demonized). Maybe they didn’t really think it was high either, but they told people it was.

    Just go back in this thread and look - when people were protesting the lockdowns, the narrative was that they were going to get everyone in their communities sick. And these were MUCH smaller crowds. Just like I’ve said - this whole thing has just been clouded with so much political garbage that it’s hard to have a rational discussion about it. I do applaud your posts in this thread because you seem like you’ve really tried to objectively analyze the science.

    My whole point is that if there are no hotspots soon in these cities, surely most can agree that outdoor events (sports, concerts, etc) can start to get back to normal.
    So I think there is some rates that are going up. Rtlive is a website trying to track the transmission rate with the amount of test per state is doing. The number of states reporting above a 1 since lockdowns were lifted is going up which means the virus is gaining momentum.

    Also a recent Science article pointed toward a couple of factors to higher risk factors for spreading it. Yelling such as in a loud meat packing plant or choir practice or at a sporting event seems to correlate with the hot spots. It really comes down to how many droplets of spit leave your mouth and yelling or singing or heavy labored breathing produce more droplets. So I would expect more cases due to the protest but I doubt we can separate the data from when the lockdowns were lifted vs when people started protesting. They happen too close together but I could be wrong there.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueNGold
    replied
    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
    Some information out of Italy shows that new patients are showing lower viral load amounts compared to a month or so ago. Lower viral loads tend to cause more mild disease, which results in fewer deaths per 1,000. I believe this falls in line with the idea that things will be better during warmer months, but could get worse during fall. I think it would be advantageous to open things up allowing it to spread more while it is resulting in more mild cases, and hope that stems the spread in the fall when it will probably be worse. Would still need to be very careful when interacting with elderly people.
    ...and this is what I've been saying. It's like a natural vaccine. OK, maybe I don't have any science to back that up...but statistically George continues to look good.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Brazil racked up over 30,000 deaths fairly quickly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eleazar
    replied
    Some information out of Italy shows that new patients are showing lower viral load amounts compared to a month or so ago. Lower viral loads tend to cause more mild disease, which results in fewer deaths per 1,000. I believe this falls in line with the idea that things will be better during warmer months, but could get worse during fall. I think it would be advantageous to open things up allowing it to spread more while it is resulting in more mild cases, and hope that stems the spread in the fall when it will probably be worse. Would still need to be very careful when interacting with elderly people.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X