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 graphic-er View Post
    Delta is gonna burn out here a month or two? Remember back in late spring / early summer every one scared of the UK variant? That one burned right out as more and more people got vaccinated.
    It's hard to predict since it is a new variant and behaving different. If India and the UK are any indication of how it will behave then we should see a sharp rise to peak and sharp decrease like you are predicting which is what some experts are predicting by the way.

    This is good and bad in my point of view. The hospital system will be under greater strain with a sharp rise which is what we are seeing in the south. Anytime a hospital stops elective surgeries then you have a scenario that puts other people not covid infected delaying medical care which is obviously bad. If you want to know just how bad an indicator that is hospitals do everything they can to avoid stopping elective surgeries since that is what makes an enormous amount of money for them.

    How this variant is different is that it is twice as Infectious and able to propagate in the nose of vaccinated individuals which leads to vaccinated people becoming drivers of Infections. This is fundamentally different than the alpha strain.

    This also intersects a point where health care workers are experiencing a declining antibody response to the vaccine. Peck is a good example of this phenomenon.

    The previous Indiana peak lasted from October to February. Roughly 4.5 months and this one is probably not going to last that long but could have a higher peak in total infections and it appears it will be more broadly infect all age demographics since the viral load is higher.








    Last edited by Gamble1; 08-20-2021, 08:35 AM.

    Comment


    • Pre-symptomatic people driving infections.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02259-2
      Last edited by Gamble1; 08-20-2021, 08:40 AM.

      Comment


      • FDA Approval expected Monday. Wonder how long it will be until the mandates.

        Comment


        • Of course they walked this back but I am not sure they should. Vaccine status is probably a very high predictor of poor outcome. Medical decisions in a triage situation is not the time to debate these things. You give the care you can with the best possible outcome.

          if we want to be fair we address the social economic disparity before triage and give social programs to those people in need of them.

          https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watc...nation-status/
          Last edited by Gamble1; 08-21-2021, 09:30 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            Of course they walked this back but I am not sure they should. Vaccine status is probably a very high predictor of poor outcome. Medical decisions in a triage situation is not the time to debate these things. You give the care you can with the best possible outcome.

            if we want to be fair we address the social economic disparity before triage and give social programs to those people in need of them.

            https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watc...nation-status/
            Can't do that in the American form of Medical Care. Other country's that hold medical providers harmless (to an extent) liability wise could do this because the couldn't be sued. Here family's would sue the hell out of everyone and in most cases right now would win.

            That being said there are ethics involved as well that I am not sure we want practitioners to consider when deciding patient care. Not everyone who is not vaccinated is a right wing lunatic who is refusing to get this because of freedom or whatever other crap. Sadly my Father in-law is a person who is refusing to get it but his reason is simple. He was a chemist for Eli Lilly for years. He is opposed to the vaccine because he thinks they rushed it, passed several safety steps in his opinion along the way. Do I think he's wrong? Yes, yes I do. I was vaccinated starting in December and had my last shot in January. That being said I have a hard time arguing against him when he starts spouting jargon that I have no idea what he is saying because he is far smarter than I am when it comes to chemistry and the effects on the body.

            Also this is a very very very slippery slope to go down because believe me I have plenty of people who work in the field every day who then would be wanting to make the call to let all people not breathing or in cardiac arrest from over doses (in particular opioid) just die.

            We don't withhold treatment from anyone else in America because of their abuses or stupid reasoning so I'm not sure we want to start because once you open that door it will be hard to close it and believe me there are plenty of people who will take it to the Nth degree.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Peck View Post

              Can't do that in the American form of Medical Care. Other country's that hold medical providers harmless (to an extent) liability wise could do this because the couldn't be sued. Here family's would sue the hell out of everyone and in most cases right now would win.

              That being said there are ethics involved as well that I am not sure we want practitioners to consider when deciding patient care. Not everyone who is not vaccinated is a right wing lunatic who is refusing to get this because of freedom or whatever other crap. Sadly my Father in-law is a person who is refusing to get it but his reason is simple. He was a chemist for Eli Lilly for years. He is opposed to the vaccine because he thinks they rushed it, passed several safety steps in his opinion along the way. Do I think he's wrong? Yes, yes I do. I was vaccinated starting in December and had my last shot in January. That being said I have a hard time arguing against him when he starts spouting jargon that I have no idea what he is saying because he is far smarter than I am when it comes to chemistry and the effects on the body.

              Also this is a very very very slippery slope to go down because believe me I have plenty of people who work in the field every day who then would be wanting to make the call to let all people not breathing or in cardiac arrest from over doses (in particular opioid) just die.

              We don't withhold treatment from anyone else in America because of their abuses or stupid reasoning so I'm not sure we want to start because once you open that door it will be hard to close it and believe me there are plenty of people who will take it to the Nth degree.
              I have a hard time with people acting like they are now going to care what they are putting in their bodies when they go to a McDonald's and ask for chicken nuggets or whatever crap they sell


              We don't know what is in 99% of the s*** we eat and we are not asking questions about the type of hormones they are using in cows and s***


              I know this guy that eats trash all day long but he is worried about the vaccine because he doesn't know what is in it

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

              Comment


              • I also met this person 2 days ago who's best friend's son died of covid (guy is in his 80's and son was 51 years old) it looks like the guy kept saying that covid wasn't real and that nothing was going to happen to him and now he is dead
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  I also met this person 2 days ago who's best friend's son died of covid (guy is in his 80's and son was 51 years old) it looks like the guy kept saying that covid wasn't real and that nothing was going to happen to him and now he is dead
                  Same thing happened to a guy I use to work with, both his parents caught Covid and died. Deleted all the Covid is fake and just a cold stuff from his Facebook

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post

                    Same thing happened to a guy I use to work with, both his parents caught Covid and died. Deleted all the Covid is fake and just a cold stuff from his Facebook
                    And he probably still doesn't want the vaccine because he is not 100% sure what is in it.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Peck View Post

                      Can't do that in the American form of Medical Care. Other country's that hold medical providers harmless (to an extent) liability wise could do this because the couldn't be sued. Here family's would sue the hell out of everyone and in most cases right now would win.

                      That being said there are ethics involved as well that I am not sure we want practitioners to consider when deciding patient care. Not everyone who is not vaccinated is a right wing lunatic who is refusing to get this because of freedom or whatever other crap. Sadly my Father in-law is a person who is refusing to get it but his reason is simple. He was a chemist for Eli Lilly for years. He is opposed to the vaccine because he thinks they rushed it, passed several safety steps in his opinion along the way. Do I think he's wrong? Yes, yes I do. I was vaccinated starting in December and had my last shot in January. That being said I have a hard time arguing against him when he starts spouting jargon that I have no idea what he is saying because he is far smarter than I am when it comes to chemistry and the effects on the body.

                      Also this is a very very very slippery slope to go down because believe me I have plenty of people who work in the field every day who then would be wanting to make the call to let all people not breathing or in cardiac arrest from over doses (in particular opioid) just die.

                      We don't withhold treatment from anyone else in America because of their abuses or stupid reasoning so I'm not sure we want to start because once you open that door it will be hard to close it and believe me there are plenty of people who will take it to the Nth degree.
                      Let me clarify my point of view. In a triage situation involving an icu bed capacity the hospital should look at all medical conditions to determine the best use of finite medical supplies which includes staff. You know as well as I do they can justify that decision irregardless of a memo or some formal triage protocol. They just won't make it public. My point is that they should take it into consideration public or private.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

                        Let me clarify my point of view. In a triage situation involving an icu bed capacity the hospital should look at all medical conditions to determine the best use of finite medical supplies which includes staff. You know as well as I do they can justify that decision irregardless of a memo or some formal triage protocol. They just won't make it public. My point is that they should take it into consideration public or private.
                        All things being equal, correct. Example two exact patients, same age, same demographic, same severity of symptoms only one bed and staff available (no other beds anywhere, highly unlikely but lets just say it is) then yes, you choose the one who has the best chance of survival. Sadly as a Medic I've had to make that call more times than I care to admit.

                        However the problem with the scenario of vaccine vs no vaccine vs standard triage comes into play when this scenario comes into play. 81 year old fully vaccinated patient vs 40 year old non vaccinated patient. Do you go off of survival of vaccine or do you go off of survival of age and infirmity?

                        I know, and believe me this is always an argument in the medical community as well, that it's tempting to let protocols determine who lives and who dies but I don't think we want people making those types of decisions. It's better to just move heaven and earth to try and treat everyone.

                        Now having said that I'm not a total idiot, just mostly one, I know every single day around the U.S. and World those types of decisions are made.


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                          And he probably still doesn't want the vaccine because he is not 100% sure what is in it.
                          He got vaccinated surprisingly

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Peck View Post

                            All things being equal, correct. Example two exact patients, same age, same demographic, same severity of symptoms only one bed and staff available (no other beds anywhere, highly unlikely but lets just say it is) then yes, you choose the one who has the best chance of survival. Sadly as a Medic I've had to make that call more times than I care to admit.

                            However the problem with the scenario of vaccine vs no vaccine vs standard triage comes into play when this scenario comes into play. 81 year old fully vaccinated patient vs 40 year old non vaccinated patient. Do you go off of survival of vaccine or do you go off of survival of age and infirmity?

                            I know, and believe me this is always an argument in the medical community as well, that it's tempting to let protocols determine who lives and who dies but I don't think we want people making those types of decisions. It's better to just move heaven and earth to try and treat everyone.

                            Now having said that I'm not a total idiot, just mostly one, I know every single day around the U.S. and World those types of decisions are made.
                            The article was an icu bed triage call at least that was my impression. To me age is still the major factor and one that most doctors would make the call on.

                            Comment


                            • The TN conservative radio talk show host that was hospitalized with Covid... has died.

                              Valentine had previously expressed his disagreement with mask mandates, stating that hospitals were never in danger of being overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients. He had also been critical of the virus vaccines, voicing his concerns over their safety.
                              Of course, once in the hospital he apparently had a change of heart.

                              “Phil would like for his listeners to know that while he has never been an ‘anti-vaxer’ he regrets not being more vehemently ‘Pro-Vaccine’ and looks forward to being able to more vigorously advocate that position as soon as he is back on the air, which we all hope will be soon,” his family wrote in their initial statement after his hospitalization.

                              That statement concluded, “PLEASE GO GET VACCINATED!”
                              The one quote from last year that really sticks with me was the girl who spoke at the DNC, whose father had died of Covid: "His only pre-existing condition was believing Donald Trump"


                              https://www.wkrn.com/news/conservati...vid-19-battle/
                              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


                              • Meeting with the superintendent tomorrow about optional masking for students.
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X