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

    Reading this gave me the same "I could throw up" feeling I had when it happened.


    And man, do I remember how furious I was when Artest demanded the trade. I distinctly remember where I was standing when a buddy called and told me Artest wanted out. My first response: "After what he did?!"

    And I have always had no respect for the Piston fan base since that. I still maintain that the lions share of the blame lies with the fans/refs/Ben/Ron. Everyone else was so secondary IMO.

    Argh. I'm all kinds of ticked off again. Freaking Pisstons. Freaking Ron. Freaking Stern.

    On the positive side, it is nice to see how far they've (The Pacers) come as a franchise. But man, this story is still heartbreaking for me.

    Comment


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

      PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

      Comment


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

        "What does integrity mean?" pretty much sums Ron up for me.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          the fan reaction at 8:55-9:25 of Mac Rat's video... wow.
          ANd that pretty much sums up what the real reaction to the brawl the fans had. They loved it... There was a real solidarity building with-in the fan base the year of the brawl. The majority of the fans felt the Pacer's had been screwed by the league with the way it all went down. They loved rooting for the 6 player roster the night following. Nobody blamed Artest for what happened, everyone said "well yeah if some drunk threw his beer at me I'd do the same thing". Also lets face it everyone loved being the talk of the NBA, of the sports world. I truly believe that most Pacer fans were ready to rally behind Artest as the ultimate FU to the league. Even with Reggie retired most people expected that 05-06 team to come out the gates with a vengence and contend for the championship. The fans loved and believed in Artest. It wasn't until he asked to be traded did the **** hit the fan. The fans felt just as betrayed as the players felt.

          Some body said Artest made a very selfish decision that night. I disagree. That was a young man who was pushed to the edge of his own self. Artest was a very focused player that short season and you could tell he was very aware of his own behavior by the fact that he tried to diminish the situation by walking away, and he basically tried to block out what was happening when he went to the scores table. Sometimes people develop a reputation that precedes them. That reputation sort of layers over whatever they do. So Ron laying on the table was taken as showing up the crowd and Piston's players.
          Sometimes people just wont' let you be good.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            ANd that pretty much sums up what the real reaction to the brawl the fans had. They loved it...
            Uh... SOME fans loved it. Others of us most definitely did NOT.

            Comment


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

              As I head off for the night and reflect on that day one last time before bed... you know... it still hurts.

              Comment


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

                I love the Brown quotes. He captures the terror of being caught up against a mob very well. In many ways we're lucky there were no truly tragic injuries to come out of that night. Boyle's back sounds like the worst injury, and it sounds like he was able to make a nice recovery there.

                SJack's quotes are so great in terms of material. Very lucid and he explains himself very well. Some of the article's best moments came from him. The "will we be in trouble?" moment clinches the piece. I still don't like him much but I appreciate his openness here.

                Also this confirms my suspicion that anyone who knew Ron on a day-to-day basis almost had to know he had serious mental issues that he wasn't taking seriously. So many quotes about the vacant look in his eye, the obliviousness to consequences, the super-delicate way people knew they had to handle him in, etc. I mean in one sense you pity the guy. It's a sad case. But you can tell the difference between a person with serious issues who still feels impervious to the destruction he brings on himself and a person who has hit rock bottom and is no longer in denial about their problems. Both types will still screw up, but you can trust the latter in a way you can't the former. That our management was insane enough to hitch so much of our success to someone who was so clearly unstable is just. . . well I don't get it. As fans who didn't know Ron as Ron we wanted to believe he was more reliable than that, but apparently the people who had to have known didn't care that he wasn't. . .

                I liked the line about Sheed being cerebral. I loved Sheed's game. Such a perplexing guy. His post defense was an art to watch, and very fluid offensively. That he had the skills for being "the man" yet never wanted to be that was interesting to me.

                The security and the refs will always be the biggest bummer about that night for me. Swift ejections and the story of that game doesn't last 48 hours in the news cycle. Given how vile and drunk some NBA fans get a fan-player altercation should have been prepared for. And the detail about the banned fan still being there is just too much. If security doesn't have the balls to keep a banned fan out how are they going to really protect anyone when **** gets serious.
                Last edited by SoupIsGood; 03-01-2012, 12:49 AM.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                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.
                  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?

                  Honestly that was one of the most exciting Pacer seasons ever. We showed the league that we were a really good team regardless of all the suspensions and turmoil. I really wish Reggie did not retire that season and would have given it another go with that team.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Reading thois and I am only about 1/3 of the way thru brings back so many emotions. Not sure I can ever look at it without emotion. Montieth's quote stick out to me. I think besides Nunez the other two refs should have been fired after the game. I think blaming Ron for getting on the scorers table is really misplaced.



                    Jim Gray (sideline reporter, ESPN): The Pistons were the problem. It was the Pistons who initiated this, the Pistons fans and Wallace were the guys who were the aggressors here.fficeffice" />>>

                    wow UB I think it's crazy but I was going back through some threads today after reading through the comments here in this particular thread, and reading the article and you posted this in a thread where ESPN brought it up after 5 years and your response to it then was:

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I forgot how much time passed between the Ben Wallace push of Artest until the cup hit Artest. That is several minutes of the players just standing around acting tough. My memory shortened that time a great deal. That is when the refs should have taken over, they just stood there - each of those three refs should have been fired - except supposedly that is what the refs were taught to do . Joey Crawford wouldn't have done that, he would have gotten Ben and Ronnie, Stephen and others away and it never would have esculated to the point that it did

                    Comment


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

                      Larry Brown and Ben Wallace are unapologetic asses. I'm sorry. Ron was wrong, but I feel zero sympathy or understanding for Detroit, who continue to act like they have some high horse to sit on there or something. And ESPN, looking for the easy storyline, just let them do that.

                      EDIT: This thing just pisses me off SO much to this day. Detroit got away with a slap on the wrist. Indiana was wrecked. By Stern's precedent, every stadium should shower opposing players with beer, run on the court and attempt to fight them in order to get them suspended. Screw everything David Stern did in reaction to that night. Detroit should have played in an empty stadium for the rest of that season. I still hate that team, and their fans, to this day, and wish them nothing but the worst going forward. I hope they continue to rely on Ben Gordon 25-foot chucks for eternity.
                      Last edited by Dr. Hibbert; 03-01-2012, 01:22 AM.

                      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.
                        I'm thanking this post because I'd like to know if there is a link as well.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                          Larry Brown and Ben Wallace are unapologetic asses. I'm sorry. Ron was wrong, but I feel zero sympathy or understanding for Detroit, who continue to act like they have some high horse to sit on there or something. And ESPN, looking for the easy storyline, just let them do that.

                          EDIT: This thing just pisses me off SO much to this day. Detroit got away with a slap on the wrist. Indiana was wrecked. By Stern's precedent, every stadium should shower opposing players with beer, run on the court and attempt to fight them in order to get them suspended. Screw everything David Stern did in reaction to that night. Detroit should have played in an empty stadium for the rest of that season. I still hate that team, and their fans, to this day, and wish them nothing but the worst going forward. I hope they continue to rely on Ben Gordon 25-foot chucks for eternity.
                          I'd add some fans have a little growing up to do as well, but whatever. That's sports for you.

                          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.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


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

                            I just wonder where/when ESPN got its directive to change the story.

                            If you watched that live, as I did, the first reaction was to vilify the Detroit fans. During the actual broadcast and immediately postgame, the ESPN guys were talking about the sickening behavior of Detroit fans, how those fans needed to be singled out and punished, how this was just a terrible display by Detroit fans.

                            Woke up the next morning and it was all Artest's fault. No mention of the fans again. Just Artest. Hell, John Green even managed to become painted as a victim. It's like someone came in to ESPN at 3am that night and said "no, this is the story we're going with, start saying this and pretend like you never said anything immediately after it happened".

                            That's one of my biggest issues with this, the way the media just did a complete 180, and in the interest of simplicity, put EVERYTHING on Artest.

                            But, yes, I guess Indiana was asking for some sort of catastrophe by continuing to keep Artest on a loose leash.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              I'd add some fans have a little growing up to do as well, but whatever. That's sports for you.

                              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.
                              Yes, I hope your team fails for the rest of eternity. It's the one thing I'm still bitter about in sports, and always will be. Detroit got away with murder. Sue me.

                              Comment


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

                                Yes, we're appreciative of the extra timeouts called by Larry Brown.

                                If you think that makes up for the actions of your fans, Palace Security, Ben Wallace, etc. the night of the brawl, you're nuts.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X