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

An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

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

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

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    This is begging to be a documentary, right? 30 for 30?

    Also, I was just thinking about the next forum party we had after the brawl. That was amazing going over it with a group like that. Did we even talk about anything else?

    I forget the exact timeline. Wasn't the forum party about a week or two after the brawl? Honestly, I do not have a vivid memory of the forum party right after the brawl, I think the brawl was too fresh in my mind at that time to fully comprehend what had just happened.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
      By love. I mean they sort of reveled at the situation. Their Pacer pride shown thru. Are you telling me that you didn't feel cheated by the league? Was your soul not stirred by the team making it to the 2nd round in such a crazy season only to fall to the Piston's in 6 games. Excited for the following year at the idea of the team making a comeback with Artest?
      Don't confuse loving how the team reacted to adversity with loving the Brawl. Fans would have had the same reaction to anything that took out the top players and the bench guys were forced to comeback hard.

      Yes, I agree that there was heat for the screw job people felt Stern did on the team. Again, that wasn't "love" for the Brawl or even condoning it - it was a feeling that the punishment was excessive, not undeserved.

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      I will add that Larry Brown showed a great deal of class exhausting his remaining timeouts at the end of game 6 when series was in hand to allow Reggie to get an extended standing ovation, and all of the pistons players applauded as well. Everyone here was very appreciative of that gesture at the time, but nobody mentions that moment anymore.
      That's a bit unfair. They don't mention it when talking about the Brawl. They mention it when talking about Reggie's last game. Context is important.

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      This is begging to be a documentary, right? 30 for 30?
      Please, not for at least a full generation of fans. I understand the depth of the subject, but the last thing we need is a national film reminding people of that day while we are still teetering on the brink of respectability in many minds.
      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


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

        Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
        The story was Stern personally put pressure on ESPN over that..

        I thought it was confirmed by either the NBA or ESPN, that yes Stern and or his office made it clear that what they said Friday night right after the brawl was not going to be tolerated. Maybe my memory is off

        Comment


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

          Some interesting old quotes:

          Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
          What Stern did tonight was related to player conduct only.

          There will be action taken against the Pistons organization in some way.

          Also, some of you need to remember, like Peck mentioned, O'Neal & Jackson will be back before the start of the playoffs.

          All we need to do is slide in at 7 or 8. Last season Boston was an 8 seed with a 36-46 record. If anyone doubts we will be under .500 by the end of the year I sure like to hear from them.

          We have lots of talent on this team & now is the time they will get to show it. Even Bender will get a shot after the first of the year.

          Finally, & this is by far the most important. This group will come together like no other team in Pacer history. They will be so focused by mid April they could sweep thru the playoffs.

          You think we had "One Goal" before, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            I have a whole new level of respect for the guys that were there during that incident. Having to endure the Brawl and then seeing Ron bailing on everyone like this must feel like ****. And afterwards just like this punishment wasn't enough, having to endure the Obie years is just the icing of the cake.

            Yet you did not give up. You continued to support the team and some of you even continued to believe.
            Being the 2007 Sunshiner of the Year was hard work.......
            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
              I'll say it. I was embarassed. Those guys had our state's name on the front of their jerseys. It kills me going back to that night. Regardless of personal agendas, venegance, etc., this was a very dark time for Indiana when it came to sports.

              It was all over TV, on the front page of SI, ESPN, etc. I hate that whenever anyone references to the worst fracas in all of sports history, Indiana is on the shirt of one of the teams involved.

              It didn't bother me so much it being on the local news or even ESPN and all the sports shows and sports cable channels, but when it was on ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS news and national news shows that was when it hit me and really bothered me.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I thought it was confirmed by either the NBA or ESPN, that yes Stern and or his office made it clear that what they said Friday night right after the brawl was not going to be tolerated. Maybe my memory is off
                I didn't know this until now. Honestly, this is the part of the story that interests me most. Would be fascinated to hear exactly what that directive was, and why ESPN chose to accept it so easily (well, that might be obvious with broadcast rights/revenue, but for NO ONE to fight it?!)

                Comment


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

                  I would have to see a quote before I beleive that.

                  As for why no one would fight it
                  • ESPN has NBA licensing
                  • Employees like collecting a paycheck

                  Comment


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

                    Boy, the more you read the more PO'd you get. Here's two more you guys might have discussed already...

                    David Wallace (Ben Wallace's brother): I just got caught up in the heat of the moment. When you don't have time to think about something, there's not always a thought process involved.15
                    Listen jerk, you got up out of your seat TWO SECTIONS AWAY, BEFORE THE CUP WAS THROWN and began to make your way over to the Pacers bench area so you could punch Ron Artest.

                    That's not "heat of the moment". You pushed through the crowd for 10 seconds, had time to think about it, and then kept making your way forward. Then 20 seconds more and you are still thinking "this is a good idea".

                    You punched FRED JONES FROM BEHIND when Ron went into the stands. Not Ron, not even Jack. You went looking to punch ANYONE, way before things were really out of hand, and YOU WERE PART OF WHAT MADE IT REALLY BAD.

                    This is the dude's view of it on RETROSPECT. Jackson is all over the place saying "I was mad but..." or "I wanted to protect Ron but...".

                    But Wallace just gives us a "hey, I couldn't help myself" when he had the least justification for his actions.


                    And then of course the biggest d-bag in the world, the guy that literally pulled an intentional "OLE" to avoid Ron, rather than manning up and saying "whoa, I did it, calm down, it was a mistake"....
                    John Green (the fan who lobbed a drink at Artest): I never intended to hit anyone. The day I threw the cup I forgot about the laws of physics. I hope that no one ever throws anything at The Palace again.11
                    Forgot about gravity?? Doubtful. What does that even mean, you made the cup leave your hand in the direction of Ron because you thought what, that it would float up to the roof like a Willie Wonka room?

                    No, you didn't forget physics, you were COUNTING ON THEM.

                    And this "one in a million" view that people take is BS too. Let's say he misses Ron. So what, how is that better. Let's say Boyle gets hit with that beer. You don't think this inspires other drunks (guys that admittedly were looking to fight a player) to throw stuff.

                    Let's do a check. What did hundreds of other fans do after the brawl got going? They threw stuff. A guy blasted Ron with a beer in the face when he ran up to grab the wrong guy.

                    So Green missing Ron doesn't fix it. Maybe the beer hits Boyle and it's still p****s Ron off because maybe he likes Boyle. Or maybe Slick gets hit. How is this in any way better?


                    That's the issue, the issue is that David Wallace thought it was reasonable to leave his seat and make his way to the Pacers bench to fight and Green thought it was acceptable to throw anything at anyone in that moment.

                    This was the crowd mentality at that point, BEFORE RON LEFT THE COURT. It was a drunken, violent mob, period. The evidence is there to see before any player does anything wrong. And a hard retaliation foul does not warrant a drunken mob reaction.



                    Even if Ron never left the bench, fans were going to shower them with crap when they walked out the tunnel. That is obvious as **** to me.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                      I would have to see a quote before I beleive that.

                      As for why no one would fight it
                      • ESPN has NBA licensing
                      • Employees like collecting a paycheck
                      I don't need to see a quote. I saw the broadcast during and immediately after the brawl, then I saw SportsCenter the next morning. Night and day. It was clear something had changed, along the lines of a Rupert Murdoch-esque mandate.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        Don't confuse loving how the team reacted to adversity with loving the Brawl.
                        I clearly am not. It has been stated in 2 posts. The fans reaction to the brawl was love for their Pacers. They circled the wagons.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Uh... SOME fans loved it. Others of us most definitely did NOT.
                          I agree, but I think Graphic-er is on to something. Let's say Ron comes back, busts his butt and shows us his apologies on the court with great play and support for his teammates. Let's say JO respects Carlisle and doesn't go off in the locker room about his touches.

                          Let's just say that Tins, Ron, JO and Jackson show true contrition and respect for the team and fans over the next 3-4 years.

                          Well that team would have been LOVED by fans. It would have been seen as fighting the adversity of a crap hostile arena and a crap commissioner.


                          Now looking back we blend their post-brawl actions in with the initial reaction that season. We judge them not for the brawl but for trade demands, touches demands, coaching complaints, Rio, 8 Seconds, Cloud Nine, Shawne Williams, and whatever it was Tinsley was doing on the court at that point.

                          That's fair, but it's not the same emotions as we had when Ron returned at FanJam. At that moment we were about to begin the "payback" tour on the league, and that's how they should have handled it. Those guys had it in their hands to do something really special, and that's when they blew it.

                          When the heat of the moment left and they had time to think about choices the began making a series of disastrous ones.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            It didn't bother me so much it being on the local news or even ESPN and all the sports shows and sports cable channels, but when it was on ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS news and national news shows that was when it hit me and really bothered me.
                            I figured everyone would get the point without me being too long-winded.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                              I don't need to see a quote. I saw the broadcast during and immediately after the brawl, then I saw SportsCenter the next morning. Night and day. It was clear something had changed, along the lines of a Rupert Murdoch-esque mandate.
                              Yeah, I saw the same thing....live

                              Sorry, I just dont buy Stern told them something, unless it is more then a "rumor" floating around the net.

                              I always thought ESPN might have had the higher ups say something....and maybe that came from Stern. Or maybe it didnt....

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                                Is there any thread on here that someone can provide a link to that game thread? I don't want to necro it to have it being commented on argued and debated over for the next month or anything, but even if it's just in a PM I'd like to go back and reread that game thread or a thread that kind of encapsulates how everyone was reacting at the time.
                                If I recall correctly, at that time PD was utilizing a chat program for game discussions. So there is not a game thread for that night. As an archivist, I am annoyed. On a personal level, it's good I don't know what I said as it was happening.

                                I just remember how shocked we were, how quickly the chat quieted, and then we all started talking at once. It was a mortifying experience. It felt like I was somehow there with the team, even though I was on my computer talking in a chat room at home.

                                This was an excellent piece of journalism. I don't think about that night often, but when I do, I still feel sick to my stomach.
                                Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X