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

  • Gamble1
    replied
    Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post
    Pandemic is pretty much an endemic in the US now with new cases about to be under 10k a day.
    To early to say this at the moment. Certainly it is much more under control right now but we still have the new Delta variant to deal with. This is the India variant which is being studied and looked at heavily as now the biggest threat.

    The concern is the same as before and that is how good are the vaccines against it and how long are we protected. The short of it is that those who have only one dose of vaccine from moderna or Pfizer can get the delta strain and if you are old you most likely will have less protection over a greater period of time.

    The recent study basically tells us the efficacy of the antibodies are 5.8 times reduced for the India variant aka delta variant. This is double from the UK variant.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l.../fulltext#sec1

    What I imagine will happen is that the older folks (70 to 80) will have a remergence of infections as their vaccines wane. Then there will be a big push for the booster shots to come on line. The delta variant came up later in the booster vaccine development so any booster clinical trials on going will not be addressing this variant directly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Motion Offense
    replied
    Pandemic is pretty much an endemic in the US now with new cases about to be under 10k a day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    Pretty crazy story from Belgium as a far right military sniper goes AWOL and targets the lead virologist in Belguim.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57358492

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    This sinovac vaccine is going to really mess up vaccination data across the world.

    The WHO authorized it by the slimmest of margins and the data is so one sided it is hard to really be sure how good or not good it is.

    Keep in mind a poor vaccine that limits severe disease but does still allow high levels of transmission will promote the evolution of the virus.. It puts evolutionary pressure on the virus to adapt to the weak vaccine. This is essentially is a gain of function experiment in humans which will go on much longer if the virus is still able to transmit in large percentages of vaccinated people. If Baharian data is true we basically have green lighted the sinovac to be a major player and in doing that made it possible for this virus to keep transmitting to a high number of people and keep mutating in those people who think they are safe.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/bahrain...ne-11622648737

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    It doesn't look like UK delaying the second vaccine in older people did any harm and could of improved immunity via antibody production.

    It is curious that they saw a 3 times greater antibody titer with the delaying of the second dose but this could be explained with the timing of when they did the blood draws.

    https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/la...-response.aspx

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    Pretty smart to do a lottery since it will save the state millions in the long run.

    https://www.10tv.com/mobile/article/...7-72d5d803aaa5

    Leave a comment:


  • Motion Offense
    replied
    Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post
    I expect the CDC to come out in 2-3 weeks saying fully vaccinated people do not have to wear mask in a indoor setting and can ignore social distancing
    Dang I was off a week

    Leave a comment:


  • vapacersfan
    replied
    CDC says fully vaccinated Americans no longer need masks indoors or outdoors in most cases

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...rs-most-cases/

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
    I am curious on others take on the below article

    https://messaging-custom-newsletters...08c3122f8093b6

    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    So from the article in the Times arguing the exaggeration.

    In one study, 95 of 10,926 worldwide instances of transmission are classified as outdoors; all 95 are from Singapore construction sites.
    The paper is looking at cluster transmission aka more than one not specifically outdoor or indoor only transmission. The study is trying to define higher risk with the methodology around higher risk is correlative to cluster of covid cases.

    From the article he is citing..

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...VuA/edit#gid=0

    Clearly he did not do his due diligence on looking at the data since China outdoor markets are included but they did not classify them as clusters so they are excluded from the total number. Same thing goes for the runner partner in Italy. IF it wasn't a known cluster of cases it was excluded from the total is how I understand it.

    The basic premise of CDC guidelines are to error on the side of caution like the article quotes. You are not going to have a list of activities with a relative percentage of risk of catching covid for each one. There just isn't enough data to support such an approach like that.

    Lastly the article does not mention asymptomatic cases which is also a driver of total infections. These percentages and statistics are wildly off since overall transmission is unknown so therefore you can not give a good percentage. What if good a percentage of asymptomatic cases are from outdoor exposer. If you think about maybe the total viral load you are exposed to determines how fast your symptoms show up. Other virus's operate like that so if outdoor exposer lowers the total viral load initially maybe those people are asymptomatic cases that never get diagnosed.
    Last edited by Gamble1; 05-12-2021, 11:21 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • vapacersfan
    replied
    I am curious on others take on the below article

    https://messaging-custom-newsletters...08c3122f8093b6

    A huge exaggeration’
    When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidelines last month for mask wearing, it announced that “less than 10 percent” of Covid-19 transmission was occurring outdoors. Media organizations repeated the statistic, and it quickly became a standard description of the frequency of outdoor transmission.
    But the number is almost certainly misleading.
    It appears to be based partly on a misclassification of some Covid transmission that actually took place in enclosed spaces (as I explain below). An even bigger issue is the extreme caution of C.D.C. officials, who picked a benchmark — 10 percent — so high that nobody could reasonably dispute it.
    That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Motion Offense
    replied
    I expect the CDC to come out in 2-3 weeks saying fully vaccinated people do not have to wear mask in a indoor setting and can ignore social distancing

    Leave a comment:


  • Motion Offense
    replied
    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    I seriously doubt that we will see another bad surge again. Next week we most likely will get approved for 12 to 15 year olds. That will push the vaccine rates higher.
    I think we should get full FDA approval by end of June early July which should help push even higher rates when schools, hospitals, military and even some businesses mandate the vaccine for Pfizer. My dad works with IU Health and they already sent an email to majority of their employees that once the shot is fully approved everyone has to get it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    I seriously doubt that we will see another bad surge again. Next week we most likely will get approved for 12 to 15 year olds. That will push the vaccine rates higher.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peck
    replied
    Once again purely anecdotal evidence here but we have seen a slight uptick in the number of cases we are being sent to over the past week. However the acuity is not there. These are now far more like common flu symptoms.

    I have no idea what any of it means in truth. But I am encouraged to believe that between all of the measures that have taken place we could be looking at hopefully little to no virus over the summer and maybe by fall if enough people get the vaccine we might be able to rid ourselves of the worst of it.

    I had a physician declare the pandemic over the other day, however he was just mad because they only allowed 3 people at a black jack table and he was #4. He was telling them he had the vaccine and was a health professional. They didn't seem to care.

    Leave a comment:


  • vapacersfan
    replied
    Romania’s Bran Castle hosts "vaccination marathons" for tourists this month

    https://www.romania-insider.com/vacc...astle-may-2021

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X