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 Dr. Hibbert View Post
    For all intensive purposes, you only caught this because of your extra-century perception.
    He is the real deal, a bonified grammarian.

    chow,
    SIG
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


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

      Great job again by the Grantland Gang. Love that site!

      I'm glad to see something publicly acknowledging that the Pistons were clearly looking for a fight well before it finally broke out (mentioning all the hard fouls after the game was decided - especially Ben's uncalled flagrant on Ron that probably would have started the brawl if World Peace hadn't been put on "double secret zero tolerance probation" by Stern prior to the game). That seemed to be ignored by all reporting media, but I think is very relevant to the events of the evening.

      Ben Wallace caused it all acting like an idiot, then not leaving after he couldn’t goad Ron into a fight (as he was so desperate to do). Other things may have been able to reduce the carnage, but the fact remains, one guy was acting like a wild jackass who would not be tamed and he got off easy in spite of igniting the entire melee.

      I also liked that someone finally pointed out the Pacers short bench. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard talking heads ponder why Ron was still out there after the game was decided (ignoring why Ben was still out there) when the answer for the Pacers was obvious.

      As to ESPN’s change of how the story got reported, John Saunders did address this on a ‘Sports Reporters’ sometime later (due to some other unrelated incident of idiot fans behaving badly). I don’t remember exactly what he said, but it was along the lines of management telling the on-air talent after the brawl that the paying customers are always right and Saunders was pretty much saying, “I don’t care what you tell me to say, I’m telling you that people who act like idiots aren’t right and I’m not changing my story then or now”. He seemed kind of defiant while just pointing out the obvious but he mentioned that he was "supposed" to not blame the fans for the Malice at the Palace which shocked me.

      Its not healthy, but I don’t think I’ll ever not be pissed off about this thing and the way the Pacers were targeted for punishment.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        With Reggie here does Ron still want traded and if he does can Reggie talk him back? ...

        Does it even open possibility of trading Artest on our own terms, possibly even before he requests a trade?

        What if...
        We will never know of course, but my opinion:

        Ron was in denial, focused on his rap album, feeling like a victim, and (still) refusing treatment for his issues. If he hadn't demanded a trade at the beginning of the season, he would have acted up and either gotten suspended, demanded a trade, or caused a trade by his own actions long before that season was out, whatever the team record, regardless of whether team leaders wanted him to change in any way.

        In retrospect, ChicagoJ was right. Ron's fuse was lit and it was gonna blow, sadly, and we perhaps even got more decent years out of him than we should have based upon his history before the Malice at the palace and, truthfully, before he ever donned a Pacers uniform.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


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

          I remeber I was home from Purdue for the weekend and was out at a party that night at Botswin dorm at Ball State for some casino night type thing. I remember after the party winded down went back to one of my other friends dorm room and decided, well hopefully the Pacers kicked the Pistons ***.

          Then turn on the TV to espn and just see rolling coverage of Artest and Jackson and JO and the fighting and going into the stands. I remember being absolutely stunned and wondering how it all started and watched well through the night and it really seemed like ok well this was the Pistons fault they started and their idiot fans escalated it. Good for our guys for standing up for themselves, hope they knocked a couple of those morons out. I figured since it seemed like the media had absolved us for the most part that public perception and opinion was on our side. I though most of the blame was going to fall on the pistons players and fans and where the brunt of the punishment was going to fall.

          Then reality hit, and the suspensions were announced. I can remember thinking it'll be alright we'll just hold serve till our guys get back then take it out on people in the playoffs and artest was only suspended for the season not the playoffs.

          I remember like others have mentioned the worst part was next season when Ron demanded a trade and all the other ensuing off-court problems started happening. I remember talking to my friend at one point who knew I was a huge Pacers I think around the 2007 season sometime asking me. When do you think the Pacers will recover from that? I remember going online and checking when the contracts of JO, Jackson, and Tinsley were all gone and off our books and said...ooohh 2009 or 2010'ish.

          I honestly dont think if Bird wouldn't have cleaned house, and came up with his whole vague 3 year plan, or if I wouldn't have been to see Hibbert play his first game for us in Pepsi Colliseum, I don't think I'd have continued to follow the Pacers as closely as I have. I don't think I would have stopped being a fan but definately wouldn't have suffered through all the bad and just jumped back on probably this year.

          It definitely has put where we are right now in perspective, and made it that much sweeter for those of us that stuck with it.

          Comment


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

            As has been said, a great article. The responses have been great as well. I remember having to go to school the next day and having to explain why my favorite team, had a Reggie poster on the wall, had done that.

            So, if the refs calls "all balance out in the end" then I'm looking forward the lebron d wade and rose all fouling out in the playoffs to "balance out" the four point play and this little episode. Don't ever say again the officials don't affect the outcome.

            Comment


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

              "Breen: There were a bunch of people right above where the Pacers were going out. And there was this one young woman who was very nicely dressed in the midst of it. I remember thinking, Oh, this poor woman. In the midst of this mob mentality, I hope she's going to be OK. And as I'm saying that in my head, she pulls out a bottle, a full water bottle, and throws it at point-blank range at the Pacers going off the floor. I couldn't believe it. Even this nicely dressed woman who seemed so out of place in the mob, she just got sucked into the whole mob mentality and it showed you how scary it could be."

              Exactly right. Mob mentaility.

              I will always remember watching this game. I hadn't gone to a Pacers game in a long, long time. I had purchased tickets a week prior for the first home game directly after this game. Crazy.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I will say the sight of Jamaal Tinsley waving that dustpan around as if he will fight everyone in the arena with that thing, was without a doubt one of the funniest things I have ever seen in my life. To this day I still laugh whenever I see that or just when I think about it

                Comment


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

                  I couldn't help but laugh when the Tinsley with a dustpan part came up.

                  Comment


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

                    Tom Wilson acted like the Pistons staff wasn't at fault at all. He's a complete idiot.
                    Last edited by Pacersalltheway10; 03-02-2012, 03:14 PM.

                    Comment


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

                      What an awesome read. The saddest part about that nigt for me was seeing Reggie (in that $x,000 suit) getting pelted with drinks, food, and other objects.
                      FOLLOW ME: @WarnerSays

                      IU > Kentucky

                      Biggest PHILLIES PHAN in Indiana

                      “And as I go,I go with just a few words left to say,a few words I want to address to Colts fans everywhere, thank you so much from the bottom of my heart. I truly have enjoyed being your quarterback. Thank you.”
                      - Peyton Manning

                      Comment


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

                        That night we were at a buddies house watching the game and were planning on playing poker as soon as the game finished. About a minute before "The Brawl" happened, we decided the game was over and that we were going to start playing. As we started to deal the cards my friend asks his wife what the score was. She replied very plainly, "I'm not sure, somethings going on I think theyre fighting or something I dunno." We jumped up out of our chairs and ran into the living room to the replays of Ron grabbing the fan, Jax open hand slapping the other fan, JO slipping as he swung on another, Ron leaping over the scorers bench, etc. It doesn't seem that long ago. Im proud of how far we have come. I feel like Bird knows how close we were and that he's not going to stop until we are back to that level again and hopefully further.
                        FOLLOW ME: @WarnerSays

                        IU > Kentucky

                        Biggest PHILLIES PHAN in Indiana

                        “And as I go,I go with just a few words left to say,a few words I want to address to Colts fans everywhere, thank you so much from the bottom of my heart. I truly have enjoyed being your quarterback. Thank you.”
                        - Peyton Manning

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Grover View Post
                          Great job again by the Grantland Gang. Love that site!

                          I'm glad to see something publicly acknowledging that the Pistons were clearly looking for a fight well before it finally broke out (mentioning all the hard fouls after the game was decided - especially Ben's uncalled flagrant on Ron that probably would have started the brawl if World Peace hadn't been put on "double secret zero tolerance probation" by Stern prior to the game). That seemed to be ignored by all reporting media, but I think is very relevant to the events of the evening.

                          Ben Wallace caused it all acting like an idiot, then not leaving after he couldn’t goad Ron into a fight (as he was so desperate to do). Other things may have been able to reduce the carnage, but the fact remains, one guy was acting like a wild jackass who would not be tamed and he got off easy in spite of igniting the entire melee.

                          I also liked that someone finally pointed out the Pacers short bench. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard talking heads ponder why Ron was still out there after the game was decided (ignoring why Ben was still out there) when the answer for the Pacers was obvious.

                          As to ESPN’s change of how the story got reported, John Saunders did address this on a ‘Sports Reporters’ sometime later (due to some other unrelated incident of idiot fans behaving badly). I don’t remember exactly what he said, but it was along the lines of management telling the on-air talent after the brawl that the paying customers are always right and Saunders was pretty much saying, “I don’t care what you tell me to say, I’m telling you that people who act like idiots aren’t right and I’m not changing my story then or now”. He seemed kind of defiant while just pointing out the obvious but he mentioned that he was "supposed" to not blame the fans for the Malice at the Palace which shocked me.

                          Its not healthy, but I don’t think I’ll ever not be pissed off about this thing and the way the Pacers were targeted for punishment.
                          Wow. Just wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow

                          Comment


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

                            Am I the only idiot who thought the brawl was awesome when it happened? Granted I was 18, in my first semester of college, and somewhat drunk when it happened, but I didn't fully understand the implications of it until some days later. That night, I thought they players would be getting 10-15 game suspensions max and it wouldn't cost the Pacers much more than a seed in the playoffs.

                            Comment


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

                              **First off I appologize for the aimlessness of this post I kind of go all over the place**
                              I won't forget where I was when this happened. I was watching it my buddy Chuck. Pacer fans most certainly circled the wagons. This sums up to me how much we circled the wagon. I can't remember what game it was if it was right after the brawl or in the playoffs but I remember the Pacers needed a defensive stop and a time out was called. The ENTIRE crowd chanted De-Fense the whole timeout and throughout the possession. Does that happen now? No. Did it happen often before, I don't know I didn't go to a LOT of Pacer games before that. All I know now is that the crowd doesn't get up unless MG tells them too.
                              Like I said that season was the first season I went to a lot of pacer games. That's the season I absolutely fell in love with the Pacers. I had always liked them but I obviously I didn't go to a lot of games before that season. I didn't plan my weeks out around Pacer games as I do now. This was the season that inspired me and my friend Carly to get season tickets. I remember being okay with out losses that year because the team just went out there and busted their butts and that's all we really look for as fans.
                              As for the brawl itself I've always blamed Ben for what happened. I thought the guy could dish out a hard foul but couldn't take one. While it really sucks what Ron did I don't blame him. I always looked at it like If someone came into my work after I just got into a heated argument with a co-worker and threw beer in my face, there's a very good chance I would react the same way. I've always had and will always have a soft spot in my heart for Ron, but the intro video on here made me say "What a prick" I remember where I was when he asked to be traded. I was at one of my wrestling shows and Carly called me and told me. My heart dropped.
                              SJax I didn't like one bit until the brawl. I respected the fact that he went to help his teammate. SJax was new here, he didn't have to go help Ron but he did. I will always and forever respect him for that.
                              Now on to JO. JO gave us his best years here. It's an absolute shame he gets booed like he does when ever he comes back. Absolute shame. I always make sure I over cheer him when he's introduced to try and cancel out one or two booers. I personally don't think JO should have been suspended any games. The guy he hit was on the court. I wrestling we're taught, that if your outside the ring get back in, and as soon as they come through the ropes they're fair game and we defend ourselves. That's how I look at what JO did. His comments on how he's proud of what the team is doing right now almost brought me to tears. I would LOVE to sign JO to come off the bench or to a one day contract to retire a Pacer. Thanks for reading my ramblings.

                              I lied The 03-04 season was the first year I went to a lot of games. I remember leaving happy a lot. Then the next year I wasn't too bummed with losses because the team busted their butts.
                              Last edited by JonnyB83; 03-03-2012, 03:06 PM. Reason: I lied
                              Doing the twitter thing JonnyB83
                              Also JonnyB83 on facebook....we should be friends!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X