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

IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

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

  • #91
    Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

    Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
    It seems a few of you don't understand what Benner meant when he said what he did about race. Though it's a lot deeper to me than I care to explain (UB already touched on it a bit), I'll say this much.

    I hate the word "thug" and the way its used to describe black NBA players that find themselves in a bad position with the law. I call Rae Carruth a thug. That's because he actually did something that the true definition of a thug does. He killed.

    Thug: 1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.

    Yet I only hear the word referenced to black players, and recently black people. I take offense to it because it's being used like it's the new 'N' word, not for it's true meaning. Ron Artest, Jamaal Tinsley, Stephen Jackson, Marquis Daniels, and recently Shawne Williams have all been called thugs. Going by the words definition I don't see them as thugs. Lacking judgement, hard headed, troublesome, idiot, etc. ok, that's a good definition of them. But thug is definitely not.

    Funny part is that when I was younger, a "thug" in terms of basketball was an enforcer/dirty player. It was interchangable with "goon" or "hack". Rick Mahorn was a thug. Maurice Lucas. Jeff Ruland. Bill Laimbeer.

    Now, however, there's a new, nastier connotation, and I do agree with those who say it has racial undertones. I think it's a broad brush that gets used too easily these days.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

      Originally posted by Twes View Post
      It seems to me these things help make the case FOR Indianapolis being a good sports town.
      For hosting big sporting events and conventions, definitely. But when it comes to actual fan support, that's a whole different story.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

        Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
        It seems a few of you don't understand what Benner meant when he said what he did about race. Though it's a lot deeper to me than I care to explain (UB already touched on it a bit), I'll say this much.

        I hate the word "thug" and the way its used to describe black NBA players that find themselves in a bad position with the law. I call Rae Carruth a thug. That's because he actually did something that the true definition of a thug does. He killed.

        Thug: 1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.
        Well, I guess I could say "those *** holes who keep getting in trouble with the law." It's just easier to say "thug" (plus thug makes it through the bad word filter). It's not my fault those who keep getting in trouble happen to be African-American.
        Last edited by grace; 03-12-2008, 01:34 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

          Everybody needs some sunshine.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

            Some people think it's the losing. Some think it's the incidents.

            The truth is, it's both.

            You have to ask why the Pacers are LAST in the NBA in attendance when they are not the smallest market and not even close to the worst record.

            Some conveniently explain this away by stereotyping Indiana fans as being some monolithic mass that can be characterized as fickle fans. That's grasping a false conclusion to avoid the truth.

            Again, the truth is, it's both. Why isn't the same being said of other cities? What about Memphis? How in the world is their attendance significantly higher than the Pacers?

            The truth is, sharing the Pacers with a friend is like sharing a disease. Sharing the Pacers with a client is equivalent to losing your client. Sharing the Pacers with your children is child abuse. At least, that's the reputation...and it does matter to *SOME* people....both when they decide to spend their entertainment dollars...and when they decide to buy merchandise.

            Now, losing probably still accounts for 70-80% of the attendance drop....but that extra 20-30% is worth a solid 1000 fans...which would make all the difference in the world.........

            http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance
            ESPN NBA ATTENDANCE 2007-08

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

              Originally posted by grace View Post
              Well, I guess I could say "those *** holes who keep getting in trouble with the law." It's just easier to say "thug" (plus thug makes it through the bad word filter). It's not my fault those who keep getting in troulbe happen to be African-American.
              Did anyone call Chris Andersen a thug? Jason Williams? What about what Darko Milicic said in the summer olympics about the ref in one of the games he played in. Did anyone call him a thug after that? You're right that it's the African-Americans are the main ones getting in trouble, and in a mostly African-American league odds are that if you have a bunch of people getting in trouble that you'd have to look in the African-American direction. That's not a good thing, but it's the truth and I'm fine with that truth. The only thing that bothers me is the word that's being used to describe those players.

              I remember back the year of the brawl when we were playing the Orlando Magic on TNT a week or so after the brawl. During halftime, Charles Barkley brought up the exact use of the word I'm talking about now and how it has some racial undertones. Kenny Smith kept nodding their heads agreeing with Charles. Maybe it's an argument only black people can really understand.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                Funny part is that when I was younger, a "thug" in terms of basketball was an enforcer/dirty player. It was interchangable with "goon" or "hack". Rick Mahorn was a thug. Maurice Lucas. Jeff Ruland. Bill Laimbeer.
                I resent you calling all these black guys thugs. That's racist. I resent all those people that call Danny Granger a thug, and David Robinson, and James Jones--man, all the people that so unfairly called him a thug for carrying around a bible all the time.

                And that Jason Williams kid down in Miami. It's racist to call him a thug.

                Just cut out all the racism, you guys. It's just not right!
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

                  Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
                  It seems a few of you don't understand what Benner meant when he said what he did about race. Though it's a lot deeper to me than I care to explain (UB already touched on it a bit), I'll say this much.

                  I hate the word "thug" and the way its used to describe black NBA players that find themselves in a bad position with the law. I call Rae Carruth a thug. That's because he actually did something that the true definition of a thug does. He killed.

                  Thug: 1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.

                  Yet I only hear the word referenced to black players, and recently black people. I take offense to it because it's being used like it's the new 'N' word, not for it's true meaning. Ron Artest, Jamaal Tinsley, Stephen Jackson, Marquis Daniels, and recently Shawne Williams have all been called thugs. Going by the words definition I don't see them as thugs. Lacking judgement, hard headed, troublesome, idiot, etc. ok, that's a good definition of them. But thug is definitely not.
                  I think most people are using the term as a synonym for "criminal".

                  Personally, I simply don't make a connection with race at all. I may have used the term before, but it's not commonly used in my arsenal of slams. Now, I do think that the term "gangsta" has racial connotations....

                  BTW, most words have multiple definitions. Here is another one:

                  Thug: an aggressive and violent young criminal [syn: hood]

                  IMO, regardless of the term, that definition applies to some of our players based on their own actions. For example, Jackson fits that definition at Club Rio. Tinsley is facing an felony intimidation charge. Both guys are fairly young and facing criminal charges involving aggression/violence. So, thug is a perfect definition here and it could just be that people are using this definition.

                  BTW, how do you explain the poster who loves Granger or Reggie and calls Jackson and Tinsley thugs? Is he a racist? Or is he sick of off court incidents? Seriously, I doubt people are using the term the way you think they are. In any event, I will refrain from using that word here just to be civil.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

                    Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                    I agree wholeheartedly with both the author of this article and Naptown Seth.
                    Me Too!
                    "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                    Comment


                    • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

                      Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
                      Did anyone call Chris Andersen a thug? Jason Williams? What about what Darko Milicic said in the summer olympics about the ref in one of the games he played in. Did anyone call him a thug after that? You're right that it's the African-Americans are the main ones getting in trouble, and in a mostly African-American league odds are that if you have a bunch of people getting in trouble that you'd have to look in the African-American direction. That's not a good thing, but it's the truth and I'm fine with that truth. The only thing that bothers me is the word that's being used to describe those players.

                      I remember back the year of the brawl when we were playing the Orlando Magic on TNT a week or so after the brawl. During halftime, Charles Barkley brought up the exact use of the word I'm talking about now and how it has some racial undertones. Kenny Smith kept nodding their heads agreeing with Charles. Maybe it's an argument only black people can really understand.
                      Chris Anderson seems like he deserves the label...but did he do anything violent. I think the term connotes violence along with illegality. In any event, he deserves to be called a criminal...

                      Comment


                      • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

                        As long as we're getting technical on "thug":

                        thug
                        1810, "member of a gang of murderers and robbers in India who strangled their victims," from Marathi thag, thak "cheat, swindler," Hindi thag, perhaps from Skt. sthaga-s "cunning, fraudulent," possibly from sthagayati "(he) covers, conceals," from PIE base *(s)teg- "cover" (see stegosaurus). Transferred sense of "ruffian, cutthroat" first recorded 1839. The more correct Indian name is phanseegur, and the activity was described in Eng. as far back as c.1665. Rigorously prosecuted by the British from 1831, they were driven from existence, but the process extended over the rest of the 19c.
                        Online Etymology Dictionary

                        But that's not really the point I was trying to make. I was simply observing that the contextual perception of the word "thug" has changed in the last 20-30 years to have more racial connotations.

                        People are staying away from Pacer games for a million reasons. Race and racism could be a factor for some, but odds are those people were staying away even at the peak of their popularity.

                        I think, on the whole, Indianapolis is a good sports town, but not a good PROFESSIONAL sports town. Many of the professional sports fans here follow both the Colts and the Pacer, and many have to choose one over the other. Let's face it. These days it's easier to pick the Colts. However, let's not forget just a few scant years ago, it seemed like everyone had the Colts bundled off to LA. It sure seemed like the league wanted it that way.

                        We will never be like Chicago, who is second in attendance this year despite being a scant 1 game ahead of us. Who was third in attendance in 2003-2004, averaging over 3,000 more fans per game with 23 wins than we did while winning 61.

                        Some of it's demographics, some of it's culture, some of it's just plain population totals (both citizenry and corporate). On the whole, it's a limitation, but not one that would not allow both the Pacers and Colts to be solidly successful here, if the product is good.

                        The problem I have with Benner on this article is that he decided to wag his finger at everybody. Rather than saying "Hey, I get why you're frustrated, but here are the reasons we still need to turn out and support the Pacers", he decided to try and push people's buttons by playing the "real sports town" card.

                        Comment


                        • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          BTW, how do you explain the poster who loves Granger or Reggie and calls Jackson and Tinsley thugs? Is he a racist? Or is he sick of off court incidents? Seriously, I doubt people are using the term the way you think they are. In any event, I will refrain from using that word here just to be civil.
                          I don't want to come across as if I'm pulling the card and calling people racists. I'm not doing that, I'm not the card pulling type. I'm just saying the word thug itself has a racial undertone, and it sort of reminds me of the 'N' word because it's beginning to be used in a similar form (not always by the people on this board).

                          Comment


                          • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

                            I think the issue comes down to the fact that Indy will never embrace a team whose players are constantly in the news for off-court issues. Look at Indy and the past 20 years whom have fans embraced? Peyton Manning, Reggie Miller, Jim Harbaugh, Marshall Faulk, the Davis boys, Rik Smits, Dwight Freeney, Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, etc. How many incidents have you heard of regarding any of these guys and their behaviors off the court or field while they were with Indy? Sure, there have been some minor incidents, but nothing like those of the Pacers.

                            When the Colts had issues with players, in many cases, those players were left looking for work shortly thereafter (i.e. Steve Muhammad). Sure, I realize that you're able to cut players easily in the NFL vs the NBA, but the Colts never let any character issues get out of hand like the Pacers have.

                            It's not a race issue at all. Indy supported and embraced guys like Edgerrin James with his gold teeth and dreadlocks who couldn't wait to get to Miami every year and also guys like Rik Smits who was a somewhat goofy European. Reggie Miller was loved from Fort Wayne to Evansville and everywhere in between, so it's not a race issue. If Mike Dunleavy were getting high with Harrison and arrested for DUI's or drugs, the fans would dislike him as much as Tinsley.

                            Fans in Indy simply do not like and will not tolerate a Jamaal Tinsley, Stephen Jackson, Ron Artest, and even guys like Daniels, Williams and Harrison to an extent. These guys weren't just in the news once, but on multiple occasions. There's a point where the fans throw their hands up and say that's enough and have stopped coming to games. There's a reason why Jax was traded, why Harrison and Williams have put their houses up for sale and the fans who pay their hard earned money are tired of supporting a team where half the players either are in trouble with the law or are nursing an injury. Fans have embraced guys like Granger and Dunleavy somewhat for their willingness to play on and not complain.

                            The one thing that I have noticed over the past few years is that even the casual fan of the Pacers who knew the Reggie Miller teams and even the JO and Artest teams of the mid 2000's is no longer interested in the Pacers. Think about how many groups would attend a Pacers game? Count how many you see now. Look at how many families would attend a Pacers game? Count how many attend now.

                            it's not just the losing that's affected the Pacers, it's been the attitude and culture of the past several years. Until that changes, the Pacers will continue to struggle. Don't get me wrong, I love the Pacers and always will, but a few bad seeds can ruin everything else. I do feel sorry for guys like Foster, Granger, Dunleavy and others who do give it their all every night. But until something is done, when 40% of your team payroll is not playing and the attitude and culture changes, the Pacers will continue to drive away the fans.

                            Comment


                            • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

                              The word thug has a negative conotation not racial undertones. The word itself is not racist. Modern day black culture has adopted the word as a way of identity. This also happened with the Italian and Irish gangs. Its a way of social evolution.

                              Comment


                              • Re: IBJ: A "real" sports town wouldn't abandon the Pacers

                                This is exactly the type of scenario I predicted and was worried about. I said if the Simons think that our management team has been properly running this franchise then the next logical place to lay blame was on the fans. So now we wait and see if Benner is speaking for himself or as a PR arm of PS&E. Even if he's speaking for himself, if the Simons are like-minded (and Benner is showing you some people can surely think this way), then the next step (selling the team) isn't hard to take.

                                This is a shame on many levels, but TPTB shouldn't blame the fans for not caring about the Pacers... they should blame themselves for not caring about the fans. The fans spoke a long time ago... TPTB didn't listen. That might work if you wait it out and the fans were wrong. That will blow up in your face if you wait it out and it turns out the fans were right.

                                -Bball

                                -Bball
                                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

                                Working...
                                X