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

College 3-point line moved back!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    College 3-point line moved back!

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2859065

    Committee extends men's 3-point line to 20-9
    By Andy Katz
    ESPN.com

    Twenty years ago, the NCAA made one of the most significant rules changes in its history when it instituted the 3-point shot.

    In the year of the 20-year anniversary, the NCAA men's basketball rules committee decided the line needed a makeover.

    So, beginning with the 2008-09 season, assuming the measure is approved May 25 by the Playing Rules Oversight Committee, the line will move back a full foot to 20 feet, 9 inches. The committee chose, however, not to expand the size of the lane.

    The change could dramatically affect post play, who takes and makes a 3-point shot and at what percentage, and possibly lead to an increase in mid-range shot attempts.

    "I'm not surprised, this is something that has been talked about for quite some time," said coach Billy Donovan of Florida, whose two-time defending national champion Gators were ninth in the country in 3-point field goal percentage at 40.9 percent. "I still feel that teams will continue to utilize the 3-point line as a key component of the college game. That being said, I think the next discussion needs to be about widening the lane in conjunction with moving the 3-point line back."

    The women's committee decided to keep its line at 19 feet, 9 inches, meaning there will be two distances and, possibly, two different lines on courts that men's and women's programs share.

    Larry Keating, who chairs the rules committee and is also an associate athletic director at Kansas, said he didn't foresee the oversight committee rejecting the measure. In the past, he said, rules changes went through the board of directors and got caught up in other legislation. He said that's not the case anymore.

    Keating said the lane width won't be changed. So, the line will now be three inches longer than the international line, giving high school players an ability to graduate to an international line, a college line and, perhaps, in some cases, to the NBA line of 23 feet, 9 inches.

    For the most part Thursday, reaction to the change was favorable.

    "Players are good enough that they will adjust," said BYU coach Dave Rose, whose Cougars ranked fifth nationally in 3-point percentage (41.5). "The purpose was to open up the space on the floor. But I don't think a foot will make that much of a difference. Players will figure it out."

    "I think it would be a good change," said Texas A&M sophomore guard Josh Carter, who led the nation in 3-point percentage last season, making 50 percent (86-of-172). "I would have no problem stepping out and shooting a little longer shot. Everybody wants to go on to the NBA and the pros shoot it from farther out, so I think it would be fine."

    His new coach, Mark Turgeon, said the distance will help coaches who are preaching shot selection.

    "Too many players think they can hit that shot and it was hurting shot selection," Turgeon said. "It was getting to where all five guys were shooting it. Now [the 3-point shot] will go back to being more of a specialty role."

    Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim, who is the current president of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, said he was surprised the committee adopted the change without altering the width of the lane.

    "I thought you had to do both," Boeheim said. "Moving the line back is good and I wanted that, but I almost thought you had to do both. We've definitely helped the low-post guy. We've created space in there. We'll have to see how it plays out."

    Bruce Pearl of Tennessee wasn't in favor of the change. He has one of the top returning 3-point shooters in the country in Chris Lofton, who made 106 3-point field goals and shot 41.9 percent as a junior.

    "[2008-09] could be a tough year for the Vols for two reasons: We won't have Chris Lofton and it will be a bit father for the rest of our guys," Pearl said, adding he believes "if it's not broke, don't fix it."

    "I don't know if it's going to open the lane up more," Pearl added. "I think this will make zone defenses much more effective. The matchup zone will make a comeback. Teams that play a lot of zone should be real happy with this."

    Charlotte coach Bobby Lutz, who was serving on the committee for the first time, said he plans on marking the new distance on his practice court by the spring of 2008 to ready for individual workouts. Lutz said he is doing that since most of the time lines are put on the courts only one time. The cost of changing the lines on courts across the country is the main reason the distance won't be in place until 2008-09.

    Lutz said his players usually shot well beyond the existing 3-point line, so he doesn't see the added foot as a big distraction. But he said players still gravitate toward the line when they take their shots.

    "This should allow for more mid-range games and spreading the floor," Lutz said. "It will force coaches to make a decision on defense. It remains to be seen what will happen with 3-point percentages."

    Lutz said he wasn't in favor of widening the lane so that the mid-range game could be preserved.

    "The criticism was that there was too much jammed-up play," Lutz said of the current configuration on the floor. "That led to physical play."

    The rules committee also eliminated the first lane space nearest the basket on each side during free-throw alignment and added two situations in which referees will be allowed to use courtside monitors to determine whether a flagrant foul has occurred. They may also use monitors to determine who may have played a role in a fight.

    Andy Katz is a senior writer at ESPN.com.

    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
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: College 3-point line moved back!

    About damn time.
    Play Mafia!
    Twitter

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: College 3-point line moved back!

      Originally posted by Pig Nash View Post
      About damn time.
      You can say that again.
      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: College 3-point line moved back!

        Yup, 'bout time.
        Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: College 3-point line moved back!

          I sort of have mixed feelings on this one. I mean they're moving it back, but to me it's still just another foot. I mean why not push it all the way back to NBA range.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: College 3-point line moved back!

            Originally posted by George Foreman View Post
            I sort of have mixed feelings on this one. I mean they're moving it back, but to me it's still just another foot. I mean why not push it all the way back to NBA range.
            Because then the blind NCAA fans won't have a stat to use to claim that NCAA players are better shooters and better at fundamentals.
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: College 3-point line moved back!

              This should cut down on upsets by teams getting hot from 3, shouldn't it?

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: College 3-point line moved back!

                Yes, but it also helps defensive teams.
                Play Mafia!
                Twitter

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: College 3-point line moved back!

                  What if they just do away with the line altogether?

                  -Bball
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: College 3-point line moved back!

                    Originally posted by Bball
                    What if they just do away with the line altogether?

                    -Bball
                    The 1920's just called, they want their era back.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: College 3-point line moved back!

                      Why was'nt the 3 point line as far away as the pro one from the start?
                      That'll do.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: College 3-point line moved back!

                        Originally posted by Mal View Post
                        The 1920's just called, they want their era back.
                        When I watch old games without the 3 point line I like the product on the floor. I like watching a good team methodically pull away from the opponent. I like watching defenses guard the lane. You don't always get that with the 3 point line. Either the other team uses it effectively to hang in a game they might otherwise not be in or the (alleged) better team falls in love with the shot and goes cold. Of course there's also the fact that once the line is in the game you have to accept it and coach accordingly. You can't just treat the game like it didn't exist.

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: College 3-point line moved back!

                          It's good that it's moved back. I'm sure it'll lead to lower 3pt % though, especially for those who shouldn't have been shooting from 19'9. It won't bother real shooters though! They should have made it the NBA range, or International range... there's no need for 3 different 3pt lines, but I'm glad they moved the college one back.

                          Comment

                          Previous template Next
                          Working...
                          X