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

  • Horowitz: Washington Post admits school openings have not caused widespread outbreaks

    It was one of the most consequential policy debates of our time. Do we send our kids out to school in middle of an epidemic that poses no meaningful risk to children and younger people? The teachers' unions fought tooth and nail to get many states to keep their schools closed. They even held mock funerals to protest the openings. So, over a month into the opening of schools in the areas where they failed to keep them closed, did we experience mass funerals?

    "Feared coronavirus outbreaks in schools yet to arrive, early data shows," read a recent title from the Washington Post.

    https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horow...reaking%20News

    Comment


    • As I'm getting ready for bed, we know one of Trump's closest aides has Covid-19. We know she was around Trump. The info was leaked, 24 hrs later, not released by the WH. Though once the cat was out of the bag, they confirmed it.
      Strangely, the timing is not fitting and nobody can quite figure out what is up.
      For whatever reason, Trump is claiming to have been tested this evening and WAITING on the results.
      But she was reportedly positive 24 hours prior.
      And the WH has the 15 min tests. Why is Trump, 24 hours later, waiting on results?

      Tomorrow will be interesting...
      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


      • POTUS just posted on Twitter he and FLOTUS tested positive for COVID-19

        Comment


        • It's already interesting... He's tested positive...
          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


          • Should make for an active news cycle. I have always believed this virus was widely spread and if you have yet to get it, you will soon. Personally I believe I caught it in January of this year.

            Comment


            • Just an observation: his tweet called it “COVID-19” and not the “Chinese flu” or something similar to that.

              Comment


              • Interesting watching Fox News report this and watching CNN. CNN keeps looping video from this week, of Trump and Hicks, and others getting on the chopper... and from them getting on Air Force One proper.... No masks. CNN at least did mention she has sometimes been known to wear a mask.

                Fox is looping video of Trump and Hicks shot from a distance, peering into the window of the chopper, from Sept 14th, with Hicks wearing a mask that day, and Trump not. They made no mention of her not wearing a mask THIS week, including on the helicopter or the plane with Trump, and none of them wearing masks.
                Fox did tell us that although Trump wasn't wearing a mask on this day, he in fact has worn a mask at other times.
                I never heard them mention Hicks being known to NOT wear a mask.
                I'm not sure which narrative they were trying to present- That she always wears a mask and this happened anyway (so masks don't work), or that she always wears a mask so she did all she could to protect Trump.

                At least be honest enough to show the photos and videos from THIS week, even from the very day HIcks got symptoms, and her not wearing a mask. Nor anyone else in the entourage. Obviously these exist and the press pool has to have them.

                This is why watching Fox is such a waste of time. It's so easy to manipulate impressions, implications, create fake narratives by just being a little dishonest in what you show and when you show it. But not only is it easy to do... but they do it.

                Or #2, it's why people who only watch/read Fox and the right wing propaganda sites actually are ignorant to the world around them yet think they watch and read so much that they are especially informed over the rest of us.
                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 vapacersfan View Post
                  Just an observation: his tweet called it “COVID-19” and not the “Chinese flu” or something similar to that.
                  He has called it either on many occasions. I realize you are implying that, only now that he has it is he taking it seriously. But this is just more narrative. There is nothing there.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    Interesting watching Fox News report this and watching CNN. CNN keeps looping video from this week, of Trump and Hicks, and others getting on the chopper... and from them getting on Air Force One proper.... No masks. CNN at least did mention she has sometimes been known to wear a mask.

                    Fox is looping video of Trump and Hicks shot from a distance, peering into the window of the chopper, from Sept 14th, with Hicks wearing a mask that day, and Trump not. They made no mention of her not wearing a mask THIS week, including on the helicopter or the plane with Trump, and none of them wearing masks.
                    Fox did tell us that although Trump wasn't wearing a mask on this day, he in fact has worn a mask at other times.
                    I never heard them mention Hicks being known to NOT wear a mask.
                    I'm not sure which narrative they were trying to present- That she always wears a mask and this happened anyway (so masks don't work), or that she always wears a mask so she did all she could to protect Trump.

                    At least be honest enough to show the photos and videos from THIS week, even from the very day HIcks got symptoms, and her not wearing a mask. Nor anyone else in the entourage. Obviously these exist and the press pool has to have them.

                    This is why watching Fox is such a waste of time. It's so easy to manipulate impressions, implications, create fake narratives by just being a little dishonest in what you show and when you show it. But not only is it easy to do... but they do it.

                    Or #2, it's why people who only watch/read Fox and the right wing propaganda sites actually are ignorant to the world around them yet think they watch and read so much that they are especially informed over the rest of us.
                    Fox did have multiple commentators, and this is all over the web, saying or implying Biden won the debate. Not saying Fox is balanced but I am not naive enough to believe any of the stations. There is no news on TV. It is all just what the left or right are supposed to hear. Pure, unadulterated propaganda.

                    Comment


                    • My fear is that Trump gets through this just fine but receives therapy that is not available to the wider public and he minimizes the disease and does not disclose that therapy treatment.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        Interesting watching Fox News report this and watching CNN. CNN keeps looping video from this week, of Trump and Hicks, and others getting on the chopper... and from them getting on Air Force One proper.... No masks. CNN at least did mention she has sometimes been known to wear a mask.

                        Fox is looping video of Trump and Hicks shot from a distance, peering into the window of the chopper, from Sept 14th, with Hicks wearing a mask that day, and Trump not. They made no mention of her not wearing a mask THIS week, including on the helicopter or the plane with Trump, and none of them wearing masks.
                        Fox did tell us that although Trump wasn't wearing a mask on this day, he in fact has worn a mask at other times.
                        I never heard them mention Hicks being known to NOT wear a mask.
                        I'm not sure which narrative they were trying to present- That she always wears a mask and this happened anyway (so masks don't work), or that she always wears a mask so she did all she could to protect Trump.

                        At least be honest enough to show the photos and videos from THIS week, even from the very day HIcks got symptoms, and her not wearing a mask. Nor anyone else in the entourage. Obviously these exist and the press pool has to have them.

                        This is why watching Fox is such a waste of time. It's so easy to manipulate impressions, implications, create fake narratives by just being a little dishonest in what you show and when you show it. But not only is it easy to do... but they do it.

                        Or #2, it's why people who only watch/read Fox and the right wing propaganda sites actually are ignorant to the world around them yet think they watch and read so much that they are especially informed over the rest of us.
                        To be fair you can replace “Fox” with “CNN” or “MSNBC” and it would still be accurate. They are all biased, its just IMO the others didn’t try to pretend they are not (fair and balanced)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                          He has called it either on many occasions. I realize you are implying that, only now that he has it is he taking it seriously. But this is just more narrative. There is nothing there.
                          I was not implying that. I simply made an observation

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                            Ok. Infectious dose it is.

                            In your opinion, normally, the higher the infectious dose the worse the disease. So one would naturally conclude that any way you reduce that dose is good, right? Isn't that the intent of masks? That is precisely where I disagree or at least I sure don't make that conclusion.

                            A little background might help. I am looking at a longer time horizon...the next couple years and especially the next 6 months that will determine how bad this thing gets. I look at the 1918-19 flu. I consider it much better to get a taste of the virus in July rather than February when it would be more likely to be a lethal dose. I consider it much better to lose 200K people over the warmer months and 200K over the winter than save 100K over the summer only to lose 500+K over the winter when most people are getting a virus.

                            Now why is it more lethal in the winter? For one, the virus is affected by heat and particularly humidity. There were studies early on with this pandemic showing that heat and especially humidity degrade the virus more quickly. It was very clear in the lab that was true and that shortens the virus' half-life. So, it reduces the infectious dose from what it would be otherwise. If you tack masks on top of that, it might protect you in July but you get a whiff of the virus in February and it kills you. Had you gotten a taste of it in July, while a lower dose but enough to get you some T-cells going, perhaps you survive February.

                            So, it's really pseudo science people are playing when they say masks save lives...just as much as when people claim they do not. I realize the lab coats have decided masks save lives but as usual they are not thinking big picture. They're too busy looking at their Excel Pivot table and VBA to realize their advice may or may not be any better than any of their ever changing decisions.

                            As for mask use in the winter, I'm more pro for that. I do think you cannot lose by wearing a mask now, through winter and into the spring. But am not at all convinced we should have been wearing them earlier this summer.
                            So reduce transmission across the board results in less deaths and less cases. Mitigation in general is what causes that and mask are just apart of that. So really you would be against social distancing and hand washing etc. If that is the case then you can add more flu deaths to that covid number as well.

                            In any case be very careful on what conclusions you draw from the T cell response being intact. These cells are not ubiquitous through out your body and if I remember correctly the paper showing this isolated them, concentrated them and then tested the response against covid 19. This is not the same as what naturally occurs in a nasophargeal passageway. What it shows is that it is possible that these cells can still illicit a direct response to the virus. It doesn't mean that they are enough to mitigate disease or that everyone has enough of them so we shouldn't worry about repeat infections.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                              To be fair you can replace “Fox” with “CNN” or “MSNBC” and it would still be accurate. They are all biased, its just IMO the others didn’t try to pretend they are not (fair and balanced)
                              CNN had presented itself as real news. I think it might still do that. I don't think it uses the terms fair and balanced, but the point is they claim to be news. They used to be better when they had Crossfire many years ago where both the left and right had a voice. But that's been gone for a long time. It's a shame Colmes is no longer alive and on Fox.

                              Comment


                              • Never forget the buffoon and his cult followers called it a hoax, thoughts and prayers .....
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X