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

  • https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/statu...93035014?s=20]




    George Conway
    @gtconway3d
    ·
    14h
    The Surgeon General of the United States, whose salary is paid by all the nation’s taxpayers, and who tells us to eat our vegetables and not to use tobacco, can’t bring himself to say: Don’t inject or ingest bleach or other disinfectants.
    Quote Tweet

    U.S. Surgeon General
    @Surgeon_General
    · 15h
    A reminder to all Americans- PLEASE always talk to your health provider first before administering any treatment/ medication to yourself or a loved one. Your safety is paramount, and doctors and nurses are have years of training to recommend what’s safe and effective.
    Show this thread

    Comment



    • NPR✔@NPR
      JUST IN: In a stunning reversal for Navy officials, Admiral Michael Gilday — chief of naval operations — has recommended Capt. Brett Crozier be restored to command of the Theodore Roosevelt.

      A U.S. official confirmed the news with NPR.
      39.7K
      10:58 PM - Apr 24, 2020
      Twitter Ads info and privacy

      Comment



      • Anna Sanders ✔@AnnaESanders
        NYC Poison Control Center saw 30 cases of exposure to Lysol, bleach & other cleaners in 18 hours after Trump’s suggestion disinfectant might be used to treat coronavirus

        That’s more than double during same period in 2019, per health dept

        Thankfully no hospitalizations or deaths View image on Twitter
        5,480
        1:49 AM - Apr 25, 2020

        Comment



        • Minnesota Timberwolves✔@Timberwolves
          inject ice in your veins, not disinfectant View image on Twitter

          Comment



          • Leah McElrath @leahmcelrath
            “Doctors sound alarm about patients in their 30s and 40s left debilitated or dead. Some didn’t even know they were infected.”

            If you read or share just one story about #COVID19 today, make it this one:https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/ …
            Young, healthy people barely sick with covid-19 are dying from strokes

            Doctors sound alarm about patients in their 30s and 40s left debilitated or dead by strokes. Some didn’t even know they were infected by coronavirus.
            washingtonpost.com

            Comment


            • Trump to scale back coronavirus press conferences after disinfectant comment: report

              https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...r-disinfectant

              Comment


              • Remember that study which allegedly showed hydroxychloroquine was ineffective in treating coronavirus? It's been put on blast by hydroxychloroquine proponent Didier Raoult. Raoult, who's considered by many the greatest biologist in all of France, explicitly calls it scientific fraud.

                His complaints, in summary:

                1. The severity of cases --- and thus, likelihood of death -- was heavily stacked against the hydroxychloroquine groups.
                2. The post-intubation stage at which patients were given hydroxychloroquine in an act of desperation was likely too far along for the treatment to be effective.
                3. 30% of the untreated patients were, in fact, treated with azithromycin. The authors forgot to mention that in the text. Innocent mistake, I'm sure.

                It's a PDF file that's been translated (somewhat roughly) into English:

                https://www.mediterranee-infection.c...-Magagnoli.pdf

                In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe. The analysis of the data shows two major biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work:

                The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28% deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ± standard deviation, 0.94 ± 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ± 0.84, p < .0001)). As the authors acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e. the same percentage of lymphopenia.

                The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square = 0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where there are significant differences. These differences are most likely related to the fact that the patients had been intubated for some time before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.

                Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.

                Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020).

                All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                  1. Did he really say this?

                  2. If he really did, is that something you are proud of?!?!?!
                  1. Yes
                  2. Not sure what you mean. I don’t like the man for many reasons and that isn’t even top on the list. People make an enormous mistake concluding I like him or another of these people when I put up a vigorous defense. I am really just seeking the truth in a world filled with fake news.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                    Yet someone on the other side could say the same thing about talk radio. How many liberals are on talk radio? Versus how many conversations are on talk radio?

                    This still does not address my direct question, which is fine. As long as folks realize no one is truly “fair and balanced” or “doesn’t have a slant” (which includes Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) then so be it. I just think its funny/ironic when folks say “I am the most objective person in the room” or “my TV network doesn’t pick on X or Y person and every other network is mean to them”
                    Fox only exists because MSM, which existed prior to it, kept veering to the left and lost a huge percentage of TV viewers. Conservative talk radio grew for the same reason. They were both a reaction to liberal media (Movies, TV, Disney, newspapers and internet), liberal academia, and liberal corporate PC politics dominating every corner in the US.

                    So liberals still own everything except talk radio which skews the playing field and is the main reason I have to defend Trump or whomever is unfairly attacked by them.

                    Do I criticize Fox? I have but normally they are on my side defending against the massive onslaught of liberalism spewing from all of these sources. I also do think they used to be pretty fair and balanced but in recent years have just been a counterbalance to MSM. Yet because of all this liberal noise, many you post, there is little reason to do that because so much of the noise is anti Trump. If that didn’t dominate I would be more critical of Trump.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                      1. Yes
                      2. Not sure what you mean. I don’t like the man for many reasons and that isn’t even top on the list. People make an enormous mistake concluding I like him or another of these people when I put up a vigorous defense. I am really just seeking the truth in a world filled with fake news.



                      1. That is crazy
                      2. What I mean I don’t care if its POTUS or CEO or Marriott or Redbull. If you have a group that followed you so ardently that this was the case then that is a problem.
                      Last edited by vapacersfan; 04-25-2020, 04:09 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                        Fox only exists because MSM, which existed prior to it, kept veering to the left and lost a huge percentage of TV viewers. Conservative talk radio grew for the same reason. They were both a reaction to liberal media (Movies, TV, Disney, newspapers and internet), liberal academia, and liberal corporate PC politics dominating every corner in the US.

                        So liberals still own everything except talk radio which skews the playing field and is the main reason I have to defend Trump or whomever is unfairly attacked by them.
                        I keep seeing this but Fox News was started in 1995 or 1996. Also, you keep saying “everything is liberal”. Yet I hear plenty of people say “everything is conservative except cable TV and newspaper”. Perception is in the eye of the beholder

                        Do I criticize Fox?
                        No disrespect but the answer is no. I even went through the old forum where I found some classics of me telling VNZLA to stop whining about me complaining about POTUS Obama. Your message was pretty consistent (and that is not a bad thing) but legitimately I would love for you to show me one time you critiqued Fox News

                        I have but normally they are on my side defending against the massive onslaught of liberalism spewing from all of these sources.
                        Thank you for being honest

                        I also do think they used to be pretty fair and balanced but in recent years have just been a counterbalance to MSM. Yet because of all this liberal noise, many you post, there is little reason to do that because so much of the noise is anti Trump. If that didn’t dominate I would be more critical of Trump.
                        Even when I leaned way more the right I never thought Fox News was fair and balanced. They simply were there to counter what they considered main stream media bias.

                        Also, you claimed to be objective (the most objective I think was your verbiage) yet the bolder part is jus further proof that is not true.

                        I would be more critical of Trump.

                        Again no disrespect but you go out of your way to defend the POTUS. If you can take the bad with the good so be it (I have plenty of friends who said they “held their nose when voting to get the Supreme Court Justice picks they wanted”) but just own it.
                        Last edited by vapacersfan; 04-25-2020, 04:11 AM.

                        Comment



                        • Madison365@madison_365
                          The crowd at the Reopen Wisconsin rally ended up being at least a couple thousand. View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

                          Comment


                          • Michigan Gov. Whitmer extends modified stay-at-home order into May, as lawmakers intervene

                            https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mi...oCJ?li=BBnbfcL

                            Comment


                            • Gov. Ron DeSantis Not Ready To Announce Plan To Reopen Florida

                              https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...id=hplocalnews

                              Comment


                              • https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/hea...Srq?li=BBnb7Kz
                                Meet the ICU nurse who silently stood in protest at rally to reopen Arizona

                                I know Mr. Mass has asked in the past, this should help answer the question

                                On her day off from working at a Covid-19 unit in an Arizona hospital, ICU nurse Lauren Leander threw on a pair of clean scrubs and headed to an anti-lockdown protest at the state Capitol.


                                Mr. Mass

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X