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

Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

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

  • #31
    Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    I don't mind the position Peck takes. What I mind is taking THAT position at the same time as "TPTB don't want to win a championship" position. Sure looks either/or to me.
    I agree. This falls right in line with the view that Donnie never made moves either...

    Herb for Det
    Chuck/Mike for Pooh/Sam
    Pooh for Jax
    Jax for Rose
    Det for McKey
    Tony for #5 pick
    signed Scott
    Rose/Best for Brad/Ron
    Dale for JO
    Al for Jack
    signing Dale
    Ron for Peja
    Peja/TE for Al
    Jack/Al for Mike/Troy/Ike

    I mean it's a lot easier to find seasons where a starter wasn't changed. How in the world were the Pacers going to 61 wins with Rose/Best instead?

    Also the 61 win team not only had the top record overall, they had the top record VERSUS WEST TEAMS. It's not like they were just in an easy conference. That team was the best team in the regular season without question and was perhaps the #2 team in the postseason.

    Going for that with Ron and JO is all about doing whatever it takes to win. Moving Al for Jack was too, an attempt to shore up outside shooting weakness that Detroit took advantage of.

    John Green misses that game and all of this is a moot point. For all we know crazy Ron would have kept walking that line he's walked in Sacto, but with the team winning. This would have made him Rodman on a Pacers Bad Boys instead of the time bomb of destruction.

    I'm so sick of this being spun way off into "obvious". It wasn't and isn't. It was close, it was walking the edge, and it slipped. Sucks, but you can't have regrets when you at least made the effort.

    Perhaps in the aftermath they didn't react quickly enough, TPTB and the fans were both in a bit of aftershock and it took some time to realize that they'd passed the point of no return. If anything you can blame Rick for doing too good a job holding it together, making it seem like it could still be turned around.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

      Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
      I find it interesting that Kravitz had to explain himself on why he wasn't tossing Marvin Harrison under the bus. I guess this is a far cry from RTV6 running an on-line pole on whether Jamaal Tinsley should have been "disciplined" by the team after being nearly murdered in the street.
      And a frustrating thing with all this is that the solution will be to campaign to have the Colts thrown under the bus TOO, rather than lightening up on the Pacers a little. How about we support the team, stop buying into this "fans vs players" thing that now envelops the Pacers and start holding the press a bit more accountable.

      This is 100% the same as my Al Unser Jr thing that BK then ran with a few years ago, how DUI Al could kick his girlfriend out of the car on the side of 465 and then show up at the track drunk and nothing was made of it. He still would (and does) get a line for autographs.

      Somewhere along the line it became cool to buy into the negative spin for all things Pacers and a lot of people right here at PD feel that this is normal and expected. What I'm saying is that if you step back and try to remove some emotion this isn't normal.

      The stories in Indy aren't nearly what some of the problems with other teams have been. Other players have been shot at, other players have actually been injured by attacks, and tons of players have been involved in off-court scuffles ala 8 Seconds. It's almost like Indy now has a chip on the shoulder to be a tough town with big stories, and the national feed just falls in line with whatever comes out of here because they don't care any more than they ever have about what goes on in Indy.

      If the local reporting hadn't said anything about Rio, Could 9, 8 Seconds you wouldn't have heard one thing nationally. This is clearly the case with Harrison and Philly. Philly has MUCH BIGGER fish to fry right now so his story falls way off their radar, even the police radar.

      But if this was in Brizzi's hands and Marv was a Pacer? Dude would be cuing up the Who and slapping on the shades and the press would eat it up.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

        Originally posted by Seth
        But if this was in Brizzi's hands and Marv was a Pacer? Dude would be cuing up the Who and slapping on the shades and the press would eat it up.

        I woke up in a Soho doorway, a policeman knew my name.
        He said, "You can go sleep at home tonight if you can get up and walk away."?
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

          Interesting....

          I make a statement that no one actually refutes other than with feelings and wishes and dreams yet it's being put that I'm the hypocritical one here?

          Hmmmmm..... How shall I put this?

          To my memory, and yes my advancing age does make me forgetfull at times, but I seem to recall that there were three people who daily were on here for a year or more prior to the brawl screaming at the top of thier lungs that this team was going to fall apart.

          Chicago Jay, Bball and Me.

          Please do not put any form of spin that nobody could have seen or predicted this coming, because we did. Go do any form of history search and you will see that not once in the past 5 years have I ever made the statement that it would be a good idea to keep both O'Neal & Artest.

          Maybe it's because I knew about Artest trashing the Min. locker room and then J.O. and him pushing and shoving each other on the plane. Or that the day of the Clippers blow out J.O. and Artest were in the locker room fighting about 3 hours before tip off. Or that J.O. told Mike Brown in front of Pacers staffers that it is either him or me (meaning Ron). I could go on but what is the point.

          Let's not forget that a certain reporter was demoted from beat writer to whatever his job became because he was outed in his own paper for covering for the fact that the Pacers had to actually convince Ron Artest to get on the team plane after game 6 vs. Miaimi.

          This does not even take into consideration all of the problems with Tinsley or Jackson who if some of you will recall dissapeared on game day vs the Celtics after a team member (Dale Davis) called him an ***. Well did all of you know that the Pacers had to send Chuck Person out to find him and after a 4 hour hug session with Jackson telling him how much the team loved him he finally showed up at the fieldhouse 1 hour before tip off?

          Some of you are just disagreeing with me because it's me, that's cool. But noone on here can call me a hypocrit because I have not changed my mind or my story once.

          The combination of Jermaine O'Neal and Ron Artest was a disaster. The Pacers house of cards was built on sand.

          We can demonize John Green all we want, we can pretend that if only nothing would have happened that night we would have won a title but since then we have been targeted by the evil David Stern and are being held down by the man.

          But that is all an illusion.

          We were like the movie Phenomenon. We were given an incredible gift and powers yet at the end of the day what we thought was a great power ended up being a fatal tumor.

          But in our case this was a tumor that we knew about and could have done early surgery on.


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

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

            Peck, during Isiah's last season - two years before the brawl, I remember several posts I made about how that team was very fragile, and wasn't really stable. But it was also very good, so even with the enormous risks I was willing to "see what happened"

            I also remember making a post about a week after we acquired Artest, telling Pacers fans that Artest will be the most polarizing Pacer player ever to put on the Pacers uniform and we all need to get set for a wild and bumpy ride - so I said we all need to just hang on - because it won't be boring.

            If you remember I never argued with you, Jay or Bball about the team possibly falling apart nor did I argue with anyone about how crazy Artest was. But I did argue that he was worth it and worth the gamble. I was of course wrong about that in the end as were TPTB, but almost everyone knew the risks.

            Disclaimer: clearly I had no idea anytime appraching the brawl was even possible of taking place.
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-13-2008, 03:03 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

              I admit that I, for one, didn't know what was going on and didn't anticipate what eventually did happen. I was living on a moutaintop in Asia during those years (yes I am Bruce Wayne), and none of the inside stuff Peck mentions in #34 got through. (I should have subscribed to PD sooner.) One day, all I knew was that the Pacers were coming off a 61-win season and were playing great, and then the next day the Pacers were a global pariah.
              Last edited by Putnam; 05-13-2008, 02:58 PM.
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                I seem to recall that there were three people who daily were on here for a year or more prior to the brawl screaming at the top of thier lungs that this team was going to fall apart.

                Chicago Jay, Bball and Me.

                Please do not put any form of spin that nobody could have seen or predicted this coming, because we did.
                So you predicted it coming from what you knew. That still doesn't mean the Pacer brass saw it coming from what they knew. The difference being they know what normally goes on in NBA locker rooms, you don't.

                From what I've read fights in locker rooms aren't anything out of the ordinary, and neither are contentious locker rooms, so for the Pacers brass it could have looked like business as usual.

                From my point of view, and no doubt the Pacers brass point of view, it was a hassle, but it wasn't much hurting the team on the floor, and that's mainly what you look at when you are in charge, the end result. Sixty-one wins and a great start to another season was a good result!

                We can make all the assumptions we want about what we hear or read, but it's nothing like being there person. And even then if we only see or hear part of what goes on it will sway our opinion to one we wouldn't normally have if we knew everything.

                My point is you, Bball, and . . . who the heck is ChicagoJ? You weren't there, you were only going on what you heard and it was far from complete.

                Of course you guys can pat yourself on the back because of the way it turned out, but it wasn't the forgone conclusion you think it was.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

                  ChicagoJ is the poster formally known as Jay@Section204 and so forth.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    ChicagoJ is the poster formally known as Jay@Section204 and so forth.
                    Thank you!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

                      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                      So you predicted it coming from what you knew. That still doesn't mean the Pacer brass saw it coming from what they knew. The difference being they know what normally goes on in NBA locker rooms, you don't.

                      From what I've read fights in locker rooms aren't anything out of the ordinary, and neither are contentious locker rooms, so for the Pacers brass it could have looked like business as usual.

                      From my point of view, and no doubt the Pacers brass point of view, it was a hassle, but it wasn't much hurting the team on the floor, and that's mainly what you look at when you are in charge, the end result. Sixty-one wins and a great start to another season was a good result!

                      We can make all the assumptions we want about what we hear or read, but it's nothing like being there person. And even then if we only see or hear part of what goes on it will sway our opinion to one we wouldn't normally have if we knew everything.

                      My point is you, Bball, and . . . who the heck is ChicagoJ? You weren't there, you were only going on what you heard and it was far from complete.

                      Of course you guys can pat yourself on the back because of the way it turned out, but it wasn't the forgone conclusion you think it was.

                      This was not a way to pat myself on the back even if it seems that way. I was just simply making a statement that the star posted something I disagreed with. Then there was a slew of posts disagreeing with me, which I have no problem with btw. I then just simply then made further claim that it was not something that people were not aware of.

                      As U.B. stated and I believe that Walsh agreed with him that they new the potential and that they took a calculated risk. I disagreed with that risk, but as you stated I don't know what goes on behind closed doors.

                      But where I took some contention was the fact that it seemed that some were going to go the route of saying hind sight being 20/20 and with that I will strongly disagree because some of us were saying then.

                      Ok, I've said enough. This post was not supposed to be about this.

                      Back to lurker mode.


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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        This was not a way to pat myself on the back even if it seems that way.
                        Of course it seems that way because that's what you were doing!

                        Nah, I'm kidding. However it doesn't matter the circumstances, you guys were right, and that deserves a pat on the back. Not that I like it that you were right dang it, but you deserve it!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

                          Will,

                          Totally off topic here but that photo in your avatar, is that a shot you took down in the keys or is that something off of the net?


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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Back to lurker mode.
                            Argh. Alright Hillary, enough pandering for the "post more often" vote.

                            You're out in the sun now, might as well hang out with us for awhile, have a beer, and join pointless firey rants over who we should draft weeks before the lottery is even set.



                            We can demonize John Green all we want, we can pretend that if only nothing would have happened that night we would have won a title but since then we have been targeted by the evil David Stern and are being held down by the man.
                            I'm not saying that, not pulling the "Stern was against us" card. I'm STRONGLY suggesting that plenty of disfunctional teams have rumbled onto titles, sometimes due specifically to that aspect. Some guys work with each other almost as a means to show each other up. Some guys just end up taking it out on the other team.

                            Rodman WAS high maintenance, dude's got rings (plural). The 76-78 Yanks were a swirling mess of borderline implosion. Shaq and Kobe, BFFs.

                            So stop acting like it was obviously going to fall apart. It did fall apart, but it was never obvious. I mean this team won games after many of the instances you mention. NONE OF THOSE were deal breakers in and of themselves, yet you dismiss Green and the brawl, a clear breakpoint, in favor of this list of incidents that came before.

                            So what if Jack, Ron and JO couldn't deal after winning the title for the 04-05 season, or that the momentum of that title could only band-aid them together for one more title run before falling apart like the Lakers. It is most certainly not obvious that it wouldn't have gone that way because it has worked that way many times over with other teams.

                            Do you really think things never got heated in the Bulls locker room? With Jordan and his antognistic ego? Phil never had to sweet talk Kobe into staying with the team or playing nice with Shaq?

                            Come on Peck, this is big boy sports and while I don't want to fully dismiss the chemistry concerns in play, we all know that they are often not dealbreakers. Heck, some of the biggest flops have come when a bunch of friends get together for a seeming "dream team".

                            Or weren't Al and JO great pals prior to his rejoining the team?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

                              C'mon, Peck. Just because I haven't posted anything Pacers related in about two years doesn't mean I didn't in the past. I can't believe I'm not on that short list of yours. See if I ever send you a John Kerry T-shirt again.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Herb Simon with the Star's editorial board

                                From what I've read fights in locker rooms aren't anything out of the ordinary, and neither are contentious locker rooms, so for the Pacers brass it could have looked like business as usual.
                                Thus my comments about Mark not reporting it. If a guy has seen it all before then it's normal life and not worth reporting. This just in, Wednesday is trash day.

                                I think Indy still has small-man syndrome and is constantly looking to keep up in all aspects, including drama. 8 Seconds would NOT get reported in Chicago or Philly or NY.

                                I mean the Knicks had a sexual harassment lawsuit AND Marbury implying blackmail and neither was dumped at the time. In fact had that team won 40-50 games both guys would still be there. That's sustained behavior on a daily basis, not a heat of the moment with a drunken criminal.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X