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
    So the normal Pfizer shot is 30 micrograms. While the normal Moderna Shot is 100 micrograms. Are we to assume the MRNA concentrations are proportional? Meaning you get much more MRNA in the Mdoerna vaccine, which explains why its much more effective? It would seem very strange that one vaccine is like a 1/3rd of another.
    Without knowing the exact sequence that they used for each vaccine it is impossible to know. So moderna could be using a larger mrna sequence which would make it heavier. If it was 3 times the length of Pfizer then it would close to being proportional.

    I am not sure we can say moderna is much more effective. From what I have read it is slightly better but that could also be due to the extra week in between the second dose as compared to Pfizer with the 3 week interval.

    The other factor in the weight could be the lipids they are using to protect the mRNA. You can manufacture lipids to be all sorts of lengths so like I said it is impossible to know without having the details.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post

      The data from Israel that is being ignored
      To be completely honest with you I was a little bummed by the news.

      That being said lets consider what the data from Israel really says and what the different approaches are for each country concerning the vaccines. In Israel the idea of boosters is to stop or slow transmission of cases overall and to stop hospitalizations/deaths. There data suggest the major risk factor for hospitalizations is age which they report 87% are from people 60 years or older who are vaccinated. So those who really need boosters are 60 and up or immunocompromised patients and not the entire population. IF you stop transmission than you need to require it for everyone.

      The US approach for the vaccines or at least what the FDA adviser board primary goal is to protect against severe disease requiring hospitalizations and death. That was and is the primary goal for all the clinical studies that looked at the efficacy and the final approval of the FDA.

      What Pfizer screwed up on when they submitted data for the booster is that they had much more data on older people than younger people and that data greatly favored efficacy for the older vaccinated group than the younger vaccinated group to meet the primary outcome justifying a booster.

      I fully expect that the FDA will give approval for younger age groups for boosters but they can not get ahead of the data or else they completely call into to question the process of approving the vaccines. Where Israel and the US are in alignment is that people who are older should get a booster and people who are in high risk situations.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

        Without knowing the exact sequence that they used for each vaccine it is impossible to know. So moderna could be using a larger mrna sequence which would make it heavier. If it was 3 times the length of Pfizer then it would close to being proportional.

        I am not sure we can say moderna is much more effective. From what I have read it is slightly better but that could also be due to the extra week in between the second dose as compared to Pfizer with the 3 week interval.

        The other factor in the weight could be the lipids they are using to protect the mRNA. You can manufacture lipids to be all sorts of lengths so like I said it is impossible to know without having the details.
        I got Pfizer but my second dose was 5 weeks after my first dose. I also only had 1 side effect which was fatigue for a couple of hours.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post

          I got Pfizer but my second dose was 5 weeks after my first dose. I also only had 1 side effect which was fatigue for a couple of hours.
          Yeah the only large amount of data extending the second dose is from the UK. It appears that it does not alter the vaccine efficacy and you being at 5 weeks probably doesn't matter at all. What would matter is if you have a comorbidity or you are old or have received treatment for a cancer or organ donation. These are the more common factors that predict if the vaccine is going to work well for you or not.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shags View Post

            This, IMO, is really the key to getting back to normalcy. Great news.
            This is key for me as a person who has kids but overall the country won't get back to normal unless we get more adults vaccinated.

            Just crunching the numbers we got 55.3% (181 mill) vaccinated. We have 40 mill confirmed cases of covid.

            The population is 328 million. So we have 100 millionish still to go.

            I am being overly simplistic here but we all have seen what 40 million cases have done in over a year. We got a lot more to go in order for us to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

            Comment


            • What really concerns me is that the southern states have used up the monoclonal antibody therapy stock pile. In late August the Times reported that we were going through 168,000 doses per week.

              So we basically are rationing this treatment now since most of these were used to treat vaccine skeptics.

              We also do not know how well a person has natural immunity after this treatment. Flordia is estimating a 40 k shortage now so we will see further strain on their hospital system and probably more deaths.

              Comment


              • Here is a preprint update of the J&J vaccine. This is not a blinded study but uses an enormous control group of 1.5 million that are matched by age location and cormorbidities.

                The good news is that the vaccines hold up and the boosters seem to work very well according to the company.

                https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...85v2.full-text

                Comment


                • So there seems to be a push on social media to say the vaccines aren't working. I've seen comments and viral memes pushing this narrative.
                  One of them used scissors as an example "If a pair of scissors won't cut, then I refuse to use them. That doesn't make me anti-scissors, but it does make me not use THOSE scissors". Then reader is left to apply this to the current vaccines.

                  How does this ignorance exist and how does it spread? You literally would have to work to avoid knowing the vaccines at minimum shorten and lessen illness and in many cases DO stop you from getting sick at all.
                  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


                  • The R.1 Variant... In Kentucky:
                    https://www.forbes.com/sites/william...h=7acb5d023509
                    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 Bball View Post
                      Lots of speculation in that article. These mutations especially in non-coding regions or synonymous mutations are less likely to be a gain of function mutations.

                      The coding regions that contain nonsynonymous mutations aka they actually change the amino acids are much more likely to have a functional consequence but even that is not that straight forward. Amino acids are classified in general as charge, size and how hydrophilic or phobic they are. Many fall into each category so you can change the amino acid but not the charge for example. Unless they get tested they won't know if there is a gain of function to these mutations.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 09-23-2021, 08:58 AM.

                      Comment


                      • So my coworker got covid in the early spring then got vaccinated and now got covid again and he is symptomatic but has no breathing trouble or anything like that.

                        The guy is incredibly healthy which is great but he has terrible luck.

                        Comment


                        • Looks like the CDC is allowing the at risk workers to get vaccinated which goes against the CDC advisory board recommendations. As a husband of a health care worker who has unvaccinated children I am happy with this call but I do agree with the advisory board that the language is too broad and should be more defined for who is an at risk worker.

                          "As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact. At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good," Walensky said in the statement.


                          https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/healt...sky/index.html
                          Last edited by Gamble1; 09-24-2021, 08:33 AM.

                          Comment


                          • So my almost 2 year old’s daycare has been closed for the last 2 weeks, every caregiver got Covid. My daughter was incredibly lucky or just still had some robust antibodies from having COVID back in January.

                            I have been working from home the past 2 weeks and today was her first day back at daycare and my first day back in the office.

                            after my 25 minute drive to pick her up and then 45 minutes of bumper to bumper traffic on 96th street and thru the various construction zones with a crying toddler. I couldn’t help but think that everyday for the past 2 weeks I have been more productive with work, more productive around the house, been able to see my other daughter get off the bus in the afternoons, and get dinner on the table much earlier, and spend more quality time with the wife.

                            were these past 2 weeks perfect? No it certainly had its challenges with trying to work and entertain and stimulate a 2 year old and 5 year old. But I saved $400 in daycare costs and not once did I have to sit in my car and lose an 1 hour 15 min of my life.

                            sorry I just had to get it out there.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              So my almost 2 year old’s daycare has been closed for the last 2 weeks, every caregiver got Covid. My daughter was incredibly lucky or just still had some robust antibodies from having COVID back in January.

                              I have been working from home the past 2 weeks and today was her first day back at daycare and my first day back in the office.

                              after my 25 minute drive to pick her up and then 45 minutes of bumper to bumper traffic on 96th street and thru the various construction zones with a crying toddler. I couldn’t help but think that everyday for the past 2 weeks I have been more productive with work, more productive around the house, been able to see my other daughter get off the bus in the afternoons, and get dinner on the table much earlier, and spend more quality time with the wife.

                              were these past 2 weeks perfect? No it certainly had its challenges with trying to work and entertain and stimulate a 2 year old and 5 year old. But I saved $400 in daycare costs and not once did I have to sit in my car and lose an 1 hour 15 min of my life.

                              sorry I just had to get it out there.
                              Any chance your employer allows you to work from home on a full time basis?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shags View Post

                                Any chance your employer allows you to work from home on a full time basis?
                                Eh….they are fine with it if circumstances require, having to quarantine or daycare issues. So it’s nice that they are flexible like that, but they have eluded they don’t think it’s a good long term situation. They have an old school approach to many things, and not having one of their most important employees in the office would interrupt how they have always done things.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X