Pacman's Argument on Appeal

[superpunk]

Forgive me not caring whether it was fair or not. How often do you see a person get caught in criminal situations 10 times in one year without any type of repercussions... It might be trite, but sometimes life ain't fair.

I cannot see how someone could be so outraged by what Pac Man's doing off the field to take a stance like you've taken above. It doesn't affect any of us one bit. It has nothing to do with what happens on Sunday. So as a human being, with a sense of wrong and right, just and unjust - how can you NOT care whether or not what is happening is fair? He's done nothing to any of us to inspire us to simply toss justice and accepted principles of discipline out the window - so why so much outrage against him and support for something that is so blatantly unfair?

I do grant that maybe the hypocrisy thing is a bit much, joseephus, in the way you took it to mean. My point is I think his stance on "on-field vs. off-field" issues is hypocritical, but that's maybe not the right word.

I think I'm searching for "idiotic."

 

[Doomsday101]

I cannot see how someone could be so outraged by what Pac Man's doing off the field to take a stance like you've taken above. It doesn't affect any of us one bit. It has nothing to do with what happens on Sunday. So as a human being, with a sense of wrong and right, just and unjust - how can you NOT care whether or not what is happening is fair? He's done nothing to any of us to inspire us to simply toss justice and accepted principles of discipline out the window - so why so much outrage against him and support for something that is so blatantly unfair?

I do grant that maybe the hypocrisy thing is a bit much, joseephus, in the way you took it to mean. My point is I think his stance on "on-field vs. off-field" issues is hypocritical, but that's maybe not the right word.

I think I'm searching for "idiotic."

Evidently the player and their union feel different and while it does not matter to you it does to them it is their league and they want it cleaned up.
That is exactly what Goodell is doing.

 

[sacase]

What stikes me as funny is many people are saying he needs to be responsible for his actions. However, people are willing to pin the guy getting shot in Vegas on Pac Man, when it was someone else in his little group that shot the guy. Shouldn't that guy be responsible for his actions? Even if pac man told him to shoot the guy, is he still not ultimatly responsible?

I don't have a problem with players getting suspended what I have a problem with is 1) suspending someone for something that happend before Goddell took over. 2) Creating or revising a policy then punishing someone under it for something that happend before.

If Goddell really wants to make a statement how about going back and banning Leonard Little.

 

[Doomsday101]

What stikes me as funny is many people are saying he needs to be responsible for his actions. However, people are willing to pin the guy getting shot in Vegas on Pac Man, when it was someone else in his little group that shot the guy. Shouldn't that guy be responsible for his actions? Even if pac man told him to shoot the guy, is he still not ultimatly responsible?

I don't have a problem with players getting suspended what I have a problem with is 1) suspending someone for something that happend before Goddell took over. 2) Creating or revising a policy then punishing someone under it for something that happend before.

If Goddell really wants to make a statement how about going back and banning Leonard Little.

Yes the trigger man should go down big time but this incident never takes place if not for the actions of Pacman who instigated the situation.

 

[lspain1]

I cannot see how someone could be so outraged by what Pac Man's doing off the field to take a stance like you've taken above. It doesn't affect any of us one bit. It has nothing to do with what happens on Sunday. So as a human being, with a sense of wrong and right, just and unjust - how can you NOT care whether or not what is happening is fair? He's done nothing to any of us to inspire us to simply toss justice and accepted principles of discipline out the window - so why so much outrage against him and support for something that is so blatantly unfair?

I do grant that maybe the hypocrisy thing is a bit much, joseephus, in the way you took it to mean. My point is I think his stance on "on-field vs. off-field" issues is hypocritical, but that's maybe not the right word.

I think I'm searching for "idiotic."

This is a remarkable post. PacMan has now become the "victim." My opinions are on record earlier in this thread so I'll not restate them, but I fundamentally disagree with everything you stated being remotely applicable to PacMan Jones.

PacMan is a bad actor. He is being disciplined. If he doesn't like it, he has the option to depart. I wonder how many companies would be willing to take him as an employee with his list of transgression? How would he look on a standard background check?

Superpunk (your nickname does seem particularly appropriate in defending PacMan), what should Goodell do? We are getting, on average, two incidents a week with players doing things that make the league look bad off the field. The bad actors are besmirching the league's reputation like the drip-drip-drip of stomach acid. This has the potential to cost the league a LOT of money downstream. Something MUST be done and Goodell is doing it. I applaud him for it.

 

[Jarv]

I cannot see how someone could be so outraged by what Pac Man's doing off the field to take a stance like you've taken above. It doesn't affect any of us one bit. It has nothing to do with what happens on Sunday. So as a human being, with a sense of wrong and right, just and unjust - how can you NOT care whether or not what is happening is fair? He's done nothing to any of us to inspire us to simply toss justice and accepted principles of discipline out the window - so why so much outrage against him and support for something that is so blatantly unfair?

I do grant that maybe the hypocrisy thing is a bit much, joseephus, in the way you took it to mean. My point is I think his stance on "on-field vs. off-field" issues is hypocritical, but that's maybe not the right word.

I think I'm searching for "idiotic."

So you are condoning his behavior and saying he should not be punished ?

Superpunk, you are part of the problem yourself if you feel this way, kids these days do not think they should be responsible for their actions. Soon as they are called on issues THEY CAUSED they whine life is not fair.

The NFL is an exclusive private club (Organization or Corporation could be used too) that is not funded from tax dollars. The members of this club (players and owners, comissioner, etc) feel that this member has caused them harm. The leauge makes more money on endorsements, TV deals and commercials that they do in ticket and hotdog sales.

Like it or not Pac's actions can cause them to lose money. In the business world corporations will fire you for such actions. Believe it or not the NFL is a business and the CEO (or commish) is taking matters into his own hand.

When you get out of school and if you get a job with IBM...Don't get busted for beating strippers, possesion of illeagle drugs or have 10 court apperances in 1 year...You will get fired....Then don't whine its not fair. Its more than fair. Some just don't think about the reprocussions of their actions.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I cannot see how someone could be so outraged by what Pac Man's doing off the field to take a stance like you've taken above. It doesn't affect any of us one bit. It has nothing to do with what happens on Sunday.

Yes, it does. Because if the player is getting in trouble, then it may very well affect they're availability on Sundays.

So as a human being, with a sense of wrong and right, just and unjust - how can you NOT care whether or not what is happening is fair? He's done nothing to any of us to inspire us to simply toss justice and accepted principles of discipline out the window - so why so much outrage against him and support for something that is so blatantly unfair?

I don't have a bunch outrage towards him. In the grand scheme of things, what he does, doesn't affect me because I don't know him personally. I just don't get the outrage towards Goodell for imposing discipline. We all have to pay the price for doing wrong sometimes.

 

[WoodysGirl]

What stikes me as funny is many people are saying he needs to be responsible for his actions. However, people are willing to pin the guy getting shot in Vegas on Pac Man, when it was someone else in his little group that shot the guy. Shouldn't that guy be responsible for his actions? Even if pac man told him to shoot the guy, is he still not ultimatly responsible?

I don't have a problem with players getting suspended what I have a problem with is 1) suspending someone for something that happend before Goddell took over. 2) Creating or revising a policy then punishing someone under it for something that happend before.

If Goddell really wants to make a statement how about going back and banning Leonard Little.

Actually the primary thing he's being disciplined for was in the previous conduct policy. "Failure to report the arrest."

 

[superpunk]

This is a remarkable post. PacMan has now become the "victim." My opinions are on record earlier in this thread so I'll not restate them, but I fundamentally disagree with everything you stated being remotely applicable to PacMan Jones.

PacMan is a bad actor. He is being disciplined. If he doesn't like it, he has the option to depart. I wonder how many companies would be willing to take him as an employee with his list of transgression? How would he look on a standard background check?

Superpunk (your nickname does seem particularly appropriate in defending PacMan), what should Goodell do? We are getting, on average, two incidents a week with players doing things that make the league look bad off the field. The bad actors are besmirching the league's reputation like the drip-drip-drip of stomach acid. This has the potential to cost the league a LOT of money downstream. Something MUST be done and Goodell is doing it. I applaud him for it.

Where have I defended Pac-Man? Have I claimed that the things he is doing are not reprehensible, and not a manner in which a young man representing a large business should conduct himself? Certainly he must be punished, the personal conduct policy is in place for a reason. Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what I actually think is unfair, and why it is unfair. I would appreciate it if you would read more carefully before doling out personal scorn involving my screenname.

So you are condoning his behavior and saying he should not be punished ?

Superpunk, you are part of the problem yourself if you feel this way, kids these days do not think they should be responsible for their actions. Soon as they are called on issues THEY CAUSED the whine life is not fair.

The NFL is an exclusive private club (Organization or Corporation could be used too) that is not funded from tax dollars. The members of this club (players and owners, comissioner, etc) feel that this member has caused them harm. The leauge makes more money on endorsements, TV deals and commercials that they do in ticket and hotdog sales.

Like it or not Pac's actions can cause them to lose money. In the business world corporations will fire you for such actions. Believe it or not the NFL is a business and the CEO (or commish) is taking matters into his own hand.

When you get out of school and if you get a job with IBM...Don't get busted for beating strippers, possesion of illeagle drugs or have 10 court apperances in 1 year...You will get fired....Then don't whine its not fair. Its more than fair. Some just don't think about the reprocussions of their actions.

Another person who didn't actually read what I wrote. I'm not in favor of Goodell's actions so I must support and condone PacMan's. Makes perfect sense. I've been out of school for awhile now, pops. Let's try and practice some careful reading comprehension before doling out veiled insults, k?

 

[superpunk]

Yes, it does. Because if the player is getting in trouble, then it may very well affect they're availability on Sundays.

I don't have a bunch outrage towards him. In the grand scheme of things, what he does, doesn't affect me because I don't know him personally. I just don't get the outrage towards Goodell for imposing discipline. We all have to pay the price for doing wrong sometimes.

Paying the price is one thing.

You said you didn't care if it was fair. That seems to be how most people feel. It's inexplicable, really. Maybe we should adopt other country's methods of punishment. Chop shoplifter's hands off. Who cares if it's fair? Those thugs are stealing! (Being overly dramatic...take it for what it is, people)

 

[joseephuss]

I cannot see how someone could be so outraged by what Pac Man's doing off the field to take a stance like you've taken above. It doesn't affect any of us one bit. It has nothing to do with what happens on Sunday. So as a human being, with a sense of wrong and right, just and unjust - how can you NOT care whether or not what is happening is fair? He's done nothing to any of us to inspire us to simply toss justice and accepted principles of discipline out the window - so why so much outrage against him and support for something that is so blatantly unfair?

I do grant that maybe the hypocrisy thing is a bit much, joseephus, in the way you took it to mean. My point is I think his stance on "on-field vs. off-field" issues is hypocritical, but that's maybe not the right word.

I think I'm searching for "idiotic."

I am not sure what the right word is either. On field incidents do matter more to me. They really are few and far between. Haynesworth type situations rarely occur. I thought he deserved more than 5 games, but I was pleased he got more than just 2.

Off field stuff really don't bother me that much. If a player wants to hurt himself, that is fine. If a player is actually hurting another person(spouse or child) or animal. Then that really irriates me. Secondly, if their off field actions affect on field performance, then that is bothersome. Each case is different.

Irvin doing coke during his off time was not the worst thing in my opinion. It really did not bother me too much in that I don't care what a player does on his own time. Now if he was beating up on women or driving drunk or driving while high on coke, then that bothers me a lot. Putting others in danger is what I don't like. The part of him doing coke that does bother me is that it is against NFL rules and it cost him 5 games. That hurts the team that I root for and he knew the rules before he made that decision. That is what bothered me about Irvin. He hurt the team. Leon Lett did it, too. These weren't scrub guys that aren't a big loss. They were important players.

I recognize that off field image is more important to some others than it is to me. If a player has to maintain that image to keep playing, then I have to side with the rules because I want the team I root for to not lose players.

It is kind of hard to judge Goodell based on things that have recently transpired or are happening right now. Henry and Pacman are incidents waiting to happen. They are poor examples for anyone trying to argue that side of the debate because they are so extreme. Actually I take that back. They are perfect because they can be used to set a precedent for future players and suspensions. They set the standard on what the NFL does not want. This is the start of a new approach for the NFL. I am curious to see where it goes from here.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Paying the price is one thing.

You said you didn't care if it was fair. That seems to be how most people feel. It's inexplicable, really. Maybe we should adopt other country's methods of punishment. Chop shoplifter's hands off. Who cares if it's fair? Those thugs are stealing! (Being overly dramatic...take it for what it is, people)

Yeah I said I didn't care if his punishment was fair. Primarily because I didn't find his actions to be cause for fairness. In "real" life, most people would've been fired after the 3rd instance or so. Simply because the employee's actions would've given them a black eye. And the employer would've been well within their rights.

He still has a chance to come back after the 10th game if he adheres to all the stipulations as part of his discipline. Many people don't even get that chance.

 

[Jarv]

Where have I defended Pac-Man? Have I claimed that the things he is doing are not reprehensible, and not a manner in which a young man representing a large business should conduct himself? Certainly he must be punished, the personal conduct policy is in place for a reason. Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what I actually think is unfair, and why it is unfair. I would appreciate it if you would read more carefully before doling out personal scorn involving my screenname.



Another person who didn't actually read what I wrote. I'm not in favor of Goodell's actions so I must support and condone PacMan's. Makes perfect sense. I've been out of school for awhile now, pops. Let's try and practice some careful reading comprehension before doling out veiled insults, k?

Opps on the school thing.

But the rest of the reply. If you were the commish would you let Pac's actions go unpunished ? Like WG said he was mainly suspended because he did not report incidents that occured against league policy.

Would you have done nothing ? Or you you did puish him what would be your punishment ? Would it be strick enough to try to persude him not to ignore league rules again ?

If you had done what Pac has done would you be surprised if you were fired from your current job (Sorry if I'm just assuming you have a job, since you are done with school) ? If you would not be surprised you would be fired from your job than whats with the Pac is treated unfairly.

If you would be surprised if you were fired from your job for the same actions that Pac has comitted, then you may be out of school but you still have some learning to do.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

I cannot see how someone could be so outraged by what Pac Man's doing off the field to take a stance like you've taken above. It doesn't affect any of us one bit. It has nothing to do with what happens on Sunday. So as a human being, with a sense of wrong and right, just and unjust - how can you NOT care whether or not what is happening is fair? He's done nothing to any of us to inspire us to simply toss justice and accepted principles of discipline out the window - so why so much outrage against him and support for something that is so blatantly unfair?

I do grant that maybe the hypocrisy thing is a bit much, joseephus, in the way you took it to mean. My point is I think his stance on "on-field vs. off-field" issues is hypocritical, but that's maybe not the right word.

I think I'm searching for "idiotic."

I think there's an important distinction to be made between a "fair" system and a "just" system, the latter being far more important than the former. It is not the least bit "fair" that, for example, a person born into poverty who is accused of a crime is going to get far worse legal representation than a person born into wealth. But it may be "just" (although not all would agree) because, in theory at least, the system is about as good as you can get.

I see something similar here. Goodell's punishment of Pacman is arguably unfair but just.

 

[lspain1]

Where have I defended Pac-Man? Have I claimed that the things he is doing are not reprehensible, and not a manner in which a young man representing a large business should conduct himself? Certainly he must be punished, the personal conduct policy is in place for a reason. Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what I actually think is unfair, and why it is unfair. I would appreciate it if you would read more carefully before doling out personal scorn involving my screenname.

Hmmm...OK let's try reading "carefully" together.

so why so much outrage against him and support for something that is so blatantly unfair?

I took these words to mean you think PacMan's punishment does not fit his crime. To me that means you are "defending" him in that sense. Perhaps I was mistaken?

My point is I think his stance on "on-field vs. off-field" issues is hypocritical, but that's maybe not the right word.

I think I'm searching for "idiotic."

I took these words to mean you think that Goodell's implementation of a policy is both hypocritical and "idiotic." Perhaps I misunderstood you? If I understood you correctly, I disagree with your assessment and the reasoning behind it.

 

[superpunk]

Yeah I said I didn't care if his punishment was fair. Primarily because I didn't find his actions to be cause for fairness. In "real" life, most people would've been fired after the 3rd instance or so. Simply because the employee's actions would've given them a black eye. And the employer would've been well within their rights.

He still has a chance to come back after the 10th game if he adheres to all the stipulations as part of his discipline. Many people don't even get that chance.

Everyone deserves fairness.

Opps on the school thing.

But the rest of the reply. If you were the commish would you let Pac's actions go unpunished ? Like WG said he was mainly suspended because he did not report incidents that occured against league policy.

Would you have done nothing ? Or you you did puish him what would be your punishment ? Would it be strick enough to try to persude him not to ignore league rules again ?

If you had done what Pac has done would you be surprised if you were fired from your current job (Sorry if I'm just assuming you have a job, since you are done with school) ? If you would not be surprised you would be fired from your job than whats with the Pac is treated unfairly.

If you would be surprised if you were fired from your job for the same actions that Pac has comitted, then you may be out of school but you still have some learning to do.

I would expect my job to have a clear outline of what is expected of me, and clear direction on what would happen if I did not live up to my end of the bargain. I would not expect to watch my coworkers come to wrok drunk and punch my boss, and just be asked to take a two-week vacation - and then I go to a bar, get arrested for being drunk and disorderly, miss no time from work and then get fired. (while we're using the work metphor - acknowledging that the NFL is NOTHING like the world the rest of us reside in).

If I was the commissioner, I would have gotten a more stringent policy approved first, with clear guidelines as to what is expected and what the penalties are. I would not go around with reactionary rulings that are excessively harsh (when looked at in line with precedent) and unfair, in that PacMan had no way of knowing that the penalty would be this harsh. You set the punishment first - don't just make it up on the fly.

I think there's an important distinction to be made between a "fair" system and a "just" system, the latter being far more important than the former. It is not the least bit "fair" that, for example, a person born into poverty who is accused of a crime is going to get far worse legal representation than a person born into wealth. But it may be "just" (although not all would agree) because, in theory at least, the system is about as good as you can get.

I see something similar here. Goodell's punishment of Pacman is arguably unfair but just.

I don't know that it can be both, but I can see your POV.

 

[superpunk]

Hmmm...OK let's try reading "carefully" together.

I took these words to mean you think PacMan's punishment does not fit his crime. To me that means you are "defending" him in that sense. Perhaps I was mistaken?

I took these words to mean you think that Goodell's implementation of a policy is both hypocritical and "idiotic." Perhaps I misunderstood you? If I understood you correctly, I disagree with your assessment and the reasoning behind it.

Are you still searching for a post where I've defended PacMan, or can we assume that doesn't exist and move on?

 

[Jarv]

If I was the commissioner, I would have gotten a more stringent policy approved first, with clear guidelines as to what is expected and what the penalties are. I would not go around with reactionary rulings that are excessively harsh (when looked at in line with precedent) and unfair, in that PacMan had no way of knowing that the penalty would be this harsh. You set the punishment first - don't just make it up on the fly.



I don't know that it can be both, but I can see your POV.

Not sure where you live, but here in CT its a right to hire/fire state. I run my own business and I can fire someone for any reason any time. I don't need a policy stating that if you don't inform me that you are arested and I find out later you will be fired anymore than I need a policy that you punch someone in a bar you will be. Nor do I need to say one incident will cause me to suspend you for a week vs. one will get you fired.

If you don't feel Pac screwed up, then we will just have to disagree. If you do feel he screwed up, well then the punishment is doled out based upon what the employer wants to do.

The workplace is not a court of law, but a capitalist decision on whom I want to work for me. My laws and decisions. If you don't like it, based upons the laws here you are free to go someone else to find employment.

The NFL is also a workplace, if he does not like the comissioners decision he free to play in the arena leauge or CFL.

Bottom line, keep your nose clean and you won't be put in these situations in the 1st place.

 

[dargonking999]

EVERYONE TO YOUR CORNERS!!!!!!!!!!! The End of Round 10

Judges make your decision

 

[Jarv]

EVERYONE TO YOUR CORNERS!!!!!!!!!!! The End of Round 10

Judges make your decision

Seems like someone never made it out of his corner...