#23 — Brown Goes Down

[dekedangle_rpf_mod]

This is the twenty-third post of Deke Dangle RPF Anon, a community for all your ice hockey anon meme needs.

THE RULES

1. Mods retain the right to delete, freeze, and/or screen threads and comments.
2. Meme rules do not require warnings.
3. Respect flock. Do not repost or share information from private tumblrs, locked twitter accounts, flocked LJ posts, etc.
4. No linking fans to their real life identities.
5. No looks bashing or body shaming. This applies to players and people associated with those players and their clubs, as well as fellow fans.
6. No embedded music.
7. No embedded images.
8. No spamming the meme, whether through repeated comments or other means. 
9. No discussing trolling, individual trolls, or their efforts.





Meme rules do not require spoiler cuts. However, this layout does allow for them. Any of the following tags will create a spoiler cut when closed: <div cut>, <span cut>, <font cut>, <font color="white">

If you have any questions or concerns, please direct them to The Mod Post. 

Threaded View
Flat View
Top-Level Comment View

Next post opens at 5,000 comments.

Comments

Re: What's Up With Your Team? - Playoffs Round 2

[(Anonymous)]

The 18 month things only applies to how it affects fines. When it comes to length of suspension, they consider their entire history.

Re: What's Up With Your Team? - Playoffs Round 2

[(Anonymous)]

Wasn't this just discussed and explained on meme like two days ago wrt the Orpik suspension, lol?

Re: What's Up With Your Team? - Playoffs Round 2

[(Anonymous)]

It comes up in almost every discussion of every suspension everywhere on the internet, sometimes multiple times per discussion, and despite the fact that it gets corrected every time, it just keeps spreading. It honestly drives me up the wall, although it does have some usefulness in determining whose opinions and arguments you can just ignore.

Re: What's Up With Your Team? - Playoffs Round 2

[(Anonymous)]

I thought that they could consider it, but not call them "repeat offenders."

Re: What's Up With Your Team? - Playoffs Round 2

[(Anonymous)]

Probably, but no one called Letang a "repeat offender," they just said his history had been taken into account. It was only a-ayrt-rt who made that leap and clearly confused the two (18-month "repeat offender" vs. player with history of supplementary discipline).

Re: What's Up With Your Team? - Playoffs Round 2

[(Anonymous)]

http://dekedangle-rpfanon.dreamwidth.org/6145.html?thread=29067009#cmt29067009

No, it was this comment that seemed to be equating them.

Re: What's Up With Your Team? - Playoffs Round 2

[(Anonymous)]

No, that comment didn't equate them, although it probably wouldn't have been clear to anyone who didn't already know the distinction.

Re: What's Up With Your Team? - Playoffs Round 2

[(Anonymous)]

And the person who replied to it was clearly confused on their own if they thought Torres' suspension was the only one where history had been taken into account.