The wells report

[skyguy918]

Yes, "more likely than not" is the standard in civil cases. More than 50% probability.

Of course it is. How could any other standard make sense?  If reuven says shimon owes him money, and it is more likely than not that shimon does, then between the two, obviously the money should go to reuven.  Because one of them needs to have the money, so it should go to the one it more probably belongs to.  Even though we'll be wrong 49% of the time (in cases that are 51-49% likelihood), that is better than being wrong 51% of the time.  A false positive is equally bad to a false negative, because somebody is out money wrongfully in either case.

But we would never punish someone in court based on more than 50% probability.  Why not--he probably did it?  Because we don't want to be incorrectly punishing people in 49% of the criminal cases that are 51-49% likelihood.  When we are punishing people, we value false positives more strongly than false negatives.

So, in football cheating scandals, where we smear someone's reputation--are you ok with a false positive rate of 49%?  Because if you are not, then you should be signing on to my wiki.

You clearly didn't read the article linked to in the comment you quoted.

[henche]

You clearly didn't read the article linked to in the comment you quoted.

I did read it.  It was pseudo-intellectual

[Freddie]

I did read it.  It was pseudo-intellectual

Yes, it was.

[skyguy918]

I did read it.  It was pseudo-intellectual

He wrote that the actual standard required for NFL discipline is in fact lower than what would be required for a civil case. Are you disagreeing on the facts of the matter?

Maybe you were trying to say that the standard for discipline should be higher, not lower. You seem to think that we should require the highest legal standard - beyond reasonable doubt - as we do for actual criminal cases. But the argument that NFL discipline should be more similar to criminal cases than civil ones is laughable. His suspension is costing him money. Why should his reputation have anything to do with it?

[elit]

Yes, "more likely than not" is the standard in civil cases. More than 50% probability.

Of course it is. How could any other standard make sense?  If reuven says shimon owes him money, and it is more likely than not that shimon does, then between the two, obviously the money should go to reuven.  Because one of them needs to have the money, so it should go to the one it more probably belongs to.  Even though we'll be wrong 49% of the time (in cases that are 51-49% likelihood), that is better than being wrong 51% of the time.  A false positive is equally bad to a false negative, because somebody is out money wrongfully in either case.

But we would never punish someone in court based on more than 50% probability.  Why not--he probably did it?  Because we don't want to be incorrectly punishing people in 49% of the criminal cases that are 51-49% likelihood.  When we are punishing people, we value false positives more strongly than false negatives.

So, in football cheating scandals, where we smear someone's reputation--are you ok with a false positive rate of 49%?  Because if you are not, then you should be signing on to my wiki.

Except it's not a court out law outs a business and the commissioner is hired to do what's best for the business and anyone who is slightly intellectually honest knows he knew and if he's innocent here would hand over his Phonr to his employer and until he does that he is acting detrimental to the league

[henche]

He wrote that the actual standard required for NFL discipline is in fact lower than what would be required for a civil case. Are you disagreeing on the facts of the matter?

Maybe you were trying to say that the standard for discipline should be higher, not lower. You seem to think that we should require the highest legal standard - beyond reasonable doubt - as we do for actual criminal cases. But the argument that NFL discipline should be more similar to criminal cases than civil ones is laughable. His suspension is costing him money. Why should his reputation have anything to do with it?

Right, and I obviously would disagree with their using an even lower standard for NFL discipline.

And I don't think you need to jump from 51% probability to "beyond reasonable doubt."  You could also use 60% probability, or 70%, or 80%, or 90%, etc.

And I also disagree that the suspension is costing him only money, but that isn't the point anyway.  I would not be ok with imposing a fine on somebody in a criminal case based on more likely than not, since I don't think it is ok to fine people and be wrong 49% of the time.  The only reason it is ok in a civil case is because it is a zero sum game and one party has to win and the other has to lose so there is nothing you could base it on except the higher probability.

[henche]

Except it's not a court out law outs a business and the commissioner is hired to do what's best for the business and anyone who is slightly intellectually honest knows he knew and if he's innocent here would hand over his Phonr to his employer and until he does that he is acting detrimental to the league

Would you hand over your phone to your employer? Maybe there are naked pictures on it.

[elit]

Would you hand over your phone to your employer? Maybe there are naked pictures on it.

Did you read any of the articles they have a system to protect against that

[henche]

Did you read any of the articles they have a system to protect against that

I only read the one I linked.

But still, there could be all sorts of other information on it.

Maybe he has an undisclosed injury he doesn't want leaking.

Maybe he was really born in Kenya.

[elit]

I only read the one I linked.

But still, there could be all sorts of other information on it.

Maybe he has an undisclosed injury he doesn't want leaking.

Maybe he was really born in Kenya.

I'm unimpressed my Harvard lawyer friend do a drop of research before formulating and arguing your opinion

[henche]

I'm unimpressed my Harvard lawyer friend do a drop of research before formulating and arguing your opinion

I  didn't come to opine on the probability that he did it.  The report concludes on what probability they think he did it.

You think there is other evidence from the fact that he didn't hand over his phone, that you think the report didn't consider.  I threw out an off the cuff response--if you don't like it, I don't really care. 

The only point I wanted to make is that using more likely than not to punish someone is ridiculous, despite the opinion of all the editorialists who found out one law and now fancy themselves legal theorist. There are a lot of medium smart people who have been thinking about law for thousands of years, and when you start from first principles, you'll probably be wrong.

[elit]

I  didn't come to opine on the probability that he did it. 

You didn't write the wiki ??

I'll answer the rest tomorrow. Good night

[ChaimMoskowitz]

He didn't get suspended just for deflating the balls items also for failure to cooperate with the investigation

This is where they got him. The evidence basically is not there.

[Dr Moose]

.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Would you hand over your phone to your employer? Maybe there are naked pictures on it.

As long as the pictures are not of his bosses wife I don't see a problem.

[Yehuda25]

all pats fans, this article is for you

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/five-reasons-why-the-nfl-got-the-deflate-gate-punishment-dead-wrong-233900364.html

[coralsnake]

U have more than 1?

Sure just go to YouTube and search "gisele bundchen"

[ChaimMoskowitz]

all pats fans, this article is for you

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/five-reasons-why-the-nfl-got-the-deflate-gate-punishment-dead-wrong-233900364.html

Why just Pats fans? Everyone should read it.

[elit]

Why just Pats fans? Everyone should read it.

Bec only pats fans will buy that rubbish

[Yehuda25]

Why just Pats fans? Everyone should read it.

+1 true