Tweet
and a thread for those who saw it live and the major history revisionist at work since;
https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...-more-than-jfk
https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...-more-than-jfk
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.
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
-
So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.
If you've done 6 impossible things today?
Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!
-
Went back a few pages from yours here and found my initial write up about the event. At the time I blamed Detroit fans for a lot of this, still do blame them for the lower deck melee the ensued. It's funny to think that immediately after the game I was thinking 2-5 game suspensions and that Artest might argue about security.
https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...-6-brawl/page2
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
Detroit should have been forced to play the rest of that season with an empty lower bowl.
A single rogue fan throwing a beer at Artest wasn’t really surprising - that could happen anywhere.
However, the amount of deranged fans who were pelting the Pacers in mass with objects and liquids as they tried to leave the tunnel was horrifying. The Pacers couldn’t get out of there without a mass of random people throwing stuff at them. There were way too many doing this to count. It had to be downright scary for the Pacers as they left. Totally innocent Pacers coaches and players were getting ambushed.
Some of these fans undoubtedly kept going to games that year and cheered Detroit to the Finals as if nothing happened.
Like I said, the Pistons should have played in an empty lower bowl the rest of that season. They obviously had a mass of deranged lunatics attending their games (not debatable because it’s all on video) which created an unsafe atmosphere for others. That should have been met with swift and severe punishment. The Pacers owner’s and management should have been in the media every day screaming about this instead of taking it on the chin like we did.
The immediate reaction of John Saunders and the others on the post game set was interesting. They were downright horrified at the actions of the mass of lunatics in the stands. But over the coming days, the media attention shifted to blaming the multimillionaire athletes for their actions. Sure our players deserved punishment for what they did, But Detroit mostly got off Scott free and that was unacceptable. I will forever dislike Stern because of it.
Ben Wallace’s tough guy act is partly to blame as well. Like Walton accurately said at the time, that wasn’t a hard foul by Artest....Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-18-2019, 09:29 AM.Comment
-
Donnie is absolutely right to take the blame for that. But isn't that kind of thing the risk that so many around here say we need to be taking on guys with injuries or character issues who might put us over the top? Sadly, when the risk blows up it becomes obvious to all those people that it was a stupid move, not a risk, because the only real risks are the ones that succeed. Anything that fails was just a bad move.Originally posted by able View Post
Now, granted, betting the bank on an injured player isn't going to cause this kind of PR issue, but landing us in cap hell for 5 years because a max player is injured enough to no longer be valuable but not injured enough for us to get cap relief is still a negative consequence - especially when we fail to get into the top 5 of the draft any of those years because lottery is stupid.
BillS
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...Comment
-
There is nothing wrong with taking a risk. Now to be fair if you remember Jay@section222 was telling us from the day of the trade that Artest had all kinds of problems and you and I both were there when Ron was a member of the Bulls and went after the blond woman fan who always was getting into it with Patrick Ewing back in the day. So going into the stands was not unheard of for Ron, we both witnessed it first hand prior to him being a Pacer. Hell I'll even give ol buggeye's (I did that just for youOriginally posted by BillS View Post
) full credit and defend him on the Antonio Davis for # 5 pick in the draft and even drafting Bender. These are the risky moves you would like to see made.
Where it went to hell with Ron, and if you watched the documentary you heard it right from Donnie's mouth, was that they had their own internal worries that Ron was going to do something so bad that the league would be forced to intervene. This wasn't some joking commentary from Walsh btw, this was a legit concern that he spoke with Herb about.
Bird deserves some blame for that photo shoot, although you and I both know that Bird hates publicity. But we both also know that Donnie was still the one making the final decisions around here then, so the refusal to move on from Ron was on Donnie.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
^ Also, it needs to be pointed out that Bird was not even on the Pacers staff when we acquired Artest. O’Neal/Tinsley/Artest were all brought here before Bird started working in the FO.
Bird was here when we acquired Jackson.Comment
-
Imagine if we trade him and the new circumstances are such that he DOESN'T go Full Stands Bozo. Imagine we do that and he wins a championship with his next team. The narrative here becomes how stupid Donnie is for trading away a clear DPOY because of locker room problems that could have been cured by winning.Originally posted by Peck View Post
There is nothing wrong with taking a risk. Now to be fair if you remember Jay@section222 was telling us from the day of the trade that Artest had all kinds of problems and you and I both were there when Ron was a member of the Bulls and went after the blond woman fan who always was getting into it with Patrick Ewing back in the day. So going into the stands was not unheard of for Ron, we both witnessed it first hand prior to him being a Pacer. Hell I'll even give ol buggeye's (I did that just for you ) full credit and defend him on the Antonio Davis for # 5 pick in the draft and even drafting Bender. These are the risky moves you would like to see made.
Where it went to hell with Ron, and if you watched the documentary you heard it right from Donnie's mouth, was that they had their own internal worries that Ron was going to do something so bad that the league would be forced to intervene. This wasn't some joking commentary from Walsh btw, this was a legit concern that he spoke with Herb about.
Bird deserves some blame for that photo shoot, although you and I both know that Bird hates publicity. But we both also know that Donnie was still the one making the final decisions around here then, so the refusal to move on from Ron was on Donnie.
Yes, I agree, this is all on Donnie. But my vain hope is that it means something to the people saying that you take the best player and issues take care of themselves, and/or that chemistry doesn't matter, and/or that the Pacers FO has never ever taken a risk to push for a championship. Heck, the narrative in some places has already changed to that team really being yet another mediocre team with only a delusion of contention.BillS
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...Comment
-
I just take solace in you all remembering it like I did: that live and night of, it was an indictment on the fans, largely (not to say players were blameless; Artest and SJax certainly deserved to be punished). But, like, next day, you could tell network execs had passed down talking points and a new memo...Comment
-
I was in England when the brawl happened. My flatmate worked nights at skysports, and let me know I had to check out the sports news. In England if you can't control your fans, your team gets punished. We all just assumed that a few Pacers players were going to miss a lot of time, and that Detroit as a team would be punished (banned form postseason play, loss of draft picks, playing behind closed doors or empty lower bowl, etc...) David Stern is an incompetent buffoon who lucked into Bird, Magic, and Jordan, but was essentially a giant, useless turd. He also hated the Pacers, didn't like small market teams, and disliked the ABA.Danger ZoneComment
-
Yup. The gut reactions of Saunders and the others on the post game set said it all - that was a horrifying mob attack on our players by countless of lunatic fans.Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
As you say, Artest and Jax certainly deserved punishment. And they got it. But there was an entire separate issue which was never addressed - the mob ambush from the Detroit fans.
Most of what was shown on TV in the subsequent days was Artest charging the stands and SJax decking people, but the mobs attacking the Pacers players and coaches was largely put on the back burner. It’s jaw-dropping when you go back and watch it and try to quantify just how many fans were participating.
I understand that the Pacers ownership was put in a virtually unprecedented situation and that we didn’t want to make matters any worse than they already were. But the league just totally walked all over us and we didn’t do much publicly to protest it. We should have been holding daily press conferences streaming the footage and reminding everyone the dangerous situation our team was put in. We should have said that our guys were punished, but when is the other side going to get some punishment to fit their crimes.
I respect a lot of what the Simons have built here, but I’ve always been irked at how we got totally railroaded by the league and mostly just sat quietly.
To me the punishment for Detroit should have been simple and obvious: the lower bowl of The Palace should have sat completely empty for the remainder of that season. The fact that some of those partaking fans were unquestionably able to keep going to games that year and cheer them on to the Finals is disgusting.Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-18-2019, 02:25 PM.Comment
-
Every single thing they could have done publicly would have been seen as an attempt to justify what those horrible players did. They worked diligently behind the scenes and handled the PR from a position of complete contrition without making any excuses. I would venture to say that's the only reason the fans stood behind them the way they did in the games following the Brawl.Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
I don't think any amount of finger-pointing at Detroit would have helped at all - certainly not enough to make up for how much it would have hurt the already tarnished image of the Pacer to be trying to throw the blame on the other guys. No amount of "yes, our guys deserve punishment but..." changes that perception once the media and the league decided to completely blame the Pacers for the incident.BillS
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...Comment
-
There are two separate issues. Only a very garbled presentation could have butchered the easy talking points:Originally posted by BillS View Post
1) Take blame for what Artest/Jax did. Apologize. Make no excuses.
2) Draw attention to something that was talked about A LOT in the immediate aftermath of the brawl, but then quickly hit the back burner - the lunatic behavior from the Detroit mob. Hold press conferences, show footage, and remind people that most of these guys who were getting pelted were players and coaches who WERE NOT participating in The Brawl.
The Pacers would have had plenty of support with even the slightest coherent argument on that issue. Instead, it faded quickly because the media was far more interested in the millionaire athletes who were decking fans. That was a big deal of course, but the Detroit fan behavior should have never faded as much as it did.
Its not as if our strategy worked that great anyway. The fans remained supportive that season in large part because it was Reggie’s last year. Then it all crumbled again the next year, only this time there was no Reggie retirement tour to distract. That began a dreadful five year period of the fans not supporting the team much.
We would have had nothing to lose by drawing more attention to the Detroit behavior and I’m sure a lot of people out there would have supported us.
But in fairness to the Pacers, this was virtually unprecedented and it SHOULDNT have been their task. Stern totally let Detroit off. The Palace lower Bowl should have been shut down that year, no questions asked.Comment
-
Man I watched it and it just pissed ticked me off all over again.
It also made me feel especially bad for Jermaine.Comment
-
Detroit's lack of punishment should've been a central theme of the Pacers for the rest of the year. Instead, they let the NBA almost entirely put the blame on the Pacers who made themselves easy scapegoats by publicly rolling over. But while the fans were clamoring for that ever elusive championship and not wanting their season totally thrown away (as far as the possibility of a championship), maybe this didn't bother the Herb as much as it should've. And maybe he didn't see the approaching storm by letting it happen like he should've.
After all, the Pacers still made the playoffs that season...Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Our punishments were so draconian that I’m sure we were scared to poke the bear. That’s understandable. But in hindsight we clearly would have had nothing to lose by putting up a fight because it all went to hell for the next five years anyway.Originally posted by Bball View Post
Regardless of any good he did, I have absolutely no respect for David Stern because of how easy he let Detroit off. Total commissioner cowardice. We can criticize the Pacers but they should have never been put in that position.Comment
Comment