Little Goffy

Actually, the figures I 'fudged' were just the balance of different estimates from different published research, which I quickly looked back over just to get the ballparks, so they're pretty reasonable. The estimates vary in context and so forth but there is a general accord on the categories and the rough amounts involved in each category. My numbers aren't fudged and it is disingenuous of you to suggest they are. I do indeed think it is inappropriate for anyone to profit from broken lives. But I also recognise that people are ultimately free to make their own choices and are accountable for the consequences. Though it is tedious, as always, to hear again the tired pointless line of 'well, if you ban that you have to ban walking across the street or opening an umbrella'. Because with poker machines, the 'product' has been specifically crafted to manipulate the consumer to create and maintain addiction. If a shoe was designed to seem comfortable but gradually damage your foot in such a way that you needed to always wear that specific shoe brand... yeah, something tells me it would be banned and very few people would say 'aw, but shucks they made a choice to wear it'. The 'personal choice' rhetoric breaks down when you've got systems for creating addiction, and for deliberate manipulation of addiction. I once had the experience of actually literally choking on my weetbix (I thought it was just an expression!), seeing an add for phone-based and online gambling which contained nothing but a series of addiction-trigger stimulus (brief flashes of the various physical behaviours and paraphenalia associated with the addiction). It was textbook perfect. Someone, somewhere, had read academic research into the psychology of addiction and took the lesson from it that 'this is great, we can reach our target anywhere and stimulate their addiction impulse'. It was a moment of blatant clarity of purpose that sums up the values of the industry. The key for me is all about the decision of some to set about profiting by knowingly exploiting addiction. The spaces designed to mask the passing of time, the relentless sounds and light stimulus, the programmed system of irregular but frequent small payouts to stimulate reward sensations and mask the speed of losses, the creation of enclosed, physically confusing spaces without any line of sight to anything but more poker machines. All of that stuff, it is identifiable, has been designed based on research and refined over decades, and without question is hugely unethical. One specific change that would make a huge difference to the addiction/life destruction aspect of poker machines would be to limit the number of machines permitted at any given venue. Small pubs with a half-dozen machines tucked along one side do much less damage than the machines set up in extensively planned networks designed on the advice of professional addiction psychologists (who are these people that can do that and live with themselves?). Small venues can't commit the kind of professional and architectural resources it takes to create a full 'addiction bubble' space - the mental fight is just that little bit more in the consumer's favour. So, there's the best answer I can offer to accommodate people who enjoy a session on the pokies. Small venues with other stimulus readily available will reduce (but of course won't eliminate) the scale of problem gambling and of severe, life-destroying addiction, without banning poker machines outright. Unfortunately, this also means that the big-venue poker machine operators, such as football clubs, are the most serious culprits when it comes to pushing addiction. Will all that in mind - It is my opinion that the Melbourne Football Club, being a sporting and social club that is a part of the community first and a corporate venture second and by necessity only, should avoid unethical or socially destructive sources of income. Large-venue poker machine operations are highly destructive and unethical, so it follows that the Club should make it a strategic goal to remove these from its income stream. I'd be interested to see if anyone can argue against this being a completely fair, calm and responsible opinion.

Nathan Jones, you say? I swear I heard somebody say Nathan Jones. It is a little disappointing that his role wasn't talked up a bit more in the article. Seriously, the change exactly matches his availability. A note to slip into the pocket of anyone who doubts his leadership value. Meanwhile, yes, it it possible that we can win all four remaining, which would likely put us in the top 4. If we win three, we're fine in the 8, if we only win two, then it gets a bit tricky and we'll need other results to go our way. Winning only one doesn't bear thinking about. If we only win two games and our fate is in the hands of other, then we really want Adelaide to find some red hot form (all their games are against teams in that jam for the 8). Having GWS go nuts - galvanised by the pain of their narrow loss to us in Canberra, of course - would be almost as good. Also... if Carlton can do to a few other teams what they did to us last year and many other times, well, I still wont forgive them but some of the sting will pass. This weekend would be considered the least likely of the remaining games for us to win. Win it, and the whole picture changes.

Listening on radio, I noticed something interesting about the relationship between commentary and our performance. When we are playing the 'way we want to play', the commentators have to talk fast just to keep up with the action, there are tackles and spills and handball chains going everywhere, by both teams. When we are playing flat and not bringing the pressure and energy that defines our style, the commentators have so much time to describe events that they fall to chatting to keep things lively (Bloggs takes a mark on the wing, spots up Nerk, who then passes it back to Bloggs, who bangs it long down the line and we'll have a throw in just ahead of centre wing, how are the sausage rolls?). Basically, if the commentary is dull and drifting off the game, we're playing bad football. Anyway, the true 'first captain' will be back shortly. There's a man who knows exactly the size of his own head and never, ever drinks bathwater. Western Sydney have won one game in their last five starts, and that was against Fremantle, just barely. There's every reason to believe we're a shot next week. But we all know beating the Saints in a couple of weeks time will be the big decider. This 'on the cusp' stuff is a whole new kind of stressful that I'm not used to.

Surely what you mean is - "Their use of exclamation points, at the end of one word 'sentences', is eerily reminiscent!!! ANNOYING!"

Realistically, cholera isn't a problem for most people. Doesn't mean I'd be ok with my football club getting revenue by operating price-gouging sub-standard urban water systems in developing countries. The Melbourne Football Club's poker machine revenue is substantially generated off ruined lives - even if we are just 0.5% of poker machine operations nationally, that works out to about 500 wrecked households directly through our machines, each year. When did it become ok to say 'it is a bad thing that ruins many lives but we should make a choice to be involved in it unless it is made illegal for everyone'?

If we continue with the 'even if averaged across everyone' notion, then we're talking $1300 out of, say, an age pension of less than $15,000. Which means yes, it would be called a crisis, when large chunks of society would be cutting into their heating and grocery budgets to cover their $25/week habit, given that their 'loose change' available is often already right on the line. But as others have pointed out, the reality is a mix of most people never or rarely touching pokies, some people doing it once in a while to kill some time between watching games at the club or while waiting for someone, and then some people having their lives completely destroyed. Another way to look at it, the average loss per person who actually uses poker machines is about $3,700. This includes approximately 1 in 6 of regular (weekly or more) pokie players who are classified as problem gamblers, with an average loss of more than $20,000 per year. That works out to more than 100,000 people who are being completely ruined by poker machines in any given year. So, let's set aside the '$25/week on leisure'. How would you reckon most people would go with $20,000 a year less? Thank you for that helpful input. Is the nasty society stopping you from fulfilling your true potential as a genius millionaire playboy philanthropist? Need a hug?

It'll be interesting to see what comes of this study - https://aifs.gov.au/agrc/gambling-suburban-australia-initial-findings $1300 a year per adult in the western suburbs sample area. That's a crisis even if it is spread evenly between 'not addicted' 'social' gamblers.

Now that you mention it I also remember, yeah, there have been statements at least as far as a 'general intent' on this. It is heartening to know that there is an ethical victory built into the future of financial confidence.

We'll know we have really succeeded as a club, financially and culturally, when we can let go of that part of our revenue stream. Which brings the obvious question, what excuse do Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and The Family Club(TM) have?

Well, let's see, omens, omens... Jordan Lewis averages a premiership every three years, and signed a 3-year contract with Melbourne. Clearly he knows something. Melbourne have a 60% overall winning record in finals, and go on to win the premiership, hmm... one in every three times they make the finals. Coincidentally, our ONLY rival for success rates in both finals and grand finals is Hawthorn, and they have only just crept ahead of us now because of their huge recent decade. The margin is tiny. Clearly, Jordon Lewis knows something.

Port's games in Melbourne; Bombers - 34,000 Magpies - 36,000 Demons - 27,000 West Coast in Melbourne; Kangaroos - 21,000 Tigers - 42,000 Hawks - 29,000 Bombers - 36,000 Bulldogs - 29,000 Magpies - 22,927 (The same weekend as our Port game, as jnrmac pointed out) Fremantle in Melbourne; Demons - 28,000 Tigers - 31,000 Kangaroos - 19,000 Our attendance numbers are doing just fine, thanks.

While praising Vince's energy and 'fire' on the field, and noting what a gentle and harmless person Vince is off field, he said Vince should probably have a think about and learn to not swing his arms around near people's heads, because three times in two seasons is getting a bit much. I know, right, like, totally thrown under the bus.

I wonder, we might be a couple more wins up with a little less of that particular 'flying the flag'. If only some more players 'flew the flag' the way Big Demon likes it, because one thing we definitely need right now is one of our last remaining experienced midfielders being out for two weeks.

I'd suggest that there are a few people who have an accumulated dislike of eachother from sometimes years of disagreement and little bits of snark building up. Try to picture a couple of geezers on a side table watching the game at a pub, constantly sniping at eachother, and yet they keep on turning up and watching the game together. They've been doing it for many many years and it is not for us to go all cultural imperialist and demand that they learn to share the crayons so they can get a gold star. 3 strikes policies as social engineering have invariably been a disaster, anyway. Like the AFL umpires, it is not the moderators job to prevent every single piece of rough play, just to strike a balance that keeps it under control but still lets the game flow.

I opened this honestly expecting it would be about him being asked to hand it back, not present it.

If we had been able to grab Zaharakis instead of Melksham it would have been a terrific move. Hell, we might even have played finals last year. He's a valuable player and very good at his role, generates a lot of run and a lot of decent inside50s. But I think the ship has sailed on this one, and we're not in as much need as what the price would be.

That's the big question. Throw in Pederson and occasionally resting Gawn, too. The problem is alleviated by the mobility and versatility of Watts and McDonald. But my concern is that no matter how fit and hardworking and willing to contribute up the ground your forwards are, they will very rarely be able to duck and weave and accelerate and get their body low enough to be 'winners' in midfield packs. So to rephrase the question, instead of 'can we fit that many in our forward line' you could emphasize 'can we spare that many slots on the team sheet from our midfield'. My thinking is, we can keep that group of tall forwards together if we rotate their roles intelligently. For example, if Hogan, McDonald and Weideman play effectively 100% game time each, with say two of them offering leads all over the place while one semi-rests right up forward. The result would be that our entire bench would be midfielders/flankers rotating to rest and keep fresh. If between them the forwards spent 30 more minutes on field using this kind of rotation, that opens 30 minutes more time for mids to take a deep breath. Maybe that means a young guy like Oliver gets one extra minute of recovery each time he comes off, maybe that means shorter spells on field for a player capable of good bursts of effort but who fades after longer periods.

Fair bump. Neville Jetta probably saved the game. He's in serious danger of not being underrated after a highly visible effort like that. Either that, or he's in danger of being rated as highly as he should have been the last couple of years, but actually pushing up to an even higher level. Alas, I fear it'll get missed because Clayton briefly looked in the general direction of a fence-side turdbag, and that'll go viral because #vapid. Neville is probably ok with being underrated by everyone who has never actually watched him.

Funny feeling about the Port/West Coast game. If West Coast win, then our path into the top 4 opens a little wider. If Port win, our security in the top 8 is that tiny bit better. Despite last week's poor result, and the ridiculous injury crisis we're going through, I'm hoping for a West Coast win. I still believe the Demons are on the hunt for the top 4 spot, rather than just clinging on.

I was tapping away thinking about this and that and the other thing, but in the end, it is all pretty simple. Gibbs, Murphy, Kruezer, Cripps. Neutralise the stoppages where Carlton have their first-choice onballers available, and grind a win in the others, and we're well ahead. That, and we'll need a defensive forward to never give Docherty space to so much as inhale deeply. Could be a valuable learning experience for one or both of Harmes or Hannan. And of course, ferocious all-around-the-ground pressure and good communication. Kind of goes without saying but must always be said.

Get his set shots lined up straight. Maybe needs to imagine that in between the big stick there's an unsuspecting jaw.

Does anyone else think Jack's portrait in the 'ins' list looks especially happy. I got a real glow in the heart, and instantly feel like we're going to win on sunday. It's like the world just turned a little more red and blue.

As I understand it, The Chazz is arguing two separate points and people are replying as if they are one. If I'm not mistaken, Chazz is saying a) "Fahour's hit was definitely a worse act than Bugg's, by a serious margin", and separately b) "Bugg's punch was watched but a few hundred thousand people as it happened, including all the nervous mum's and impressionable little kids, so the impact of the incident as a whole is greater. Anyway, as for my own opinion on it all, I think the 'b' part fades a bit when you consider that Fahour's whole job is to encourage people from 'non-mainstream communities' to feel confident that they can participate in Australian Football without being subject to racial abuse and all the other forms of aggressive bigotry that someone might reasonably be anxious about. How can he possibly do that job when every person he speaks to whether community leader, nervous mum, or a club official skeptical of the usefulness of 'diversity action plans', knows he is a gutless sniping thug? Bugg's incident may have been seen by a few hundred thousand, but Fahour's act will be known about by all of the few hundred people he needs to deal with in order to reach out to hundreds of thousands of others. His specific job is now untenable. And it is questionable if AFL HQ should be employing anyone who would include premeditated headhunting in their weekend afternoon entertainment.

Huh? Donald Trump LOVES the media, his whole career he's been a desperate media [censored], seeking it out at every opportunity, craving every bit of attention and fame he could get. And his chief-of-staff came directly from managing a niche media operation. What Trump doesn't like is critical media. It would actually be accurate to say that President Trump is actively trying to disparage the last remaining fragments of credible media. Anyway, best not to turn things unnecessarily political here. There are sub-forums for that.

Jones, Viney, Salem and Tyson injured, Bugg out, Brayshaw carefully managed, Oliver looking a little tired. Lewis not in hot form and most of the rest of our midfield rotation being part-timers there. Plus multiple other options under a bit of a cloud for breaking team rules. I'd say we need every possible competent midfield option we can bring in. No harm opening the possibility of fairytale, either. "Forgotten ex captain steadies the ship in hardworking comeback game".