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

A series of questions....

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

  • #31
    Re: A series of questions....

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    :
    :
    :
    I don't think they were saying "I'll show you", I think it was simpler than that. Just "I can't root for guys like that and won't support them".
    :
    :
    :
    Once again Seth says it succinctly where it took me pages.
    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


    • #32
      Re: A series of questions....

      Originally posted by TheDon View Post
      I think that's what ticked me off the most not the brawl but the fact that the fans stood by the team and then the team made the fans look like idiots for ever defending them.
      I agree. Ron was the MOST POPULAR guy at the Fieldhouse the year after the suspension. FanJam, home opener, the fans felt like his return marked the beginning of the Pacers, and by proxy the fans, revenge on Detroit and Stern.

      The Pacers easily could have rode that wave with the help of wins and become not just popular but beloved in Indy. It was right in their grasp.

      It was Ron's betrayal with the trade request, Jack's betrayal with Rio and his attitude, Tinsley's betrayal with his incidents, attitude and injuries, and JO's betrayal with his injuries and underachievements that turned the fans most of all.

      Remember that many fans were ready to support Tins even after his first few injury/incident bumps. Like Ron he was going to return and prove a point...but it never happened.


      So far the only guy to prove a point was Jackson, and that was in Golden State, which ended up making that GS trade yet another "betrayal" of the fans hopes and trust.


      I don't think fans jumped right to "ownership never took responsibility". I think it was the opposite. Fans were so pumped to get some justice and fair due that it primed them to be even more let down than normal.


      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Once again Seth says it succinctly where it took me pages.
      I think you miscounted my paragraphs.


      Originally posted by Putnum
      I disagreed with Seth and others who said that winning was the only thing that matters.
      Let me tweek that a bit. It's not that I think winning is the only thing, just that it by far outweighs everything else. Winning is a feel-good story, period. Unless you win by beating up the other team or something.

      Let's go post-brawl, Ron's return. Have that team win 60. Now don't just stop at the number and tell me it wouldn't have mattered. 60 is not a number, 60 would be a COLLECTION OF WINNING MOMENTS involving Ron, Jack, Tins, JO. It would have been those moments that would have altered the image and filled the void, or kept a negative image from taking hold in the first place.

      If last year the team had won 55 it would have meant guys playing better defense, hitting more game winning shots, and having more big nights. It would be those moments, not the 55 wins, that would have made the news, caught the attention of the casual fans, and begun to refill the Fieldhouse.

      You don't pencil in the win%, you must factor in the process of achieving it too.
      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-16-2008, 12:39 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: A series of questions....

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Let me tweek that a bit. It's not that I think winning is the only thing, just that it by far outweighs everything else. Winning is a feel-good story, period. Unless you win by beating up the other team or something.

        Let's go post-brawl, Ron's return. Have that team win 60. Now don't just stop at the number and tell me it wouldn't have mattered. 60 is not a number, 60 would be a COLLECTION OF WINNING MOMENTS involving Ron, Jack, Tins, JO. It would have been those moments that would have altered the image and filled the void, or kept a negative image from taking hold in the first place.

        If last year the team had won 55 it would have meant guys playing better defense, hitting more game winning shots, and having more big nights. It would be those moments, not the 55 wins, that would have made the news, caught the attention of the casual fans, and begun to refill the Fieldhouse.

        You don't pencil in the win%, you must factor in the process of achieving it too.
        This hits the nail on the head in so many ways. It explains why people continue to bring up the 61-win team as being important. It explains why winning builds momentum where losing in and of itself doesn't necessarily destroy a fan base.
        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


        • #34
          Re: A series of questions....

          Regarding the first part, I'm not sure what you're trying to establish. People stayed away, on core, because the team became unwatchable on the floor and largely unlikeable as both players and people. The franchise provided its own black cloud that made them unattractive to the general public. This was exascerbated by the economy, which made it more difficult for people to catch a random game or overlook the warts on the team. People, en masse, come to games because of a shared hope, so the culture changes we've seen over the last year are definitely helping, but only to the extent that they have brought hope for both better quality play (and, eventually, more wins) and better quality character. While each individual may have a specific motivation for not coming, to try to assign a single one to the tens of thousands who stayed away is a fool's errand.

          On to the brawl...

          (heavy sigh)

          Absolutely no one associated with the brawl, or the ensuing actions, performed admirably in any way, shape or form. Each successive mistake led to someone else's reactionary mistake. Let's take your questions in reverse order:

          5. Was Jermaine O'Neal an innocent vicitim of the brawl?
          Victim? Yes, to some degree. Innocent? No. He's responsible for his decisions. An excellent argument could be made for the fact that meeting and playing with Ron Artest was the worst thing that ever happened to Jermaine. Had those two never come together, it's highly likely that Jermaine would have a sterling reputation as quality character guy and good citizen, even if there were (often valid) complaints about his durability and payscale. However, the decisions underscore why he fell short of deserving the mantle Reggie tried to pass to him. I understand the (appropriate) urge to stand by your teammates, but he would've served the Pacers best by trying to control the situation, by trying to restrain his fellow mates and get them to the locker room safely. It's not that his actions weren't understandable, or even arguably justified. It's just that the true leader of the franchise needed to show a cooler head. Could I have done it? Probably not...I probably react the same way JO did, but that's why I'm not qualified to be in that role.

          4. Was Steven Jackson unfairly painted by his actions at the brawl?
          I believe he was fairly characterized as being a jackanape that night. However, I do feel that, over the course of his career with the Pacers, he probably took more criticism than he actually deserved, and that his contributions on the court were greater than people are generally willing to recognize. As a contrast, Tinsley has had many more chances than Jack was afforded, despite the fact that Jack has several qualities Tinsley sorely lacks: durability, willingness to play defense, even leadership (though occasionally misplaced). While I think it was appropriate to move Jack out of Indy, I never felt he was the villain many made him out to be. The brawl was a catalyst, but Jackson contributed with some of his actions and his occasional inappropriate demeanor on the court. He's somebody that the Pacer fanbase may have been able to embrace better in another time, but certainly not during such bad times.

          3. Was Ron Artest as popular at the fieldhouse as he was online?
          Depends on when you're talking about. I think that before the brawl, it was fairly even in both places. After the brawl, there was the "Jesse James"/"Us against Them" factor that drove some support, misguided or not. However, it became harder to be supportive of Artest at the games as you saw the damage his absence was on the floor. After the trade demand, the only place I ran into Artest supporters was online.

          2. If I am wrong, remember these are about feelings not facts, then was I the only person who felt that way? Or is it possible that a few others out there felt the same way and that this combined with other incidents where the management didn't respond with dissaproval of the players, might have kept a couple of people away?
          The short answer to this is yes, or at least probably, yes. I'm assuming that if you stayed away, then this was your reasoning. It's pretty likely that a couple of other people had similar reasoning. I can't help but infer from this question that your seeking some validation on your viewpoint. Why? If that's why you stayed away, why does it need to be the reason anybody else did?

          1. Am I wrong to feel that the team (owners and Walsh) never took actual responsibility for the actions of our players?
          It depends on what you mean about taking "actual responsibility". What I infer from this question is that you wanted the Simons and Walsh to say, "Hey, we knew we were spoiling these guys, and it was our fault that this happened." They didn't, and they shouldn't have. Is it possible, if not likely, that they did not step up to their fair share of culpability? Yes. However, it feels like you wanted them to fall on their sword for the entire mess, and I don't think that's warranted.

          We act as if the front office collected a bunch of hoodlums and sold their souls to get a title. Maybe that's true, but let's at least acknowledge how fondly we recall the ABA Pacers...who signed a guy literally on the day he got out of prison (Reggie Harding)...who wore cowboy style six-shooters, loaded, into the lockerroom...who were in nasty on-court fights several times a year that made any on-court fight you can think of that the NBA Pacers have had look like a junior high dance...who had players and a coach who drank and caroused to all hours of the night. Those Pacers deserve our adoration for what they accomplished, but they weren't angels.

          What should've happened is that everybody involved should've been held responsible for their part in it, an honest accounting given, and practical, sound solutions to the underlying problems be developed. Unfortunately, we don't live in Strawberry Shortcake land.

          From the moment it happened, everybody ran for cover. It became about avoiding liability rather than addressing the issue directly. The night of the brawl, the head of The Palace (I forget his name) was shameless in the way he danced away from any responsibility he and his security staff had in how quickly things got out of control. Other than some initial comments from ESPN studio announcers, the Pistons and the Piston fans involved escaped (comparatively) unscathed. While Artest (and Jackson) certainly set off the events, there's no question in my mind that the Piston fans (the ones involved, not all Piston fans, by any stretch of the imagination) were responsible for making it as catastrophic as it was. When I think of this I think of four specific examples:

          1. Ben Wallace's brother (IIRC) wailing on Fred Jones from behind when it was obvious Fred was just standing there.
          2. The jackass who threw the folding chair.
          3. The middle-aged sales rep/exec in the Polo and khakis in the endzone seats who, after it had broken up and JO was being escorted back to the locker room, decided to drill JO in the side of the head with a cup without direct provocation.
          4. The kid who scrambled across people and seats to get to the archway so he could dump his Mountain Dew on the retreating Pacers.

          All of these things took this event from a horribly stupid mistake made by a couple of knucklehead to a disaster of as epic of proportions as it could get when you're only talking about basketball.

          Nary a harsh word for the referees, who were exchanging recipes at mid-court while Ben Wallace was still screaming at Artest and throwing his towel.

          Finally, there was the NBA and Stern, who acted the shocked and apalled innocent victim. What nonsense. The seeds of this brawl, or something like it, have been growing for years in the soil fertilized by the NBA's tacit approval of a more and more physical game. There were instances earlier, but the real see change (IMO) came with Riley's Knicks, the "No Layup Rule", and the general philosophy that the officials won't call a foul every time down the floor. This constant physicality and subverting the rules through the sheer deluge of infractions led to a slower, uglier, and ultimately, more intense game. By the time that the Pacers played the Pistons in that meatgrinder of an ECF in 2004, it had reached a fever pitch.

          On November 19, you had two teams with little regard, if not outright hatred of each other, playing in front of a fanbase that hated the opponent with a fiery passion (which would've been true in Indy, as well), and each knowing the other stood in their way of reaching the pinnacle in the NBA. Add to that another physical game, a couple of cheap shots by the Pistons (Rip & Ben), some typical Artest and Jackson horse****, and you've got the NBA equivalent of a Molitov cocktail. Liberally mix in some alchohol-fueled bravado in the crowd and a general disregard for the basic humanity of others, particularly in opposing colors, strike one knucklehead brand match, and...KABOOM!


          While subsequent bad acts and stupid decisions of their own made the wound deeper and more gangrenous, the reaction by the NBA vis a vis the Pacers, by itself, was arguably pretty fair. The Pacers probably got what they deserved. The problem is that virtually nobody else did, and that is what impacted, IMO, the Pacers' FO willingness to own up to their full part in the debacle.

          None of the underlying issues were addressed. Security at games is still little more than a token effort. While the game has gotten freer, there is still ample evidence of the clutch and grab approach employed throughout much of the 90's. Officiating has come under scrutiny for being crooked, but the more basic, broader reaching problem is that they are inconsistent and don't adequately control the game. The NBA couldn't come down on the Palace or the Pistons because they would be admitting their shortcomings in meeting their responsibility as a sanctioning body to guarantee the security of the players and patrons. The NBA was the equivalent of the coach who lets players scuffle during practice, because he likes the intensity and fire he thinks it gives them. However, when the star player gets a message foul in practice and is out for a month, they take no responsibility for it.

          Instead of actually trying to fix the problem, they created plausible deniability by adopting the (forgive me for this) "Crazy Black Guy" defense. Ron was the perfect "Crazy Black Guy", and it played perfectly with the audience they were trying to appease.

          As a result, the Pacers took the full weight of the consequences, resulting in the Pacers' FO saying, "Now, wait a minute...". As to whether they actually shirked their responsibility here, or it just looked like it because they were reacting to the perceived inequities in the punishment is difficult to tell, even with time and distance. However, I simply have a hard time laying this whole thing at their feet.

          You want the Pacers to say their players were wrong, unequivocally, and it's not going to happen. "Backing your players" doesn't necessarily mean that you want your players to get off Scot-Free. It may just mean that you want to make sure they are treated fairly and appropriately. How it gets viewed by each of us is skewed by how we feel about the parties involved.

          Again, my goal is to talk about this now so that soon I will never have to talk about this again.
          This goal is not going to be attained through this thread. You (and I, and everybody else) can only get to this by individually deciding not to talk about it. Did you expect this thread to be cathartic? Did you expect to suddenly change the minds of everyone who disagrees with you? Did you expect someone to suddenly tell you the one thing that will turn you completely around on this issue? Each of us brought, and maintained, our previous attitudes and prejudices to the table. In the absence of any earth-shattering new revelation, everybody's positions have hardened to stone. Everybody's right, and everybody's wrong. There are people who will read what I just wrote and view it as smoke-filled, coffeehouse bull****, and others who will view it as incredibly insightful and nuanced. Hell, depending on what mood I'm in, I might find it to be a gross rationalization from time to time.

          I have my view of what mistakes were made by the Pacers, and you have yours. They aren't going to change, materially, in the next few pages in the next few months. So...own 'em. If the subject comes up again, either weigh in and defend your position, or sail right past it. We are years away from getting out from under the brawl. It is too large and too important to the trajectory that the Pacers have been and will continue to follow to be simply "have it out and be done with it." It will inform every decision made by the front office for as long as the Simons own the Pacers, and may ultimately lead to a change in ownership and possibly a franchise move. How can you ignore it?

          On the other hand, I'm sure that everybody's heard just about enough from me on this subject, so I should probably just sit back and listen for awhile.
          Last edited by count55; 07-16-2008, 01:27 PM. Reason: corrections

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: A series of questions....

            Originally posted by Peck View Post

            In doing this I want to make a commitment to myself, I want to stop talking about Ron Artest, Jon Bender, Jermaine O'Neal, the 61 win season, Brad Miller, the brawl, Donnie Walsh, The Phoenix game, etc., etc.
            Fixed.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: A series of questions....

              We now have a resurgence of interest in and support for the team during an offseason, without a single additional win. So it becomes clear that character has played a part in that resurgence.
              Sorry Putty, didn't mention this. Excellent point, this is the way to shut me up. I like logic.

              Again a tweek, as that thread I started about the PR push stated, it's pretty clear the team has been proactive about proclaiming changes. They just added a good draft pick and pulled off another big trade (ignoring the swap of picks). Those are big PR items too, especially if they are viewed as successful moves.

              So in that way they are "wins". The team has done something. Watch how quickly the interest in these new, nice guys fades if they only win 30 games. It's the "win on paper" syndrome which always generates buzz and interest.

              And the corollary to that is the lagging Colts ticket sales during the Manning era prior to the SB run. Even after establishing themselves as a top contender with star players worth watching the Colts STILL had a couple of non-TV games in 2003.

              Why? The "anti-win on paper", as in "sure they have those guys but I don't expect them to win". And the Colts weren't facing character issues during that time frame.


              This is not meant to discount your character image point, just to expand that image to add "ability to win or be interesting" to it.

              Frankly the buzz on draft night wasn't about getting rid of bad character guys, it was about adding quality assests for the first time in years, and partly due to having the highest pick they've had in awhile and the promise of trades for additional picks.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: A series of questions....

                Originally posted by Peck View Post

                I do NOT feel as though the owners of the Pacers or their subordinate Donnie Walsh ever took any real responsibility for the brawl, nor any of the ensuing off court incidents.
                DISCLAIMER: I IN NO WAY ENDORSE JAMAAL TINSLEY AS A PLAYER ON THIS TEAM.

                About the Brawl:

                What did you expect them to do? The league did everything when it came to discipline. As far as I'm concerned TPTB tried to defend their players as much as they could, in result helped lower Jermaine's suspension by a few games.

                In fact, it really wasn't TPTB's responsibility to take any kind of responisbility since it wasn't the Simons or Donnie Walsh going into the stands that night.

                Donnie Walsh publicly apologized for the incident, in which it wasn't his role to do in the first place, nor was Larry's. Not only did this incident hurt the fans, but it hurt the front office as well. They were the victims along with the fans.

                Club Rio:

                I feel like they did enough. When it came down to it, they were not going to punish Jax for anything he wasn't proven he did. When the time came, he was already off to Golden State. Then the League came down on him with that what, 5 game suspension? Fair.

                8 Seconds:

                Tinsley and Daniels did sit out the next game after the incident. I really stopped paying attention to the news after the Club Rio incident, but from what I understood that it was the same situation with Jackson, innocent until proven guilty. I think more could have been done, but that is in the past.

                Downtown Shooting:

                Tinsley was a victim. No doubt in my mind. Not deserving of disciplinary action.

                In conclusion, I feel like the front office has done all they could to the point in what the league has already done. If you get a stiff enough punishment from the NBA, there is no need for further team action unless it's taking away practice time or participation in team functions.

                I can't really say that TPTB were too light on the players involved in these events.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: A series of questions....

                  Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                  Peck,

                  Very well written and on point. If only I could get that same type of thoughtful, literate commentary from callers to the radio program.

                  MJB
                  Mark, if you're prepared to blow past commerical breaks I'm prepared to use/waste 20 minutes of air time with a call.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: A series of questions....

                    In an effort to mimic Peck, I too will let it out.



                    The brawl was awesome. The Pacers took on an entire stadium of fans that night. Mel Mel was swinging the dustpan, fans were throwing cups of beer at the team, players and coaches in suits were involved, Piston players families were involved, children were crying, JO laid some dude out big time, Larry Brown was nearly in tears trying to calm the place down, that dude on the PA actually gave up the mic for a few minutes, Freddie the Duck was getting tagged in the back of the head, David Harrison was trying to get over the scorer's table and all the while Ronnie and Jack looked like that scene from Slapshot where one of the brothers catches the keys in the face..."Is this him?" "No" "Is this him?". The suspensions were ridiculous. The talking heads spun their take on the subject 180 degrees within 24 hours.

                    I haven't been that excited about the NBA...ever.

                    The stuff that happened in the following years was comical to me. Jack gets his by a car and shoots his gun into the air. Jamaal, Quis & McLeod get into a fight at a traditionally country bar. Joey Quatro gets shot in Both elbows after a car chase downtown. Shawne Williams harbors a wanted man and oversleeps for his court date. You can't make this stuff up.

                    It was fun while it lasted and I wish they would have pulled it together because they were a talented bunch.
                    I'm in these bands
                    The Humans
                    Dr. Goldfoot
                    The Bar Brawlers
                    ME

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: A series of questions....

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      Agree to disagree.
                      Whale's vagina...carry on with the debate.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: A series of questions....

                        Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                        The brawl was awesome.

                        .......


                        I haven't been that excited about the NBA...ever.

                        .......

                        It was fun while it lasted
                        I'm sorry, but that's........ well, there's a lot of words/phrases I could use to finish that thought, and none of them are positive.

                        In summary:

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: A series of questions....

                          It may not of been great basketball and it certainly wasn't good for the Pacers, but for a dude in his mid-30's who sits around and watches 82 basketball games a year with a group of like minded beer drinkers we had a great time that night. It was awesome.
                          I'm in these bands
                          The Humans
                          Dr. Goldfoot
                          The Bar Brawlers
                          ME

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: A series of questions....

                            Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post


                            The brawl was awesome.
                            I haven't been that excited about the NBA...ever.

                            That has got to be the most uneducated post...ever.

                            In no way did that brawl have any positive implications for the fans, city, and franchise. I feel like mostly everyone else, that the brawl was the first step in creating the monster of a reputation that has taken us 4 years to try and repair.

                            I will now quote from the movie Billy Madison:

                            Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: A series of questions....

                              What can I say, I though it was fun to watch. I still think it's fun to watch.


                              Edit....I'm actually being serious. I'm a big basketball fan, too. You just don't see that ...ever.
                              I'm in these bands
                              The Humans
                              Dr. Goldfoot
                              The Bar Brawlers
                              ME

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: A series of questions....

                                Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                                What can I say, I though it was fun to watch. I still think it's fun to watch.


                                Edit....I'm actually being serious. I'm a big basketball fan, too. You just don't see that ...ever.

                                Yeah....okay

                                Umm...a big no on that one, sport.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X