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

Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

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

  • Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

    Just saw this and thought it was interesting: http://www.contracostatimes.com/warr...=1&forced=true

    Looks like SJax is looking for the Warriors to show him the love with a new deal next summer. By then he'll be 31 and the Warriors will still have Ellis and Maggette locked up for another 4-5 seasons. The contract would kick in when he turns 32 as he has another 2 years left on the deal he signed with the Pacers.

    And no, I am not condoning bring Stack Jack back in way, shape or form as I would rather spend the cash on Granger, etc. I just question whether or not he'll get the big money deal he is looking for. Any thoughts?

  • #2
    Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

    Isn't it a little early to be asking for an extension?

    I'll also ask the obvious question....but if SJax gets the "We appreciate what SJax has done for the Warriors Organization, but we're not going to discuss anything until after the contract expires" response from Mullin.....does anyone else think that this won't leave a huge chip on SJax shoulder and hold it against the Warriors FO?

    "It's something I always think about," Jackson said from his basketball camp. "It's definitely something that has to be addressed because of what I do for this team and what I've done since I've been here, bringing this team from one of the bottom teams in the league to a playoff team, to a team that won 49 games. It's not what I want, it's what I deserve. "... I won't be comfortable going into this season knowing I have to play this whole season being the fifth highest-paid and not get an extension. I would not be happy."
    I do not doubt that he was ONE of the reasons why the Warriors returned to the Playoffs 2 seasons ago....but he was not IMHO the main reason.

    If the Warriors want to keep him.....I think that he's worth the same amount that he is paid now......probably $8-9 mil a season a season for another 3-4 seasons.

    I'm guessing that he's going to be asking for what Maggette got at $10 mil a season....but since Maggette is IMHO overpaid....that's asking for too much for a 32 year old GF.

    But if Mullin does not have any future plans for SJax in a Warriors uniform....I would consider moving SJax during ( or before ) the 2009 offseason cuz there are alot of teams out there that are looking for 2009-2010 Expiring Contracts.
    Last edited by CableKC; 08-23-2008, 11:33 AM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

      I understand Jax's point of view especially after the rebirth he was a big part of and how Warriors FO put him in the spotlight as the man and the steal of the trade... He has done and brought a lot to the team and it's understandable he'd like to get Magette type of money.

      But as Cable KC noted Mullin overpaid for him and now has hands tied with Jax: either give him this money (very dangerous after the recent offseason spending spree and the other big contracts running ala Al) or leave the situation unsolved which might bring some bad karma. Good thing is Jax has kinda cleaned his image and is a much more tradable asset than during his time with us.

      Warriors FO is really unpredictable, they can make the best moves and at the same time every few years they give crazy 10mil per season contracts like christmas gifts...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

        He will not be a Warrior in two years. I can see him jumping to Europe or sign with a Boston/Dallas/LA.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

          What is the point of negotiating or signing a contract?
          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

            For all intents and purposes, Stephen Jackson is right and he does "deserve" a big new contract.

            Ever since he's joined the Warriors, he's been the team's 2nd best player. He's played very well. He's taken on the role of team captain. He's taken on the toughest defensive assignment every night. He's played hurt. He's gotten along with everyone. He's stayed out of trouble off the court. He's been active doing things in the community. So for what he's done for around $7M a year, Stephen Jackson has been underpaid and the Warriors have clearly had him at a discount. Cleary, the guy has put in the effort and performance to be rewarded with a new contract.

            Now whether the Warriors should actually give him such a contract is a completely different story. Jackson is still a volatile guy, but he's been held in check by Nellie, a guy Jackson clearly respects. But how much longer will Nellie be around? That's not even mentioning the fact that he's going to be 32 by the time his current contract is up. I don't know if it's so wise to give him that much money at that point in time.

            Essentially, the Warriors would be "rewarding" Jackson for what he's done so far and not for what he still has yet to accomplish, because you'll be paying for the years in which Jackson is probably going to be headed downhill.

            Other examples of teams "rewarding" past their prime players for previous years of being underpaid are the Bulls giving Ben Wallace a huge contract by the time he hit 32 and the Wizards many years ago giving a huge pay day to a 33 year old Mitch Richmond. Both guys were hugely underpaid in previous years. Then they got rewarded for this past performance with huge deals when they were clearly past their prime. Those generally don't turn out to be good deals.

            The Warriors would probably be wise to move Jackson to a team closer to contending. He has value and his contract is easily moveable. Really, they should have just started everything all over when they decided they didn't want to commit to Baron.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

              Teams that need an upgrade at the SG/SF spot and are still trying to clear Salary for the 2010 FA Sweepstakes maybe interested in SJax. The problem is that the Warriors would likely have to take back a 3+ year long term contract.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                Teams that need an upgrade at the SG/SF spot and are still trying to clear Salary for the 2010 FA Sweepstakes maybe interested in SJax. The problem is that the Warriors would likely have to take back a 3+ year long term contract.

                That's not likely true. It depends on who is being offered in a trade. It might be a 2-1 trade and 1 of the players could be an expiring or have only 2 years left on their contract. It depends on what the team trading for Jackson is willing to give up for Jackson. Maybe a team wants Jackson bad enough to give up an expiring for him. Maybe an expiring and a pick. Who knows.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

                  I can't help but think Jack is also looking at how the Warriors handled Baron and retaining players in general. Probably has him a lot more sensitive to GSW letting things fall apart and seeing himself caught up in the wash.

                  Then as things maybe take a turn for the worst his contract leverage takes a hit along with it.


                  One other thing with him, we all know he runs hot/cold emotionally. They could work out something with him and at least from his side of it not only would the bad blood be gone but he'd be back into the "die for the team" mentality.

                  That's what's getting him here I think, he probably wants to feel like the "all for one" hardcore emotions run both ways. But in business you just can't deal with things that way. He's just not the guy to have an instinctive understanding of that; his first reaction is going to be the one he's having.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

                    If they don't extend him soon, they need to trade him...

                    Bad Jack is just bad. I don't even like Bad Jack. And if you neglect to make him feel valuable financially (equal to his value on the court), his demeanor will go rapdily downhill and the sulking will commence.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

                      I don't blame him if he is upset over the Maggette deal. It seems everyone except three people should be upset; Maggette, his agent, and this guy:

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

                        Is Troy Murphy our best player?

                        Is Rasho our 3rd best player?

                        Just because somebody better than Rasho or Murph makes less money, should they immediately demand a contract renegotiation?

                        You try to negotiate the best deal you can when your contract is up, using the leverage you have. It's stupid to demand that: if the team made a bad offer to someone else in the past, then you must have more right now.

                        That's just a stupid attitude.

                        Jackson ought to thank the Warriors for being one of the (few??) teams willing to trade anything for him and give him a chance to recoup value in the eyes of other NBA general managers.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Stephen Jackson looking for an extension....

                          Originally posted by pacertom View Post

                          Just because somebody better than Rasho or Murph makes less money, should they immediately demand a contract renegotiation?
                          FWIW, there is no such thing as renegotiating/restructuring a contract in the NBA (unlike the NFL). There are such cases such as Derek Fisher with Utah to mutually terminate a deal and there are buyouts, but there is no renegotiating a current deal to change the numbers of a signed contract. Jackson is seeking an extension, which he deserves but the Warriors are probably better off not giving.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X