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

What is "max-worthy"

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

  • What is "max-worthy"

    So, what does it take to be a max contract player?

    2 years after the signing, is JO worth a max deal?

    Clearly Tim Duncan is. When Duncan signed his deal in 2003, he had lead the Spurs to their second title. When JO signed his max deal in 2003 for slightly more(in the league a year longer), he had never taken the Pacers out of the first round.

    When a player gets the max, I take it that they themselves are ready to lead the francchise. They are indirectly signing a commitment to be the face of the franchise, and to do everything they can to lead them to the promise land. I believe that court production is just half of what it takes to be max-worthy. You have to lead vocally, and by example.

    Ironically, JO attacking fans bothered me alot more than Ron and SJAX. My problems with Ron are based far beyond what happened on November 19. That was the "icing on the cake" so to speak.

    I would expect less from Ron and SJAX, because they are average contract players. They arent being paid the big bucks to lead the team. JO is a max player. I thought that JO would have been more mature than that. It really bothered me that "the new face of the franchise" was clobbering fans in Detroit. JO let the fans and the franchise down, plain and simple. What Ron and SJAX did was just as awful, but JO is the franchise now. You can believe that Ron is the key if you want to, and you can make a valid point. But if you believe that, you must believe that JO is severely overpaid.

    Obviously the Pacers had to pay JO the max if they wanted to retain him. He would have bolten to SA. I firmly believe that. If the Pacers would have made a lesser offer, he would have felt extremely disrespected. He didn't merit a max contract at the time. I wouldn't pay a player the max that couldnt lead the team past the Celts, the same Celts team that got smoked by NJ in the next series.

    In a perfect world, the Pacers would have JO on the roster with a reasonable contract. Only Duncan and SHaqlike players deserve such large sums of cash.

    JO-production wise on court, skill wise: top 10 without a doubt

    JO-leadership wise, not even close to top.

    I like having his skills on my team, but I don't think he is a capable leader........yet.

  • #2
    Re: What is "max-worthy"

    I'd rather wait to see if he becomes a leader on the pacers.

    I wouldnt like watching to see if he would become a leader on another team.

    So,it was kind of a do or die type thing as far as the contract goes,Because just like you said, He would've went to SA.You know it,I know it,Everyone on here knows it.
    LoneGranger33 said
    Agreed. As the members of Guns and Roses once said, "every rose has its thorn".

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What is "max-worthy"

      First off, JO didn't go in the stands I don't think. If he did, wouldn't his suspension be at least as long as SJax's?

      Secondly, he is signed for 7 years. He has played 2 of those 7 years. The first year he got us to the ECF and who knows what would have happened had he not gotten that freak injury and if Tinsley was healthy. This past year, well we all know what happened, and he got us to the second round, where we lost in 6 to the team thats in the Finals now.

      Given the circumstances, I would say he is max-worthy right now, but you can't really say until it becomes apparent that he won't get his to the Finals.

      Wait until we can have a normal season with this current team (or whatever team we have at the start of the season) before we say he can't be a leader. I don't know if he can be an emotional leader, but I know that SJax defintley can as long as it doesn't get him to many T's.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What is "max-worthy"

        Imagine if JO went to the Spurs. Good God, they would have won the championship everytime for the next 5 years

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: What is "max-worthy"

          Originally posted by Brian
          I'd rather wait to see if he becomes a leader on the pacers.

          I wouldnt like watching to see if he would become a leader on another team.

          So,it was kind of a do or die type thing as far as the contract goes,Because just like you said, He would've went to SA.You know it,I know it,Everyone on here knows it.

          You make a good point.

          It's just that so far, I haven't seen "leader" in him.

          IMO, if a player has never even taken you out of the first round, as JO had not in 03, then he isnt max-worthy.

          They obviously felt like they had to keep him.......at any price.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: What is "max-worthy"

            Originally posted by Dr Huxtable
            First off, JO didn't go in the stands I don't think. If he did, wouldn't his suspension be at least as long as SJax's?

            Secondly, he is signed for 7 years. He has played 2 of those 7 years. The first year he got us to the ECF and who knows what would have happened had he not gotten that freak injury and if Tinsley was healthy. This past year, well we all know what happened, and he got us to the second round, where we lost in 6 to the team thats in the Finals now.

            Given the circumstances, I would say he is max-worthy right now, but you can't really say until it becomes apparent that he won't get his to the Finals.

            Wait until we can have a normal season with this current team (or whatever team we have at the start of the season) before we say he can't be a leader. I don't know if he can be an emotional leader, but I know that SJax defintley can as long as it doesn't get him to many T's.
            Fair enough. He didn't run into the stands like a maniac, but he nailed that one guy pretty bad. The point I was making is that he attacked fans. That's the bottom line.

            ECF's is nice, but he has to get to the finals to justify that contract at all.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: What is "max-worthy"

              Originally posted by Jermaniac
              Imagine if JO went to the Spurs. Good God, they would have won the championship everytime for the next 5 years

              Maybe, maybe not.

              As it is now, the Spurs could win the championship a couple times over the next 5 yeras.

              The Spurs have one of the lower team salarys in the league. I would rather have their deep squad now, than to have 2 maximum contract players in Duncan and JO.

              When you have a player in the post as amazing as Duncan, all you need is some strong perimeter players, along with solid role players. They have those. You don't need to spend the max on another powerforward who isn't as great as Duncan.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: What is "max-worthy"

                very few max players get their team to the finals and win a championship....

                if u compare jo to tim duncan....hmmm...thats a toughie....tim duncan is the exception and not the rule...no other way around it....29 other teams would love to have tim duncan....

                with the cba being what it is....an attempt to control spending and cap players salaries...ur gonna have many guys making the same money....thats not to say that duncan isnt worth more...but the way it was going they had to stop it....shaqs gonna make 30 million next year-is he worth it...its just a tough call...

                think about this....compared to duncan maybe jo not worth it....though hes not far off from duncan....forgetting salaries right now....who would u realistically trade jo for???

                now....think about this....allan houston will make 19 million next year...penny hardaway will make 16 million as will stephon marbury(god the knicks suck)...chris webber will make 19 million next year....allen iverson 16 million...keith van horn will make 16 million next year...michael finley 16 million...jalen rose will make 16 million...

                now compared to those guys, how does jermaines 16 million look?

                the guy finished 3rd in the mvp voting and led his team to the ECF his first year of his max contract....he was on the way to another super year this year before the brawl...and his team as well as himself would probably had another stellar year if not for the brawl....so say what u will....but he seems to be far more worthy of the max than most...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: What is "max-worthy"

                  Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                  Fair enough. He didn't run into the stands like a maniac, but he nailed that one guy pretty bad. The point I was making is that he attacked fans. That's the bottom line.

                  ECF's is nice, but he has to get to the finals to justify that contract at all.
                  He has 5 more years to do that

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: What is "max-worthy"

                    think about it this way....how many teams would give up both nuts to have jermaine and his max contract....
                    whether hes worth the money is not really the question....i mean who is worth 20 million a year???? i guess when theres someone willing to pay that much.....in this case theres probably close to 30 people/teams willing to pay him that much

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: What is "max-worthy"

                      People are being tough on J.O. He played injured throughout the playoffs so his production in the playoffs does not equate to how good of a player he is.

                      To P.F.A.: I don't mind J.O. was involved in the brawl. This whole year will make our team chemistry very very well next year when we are dominating other teams and win 60+ games.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: What is "max-worthy"

                        In order to discuss the "worthiness" of a max contract one can of course let personal bias be the judge, in which case you get the kind of post as the one that started this thread, or you can let "the market" decide that worthiness and once you land one like the Pacers did, you "hope" for the best as in a comparison with other "max" players.

                        it is of course the comparison with other "max" players that decides whether the person the Pacers gave a max contract to is worthy of that honour, letting the market craze of the moment you signed him (where more the just SA was interested in JO who they all knew would command a max contract) sit aside you look at what information you can gather and then decide.

                        Now, let's look at who has a max (or very close to) contract in this league:

                        (source hoopshype)

                        Top NBA Salaries
                        1. Shaquille O'Neal Miami $27,696,429
                        2. Dikembe Mutombo New Jersey / Houston $18,771,511
                        3. Allan Houston New York $17,531,250
                        -. Chris Webber Philadelphia $17,531,250
                        5. Kevin Garnett Minnesota $16,000,000
                        6. Jason Kidd New Jersey $14,791,000
                        (unmentioned) JO $ 14,782,000
                        7. Anfernee Hardaway New York $14,625,000
                        -. Antoine Walker Boston $14,625,000
                        -. Shareef Abdur-Rahim Portland $14,625,000
                        -. Stephon Marbury New York $14,625,000
                        -. Zydrunas Illgauskas Cleveland $14,625,000
                        -. Ray Allen Seattle $14,625,000
                        -. Allen Iverson Philadelphia $14,625,000
                        14. Michael Finley Dallas $14,609,375
                        15. Grant Hill Orlando $14,487,000
                        -. Keith Van Horn Dallas $14,487,000
                        -. Jalen Rose Toronto $14,487,000
                        -. Tracy McGrady Houston $14,487,000
                        -. Latrell Sprewell Minnesota $14,462,500
                        20. Tim Duncan San Antonio $14,260,640
                        21. Kobe Bryant LA Lakers $14,175,000
                        22. Eddie Jones Miami $13,455,000
                        23. Brian Grant LA Lakers $13,233,434
                        24. Tim Thomas New York $12,900,000
                        25. Antawn Jamison Washington $12,584,688
                        -. Vince Carter New Jersey $12,584,688
                        -. Dirk Nowitzki Dallas $12,584,688
                        28. Paul Pierce Boston $12,569,688
                        29. Damon Stoudamire Portland $12,500,000
                        30. Baron Davis Golden State $12,330,000

                        Next when going down that list you decide on "who is better then JO":

                        Shaq / KG / TD / KB / TMac / ............

                        Now we can easily decide that JO is a top 10 player, which without a doubt he is, and lo and behold, he is a top 10 earner as well!

                        Now see what other teams have to "live" with as "their max player"......

                        JO has shown his heart, has shown his qualities, will show his leadership.
                        If anything Reggie's presence on the team made the qualification "leader" a very hard one to boot, since the respect most of those guys and certainly JO have for Reggie made Reggie the "natural" leader of the pack, though he didn't want it, and despite Pacers brass calling JO the leader, JO will have felt restricted in his actions/words in the presence of Reggie. That hurdle has now been taken, let's wait and see.

                        In my opinion the Pacers are doing fairly well with their max player, certainly compared to the rest of the league.

                        Oh yes, I know there are more talents in the league that are not (yet) making a max contract, LBJ, DW but..... 2 years, let's talk again in 5 years time.
                        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: What is "max-worthy"

                          4 Players in the league put up 20/10 numbers, JO also add the blocking. For the 20/10 players, KG(28)/TD(28)/Dirk(26)/JO(25)/Shaq(32) as of last year, all of whome have the max contract, when you see the that only 4 players are putting up 20/10 and JO is the youngest, now, he's not at the caliber of Duncan or KG or Shaq yet, but all four of these players are post players give little exception to Dirk. Now, how many post players got rediculous contracts when they are no where close to JO? Lets see, Adonal Foyle, Erick Dummyer... the list goes on. And Pacers have never been shy of using the big contract to their own players. The point is, you lock up your post players that is putting up 20/10

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: What is "max-worthy"

                            Did anybody else see the title of this thread and immediately think of "sponge-worthy"?
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: What is "max-worthy"

                              Originally posted by Kegboy
                              Did anybody else see the title of this thread and immediately think of "sponge-worthy"?

                              LOL

                              I thought about that after I made it.

                              That's one of the greatest "Seinfeld" episodes of all time.

                              George: "I can never get it open in time, it's like beat the clock"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X