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:
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

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

    It's long, but it's a must

    I'll just copy this one bit

    O'Neal: I don't know if I could ever apologize to the city of Indianapolis and the state of Indiana for that enough. I don't know if there's enough apologies in the world to give to that city. That city meant a lot to me. It still means a lot to me. For them to go through what they went through on a national scene and the embarrassment it brought to the city and my community and my organization, I apologize for. If there's anything you can get across, please get that across. I don't know if people understand that the people that were there from that regime, from the brawl, could not shake it. We couldn't shake that whole thing. It seemed like the team was fractured.

  • #2
    Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

    Just finished reading this...damn that was a good team. :-(


    • #3
      Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

      I just finished reading it myself and was coming to share it if someone else had not already.

      Absolutely must-read for any of us who were around back then to watch and react to that. I know a lot about it, but I learned new things (people who were there that I didn't realize, what happened in the locker room immediately afterwards, miscellaneous other details) and there were a lot of reflective quotes from many of the people involved that night.

      The article I felt could have been a little better in terms of including some other facts (thinking right now of other issues that hurt the Pacers after the brawl; like Tinsley's off court stuff, and then also neglecting to mention Roy as one of our new bright spots), but it's mostly good stuff.

      I felt a little emotional by the time I got done reading it. We're STILL feeling the repercussions of that damned thing.

      I almost wish I had taken notes because at various points I wanted to stop and write commentary about it on here.


      • #4
        Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

        I found it interesting that the guy who Jermaine punched was previously banned from the arena and security had asked him to leave at halftime. Did not know that. Pretty good article, but honestly, I hope it doesn't become a BIG article. The Pacers are finally past all that mess and it is just going to open up old wounds.



        • #5
          Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

          Always ALWAYS will remember how Stern punked the *** out of us

          Ben Wallace started it, but got the least suspension of all parties involved

          Yeah Ron was in the worng but so was the NBA, I really thought we might go to the finals that year. The we panicked and over reacted the following year and it was downhill until this year
          Sittin on top of the world!


          • #6
            Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

            Such a great read. I just had a small back and forth with the author on Twitter. He had this to say:

            Jonathan Abrams ‏ @Jpdabrams
            @BPump33 hopefully JO's last quote means a great deal to you

            When I read JO's quote, I honestly almost teared up. A change was absolutely needed and getting Roy made the deal even better, but what a classy thing for JO to say.
            Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers


            • #7
              Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

              I just mentioned this article in the post-game thread for the game last night.

              Reading that article made me compare the character/mental stability of the guys on this team against the guys on that team. That team was SO talented - probably the most confident I have ever been at the beginning of a season that we would be playing in the finals. But that team lacked character/mental stability with a couple of its leaders, and that was the downfall.

              Comparing players from that team to this team, by the way Tyler plays on the court, and his reputation as "Psycho T", Tyler would be one of the first guys you might think would be crazy enough to lose it during a game. However, watching him for the past couple years has really made me grow to appreciate his character. He certainly plays more "rugged" and at times, out of control, than any other player on our team. He dishes out more elbows, pushes, shoves, runs guys over, and generally plays like a tornado. (Not all that different to the Ron Artest style).

              However, when the whistle blows, Tyler typically keeps his mouth shut and stops the action. He keeps his hard-nosed efforts between the lines and quits when the echo of the whistle is over. I respect him for it. It would be tough to be a guy who hits, and gets hit, as much as he does, to keep his cool. But he generally does. I really respect it and don't miss the chirping of Stephen Jackson / Jermaine O'Neal / Scott Pollard, who weren't as rugged but found ways to get into arguments with officials and players on a regular basis. And I don't miss the Ron-Ron who wrecked the franchise.


              • #8
                Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                I haven't read it just yet. I saw Mike Wells post the link earlier today but I was busy. After seeing your thoughts/comments, I cannot wait to read it.


                • #9
                  Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                  This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but I thought I'd share anyway. From the day of the brawl until an hour ago I have ALWAYS blamed Ben Wallace. Always. To me, he was absolutely scum. The article changed that quite a bit. To see that Ron went after him for the sole purpose of delivering a cheap shot AND it was pre-meditated makes me a little sick. I always assumed the foul was just Ron being Ron and playing the whole 48 minutes.

                  I still think Wallace overreacted, but I understand his frustration a little more now. A lot of people did A LOT of things wrong that night, but I will no longer solely blame Ben Wallace. It was probably stupid that I did, anyway.
                  Last edited by BPump33; 02-29-2012, 12:03 PM.
                  Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers


                  • #10
                    Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                    This section sums it up for me:

                    Olko: I got asked questions like how many investigators I had on it. Well, one. We were dealing with other things going on in the community. Where should I invest my resources? On the millionaires with misdemeanor cases?

                    McCosky: The coverage of it went on for months, and you would think people actually died or whatnot. People kind of lost sight of how it started and who was actually involved and who was a peacemaker. It just became another ugly mark on Detroit.

                    O'Neal: [Everyone] decided to talk about the negative things. I honestly believe that's why the dress code came into play. Because all of a sudden now the league is "out of control." I watched the analysts, the so-called analysts, on national TV say the NBA is too hip-hoppish. And it really blew me away that supposed analysts would even first of all say that. Your choice of music doesn't dictate who you are as a person. Right after the brawl, the dress code came into play.

                    Olko: One surprising thing that happened was how much flak we got from the public. People from Detroit were angry that we didn't arrest the Pacers. Indianapolis people said we only prosecuted Pacer players because we were partial to the Detroit team — which is just goofy. Again, misdemeanor assaults.

                    Ham: I think [the media] twisted it. Out-of-control NBA players were at the forefront of the story as opposed to fan behavior. [Fans] talk about a player can't shoot or can't dribble, that's one thing. But I've seen things in the past when fans start talking about a player's kids, their wives — to even cross the line furthermore, to throw something, I don't think that particular part of the story was addressed properly or as extensive as these "wild black guys playing in the NBA." It's unfortunate, but that's the society we live in.
                    Olko is the Detroit police guy; McClosky is a Detroit journalist.

                    The thing that amazed me (and still does) is how it turned into such a big deal. How the Pacers suddenly became painted as villains, as the embodiment of everything's that's wrong in society.

                    I'm not saying our guys were angels - Artest, Sjax, J.O. all did wrong - but their crimes were basically at a bar-room brawl level, escalated into a public spectacle thanks to the lack of crowd control and the presence of TV cameras.

                    Frankly, it seems like the Pacers' real crime was in damaging the NBA's carefully cultivated public image, and that's why the hammer came down disproportionately on our side.


                    • #11
                      Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                      Massive failure by Detroit and the NBA. They were on the same level as the Pacers and even the fans in this case. How do you not have proper security for a team based in Detroit, and how do the refs let this get out of control to the extent where Wallace and Artest were in a cheapshot contest? Pathetic.

                      Amazing story, a must read for any NBA fan.


                      • #12
                        Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                        You almost forget how good/dominant of a team that Pacer team was. You look at some of those guys now, J.O (old and broken down) World Peace (avg 4 ppg) Tinsley (can't get off the bench behind Harris and Watson) and it just makes you think. What would have happened if this never took place? Where would that team have gone? Would we win a championship? How many? SO many lives and careers were forever changed on that day.

                        And I still remember it like it were yesterday....


                        • #13
                          Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                          The immaturity is on full display. Saying you know how wrong it is to be involved in something like that, but then saying you don't know what you would do if it happened again is shocking.

                          Just so focused on whether or not going into the stands was the right course of action, misses the much bigger problem of being able to keep your head in the moment.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.


                          • #14
                            Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                            I'm glad someone (maybe Boyle) brought up the fact that it wasn't the brawl that set the Pacers back, it was Ron demanding a trade. I think that is what really pissed everyone off, I know it did for me. I stood behind Ron until he demanded a trade, but once he did, I was soooo pissed.



                            • #15
                              Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                              An excellent article, but boy am I depressed now.

                              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...