Look, I agree completely that he shouldn't be on the cover. He's a monster of a man who hasn't earned my forgiveness. That said, morality is entirely subjective. Even if we can, as a whole, agree that what he did was wrong, suggesting that part of his deserved punishment for it be denial of appearing on the cover of a video game is arbitrary in a rather extreme manner, especially when we're still letting him get paid millions of dollars for throwing a ball. It seems more than a bit hypocritical to make him a rich man with one hand, ostensibly acknowledging his value to society (as we don't, in theory, pay people who do not provide a valuable service/good), while with the other saying that he's irredeemable and deserving of society's ire. If he's truly beyond redemption on the whole, we wouldn't still be rewarding him so extensively, which in turn suggests that he has some value to us that extends beyond his crimes. In which case, there's still a legitimate argument for his selection for the cover if said selection is based entirely on his record as a football player: a factor that is more or less unchanged by the vagaries of his personal life. What it comes down to is what exactly EA bases the selection on, which is a question that we have no hard input on, and which has no mandate to be based on precedent or any other set of knowable rules. We can make the argument that it's a poor business decision, or say that we don't want him based on our personal opinions, but in the end morality only enters into their decision if it's something they choose to consider. There's no binding obligation for them to "do the right thing" here, and frankly, so long as he's allowed to keep playing football, saying he can't be on the cover seems a bit strange of a place to take a stand.
Ultimately, if we want to really, without hypocrisy, demonstrate our reprehension for these acts in a way that extends beyond issues specifically related to the acts themselves, we need to do so unilaterally, not selectively. To elaborate, given the current situation, you'd be totally justified in refusing to let Vick dog sit for you, because he's demonstrated a blatant disregard for animal life. However, what has he done that specifically relates to his appearance on a video game cover? I can't really see the link there, in which case what we're arguing for here is a punitive treatment of the man. Punishment for the sake of punishment regardless of its relevance to his crime. In general, this sort of thing is difficult to justify when the judge, jury, and executioner are the public at large, but he's made himself open to it by becoming a public figure, I think, so that's not a reason to hold back. But then the question becomes, "What will doing this really accomplish?" The guy's still getting paid millions and we're not doing anything about THAT. If we really want to punish the guy, doesn't denying him the cover of a video game, when he's still showing up on TV, in magazines, on the internet, etc... with such frequency, and otherwise being rewarded just like he was before the crime's commission seem like a token punishment?
Ultimately, what I'm arguing for is that he should be more heavily impacted by any punitive public action. It shouldn't be something he disregards as a mere annoyance or curiosity. How heavy the punishment weighs is something that has to be decided by the public as a whole, as they're the only ones capable of enforcing it on him, and Bob does well to try and increase awareness of the situation. The argument, though, should be more extensive than just "Let's not put his face on the game." I think it should be "Let's stop watching him play and write his team's managers explaining WHY," or something else more powerful if we really want to make a difference. Hopefully something short of grabbing torches and pitchforks and storming his house, but the public has a vast array of punishments we can subject such a public figure to - indeed, his livelihood is more or less entirely dependent on our good graces. With that said, I understand the need to start somewhere, and maybe from that perspective this appeal is okay. It still just feels... small, to me. I suppose I applaud the effort, though.
Understand, I hope EA shows the good sense to not put him on the cover, but I think there are far more effective methods we could focus our efforts on in order to demonstrate our abhorrence of his actions. Bob's still done more than I have, so that does make me a bit of a hypocrite for even saying anything, but I'd encourage others who feel strongly on the issue to consider more serious action. Lord knows the man deserves everything he gets.
