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

Jackson cops a plea

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

  • #46
    Re: Jackson cops a plea

    The most recent article I've read sounds more like LA's account.

    But whatever the articles say doesn't matter. Its whats in the actual plea agreement that matters. I don't think its on The Smoking Gun yet.

    Its unclear whether he's agreed to plea guilty to a lesser charge or have the charge reduced after probation, and both of these are common.

    Regardless, I again say that if you think Stern is going to go easy on him because of a plea bargain: look at what happened to Amare and Boris.

    In the world David Stern lives in, being criticized for not keeping up with the NFL's "get tough on crime/ violence" campaign would cost his league hundreds of millions in future advertising revenue. Mainstream sponsers may like the NBA as an avenue to penetrate the "hip hop crowd", but they don't want to associate themselves with the violence.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Jackson cops a plea

      He should get something like 5 games. He's not pleading guilty to a felony. So it's not 10 games. He's taking a plea for a misdemeanor. Stern could probably give him 10 and get away with it but anything more and he'll be hearing from the player's union. I'd be shocked if whatever Stern gives isn't reduced to something like 10 games if it is even higher than that to begin with.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Jackson cops a plea

        Originally posted by pacertom View Post
        No, he admitted he did it, but did not plead guility-- that's the difference. An admission of guilt is not a guilty plea.
        God bless the law.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Jackson cops a plea

          Originally posted by Mal View Post
          God bless the law.
          LOL - I've decided to wait until he actually appears in court today to comment since I don't know what, exactly, that means. LA probably does though since he's in the business.

          So far all I've seen are "expected to's" and "thought to be's" reported.

          I'll wait for the "has".
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Jackson cops a plea

            Originally posted by Jay View Post
            Regardless, I again say that if you think Stern is going to go easy on him because of a plea bargain: look at what happened to Amare and Boris.

            In the world David Stern lives in, being criticized for not keeping up with the NFL's "get tough on crime/ violence" campaign would cost his league hundreds of millions in future advertising revenue. Mainstream sponsers may like the NBA as an avenue to penetrate the "hip hop crowd", but they don't want to associate themselves with the violence.
            I agree somewhat, but with these 2 caveats.

            1) The "bench" thing is a Stern pet rule, he defends it because I think he sees changing it as some admission of failure on his part to create a fair rule. Plus he has the justified high-horse as well, the "we can't risk it" crap. Amare left the bench to pick up a ball kid that was knocked down, SUS-PEN-SHUN!!!! He's not rational about it. No gray area from a guy who himself SAID "there's a gray area" after the brawl when guys like Fred Jones didn't get suspended for being in the stands.

            2) It's the off-season and hasn't made much national news it appears to me. I think Stern likes to act on the NOISE to impress his audience that he's keeping things under control. But if it's not noisy he hates to bring it up and draw attention to it at all. Better to let Jack go on so that Rio can be forgotten and we can get back to talking about those great Spurs and how James has come of age. Have you bought some new gear yet?

            Also this is about the case getting resolved, so it spins more positive. He did the deed back then, now it's all being settled. What did Artest get from the NBA (not the Kings) AFTER his assult case was finished (not when the charges first came out and the Kings told him to stay away)?



            I honestly don't care if Jack gets suspended or not. Doesn't affect us at all and I can understand why it would happen. I just think Stern likes to put out FIRES more than he likes to run a solid and fair "government". At the front end where it's high profile and visible, JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED. At the end, off to the side where no one is looking, meh, who cares.

            Now of course if the press grinds it up into a frenzy...the hounds would be released I think.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Jackson cops a plea

              Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
              Excuse me, but you are perhaps the #1 person that has been ripping on me from the other side of those Jackson debates,

              And hear I thought that I was #1 ripper, Seth I'm hurt. Jack is one topic where I don't feel your pain.
              I'm not saying I don't make comments. I'm saying I don't come off as surprised if the target doesn't take a shine to those comments.

              At least I don't think I do. One of the great things about PD is that if a historical example is out there someone can link it and get some accountability (from me or others). At Star it ends up he said/he said.


              After further review...Mal, Buck




              Elgin, I'll send you a "The City" #1 jersey
              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-20-2007, 01:59 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Jackson cops a plea

                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                LOL - I've decided to wait until he actually appears in court today to comment since I don't know what, exactly, that means. LA probably does though since he's in the business.

                So far all I've seen are "expected to's" and "thought to be's" reported.

                I'll wait for the "has".
                Today's update:

                Jackson, 29, pleaded guilty to the low-level felony charge. In the plea deal, prosecutors agreed to recommend a suspended one-year jail sentence. Jackson also qualified for alternate misdemeanor sentencing, which allows a first-time felony conviction to be converted into a misdemeanor.

                http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04
                That settles it: ten games minimum. Let the riots in Oakland begin.

                He's a first-time felon, but he's frequently been in trouble with the NBA.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Jackson cops a plea

                  Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                  In my entire life I have met lots of "pretty good guys" and not one that I would put in that category would ever fire a handgun in anger in a parking lot outside a strip club.
                  I guess I should have said "While at times he does incredably stupid things that bring great embarrassement to his team and fans, he does have some redeeming values and can be pleasent with people" but I was trying to be polite. I'm just glad he is not on our team anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Jackson cops a plea

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    I'm not saying I don't make comments. I'm saying I don't come off as surprised if the target doesn't take a shine to those comments.

                    At least I don't think I do. One of the great things about PD is that if a historical example is out there someone can link it and get some accountability (from me or others). At Star it ends up he said/he said.


                    After further review...Mal, Buck




                    Elgin, I'll send you a "The City" #1 jersey
                    Thanks Seth, will be watching for the UPS truck.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Jackson cops a plea

                      Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                      Thanks Seth, will be watching for the UPS truck.
                      Just don't stand outside in the heat (and eventually cold) waiting on that delivery.

                      Honestly though, those "City" jerseys are pretty cool.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Jackson cops a plea

                        This quote ticks me off:

                        Originally posted by Jackson's loser attourney

                        We're not blaming it all on Ron Artest, but (Jackson's troubles) seemed to start during the Detroit incident"
                        So... we aren't blaming Ron, but, yeah, I guess we are!

                        http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...48/1247/SPORTS
                        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


                        • #57
                          Re: Jackson cops a plea

                          Well he's not lying. Jackson's rap sheet:

                          1) brawl

                          2) Rio

                          Both incidents started with OTHER people doing stuff, trying to start fights. I mean Green throws his beer, Ron goes up and grabs the guy next to him, Ben's brother already out of his seat and 2 sections closer to Ron before Ron even gets up, guy throws a beer in Ron's face while his arms are held back...THEN Jack goes "wild" and drills the guy that threw the beer in Ron's face. He may have lost his temper but ultimately he was tame by the standards of MULTI-PUNCH Green and Wallace's brother, both of who punched someone from behind even (Ron and Fred).

                          Pretty sure Jack didn't pull a chair out of its mount and throw it (hitting a cop). He didn't throw anything back at anyone, he didn't mace or pepper spray anyone.

                          He was wrong that night, but good lord if PACERS FANS are going to start holding him as the out of control guy on the night of the brawl then I can't stand it anymore. Have you guys forgotten just how horrible those drunken fans were, fans that DID HAVE rap sheets before the brawl (Jackson did not)?


                          And oh by the way, how many people at Club Rio were charged with anything involving an actual fistfight? Pot, Hit with car, fired gun off...okay. Now where are the charges for all the punches and kicks that were thrown? All that fighting, guys on the ground...um, didn't things happen at Rio that also happened at the Palace?

                          Yep, and back at the time of the brawl I and many others said (Gnome has an anecdote from a friend to verify this) that had this been at a regular bar that NONE of the people would have been charged with anything. What Jack did in Detroit that night was a non-charge if it was at the Vogue and not on national TV.

                          Bar fights that start because some drunk jerk throws a beer at someone in your group is a lot more common than some people think. It's the staple of nearly every John Wayne film ever made for chrissake, and accepted by film audiences as natural behavior. In fact it was EXPECTED (by audiences) in most classic westerns that the hero would get in the middle of a big bar "tussle". All good clean fun, part of being a man.


                          I'm just really, really sick of how demonized the brawl became, and doubly so when Pacers fans start taking that side of it. It was bad enough when the ESPN crew flip-flopped on the issue overnight.


                          Marquis Daniels - involved in MORE BAR FIGHTS than Stephan Jackson. Hurry, get thee to thy torches and start the trade demands.

                          Or perhaps let's try to keep some level of perspective here when we talk history of criminal behavior. He's gone, he did go before the judge for his actions, got his penalties, what's the problem.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-21-2007, 11:04 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Jackson cops a plea

                            People are responsible for their own actions, whether or not the situation was created by them.

                            Jackson decided to go in the stands. Jackson decided to shoot a gun in the air. Ron did not pull him up into the stands with him, nor did he make him pull the trigger. Blaming someone else for your actions shows even more irresponsiblity. It shows you just don't get it.

                            Jackson was ready to fight anyone and everyone the night of the brawl. He was the one off to the side pulling out his jersey and screaming at any Piston who looked at him.

                            I love how taking responsiblity is almost taboo anymore. It's always someone else's fault. The defense of Jackson is getting old. No one is going to change their minds.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Jackson cops a plea

                              I do agree that there is a since of "Ron was a bad influence" to his lawyer's statement too, don't get me wrong. And that is silly I agree.

                              But he has been accountable and he doesn't really have this rap sheet of outrageous behavior, that's my other point. He did go in the stands too, but he only hit one guy that I recall and that guy threw a full beer first.

                              edit, nevermind the first part
                              Originally posted by me
                              He's gone, he did go before the judge for his actions, got his penalties, what's the problem.
                              Originally posted by Jackson
                              "First of all, I want to start off by saying I'm sorry for this incident," Jackson said. "I want to apologize to my teammates, to the fans and this organization. It was definitely an unfortunate incident. I know for me, I worked hard this summer to get myself physically and mentally ready for this season and to come out to help this team be the best it could be this year and it was an unfortunate incident. Obviously, I'm definitely blessed to be here today. I didn't really think I'd be waking up the next morning after I got hit by a far being able to walk but I'm definitely blessed to be here and I understand, I take responsibility for my actions and everything I've done. And for that, I'm sorry and I do apologize for it.
                              If only he'd take some responsibility and admit it was his fault, if only he'd get the punishment he deserves. I'm just sick of him pretending he did nothing wrong and getting off scott free.

                              And if only Reggie had made a 3 pointer once in awhile. I mean did I miss the part where Jack skipped bail??? Did he get arrested again after this?


                              Was it a lie to say that before either incident other people took action first to instigate it? It's not a defense, it's the truth. Doesn't absolve him from his responsibility to react better, but it does say that he isn't the guy at this point always starting things either. When he is that guy then I'll be the one saying he is. What I won't do is mark someone down for doing something they didn't, at least not intentionally. To me that is the fair and moral behavior.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-21-2007, 11:40 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Jackson cops a plea

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                I do agree that there is a since of "Ron was a bad influence" to his lawyer's statement too, don't get me wrong. And that is silly I agree.

                                But he has been accountable and he doesn't really have this rap sheet of outrageous behavior, that's my other point. He did go in the stands too, but he only hit one guy that I recall and that guy threw a full beer first.

                                edit, nevermind the first part


                                If only he'd take some responsibility and admit it was his fault, if only he'd get the punishment he deserves. I'm just sick of him pretending he did nothing wrong and getting off scott free.

                                And if only Reggie had made a 3 pointer once in awhile. I mean did I miss the part where Jack skipped bail??? Did he get arrested again after this?


                                Was it a lie to say that before either incident other people took action first to instigate it? It's not a defense, it's the truth. Doesn't absolve him from his responsibility to react better, but it does say that he isn't the guy at this point always starting things either. When he is that guy then I'll be the one saying he is. What I won't do is mark someone down for doing something they didn't, at least not intentionally. To me that is the fair and moral behavior.
                                Seth, I agree with you that Jack has admitted his guilt and has been rightfully punished for his actions, and that he isn't the evil boogyman that many Pacer fans have pictured him as. I think that down deep inside you, you have a need to defend the underdog, not a bad quality, however misguided at times.I wonder if you would defend Danny or Foster, with the same vim and vigor, that you do with Jackson? Just curious, does the player has to be perceived as a thug or malcontent, to warrant your unbending support?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X