Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Sanctions?

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

  • #31
    I think this teaches us so much about the board and their process for dealing with sanctions, especially this time of year when we are gearing up for the competitive season, in general. It sounds like the board willingly chose to ignore, or place little weight on evidence that sheds light on PSUís claims; the numbers. They speak for themselves and were thoroughly fleshed out in the appeal which seems like it was well and truly disregarded.

    Suppose being wealthy by todayís standard in the USA is a crime. If your 8 year old daughter told the authorities, ďmy family is rich,Ē and you told them, ďno we are not,Ē and then the authorities found all of your familyís bank statements, property, etc, and it totaled out to $80,000, nothing would happen. The fact that non-senior, non-executive board members from PSU gave conflicting testimony seems trivial.

    The fact that the board allowed this to happen is absurd. I donít want to live in a world where a team that is coming off of a loss to mine can make a claim about mine that it has no forensic knowledge of; then, when younger members of my team who know jack-squat about the process are forced answer questions they may not know the answers to, or may think they know but are wrong, and it turns out those answers conflict with each other, that my team could all of a sudden be banned from the post season altogether. All the while, the hard facts, the numbers, concrete evidence exonerates my program of those claims. When that evidence is finally presented in an organized fashion, prepared by us students, and instead of weighing that evidence it goes largely undiscussed because board members are too busy getting their own teams ready, there are so many things wrongs with that.

    The PSU case is intrinsically related to this case because I donít trust AMTA with sanctions, in general. The board members can sit on their high-horses while the competitors get the wrong end of the stick that easily? Even under new leadership, many of the board members are the same today. Whoís to say it canít happen again?

    In the same grain, the board does so much spectacular work for students. Many are volunteer coaches and board members who give up time and money to give us college kids an experience to remember. I just hope that with cases that involve sanctions, AMTA starts being hyper-transparent with their decisions, always. Leaving teams out of the post season is a big deal, and if itís worthless to appeal, then why even have the process to begin with? The material invention rule isnít the only one that is not entirely clear. Several rules can have implications that arenít accounted for explicitly. I would love a system where there is a statement released for each case, and a dissenting view released as well. I can accept the boardís democratic decision, if they understand that that decision will be allowed to be scrutinized.

    I hit PSU at ToRo 4 years ago. They were wonderful people and ended up winning it that year. This certainly isnít exonerating evidence by any stretch of the imagination, but it is an accurate reflection of what they are; a bunch of college kids who just want to compete. They are every other school, every other program, every other nerdy college kid who loves doing this. Plus, they field good teams, and often times they win. I canít imagine how heart-breaking and what an ordeal it would be for those students that semester in 2012, is all.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by bdopl View Post
      The fact that non-senior, non-executive board members from PSU gave conflicting testimony seems trivial.
      It is trivial and it is literally the only evidence AMTA pointed to in support of their decision when there is MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting Penn State's position. It is even more egregious when you remember that the students were pulled out, IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROUND, and questioned by AMTA Reps. After those "conflicting" statements were given, AMTA was convinced that Penn State was guilty and never looked back. It seems like the only person in the whole process that took the time to consider the evidence was Brad Bloch and he is now gone from the Board. I have no faith that AMTA did not make a similar mistake this time without more transparency.

      Comment


      • #33
        Feel like Iíve made my feelings on the psu sanctions clear. I still donít understand this hostility to the AMTA board. It seems like we are assuming the worst from a group of committed, dedicated volunteers, and I donít really feel comfortable with that. But I can see Iím not changing anyoneís mind, so Iíll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by The Real Mock Prodigy View Post
          Feel like Iíve made my feelings on the psu sanctions clear. I still donít understand this hostility to the AMTA board. It seems like we are assuming the worst from a group of committed, dedicated volunteers, and I donít really feel comfortable with that. But I can see Iím not changing anyoneís mind, so Iíll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
          Your "feelings" on the Penn State sanctions are controverted by the facts of the case.

          I don't think it is assuming the worst when AMTA has set a precedent for unjustly banning teams from the post-season. Maybe if AMTA recognizes it's mistake with Penn State and puts out a message that they will actually consider the evidence submitted by the teams when making such consequential decisions in the future, then there can be some more faith (as long as there is transparency to show it is being done). It seems like they got half-way there by changing the rule after 2012, but AMTA never truly owned up to the mistake. I think I recall hearing news that Dave Nelmark, the AMTA President in 2012, reached out to some Penn State students the following year and apologized for the screw up, but I don't think AMTA as an organization has ever done so.

          Last edited by Mocktrocity; January 16th, 2019, 02:25 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            I find it odd that no one has expressed this yet: the idea that regionals results are of any use in determining the relative strength of two good teams is absolutely absurd, and anyone pretending otherwise has an agenda or simply has no idea what he is talking about. There are a number of reasons this is the case, not the least of which is that the power-protected regionals pairing system isn't even designed to accurately rank teams in the first place. The system is set up to ensure that the best teams end up near the top, but the system doesn't much concern itself with accurately ordering those teams. Frankly, it isn't that hard for a good program to have 2+ teams go 6-2 at regionals. Once you're in that range, exact records and placements are a bit of a crapshoot. As a result, weaker B teams (and even C teams) frequently place over their stacked A teams at the same regional. A quick scan of the tab summaries shows that happened at least 25 times last year. Tufts, Georgia, and George Washington's A teams were even bested by their C teams. Using results from different regionals to argue that two teams are of equal strength is even more absurd. I didn't even try to count how many times that happened.

            That PSU's B team beat their A team at Rutgers is of substantially more interest. But still, it isn't that rare for a good B team to place higher than a stronger A team at an individual invitational. So, how to determine if that placement was reflective of the teams' actual strengths or simply a fluke? Well, looking at the team compositions---rosters, awards, etc.---seems like a pretty good next step to me. Dani Kunkel (and the rest's) presence on Miami A is probably how I would determine that Miami A and B weren't equivalent teams, even though B finished above A at regionals last year.

            Maybe PSU A and B were of equivalent strength. I don't know. But the only useful "objective" evidence on point is one invitational result. It isn't exactly clearcut.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by OffOnCross View Post
              I find it odd that no one has expressed this yet: the idea that regionals results are of any use in determining the relative strength of two good teams is absolutely absurd, and anyone pretending otherwise has an agenda or simply has no idea what he is talking about. There are a number of reasons this is the case, not the least of which is that the power-protected regionals pairing system isn't even designed to accurately rank teams in the first place. The system is set up to ensure that the best teams end up near the top, but the system doesn't much concern itself with accurately ordering those teams. Frankly, it isn't that hard for a good program to have 2+ teams go 6-2 at regionals. Once you're in that range, exact records and placements are a bit of a crapshoot. As a result, weaker B teams (and even C teams) frequently place over their stacked A teams at the same regional. A quick scan of the tab summaries shows that happened at least 25 times last year. Tufts, Georgia, and George Washington's A teams were even bested by their C teams. Using results from different regionals to argue that two teams are of equal strength is even more absurd. I didn't even try to count how many times that happened.

              That PSU's B team beat their A team at Rutgers is of substantially more interest. But still, it isn't that rare for a good B team to place higher than a stronger A team at an individual invitational. So, how to determine if that placement was reflective of the teams' actual strengths or simply a fluke? Well, looking at the team compositions---rosters, awards, etc.---seems like a pretty good next step to me. Dani Kunkel (and the rest's) presence on Miami A is probably how I would determine that Miami A and B weren't equivalent teams, even though B finished above A at regionals last year.

              Maybe PSU A and B were of equivalent strength. I don't know. But the only useful "objective" evidence on point is one invitational result. It isn't exactly clearcut.
              Penn State used the results of three tournaments to make their case that the teams were co-equal, not just Regionals. I've touched on them in previous posts, but the teams were stacked in December. "A" went to Pitt and "B" went to Yale. "B" performed better (and Yale is certainly a better tournament than Pitt). After this weekend, one of the better performing attorneys on team "A" was dropped to "B" due to personality conflicts on the team. This was the only change made to the teams. The teams were then at Cornell where "B" finished 3rd and "A" finished 7th. You then have Regionals where "B" again performs better. Three straight tournaments, the team labeled "B" was the better performing team. I personally think the Regional results cannot be discounted as heavily as you believe, but the evidence is there across three tournaments of a "B" team performing as the actual "A" team.

              I also do not agree with your idea of going to rosters and awards when there is objective evidence of results of the teams on the table. Having multiple awards and a big name in mock does not tell me who the best mockers on a team are. It gives me a good guess, sure, but I have seen mockers in high school better than some experienced collegiate mockers. Just because someone is a no name freshman with no awards does not mean they are a worse mocker than someone with awards etc. Taking extrinsic evidence like that into consideration when there are objective results on the table is not good practice.
              Last edited by Mocktrocity; January 16th, 2019, 03:58 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                "Taking extrinsic evidence like that into consideration when there are objective results on the table is not good practice."

                Experience and awards absolutely should be considered. Unless there are extraordinary tournament results to justify it, a team of upperclassmen with tons of individual awards should be considered an A team when compared to a team of freshmen without any individual awards. Also, tournament results are "objective" in that they rely on ballots, but they're still subjectively determined by the opinions of judges -- the same way that ranks are determined. Just because they come with more numbers you can point to doesn't make them instantly more reliable than other pieces of evidence. Also, experience definitely improves performance. No matter how talented a freshman is, they will improve if they do mock for another four years (otherwise why are we doing this activity?) Individual awards and experience are just as ""objective"" as tournament results. Not considering them would be to not consider half of the evidence.

                Also this re-litigation of a seven year old conflict is maybe a little bit pointless lol

                Comment


                • #38
                  Hi all. I am not chiming in on @mocktrocity's positions on this now six year old sanction, nor am I chiming in on the current one.

                  However, I do wish to emphasize first and foremost that the Penn State sanctions may have only occurred 6ish years ago - but it is a substantially different board. Of the 28 member (approx) voting board members at that time, I believe only 12 are still on the Board. One unfortunately passed away. It is a different board. But whether it was the 2011 board or the 2018 board - I categorically reject anything that resembles an argument that is anything short of: "25+ people who care deeply about the mock trial community reviewed the appeal(s) and the majority in both instances felt sanctions were warranted." While I feel like I should care that select emails that support the position that mocktrocity is advocating are being published publicly, in the end, I post this thought out of concern for the poster who seems to have still have a level of anger....or frustration...or resentment....years later against a non-profit organization that runs a mock trial competition. I struggle to find the right word, but the posts make me feel like the person posting about it still has very strong feelings about it to this day. Clearly they remain very passionate about mock trial regardless of whether my concern is justified.

                  I do want to add that mocktrocity is right that the rule today regarding the designation of A and B and C teams is not the rule that existed then. The rule that exists today is one that I wrote. I wrote it in the wake of the Penn State sanctions and presented it at the 2012 board meeting. In context, the idea of "A" teams "B teams" etc. did not exist before 2009-2010. That was around the time the board passed the 2 teams per school per site limit. Before that, it would not be uncommon to have 3 or 4 teams from the same school at the same regional. Power distribution existed, but not to the level it exists today, and in some areas of the country where there was only one nearby regional- it didn't really exist at all. 2010 or 2011 was really the first year that we started saying "A team goes here" - B team goes here. With the assignment release, we explained what we meant by "A' team, "B team" etc. - in fact, some of that language still exists at the top of the regional assignments page to this day. But it became apparent to me after the PSU saga that we needed to create a mechanism that would allow teams to seek guidance without worry of repercussions. So we created a system meant for those teams where its too close to call to get guidance. And every year since, at least a couple of teams take advantage of that guidance. Sometimes their B team is outperforming their A, sometimes life happens and a star on A needs to switch to B and they are concerned, sometimes an A team looks like an A on paper but is really the B to anyone who knows the students. Generally, my committee has taken a hands off approach as long as it is not egregious. I wish I could give you examples of egregious - but I don't recall it ever rising to that level. We try to respect each program's issues and concerns and we aren't looking to micromanage. To this day, if your program has any concerns about whether your A team is your A team, I encourage you to write us and ask for our review. Once we review it, our committee okaying the planned designations is proof for an AMTA rep if accused at a tournament.

                  Anyway, I only post that because the rule today was born out of what the poster said. We recognized we had a rule that we needed to enforce for competitive fairness and balance, and after its implementation, learned the hard way that there needed to be a mechanism to help students navigate the rule. .....because we aren't in the business of punishing a bunch of quality people we've never met. To anyone who genuinely thinks that about a group of around 30 volunteers, I'm sorry you feel that way. As new issues arise, rules are added, eliminated, edited, amended and supplemented. Not to get cliche, but AMTA is a living, breathing non-profit. As the competition and the participants change....so must the organization, including its leaders. I am very proud of the current board and its membership. All great people who care very deeply about your experience with us - almost all of you who are strangers to us. We will keep trying to keep it fair and fun for all and we will keep trying to facilitate education, competition, friendships and positive memories that we hope will last a lifetime.

                  So to quote Forest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."


                  Last edited by GooglyMoogly; January 16th, 2019, 04:42 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by randy View Post
                    "Taking extrinsic evidence like that into consideration when there are objective results on the table is not good practice."

                    Experience and awards absolutely should be considered. Unless there are extraordinary tournament results to justify it, a team of upperclassmen with tons of individual awards should be considered an A team when compared to a team of freshmen without any individual awards. Also, tournament results are "objective" in that they rely on ballots, but they're still subjectively determined by the opinions of judges -- the same way that ranks are determined. Just because they come with more numbers you can point to doesn't make them instantly more reliable than other pieces of evidence. Also, experience definitely improves performance. No matter how talented a freshman is, they will improve if they do mock for another four years (otherwise why are we doing this activity?) Individual awards and experience are just as ""objective"" as tournament results. Not considering them would be to not consider half of the evidence.

                    Also this re-litigation of a seven year old conflict is maybe a little bit pointless lol
                    Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to call this "re-litigation" when AMTA did not really discuss it the first time around. The biggest problem with the Penn State sanctions, and why I think it is still relevant to sanctions AMTA hands out today, is the AMTA Board showed they did not even consider the evidence put forth by Penn State. Read Hawley's email that she put our FOURTEEN minutes after receiving the appeal. She did not read the appeal nor did most AMTA members in the email chain.

                    As a comment on individual awards though, I do think they are one of the worst possible metrics you could use to determine a mocker's ability. By virtue of how awards are given out, the very best mockers sometimes win very few to no awards. If you are on a great team with equally as talented attorneys, you will constantly pull ranks from each other and nobody wins awards. A good mocker on a team with two terrible attorneys will frequently win awards. Experience is a little better but experience only matters if the mocker is putting in the work. A 4 year collegiate mocker that was lazy and barely put in time can easily be worse than a 1 year college mocker that spent every waking moment of their 4 year high school career on learning mock and evidence. It is pointless to focus on these things when there are several tournaments of results indicating the strength of the teams.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by GooglyMoogly View Post
                      Hi all. I am not chiming in on @mocktrocity's positions on this now six year old sanction, nor am I chiming in on the current one.

                      However, I do wish to emphasize first and foremost that the Penn State sanctions may have only occurred 6ish years ago - but it is a substantially different board. Of the 28 member (approx) voting board members at that time, I believe only 12 are still on the Board. One unfortunately passed away. It is a different board. But whether it was the 2011 board or the 2018 board - I categorically reject anything that resembles an argument that is anything short of: "25+ people who care deeply about the mock trial community reviewed the appeal(s) and the majority in both instances felt sanctions were warranted." While I feel like I should care that select emails that support the position that mocktrocity is advocating are being published publicly, in the end, I post this thought out of concern for the poster who seems to have still have a level of anger....or frustration...or resentment....years later against a non-profit organization that runs a mock trial competition. I struggle to find the right word, but the posts make me feel like the person posting about it still has very strong feelings about it to this day. Clearly they remain very passionate about mock trial regardless of whether my concern is justified.

                      I do want to add that mocktrocity is right that the rule today regarding the designation of A and B and C teams is not the rule that existed then. The rule that exists today is one that I wrote. I wrote it in the wake of the Penn State sanctions and presented it at the 2012 board meeting. In context, the idea of "A" teams "B teams" etc. did not exist before 2009-2010. That was around the time the board passed the 2 teams per school per site limit. Before that, it would not be uncommon to have 3 or 4 teams from the same school at the same regional. Power distribution existed, but not to the level it exists today, and in some areas of the country where there was only one nearby regional- it didn't really exist at all. 2010 or 2011 was really the first year that we started saying "A team goes here" - B team goes here. With the assignment release, we explained what we meant by "A' team, "B team" etc. - in fact, some of that language still exists at the top of the regional assignments page to this day. But it became apparent to me after the PSU saga that we needed to create a mechanism that would allow teams to seek guidance without worry of repercussions. So we created a system meant for those teams where its too close to call to get guidance. And every year since, at least a couple of teams take advantage of that guidance. Sometimes their B team is outperforming their A, sometimes life happens and a star on A needs to switch to B and they are concerned, sometimes an A team looks like an A on paper but is really the B to anyone who knows the students. Generally, my committee has taken a hands off approach as long as it is not egregious. I wish I could give you examples of egregious - but I don't recall it ever rising to that level. We try to respect each program's issues and concerns and we aren't looking to micromanage. To this day, if your program has any concerns about whether your A team is your A team, I encourage you to write us and ask for our review. Once we review it, our committee okaying the planned designations is proof for an AMTA rep if accused at a tournament.

                      Anyway, I only post that because the rule today was born out of what the poster said. We recognized we had a rule that we needed to enforce for competitive fairness and balance, and after its implementation, learned the hard way that there needed to be a mechanism to help students navigate the rule. .....because we aren't in the business of punishing a bunch of quality people we've never met. To anyone who genuinely thinks that about a group of around 30 volunteers, I'm sorry you feel that way. As new issues arise, rules are added, eliminated, edited, amended and supplemented. Not to get cliche, but AMTA is a living, breathing non-profit. As the competition and the participants change....so must the organization, including its leaders. I am very proud of the current board and its membership. All great people who care very deeply about your experience with us - almost all of you who are strangers to us. We will keep trying to keep it fair and fun for all and we will keep trying to facilitate education, competition, friendships and positive memories that we hope will last a lifetime.

                      So to quote Forest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."

                      I do not believe the AMTA Board is a group of volunteers trying to punish people that they never met. I do believe that the AMTA Board, in 2012, was derelict of duty in not fully considering the evidence put before them. Do you honestly believe that Hawley read the 30 some page appeal before her initial response, 14 minutes later, that made no mention of the arguments or evidence contained within the appeal? I think AMTA made a rush to judgment and a whole bunch of students got caught in the flak. Are the AMTA Board members evil people for not having the time in their busy day to read and evaluate a 30 page appeal? No, of course not. But they did screw over a bunch of kids (and arguably, lessened the credibility of the National Champion) in 2012 by not making an informed decision and they should own up to it.

                      Penn State lays out their position and the results of their two teams thoroughly in their appeal linked earlier in the thread. If the TAC existed in 2012 and Penn State sent this information to the TAC indicating they believe they had relatively co-equal teams, what would you have ruled?
                      Last edited by Mocktrocity; January 16th, 2019, 05:28 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I think it's difficult for the relevant parties to respond because it would require them to disclose more confidential emails, and AMTA hasn't made a history of encouraging responses on forums like Perjuries. But suffice it to say, it's not accurate that discussion ended with that email countering Hawley's position. There was a vigorous debate on the subject after PSU's appeal was sent over. At a minimum, if you're going to go scorched earth and start selectively copy-pasting confidential emails and imply that AMTA's sanctions reasoning is suspect to this day, you should at least be up front that you're not revealing a lot of the other emails that cut against your point.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Nur Rauch View Post
                          I think it's difficult for the relevant parties to respond because it would require them to disclose more confidential emails, and AMTA hasn't made a history of encouraging responses on forums like Perjuries. But suffice it to say, it's not accurate that discussion ended with that email countering Hawley's position. There was a vigorous debate on the subject after PSU's appeal was sent over. At a minimum, if you're going to go scorched earth and start selectively copy-pasting confidential emails and imply that AMTA's sanctions reasoning is suspect to this day, you should at least be up front that you're not revealing a lot of the other emails that cut against your point.
                          As I said, I did not save the whole thread, just a select few responses. As I recall, the emails I posted were the two main positions advocated in the thread with almost every other response being brief responses agreeing with Hawley. If you can even call Hawley's take a position that is. She basically said, they broke the rules, we know it, doesnt matter why they said they did it, take their bids. Take of my selective saving of the emails as you will, but I have zero recollection of any email that refutes the mathematical analysis set forth by Bloch. If you have one on an analysis on the numbers that refutes Bloch's take, please provide it.
                          Last edited by Mocktrocity; January 16th, 2019, 08:38 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Since my "vigorous debate" comment (which, more than anything else, was simply part of a tongue-in-cheek post expressing amusement that a seven year-old sanction based on a since-revamped rule was being so hotly debated) started this, I guess I should add my $0.02. I was not on the Board back in 2012 (candidate in 2013, full member in 2015) and obviously was not involved in any of the discussions that led to the PSU sanction or the Board's decision to affirm it. I did "vigorously" oppose the PSU sanction, and my argument to that effect is laid out in the 2012 thread that's linked to earlier. That being said, while Alicia might have jumped the gun with her initial comment, the notion that a Board full of (mostly) lawyers who love mock trial would jump at the chance to ban students from competing in mock trial without a thorough discussion and review of the evidence seems like . . . a stretch. Does GooglyMoogly (who was on the EC back in 2012, as well as being on the Board) strike you as the type to do that? And having served on several committees with Don Racheter (who is literally one of the "Founding Fathers" of AMTA) and having attended six Board meetings with him, I would be rather surprised (even if he was initially inclined to agree with Alicia) if he did that as well. That somebody voted to sanction PSU does not mean that they didn't read the appeal or that they disregarded the evidence. It simply means that they came to a different conclusion than you did.
                            Mock Trial with J. Reinhold! Mock Trial! Mock Trial with J. Reinhold!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I, and most people, I would imagine, would generally accept the proposition that people have different takes on the old PSU decision, regardless if I personally agree with that position or not. I also believe in the competence and good-naturedness of the board. I think GooglyMoogly 's post is awesome. It shows that AMTA reacted to the aftermath, and was able to be self-reflexive, and I commend the poster's part in that process. It also shows that there was a recognition that the rule was not very clear to begin with for the community. With that being said, I think it is reasonable to posit that navigating that rule now is much more feasible than it was then, in no small part thanks to Googly's efforts. So it seems more reasonable for a team to be sanctioned for that same violation today, than it would have been back then. The self-reflexive action on AMTA's behalf happened as a direct result of the aftermath; aftermath that resulted from the debates that happened amongst the community . Today, AMTA is better for it; breaking that rule on accident is harder, and there are resources in place to prevent it, should a captain or coach have concerns.

                              What I do hope can change, and that the new board would possibly even consider, is the implementation of a way for competitors at large to know why a school was sanctioned, even if the school remains anonymous. I think most people can accept the board's democratic process when it comes to sanctioning a team or not, and upholding a decision or striking it down during appeal. That being said, if this "vigorous debate" happens when discussing the ultimate decision, it would be nice if 2 things happened once the sanction was officially appealed by the program affected; 1) that AMTA would explain itself in a brief memo, much the way it did with the recent material invention sanctions, and 2) That there be a dissenting memo, should a certain portion of the board, in fact, disagree with the decision.

                              This to me, would seem to keep the board honest a few different ways. First, the severity of the punishment in some instance could be reconsidered, even if the sanction is upheld, if there is a large enough group of the board that disagrees with the ultimate decision. Second, it would allow the community to engage in the process, by being able to discuss, which could perhaps lead to new breakthroughs as to whether new amendments should be made to the rules, or new committees formed, or even if rules should be changed or deleted to help ensure those rules are realistically followed (i.e. it would mirror the aforementioned self-reflexiveness that I commended). Third, it would make the legal process of this intrinsically law-related activity a closer reflection of our actual justice system!

                              The more I talk about it, the more I want to propose this idea to the board.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by The Gelf View Post
                                That being said, while Alicia might have jumped the gun with her initial comment, the notion that a Board full of (mostly) lawyers who love mock trial would jump at the chance to ban students from competing in mock trial without a thorough discussion and review of the evidence seems like . . . a stretch.
                                I think you are hitting on why some people have a hard time accepting that AMTA screwed up here. AMTA are the adults in the room. They run the show. They know what they are doing. They are lawyers, how could they get this wrong!? I think that is a fallacy that we see time and time again when a power structure makes a mistake and people try to rationalize how it was not a mistake.

                                Do you think it is such a stretch that a bunch of these lawyers on the board, with their overwhelming responsibilities outside of mock trial, just went with the flow of things because they didnt have the time to dig into the appeal? I honestly don't blame many on the board for not putting the necessary time into this. The EC had come to a conclusion before it got to the board. Im busying coaching my team and dont have the time to read this appeal. Ill just agree with the EC's position, because theyre the ones in charge. They have to get it right! Based on my review of the almost non-existent discussion of Penn State's actual appeal and position (there was plenty of discussion of whether or not taking away their bids was "too much") in the thread where the Board voted, I'm inclined to believe that some of these humans on the board were a bit too busy to analyze the facts of the case and realize the EC got it wrong.

                                I also think it is telling that the AMTA Board members that are commenting in this thread make zero effort to refute the mathematical analysis of the evidence offered by Bloch. It is the same reason that nobody challenged the numbers in 2012. The numbers do not lie and the numbers do not support the sanction handed down by AMTA.
                                Last edited by Mocktrocity; January 16th, 2019, 08:57 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X