No announcement yet.

Board Meeting??

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Board Meeting??

    Since AMTA hasn’t managed to post their board meeting agenda for the mid-year meeting, I am starting to wonder if there were motions passed that they are trying to hide. It wouldn’t be that unusual for coaches on the board to try and pass motions or get rules changes based on their personal experiences in round. Here are some possible motions that I strongly suspect have been proposed by different programs:

    Toby Heytens of UVA proposes that one extra point be added to each ballot for every coach a team brings to the round.

    Yale Mock Trial proposes that an additional two points be added to a witness’s score every time that witness invents a fact that is definitely *not* in the case materials.

    Columbia Mock Trial proposes that an additional CS point should be added to a team’s record every time someone mispronounced one of their attorney’s names. They also request that this be made retroactive. At this year’s nationals, they want an extra CS point for every time Zuroooski, Zuranski, or Zurakowski had their names mispronounced.

    Neal Schuett of Miami proposes that five extra points be added to each ballot for every time a team takes the other team to tab.

    Alex Bluebond of Ohio State proposes a change to the official judges’ presentation instructing judges to score attorneys based solely on how loudly they speak.

    Anna Smith Eldridge of Rhodes worries that Mock Trial is getting just too hard these days and proposes that all cases must be tested on a focus group of third graders. If the third graders cannot prepare the case for competition in 24 hours, then it is too hard and must be simplified.

    Upon a write-in motion by Michigan Mock Trial, the Rules committee proposes that witnesses should get three point bonuses if their own attorneys impeach them on direct examination.

    Upon a joint motion from DeLois Leapheart of Northwood and Mitch Pickerill of NIU, teams will be awarded one extra ballot at Nationals for every time a team from their program has won SPAMTA at an invitational, regional or ORCS tournament during the past season.

    In response to the Northwood/NIU Motion, DePaul Mock Trial proposes that points be added to all team’s ballots in *inverse* proportion to their current SPAMTA total.

    UGA Mock Trial proposes that an extra “team attractiveness” score be added to the end of every ballot.

    Seriously though, AMTA, where are the minutes?!?!

  • #2
    Additional motions:

    UCLA and Rhodes jointly propose the removal of "unfair" restrictions on sending 5 teams to ORCS.

    Virginia asks for an addition to the official AMTA rulebook to prevent teams from using themes that do not include the word "Follow".

    Harvard proposes the "Alston-Harmon Rule", which allows a graduate to continue competing if their team really, really needs them.

    California Berkeley requests that the maximum allowable A team size be reduced to 6 members, since a program's best attorneys and witnesses should be double-sided anyway.

    Miami University asks for 2 free bids to ORCS without having to compete. Motion denied as AMTA informs Miami that is already the case.

    Last edited by DefenseMid; January 10th, 2018, 03:03 PM.


    • #3
      UVA proposes that there be a new “words spoken per minute” limit.

      Yale and UVA have a joint motion that B teams’ ballots at nationals be added onto their A teams’. They also propose in response to Smith Eldridge’s concerns regarding how much work nationals is that the entire regionals, ORCS, and first four rounds of nationals be eliminated in favor of a one round tournament in which Yale and UVA play for the title on national TV.

      Georgia Tech proposes that the same two teams can’t be in the finals two years in a row.

      Upon a joint motion by UCLA, Stanford, Chicago, and Northwestern, the case release date is pushed back to October 1.

      Furman requests that teams be slotted points that they can distribute at will for every judge that they recruit for their tournaments.