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

A series of questions....

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

  • #16
    Re: A series of questions....

    Peck,
    Look at the NFL (Roger Goddell is cracking down on player misconduct)
    What is Stern Doing?

    TPTB have their hands tied, they cannot just cut ties with a player b/c of the guaranteed contracts. Tinsley would be long gone if they could.

    The whole problem is this the NBA Culture vs Hoosier Values. Several of my coworkers compare the NBA to Street Ball. They are in the crowd 40 + & are the one purchasing the lower level seats and they will never embrace the current NBA Culture. If we start to win; they will jump back on the bandwagon but why pay good money to watch a team of "thugs" lose? Is the question this generation asks.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: A series of questions....

      I have posted on many occasions that Indianapolis might be a great basketball area, but not a great NBA city. In general people here do not like the NBA. Even a lot of die-hard pacers fans are pacers fans but still they don't like the NBA.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: A series of questions....

        This is a good idea Peck. This will be, hopefully, my last post concentrating on the brawl. I will answer your other question in full detail at a later time as well, as they give a little bit more to chew on than brawl-related questions.

        1. Am I wrong to feel that the team (owners and Walsh) never took actual responsibility for the actions of our players?

        I think the way that this question is framed puts the brawl in the wrong context. From what I remember fans were not outraged right after the brawl occurred. In fact, they laid much more blame on Ben Wallace, John Greene, and the lack of security at the game than they did on Ron Artest or any of the former (that feels good to say) Pacers involved. I went to a Pacers-Timberwolves game around Thanksgiving that year and the Fieldhouse was packed and everyone was rallying around our reserve players. The brawl did not become a sticking point for fans until after some of the off-court incidents began happening. Only then, did anyone look back at the brawl and say "they are a bunch of thugs for doing that." People did not get offended until the incidents in Indianapolis, rather than Detroit, started to occur.

        And I think that letter TPTB issued after the brawl was sufficient. What else are you gonna do, really, to take responsibility for it?

        2. If I am wrong, remember these are about feelings not facts, then was I the only person who felt that way? Or is it possible that a few others out there felt the same way and that this combined with other incidents where the management didn't respond with dissaproval of the players, might have kept a couple of people away?

        I think it is arguable concerning who was responsible for the brawl and there wasn't much more the team could do to those players after Stern's suspensions anyway. But yes, there is no doubt who was at fault during the other off court incidents: the players involved! Absolutely TPTB should have taken more action when those incidents happened. They ended up taking appropriate action by trading Stephen Jackson but that took a bit of time. But after the brawl happened should they have done something else? No.

        3. Was Ron Artest as popular at the fieldhouse as he was online?

        No idea.

        4. Was Steven Jackson unfairly painted by his actions at the brawl?

        No. Ben Wallace and John Greene were at fault for starting the brawl, but Stephen Jackson is at fault for taking it to a whole other level. No one provoked him to go into the stands like with Artest. The whole scuffle that led to Artest laying down on the table thing may not have never happened on the level it did if Jackson wasn't stomping around ripping out his jersey and cussing at Pistons players and pissing them off. If he really wanted to help his team in that situation he would have led Artest toward the bench rather than provoking Pistons players and as a result of that, provoking the fans too.

        5. Was Jermaine O'Neal an innocent vicitim of the brawl?

        I think that he was. Look, if you're a famous professional athlete in a situation like that and someone threatens you, what else are you supposed to do? That guy could have had a knife or a gun. It's not like JO started stomping on the guy after he hit him or anything. He had to lay that guy out though because for all JO knew that guy was going to come after him with a switchblade. To say JO did anything wrong in the brawl is ridiculous.

        ---

        The brawl was a very ugly situation and I try to forget about it in terms of what it did to our team but I will never forget about it in regards to how much it has made me hate the Pistons and Ben Wallace. I tried rooting for the Pistons during the ECF this year but after seeing the brawl again I realize now I hope that franchise never wins anything again, gets stuck with the 10th pick of the draft every year, and eventually moves to Las Vegas. Screw those guys. It hurts bad to see that franchise succeeding after the brawl while it set our franchise back so far. To me, a loss to the obviously much more talented Pistons even in the regular season hurts more than any Colts NFL playoff loss to the Pats.
        Last edited by idioteque; 07-16-2008, 10:44 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: A series of questions....

          Peck makes me so angry.

          Obviously we needed a change and we got the change. I'm truly thrilled that Indy seems to like the Pacers again.
          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

          "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: A series of questions....

            Don't forget to blame the refs. And also keep in mind that the NBA changed the way they instruct their refs to handle situations like that. Just wish Joey Crawford had been working that game - he would have taken control of the situation and none of it would have happened. Sad really

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: A series of questions....

              Watching the brawl again (ugh) I forgot how big of a role Ben Wallace really played. After shoving Artest that hard you still have to go after him even more and start the whole scuffle between both teams? Really?

              I've never been able to stand Ben Wallace after the brawl but I didn't realize what he did was so blatant because I haven't watched the video in over a year. I don't want him to die or be crippled or anything, but if he landed badly on his knee and was never able to play again, I wouldn't care either and would feel a bit vindicated.

              Instead slapping Tinsley in the face like a *****, Rasheed should have been more of a peacemaker too. The way he was acting in that scuffle pissed the Pacers off even ore.

              And it's a shame I have to hate that franchise because I like Billups, Hamilton, and Tayshaun as individual players.
              Last edited by idioteque; 07-16-2008, 10:58 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: A series of questions....

                Originally posted by JayRedd
                I wasn't here during the brawl, so I missed the initial debates...

                But, for me, the most confusing part of PD has always been the people that feel that Ron Artest was unfairly punished for the Brawl. I've watched that video literally at least 100 times and the notion that he deserved anything less than the rest of the season has never crossed my mind.

                Yep, the I remember my initial reaction being..."WHAT THE ****!?!?!"

                It sucked. Bad. But much like the Jerryd Bayless incident, after I gave it 24 hours it made complete sense. (And, yes, the initial games give to JO may have been a little high, but he only served 15 games after appeal -- and he did sprint across the court just to cold-**** a 5'11" guy -- and Jack definitely deserved 25 for his role for repeatedly punching fans in the face.)

                Blame crappy security, blame punk-*** Piston fans, blame whoever you want...But that wasn't an Indiana/Detroit fight, it was a fight between Indiana Pacer players and fans. And it was started by Ron Artest, accelerated by Stephen Jackson and voluntarily participated in twice by Jermaine O'Neal.
                And that's the truth. I just think that Ron should have been reinstated for the playoffs and Wallace should have been given more games.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: A series of questions....

                  Sorry...you quoted that right as I was trying to delete it. But I didn't want to change the thread into that debate.

                  Carry on.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: A series of questions....

                    For me:

                    Started by Ben Wallace, accelerated by Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson, and accelerated again by John Greene, Ron Artest, and Stephen Jackson.

                    Really there are so many people blame that you can't blame one side fully. But the Pacers were the only team that was punished.

                    There was no precedent to suspending Ron for the whole season when you look at the Vernon Maxwell incident. He should have at least been reinstated for the playoffs.

                    And Ben Wallace should have gotten the same 15 games as JO.

                    Ok, I'll shut up now and start thinking about Peck's other questions.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: A series of questions....

                      Agree to disagree.
                      Read my Pacers blog:
                      8points9seconds.com

                      Follow my twitter:

                      @8pts9secs

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: A series of questions....

                        I do not think JO7 did anything wrong in the brawl, That loud mouth fan ran into the field of play. He had no right to be on the court.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: A series of questions....

                          1. Knowing that ticket sales have already increased can we just write off the fact that the culture of the team has changed and in changing this some of the fans are returning?

                          A: Yes, agree.

                          2. Was the win loss % the only reason for last seasons attendance?

                          A: No. Don't forget, the summer before we were promised "big changes" and Public Enemy #1 (Jackson) and Public Enemy #2 (Tinsley) remained on the roster. Speaking for myself, that - along with the retention of Rick Carlisle - was my decision to cancel my tickets, but it came at the end of that season.

                          3. Was the economy the only reason for last seasons attendance?

                          A: No, but it contributed.

                          4. Was a combination of the economy and win/loss % the only reasons for last seasons attendance?

                          A: No alone, but were probably two of the strongest reasons.

                          5. If neither of these or the combination of these was the reason, what other reasons are there?

                          A:
                          - Dissatisfaction with players/ management/ image of the franchise/ direction of the franchise.

                          - Dissatisfaction with appearance of corruption in NBA officiating/ David Stern.

                          - Competition from popular football team in town for scarce entertainment spending.

                          - Compeition from popular college team down Ind-37 that was having a resurgence (amidst controversy that added to the appeal).

                          - Dissastisfaction with overall level of play in NBA (dilution from overexpansion, declining skills/fundamentals, infatuation with potential and athleticism over proven skill, selfishness/ lack of team play.)


                          = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                          1. Am I wrong to feel that the team (owners and Walsh) never took actual responsibility for the actions of our players?

                          A: No - since we didn't take resposnbility internally, the league took it for us. *We* should have been suspending Ron/Stephen indefinitely and then tried harder to release them without further pay. At that point, the league could have put an "untouchable" tag on them. You're right, the Pacers' press announcements after the event did not help the situation. And yes, while taking a drastic action, we should have also pinned some blame on the lack of security and poorly behaved fans in Detroit. But Pistons fans aren't dumb, they knew Artest and Jackson would take the bait.

                          2. If I am wrong, remember these are about feelings not facts, then was I the only person who felt that way? Or is it possible that a few others out there felt the same way and that this combined with other incidents where the management didn't respond with dissaproval of the players, might have kept a couple of people away?

                          A: Absolutely. We had created a culture that tolerated disruptions, incidents, selfish play. Our "fall in love with talent" culture meant that a talented player (Artest, Tinsley, Bender, whomever) could do whatever they wanted without consequence.

                          3. Was Ron Artest as popular at the fieldhouse as he was online?

                          A: No. Not at all. I remember him getting boo'ed early on in a game against Miami, picking up his second and third fouls in the first five minutes of the game by fouling the guy that just made a long outlet pass - 60 feet behind the ball. Then he came back into the game and nearly had a quad-double. The fans recongnized his talent but his mental demons were far more obvious in person than via television.

                          4. Was Steven Jackson unfairly painted by his actions at the brawl?

                          Yes. He should have been suspended for the entire season. The leniency he was given made him look like a much better citizen than he actually is, and that is an unfair portrait of him. I'd tell you how I really feel about Jackson, but then I'd have to give myself an infraction.

                          5. Was Jermaine O'Neal an innocent vicitim of the brawl?

                          Innocent? No. Victem? Yes.

                          For those of you that want to say the NBPA would never allow what I suggested in answer #1 above, just remember the only player they really attempted to defend against the huge suspension was JO (and his was reduced by ten games). They gave a token defense to Artest and Jackson, but they know Jackson was lucky to not be suspended for the entire season.

                          = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                          In summary, I agree with many of your key points. This team has been flunking PR in recent years. The PR they needed was hard-working players that embrace teamwork and the community. With a bunch of rotten citizens on the roster, it didn't matter what their PR efforts said/ did. Nobody believed them.

                          Perhaps we need to bump the "Its up to us" and "One Goal" marketing campaign threads. Nobody on here thought those were sincere with the flaky people that were on the roster on the time. And we're the hardcore fans.

                          In summary, UB has a point. Indy is a great basketball city, but it doesn't really embrace the NBA. The general basketball fan, who isn't an NBA fan, could see right through the marketing/ PR b.s. and found something better to spend thier entertainment dollars on. But the solution is to put a likeable young team together that the fans can feel good about watching them grow up together. Its like 1998-92 all over again right now. Oh sure, a lot of people jumped on board in 1994, but it was even more enjoyable to those of us that watched Reggie, (Chuck), Rik and Dale grow up together.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Re: A series of questions....

                            that chose to punish the franchise for years of intollerable off court and on court behavior.
                            I don't think it was that direct. I think the image built up, fans legitimately bought into some of it, were hyped into buying other parts, and developed a sincere feeling that the team was dirtbags, period.

                            I don't think they were saying "I'll show you", I think it was simpler than that. Just "I can't root for guys like that and won't support them".


                            And like most things there is a delay on pop culture images. It takes casual fans time to get on board, which explains why so few fans even KNEW that Diener was on the team and starting at PG for many games.

                            It's not going to be a case of "you can't buy me off, you're still being punished for 4 years ago", it's going to be a case of "I don't like that Artest or Jackson guy so I won't go to games".

                            Seriously. I truly think many casual fans still don't know who did what. It was just "a Pacer" and that means that you 100% can not fix the issue by moving ANY player. "A Pacer" shot a gun at Rio, not Jack. "A Pacer" was chased from Cloud 9 and shot at, not Tinsley. "Some Pacers" went into the stands in Detroit, not Ron and Jack.

                            That's been the problem and remains the problem.

                            The counter is to win enough to create buzz, which in turn leads to hearing about players like Danny, Mike or Jeff, as well as to slowly and painfully work the PR fronts as hard as possible.

                            You can't have a void. Moving the bad doesn't solve the problem until you replace the bad stories with good stories. It's the same reason why you only had 9000 people going to see Reggie, Chuck, Det and Rik....they still "sucked" because they had yet to do something special enough to fill the sub 30 win season image.
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-16-2008, 12:31 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: A series of questions....

                              Originally posted by ChiJ
                              4. Was Steven Jackson unfairly painted by his actions at the brawl?

                              Yes. He should have been suspended for the entire season. The leniency he was given made him look like a much better citizen than he actually is.
                              Good for you, Jay.


                              Originally posted by Seth
                              I truly think many casual fans still don't know who did what. It was just "a Pacer" and that means that you 100% can not fix the issue by moving ANY player. "A Pacer" shot a gun at Rio, not Jack. "A Pacer" was chased from Cloud 9 and shot at, not Tinsley. "Some Pacers" went into the stands in Detroit, not Ron and Jack.
                              It is 100% true, but only for one slice of the Pacers' potential ticket-buying public. There will be a vanguard of movement back toward the team by those of us casual fans who do know the details and can once again say, "My team is on the floor."

                              And we will talk about the Pacers to people who aren't reading the sports page or reading this forum, and we will take friends with us to games who would not go otherwise.

                              Winning -- or at least some good effort -- will surely help. My last effort at being a Pacers misionary was on Monday, Feb. 5, 2007. I invited and paid for the ticket of an old co-worker who had lost interest in the Pacers. Well, that was the game against Golden State where Stephen Jackson got his revenge on us, the Pacers fell behind by 25 points and looked like they didn't care, and then Tinsley went out afterwards and celebrated the humiliating loss at 8 Seconds Saloon. Needless to say, my friend's interest in the Pacers wasn't rekindled that day. But I'm going to be trying again this coming season (assuming Tinsley is gone).
                              Last edited by Putnam; 07-16-2008, 12:46 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


                              • #30
                                Re: A series of questions....

                                This has never been an easy thing to answer, and this question (much more detailed than what you asked at the party, by the way, but you can do that here and not as easily there) brings up a lot of points. Hopefully this won't turn into an epic, but I'll try to pick and choose the quotes carefully to keep it brief.

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                1. Knowing that ticket sales have already increased can we just write off the fact that the culture of the team has changed and in changing this some of the fans are returning?

                                2. Was the win loss % the only reason for last seasons attendance?

                                3. Was the economy the only reason for last seasons attendance?

                                4. Was a combination of the economy and win/loss % the only reasons for last seasons attendance?

                                5. If neither of these or the combination of these was the reason, what other reasons are there?
                                Here's an answer I've constructed since the forum party.

                                Perhaps it is truly a combination of all things (I'll address the brawl below).

                                What I think is key is that PS&E was being thwarted every time they tried to market the team to change expectations and generate interest.

                                Every time we tried to put an incident behind us, something different would come up. Think of it this way - after the brawl, we thought getting rid of Artest would clear things up. Then Jackson gets into more trouble, with Tinsley. We tried to clear Jackson up. Then Shawne gets into trouble.

                                Each of those was different, but they brought into play something that negated the ability to portray the Pacers as something positive. In each case the team management could have been draconian before everything played out, but how fair is that? Modern belief in Trial By Media aside, to punish someone before a complete hearing is simply wrong.

                                The biggest difference is that so far this year, we've been able to build positive on positive and that has given PS&E something to hang their hats on. It may be interesting to note that the comments about the removal of Jermaine have not focused on him being one of the last of the thugs. For most people it has been seen as an action saying we want to change the on-court look of the team in a very positive way. I think this indicates strongly that, while people left due to off-court issues they weren't coming back until on-court issues were addressed as well.

                                So, my answer is that the increase (if across the board) is because the marketing folks have actually been able to generate a buzz about the team without having it killed off. Yet.

                                Even with that, though, and as was stated at the party, it will take only one incident to derail everything again. We forget, I think, that there was some optimism going into last season until Shawne's September screwup.

                                Heck, if I was connected and wanted to see an NBA team in Las Vegas I'd about think seriously of hiring some guys to follow one of the newer guys around and shoot at them publicly. That'd destroy the positive momentum and guarantee the team couldn't afford to stay in Indianapolis.


                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                1. Am I wrong to feel that the team (owners and Walsh) never took actual responsibility for the actions of our players?
                                I think so. I feel like you wanted someone in the Pacer franchise to say "it's all our fault, there were no extenuating circumstances, no one else was to blame, I Donnie Walsh will fall on my sword." That wasn't going to happen.

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                2. If I am wrong, remember these are about feelings not facts, then was I the only person who felt that way? Or is it possible that a few others out there felt the same way and that this combined with other incidents where the management didn't respond with dissaproval of the players, might have kept a couple of people away?
                                I don't know. I think it was the combination of events, not just the brawl. I also think most fans weren't punishing management so much as becoming disinterested in a team that no longer reflected them. Management needed to take care of that, but as we saw just taking care of the individuals involved or being harder on individuals who get into situations was not enough unless there was some other positive momentum.

                                I guess I'd agree that many fans were driven away by the brawl and subsequent incidents but I disagree that more than a very few had any intention of definitely coming back once x, y, and z actions took place. For the most part they will come back when they can be sold on the idea of coming back.

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                3. Was Ron Artest as popular at the fieldhouse as he was online?
                                Sure sold a lot of shirts and there were an awful lot of people wearing them.

                                I'd say that people at the fieldhouse may have given up on Ron sooner than some of us (and I include myself explicitly in this) on the forum. I think if there is a difference between "casual fans" and those die-hard enough to participate in the forum it is that the forum is more willing to analyze, represent all views, and try to work out a solution or see what gets worked out. "Casual fans" want to get back to winning, right away, or they are not coming back.

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                4. Was Steven Jackson unfairly painted by his actions at the brawl?
                                No. I am on the side of those who believe his actions were worse than Ron's.

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                5. Was Jermaine O'Neal an innocent vicitim of the brawl?
                                Interesting how you changed the framing of the question in order to get the answer you want.

                                I think Jermaine O'Neal was to an extent unfairly painted by his actions. I think the league recognized that when they reduced his suspension. I think if the constant injury situation wasn't involved, most of us would have forgiven Jermaine a long time ago.

                                I moved this next part down here because I wanted to touch on it separately and after my answers.

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                Anyway, BillS point was that Donnie treated his players exactly how we would want our management or boss to treat us.

                                That is an admirable quality btw, and frankly Walsh was always great about this. However Donnie for the majority of his career here dealt with grown men who acted like grown men. Sadly, IMO, the last seven years he was dealing with children and spoiled children at that. What was an admirable trait turned around and bit him in the @ss. Whether it was Ron continuing his assinine ways or Jamaal or any number of other players. Donnie was always patient, considerate and first to defend his players. Again noble traits to be sure.

                                But there comes a point in time where people no longer deserve your defense and I think Walsh didn't realize it till it was to little to late.
                                I'll be honest that I think what happened to Donnie fits the classic definition of a tragedy - a downfall caused by a fatal flaw. Even more, that fatal flaw is something that would be considered a strength 99.9% of the time.

                                I really think Donnie felt that if the organization backed the players, the players would do the right thing. I think he felt this so strongly that he could literally see no other option or direction. I think when it became clear this wasn't going to happen, Donnie had no answer for it. Knowing he had no answer, he lost faith in his own management style and in the players themselves.

                                Without knowing Donnie or talking to anyone who knows him personally, I would still venture to say this was a career crisis for him on a personal level as well as a job level. I think it took away his joy in the job and that meant he could neither react himself nor mentor other personnel in the manner he had done previously. I think this led to the 2-headed monster. I think this kept some things from being done as quickly as they could have been (player movement in particular).

                                This is why his own move to the Knicks was so important. If he is able to bring some order to that franchise (and as much as I love Donnie I hope it comes close but doesn't get over the top), it will restore his own confidence. Since he learns from his mistakes, I don't think he'll fall into the same traps in New York.

                                When you think about how this affected us as fans, bear in mind that through his time here I believe Donnie was as big a fan of this franchise and the reputation he had built as anyone else. To say that it completely knocked him off his feet is not too drastic.

                                While I don't agree that an absolute strategy of immediately disowning and punishing players involved in any incident or accusation would have been correct (and I never will), in hindsight it is easy to say that other actions could have been taken, or actions that were taken could have been taken sooner.

                                Donnie erred on the side of trust for his players and erred in believing the things he saw through personal contact with them would be obvious to the fan base. All in all there are worse ways to fail as a manager and as a human being.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X