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

  • Update on Remdesivir clinical trial from the conclusion of the paper

    Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance.
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2769871

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shags View Post

      Is there a timeframe where you would say that a vaccine can be trusted? Obviously that depends on a lot of factors. I was thinking March or April 2021. That's a year from when we started working on it, and even that is warp speed for drug approval.

      It goes without saying that any vaccine approved before the election is clearly politically motivated, and people shouldn't take it unless they absolutely have to.
      The data has to be transparent enough to make a strong case for it. The issue becomes whether or not they issue a emergency use authorization (EUA) for a vaccine. To my knowledge and I am getting this from Dr. Fauci no EUA has ever been issued for a vaccine. The scientific bar is lower for a EUA than it is to get FDA approval for large scale use for the population. This is literally uncharted territory for vaccine safety and efficacy.

      IF they issue an EUA for a vaccine then the problem is other vaccines underdevelopment will have a problem recruiting participants for those vaccines under development. Why would people sign up for a clinical trial if they don't have too.

      To show that the vaccine is safe they need enough people who got the vaccine to also contract covid 19 and not have an adverse reaction. This also needs to be shown in a diverse group of people which means multiple ages, ethnic groups and gender. The statistical power to prove that, which is a fancy way of saying it includes enough people to address safety and efficacy question, is why thousands of people have to be included for each vaccine trail. A EUA undermines that process but would defiantly appease Trump in his reelection goal.

      From a biology stand point I am not sure when you meet that threshold of a proven efficacy and safety stand point. Lets say an easy call is if 100% of the people vaccinated have protective antibodies made and no severe reactions are reported over 3 months. You would assume that out of 100,000 people 5% or so would have come into contact with the virus over a 3 month timeline. These numbers are completely hypothetical but this is how I understand the process. So 5% in this scenario is 5000 people and of those people how many where hospitalized for Covid-19 and what was their outcome? IF no one is hospitalized or a very small fraction then they can make a statistical argument that the vaccine works.

      This is very much the dream scenario though and obviously you need some time to assess the outcomes of the vaccine. You have to measure antibodies over many time points and you have to assess placebo and trial groups. This has to be done for each vaccine so I am not sure you can say with any amount of high confidence that by November you have a proven vaccine. You maybe able to say it is safe but the effectiveness will be much harder to prove in a short period of time since this is completely reliant on how many people in the placebo group get covid 19 and their outcome and how many people in the trial group get covid or don't get covid.
      Last edited by Gamble1; 09-02-2020, 10:07 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shags View Post

        I put this in the George Floyd thread. Just to give you something to think about.

        You know if Donald Trump is re-elected, he is going to take an absolute dump all over the constitution, the document he swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend, with no accountability hanging over his head. There are already no rules and he acts as if he is above the law. While you may not agree with Joe Biden on policy, you know that Joe Biden will respect the constitution and respect his oath. And policy wise, he's certainly not the socialist that Republicans make him out to be (and neither is Kamala Harris).
        First, I am not that opposed to Biden's policies historically when it comes to something like the economy. Generally he is pretty moderate.

        But acting above the law? You have got to be kidding. He sold his office and influence to China through his son Hunter Biden. Ukraine wasn't even the biggest act of corruption on his part.

        Comment


        • Roof open for all games at Lucas Oil Stadium this year, rain or shine? (or snow?) Can't beat that open air circulation!!

          Comment


          • Haha, of course Pelosi can’t even show the slightest bit of humility and admit any sort of wrong doing. Instead she’s whining that she was setup. Hey, maybe she was. That would be hilarious if she fell for a setup. She knows she was exposed for being a hypocritical fraud.

            Setup or not, that still has nothing to do with the lack of a mask. She was in a place of business but violated the public mask ordinance. This has zero to do with whether she was “setup” or not. At the time, she was conducting business and didn’t have a mask on when someone else was near her. That’s all that really matters here. She violated California’s crystal clear guidelines.

            Pelosi actually said, “I don’t wear a mask when washing my hair, do you wear a mask when washing your hair?” It’s amazing how dumb she thinks everyone is. Or how dumb she is. Or some combo of both. Of course no one wears a mask when washing their hair at home alone. But when you go to a salon or get a haircut in Indiana (Or almost anywhere else, and certainly in California where she was), the mask has to stay on the entire time, even when they wash your hair. So her excuse falls flat on its face.

            She got caught being a total hypocrite in a totally humiliating way. Not too often do you see such a high ranking politician do something that stupid. Her arrogance really showed here. No humanity - just blame the business owner who has had a brutal six months. Pelosi has put the fear of God into everyone about the virus and would have wanted any Republican caught doing this charged with attempted murder If the shoe were on the other foot. But now we see how she behaves when she doesn’t think the cameras are on (even though they actually are lol).
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-02-2020, 10:36 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dab View Post
              Roof open for all games at Lucas Oil Stadium this year, rain or shine? (or snow?) Can't beat that open air circulation!!
              Lucas can’t handle any precipitation. No drainage system. So that won’t be happening. Like usual, it will be open a couple times max early in the season and that’s it.

              I love Lucas as a stadium, but the retractable roof is awful. First, they can’t open it if there is any solid rain chance since they have no drainage system. Second, the gap is so small that it barely feels like it’s open anyway. Third, it looks awful on TV when it’s open in the day because the banners and rafters cast brutal shadows on the field. That retractable roof was a waste of money and unnecessary.

              Comment


              • I just want to make a point that 180,000 people are dead and we are gloating over a hair washed politician.... I mean she could be saying inject bleach or stick a light bulb down their throat for a cure. I hear Dr. Brix is looking into it.

                I mean is this about hypocrisy or saving lives?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                  I just want to make a point that 180,000 people are dead and we are gloating over a hair washed politician.... I mean she could be saying inject bleach or stick a light bulb down their throat for a cure. I hear Dr. Brix is looking into it.

                  I mean is this about hypocrisy or saving lives?
                  It's both. Today's topic was brought on by Nancy Pelosi so there will be some discussion and it is related to Covid. Perfectly appropriate to discuss. Also, the fact this is being discussed doesn't discount the public safety discussion.

                  As for the deaths, you say 180,000 people are dead from the virus. The CDC says 94% of those people had complications in addition to a virus that often doesn't even have symptoms. I'm not making conclusions from either of those figures. I personally don't know.

                  What I do know is that New York got hit hard in a way the flu never hit. So I think this thing is real. I just don't know how bad it is, how widely spread it is or what will happen this fall and winter. And I don't think I've seen anything so far that convinces me they really know either. So right now, it's about wearing masks. We will see if maybe a year from now people say masks really didn't make a substantive change to transmission. In theory they do. In practice, something scientists struggle with, they may not do that well.

                  Edit: Just to be clear, I don't think masks are going to save lives. Not unless there is a vaccine before the end of 2020. I do think it slows the spread but to say that actually helps takes another leap of logic. You have to conclude that the transmission isn't already so extensive that the reduction in spread matters. Said another way, if the transmission with masks on still reaches most everybody, maybe in part due to the possibility they are only 30-40% effective, it may not matter if people wear masks. Really just lots of questions around it. At the same time, when I have serious doubts I do still wear a mask anytime I go out in public within a building. So it's not like I'm not playing ball. I'm just not sold on the messaging that it's critical.
                  Last edited by BlueNGold; 09-02-2020, 11:33 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                    I just want to make a point that 180,000 people are dead and we are gloating over a hair washed politician.... I mean she could be saying inject bleach or stick a light bulb down their throat for a cure. I hear Dr. Brix is looking into it.

                    I mean is this about hypocrisy or saving lives?
                    It can be about both. She’s clearly a hypocrite - not much to debate there. And when out of the public eye, she doesn’t seem to put much value on masks which are supposed to help save lives.

                    Isn’t it strange that someone in her powerful and informed position doesn’t really seem to be very scared when she doesn’t think anyone is watching?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                      It can be about both. She’s clearly a hypocrite - not much to debate there. And when out of the public eye, she doesn’t seem to put much value on masks which are supposed to help save lives.

                      Isn’t it strange that someone in her powerful and informed position doesn’t really seem to be very scared when she doesn’t think anyone is watching?
                      Worse is that she thinks the shop owner should apologize. For outing her? Such gall this woman has. Defines liberal elite and she benefits from the millions of suckers that lap up liberalism.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                        It can be about both. She’s clearly a hypocrite - not much to debate there. And when out of the public eye, she doesn’t seem to put much value on masks which are supposed to help save lives.

                        Isn’t it strange that someone in her powerful and informed position doesn’t really seem to be very scared when she doesn’t think anyone is watching?
                        She is the same person saying that it was ok to visit China town when the crisis started, yes she is s***
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                          It can be about both. She’s clearly a hypocrite - not much to debate there. And when out of the public eye, she doesn’t seem to put much value on masks which are supposed to help save lives.

                          Isn’t it strange that someone in her powerful and informed position doesn’t really seem to be very scared when she doesn’t think anyone is watching?
                          It is not whether it is hypocritical or not but a matter of perspective. If I make a big deal out of say a fake business owner who stood there with Trump in a photo op making it seem it was his property I am losing perspective on if that really is a big deal or not. At the end of the day ot probably doesn't impact much.


                          Now if I make a big deal about Trump calling the FDA the deep state and undermining the safety of every American then I think that warrants a big red flag.

                          Not to minimize what Peolsi did but it does seem pretty childish to gloat over it as many Republicans are.
                          Last edited by Gamble1; 09-03-2020, 06:41 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                            It's both. Today's topic was brought on by Nancy Pelosi so there will be some discussion and it is related to Covid. Perfectly appropriate to discuss. Also, the fact this is being discussed doesn't discount the public safety discussion.

                            As for the deaths, you say 180,000 people are dead from the virus. The CDC says 94% of those people had complications in addition to a virus that often doesn't even have symptoms. I'm not making conclusions from either of those figures. I personally don't know.

                            What I do know is that New York got hit hard in a way the flu never hit. So I think this thing is real. I just don't know how bad it is, how widely spread it is or what will happen this fall and winter. And I don't think I've seen anything so far that convinces me they really know either. So right now, it's about wearing masks. We will see if maybe a year from now people say masks really didn't make a substantive change to transmission. In theory they do. In practice, something scientists struggle with, they may not do that well.
                            Since you seem like you are falling for the trap how many people die of one complication in their life. How many people die of HIV virus and not HIV and pneumonia or some other disease.

                            Covid is the third leading cause of death taking over diabetes iirc. How many people die of just diabetes and not some other complication. This argument of just 6% death of just covid alone is just ignoring how most people die in the world. Most people die with multiple complications and covid is not an exception.

                            Comment


                            • I find it more surprising that there are as many as 6% of the death certificates listing only Covid-19 as the cause of death. How did Covid-19 actually kill them? What were the following issues?
                              I would expect death certificates to list the things caused by the Covid-19, so those 6% seem more like an incomplete death certificate than anything else.
                              Did the Covid-19 cause respiratory issues? -Pneumonia? Clotting? Stroke? Heart problems?

                              I had to bounce a long time friend from my FB because he couldn't understand the concept about the 94% and he would not let it go saying I was the one wrong and wouldn't admit I've been wrong about the numbers all along.
                              I'd have no problem admitting I was wrong... if I was wrong... But no, the CDC didn't 'admit' that less than 9,000 people had actually died from Covid-19 verse the 180,000+.

                              I really think, for some people (who watch Fox News and vote for Trump... but I digress), they need to see their towns looking like a scene from Outbreak..... or The Walking Dead... before they take this even a little bit seriously.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

                                Since you seem like you are falling for the trap how many people die of one complication in their life. How many people die of HIV virus and not HIV and pneumonia or some other disease.

                                Covid is the third leading cause of death taking over diabetes iirc. How many people die of just diabetes and not some other complication. This argument of just 6% death of just covid alone is just ignoring how most people die in the world. Most people die with multiple complications and covid is not an exception.
                                Age is the leading cause of death and 80% of the supposed Covid deaths are 65 years old and older. Maybe 75% of the supposed Covid deaths are 65 and older with complications.

                                Note that Covid kills more blacks and more males. That is the demographic with the lowest average lifespan of 75 years.

                                60% of Covid deaths are 75 years or older. That is at or beyond the average lifespan of most impacted demographic where 94% of those deaths have comorbidities.

                                Hmmm. Considering the fact people die at all, it appears to me that sheerly the fact so many of these people are old isn’t getting enough attention.

                                In other words, people often die when they get old and have medical issues and then have an illness that pushes things over the edge.

                                I am not saying people are falling for a hoax. But I am not sure it’s quite as bad as people think.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X