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

  • #76
    Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

    Ron Artest basically destroyed Reggie Miller's last and possibly best chance at an NBA title. For some reason I don't always feel like that's well understood among those who still harbor positive feelings for Ron. He did a very selfish thing that night, screwing not only the fans and our other players, but most importantly doing as much harm to Reggie's chances at a ring as MJ or Ewing or anyone else. And he was on our team!!

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

      I think looking back from a personal perspective for Jermaine, it's a shame he hasn't won a championship. He was a great player. He always was a leader, and someone who embraced that role on and off the court.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

        Originally posted by dal9 View Post
        If you are going to get trampled by someone, it gives you more "cred" if it is Artest compared to Tinsley. I didn't realize Boyle was injured so badly--did he have to miss time?
        Mark got banged up pretty bad and the aftermath from the Brawl is one of the reasons Mark started posting on PD. There were several rumors floating around that Mr. Boyle was having problems with Donnie Walsh and the Pacers front office.

        Being a stand up guy he came to this site (PD) where the hardcore fans congregate to put the record straight. Poof... rumors and speculation no more. Didn't have to , but I think he appreciates the loyalty this site has shown toward the Pacers.
        Last edited by RWB; 02-29-2012, 03:08 PM.
        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

          Originally posted by dal9 View Post
          "Nobody could have forseen" is a common defense to incompetence. It's not as if something like this is un-forseeable if you have a "zillion" security plans.
          I disagree.

          How about the World Trade Centers? It's possible to create multiple security plans to cover many situations, but then the unthinkable can still happen. That's just life.

          The Columbine School Shootings is another example of the unthinkable happening.


          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
            I disagree.

            How about the World Trade Centers? It's possible to create multiple security plans to cover many situations, but then the unthinkable can still happen. That's just life.

            The Columbine School Shootings is another example of the unthinkable happening.
            I think that is a very good point (even with the current school shooting in Ohio, how many schools have emergency plans?) but why was security so small. To me, that was the big problem.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

              Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
              I disagree.

              How about the World Trade Centers? It's possible to create multiple security plans to cover many situations, but then the unthinkable can still happen. That's just life.

              The Columbine School Shootings is another example of the unthinkable happening.
              Well, sure, there are some things that are genuinely unforeseeable, and you could make a case that Columbine and WTC are examples. But the argument "nobody could have foreseen" is often made in situations where the event should reasonably have been foreseen--I think the Palace fight was one of these.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                I'll have to read it after work, but I quickly posted it to my facebook page.
                First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                  I haven't had the chance to read it yet.

                  But I think just about everyone has at some time seen my rants about Jackson's actions, and I just posted them in the most recent "Jack is unhappy" thread.

                  Rip takes a cheap shot at him by reaching over other players to hit him. Jack's jersey is ripped out and he gets super PO'd at Rip and tries to fight him. People take this as "madman" instead of "hey jerk, I don't like being hit in the face like that".

                  Later just as Jack reaches a restrained Ron, some jerk launches a full beer in Ron's face. Jack introduces this jerk to instant karma via a punch in the face.

                  At this point I'm rather satisfied with both reactions. I never understood why NO ONE EVER asked "hey, just what did that jerk think he was doing when he threw that beer in Ron's face".



                  Also, probably not covered in this article (but maybe, I'll find out) is that on replays you can see Green and those 3 kids with him POUNDING THEIR FISTS and SCREAMING FOR BLOOD when Ben starts going after Ron. They wanted a fight. People around them aren't standing, aren't there, or aren't nearly as animated as those 4 were.

                  They had all the makings of "I'm really drunk, mad and ready to mix it up".


                  Detroit had a major security/crowd control issue and not just on that night. That solves the issue. If Ben goes after Ron in Conseco you would never end up with "the Brawl". Never. Even if a guy through a cup at Ben and Ben came into the crowd, you'd be hard pressed to find another guy ready to throw a full beer in his face.

                  And this lets alone anyone in the crowd willing to rip up a chair to throw at someone. That person has never been a regular attendee of Pacers games.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                    Just an excellent read! I was waiting for an article like this that gives the detailed accounts on what happened and what was said that night. wow
                    Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                      Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                      This didn't make me angrier at Artest. It made me pity him. All of the stories make him come off as someone with a mental illness or personality disorder of some sort, like when he was asking if he would get in trouble and when they said how detached he looked right after the brawl. I honestly don't think he knew what he was doing at the time. He definitely had some problems.
                      This is how I feel about Ron. A lot of posters harbor this angry grudge towards the guy, but all I can feel is pity for the guy. This guy has gone for years with so kind of personality disorder not diagnosed. There just is some kind of chemical imbalance up in that brain. A person who just went through what he went through during that brawl and to turn around ask if they think the will get in trouble is not a sign of someone who has it all together upstairs.

                      Even today changing his name to Meta World Peace is not a sign of someone who has it all together.

                      I have to wonder how many people in his life actually care about him and have tried to get him help versus how many people just want to ride his coattail.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                        Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                        Well, sure, there are some things that are genuinely unforeseeable, and you could make a case that Columbine and WTC are examples. But the argument "nobody could have foreseen" is often made in situations where the event should reasonably have been foreseen--I think the Palace fight was one of these.
                        WTC isn't a good example because people HAD worked that up as a possible attack scenario.

                        They just didn't have good communication between intelligence divisions. It wasn't the planning, it was the execution where US security ended up failing (ie guys on watch lists able to take flight school lessons on US soil, etc).


                        If you had a guy that you kicked out and he still wasn't gone, then you definitely did foresee an issue. You failed to execute the plan to deal with that potential issue (ie, you didn't get him out and keep him out).



                        And that's the problem I normally have with "no one could have foreseen" because nearly every time someone actually did, but the people in charge of taking action or enforcing the adequate responses don't get the job done and then brush it off as "how could I know".



                        "A drunk might throw something at a player" is not unforeseen. And after Mad Max went into the stands 10 years before Ron did "player goes into the stands and punches fan" came off the "unforeseeable" list too.


                        *bonus - Space Shuttle Challenger - also pre-identified as potential incident but communication channels were not effective enough at relaying information to/from the appropriate people in time to take proper action.
                        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-29-2012, 03:31 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                          This makes me dislike Ron-Ron even more. The guy threw the franchise into a hell hole that we are now finally climbing out of.

                          Crazy or not, he screwed us, then he bailed on us. How does he get rewarded? A ring.

                          Jackson is an idiot, as well. I don't really dislike Jackson, but clearly we'd have been better off without him.

                          The only Pacer that was heavily involved in the brawl that I still like is JO. He got his chance at stardom here and will forever be grateful for it.

                          Hell I wouldn't mind having him as a bench player for a year here then retire as a Pacer.

                          I'm certainly glad that era is over, just sad for Reggie.

                          Thank you Roy, and the rest for representing the team I love great and not being dbags.

                          *I used to be one of Metta's supporters, I have 2 of his jerseys in my closet, but the dude sadly just annoys me and pisses me off if anything, anymore. I know deep down he's a good guy, but blegh.
                          Last edited by Lord Helmet; 02-29-2012, 03:31 PM.
                          Super Bowl XLI Champions
                          2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                            Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
                            I remember being mad at Stephen Jackson when he was still arguing with Ben Wallace. I kept saying Ron is just lying on the table, just walk away Jackson and it will be all over.
                            Again if you look this isn't the issue. He's mad at Rip for taking a poke at him in the scrum/huddle.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                              Originally posted by immortality View Post
                              IAlso the part about Reggie Miller almost getting pepper sprayed and saying "Don't this is a x-hundred dollar suit, was hilarious"!
                              [Job]This is a $8,000 suit. COME ON![/Job]
                              At least that's how I picture Reggie saying it.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                                I couldn't stand Ben Wallace's brother trying to throw cheap shots at Fred Jones. He really needed to get his a** whooped
                                Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X