Bartimaeus

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIwhn2pXgAEfeqt?format=jpg Appeal statement from the girl who fought with Elliot's ex-girlfriend. ...In other news, it's really not fair that my fantasy football league drafts tomorrow and we still have no resolution to this...

He was elected under our electoral college system, and the electoral college system is a way of implementing democracy...or at least attempting to. Clearly, some people do not feel as though it is a just or effective system, and I would count myself among them...especially seeing just how badly the current system can be gamed, with nearly 3 million more votes going to the loser (note: this is not a new phenomenon, and both parties have been focusing most of their efforts on certain battlegrounds over others for a long time because of this issue, but this election was a strong reminder just how bad it can actually get). Given that the Democrats have now lost two presidential elections in recent history - one to a not great candidate, and another to a disastrous candidate that also formed control over the other two branches of government - you'd think they'd have more interest in election reform. And some people do have interest, certainly...but not enough for any change to be on the horizon from what I can tell.

It was actually a pretty sore point in 2000 as well when Gore (D) lost the election while holding a .5 lead (not as gigantic of a lead as Hillary's 2.1, but sizeable enough). As for the rest of what you said, with no explanation/context, I'm not sure what you mean. (e: oh, the last point: yes, american liberalism is not the same as classic liberalism)

A military coup would be a disaster for everyone. Unless there is an existential/doomsday crisis, the removal of a president must follow the laws that have been set out unless we wish the end of our democracy and/or another civil war. The military should not become a separate branch of the government that is allowed to usurp the others, just as the others should not be allowed to usurp each other. We would be little more than a military state at that point. No, unless our very existence is being threatened because of the president, they must be removed the same way they were put there - lawfully. If that means we have to wait until the law does its due diligence, then so be it.

I think it would help your video game journalists to have actually have played video games before, but that's just me...

No, not really. Filing for bankruptcy is a great way to protect yourself from too much debt and overhead. You will lose assets, but if you are underwater on a lot of stuff, it is typically your best bet. it's a little worse than you s'pose. the nflpa messed up, particular during the most recent cba. the nfla demanded all kinds o' practical considerations which gave advantages to veteran players insofar as making money and keeping their jobs. got rookie pay scales for first four years. decrease practice times. changes to free agency. etc. all seemed to benefit vets, and the very big and very public contracts seeming support such a conclusion. well guess what? four years is longer than the typical nfl career, and something like 40% o' players is making the league minimum. these guys burn through their cash like there is no tomorrow... and they discover 'bout three years later they got no nfl career, hardly any savings, and no real degree 'pon which to fall back 'pon. thanks to the cba, the league has become increasing young-- opposite o' what the nflpa intended. most folks in the nfl plays a handful o' years and then discovers how difficult it is with a middle-class (if they are lucky) job to pay for multiple italian sports cars and a mansion, or two... or three. worse, these guys got too much pride to work as a manager at denny's, which is 'bout what their "kinesiology" *wink* degree from alabama or lsu is likely to get 'em after they quit playing. in not rich person bankruptcy so much as guys living way too rich bankruptcy. the nfl and nflpa gives multiple rookie seminars every year which educate players 'bout the realities o' their new careers. the valuable information provided by the player's association and the league should be a wakeup call, but it clear isn't. as to the elliott investigator, you folks didn't read the comments from mr. harvey we provided 'bove. he addressed the credibility issue o' the victim. is not as if her credibility issues were hidden from harvey, huston, lovelace davie, and white. 'ccording to the recent reports you folks is reading, the nfl investigator thought the evidence would be confusing and the victim's credibility would hurt. however, much like the lead investigator for ohio law enforcement who original investigated, those 4 individuals we mentioned 'bove accepted how the victim were untruthful 'bout an event, but still found her overall claim credible. the meta data clear did not confuse the 4 folks reviewing. people is selective reading to hear what they wish. is not the smoking gun you folks believe it to be, particular if you read the actual investigator comments and not simple the headlines. HA! Good Fun! The meta data on the pictures of the injuries definitely seems like the glue holding it all together - without it, there wouldn't be much of a case due to the witness being unreliable and a lack of other hard evidence. Everything would've just devolved to he-and-my-buddies-said and she-and-my-buddies-said without it. However, at this point, I feel pretty safe in saying that the NFL has bungled, once again, this investigation and especially the PR aspect of it...but in a different way than they have previously. The first thing they should've done is told every media outlet that they had at least some hard evidence and detailed what it was as the suspension was being announced - not this "we'll post an interview with the experts and leave you guys to figure out the pertinent info from there". Most people just don't read anything besides headlines anymore - that information should've been one of the first things fed to the media, not the last, so that it actually got to the general NFL fan. I never even saw that interview mentioned anywhere until you posted a direct link to it...and I'm relatively on top of football news, so what the heck, NFL? They should've also allowed the lead investigator to give his input (for some reason, he was not allowed to do this prior to the suspension being handed down) and gotten him on the same page as everyone else so we don't get this crazy "lead investigator didn't think Elliot should've been suspended" nonsense. They've now bungled the appeal in a few different ways, which combined with the other things, makes it difficult to have much sympathy for the NFL at this point. How many different ways can you screw up these PR crises? Things that they could at least *try* to prevent - knowing the predictable media and subsequent fan outrage that they've faced a dozen times now - and they screw it up every time.

Well, it says 78% of players actually "file for bankruptcy" within 5 years...I think that's actually pretty broke.

https://blog.mint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/From-Stoked-to-Broke-Why-are-So-Many-Professional-Athletes-Going-Bankrupt.png Well, I was close (78% of players within 5 years). However, interestingly, while not quite as bad as football (which is the worst of the major sports), good percentages of other sports' athletes go broke pretty quickly, too.

The lead investigator of Elliot's case was the only person involved with the investigation to actually meet with the victim...and the lead investigator recommended no suspension for Elliot. So...all the other experts who didn't meet with the victim must've recommended that he be suspended, I guess?

I mentioned it before, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

lol @ the two memos that Trump's attorneys pre-emptively sent to Mueller to defend Trump against possible obstruction of justice charges. The Nixon defense - obstruction of justice laws do not apply to the president - and slandering Comey's character. Yeah, I'm sure those arguments are really giving Mueller pause.

They are experimenting with softer helmets this year, somewhat spearheaded by the Seahawks. I hope they are successful, though players have to choose to wear them. Seahawks are also big teachers of rugby-style wrap-up tackling (and if "big hits" are illegalized in the near-future, the Seahawks will probably be the best equipped to immediately evolve past them, which will probably give them a bit of a competitive advantage for a couple of years assuming Pete Carroll is still head coach). I really don't think we'll notice that much of a difference in the game if big hits become illegal - the elimination of the three point-stance will probably have a much bigger effect on the game, and it's what's likely causing CTE in linemen.

Oh, yeah, if you're looking to play sports professionally, baseball (and basketball*) is definitely the way to go. Football is a pretty crappy deal compared to other sports, all things considered - the relative low amount of money, lack of guarantees, horrible injuries, short career - but it does employ some different body types than other sports do. *Basketball has such tiny rosters, though, so your chances of ever making any decent money off of the sport is really low.

I wouldn't - at least, not outside of a few of the "safer" positions like a punter or kicker, maybe long snapper with the (head) protections they're afforded today. There's little point in earning millions of dollars if your brain is in such bad shape that you're perpetually making terrible monetary decisions (what is it, somewhere around 70-80% of players are bankrupt within like three years of leaving the league?) or cannot think straight or act normally a decade after retiring. Your brain is your entire mortal existence: it's not worth selling to this bloodsport.

Yep. Like I said, we really don't know exactly had bad or widespread CTE really is, even now. It'd be insane if it was actually 99% of the football population, and I very sincerely hope it's not (and I don't think it is because of the huge selection bias of only looking at people who already thought they had it - I just don't know how valuable that statistic can be without looking at players who didn't think they had it...but you can't get their brains to look at if they or their family don't donate their brain, so...). Either way, though, given the awful consequences of head injuries in the NFL and at the collegiate level, the head honchos of this sport are almost certainly going to need to re-examine the way the game is played if they want it to continue being top dollar in the U.S. in the decades to come. I certainly don't want us to go back to baseball...or soccer. Eugh.

Yeah, that's not really how statistics works. As you just said, 99% of tested players - aka, guys or their families who felt pretty confident that they had it, enough so that they were inclined to donate their brain after they died for testing exactly that - had it. That's a pretty big selection bias. If there's a conclusion to be made there, it's probably more like if you played football and actually showed symptoms of the disease, you probably have it, especially if you and your family don't have a history of mental illness. I think it's pretty unlikely to be nearly that high among the general football population, but maybe it's that high for linemen, who knows? Without being able to test it on still alive players, it's hard to peg down exactly.

What? Why would "99%" of players have it?

Luckily, neither Oby or Qistina have accounts anymore.

...that starts at the high school (or lower) level, when parents and school reps are pressuring kids to play and where kids obviously don't know about the risks of playing football when they're starting. By the time they finish their collegiate careers, they have already likely suffered brain damage without receiving anything more than an education for it. This is also looking at the issue with a modern and knowledgeable perspective: for decades, the NFL have tried to cover up issues of brain health as it relates to football, and I think the issue was especially murky for the young black men coming from awful situations that the NFL relies so heavily upon. Nowadays, the risks are more well-known...and what do you know, more and more parents are not having their kids play the game. Personally, I don't want these next 5-15 years be the final years of a golden age of football as the game suffers from a dearth of talent due to mostly preventable brain injuries, especially when it's so painfully obviously that we'll look back on these years as being unnecessarily brutal and awful for no real reason. (e): ninja-ed by Shady

Unlike a lot of people, I look forward to the day where players have to tackle properly (i.e. wrap-up) instead of trying to knock each others' brains out, and when interior linemen aren't smashing their heads together on every snap. Yeah, it'll slow the game down some, but it's necessary and the change will be forgotten for the most part in a few years once it's done (...although defensive linemen will probably struggle to evolve for a while if the three-point stance is eliminated). In regards to Ezekiel, it seems as though Schefter from ESPN (pretty much the only guy worth anything that still works at ESPN and has actual insider sources...) now thinks that there's a decent chance Elliot's suspension is reduced (which is interesting, because I'm pretty sure he previously thought it wouldn't be - something must've changed his mind).

The only one I can think of that I've played is Broken Age (e: also, for anyone who hasn't played Broken Age or doesn't know anything about it, there are two protagonists, Vella and Shay, that are equally important and you have to play through both of their parts to progress through the game).

Thank you for the links, especially the first one, which is the best info I've seen so far on it. Although this appears to an official NFL website, I don't recall this document being publicized a couple of weeks ago. (e): Based on the document, the general feeling seems to be that he likely did it (and based on what they said, I wouldn't disagree and I don't think there's any reason to doubt their integrity), but there mightn't be enough hard evidence to criminally convict him. It's not ideal, but at least it's not as much of a flaming crapheap of an investigation as Deflategate was.

Well, I tried reading an interview from Tonya Davis on the case, but uh, it was pretty worthless. A whole lot of generalities and background information that maybe have some kind of implications if you're really trying to read into it...but which had nothing to do directly with the case. I wasn't expecting her to like, you know, totally spill the beans on the case or anything (that'd probably be a real quick way to never have any input on something like this ever again), but if you're trying to convince an indignant and confused fanbase of something that is seemingly not supported by any real evidence, ya' probably could do a little better than that. Would you care to link to a more insightful interview?

Ezekiel Elliot reportedly looking to go to court over his suspension. I suppose the NFLPA is driving it, perhaps so that it can point to these incidents to the players so they know what they're fighting for in the new CBA come 2021 and so that they don't immediately cave (it should also help that a few of the owners, including Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones, should definitely feel wronged by the commissioner's broad power at this point). EE will 99.9% lose, and he probably won't even be given an injunction on the suspension at this point.

I appreciate you keeping politics out of the funny thread unlike everyone else.