• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Random Thought Thread

rossihunter2 said:
you used the word coerce and then said it's a grey area of "consensual or not" - i'd say "coerce" makes that not a grey area at all
Click to expand...


If you choose to do it because you're offered more money then it's consensual. I don't care about these new meanings or pronoun games. They were all adults there. I'd really love to see the pages of these IG girls he got. You all realize that a lot of people use it as a form of advertising for soliciting right? Not saying everyone, but the numbers are higher than you'd think. And yes, I know not all of them was from IG.

How many games did Kraft get?
 
rossihunter2 said:
i think both those plays they showed were fine
1st one it was the defender who got riled up and hit him late
2nd one was absolutely fine, defender didnt have any issue with it after... just a finish

im glad we didnt pick him because i wasnt his biggest fan but ive got no issues with his aggression and nastiness at all
Click to expand...

Naaah not after all our injuries last year. It’s too soon to be doing all that extra shit
 
rmcjacket23 said:
I mean... they're two dramatically different things. Getting a hummer from a masseuse in a consensual act shouldn't really be a big deal at all. No different than two people having sex with each other consensually. Even if they paid for it, it's almost impossible to argue that prostitution is immoral these days anyway.
Beating up a spouse or a girlfriend breaks a shit load of really good laws, so of course that should be treated differently.

The concept is based on whether or not the NFL should be in the business of punishing employees for legal acts, just because the general public doesn't like it? There's obviously some grey area and arguments here about whether or not what Watson did was legal or not, but the legal system doesn't think what he did was illegal (or at the very least, doesn't have enough evidence to make a case that it is).
Click to expand...
Definitely different in severity and from the viewpoint of the law, but both have the potential to hurt the business. No question one should carry a more severe punishment.

There’s a ton of rules and policies out there in all forms of business that state “or giving the appearance of” some sort of wrongdoing or unethical behavior. As an employee you don’t have to be proven to be guilty of a crime to be punished or to lose your job. If it’s proven you’ve violated written company policy(which pretty much everyone signs to) you face the consequences.
 
Last edited:
redrum52 said:
How many games did Kraft get?
Click to expand...
Completely different. Remember Kraft crushed local authorities and the NFL in court. So badly that his lawyers had the only evidence deemed inadmissible. The frigging video tape of him coming in and getting an HJ was thrown out lol. Watson should have kept it off social media, OGs like Kraft just go old school to Asian massage parlors
 
BoredMarine13 said:
Completely different. Remember Kraft crushed local authorities and the NFL in court. So badly that his lawyers had the only evidence deemed inadmissible. The frigging video tape of him coming in and getting an HJ was thrown out lol. Watson should have kept it off social media, OGs like Kraft just go old school to Asian massage parlors
Click to expand...
You would think for the kind of money these guys have they could easily get a doordash hummer at the no tell motel. lol
 
rossihunter2 said:
you used the word coerce and then said it's a grey area of "consensual or not" - i'd say "coerce" makes that not a grey area at all
Click to expand...
Maybe. I'm also probably using coerce as the maximum. Coercing usually requires threats or force, which it doesn't appear was used frequently or at all by Watson. Mostly the "I'm powerful and rich and you're not" thought process.
 
BoredMarine13 said:
Obviously having no idea what really happened ,six arbitrarily feels appropriate only for the fact it could cost the NFL some revenue. Which is the only thing the NFL cares about.

I don’t think many, if any male fans are going to stop watching the NFL becuase of the NFL’s level of punishment. Even the simps will make a stink on social media but they’ll be tuned in Sunday all the same. I do believe the NFL will lose a small section of female viewers because of this. 4-6 games ,for giving the company a temporary black eye and possibly a small loss in revenue , feels appropriate to me.
Click to expand...
Right. And the difference is... I don't think they'll see a long list of female runaways. I think it'll largely have an immaterial impact on the bottom line, viewership, attendance, etc.

I think 6 games was chosen because that's largely the previous precedent set forth for guys like Big Ben and Zeke, who had off-field issues that largely involved civil actions, but made the league look bad.
 
Tank said:
Definitely different in severity and from the viewpoint of the law, but both have the potential to hurt the business. No question one should carry a more severe punishment.

There’s a ton of rules and policies out there in all forms of business that state “or giving the appearance of” some sort of wrongdoing or unethical behavior. As an employee you don’t have to be proven to be guilty of a crime to be punished or to lose your job. If it’s proven you’ve violated written company policy(which pretty much everyone signs to) you face the consequences.
Click to expand...
And I agree with this... to an extent. The overall issue, of course, is that I seriously doubt anywhere in a players contract or CBA agreement does it say "thou shall not get hummers from Craigslist masseuses". I seriously doubt that's clearly defined as an infraction in the company policy.

The knock on the NFL is that their "personal conduct policy" has always been written in such a wide and vague way that basically its an arbitrary decision for the NFL to decide what is detrimental and what isn't. Some would say that's totally fair, but others would say that you've basically create a Corporate loophole to punish, fine, suspend or fire anybody who does something you don't like.

Now, ultimately, I side with the employer in these specific cases, mostly because this was all collectively bargained, and the employees, as a group, agreed to this being the process. So if they were that unhappy with the process, CBA negotiations is the time to adjust.
And as I pointed out during the last CBA discussions... these policies tend to only impact like 1% of the overall employee/player pool, since most players will never be subject to the personal conduct policy to begin with. So thinking they should hold out or bargain for policies that generally impact very few is a waste of time and money.
 
Thinking a bit more on it, I realized that instead of suspension, Watson's punishment should be that he gets sexually assaulted by Roethliesberger. Sound about right to me
 
rmcjacket23 said:
"thou shall not get hummers from Craigslist masseuses"..
Click to expand...
Was it hummers or HJs? Equal punishment for both would be unfair, even less punishment for an over the pants HJ
 
rossihunter2 said:
i think both those plays they showed were fine
1st one it was the defender who got riled up and hit him late
2nd one was absolutely fine, defender didnt have any issue with it after... just a finish

im glad we didnt pick him because i wasnt his biggest fan but ive got no issues with his aggression and nastiness at all
Click to expand...

Hehehe

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top