Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Sanctions?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Nur Rauch View Post

    Eh. That's farcical in a lot of situations. Penn State themselves did not consider their B team to be equal to or better than their A team. They did not put the stock in those numbers that you are putting in them. And that is because invitationals and regionals are usually not a reliable sample size to draw conclusions like which team is better than another.

    Obviously there are better metrics than numbers. A team with a bunch of Nationals returners is probably better than a team that did mildly better than them at a few tournaments. Penn State themselves did not consider those results good evidence that their B team was full of better competitors, so why would we?
    From Penn State's appeal, it appears they did believe the A and B teams to be equal:

    "In October, when these stacked teams were made, I was under the impression that the A team was the best team. Members of the B team were incredibly talented, and their scores throughout the fall intramural tournament showed that they could be just as competitive as the members of the A team. To me, the skill gap disappeared (or it became apparent that it was never really there at all) after the top two teams competed at Pitt in November and Yale in December respectively. The B team attended a more difficult tournament and had more success against stronger schools than the A team. At this time, before changes were even made to the teams, I was under the honest opinion that the A and B teams were equally competitive and both had a chance to advance to the National Championship Tournament. We did a re-stack in December that saw a few changes to the two elite teams, but the core of the teams remained the same. This was the official AMTA stack. While our teams were internally designated A, B, C, D, I saw them in my mind as two elite teams and two secondary teams. The two elite teams (internally designated as A and B) were incredibly talented and could compete in my mind with any team in the country. The C and D teams were very large (9 to 10 people), and their purpose was to provide experience to younger members by giving as many people the chance to compete as possible."

    The position advanced above is completely consistent with the results at Cornell and Regionals. The objective results at the last two tournaments of the year had the "B" team performing better than the "A" team. Penn State wasn't sanctioned for lying. They were sanctioned for "not following designated regional assignments." The rule for regional assignment, in 2012, allowed teams of equal strength to be interchangeable. Penn State put forth the position that the teams were of equal strength and the stats back it up.

    Let's forget internal designations for a minute. Before Regionals, you have a Penn State team that finished 3rd place at Cornell. You also have a Penn State team that finished 7th at Cornell. These identical team go on to compete at Regionals. The team that finished 3rd went to the Regional designated for the "A" team and performed the best of every single Penn State team. The team designated "B" performed the second best. That sure seems like the designated regional assignments were adhered to. Removal of bids is supposed to be fore egregious violations. I just don't see how it was an egregious violation when the facts completely support the position put forth by Penn State.

    Comment


    • #17
      Y'all are passionately relitigating a sanction that was issued (and affirmed by the Board after vigorous debate) seven years ago based on a rule that has been changed.
      Mock Trial with J. Reinhold! Mock Trial! Mock Trial with J. Reinhold!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by The Gelf View Post
        Y'all are passionately relitigating a sanction that was issued (and affirmed by the Board after vigorous debate) seven years ago based on a rule that has been changed.
        This is incorrect. There was no "vigorous debate." 14 minutes after the email containing the appeal was sent to the Board of Directors by Mr. Nelmark, Alicia Hawley responded with a short message saying the appeal should be denied because "it seems clear to me that a) they violated the rule; and as such b) should be penalized." There is no way Hawley read the appeal in those 14 minutes and it is clear from her response. She does not even consider the math or reasoning set forth in Penn State's appeal. What followed was a snowball of other Board members quickly saying "agreed" until a couple members actually took the time to read the appeal and spoke up. But by then, the damage was done. Hawley should have at least read through the lengthy appeal before putting a vote out that the rest of the board jumped on, then maybe a "vigorous debate" would of occurred.
        Last edited by Mocktrocity; January 15th, 2019, 11:36 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Nur Rauch View Post

          Eh. That's farcical in a lot of situations. Penn State themselves did not consider their B team to be equal to or better than their A team. They did not put the stock in those numbers that you are putting in them. And that is because invitationals and regionals are usually not a reliable sample size to draw conclusions like which team is better than another.

          Obviously there are better metrics than numbers. A team with a bunch of Nationals returners is probably better than a team that did mildly better than them at a few tournaments. Penn State themselves did not consider those results good evidence that their B team was full of better competitors, so why would we?
          OK but . . . 7 years ago.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by happygolucky View Post

            OK but . . . 7 years ago.
            I think the reason it is still relevant is because this is only the second time AMTA has removed a program from the post-season. The last time they did so, they screwed up. So it's worth bringing up to see if AMTA learned from their mistake.

            Comment


            • #21
              Even if you accept that AMTA got it wrong with PSU (which I donít) the board now is very different from the board seven years ago. Not sure there is much to learn from it.
              Last edited by The Real Mock Prodigy; January 15th, 2019, 03:02 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                The Real Mock Prodigy Are you implying that a board comprised of a different population caníít make the same mistake (if we operate under the assumption that AMTA did, in fact, make a mistake with PSU)? It seems actually like it could be quite likely the mistake might be repeated if 1) most of AMTAís current board does not believe they erred, and 2) they use the 2012 decision as a precedent of sorts.

                Not saying AMTA was wrong or right, but to dismiss 2012 as something we caníít learn much from doesnít seem prudent either imho.
                Last edited by bdopl; January 15th, 2019, 04:10 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by The Real Mock Prodigy View Post
                  Even if you accept that AMTA got it wrong with PSU (which I donít) the board now is very different from the board seven years ago. Not sure there is much to learn from it.
                  Don Racheter is still on the board. In 2012, a few minutes after Alicia Howley provided her extremely brief response in the email chain among the board of directors, Don said, "As usual, Alicia has hit the nail on the head." No discussion whatsoever of Penn State's appeal or the math supporting it. Which, given he responded less than 20 minutes after the email was sent out containing the appeal and given that Penn State's appeal was 30 some pages with extensive evaluation of their teams, I'm led to believe he never read the appeal either. What's to say Don didn't read the appeal when he voted this time?
                  Last edited by Mocktrocity; January 15th, 2019, 04:38 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    bdopl We literally have no information about who was sanctioned, and we have very little about why. I have no idea how anyone could say that the previous decision is "precedent." There just isn't enough information to make that conclusion. We don't know what specifically this team did, and we don't even know what team it is. I enjoy talking about the PSU decision because it's a cool piece of mock trial history, and tbh I love to argue (that's why I love mock!) I guess I just don't see how PSU connects to this sanction. Of course, if we get more information, it's totally possible that I'm wrong. Just seems a little bit like because we don't have a lot of information about this case, we are turning to an older thing that we do have info about and maybe making it seem more important to this case than it actually is.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Mocktrocity do we even know if there was an appeal? With PSU we have a whole perjuries thread and their actual appeal. Unless there's something I'm missing, we just have a few lines on the amta website here. Just not enough info for me to be comfortable making any kind of direct comparison. If I'm wrong and there is more info out there though, point me in the right direction and I'll reconsider my position

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mocktrocity View Post

                        Don Racheter is still on the board. In 2012, a few minutes after Alicia Howley provided her extremely brief response in the email chain among the board of directors, Don said, "As usual, Alicia has hit the nail on the head." No discussion whatsoever of Penn State's appeal or the math supporting it. Which, given he responded less than 20 minutes after the email was sent out containing the appeal and given that Penn State's appeal was 30 some pages with extensive evaluation of their teams, I'm led to believe he never read the appeal either. What's to say Don didn't read the appeal when he voted this time?
                        I didn't see this information anywhere in the original thread. Where are you seeing that?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by The_Quibbler View Post

                          I didn't see this information anywhere in the original thread. Where are you seeing that?
                          It is not in the thread or appeal. I have access to the email thread among the AMTA board regarding the vote on Penn State's appeal (well most of the thread, it appears I only saved a portion of the emails).

                          I think the most telling thing from that email chain is the following:

                          The appeal is sent by the president to the rest of the board a 12:58 pm. At 1:12 pm, the first board member responds with

                          "> Friends and Colleagues,
                          >
                          > My remarks will be extremely brief. It seems very clear that Penn State
                          > has admitted numerous times throughout their communications with
                          > representatives of AMTA that they sent what they deem their A and D teams to
                          > the site where their B and C teams were supposed to attend and vice versa.
                          > The only question is their explanation as to why they did that and whether
                          > it was egregious and intended to violate the rules.
                          >
                          > Because I do not believe that, based on our rules, the REASONING for the
                          > violation is a necessary consideration to whether the rule was violated or
                          > not, it seems clear to me that a) they violated the rule; and as such b)
                          > should be penalized.
                          >
                          > Three of their teams earned bids from a tournament they were not supposed
                          > to be attending. I therefore agree with the EC's suggested sanctions and
                          > find them completely appropriate based on the admitted violations that
                          > occurred.
                          >
                          > Thank you and good luck to those competing this weekend.
                          >
                          > ~Alicia Hawley"

                          Shortly after this email, the "snowball" starts with Don Racheter saying, "As usual, Alicia has hit the nail on the head." The majority of the rest of the board responds with similar emails in agreement that offer no analysis of Penn State's appeal. Several hours later, after the majority of the board has voted to deny the appeal, it appears the first board member actually takes the time to read the appeal and offers this analysis that demolishes the position put forth by the board thus far

                          "Greetings!

                          At the risk of the Board's legal counsel telling me to take my lawyer's hat off (thereby creating necessarily a halo effect that should not enhance my argument) two appeals in a row, I beg to differ with the EC conclusion and the Hawley sound bite that seem to be snowballing here.

                          My first message, quite distinct from the rest, is that I think this is a BAD time for Board members to abstain from DISCUSSION because they might have an at-large team at home. One's conscience must dictate for the self whether the at-large rationale is basis to enter an "abstain" vote. But, on the visceral issues as to the future of AMTA, raised by the Penn State appeal, the conscience ought to allow that common sense and sound policy-making justify contribution to the Board's decision.

                          Our Board problem, at the moment, is that AMTA has publicly announced the existence of an accusation of a rule violation. The EC-Hawley snowball ignores the objective evidence, also publicized by AMTA, that no violation occurred. Since the Board is so filled with so many of us addicted to poring over tab summaries, I suspect some have seen the handwriting on the wall but have not wrestled with the facts instead ignoring them. The publicized facts are:

                          (1) AMTA dictated that "PSU A" compete at Buffalo. There, the top PSU entry finished first with a 7-1. Its only loss was to the second place Michigan team in what AMTA gurus want, a high-high Round 2 pairing. In the 4-way tiebreaker, PSU finished ahead of the other three 7-1s by 5, 6 and 6.5 SOO points. No "balance-skewing" evidence is available there.

                          (2) AMTA dictated that "PSU B" compete at Pittsburgh. There, the top PSU entry finished second as a lone 7-1. The fact that an undefeated Miami U team finished first at a regional qualifier is so common that nothing can be made from it. This PSU entry, however, was blemished by its loss to a 4-4 "out-of-the-advancers" team. The difference between the PSU losses I have discussed so far support the conclusion that PSU B in fact competed as directed at Pittsburgh. The evidence so far corroborates to an extent the PSU contention that the two entries are "co-equal." This evidence also CONTRADICTS speculation that PSU A competed where PSU B was assigned.

                          (3) AMTA directed that "PSU C" compete at Pittsburgh. PSU's second entry finished 4-3-1 finishing eighth by winning a tiebreaker. That entry looks like a "C" team indeed! It gave a 1-7 Round 2 team its only win of the qualifier. It dropped two to the 5th place team in Round 3. It took a WT against another 4-3-1 team in Round 4 looking like AMTA's "meat-meets-meat" scheme for Round 4 worked for at least that pair. Evidence of "skewing balance" is elusive.

                          (4) AMTA directed that "PSU D" compete in Buffalo. PSU's second entry there, objectively, looks very much like a "D" entry. It finished 4-3-1 and not among the 5-3 or better advancers. My opinion from a distance is that the Buffalo field lacked "the rep" of the Pittsburgh field. This at least arguable imbalance between "power-balanced" regions I believe is due to "the best as possible given geography" that all AMTA gurus and instructions have shared as our excuse and our reality. Indeed, "region 'power-balancing'" is so much the quixotic dreaming of the impossible dream that I agree with Brother Schuett that AMTA should not have rules it will not (and I add should not) enforce. The Rules 2.9(5) and (6) Dictator rules lack basis in value. What is the policy other than that AMTA governors claim they can do what no one can do?

                          I think it is telling that the team assignments sheet quoted in our President's summary for the Board exemplifies with the closest we mortals can come to a reason, a policy value, that arguably justifies the 2.9 rules. We can dicker as to whether Alaska's top ten national finisher should hold itself out as Alaska D - an infraction that goes to honesty, collegiality and so forth. But:

                          (5) We have ZERO that says anything like the Alaska D scenario was exploited by the Penn State PROGRAM! (Do note that I agree with Brother Seelau as to the Board's commitment to PROGRAM over team or individual.) PSU delivered what mathematically IS INDISPUTABLY exactly what AMTA directed! The PROGRAM traveled A and B to different regions and finished 7-1 versus 7-1. The PROGRAM traveled C and D to different regions and finished 4-3-1 versus 4-3-1. The PROGRAM finished 11-4-1 versus 11-4-1 at both regions. There is NO objective evidence of violation if violation requires the realization or appearance of skewing mythical balance.

                          (6) I may add more weight than this deserves but I think Brother Frank and I as AMTA reps (strategically assigned to be AMTA's answer to a physical-temper-type-coach) at Indiana U of Penn a few years ago experienced at least a part of what PROGRAMS assigned to Pittsburgh still tactically do. I would have written that our President's report of multiple Pittsburgh-assigned teams complaining of "altered the competitive balance of the two fields" as too fanciful to be true EXCEPT that my IUP experience says that these multiple complaints happened! Frank and I fielded more complaints at IUP than I have at all the rest of my qualifiers repping combined. If complaining can disrupt the accused, complaining is part of what some programs do. Of course, we know that if the complaining disrupts strategy is perceived to have ever worked, the complaint strategy will spread to other programs.

                          I do not see how or why the EC or the AMTA Board should fuel the complainors' strategy by allowing it to work when the objective evidence says PLAINLY FOR ALL TO SEE that the complaints were meritless.

                          There is value at play here that no one I see here has yet identified. We are in transit to crowning the 2012 National Champions. That team deserves a title based on performance on the playing field. That team does not deserve little question marks (maybe asterisks) casting doubt on its accomplishment, questions like "But what if Penn State was not blackballed?" I do not think the Board can escape what some will interpret as that of smoke-filled rooms brokering results for political gain. And so I write to emphasize what those who might be served by muddying AMTA's image might use. I am on record pooh-poohing "appearance of AMTA" rationale but adherents to "appearance" must think what sanctions on PSU will cause as to "AMTA appearance."

                          My read is that the EC and Hawley, maybe others, place weight on the "conflicting explanations" of PSU students accused and questioned (maybe interrogated) at Buffalo and Pittsburgh. I do not ignore what is reported but I see it worthy of much less weight. If there were say 30 PSU students questioned (just my rough guess from reading the lists in the PSU response), I would EXPECT 30 conflicting views. I do not know how many of those would be from students wholly out of the team assignment compliance decisions for the program. I would expect some Team C students to report their team is the A Team. (They'll prove it at the qualifier where it counts.) I would expect some to cover ass - either individual ass or program ass. PSU's website, the EC's "key fact," tells me (1) what has confused me [assignments vs. delivery] also confused the poster of the website and/or (2) the poster erred in typing and failed to proofread and/or (3) the poster was dissatisfied with his/her own team's rank and the poster encourages PSU fans to "Stay posted for Regionals results" where designee "B" will be overcome by poster C team's achievement.
                          The "key fact" opens no door I know of in the search for truth.

                          But what I would not do, which is what the EC and Hawley expressly do, is reject the possibility that "co-equal" teams existed and that our rules do NOT direct what decision-makers for programs with "co-equal" teams are to do. In my 14 years as NTD during the discretionary bid era, I heard lots and lots of messages that "co-equal" teams have existed. "Co-equal" seems the habit of the coaches, and there are many of them, who "split our power" to earn two bids when "combining our power" will earn one. The "split our power" strategy is great until its ass-end arrives and the "split" earn no bids at all and a season is lost. "Co-equal" teams also can exist because everybody has his or her opinions on what total package is "strength." Some dig objections while others abhor them. Some demand "themes" while those who live in courtrooms know "themes" suck. Some are entertained by costumed mockers with accents while others prefer straight witnesses. In a sense, I concede two teams cannot be "co-equal" unless the assessors agree on what scores and what should be emphasized. AMTA lacks consensus, always has, on that kind of stuff.

                          Now, if the AMTA Board chooses to invest its credibility where we have prudently not gone before (for reasons reviewed in Seelau's writing) so that "regions' power-balance" will be achieved by more micro-managing, the Board has to live with the monster it hugs. To answer the "Which is AMTA'S "A" team" question so that enforcement is sanctionable, AMTA would have to define the "A" entry itself. There appears no reason why AMTA could not do so. David writes "the internally designated A team (competing as the B team in Pittsburgh) had the program's four senior officers," etc. If AMTA thinks that ends the question on superiority within programs, AMTA should say so in its assignments. The fact that PSU answers now with invitational results that are verifiable and that lead to, perhaps, a different team as the superior one merely exemplifies why AMTA has long and prudently left team composition to the programs alone. By the way, AMTA received PSU's roster presumptively in advance of the BF-PT qualifiers. Why did AMTA not chime in upon roster receipt so that "region power-balance" purportedly intended would be preserved?

                          If AMTA imprudently continues the trend to this micromanagement, it necessarily swats hard the next hornets' nest. Here is that nest. We know that we have PROGRAMS with real power that field two teams and do, indeed, have two powerful teams "running interference" for each other. The "runs interference" effect is very real. The Board has acquiesced to the bitter pill of the "runs interference" because we formally decided that alternatives - like not treating same school pairs as impermissible - have worse implications. I am not rehashing my long-time dissenting views. I am saying that Virginia A and B get assigned to a region to compensate for power deficits elsewhere and must travel far enough so that both Cavalier teams should be assigned together. AMTA micro-managers only intercede to prevent the "runs interference" advantage to be enjoyed by AMTA programs with C, D, E teams. Those with only A and B teams get arguable advantage. I think the Board should stay away from this kind of "tipping the scales" appearance which is wholly unnecessary.

                          So, I have spent a lot of time actually looking for support for the EC's reported conclusion; "that the 'competitively similar' rationale offered was an after the fact justification for an intentional violation of the rule that was engaged in for competitive advantage, convenience, or both." I DO NOT SEE FROM WHAT THAT CONCLUSION IS DERIVED! An Association dedicated to teaching the value of evidence and critical thinking ought to have some evidence of its own.

                          The E.C. proposes that 14 judges' assessments of team quality be ignored and that the ORCS "power balance" be skewed by erasing two 7-1 teams that look equal to me. The EC demonstrates for its second year in a row that its sanctions are too draconian and disproportionate to what the violation is. In my view, the violation is a dream but, if I have missed something after carefully reviewing David's summary, I have not missed how two bids can be erased.

                          I don't have a clue what "placing (PSU) on probation for the 2012-2013 season" means. What is AMTA probation? In my business, we tell the convicted (whether truly guilty or not) that they will drop urines, be lectured by social workers who are not too bright, etc., etc. I suggest GHN be clear that those prospective candidates to his EC need not suffer the initiation rite of being the holders of collection cups.

                          But, I will assume "AMTA probation" has meaning and I pose it as the fitting sanction for what we have, if we have anything, as proof here. If Penn State had an AMTA history or reputation for dishonesty, I might look for a sanction that is more onerous. No one has so far reported in our confidential communications that PSU has been anything but a program that contributes little to stand-by judge pools. I do not demean Drake, etc., for that lack of contribution so I won't do so as to PSU either. Competitors who seem much closer to PSU than most of us are, have volunteered opinions that the Nittany Lions have admirable character. If the Board knows otherwise, let us know.

                          If I am wrong on the existence of a violation, I do not see the reason why the B team that succeeded where we think the A team would have succeeded is any basis for erasing that bid or disqualifying it. (Our micro-managing thesis necessarily says that PSU made it easier for all other non-PSU teams assigned to Buffalo to earn a bid since "manipulation" emasculated the Buffalo field's strength.) The EC's "would stack" argument is not persuasive since, of course, our rules always allow reconfiguration of teams after qualifiers, after ORCs, etc.. AND SINCE the Board has existing precedent that we will blackball, in proper circumstances, named students. If we can blackball a Georgia roster as yall did at Loyola, we can penalize by blackballing, for instance, "four senior officers."

                          I am not "big" on whining about impact on innocents. I am "big" on real evidence and I have thirty-plus years of experience where the unique impact of being the accused does all sorts of things that normal folks can't appreciate. DNA has mitigated only what the mountain of innocents convicted on flimsy evidence has delivered. AMTA governors' evidence is too flimsy in my opinion to impose any sanction or even to say a rule was violated.

                          I will close with my testimony that the implications of "co-equal" teams can be carried a lifetime for the person who has "competitiveness." I know that as a personal fact. I have lived with a 1971 decision made by my college dabate coach that deprived at least two of us the opportunity to have an idea of how high we could climb the competitive mountain. I have found it tough to forget that deprivation. Maybe that's why I still coach."

                          However, by the time this analysis was offered, the vote was already solidified as a majority of the Board had voted. Someone mentioned earlier that a "vigorous debate" occurred. As you will note from the above, a majority of members abstained from discussion due to coaching competing teams. There was no debate. There was one member making a quick take, not based on the evidence, and the rest of the board members blindly agreeing until one person actually took the time to read the appeal.

                          Fun fact, the board member above discusses an asterisk next to the 2012 National Championship that says "but what if Penn State wasn't blackballed?" That year, the National Championship was between Rutgers and Duke with Duke winning. Penn State saw Rutgers several times that year and beat them handily each time. Obviously the Rutgers team and Penn State teams may have looked very different by the time nationals rolled around, but the prediction about the asterisk was pretty spot on.
                          Last edited by Mocktrocity; January 16th, 2019, 10:18 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            This email is certainly interesting; I don't think it changes my mind about whether or not the PSU sanctions were appropriate, but it certainly sheds some light on the appeals process. I can't really say for certain without seeing the other emails in the thread. Is there any chance you could post them? And is there a reason you chose to use the names of Don Racheter and Alicia Hawley, but not the name of the person who sent the dissenting email?

                            I'm also still not sure how relevant all of this is to the current sanctions. Like I said earlier, we don't know much at all about them, so I'm not sure how relevant the PSU sanction is.

                            Finally, I think you lost me completely at the end. To say AMTA "blackballed" PSU is a huge accusation, implying some sort of animus against PSU on the part of AMTA. Even if you think the board got it wrong, I simply don't see evidence to support an accusation of blackballing. And I think putting asterisk next to to that Duke title is somewhat insulting to the hard work Duke and Rutgers both put into that year.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by The Real Mock Prodigy View Post
                              This email is certainly interesting; I don't think it changes my mind about whether or not the PSU sanctions were appropriate, but it certainly sheds some light on the appeals process. I can't really say for certain without seeing the other emails in the thread. Is there any chance you could post them? And is there a reason you chose to use the names of Don Racheter and Alicia Hawley, but not the name of the person who sent the dissenting email?

                              I'm also still not sure how relevant all of this is to the current sanctions. Like I said earlier, we don't know much at all about them, so I'm not sure how relevant the PSU sanction is.

                              Finally, I think you lost me completely at the end. To say AMTA "blackballed" PSU is a huge accusation, implying some sort of animus against PSU on the part of AMTA. Even if you think the board got it wrong, I simply don't see evidence to support an accusation of blackballing. And I think putting asterisk next to to that Duke title is somewhat insulting to the hard work Duke and Rutgers both put into that year.
                              On the "blackball" comment, I only use that term because it is the term used by Brad Bloch in his email (the author of the lengthy one). There does not seem to be any lasting animus from AMTA to Penn State since and I did not mean to imply that. Maybe the better phrasing of Bloch's sentiment is, "what if Penn State competed?"

                              To each his own, but I think it is fair to put an asterisk next to a National Championship when a legitimate contender was kept out of competing for reasons not supported by the evidence. Duke and Rutgers deserve all the credit for making it, but the playing field was unfairly determined by AMTA banning Penn State for reasons based on non-existent evidence (and with published evidence that contradicts the position AMTA put forth). And I may post more emails but those are the only ones of real substance that I saved. I did have access to the entire thread, but only saved a select few when I was cleaning out my email a while back.
                              Last edited by Mocktrocity; January 16th, 2019, 11:21 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by The Real Mock Prodigy View Post
                                I'm also still not sure how relevant all of this is to the current sanctions. Like I said earlier, we don't know much at all about them, so I'm not sure how relevant the PSU sanction is.
                                I think I disagree with Mocktrocity that the old sanctions are evidence that the AMTA board didn't consider the new sanctions before making them or that in this case something unfair happened. I do think, however that they indicate that system is not perfect. There can be situations in which AMTA issues a very harsh sanction (bid removal) on grounds that seem unfair, unjust, or overly harsh to a large percentage of the community including people who really know this game quite well (there are some people posting on the original thread who disagree with AMTA and are currently very highly regarded in the community), and in which at least a majority of the students in question genuinely *believe* that they did nothing wrong (regardless or whether you believe they actually did do something against the rules, regardless of whether you believe they should have done more due diligence, regardless of whether you believe they were naive in trusting their president/leadership, there were students in the PSU case who didn't know they were breaking the rules and then got swept up in all of this).

                                As a result I think in the current case we should ere towards giving the sanctioned team the benefit of the doubt when we find out who they are (as we may well do when a team that got a regional bid suddenly does't get to go to ORCS). Because, as you said, we don't know much about them. All I would advocate is that since (1) we don't know whether they were malicious/trying to gain an unfair advantage or just genuinely confused about the rules and (2) we know that the AMTA system has in the past sanctioned teams in very harsh ways including competitors who thought they were doing nothing wrong, we do not jump to any conclusions about the behavior of this new team. I think what PSU teaches us is not that AMTA is evil, but that the teams that get sanctioned are not necessarily bad either. When we know who the new sanctioned team is, until we know for sure what they did or why they did it, we should treat them with compassion and not subject them to needless accusations of being malicious, harassment on this forum or any other, complaints that they do not deserve even their regional bid. And until that time, I think there should be no push to unmask them or drag their team out of anonymity in what is, undoubtedly, a very hard time for them. I originally brought up PSU because, and only because I think it urges moderation in our behavior contrary to what was suggested by some posters very early in this thread.

                                Last edited by TheGhostofChaseMichael; January 16th, 2019, 12:11 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X