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

Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

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

  • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

    Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
    I hate to say when a man is right, he is right. Jermaniac is absolutly right. Until Strip clubs are deemed illeagal, 3am is past curfew, and we become Canada where you have no right to carry a pistol. A man can defend himself in a place he HAS bussiness being in.

    It just sounds like a lot of you are just trying to resharpen the axe you have to grind with Jackson the player with this incident. As someone mentioned earlier this morning, "What if the head line read, "Pacers player injured in Hit and Run". That is what it is!!! Hell, A players could have been hurt! As I have said many times...A drunk fool comming out of Bennihana could start the same crap with our players. It happens to Celebs all the time in Indy, that is why most of the time they don't go to places where they mingle with the general public. Club Rio is not set up to handle VIP's and it showed on Thurday night. To me, that is the ONLY bit of questionable judgement and that is not a decision that puts the franchise in a bad light.

    Oh yeah, if the joints worth of weed is an embarrassment to the franchise...Come on, IPD wasn't even concerned!
    I fully believe Jack had the right to do what he did. However, that is not the point at all. His actions have resulted in negative financial impact to the franchise. He is a liability on the balance sheet. He is a defective product in terms of merchandising. He is the proverbial lemon. It is compounded by the fact he is expensive and will be more difficult to trade. For these reasons I find his actions selfish, irresponsible and damaging...but not illegal. At the same time, Jack is being Jack. He's hood and that's just the way it is. Pacer management need to understand this will continue to happen and they will pay a dear price just like with Ron Ron.

    Outside the financial impact, I still think he has been selfish and has hurt many fans. The truth is, there are many things that people have the legal right to do that still hurt other people.

    Comment


    • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

      Hi guys - I haven't read the whole thread but I want to give my opinion on the original question. I don't live in Indianapolis so I've got limited information, BUT, what exactly did these players do that was in bad judgment or illegal?

      The only person that might, might have been involved in anything illegal was Tinsley, and I think its best to let the police investigate that and then do with that and with what they decide, make a decision thereafter. If the police say, as I have heard, that the amount of mj was negligable, and that they can't say definitively that it was Tinsley's, then I think the issue is dropped.

      Second, regarding the fact that those guys were at a strip club - well I'm sorry but it is a reality that gentleman's clubs are 100% legal in Indianapolis and so those guys weren't doing anything illegally by being there.

      While it might not look good - unless it is stipulated in their contracts that they are not to go to such clubs, then I don't think you can touch any of those players from a punitive standpoint.

      While they might be tradebait in the future, I don't think this is the time to get the fairest value for any of them, even though there fair value at this point might be negligable anyway.

      So I think everyone should chill out.

      Yes it makes the team look bad. BUT - the players didn't do anything wrong, per se. If you want to lay blame somewhere, you have to look at the players past records --- and if they are concerning --- you have to ask why they were given the opportunity to be a part of this team or given the opportunity to stay on this team.

      That is my two cents.
      "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

      Comment


      • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

        "Right now, from all the evidence we've gathered," said Sgt. Matthew Mount, an Indianapolis Police Department spokesman, it looks like Jackson and three teammates "were the victims in this case."

        Comment


        • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

          Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
          A high percentage of people who ***** about pot are ****ed up on prescription medication and alchohal, so get off your damn hypocritical highhorse. To tell you guys the truth I just want a winning team. For this reason I still see the good in SJ. Bluntly put, trading Jackson for a bag of rocks is a boderline retarded idea.
          I wasn't talking about my point of view but rather the point of view of the people buying season tickets and paying the bills. You really think companies and such that hand out the big bucks aren't thinking about whether they want to associate their money with a group that has a track record of bad publicity? I stated before, it is all about image. Again, I point to Portland, My sister lives there and said that the buisnesses by the arena took a bad hit when the team's image went south.

          Personally, I could care less if the guys go to the clubs. That stuff happens and people have to live their lives. Was it their fault the incident happened? No. I hope they all are o.k. It is their fault that they were driving around with weed in their car at 3 a.m. That doesn't build my confidence in their reasoning and common sense skills.

          As a fan, I don't put winning above everything else. I don't think I could support a team full of what I thought were thugs and scum bags. I don't feel this team is that, and have been a SJ supporter since he was here in San Antonio. With Ron gone and the rest of the guys moving forward, I'm looking for a nice change this season. At least we know hat we have.

          Comment


          • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

            Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
            LMAO Dude you are a teacher, a teacher, dont be mad at me. I'm not moving on from crap, you hate me and it hurts you. You are a grown man worrying about what I'm doing. Step your life up boy boy.

            Like I said many times this summer I would trade Stephen Jackson in a heart beat but I'm not gonna blame a man for protecting himself.
            I'm not hating or mad at you, I just made an observation based on what I've read on here and the way you state yourself. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Like SJ, what you do and how you express your opinions is up to you.

            Comment


            • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

              At this point, if they haven't drug tested them (like they should have before
              allowing a chance to flush their systems), I would say no, do not fine or
              suspend them.

              A really better way to conclude this episode would be for the players involved
              to come forward on their own, acknowledge showing poor judgement and the
              results of that poor judgement underming the Pacers trying to rebuild their
              image, and an apology to the city and fans for what happened.

              I think something like this would go much further towards making things
              right again than the team fining or suspending any of them.

              Right now they probably don't feel like they owe any apologies, because
              it was likely those other d**b**ses were the ones who started all the
              trouble in the first place.

              We havn't been told why that bozo punched Jack, and probably won't.
              My guess is that he was just another beer swilling Piston's fan who
              thought he saw an opportunity to cause us more trouble.

              Whatever the reason, our players should know there are alot of haters out
              there, and they must be very careful in how they expose themselves to
              the public, and that is where their poor judgement came into play
              (for the most part).

              At this point I would like to see action and an apology from them (the
              players involved), and not from the Pacers organization.

              Comment


              • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

                Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
                Hi guys - I haven't read the whole thread but I want to give my opinion on the original question. I don't live in Indianapolis so I've got limited information, BUT, what exactly did these players do that was in bad judgment or illegal?

                The only person that might, might have been involved in anything illegal was Tinsley, and I think its best to let the police investigate that and then do with that and with what they decide, make a decision thereafter. If the police say, as I have heard, that the amount of mj was negligable, and that they can't say definitively that it was Tinsley's, then I think the issue is dropped.

                Second, regarding the fact that those guys were at a strip club - well I'm sorry but it is a reality that gentleman's clubs are 100% legal in Indianapolis and so those guys weren't doing anything illegally by being there.

                While it might not look good - unless it is stipulated in their contracts that they are not to go to such clubs, then I don't think you can touch any of those players from a punitive standpoint.

                While they might be tradebait in the future, I don't think this is the time to get the fairest value for any of them, even though there fair value at this point might be negligable anyway.

                So I think everyone should chill out.

                Yes it makes the team look bad. BUT - the players didn't do anything wrong, per se. If you want to lay blame somewhere, you have to look at the players past records --- and if they are concerning --- you have to ask why they were given the opportunity to be a part of this team or given the opportunity to stay on this team.

                That is my two cents.
                That's nice. I hope this is my last post on this topic but I won't promise anything - history tells me I may let myself be pulled back into it.

                See, there's a choice between living in the real world or a fantasy world.

                In the fantasy world, anyone can go anywhere they want, so long as it's legal, and nobody will bother them. In this fantasy world celebrities can walk into a strip club in a marginal section of town where pimps and drug dealers have been known to frequent and nothing will happen. The pimps and drug dealers won't decide to start ragging on who they perceive as rich, spoiled NBA snobs. They won't, in a state of drunken sexual excitement, decide that getting in a fight with some NBA players may enhance their reputation. In this fantasy world there's no reason for Pacer players not to expose themselves to a situation like this where this may happen. In fact, in this fantasy world the Pacers players may feel free to drive East about 10 blocks, find themselves a nice stretch of public lawn in the most crime-infested region of the city and stretch themselves out on the grass to sleep peacefully through the night, setting their cash-filled wallets beside them because that's more comfortable.

                Then there's the real world where grown people should have enough common sense not to place themselves in these kinds of situations. This is a real world where celebrities often have trouble finding peace and quiet. A real world where clubs exist that cater to celebrities - either a place with enough security that others are turned away from even approaching the celebs, where cars are valet parked and where dancers will strip for them in a reasonably safe environment - or even a place where entrance is restricted to club members.

                In this real world, going to a public club with minimal security and where anyone can get in for a $5 cover in a marginal part of town exposes you to a criminal element that may get its kicks from confronting or even assaulting an NBA player. In this real world responsible people make responsible judgements. In this real world parents do a little research before hiring a sitter, folks check the batteries in their smoke detectors, consumers check to see that a car has a valid title and registration before buying it and folks look both ways before crossing the street, even if it's in a crosswalk where pedestrians always have the right-of-way. And in this real world 4 Pacers players placed themselves in a situation where there was a strong likelihood of trouble.

                I'm very happy that so many of you seem to believe in this fantasy world. In the world I believe in, you make choices and decisions that reduce the chance that something unpleasant may happen to you. Those four players did not make that choice.

                And enough - it's your team and it appears that none of those guys did anything criminal. If you believe they have good judgement and make appropriate decisions and are players you'll be happy to have on your team, that's your call to make. I'm afraid though that if Jackson's on the team you'll be looking at a season attendance next year of somewhere between 12,000 and 14,000 in one of the nicest, fan-friendliest arenas in all of sports. That would be unfortunate.
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

                  Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                  I wouldn't suspend them.

                  I'd get rid of Jackson at all costs - I don't care if you get a box of Cracker Jack sans toy prize for him - enough is enough.

                  This is Tinsley's first offense but he still should know better. Rick and Bird need to have a conversation.

                  Daniels and Snap (who was never making the team anyway) get a pass for being newcomers though they still need to have a conversation.

                  But with Jackson, enough is enough. There are strip clubs in Indy for celebs - places where they'll valet park your car, security is TIGHT, they bring you cute little drinks that cost $15, etc. People don't blow famous people crap there.

                  Just poor judgment - and he's shown a more than disturbing pattern of that. He needs to be gone by Oct 31 even if Indy buys him out.
                  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++

                  Better than I could have said it.
                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


                  • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

                    I want to see a stat that proves that " A high percentage of people who ***** about pot are ****ed up on prescription medication and alchohal"....

                    Comment


                    • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

                      I read this thread and understand why things in America are so sugar coated. The majority of the general public doesn't want to know the truth. They especially can't get it through their minds that athletes are humans. Athletes have as much of a right to be at a strip club at 3am (if they have no curfiew), as a middle aged man working at McDonalds. Get over yourselves and your perfect lives.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

                        That was a helluva post, Rimfire.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

                          This was posted by Jay in the other S-Jax thread:

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                          Teams have historically had curfews during training camp. Since they no longer go away (and the NBA has significantly restricted practice time), I'm not sure that's true anymore.

                          Still, being out at 3am during training camp is a bad decision. And that's what is getting the most criticism.

                          If I had time, I'll re-read all the posts and tally up the complaints.

                          Being at THAT strip club probably has 5x the number of complaints than being at ANY strip club.

                          Unfortunately, it seems like every six hours somebody new comes in and starts accusing all the critics of harping about going to a strip club, but a careful re-read of the thread indicates otherwise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

                            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                            That's nice. I hope this is my last post on this topic but I won't promise anything - history tells me I may let myself be pulled back into it.

                            See, there's a choice between living in the real world or a fantasy world.

                            In the fantasy world, anyone can go anywhere they want, so long as it's legal, and nobody will bother them. In this fantasy world celebrities can walk into a strip club in a marginal section of town where pimps and drug dealers have been known to frequent and nothing will happen. The pimps and drug dealers won't decide to start ragging on who they perceive as rich, spoiled NBA snobs. They won't, in a state of drunken sexual excitement, decide that getting in a fight with some NBA players may enhance their reputation. In this fantasy world there's no reason for Pacer players not to expose themselves to a situation like this where this may happen. In fact, in this fantasy world the Pacers players may feel free to drive East about 10 blocks, find themselves a nice stretch of public lawn in the most crime-infested region of the city and stretch themselves out on the grass to sleep peacefully through the night, setting their cash-filled wallets beside them because that's more comfortable.

                            Then there's the real world where grown people should have enough common sense not to place themselves in these kinds of situations. This is a real world where celebrities often have trouble finding peace and quiet. A real world where clubs exist that cater to celebrities - either a place with enough security that others are turned away from even approaching the celebs, where cars are valet parked and where dancers will strip for them in a reasonably safe environment - or even a place where entrance is restricted to club members.

                            In this real world, going to a public club with minimal security and where anyone can get in for a $5 cover in a marginal part of town exposes you to a criminal element that may get its kicks from confronting or even assaulting an NBA player. In this real world responsible people make responsible judgements. In this real world parents do a little research before hiring a sitter, folks check the batteries in their smoke detectors, consumers check to see that a car has a valid title and registration before buying it and folks look both ways before crossing the street, even if it's in a crosswalk where pedestrians always have the right-of-way. And in this real world 4 Pacers players placed themselves in a situation where there was a strong likelihood of trouble.

                            I'm very happy that so many of you seem to believe in this fantasy world. In the world I believe in, you make choices and decisions that reduce the chance that something unpleasant may happen to you. Those four players did not make that choice.

                            And enough - it's your team and it appears that none of those guys did anything criminal. If you believe they have good judgement and make appropriate decisions and are players you'll be happy to have on your team, that's your call to make. I'm afraid though that if Jackson's on the team you'll be looking at a season attendance next year of somewhere between 12,000 and 14,000 in one of the nicest, fan-friendliest arenas in all of sports. That would be unfortunate.
                            DK, a very cogent argument. You bring up some very good points and I do agree with you as far as these guys could have exercised better judgment in the club they chose to attend.

                            However, I think it's a very risky proposition trying to start regulating and punishing people based on bad judgment. This is a value loaded term that is impossible to define. Now, if the Pacers were to give up Jackson for nothing b/c they view his track record of not being able to avoid trouble as to detrimental to the team's image, that is there perrogative I would have no problem. I understand and respect that perspective.

                            On the other hand, what I don't get is why these other's players would not be significantly disciplined and/or jettisoned either. If you really want to make a statemetn about what is and is not permissible amongst your players, particularly after so much turmoil and ugly publicity the last few seasons, I think you'd pretty much have to make it an across the board no tolerance policy.

                            I say this only b/c I get tired of people harping on Jackson b/c he is the most visible remaining perpetrator of these public black eyes. I recall images of Tins and the dustpan, DH in the stands, JO walloping some idiot that came on the court. JO and Tins moaning to refs and looking like they're into themselves on the court and making low BB IQ plays, etc., etc.

                            As far s the brawl, most of the players showed bad judgment. The correct judgment would have been to A) notvfollow Ron into the stands and B) onec all hell broke loose everyone else should have high tailed in into the locker room. Nobody should have made the decision to get into any physical altercations whether in the audience or on the court.

                            How could anybody suggest this is JT's first offense and he just needs a talking to? He's been talked to over and over and he's been nothing but a negative weight on this team the last to years. It's not just the fact that he doesn't play, I see that guy and I just see bad attitude in the vibe he projects on the court playing or not. And I think his lack of commitment can realistically be questioned.

                            The weed thing is to me is just yet another level. And the irony of it all is that's the one definitive illegal variable in all this and it's conveniently not followed up on. If we're going to punish people for bad judgment, how about the judgment to even go out with Jack. Seems pretty serious. Snap and Daniels would deserve at least a half season suspension I'd estimate.

                            I guess all the people on here wanting to punish for bad judgment never make any bad judgments themselves.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

                              Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
                              I read this thread and understand why things in America are so sugar coated. The majority of the general public doesn't want to know the truth. They especially can't get it through their minds that athletes are humans. Athletes have as much of a right to be at a strip club at 3am (if they have no curfiew), as a middle aged man working at McDonalds. Get over yourselves and your perfect lives.
                              Sure, they've got that right.

                              But they also take on some responsibilities when they sign that NBA player contract. They are representing a franchise and a city, and although they have the right to make bad decisions, they should still be thoroughly criticized for making bad decisions during training camp.
                              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


                              • Re: Should the Pacers organization fine and or suspend the 4 players involved.

                                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post

                                ...

                                I'm afraid though that if Jackson's on the team you'll be looking at a season attendance next year of somewhere between 12,000 and 14,000 in one of the nicest, fan-friendliest arenas in all of sports. That would be unfortunate.
                                This is basically what I stated before in this thread. What is 1 fan worth per season? What is 3000 fans worth? (i.e. difference between 13000 fans and 16000 fans). Turns out with some quick auditing that those 3000 fans are worth Jax salary for a season, so just cut him, even if we still have to pay him. He is a complete joke!

                                You can say all you want about he is a grown man and he can do what he wants and he didnt really do anything wrong and all that blah blah blah bs everybody is trying to defend him with. The MAIN point here is that he is in the public eye (microscope) and he needs to represent the team and franchise the right way. Its an IMAGE thing. The Pacers just spent millions in P.R. on trying to clean that image, and in one fell swoop , he screwed it all up.

                                To answer the original thread question, CUT HIM! He is the CANCER! The other 3 suspend them for a few games (for putting themselves in that situation) a piece and get their attention NOW! Its like raising children - give them an inch and they take a mile!

                                Pulling out a gun in public - absolute disgrace! Didnt he learn anything in his retaliation in the brawl. Im not even going to the free exhibition game now!


                                Regained fanbase = lost salary of Jackson.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X