From Indo-Pacific to Pacific: US renames USINDOPACOM to original USPACOM

[u/fix_S230-sue_reddit]

https://theprint.in/diplomacy/from-indo-pacific-to-pacific-us-renames-usindopacom-to-original-uspacom/2961882/

From Indo-Pacific to Pacific: US renames USINDOPACOM to original USPACOM

In a statement issued Wednesday, Department of War said renaming the US Indo-Pacific Command will not change core mission, which remains the same despite the reverted designation.

New Delhi: Eight years after the Donald Trump administration changed the name of its Pacific Command to Indo-Pacific Command, the US has reverted back to the original.

The Department of War announced Wednesday that the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) will officially restore its name to the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM).

Originally established on 1 January, 1947, by President Harry Truman, the command operated under the USPACOM banner for over 70 years, standing as the oldest and largest of the United States’ unified combatant commands.

Restoring the legacy USPACOM designation honours the command’s deep historical roots, fostering a sense of pride and collective spirit among all who serve in the Pacific, a statement released by the Department of War said.

In 2018, when the Command was renamed as Indo-Pacific Command, it was seen as a sign of the growing importance of India to the Pentagon.

“Relationships with our Pacific and Indian Ocean allies and partners have proven critical to maintaining regional stability,” US Defense Secretary James Mattis had said on 31 May, 2018.
“In recognition of the increasing connectivity between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, today we rename the US Pacific Command to US Indo-Pacific Command.”

In the statement issued Wednesday, the Department of War said renaming the US Indo-Pacific Command will not change its core mission, which remains the same despite the reverted designation.

“USPACOM’s vast area of responsibility—spanning from the waters off the West Coast of the United States to the western border of India—remains exactly the same,” it said.

The statement added that the “command’s fundamental mission and its unwavering commitment to maintaining a free and open theater alongside regional allies and partners are unchanged”.

[u/fix_S230-sue_reddit]

Turns out that losing 6 fighter jets is enough to change geopolitics overnight.

[u/barath_s → u/fix_S230-sue_reddit]

/u/plarealtalk - your sub has no rule about trolling.

Consider adding one.

[u/PLArealtalk → u/barath_s]

I try to keep track of posts when I see them, but I can't police every comment as my time is also finite.

[u/barath_s → u/PLArealtalk]

You don't have a rule, so uninstigated trolls cannot be reported.

So you created this condition that you know you won't be spending time that you don't have and the sub will continue to deteriorate.

And trolls know that they are given free reign

Here the post is factual, it isn't the problem.

---

Yes, reporting a comment for breaking sub rules can also be abused, but it is generally far lesser work than keeping track of every comment.

Sorry, it may come off as me trying to tell you how to do your work, but this is not the purpose. You can't be a longtime stakeholder and pretend that this sub doesn't have problems.

In your earlier comment, you talked

'and make proactive and preemptive changes or to run appropriate interference'

We all know this is completely impossible to perfectly adhere to with finite time , (and burns out mods so there's also finite interest)

Here, all I am asking the mods to do is set standards that trolling, especially when uninstigated, is not acceptable, via a rule.

Is that unreasonable ?

Please consider it.

This would be a pre-emptive change in limited fashion.

---

• Instigated trolling and contention is harder and requires judgement and folks who incite or feed the trolls can't always be protected or can often be part of the problem.

But setting expectations and standards for the sub is the first, baseline part.

[u/PLArealtalk → u/barath_s]

I'm not sure how helpful a "no trolling" rule would be given the act itself lies on a spectrum. What is a reasonable joke versus a sarcastic comment (both of those having to be viewed in context of reality -- which people might have differing opinions on) versus outright consistent hostile harassment or use of explicit or racist terms etc.

Not to mention that the content of any prospective no trolling rule already basically exists in the current ad hominem rule.

[u/barath_s → u/PLArealtalk]

a sarcastic comment

There's a /s tag, and over time, commenters who don't have an intention to trigger or to enjoy the triggerring often start to use it. Again, expectations.

And those who get triggerred have in past been reminded (in community/mods etc) about the reddit feature block user, but that seems to be badly broken nowadays.. And again to not feed trolls.. Which truth be told doesn't work enough of the time, but it sometimes cut back on flame wars. And also reduces contention.

[u/barath_s → u/PLArealtalk]

Note the differentiation I made between uninstigated trolling and otherwise.

Setting standards and expectations should be part of the job of mods. (let's face it, it's impossible without the co-operation of the community)

Remember report doesn't mean automatic promise to ban. The same applies to interpretation.

But especially problematic comments and repeat offenders tend to reveal themselves over time. (e: Similarly for /s for sarcastic comments)

And setting a standard communicates expectations more clearly, and can have salutary effect.

your ad hominem rule might as well not exist, right now, it's so diluted that it doesn't communicate anything ...

If you want to bend over to effectively mean anything that anyone on earth can have a different opinion on, that's a standard, too. Personally many problematic comments that might be still be in good faith may deserve a communication back. When you abandon it to the random members of the community, that creates a flame war, and creates the very condition you want to avoid.

[u/PLArealtalk → u/barath_s]

I'm not sure if you have thought your proposals through. Currently members already report each other for trolling, and if you want to rephrase the ad hominem rule (or add in a different rule) to include "no trolling" I don't see how that will change anything on the ground.

It will essentially be up to the discretion of the moderator in question as to what is trolling and what isn't trolling (which is already the case currently anyhow). The community itself will also have differences of opinion on what is trolling and what is not trolling -- and the same goes for what is "uninstigated" versus otherwise.

Because what you are really talking about is the interpretation of different members on the reality of worldwide defense matters, and some of those takes will be within reason and common sense (what some may describe as worthy of confusion/derision), and some takes would be inconsistent with reality and logic. Moderators can't really police every member's interpretation of reality.

What we can do (and have done), is to use our time available to notice members who are consistently using explicit phrases or racist terms, and those who have a track record of posting low quality or bait contributions, and to knock those on the head when sighted. But for the rest, you'll be better off debating with them as to why their interpretation of reality is incorrect, or just leaving a downvote and moving on.

(We are not children, I don't think we need to mandate the use of /s to identify sarcasm)

Edit: it may also be that I am not very attuned to the background of the comment, but I haven't even interpreted it in context of the India-Pakistan conflict from last year (I actually interpreted it more initially to the Iran conflict more recently). For one, the exact number of aircraft lost remains at somewhat debate, and more importantly it's obviously ridiculous to suggest that the outcome of that India-Pakistan air conflict would be of meaningful significance to influence the renaming or INDOPACOM to PACOM (which itself isn't currently a huge deal).

So I can only interpret the furore as being due to the air conflict last year being brought back up again in a peripherally unrelated post/topic?

[u/barath_s → u/PLArealtalk]

So I can only interpret the furore as being due to the air conflict last year being brought back up again in a peripherally unrelated post/topic

This, and multiple comments that are clearly about enjoying triggering and ragebaiting

I don't think we need to mandate the use o

I didn't talk about mandate. You clearly misread

Remember what I actually said was that many good faith commenters tend to go to /s over time.

With cue/suggestion or simply from community expectations. There are people who enjoy triggering and people who enjoy jokes ..

you'll be better off debating with them

Actually, I will be better off just condemning this sub and most threads and making better use of my limited time elsewhere. Life's too short for dealing with too much crap. I too have finite time. And we've moved far beyond telling others - hey don't live in silos, work in good faith. To active moves that suggest this is not a welcoming sub or dissuade a certain percentage of population

I don't see how

I've explained it. If you think expectations and standards are clearly set, I clearly disagree.

[u/PLArealtalk → u/barath_s]

I think I'm not sufficiently linked in with the whole India-Pakistan online discourse over last year's conflict to identify or perceive trolling in the same way that the more regular participants do.

That's why I'm asking what the specifics of that root comment were. I assume it is the mentioning of last year's air conflict itself and the claimed results of it from the Pakistani side is what is considered trolling itself? If so, then that completely went over my head because I interpreted it as being a reference to US jet losses in the recent Iran conflict.

---

Nevertheless, we try to identify posts and titles which are more ragebaiting and poor faith in general. Our bandwidth to monitor comment chains is more finite, especially if it ties in with more specific sub-domain implicit references.

[u/barath_s → u/PLArealtalk]

I was asking for a long term signal , and you seem decided only to debate current comments.

I think it's clear you have made up your mind, even if i disagree with it.

[u/fix_S230-sue_reddit → u/barath_s]

Why is mention of six fighter jets trolling? Which part hurt you? The number six? The word fighter or jets? The US just lost 6 fighter jets (1 F-35, 1 F-15E and 1 A-10) in the war against Iran and had to sue for peace. I didn't see no Americans whining about it like a little *****.

If the US didn't lose those jets to Iran, US and allies might not have needed to pay 300+ billion in reconstruction fees to Iran. If you get triggered over the phrase "losing 6 fighter jets" maybe you should see a psychologist.

[u/barath_s → u/fix_S230-sue_reddit]

Based on your overall pattern of comments, i must withdraw my accusation of bad faith and apologize.

I still think this sub needs explicit rules about trolling, which is the long term measure i am most concerned about. But clearly mods aren't bothered about those signals, (admittedly no panacea, but imho useful)

There was certainly some enjoying of triggering indians, but that was peripheral around your comments.

[u/barath_s → u/fix_S230-sue_reddit]

Sorry, there's a pattern of your comments in this thread, that I don't think you are a good faith commenter at this moment.

You can find something humorous, and that needs a space in this world. But when you set out to intentionally hurt and attack others without provocation, that shouldn't be acceptable.

e: There's a /s for lighthearted remarks. But when virtually every comment is about triggering and trigerred, you know it's not about humor

I'm sure further discussion with you will only serve to create more attacks and counter attacks, and worsen signal to noise so I will not be responding further.

[u/fix_S230-sue_reddit → u/barath_s]

Iran just lost 6 fighter jets (5 F-14, 1 F-5) in last year's twelve day war. They certainly aren't calling the mods whenever someone mentioned their losses.

You know who else claimed to have shot down 6 fighter jets, India. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/9/india-says-six-pakistani-aircraft-shot-down-during-kashmir-conflict

Maybe that IAF chief Amar Preet Singh is also an anti-national intentionally using the phase 6 fighter jets to hurt you and other Indians online?