Pacman's Argument on Appeal

[dargonking999]

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

I didn't have a corner. Hostile turned into a wall. So i've been just watching

 

[Jarv]

I didn't have a corner. Hostile turned into a wall. So i've been just watching

I wasn't debating you, I know better than taking on an honor student...

 

[dargonking999]

I wasn't debating you, I know better than taking on an honor student...

lol. Nice one

 

[silverbear]

Chris Henry?

And isn't he in the same boat??

 

[silverbear]

I suspect most football fans want to put a stop to criminal behavior as well. I'm not saying Pacman shouldn't be suspended. I'm not saying others shouldn't be. I'm just saying there should be clear rules set up so that people know what is suspendable behavior and what isn't.

I believe the rules, at least in this case, ARE pretty clear...

That's fine that you're sick of it. I don't really care, nor do many others care that you're sick of it.

Nor should you, except that in this situation, my opinion on the subject is likely a lot more representative of the view of your average everyday fan than yours is...

No, you don't. You're full of it. You're lying to make a point. And if you're not, who cares? Viewership is constantly growing. If your friends stop watching, who cares?

Apparently, the NFL does... seems they think if their viewership declines, they won't be able to get as much money for their commercial slots...

It also seems you lack the mental acuity to grasp that simple economic fact...

As for me "lying", in all my years online, I have never gone that route... I don't care to "win" an online argument if I can't do it with the TRUTH... I could name names, give you the specifics of their issues with the NFL, but you wouldn't know them, so what's the point??

Sounds good, as long as we're clear that Pacman is getting treated differently because the media has focused on him.

Uhhhh, he has given them every reason to focus on him... just like the others who have gotten suspended, or face imminent suspension... so where's the "different" treatment??

The enforcement policy is NEW, somebody's gonna be the first to get burned by it... it just happened that this particular punk screwed up at the wrong time...

Now, if in the future some other players mess up in similar fashion, and do not receive similar punishment, then (but ONLY then) you'll have a legitimate point... get back to me if that happens, and you might even find me on your side...

No, it's not. You're simply wrong.

I am?? Strange, I seem to have read that it is a violation of NFL rules to fail to report to the league that you've been arrested... he didn't, now he's been suspended...

Seems pretty clear to me... I'm sorry if you lack the ability to understand something so very simple...

Who cares?

Well, it's clear you don't, which suggests you weren't raised the same way... that's an issue you should take up with your daddy...

The point is, Pac-Man knew the rule that got him in trouble, and broke it anyway... now, he has to pay the price for that... just like every man has to, if he's gonna call himself a man...

Or do I have to continually explain what the conversation is about?

Given that you don't have a freakin' clue what it's all about, that would be a neat trick...

 

[silverbear]

People are overlooking the fact that this is a new policy.

And you have to start somewhere... it makes sense to me to start with the WORST offenders, hopefully by doing that you send a message to the other players...

Indeed, if you're going to enforce the policy at all, you MUST start with the worst offenders...

 

[big dog cowboy]

And isn't he in the same boat??

Worse right now. He is looking at a 8 game vacation.

 

[silverbear]

Ok...so it's a new policy. How many times has Pac-Man been arrested since Goodell's tenure began?

Doesn't matter, the issue that has him in hot water is his failure to REPORT those arrests to the league... he tried to hide it from them, and got caught... now he has to pay...

Can you say honestly that the punishment is consistent, and even-handed? I know I can't.

Of course you can't, it's a NEW POLICY... there have to date been all of TWO players suspended, with a third likely in the near future...

It's pretty hard to detect ANY pattern YET...

If in the future, punishment proves to be inconsistent, and less than even-handed, THEN will be the time for criticism... if that proves to be the case, I might even be one of the ones doing the criticizing... but right now, it makes perfect sense to me to START with the WORST OFFENDERS, and step on them HARD, in the hope that it discourages other players from crossing that line...

Instead, he appears to be catering to the court of public opinion, and deciding to make an example out of Pac-Man because a group of people are all bent out of shape on their high horses about all these "thugs" that inhabit their precious NFL.

That's exactly right, and that was his mandate when he was given the job by the owners... IOW, he's doing the job he was hired to do...

And so, what we appear to be getting is hypocritical grandstanding with regards to PacMan Jones. He's been punished far harsher than any athlete prior, and for far less egregious errors.

Because there's a new emphasis on enforcing the rules about player conduct... the league's not wrong NOW, they were wrong in not enforcing the rules before this...

And NOW, the worst offender is Pac-Man Jones...

He's been made an example of, and as much as that ideal might be appealing, it's completely unfair and arbitrary.

And entirely legal... screw "fair", when it comes to this punk... let him learn the hard way...

He's taken excessively strong action against the off-field reprehensible behavior.

Rather than "excessively" strong action, it's "appropriately" strong action...

And why? Is it so that my viewing experience on Sunday will be more enjoyable?

Nope, it's because the league worries about its ADVERTISING REVENUE... if it appears tolerant of antisocial behavior by its players, that will turn off the potential buyers of their commercial time, who don't want to have their company's name associated with such behavior...

And don't tell me that sponsors don't bail out when negative press starts to mount, all I need to do is point out that Don Imus no longer has a job, and sponsors pulling their advertising is the ONLY reason why (not that he shouldn't have lost that job)...

No, PacMan's punishment is just some arbitrary ruling handed down so that the moral majority can say "Look at this commissioner - he's taking a stand. He won't stand for this off-field thuggery...black eye for the league....I can't stand watching people with dreds and gold teeth....bah humbug."

Oh, please... it's all about the Benjamins, just like always... it's about keeping the sponsors happy...

 

[silverbear]

Simple, pure and right to the point...

One thing you can say about CrazyCowboy, he doesn't waste words...

 

[silverbear]

According to Chris Mortenson, a vast majority of the player representatives wanted Pacman out of the league. Not just a suspension, but he said they wanted Pacman banned for life. These players, who were chosen by their teammates to represent their respective teams, are not the court of public opinion. They are the NFL. That is way more telling than opinions on message boards. These are guys that play the game and it really is their precious NFL.

How very interesting, I had not heard that... sure does frame this debate in a whole new light, doesn't it??

 

[silverbear]

Goodell just took over he is setting the new standards. I'm sorry some of you can cry for Pacman all you want but the NFL does not need thugs running around. The owners and Players went to Goodell about change and change is what is taking place and it is about time.

There's a new sheriff in town, for sure...

 

[big dog cowboy]

One thing you can say about CrazyCowboy, he doesn't waste words...

Good post.

 

[silverbear]

You've never been one to look past your own myopic viewpoints, so it's not surprising.

You could cut the irony in this post with a knife...

 

[silverbear]

Face it, WG - most of our behavior as humans is based on what we can and cannot get away with.

And when you push it too far, you get punished...

What we will get in trouble for, and how much trouble we are willing to get in for our actions. There was no standard set up where PacMan could know that he might be punished like this.

You guys keep saying that, and it's just not true... the standard was that he had to report his arrests to the NFL... he didn't do that, so he's being punished...

That's a completely PITIFUL argument anyway-- Pac-Man shouldn't be punished because he didn't know how severe the punishment would be??

Well, I reckon he knows now... and of course, he would have continued to push it until somebody did SOMETHING... except if he wasn't slapped down now, next time he might have hurt somebody...

That isn't fair.

He knew the rules, he chose to break them... to now suggest it's not fair to punish him because he had no way of knowing how HARSH the punishment would be is quite asinine...

I swear, it's depressing, seeing how many of you have no grasp of the simple concept of personal accountability... one hopes you're not raising children that way...

 

[silverbear]

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.

What's "fair" isn't really relevant to this discussion anyway... it's what's LEGAL that's at issue here...

And personally, I see nothing at all "unfair" in punishing this punk for being a punk... I don't recall any of these bleeding hearts getting so wound up when the first player got suspended "for life" for drug offenses, which of course makes their arguments now quite hypocritical...

 

[silverbear]

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.

Then you need a new moral compass...

It doesn't affect any of us one bit. It has nothing to do with what happens on Sunday.

Neither does Ricky Williams' affinity for smoking weed... I don't see you sticking up for him, though...

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?

Why so much outrage on YOUR part, when you've turned a blind eye to so much contemptible behavior by other players??

I think I'm searching for "idiotic."

Congratulations, you've gotten there...

 

[silverbear]

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.

He's not being punished for that guy getting shot...

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.

So, when Tagliabue retired, everybody in the league got a clean slate??

What a moronic argument...

 

[silverbear]

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.

Like I said, it's all about the Benjamins... Goodell is protecting the goose that lays the golden egg...

IOW, this is a purely ECONOMIC move on the part of the league, protecting their revenue stream, which is the same thing as protecting their very existence... they have every right to do so...

 

[silverbear]

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.

I'd be FASCINATED to know what punishment you would think appropriate... I'm betting it would amount to little more than a slap on the wrist, and would provide no deterrence to prevent him from doing the same things over and over again, him or any other player in the league...

Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what I actually think is unfair, and why it is unfair.

And how fair is it that this thug has done the things he's done??

I would appreciate it if you would read more carefully before doling out personal scorn involving my screenname.

Hey, if you call yourself superpunk, and make a habit of running around defending punks, that's a logical consequence of YOUR 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.

Actually, it does... you're clearly not in favor of the punk being punished for what he's done, which is giving a tacit endorsement to those actions...

 

[dargonking999]

and SB continues to own. I thought i said everyone to there cornerS? Am i gonna have to jump in here?