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

An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

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

  • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

    Originally posted by obnoxiousmodesty View Post
    If I recall correctly, at that time PD was utilizing a chat program for game discussions. So there is not a game thread for that night. As an archivist, I am annoyed. On a personal level, it's good I don't know what I said as it was happening.

    I just remember how shocked we were, how quickly the chat quieted, and then we all started talking at once. It was a mortifying experience. It felt like I was somehow there with the team, even though I was on my computer talking in a chat room at home.

    This was an excellent piece of journalism. I don't think about that night often, but when I do, I still feel sick to my stomach.
    I can't believe something got you to come back and post!

    Comment


    • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

      I am amazed at how little remorse the people on the Detroit side have - even to this day. Larry Brown and Tom Wilson are the worst. They basically blame the Pacers for the whole thing. Ron was absolutely wrong in this, as was Jackson, but there were things that Brown and Wilson's employees could've and should've done to stop this from escalating as much as it did. They appear to have no inclination to admit any wrongdoing and that is sad.

      Kudos to JO - his statement made me tear up a little. He's a class guy. It'd be cool if he could come back here as a backup and finish his career as a Pacer (at a cap friendly number of course).
      "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
      - Benjamin Franklin

      Comment


      • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

        Originally posted by fwpacerfan View Post
        I am amazed at how little remorse the people on the Detroit side have - even to this day. Larry Brown and Tom Wilson are the worst. They basically blame the Pacers for the whole thing. Ron was absolutely wrong in this, as was Jackson, but there were things that Brown and Wilson's employees could've and should've done to stop this from escalating as much as it did. They appear to have no inclination to admit any wrongdoing and that is sad.

        Kudos to JO - his statement made me tear up a little. He's a class guy. It'd be cool if he could come back here as a backup and finish his career as a Pacer (at a cap friendly number of course).
        Easy to have no remorse when it basically didn't even affect you.

        As for JO, I've always felt he got a bum wrap from fans here. I understand why fans were frustrated, but the amount of anger/bitterness have been disproportionate. I think he got lumped unfairly in the SJax/Tinsley/Artest group, when his issues weren't along the same mode of rocking the boat. I've never doubted JO's commitment to the city/community.

        He was just a classic case of getting too much for too little in return (due to health/availability, obviously). A lot of parallels to Bob Sanders there, except NBA has guaranteed contracts and Sanders didn't complain about the rare time he spent on the (field).

        Comment


        • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I can't believe something got you to come back and post!
          Talk about a Post More Often Award candidate...Come back!

          Comment


          • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

            Something that got missed: The cup that sparked the fracas was NOT the first cup chucked at Ron. If the Fox Sports Midwest feed is still on Youtube, you can see a cup clearly chucked at Ron probably 30 seconds to a minute before all heck broke loose. In fact, if I remember right, Al Albert and Quinn comment about that.
            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

            "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

            Comment


            • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

              Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
              As for JO, I've always felt he got a bum wrap from fans here.
              I usually try to ignore malapropisms based on homophones, but this one is too much. It's like Pacer fans kidnapped JO and hauled him to a spa for a new-age therapy on his lower torso.

              It's a bum RAP.
              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


              • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                I usually try to ignore malapropisms based on homophones, but this one is too much. It's like Pacer fans kidnapped JO and hauled him to a spa for a new-age therapy on his lower torso.

                It's a bum RAP.
                For all intensive purposes, you only caught this because of your extra-century perception.

                Comment


                • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  I agree, but I think Graphic-er is on to something. Let's say Ron comes back, busts his butt and shows us his apologies on the court with great play and support for his teammates. Let's say JO respects Carlisle and doesn't go off in the locker room about his touches.

                  Let's just say that Tins, Ron, JO and Jackson show true contrition and respect for the team and fans over the next 3-4 years.

                  Well that team would have been LOVED by fans. It would have been seen as fighting the adversity of a crap hostile arena and a crap commissioner.


                  Now looking back we blend their post-brawl actions in with the initial reaction that season. We judge them not for the brawl but for trade demands, touches demands, coaching complaints, Rio, 8 Seconds, Cloud Nine, Shawne Williams, and whatever it was Tinsley was doing on the court at that point.

                  That's fair, but it's not the same emotions as we had when Ron returned at FanJam. At that moment we were about to begin the "payback" tour on the league, and that's how they should have handled it. Those guys had it in their hands to do something really special, and that's when they blew it.

                  When the heat of the moment left and they had time to think about choices the began making a series of disastrous ones.
                  This is absolutely correct and further proof of the fact that character matters.

                  As Seth is saying all of this could have had a totally different outcome if any of the above players would have responded differently after the brawl. But it was not in their character to do so.

                  Saying all of the right things in the press does not change the repercussions of your actions.

                  If I could engrave the word character at center court I would.

                  That is why, IMO, the current team (which is not as talented) has a better shot at being a champion than that team ever did.

                  I do not want to drag all of this up again but I can't help but one more time say that the brawl was just a symptom of the disease.


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

                  Comment


                  • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    I agree, but I think Graphic-er is on to something. Let's say Ron comes back, busts his butt and shows us his apologies on the court with great play and support for his teammates. Let's say JO respects Carlisle and doesn't go off in the locker room about his touches.

                    Let's just say that Tins, Ron, JO and Jackson show true contrition and respect for the team and fans over the next 3-4 years.

                    Well that team would have been LOVED by fans. It would have been seen as fighting the adversity of a crap hostile arena and a crap commissioner.


                    Now looking back we blend their post-brawl actions in with the initial reaction that season. We judge them not for the brawl but for trade demands, touches demands, coaching complaints, Rio, 8 Seconds, Cloud Nine, Shawne Williams, and whatever it was Tinsley was doing on the court at that point.

                    That's fair, but it's not the same emotions as we had when Ron returned at FanJam. At that moment we were about to begin the "payback" tour on the league, and that's how they should have handled it. Those guys had it in their hands to do something really special, and that's when they blew it.

                    When the heat of the moment left and they had time to think about choices the began making a series of disastrous ones.
                    I wonder how different, if at all, things would've played out if Reggie would've stayed for one more season? Would he have been the glue to hold things together and focus that team on a "Us against the League" tour the following season.... If Reggie stays does Dale Davis stay? With Reggie here does Ron still want traded and if he does can Reggie talk him back? Or if not, with Reggie and Dale here does that negate some of the on the court sting of losing Artest from the floor? Does it even open possibility of trading Artest on our own terms, possibly even before he requests a trade?

                    What if... What if... What if....

                    But what matters is what transpired and the team that had a chance to make chicken salad out of chicken ---- ended up just laying an egg instead.

                    The brawl makes a nice target to explain the subsequent decline but sometimes I wonder if the real problem was Reggie was tired of babysitting and the brawl was just the final straw to tell him it was time to get out. Possibly getting out because he was tired of it, possibly getting out before the inmates took over the asylum on his watch anyway.
                    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


                    • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                      Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                      fwiw I think any drunk enough large mass of fans has the potential to act like that. I've seen plenty of Colts and Pacers fans ready and willing to get violent. I've seen a Colts fan threaten to kill a Pats fan who was doing nothing but watching the game with his son. Seth claims that such a thing would never happen here, and unless he knows od specific policies in security or alcohol distribution that would have curbed it, sorry but that's sentimental crap. Recall the story from one of the interviews about the normal-looking lady who chucked the water-bottle. The mob mentality can turn even the most decent enough people to viciousness.
                      Conseco/BILF, not a Colts game. Those are different. I've never been to a football game where some drunks didn't get tossed out, and not just in Indy. I went to a few Yanks/Rangers games in Arlington and saw TONS of drunks in fights and getting tossed, but in St. Louis in nicer seats there was no sign of that kind of attitude. And we all know Chicago leads the way in "guys run onto field to fight ump" right now.

                      The NFL (football in general) glorifies getting hammered and then going into the game. Who in the heck is getting hammered on a Tuesday night by 7:30? Who can afford to live that life AND acquire seats anywhere near the floor?

                      And the Pacers have always had tons of security as far as I can recall. Not just uniformed cops, but also other security execs in suits that hang about supervising and casually enjoying the game. You'll see these people interacting with guards, etc.

                      The ushers are typically incapable of stopping a fight, but they do monitor the Best Locker Room access pretty well, which means access to the floor (first 7 rows only).


                      I mean who would want to risk losing LIFETIME admission if you own full or half season tickets in the first 7 row price ranges. I have cheaper versions than most and even I'd kill any friend that used/abused my seats that way, and I'd never come close to any action like that myself. It's just not how people handle things, it doesn't seem like a behavior that would even be remotely accepted by your neighbors in that area.


                      And this happened with Mad Max in Portland. He went into the visiting stands after a guy that was SAYING mean things about Maxwell's family. The fans pointed the dude out, got out of the way, and basically were on Maxwell's side of it. They didn't attack him, throw beer at him or try to fight him or any of his teammates. The heckler was considered the bad egg, not the player.


                      I've been to a lot of games within the first 5 rows of the court and apart from some mouthy drunks making fun of a player I've never seen anyone even close to violent within any reasonable distance of the court...and this includes prior to the brawl.

                      I've lived in other cities and gone to games in other cities with equally good seats, and you can tell a difference in arena cultures. Indy isn't the only "good" culture at all, but it is one of them.


                      Gnome and Hicks have also done plenty of trips to other arenas and can at the least attest to different spirits/attitudes in various arenas. For example, in OKC Gnome has mentioned that they don't sit till the first made basket by the Thunder. In Indy that's never been close to happening, its just not something people do and you'd end up with people behind you upset until everyone started doing it and it got accepted.
                      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-01-2012, 01:41 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                        http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/09/sp...ned-20000.html

                        Vernon Maxwell, the Houston Rockets' starting shooting guard, was suspended for at least 10 games and fined $20,000 by the National Basketball Association today for running into the stands and punching a heckler during a game at Portland.

                        Rod Thorn, the league's vice president for operations, called the case unprecedented in his 10 years in the league and said, "We've never had anybody go into the stands, unless it was a fight among players that spilled over into the seats."

                        The fine matched the highest in league history and the suspension was the second longest, exceeded only by the 26-game ban in the 1977-78 season handed Kermit Washington of Portland for breaking the jaw of another player, Rudy Tomjanovich of Houston, now Maxwell's coach.

                        During his suspension, Maxwell must meet with league personnel. A decision will then be made as to whether he can return to active status after the 10th game. The suspension began with last night's game at Sacramento.

                        Maxwell ran a dozen rows into the stands and punched 35-year-old Steve George during a timeout in the third quarter of Houston's 120-82 loss to Portland. George is a home products salesman from Atlanta.

                        And from Wikipedia
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Maxwell
                        1995: In a game at Portland on February 6, he ran into the stands to punch a fan, later claiming the fan had heckled him over his wife's miscarriage (which was denied).
                        Note the lack of a fan brawl with Houston players at this point.

                        Comment


                        • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                          I wonder how different, if at all, things would've played out if Reggie would've stayed for one more season? Would he have been the glue to hold things together and focus that team on a "Us against the League" tour the following season.... If Reggie stays does Dale Davis stay? With Reggie here does Ron still want traded and if he does can Reggie talk him back? Or if not, with Reggie and Dale here does that negate some of the on the court sting of losing Artest from the floor? Does it even open possibility of trading Artest on our own terms, possibly even before he requests a trade?

                          What if... What if... What if....
                          It's brutal BBall. Spilled milk I realize, but dang...so close to being something awesome.

                          And I was always mad that they didn't keep James Jones as the new "Reggie", meaning guy who runs off screens and hits 3s. Jones is still brilliant in that role, and could easily match Reggie's end of career defensive level. He at least had the hops to block shots which is something Reggie didn't do.

                          Clutch? Who knows, but people might have forgotten how clutch he was in Reggie's last season when they played the Nets and Reggie got them back in it with a flurry of late scoring. Jones was the one who hit the final key shot and then FTs, not Reggie.


                          So many ways this team could have survived the brawl. Stern wasn't the only one who killed the team.

                          I guess I agree with a lot of you who feel it was inevitable or maybe just for the best in the long run. But it will always remain a really pointless detour in the team's history, and in the careers of all the main culprits.

                          Comment


                          • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                            Just now got the time to read all this, but it's an awesome read. Definitely worth the time. Can't believe all that happened.

                            Comment


                            • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              So many ways this team could have survived the brawl. Stern wasn't the only one who killed the team.

                              I guess I agree with a lot of you who feel it was inevitable or maybe just for the best in the long run. But it will always remain a really pointless detour in the team's history, and in the careers of all the main culprits.
                              Talking about the brawl, "what-ifs" and such these past two days really makes it hard to focus on how well we are doing right now. I keep forgetting about DG and Hibbert. West, etc. To me when I think about all this it's just not happening.

                              To me these what-ifs are making me really light-headed.

                              Comment


                              • Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Gnome and Hicks have also done plenty of trips to other arenas and can at the least attest to different spirits/attitudes in various arenas. For example, in OKC Gnome has mentioned that they don't sit till the first made basket by the Thunder. In Indy that's never been close to happening, its just not something people do and you'd end up with people behind you upset until everyone started doing it and it got accepted.
                                Dude, this reminds me of our discussion in the Golden State thread...I don't sit until Indy makes a basket

                                I always let the people behind me know, so they usually stand too. But, yeah.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X