NFL Gambling - Does the second shoe drop?

[Ice]

There is a lot of willful ignorance in this thread. I've clearly stated people should be expected to follow rules or fave consequences and that responsibility falls solely on the person breaking rules. Now I've said it again! Of course at this point there is no excuse for not being aware.

@ericanadian that's a good point and probably likely.

You all act like none of us work for places with web filters on the internet access. That's essentially what I'm saying here. What's "weak minded" is ignoring that this isn't about taking away personal responsibility. It's not about freedom in any way that's a straw man.

If you are going to more or less directly observe bad behavior so that you can subsequently mete out punishment without an attempt to stop or prevent said behavior that is in my opinion acting in bad faith. That is literally all I have said here. And nobody has provided a valid reason why that is wrong besides vague platitudes about freedom and personal responsibility. I guess there is still a large segment of society that is more interested in getting their pound of flesh than actual progress.

This underlined point has been made in this thread- multiple private companies do this. For those arguing that blocking access to betting platforms at team facilities would be treating people like children instead of professionals, I'm curious- do you raise such concerns at work when you find your employer blocks sites like facebook or fantasy football platforms?

That argument isn't how the world works.

My company blocks all kinds of sites on their computer and phone they give me. They can't touch my personal computer or phone and I don't need their wifi. I can use a private hotspot and cell data.

Blaming others or even justifying bad behavior as if it is the companies fault is extremely flawed logic.

It is not the companies responsibility to change behavior. They can penalize and even fire one if employees don't comply with company policy but the only one that can actually change behavior is the individual. BTW, I have zero issues with companies protecting their servers and blocking sites that are not work related given they are paying for productivity. Those that don't like are free to quit.

This is so not hard to understand I am surprised by the "players are victims stance" some are taking thinking the company is in anyway at fault on this topic.

Your point is simply not valid if you think it through.

[killer_of_giants]

it's not a philosophical decision whether to prevent or punish. it's not about freedom of choice, draconian institutions or slippery slopes.
punishing is easier (and cheaper) than preventing. plus, if you go the prevention route, it's your fault if it doesn't work. you can still punish the offender, but it's a failure on your part. much less hassle just saying it shouldn't be done, and having someone checking it for you.

[kadun2]

it's not a philosophical decision whether to prevent or punish. it's not about freedom of choice, draconian institutions or slippery slopes.
punishing is easier (and cheaper) than preventing. plus, if you go the prevention route, it's your fault if it doesn't work. you can still punish the offender, but it's a failure on your part. much less hassle just saying it shouldn't be done, and having someone checking it for you.

punishing is preventing

[Pullo Vision]

There is a lot of willful ignorance in this thread. I've clearly stated people should be expected to follow rules or fave consequences and that responsibility falls solely on the person breaking rules. Now I've said it again! Of course at this point there is no excuse for not being aware.

@ericanadian that's a good point and probably likely.

You all act like none of us work for places with web filters on the internet access. That's essentially what I'm saying here. What's "weak minded" is ignoring that this isn't about taking away personal responsibility. It's not about freedom in any way that's a straw man.

If you are going to more or less directly observe bad behavior so that you can subsequently mete out punishment without an attempt to stop or prevent said behavior that is in my opinion acting in bad faith. That is literally all I have said here. And nobody has provided a valid reason why that is wrong besides vague platitudes about freedom and personal responsibility. I guess there is still a large segment of society that is more interested in getting their pound of flesh than actual progress.

This underlined point has been made in this thread- multiple private companies do this. For those arguing that blocking access to betting platforms at team facilities would be treating people like children instead of professionals, I'm curious- do you raise such concerns at work when you find your employer blocks sites like facebook or fantasy football platforms?

That argument isn't how the world works.

My company blocks all kinds of sites on their computer and phone they give me. They can't touch my personal computer or phone and I don't need their wifi. I can use a private hotspot and cell data.

Blaming others or even justifying bad behavior as if it is the companies fault is extremely flawed logic.

It is not the companies responsibility to change behavior. They can penalize and even fire one if employees don't comply with company policy but the only one that can actually change behavior is the individual. BTW, I have zero issues with companies protecting their servers and blocking sites that are not work related given they are paying for productivity. Those that don't like are free to quit.

This is so not hard to understand I am surprised by the "players are victims stance" some are taking thinking the company is in anyway at fault on this topic.

Your point is simply not valid if you think it through.

Maybe my argument here is too nuanced. It is the internet, so I need to keep my expectations in check. But, I'll try to explain it to you. Again, in some cases.

Preventing sites/apps from being accessed doesn't require accessing your personal computer/phone. If done correctly, hotspotting or using a cell plan's data wouldn't get around it, by itself.

When a site/app receives a request to view their info, the device's location could be cross-checked against know team facilities. If it is within an agreed upon radius of such a facility, the device could receive a warning notification or denied access entirely. Those steps would not require accessing the device.

Ever since first deployed in WW2, cluster munitions have been known to have a certain level of duds, where they fail to explode. Despite years of technical work to reduce that rate of failure, a percentage still fail to explode. They lie in streets, in fields, exploding at random points, sometimes a few minutes, sometimes a few years after being dropped. Despite this known failure to work as intended, nations like the USSR/Russia and the USA have continued to deploy them.

In part due to their tendency to explode well after a conflict has ended and maiming civilians years or even decades later, numerous countries have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions to prohibit their use. From the perspective of these countries, a failure rate above 0.00% is unacceptable. Contrast that to the reported dud rate of Russia's CMs at 30-40%, or the version the US is providing to Ukraine of about 2.35%.

That example simply shows the ranges of acceptable failure rate. If you're responsible for the testing and production of CMs in the US, you're willing to accept some failures in the process, but 30% is too much. Other countries like Canada would think that 2.35% is too high. Compared to them, Russia doesn't seem to care at all.

I'll dive more deeply into my training example from before- when you are bringing various new hires into your organization and walking them through policies and procedures, you'll have documents (probably in a binder) and powerpoint slides. You may even give them a quiz at the end to test retention/comprehension. If a single person of my last 10 trainees fails to grasp something, I'd write that off. But, if 8 of the 10 fail to understand the exact same point (how to properly write off business expenses, or the policy on sexual harassment), I'd examine the entire training process, both what I said and the materials I provided. It's possible the document isn't clear enough on the issue, or it could be as simple as spending more time on the topic. I know because I've had that problem- when multiple people going through a program don't understand the same thing, the issue requires examination.

The real debate here, IMO, is what is an acceptable failure rate? For the CMs referenced above, some accept 30% duds as being battle ready. Others think anything above 0% is completely unacceptable. There are 55 players on an in-season roster. 9 players have been suspended so far this year for gambling- that represents .51136% of NFL players. Now, you could argue that, like the USA and CMs, that's an acceptable failure rate. Or, you could argue like other nations and say that anything above 0% is unacceptable.

Again, I reiterate- this isn't "players v owners" (the policy applies to *EVERY* person employed by the NFL, or a team, as I've stated here before), or the worn out trope of "who to blame?!", or some sort of misguided "victim" stance. It's about understanding the rate at which players, after being presented the information, failed to either understand or remember it. If you want to take a hard line and argue that a failure rate above 0% is an issue, that means you need to examine the whole training process. Once you figure out what the tolerance level is, then you can figure out steps.

I don't think .51136% represents a high enough level to warrant a complete rewriting of the gambling process. But, the NFL is not an empire and, like states in the USA, the individual franchises have flexibility in policy. Considering Detroit's HC and that multiple Lions got hit with gambling suspensions, I could see them taking steps to reinforce the policy at their facilities.

[ericanadian]

This underlined point has been made in this thread- multiple private companies do this. For those arguing that blocking access to betting platforms at team facilities would be treating people like children instead of professionals, I'm curious- do you raise such concerns at work when you find your employer blocks sites like facebook or fantasy football platforms?

That argument isn't how the world works.

My company blocks all kinds of sites on their computer and phone they give me. They can't touch my personal computer or phone and I don't need their wifi. I can use a private hotspot and cell data.

Blaming others or even justifying bad behavior as if it is the companies fault is extremely flawed logic.

It is not the companies responsibility to change behavior. They can penalize and even fire one if employees don't comply with company policy but the only one that can actually change behavior is the individual. BTW, I have zero issues with companies protecting their servers and blocking sites that are not work related given they are paying for productivity. Those that don't like are free to quit.

This is so not hard to understand I am surprised by the "players are victims stance" some are taking thinking the company is in anyway at fault on this topic.

Your point is simply not valid if you think it through.

Maybe my argument here is too nuanced. It is the internet, so I need to keep my expectations in check. But, I'll try to explain it to you. Again, in some cases.

Preventing sites/apps from being accessed doesn't require accessing your personal computer/phone. If done correctly, hotspotting or using a cell plan's data wouldn't get around it, by itself.

When a site/app receives a request to view their info, the device's location could be cross-checked against know team facilities. If it is within an agreed upon radius of such a facility, the device could receive a warning notification or denied access entirely. Those steps would not require accessing the device.

Ever since first deployed in WW2, cluster munitions have been known to have a certain level of duds, where they fail to explode. Despite years of technical work to reduce that rate of failure, a percentage still fail to explode. They lie in streets, in fields, exploding at random points, sometimes a few minutes, sometimes a few years after being dropped. Despite this known failure to work as intended, nations like the USSR/Russia and the USA have continued to deploy them.

In part due to their tendency to explode well after a conflict has ended and maiming civilians years or even decades later, numerous countries have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions to prohibit their use. From the perspective of these countries, a failure rate above 0.00% is unacceptable. Contrast that to the reported dud rate of Russia's CMs at 30-40%, or the version the US is providing to Ukraine of about 2.35%.

That example simply shows the ranges of acceptable failure rate. If you're responsible for the testing and production of CMs in the US, you're willing to accept some failures in the process, but 30% is too much. Other countries like Canada would think that 2.35% is too high. Compared to them, Russia doesn't seem to care at all.

I'll dive more deeply into my training example from before- when you are bringing various new hires into your organization and walking them through policies and procedures, you'll have documents (probably in a binder) and powerpoint slides. You may even give them a quiz at the end to test retention/comprehension. If a single person of my last 10 trainees fails to grasp something, I'd write that off. But, if 8 of the 10 fail to understand the exact same point (how to properly write off business expenses, or the policy on sexual harassment), I'd examine the entire training process, both what I said and the materials I provided. It's possible the document isn't clear enough on the issue, or it could be as simple as spending more time on the topic. I know because I've had that problem- when multiple people going through a program don't understand the same thing, the issue requires examination.

The real debate here, IMO, is what is an acceptable failure rate? For the CMs referenced above, some accept 30% duds as being battle ready. Others think anything above 0% is completely unacceptable. There are 55 players on an in-season roster. 9 players have been suspended so far this year for gambling- that represents .51136% of NFL players. Now, you could argue that, like the USA and CMs, that's an acceptable failure rate. Or, you could argue like other nations and say that anything above 0% is unacceptable.

Again, I reiterate- this isn't "players v owners" (the policy applies to *EVERY* person employed by the NFL, or a team, as I've stated here before), or the worn out trope of "who to blame?!", or some sort of misguided "victim" stance. It's about understanding the rate at which players, after being presented the information, failed to either understand or remember it. If you want to take a hard line and argue that a failure rate above 0% is an issue, that means you need to examine the whole training process. Once you figure out what the tolerance level is, then you can figure out steps.

I don't think .51136% represents a high enough level to warrant a complete rewriting of the gambling process. But, the NFL is not an empire and, like states in the USA, the individual franchises have flexibility in policy. Considering Detroit's HC and that multiple Lions got hit with gambling suspensions, I could see them taking steps to reinforce the policy at their facilities.

The thing is, I suspect that the majority of players simply don’t gamble, or at least not on the sports betting sites in question, so even if they failed to understand the process, it wouldn’t generate a failure. 19% of American adults have placed a bet and Roughly 6% of the American adult population have used online gambling apps over a twelve month period.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... past-year/

Say that holds to the NFL population, how much of that 6% would’ve been done outside team facilities even if there was no knowledge of it being against the rules? I suspect a lot of it. Even if you assume all 6% would’ve gambled in team facilities were they unaware of any rule against it, that 0.51% is roughly 10% of the NFL population using gambling apps even once over the last year, which looks like a much less positive outcome than the 0.51%.

[Ice]

This underlined point has been made in this thread- multiple private companies do this. For those arguing that blocking access to betting platforms at team facilities would be treating people like children instead of professionals, I'm curious- do you raise such concerns at work when you find your employer blocks sites like facebook or fantasy football platforms?

That argument isn't how the world works.

My company blocks all kinds of sites on their computer and phone they give me. They can't touch my personal computer or phone and I don't need their wifi. I can use a private hotspot and cell data.

Blaming others or even justifying bad behavior as if it is the companies fault is extremely flawed logic.

It is not the companies responsibility to change behavior. They can penalize and even fire one if employees don't comply with company policy but the only one that can actually change behavior is the individual. BTW, I have zero issues with companies protecting their servers and blocking sites that are not work related given they are paying for productivity. Those that don't like are free to quit.

This is so not hard to understand I am surprised by the "players are victims stance" some are taking thinking the company is in anyway at fault on this topic.

Your point is simply not valid if you think it through.

Maybe my argument here is too nuanced. It is the internet, so I need to keep my expectations in check. But, I'll try to explain it to you. Again, in some cases.

Preventing sites/apps from being accessed doesn't require accessing your personal computer/phone. If done correctly, hotspotting or using a cell plan's data wouldn't get around it, by itself.

When a site/app receives a request to view their info, the device's location could be cross-checked against know team facilities. If it is within an agreed upon radius of such a facility, the device could receive a warning notification or denied access entirely. Those steps would not require accessing the device.

Ever since first deployed in WW2, cluster munitions have been known to have a certain level of duds, where they fail to explode. Despite years of technical work to reduce that rate of failure, a percentage still fail to explode. They lie in streets, in fields, exploding at random points, sometimes a few minutes, sometimes a few years after being dropped. Despite this known failure to work as intended, nations like the USSR/Russia and the USA have continued to deploy them.

In part due to their tendency to explode well after a conflict has ended and maiming civilians years or even decades later, numerous countries have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions to prohibit their use. From the perspective of these countries, a failure rate above 0.00% is unacceptable. Contrast that to the reported dud rate of Russia's CMs at 30-40%, or the version the US is providing to Ukraine of about 2.35%.

That example simply shows the ranges of acceptable failure rate. If you're responsible for the testing and production of CMs in the US, you're willing to accept some failures in the process, but 30% is too much. Other countries like Canada would think that 2.35% is too high. Compared to them, Russia doesn't seem to care at all.

I'll dive more deeply into my training example from before- when you are bringing various new hires into your organization and walking them through policies and procedures, you'll have documents (probably in a binder) and powerpoint slides. You may even give them a quiz at the end to test retention/comprehension. If a single person of my last 10 trainees fails to grasp something, I'd write that off. But, if 8 of the 10 fail to understand the exact same point (how to properly write off business expenses, or the policy on sexual harassment), I'd examine the entire training process, both what I said and the materials I provided. It's possible the document isn't clear enough on the issue, or it could be as simple as spending more time on the topic. I know because I've had that problem- when multiple people going through a program don't understand the same thing, the issue requires examination.

The real debate here, IMO, is what is an acceptable failure rate? For the CMs referenced above, some accept 30% duds as being battle ready. Others think anything above 0% is completely unacceptable. There are 55 players on an in-season roster. 9 players have been suspended so far this year for gambling- that represents .51136% of NFL players. Now, you could argue that, like the USA and CMs, that's an acceptable failure rate. Or, you could argue like other nations and say that anything above 0% is unacceptable.

Again, I reiterate- this isn't "players v owners" (the policy applies to *EVERY* person employed by the NFL, or a team, as I've stated here before), or the worn out trope of "who to blame?!", or some sort of misguided "victim" stance. It's about understanding the rate at which players, after being presented the information, failed to either understand or remember it. If you want to take a hard line and argue that a failure rate above 0% is an issue, that means you need to examine the whole training process. Once you figure out what the tolerance level is, then you can figure out steps.

I don't think .51136% represents a high enough level to warrant a complete rewriting of the gambling process. But, the NFL is not an empire and, like states in the USA, the individual franchises have flexibility in policy. Considering Detroit's HC and that multiple Lions got hit with gambling suspensions, I could see them taking steps to reinforce the policy at their facilities.

Nuanced isn’t the word I would use to describe your argument at all.

I can think of a few words that start with a R or S that would be far more appropriate.

[Bronco Billy]

Maybe my argument here is too nuanced. It is the internet, so I need to keep my expectations in check. But, I'll try to explain it to you. Again, in some cases.

Preventing sites/apps from being accessed doesn't require accessing your personal computer/phone. If done correctly, hotspotting or using a cell plan's data wouldn't get around it, by itself.

When a site/app receives a request to view their info, the device's location could be cross-checked against know team facilities. If it is within an agreed upon radius of such a facility, the device could receive a warning notification or denied access entirely. Those steps would not require accessing the device.

Ever since first deployed in WW2, cluster munitions have been known to have a certain level of duds, where they fail to explode. Despite years of technical work to reduce that rate of failure, a percentage still fail to explode. They lie in streets, in fields, exploding at random points, sometimes a few minutes, sometimes a few years after being dropped. Despite this known failure to work as intended, nations like the USSR/Russia and the USA have continued to deploy them.

In part due to their tendency to explode well after a conflict has ended and maiming civilians years or even decades later, numerous countries have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions to prohibit their use. From the perspective of these countries, a failure rate above 0.00% is unacceptable. Contrast that to the reported dud rate of Russia's CMs at 30-40%, or the version the US is providing to Ukraine of about 2.35%.

That example simply shows the ranges of acceptable failure rate. If you're responsible for the testing and production of CMs in the US, you're willing to accept some failures in the process, but 30% is too much. Other countries like Canada would think that 2.35% is too high. Compared to them, Russia doesn't seem to care at all.

I'll dive more deeply into my training example from before- when you are bringing various new hires into your organization and walking them through policies and procedures, you'll have documents (probably in a binder) and powerpoint slides. You may even give them a quiz at the end to test retention/comprehension. If a single person of my last 10 trainees fails to grasp something, I'd write that off. But, if 8 of the 10 fail to understand the exact same point (how to properly write off business expenses, or the policy on sexual harassment), I'd examine the entire training process, both what I said and the materials I provided. It's possible the document isn't clear enough on the issue, or it could be as simple as spending more time on the topic. I know because I've had that problem- when multiple people going through a program don't understand the same thing, the issue requires examination.

The real debate here, IMO, is what is an acceptable failure rate? For the CMs referenced above, some accept 30% duds as being battle ready. Others think anything above 0% is completely unacceptable. There are 55 players on an in-season roster. 9 players have been suspended so far this year for gambling- that represents .51136% of NFL players. Now, you could argue that, like the USA and CMs, that's an acceptable failure rate. Or, you could argue like other nations and say that anything above 0% is unacceptable.

Again, I reiterate- this isn't "players v owners" (the policy applies to *EVERY* person employed by the NFL, or a team, as I've stated here before), or the worn out trope of "who to blame?!", or some sort of misguided "victim" stance. It's about understanding the rate at which players, after being presented the information, failed to either understand or remember it. If you want to take a hard line and argue that a failure rate above 0% is an issue, that means you need to examine the whole training process. Once you figure out what the tolerance level is, then you can figure out steps.

I don't think .51136% represents a high enough level to warrant a complete rewriting of the gambling process. But, the NFL is not an empire and, like states in the USA, the individual franchises have flexibility in policy. Considering Detroit's HC and that multiple Lions got hit with gambling suspensions, I could see them taking steps to reinforce the policy at their facilities.

One of the two of us is using way too many drugs and I’m hoping it’s not me.

[Shoreline Steamers]

Broncos | Eyioma Uwazurike suspended indefinitely Mon Jul 24, 05:43 PM

Denver Broncos DT Eyioma Uwazurike was suspended indefinitely by NFL Monday, July 24, for betting on NFL games last season.