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

  • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    poor guy. and of course there are people ******** on him for possibly having an underlying condition in the replies.

    i also saw that he died before he was able to be officially tested. i wonder if that's part of the autopsy or will he not even be included in the official count?

    Comment


    • Trump Administration not very good at this, Part XXX:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/u...gtype=Homepage When President Trump came to office, he promised a new day with America’s manufacturers, casting himself as the first president who understood their needs. He toured factory floors, often handing out his signature “Make America Great Again” hats.
      Yet in the first national crisis that required harnessing American manufacturing ingenuity and ramping up production of ventilators, perhaps the most crucial piece of equipment for patients in crisis, the White House’s ability to gather the power of American industry crumpled.
      It was unable to communicate how many ventilators it would need or how quickly it would need them. Mr. Trump set states off on a mad scramble to find their own, leading to bidding wars against one another. Even today it is unclear who is deciding where the new American production will be directed — to the highest bidders or to the cities that need them most.
      A week after praising General Motors and a small ventilator manufacturer, Ventec Life Systems, for their voluntary efforts to combine cutting-edge technology with G.M.’s expertise at supply chains and mass production, the president blew up at the world’s largest carmaker, accusing its chief executive, Mary T. Barra, of moving too slowly and trying to “rip off” the federal government. In fact, G.M. and Ventec had already signed a partnership — without government help — to ramp up production.

      Interviews with White House officials, industry executives and outsiders who tried to intervene make two problems clear. Mr. Trump’s first mistake was recognizing the problem far too late, even though his own medical experts had identified a probable shortage of ventilators as a critical problem in late January, as panic set in that the virus was headed to the United States. Had the president acted sooner, thousands of new ventilators would probably be coming off production lines next month, when they are likely to be desperately needed.
      And even after the problem was recognized, and the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, took over the process, both the White House and the Federal Emergency Management Agency struggled to define what was needed, who would pay for it and how to solve the problem of supply chains that stretched across more than a dozen countries.
      “We’re going to have plenty,” Mr. Trump said Friday afternoon, declaring that he was invoking the Defense Production Act, a Korean War-era law, to force the companies to make more. But he gave no numbers — and glided past the complexities of getting between 700 and 1,500 components from more than a dozen nations.
      “It’s terrific that the administration is now beginning to use the D.P.A.,” said Joshua Gotbaum, a former defense official in the Clinton administration who often made use of the Defense Production Act. “Had they started two months ago, we would already have ventilators, masks and other critical equipment in mass production.”
      “It is one thing to know that there should be a central national effort,” Mr. Gotbaum added. “It is quite another to accept the responsibility for the shortcomings and mistakes that will inevitably occur with it.”

      “If we don’t flatten the curve, we’re on a trajectory currently to exceed our capacity in the New Orleans area for ventilators by about April the 4th, and all beds available in hospitals by about April the 10th,” Gov. John Bel Edwards, Democrat of Louisiana, said Sunday on “Meet the Press on NBC. “So we’re doing everything we can to surge capacity. It’s very difficult.”
      Industry executives made the point that while the Defense Production Act enabled the White House to create the illusion of decisive executive action, it did not solve the nuts-and-bolts problem of gearing up scores of suppliers or creating Made-in-America production lines where few exist. That is the problem G.M. and Ventec, and other companies involved in the effort like Ford and Medtronic, are facing — often seeking parts from the same suppliers.
      Sign up to receive our daily Coronavirus Briefing, an informed guide with the latest developments and expert advice.


      “We are moving full steam ahead on ventilators because they know there is an immediate need for increased production,” said Chris Brooks, Ventec’s chief strategy officer, even if it is still unclear whether the customers are hospitals, states or the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which the White House has delegated to take charge of the effort.
      Mr. Trump came to this crisis belatedly, but once he did he has tried to portray himself as a wartime president, one who is making use of all of America’s talents to fight an invisible but devastating enemy. And in that regard, the best analogy may be Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “arsenal of democracy,” the phrase he used in a Dec. 29, 1940, fireside chat, as he tried to get American industry to support Britain in its fight with Nazi Germany, without getting the United States into the war.
      It turned out to be prescient, because industry was already getting onto a wartime footing by the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor a year later, plunging the United States into a manufacturing frenzy. That is when Ford began churning out B-24 bombers and Sherman tanks.
      But in this case, Mr. Trump sought the language of wartime action without the responsibility for making it happen. He welcomed voluntary efforts that were already underway, as manufacturers like Medtronic and the Dutch manufacturing giant Phillips promised to ramp up production. The problem was that it was uncoordinated — as if the Pentagon had announced it needed more missiles, more artillery shells and more nuclear weapons but left unclear how many or where they should be delivered.
      That was the situation Mr. Kushner found when he entered the effort, at the request of Vice President Mike Pence. He moved the authority to deal with the issue from the Department of Health and Human Services to FEMA, saying that the latter agency knew how to act in a “battle rhythm.” But still, no one knew how many ventilators were already in the market, where they would be needed first or how many more companies could be expected to make. And it was complicated by the fact that many of the largest manufacturers had moved operations offshore, to Ireland, Switzerland and, of course, China.

      Along came G.M. and Ventec, a partnership Mr. Trump celebrated in a tweet a week ago. But all week the details languished. Early hopes that the company could produce 20,000 ventilators quickly began to fade; in the first few weeks, the figure was more like 5,000. And that production would not begin until late April, if everything went perfectly.
      Still, a small group of White House officials briefed on the discussion anticipated that it would go ahead, a welcome announcement after weeks of headlines about the administration’s halting response to the spread of the coronavirus.
      One administration official said that Mr. Trump had not been briefed on the details of the G.M.-Ventec deal, and that he was caught by surprise when he read a New York Times article about how the announcement was being held up while FEMA examined competing offers.
      Instead of focusing on why the deal had been abruptly stopped, officials said, the president was enraged about the prospect of G.M. — which was actually Ventec’s subcontractor — trying to get money upfront from the government to fund suppliers. And aides told him that the company’s estimates of how many ventilators could be made in a relatively short period of time had shifted when G.M. officials were pressed.
      So the president posted a series of tweets denouncing the company and its chief executive, urging them to build ventilators at a Lordstown, Ohio, plant that had been closed. (G.M. sold the plant last year and will be making ventilators in Kokomo, Ind., an electronics plant that has the clean rooms needed for manufacturing medical parts.)
      Mr. Trump decided to go ahead and compel G.M. to manufacture the ventilators, but far fewer than the original deal envisioned. His attitude, officials said, was that since reporters had been pushing him on deploying the Defense Production Act, he would give them what they wanted — without giving G.M. the full deal. And then he named other firms that would also be tapped by FEMA.
      But by the end of the weekend, it was still unclear what the production targets were or even if FEMA had issued any contracts. The companies did not know if Washington would take responsibility for distributing the ventilators.

      In the Rose Garden on Sunday afternoon, Mr. Trump for the first time began to acknowledge the complexity of the undertaking American industry was just now beginning. “They are very complex,” he said of the machines. “You know, this is like building a car.”
      The Administration’s Response to the Coronavirus
      David E. Sanger is a national security correspondent. In a 36-year reporting career for The Times, he has been on three teams that have won Pulitzer Prizes, most recently in 2017 for international reporting. His newest book is “The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage and Fear in the Cyber Age.” @SangerNYTFacebook

      Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The Times in 2015 as a campaign correspondent and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. @maggieNYT



      Comment


      • Buffoon think that if there is only 100k/200k dead people that his administration would have done a good job


        https://twitter.com/sparksjls/status...300112385?s=21
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          So Gobert, Smart, Mitchell are good to go or they can still get sick again?

          Just thinking that the answer might be here.
          The way it works is that specialized immune cells called T cells identify the virus and mount an attack against it. The immunity comes from the T cells helping program other specialized immune cells called B cells. Those are the ones that produce antibodies which help in immunity. This is also what doctors will harvest from some one after they recover from the infection to give to some one else who is having a hard time fighting it. I do not know the early results from that type of therapy but it has been around for 100 years or more.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

            Fauci thinks they are most likely immune for years, possibly many years, after getting it.
            But there have been cases of people catching the virus a second time. Would that mean it can mutate slightly so that the T-cells cannot recognize it?
            If that’s true that’s a pain

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post

              But there have been cases of people catching the virus a second time. Would that mean it can mutate slightly so that the T-cells cannot recognize it?
              If that’s true that’s a pain
              The answer is that it can but it is unlikely. This family of viruses I believe do not mutate at a high rate. Also it has to mutate in a way to fool the the immunity. Typical immunity targets more than one part of the virus so this is another reason it is unlikely.

              For people who catch an illness twice its typically right after the initial infection and this is known to occur with other types of infections. It is not common but it can happen.

              Comment


              • Does the US test or report anything on Sunday? New cases and deaths were down for the second Sunday in a roll

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post
                  Does the US test or report anything on Sunday? New cases and deaths were down for the second Sunday in a roll
                  Indiana Health Dept says it updates daily at 10 am. Not sure of other states but it is mandatory for public and private test to be given to the cdc. At least this is what I remember hearing.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

                    The way it works is that specialized immune cells called T cells identify the virus and mount an attack against it. The immunity comes from the T cells helping program other specialized immune cells called B cells. Those are the ones that produce antibodies which help in immunity. This is also what doctors will harvest from some one after they recover from the infection to give to some one else who is having a hard time fighting it. I do not know the early results from that type of therapy but it has been around for 100 years or more.
                    Early testing of this kind of treatment has shown positive results. Right now there is a laundry list of treatments that have shown positive results in early testing. Just need some of them to have enough testing done to get approved.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                      Early testing of this kind of treatment has shown positive results. Right now there is a laundry list of treatments that have shown positive results in early testing. Just need some of them to have enough testing done to get approved.
                      Well from my perspective this type of treatment is probably the most promising but the issue with this is how fast you can scale it. What has to be done to scale it is essentially you have to isolate the B cell from a recovered patient and immortalize it with another cell. ?Then grow those immortalize cells in mass and probably in bio reactors. Then purify the antibodies from the soup.

                      Then it still has to go through clinical trial testing.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

                        Well from my perspective this type of treatment is probably the most promising but the issue with this is how fast you can scale it. What has to be done to scale it is essentially you have to isolate the B cell from a recovered patient and immortalize it with another cell. ?Then grow those immortalize cells in mass and probably in bio reactors. Then purify the antibodies from the soup.

                        Then it still has to go through clinical trial testing.
                        I thought for critically ill patients they would do a plasma transfusion just like a whole blood transfusion. You are talking about producing a monoclonal antibody via mass production?
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment


                        • another interesting story about how even though the government tried to increase its stockpile of ventilators since 2006, it's ended up getting 0:
                          https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/b...e=articleShare

                          Comment


                          • My guess is CEO's are still getting that bonus though


                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • "Put a business man in charge of the most powerful country in the world" they said, "he knows how to get things done" they said …

                              Congrats to those that made all of this possible



                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X