Jonathon Simmons

[Shaquille O'Neal]

current rating: 74

not in the NBA: 68

[James Kay]

Feb 7, 2020 21:05:54 GMT Shaquille O'Neal said:

current rating: 74

not in the NBA: 68

It's so crazy how spiteful people are.

There's not even an attempt to hide it. I posted a legitimate stock watch thread and within 5 minutes you've found a player on my roster to post.

There should be some sort of rule against this thing.


70.

[Shaquille O'Neal]

the league benefits as a whole if we balance out the ratings. Simmons played 25 games with your team with that rating and it might even caused you some wins.


this is also a legitimate stockwatch and too bad i saw someone not playing in the NBA on your team.

It is just a matter of time before someone in the league will notice it.

[James Kay]

Feb 7, 2020 21:19:35 GMT Shaquille O'Neal said:

the league benefits as a whole if we balance out the ratings. Simmons played 25 games with your team with that rating and it might even caused you some wins.


this is also a legitimate stockwatch and too bad i saw someone not playing in the NBA on your team.

It is just a matter of time before someone in the league will notice it.

Simmons should have a much lower rating, correct, I honestly forgot about him.

But it's clearly not a legitimate stockwatch when it comes immediately after I post one of your players - and it's honestly pathetic for you to claim that it is.

[Jared Montini]

70

[Shaquille O'Neal]

Feb 7, 2020 21:23:47 GMT James Kay said:

Feb 7, 2020 21:19:35 GMT Shaquille O'Neal said:

the league benefits as a whole if we balance out the ratings. Simmons played 25 games with your team with that rating and it might even caused you some wins.


this is also a legitimate stockwatch and too bad i saw someone not playing in the NBA on your team.

It is just a matter of time before someone in the league will notice it.

Simmons should have a much lower rating, correct, I honestly forgot about him.

But it's clearly not a legitimate stockwatch when it comes immediately after I post one of your players - and it's honestly pathetic for you to claim that it is.

don't cry now, ill change my vote to 70.

[James Kay]

Feb 7, 2020 21:27:09 GMT Shaquille O'Neal said:

Feb 7, 2020 21:23:47 GMT James Kay said:

Simmons should have a much lower rating, correct, I honestly forgot about him.

But it's clearly not a legitimate stockwatch when it comes immediately after I post one of your players - and it's honestly pathetic for you to claim that it is.

don't cry now, ill change my vote to 70.

I don't care about Jonathan Simmons lol. He's not important to my team in any way, and he's expiring.


I just don't think the stockwatch thread should be used for vindictive purposes.

In the past year (the first page of your recent threads), you've posted 18 stockwatch threads. Of these, only ONE was to raise another team's player. - Joe Harris, by 3 points. All other threads were either to raise your own players, or lower someone else's.

[Amare Stoudemire]

70

[James Kay]

Feb 7, 2020 21:35:23 GMT James Kay said:

Feb 7, 2020 21:27:09 GMT Shaquille O'Neal said:

don't cry now, ill change my vote to 70.

I don't care about Jonathan Simmons lol. He's not important to my team in any way, and he's expiring.


I just don't think the stockwatch thread should be used for vindictive purposes.

In the past year (the first page of your recent threads), you've posted 18 stockwatch threads. Of these, only ONE was to raise another team's player. - Joe Harris, by 3 points. All other threads were either to raise your own players, or lower someone else's.

It's bad for the league because if we allow these sort of retaliatory threads, it will have a chilling effect on the amount of stockwatch threads posted. GMs will post fewer threads for fear of having a stockwatch thread posted about their own player.

[Shaquille O'Neal]

Who benefits the most when the league has a balanced rating?

Draft and sign good players so that you will not be scared of having a stockwatch decrease.

[Shaquille O'Neal]

Why would a GM fear something that is backed by facts.

I love to win but i also love this league that is why i want a balanced rating.

[Tom Izzo]

I'm with James Kay here. People take this far too personally and the vindictive nature is quite pathetic.

[James Kay]

Feb 7, 2020 21:42:30 GMT Shaquille O'Neal said:

Who benefits the most when the league has a balanced rating?

Draft and sign good players so that you will not be scared of having a stockwatch decrease.

Because not every one agrees on what the ratings should be? There's no objective rating. Plus, half these threads run on inertia anyway. The mere posting a decrease thread or increase thread has an impact of its own on the league's perception of a player.

[Kevin Hollis]

I mean, James is right. People are afraid to post rating decreases because they know others will just target their team right after. I did a whole bunch last year because I didn't give a fuck.

[Kevin Hollis]

Anyways, free agent so 70

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

I do not have a problem with what Shaq did because if you throw a fact to a fact, what is the problem?

[James Kay]

Feb 8, 2020 0:52:45 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

I do not have a problem with what Shaq did because if you throw a fact to a fact, what is the problem?

Because merely starting a thread can influence other GMs to vote a certain way.

GMs shouldn’t be starting threads in retaliation for threads on their own players.

The argument Shaq gave, which you seem to be adopting, is that - if the player “deserves” to be lower, then that’s all the better for the league anyway.

But I’m pointing out that there’s no one correct objective rating for every player. Most GMs disagree about all kinds of players. Starting a thread on a player that might not “jump out” as incorrectly rated may inevitably lead to a decrease simply because the thread was started at all.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Feb 8, 2020 2:03:56 GMT James Kay said:

Feb 8, 2020 0:52:45 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

I do not have a problem with what Shaq did because if you throw a fact to a fact, what is the problem?

Because merely starting a thread can influence other GMs to vote a certain way.

GMs shouldn’t be starting threads in retaliation for threads on their own players.

The argument Shaq gave, which you seem to be adopting, is that - if the player “deserves” to be lower, then that’s all the better for the league anyway.

But I’m pointing out that there’s no one correct objective rating for every player. Most GMs disagree about all kinds of players. Starting a thread on a player that might not “jump out” as incorrectly rated may inevitably lead to a decrease simply because the thread was started at all.

There is no one correct objective rating and that is the reason why we poll the votes. 

Here is my point. Shaq could be retaliating but so what? Our system dictates that a polling system will give us the overall rating of a player. If voters think that he deserves a decrease, he should have a decrease.

Your last paragraph is also indicating that starting a decrease thread is simply wrong. And that thought is wrong.

[James Kay]

Feb 8, 2020 2:23:49 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Feb 8, 2020 2:03:56 GMT James Kay said:

Because merely starting a thread can influence other GMs to vote a certain way.

GMs shouldn’t be starting threads in retaliation for threads on their own players.

The argument Shaq gave, which you seem to be adopting, is that - if the player “deserves” to be lower, then that’s all the better for the league anyway.

But I’m pointing out that there’s no one correct objective rating for every player. Most GMs disagree about all kinds of players. Starting a thread on a player that might not “jump out” as incorrectly rated may inevitably lead to a decrease simply because the thread was started at all.

There is no one correct objective rating and that is the reason why we poll the votes. 

Here is my point. Shaq could be retaliating but so what? Our system dictates that a polling system will give us the overall rating of a player. If voters think that he deserves a decrease, he should have a decrease.

Your last paragraph is also indicating that starting a decrease thread is simply wrong. And that thought is wrong.

Because you are ignoring my main point: Starting a thread influences other GMs to vote similarly.

[Walt Frazier]

70

[Walt Frazier]

THREAD CLOSED

New Rating: 70