The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
A God Damned Separate Thread For Your Argument About Athletes and their Punishment
zagdrob
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about this guy:
This is Ray Rice, otherwise known as the unemployed former Baltimore Raven who plead guilty to Domestic Violence charges after he was videotaped knocking his fiancee (now wife) out in a Las Vegas Atlantic City elevator. The initial video showed Rice dragging his unconscious fiancee out of the elevator, and his initial punishment from the league - a two game suspension - was met with widespread criticism. After a second video was released, showing the actual punch within the elevator, Rice was released from the Baltimore Ravens and is suspended 'indefinitely'.
Following Rice's initial two game suspension, a great deal of criticism centered around the fact that the NFL frequently issues much harsher penalties for non-violent crimes seen as less severe, such as drug possession. A great deal of criticism was also directed at Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, who seemed to issue this punishment arbitrarily. After the outcry, the NFL instituted stronger domestic violence policies, which as expected are also being criticized for not being strong or harsh enough.
This is the place to discuss the policies of professional sports leagues when their players are caught breaking the law or otherwise involved in serious scandals. While the issue of the day involves the NFL, discussion of scandals / criminal activity in other sports or leagues is certainly valid. It certainly would be interesting as well to compare the punishments that professional athletes receive compared to amateur athletes.
EDIT - In an additional story that squeaked through under the radar, the NCAA vacated the punishments against Penn State resulting from the Jerry Sandusky molestations and ensuing cover-up there. Penn State is no longer ineligible for a Bowl Game, and next year will have their scholarships restored.
Good discussion:
* At what point is it appropriate for the league to take action - time of arrest, time of arraignment, only following a conviction / plea, etc?
* What punishments are / aren't appropriate - suspension, suspension without pay, lifetime suspension, etc?
* Should athletes be 'forgiven' after they have served their debt to society?
* Does it matter / should these players have contracts that allow the league to act with virtual impunity due to 'morality clauses'?
* How do punishments players receive compare to punishments of off-field employees or owners?
* Holy shit, can you believe what <player x> just did?
Bad discussion:
* General domestic abuse / men's rights / rape culture discussion.
* NCAA players should get paid.
This is Ray Rice, otherwise known as the unemployed former Baltimore Raven who plead guilty to Domestic Violence charges after he was videotaped knocking his fiancee (now wife) out in a Las Vegas Atlantic City elevator. The initial video showed Rice dragging his unconscious fiancee out of the elevator, and his initial punishment from the league - a two game suspension - was met with widespread criticism. After a second video was released, showing the actual punch within the elevator, Rice was released from the Baltimore Ravens and is suspended 'indefinitely'.
Following Rice's initial two game suspension, a great deal of criticism centered around the fact that the NFL frequently issues much harsher penalties for non-violent crimes seen as less severe, such as drug possession. A great deal of criticism was also directed at Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, who seemed to issue this punishment arbitrarily. After the outcry, the NFL instituted stronger domestic violence policies, which as expected are also being criticized for not being strong or harsh enough.
This is the place to discuss the policies of professional sports leagues when their players are caught breaking the law or otherwise involved in serious scandals. While the issue of the day involves the NFL, discussion of scandals / criminal activity in other sports or leagues is certainly valid. It certainly would be interesting as well to compare the punishments that professional athletes receive compared to amateur athletes.
EDIT - In an additional story that squeaked through under the radar, the NCAA vacated the punishments against Penn State resulting from the Jerry Sandusky molestations and ensuing cover-up there. Penn State is no longer ineligible for a Bowl Game, and next year will have their scholarships restored.
Good discussion:
* At what point is it appropriate for the league to take action - time of arrest, time of arraignment, only following a conviction / plea, etc?
* What punishments are / aren't appropriate - suspension, suspension without pay, lifetime suspension, etc?
* Should athletes be 'forgiven' after they have served their debt to society?
* Does it matter / should these players have contracts that allow the league to act with virtual impunity due to 'morality clauses'?
* How do punishments players receive compare to punishments of off-field employees or owners?
* Holy shit, can you believe what <player x> just did?
Bad discussion:
* General domestic abuse / men's rights / rape culture discussion.
* NCAA players should get paid.
zagdrob on
0
Posts
Not the one from The Green Mile, the one from Casino Royale.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Even in this case I have a hard time seeing who benefits from him being banned for life. Ohh wait no I'm not:
1) The NFL for getting to mulligan it's PR disaster 2 game suspension
2) The Ravens for getting out of the last 3 years of a big contract on a RB with declining production
The assumption that he has a large pile of cash saved up changes the question somewhat, but the popular position on this is completely antithetical to the view people have with everyone else who commits a crime.
It's all the shit people know is counter productive about the death penalty/ war on drugs style punishment system. 'deterrence', 'ruin their life for what they did', 'extra heinous crime' punishment etc. This whole thing is nothing more than a moral superiority circle jerk, wrapped in a white knights cloak.
Just to be clear, I'm not shedding any tears for Ray Rice, but the amount of chest thumping over this is grotesque, considering its hollowness.
There are, but that isn't what this is. It was clearly a crime of anger, not some sort of 'the rules don't apply to me' indifference. I mean yeah it feels nice that one of those rich fuckers finally got taken down a notch, but that doesn't make these actions produce anything of value.
e:
All this does is provide an easy target for the sort of punitive urges that poison so much of our justice system. That it's a target that can afford to bare those urges is a convenience.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The money men have spoken. This is more nails in the coffin to his career, but you know maybe the next athlete will think half a second before knocking his spouse out. Nah they'll just make sure its not on video.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Wait. So your proposal for fixing the fact that NFL players are effectively untouchable is...to say that the NFL shouldn't be able to touch the matter at all?
The untouchability of NFL players tends to come from the fact that they are rich, and rich people are generally untouchable for isolated first-time offenses (short of capital crimes, anyway). It's a tad bit different in college, where there are systemic problems from local / university police overlooking star players crimes (or leaving it to the team to sort out), but in the context of highly paid professional athletes a slap on the wrist is about all they are going to get. It's pretty much an inherent flaw of the American justice system that extends well beyond professional athletes, and if anything professional athletes are overall judged more harshly than, say, businessmen who are at the same income level.
Actions should have consequences, and actions can have more than one consequence. If I'm arrested for drunk driving, I may have to pay a fine and have a suspended license. If I injure someone, there may be an additional consequence in that I'm sued in civil court. If my job requires me to drive or I don't have other transportation, I may lose my job. Those are all consequences of my actions.
When you're a public figure like an NFL player and your contract requires a certain standard of behavior, it shouldn't be a surprise when the company decides to part ways. Should Nike and Buick 'ought' to have kept Tiger Woods on their payroll when he became toxic following the cheating scandal? That behavior wasn't even illegal.
America's Uncle Joe lays it out.
Mr. Pierce recounts a tale of two thugs.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah, but if your job is close by, and involves you entering data in spread sheets? Or say you are a security guard and are seen buying weed? Numerous people in the Legalization argued against employee drug screening as an abuse of employer power. In the Union thread you'll get copious amounts of arguments on why teacher who did X/Y/Z deserves to not be summarily terminated.*
Actions should have consequences, is meaningless dribble. The death penalty is a consequence for murder, doesn't mean Texas is right.
What if he became toxic because he was gay? What if he wasn't cheating they actually just had an open relationship? Morality clauses for employment are loaded with problems. These problems are more tolerable when it's multimultimillionaires and billion dollar companies, but that doesn't make them not exist.*
as an aside: She chased him down with a golf club and caused him to get into a car accident. Where was the outrage to put her in jail? That's aggravated assault, if not assault with a deadly weapon.
*Like I said before, that is what people like about this situation. You have a high profile target, who everyone can heap whatever punitive/imaginary measure they want on because yeah, he probably isn't going to end up homeless. He gets 'taught a lesson', the NFL gets to 'send a message' etc. everyone gets to wave their morally punitive boner around a bit, but the only people who benefit from this are the NFL, the Ravens, and the media. And as Pierce via @AngelHedgie points out. He's black. Unlike say Rapelisburger.
I can't understand how there was no punishment or investigation before the story originally broke. Even "because money" holds no water when the league has no problems suspending players for merely failing urinalysis. A two game suspension months after the charges is indicative that they thought they could cover it up, then realized they couldn't and went into preemptive damage control.
At this point the people who need to be punished are the team and league executives who facilitated the coverup. Rice is a violent scumbag. Goodell and his ilk are enablers of violent scumbags, both in and out of the league. Throw them out, investigate, prosecute. Someone needs to be held accountable, and Rice is only one of the men who failed in their responsibility to be a worthwhile human being.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
"It's never, never, never the woman's fault,” he said. “This whole culture, for so long, has put the onus on the woman. What where you wearing? What did you say? What did you do to provoke? That is never the appropriate question."
“The one regret I have is we call it ‘domestic violence,’ as if it's a domesticated cat. It is the most vicious form of violence there is, because not only the physical scars that are left, the psychological scars that are left.”
pleasepaypreacher.net
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
"You got robbed? Did you leave your doors wide open?"
"Your identity got stolen? What were you on porn sites all day?"
"You got raped? What were you wearing?"
I almost wonder if its to be as retarded as possible in response to someone being a victim.
pleasepaypreacher.net
We want to assume people invite disaster upon themselves because it makes us feel better that it won't just randomly happen to us as well, because we're safer/smarter.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11495795/prosecutor-office-defends-ray-rice-decision
The prosecutor said this is the same treatment any first time offender gets, seems like a loaded statement to make all it takes is showing one guy who didn't and woopsie looks like they lied again.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I heard this from someone else but I think it's the most accurate term for intimate partner violence: Intimate terrorism
or "abused" or "survivor"
Yeah, she shouldn't have made him so mad.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I hate that term, not because it's necessarily inaccurate, but because I hate the fuck out of how "terrorism" is applied to goddamn everything. Also "intimate terrorism" sounds like some sort of terrible Guantanamo-themed porno.
I think "domestic violence" is a perfectly apt phrase for something that needs to be distinct from violence that isn't directed towards a loved one. I'd prefer "intimate partner violence" if it wasn't so clunky.
I would add that Ray Rice should be treated like any other guy accused of domestic violence, except that would imply that he should be ignored while his fiancee is roundly shamed. How about we should treat Rice like we should treat any other guy accused of domestic violence? Jail time, fine, possible restraining order if the girl requests it.
Is it standard for employers to write contracts that specify that the contract is void if you commit a crime unrelated to your actual job? Do they distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors?
pleasepaypreacher.net
The question of what the NFL should (have) done about him is a little more confusing to me, because I don't really "get" sports. It seems like the only real value obtained from suspending Rice are:
1- financially, for the team and the NFL itself
2- punitive, to satisfy widespread social anger/self-righteousness
3- an object lesson, to deter future intimate partners from violencing each other
1 is tricky ground for me because I don't think employers should have infinite latitude when it comes to firing/punishing their employees for morals charges. Essentially it depends on what the morals charge is, and the easiest bright line is probably criminal actions. Cheating on your spouse shouldn't be grounds for suspension, but beating them should be.
2 is totally unnecessary and probably counter-productive. Let the legal system handle it, and get your rage on in more productive ways than forcing a millionaire to retire early.
3 is a sticking point, because I don't think this kind of object lesson works. A harsh, zero tolerance policy across the board for NFL athletes who abuse their spouses could certainly have some effect; but capricious punishment based on media (and social media) hectoring doesn't make that lesson clear. Instead, I think people look at these examples and learn to beat their spouses but not while they're on camera or black.
As for what the actual punishment should be... I think, as a broad statement, all athletes arrested for a felony should be suspended (maybe with pay, or some kind of stipend or something?) until conviction or exoneration. If they're convicted and serve their sentence, I don't see any reason why a team shouldn't be allowed to hire them back on.
Well a job that puts you into the public eye in the way that professional football does is going to carry with it its own problems and limitations. A contracted IT guy isn't going to be viewed as representative of a company as a whole.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I think that 2 is the only one that any sports franchise ever cares about.
That said, I'm skeptical that this sort of action really has any tangible effect. Is there a significant number of people who actually base their support of either A) a sport, or 2) a team on whether or not the players are giant dickholes? More specifically, do they base any of their financial support of the sport/team on such things?
Because mostly, I hear Raiders fans talking about how much a specific Raider sucks while watching the Raiders game in their Raiders jersey. Even more commonly, I head the Raiders fan talking about how the punitive action against Joe Raider is bullshit, because Bob Cowboy did something way worse last month.
Most jobs have a 'morality clause', even if it's not explicitly spelled-out in your employment contract. If a Wal Mart greeter was filmed punching out his spouse and the video went viral, what are the odds that Wal Mart would retain him as a greeter? About 0%?
I think I could agree that the line could get blurry at some point, but, "Caught on film knocking your SO out cold," is not exactly an ambiguous case.
Look cowboys games are bad to watch, calling them rape is stretching it bro.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I was referring to Jones not keeping his hands to himself.