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

Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

    Originally posted by Bball
    While I agree with the thought that this in and of itself is nothing, I also think it deserved to be filed away as a 'possible' sign of what Peck is talking about here.

    Let's not forget, back then JO should've been doing whatever it took to be 'part of the team'. I can understand not wanting to cut his hair but I can also see where Peck is coming from with this.

    It was not enough to go screaming "Cut him! Poser! Trade him! He's not a 'team' player!!!!" ...But OTOH... it should've gave everyone a little nagging question in the back of their minds.

    -Bball
    Or maybe he didn't want to join the brotherhood of the sheep. Leaders don't have a herd mentality. Just another way of looking at it.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

      Originally posted by Peck
      As to Austin refusing to shave his head?? I have no idea where you are getting that from. Go look at the playoff pictures from his first 2 years in the NBA & you will see a bald Croshere.
      I still see a bald Croshere...

      I'm not talking about his first two years. I'm talking about a star article from a couple of years ago where they covered the death of this tradition. It wasn't anybody refusing to be part of the team... it was nobody saw any reason to continue it. One of the guys that expressly came out and said he saw no reason to continue it was Austin. Al Harrington was there when Montieth asked Austin the question, and came back with something about Austin not wanting to because it never grew back from the first time.

      Does nobody else remember this? I really wish the star had better archives.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

        I don't know, I guess I just took what you said the wrong way, Peck. I just see a lot of folks all over, not just here, but out 'n about that feel J.O. cant lead this team without Reggie Miller holding his hand. It is just personally irritating to me. I think J.O. will be just fine. I don't think Reggie would have stepped aside if he didn't feel the team was in capable hands.....IMHO, as always!
        ...Still "flying casual"
        @roaminggnome74

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

          Here's a picture of Jermaine against the Sixers in his first playoff performance as a Pacer:



          So he did it his first year. I'll go back and figure out when the tradition stopped, but I don't see what's so offensive to you about letting stupid traditions die.

          EDIT: Here's Jermaine's second year as a Pacer:



          So that's when the tradition finally died.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

            Originally posted by Anthem
            I still see a bald Croshere...

            I'm not talking about his first two years. I'm talking about a star article from a couple of years ago where they covered the death of this tradition. It wasn't anybody refusing to be part of the team... it was nobody saw any reason to continue it. One of the guys that expressly came out and said he saw no reason to continue it was Austin. Al Harrington was there when Montieth asked Austin the question, and came back with something about Austin not wanting to because it never grew back from the first time.

            Does nobody else remember this? I really wish the star had better archives.

            actually anthem....now that u mention it...that does ring a bell....i do believe ur onpoint....i do seem to remember it being croshere wanting to eliminate the somewhat silly tradition....and who can blame him...between he and smits....whew...

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

              AFAIK the only bald years were 98 and 2003. I remember a bald Smits and Mullin in 98, and a bald Jeff and Brad in 2003. I don't remember a bald Cro in 2003, and he wasn't here in 98. Didn't he break the trend in '03?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                Originally posted by Hicks
                AFAIK the only bald years were 98 and 2003. I remember a bald Smits and Mullin in 98, and a bald Jeff and Brad in 2003. I don't remember a bald Cro in 2003, and he wasn't here in 98. Didn't he break the trend in '03?
                Cro was drafted in 1997.

                I'm guessing he wasn't on the 1998 playoff roster?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                  Originally posted by Hicks
                  AFAIK the only bald years were 98 and 2003. I remember a bald Smits and Mullin in 98, and a bald Jeff and Brad in 2003. I don't remember a bald Cro in 2003, and he wasn't here in 98. Didn't he break the trend in '03?
                  u know what??? as i step back for a second...i cant help but think how ridiculous this is.....

                  and i cant help but think the root of the problem is when we , as fans, have some disdain for certain players and their attitudes that we then go looking for things to make our case to further villify them....

                  it really speaks to the overall fan/player relationship that is the basis for the nba's image problem and growing concern over their fan base....

                  i mean here we are discussing who cut their hair when....and why they didnt want to cut their hair....and what sort of symbolism should be read into not wanting to cut their hair....and what a bad leader that might make one if he chooses to not cut his hair....and how selfish it is to not cut your hair.....

                  i mean...woooaaahhhh....seems we might need to get a grip again....are we really so desperate to villify these guys? it appears so....appears there is definite pent up frustration towards some of these guys....

                  and it seems it keeps coming back to how much money theyre making and them not conducting themselves the way we feel they should....

                  you know one comment ive seen mentioned a couple of times that i think is really telling is this....and im not sure who made it...and im not trying to single anyone out....but it went something like....jermaine was just given the leadership role and the face of the franchise label...

                  excuse me....but to say this is like a royal slap in the face to donnie walsh and his organization....first of all....jermaine wasnt just given his max contract because of poor performance....look at his production prior to the contract....even moreso what did he do after that contract??? 3rd in the voting for MVP....hmmmm....seems he might very well of been deserving....

                  we all should step back and check our feelings sometimes....it appears theres alot of resentment towards these players....and its really starting to show when this thread has taken on the life that it has....

                  i mean seriously....we are debating about why grown men should cut their hair or not....just because a guy makes millions doesnt mean he necessarily has to shave his head....wow...the more i think of this whole thing, the worse it gets....its almost embarassing..

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                    Originally posted by foretaz
                    u know what??? as i step back for a second...i cant help but think how ridiculous this is.....
                    You have a point. That is, you would, if it wasn't in purple bold text.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                      This all started, back in the Dick Versace days, around the pool hotel in Charlotte. In a sign of unity during a difficult road trip, Chuck, Tank, Vern and a couple of other players shaved thier heads, and the Pacers won the next game. Most of the rest of the team, except the white guys (Detlef, Rik, Randy) and Reggie with his goofy beret, joined them.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                        Originally posted by Anthem
                        I still see a bald Croshere...

                        I'm not talking about his first two years. I'm talking about a star article from a couple of years ago where they covered the death of this tradition. It wasn't anybody refusing to be part of the team... it was nobody saw any reason to continue it. One of the guys that expressly came out and said he saw no reason to continue it was Austin. Al Harrington was there when Montieth asked Austin the question, and came back with something about Austin not wanting to because it never grew back from the first time.

                        Does nobody else remember this? I really wish the star had better archives.
                        I do not dispute anything you just said, however I want to point out that there is a huge differance between saying there is no reason for something to continue & refusing to do it as you first said. I also remember the interview with Al about this however I saw it with the WISH reporter at the time & I took it as Al making a joke about it. But even if it wasn't then I still think there is a differance between not wanting to & refusing to.


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

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome
                          I don't know, I guess I just took what you said the wrong way, Peck. I just see a lot of folks all over, not just here, but out 'n about that feel J.O. cant lead this team without Reggie Miller holding his hand. It is just personally irritating to me. I think J.O. will be just fine. I don't think Reggie would have stepped aside if he didn't feel the team was in capable hands.....IMHO, as always!

                          No problem at all. Like I said I wish I hadn't even posted that because it has turned into the great hair debate & that was never the point of the matter to me.

                          But to J.O. himself I think that people are concerned because of the past. We had never had a player who was so dominate & talented yet also so self promoting in our NBA history (I'm intentionally leaving out the ABA because I just can't speak on it with any authority I'll let the grey beards talk on it). Remember J.O.'s first year here? Remember the press conferances where he talked about M.V.P., M.I.P., & shot blocking titles? He talked about everything except winning a title. That just set wrong with a lot of people (ok by a lot of people I mean me )

                          Let's never forget one thing either. I have a skewed view of him & I always make sure to admit it because it may cloud my judgement on him. I try & keep an open mind but I'll just say that the first couple of years he was here he was anything but my favorite player (for those of you late to the game I have a skewed view of him because he was traded for Dale).

                          I will say this though & this is where I disagree with almost every single poster on this board. Isiah Thomas was good for Jermaine O'Neal. He actually turned him IMO & the last year he was here & the first year Carlisle was here J.O. was a changed person.

                          This year I'm willing to just right it off & say that with all of the turmoil we had I'm just happy he didn't come to the games with a gun & start stalking Stern around.


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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                            Originally posted by foretaz
                            u know what??? as i step back for a second...i cant help but think how ridiculous this is.....

                            and i cant help but think the root of the problem is when we , as fans, have some disdain for certain players and their attitudes that we then go looking for things to make our case to further villify them....

                            it really speaks to the overall fan/player relationship that is the basis for the nba's image problem and growing concern over their fan base....

                            i mean here we are discussing who cut their hair when....and why they didnt want to cut their hair....and what sort of symbolism should be read into not wanting to cut their hair....and what a bad leader that might make one if he chooses to not cut his hair....and how selfish it is to not cut your hair.....

                            i mean...woooaaahhhh....seems we might need to get a grip again....are we really so desperate to villify these guys? it appears so....appears there is definite pent up frustration towards some of these guys....

                            and it seems it keeps coming back to how much money theyre making and them not conducting themselves the way we feel they should....

                            you know one comment ive seen mentioned a couple of times that i think is really telling is this....and im not sure who made it...and im not trying to single anyone out....but it went something like....jermaine was just given the leadership role and the face of the franchise label...

                            excuse me....but to say this is like a royal slap in the face to donnie walsh and his organization....first of all....jermaine wasnt just given his max contract because of poor performance....look at his production prior to the contract....even moreso what did he do after that contract??? 3rd in the voting for MVP....hmmmm....seems he might very well of been deserving....

                            we all should step back and check our feelings sometimes....it appears theres alot of resentment towards these players....and its really starting to show when this thread has taken on the life that it has....

                            i mean seriously....we are debating about why grown men should cut their hair or not....just because a guy makes millions doesnt mean he necessarily has to shave his head....wow...the more i think of this whole thing, the worse it gets....its almost embarassing..
                            Since I'm the one who started this I guess your talking to me.

                            As I've said in previous posts, by itself not only is it silly it's downright absurd in a way.

                            However when we look at it from a differant angle I'm not so sure it is. It's all part of a picture, it's just one piece of the puzzle, it's just one slice of peach in a fruit pie or whatever other analogy's you wanna use. (Notice it always comes back to pie for me )


                            Ok, let's just ask a question. Other than for marketing reasons, which back in the 40' & 50's wasn't really even considered, why does the NBA make players wear uniforms?

                            No, really why do they? Why don't they just let players wear whatever they want to wear on the floor?

                            Ok, if it's for safety so somebody doesn't get injured by some belt buckle then let's ask this. Why don't they just let every player just wear whatever basketball attire they choose to wear?

                            If your gonna say so that they can know who is who on a team then let's just ask why not shirts & skins (or blowses for you Chappelle fans)?

                            Why then do teams wear thier own style of uniforms? Why doesn't the NBA just have dark uniforms for away teams & light colored ones for home teams? With no logos or no markings.

                            Now go one step further why don't teams let players wear whatever jerseys they want to wear?

                            I think we would all know Jermaine O'neal no matter if he was wearing a Pacers # 7 or a Blazers # 7.

                            What if J.O. just wanted to express his own identity & wear a jersey that just said Jermaine on the front & O'neal on the back but yet it was blue & gold. Why would this be wrong?

                            It's all about being part of a group. It's all about commitment. It means when you put on a Knicks uniform you represent the franchise. It means when you put on a Pistons uniform you are out on parole (sorry D-Town fans I just couldn't resist ) & here it means when you put on a Pacers uniform you represent the Simons & the way we feel about it the state of Indiana as well.

                            Magic Johnson was a dynamic leader but he never seperated himself from his team mates. Same goes for Bird, Isiah & Dr. J.

                            Jordon on the other hand, yeah he didn't toe the party line very well.

                            So what did my mindless ramblings above mean? Nothing.

                            But my intention is to say this. I always thought the shaving of the heads was actually kind of dumb. But I also understood it was the players way of committing to each other. It wasn't about being a better player it was always about being a better team mate.

                            So let's not look to much into the shave or unshaved thing. Look at it as I was intending. Commitment or non commitment thing.


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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                              Originally posted by Peck
                              I do not dispute anything you just said, however I want to point out that there is a huge differance between saying there is no reason for something to continue & refusing to do it as you first said.
                              Peck, I don't know what the heck you're talking about, then.

                              - Jermaine's first year as a Pacer was 2001. He shaved his head.
                              - Next year was 2002. Pictures I've found show that Jalen and Al had shaved heads, but Jermaine, Brad, and Jeff didn't. I don't think the team shaved their heads for the playoffs, which ties in with what Hicks said.
                              - Next year was 2003. This is the year we lost to the Celtics. I can't find any media on NBA.com (the videos are dead and the articles have pictures stripped), but I don't remember Brad or Jeff lacking hair

                              I fail to see how any of this shows that Jermaine was putting his personal identity above his team identity. As far as I can tell, the last time the whole team shaved their heads was 2001, and Jermaine joined in. So please explain exactly what season you're talking about, because I ain't getting it.

                              EDIT: Peck, I posted this before you posted the post above. Your post didn't clear it up for me, though. When I look at it, I don't see Jermaine refusing to participate in anything. I see the tradition dying off (at long last).
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                                Originally posted by Anthem
                                Peck, I don't know what the heck you're talking about, then.

                                - Jermaine's first year as a Pacer was 2001. He shaved his head.
                                - Next year was 2002. Pictures I've found show that Jalen and Al had shaved heads, but Jermaine, Brad, and Jeff didn't. I don't think the team shaved their heads for the playoffs, which ties in with what Hicks said.
                                - Next year was 2003. This is the year we lost to the Celtics. I can't find any media on NBA.com (the videos are dead and the articles have pictures stripped), but I don't remember Brad or Jeff lacking hair

                                I fail to see how any of this shows that Jermaine was putting his personal identity above his team identity. As far as I can tell, the last time the whole team shaved their heads was 2001, and Jermaine joined in. So please explain exactly what season you're talking about, because I ain't getting it.

                                EDIT: Peck, I posted this before you posted the post above. Your post didn't clear it up for me, though. When I look at it, I don't see Jermaine refusing to participate in anything. I see the tradition dying off (at long last).

                                Jalen was gone before the 2002 playoffs.

                                In 2003, I'm almost sure that Jeff had regular hair and that Brad had his normal short cut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X