Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CRC Guidance Memorandum

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Gronksmash View Post
    Cornell was running a Hunter Cooper this past weekend that invented the fact that Alex Grace installed cameras everywhere in the studio to capture things for blooper reels, which was used to deflect some cross points. It was reported to the CRC so it will be interesting to see if we get any guidance before this coming weekend. No sanctions have been reported on it thus far...
    Seems like an odd thing to invent. I cannot see anything in the affidavit that could be extrapolated to this degree. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but Isn't it possible that Cornell was already punished? I feel like a few years ago there was a rule that allowed AMTA reps to dock points on a ballot. Could explain Cornell B failing to make it through.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Random View Post

      Seems like an odd thing to invent. I cannot see anything in the affidavit that could be extrapolated to this degree. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but Isn't it possible that Cornell was already punished? I feel like a few years ago there was a rule that allowed AMTA reps to dock points on a ballot. Could explain Cornell B failing to make it through.
      My understanding is that AMTA reps no longer have the authority to rule on egregious material inventions, nor the authority to punish teams during an AMTA sanctioned tournament. The only recourse under the current Rules is to file a CRC complaint after the AMTA sanctioned tournament.

      Comment


      • #18
        While everyone agrees it is a material invention, is it enough for AMTA to sanction? The sanction last year that actually led to a suspension was "primarily based on recanting the affidavit." This is nowhere near the level of what the Bailey was doing that got suspended.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gronksmash View Post
          While everyone agrees it is a material invention, is it enough for AMTA to sanction? The sanction last year that actually led to a suspension was "primarily based on recanting the affidavit." This is nowhere near the level of what the Bailey was doing that got suspended.
          I would say no. This sounds like a great example of an invention (which I would also argue isn't material on its face) that can be remedied through impeachment on cross.

          There is already counterplay built into the game for inventions like this Cornell one (namely, impeachment). I believe AMTA/CRC should only step in when a team makes a game-breaking invention, like the one where a witness recants the affidavit.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mocktrocity View Post

            Tried to sanction them? Why did they fail?
            I heard that an AMTA rep filed for sanctions against Yale after the final round for their red envelope bit. I don't think they lost any bids, so I'm guessing the sanctions didn't go through. If you listen to the Elizabeth Bays episode on the mock podcast, it discusses sanctions briefly, without specifics.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Gryffindork View Post

              I heard that an AMTA rep filed for sanctions against Yale after the final round for their red envelope bit. I don't think they lost any bids, so I'm guessing the sanctions didn't go through. If you listen to the Elizabeth Bays episode on the mock podcast, it discusses sanctions briefly, without specifics.
              I'm assuming Mocktrocity was poking at the OP for saying AMTA "tried" to sanction. It's not an issue of trying, it's whether they did or did not sanction. Meaning, it's not as if AMTA could try to sanction and then be stonewalled by a team that says no thank you, we won't be sanctioned.

              Comment


              • #22
                Amta doesn’t seem to know what it wants in a round. It stifles creativity by wielding the CRC like a cudgel, but tries (and fails) to add creativity with lackluster ORCs case changes. This stems back to the ABC case where the ORCs updates all but eliminated pursuing Bancroft P.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by geneva View Post

                  I'm assuming Mocktrocity was poking at the OP for saying AMTA "tried" to sanction. It's not an issue of trying, it's whether they did or did not sanction. Meaning, it's not as if AMTA could try to sanction and then be stonewalled by a team that says no thank you, we won't be sanctioned.
                  I think the confusion here comes from distinguishing between AMTA as an entity and AMTA reps. When DrunkLikeDawson said AMTA “tried” to sanction Yale, I assumed they were referencing how it was an AMTA rep that allegedly filed a complaint against Yale (as per Rule 9.5.1 on sanctions) not an opposing team. While an AMTA rep is always free to initiate a sanction investigation, it’s my understanding that the CRC evaluates and rules on sanctions entirely seperatly —> an individual in AMTA can initiate sanction proceedings that are not confirmed by the CRC subsection of AMTA. I certainly agree that once AMTA/CRC sanctions are issued, it is not up to a team to accept them or reject them.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Could it be? Did we make it through regionals season with no invention of fact sanctions?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Any team that had complaints against them for week 3 would've received notifications from the CRC last night / today, so they're in their response window right now. So we don't know yet.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        It would be nice to get an update from the CRC on some of the complaints and why they chose not to sanction for future guidance, because there were certainly plenty of reports.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Gronksmash I haven't heard about any reports. Do you know what the reports were for?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by The Real Mock Prodigy View Post
                            Gronksmash I haven't heard about any reports. Do you know what the reports were for?
                            I mentioned this one earlier that came out of the State College regional: Cornell was running a Hunter Cooper this past weekend that invented the fact that Alex Grace installed cameras everywhere in the studio to capture things for blooper reels, which was used to deflect some cross points. It was reported to the CRC so it will be interesting to see if we get any guidance before this coming weekend. No sanctions have been reported on it thus far...

                            I know more than one team that reported Cornell. Past that, I don't personally know of any but I'm assuming there will be a good bit after teams were sanctioned last year.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I'm not sure how I feel about CRC commenting publicly on decisions not to sanction, but one thing I hope they will do in future guidance is publish a formal recusal policy. If a CRC member's or exec board member's team is accused of misconduct, or if it's their team that is pursuing a complaint, I don't think that coach should participate in the ensuing investigation. I'm going to guess that informally they already follow that policy, but I think codifying that is important if they are going to keep going in this direction of formalizing the CRC investigation process. Otherwise, teams that don't know whether a recusal is going to happen may be discouraged from pursuing complaints, if say for example they want to complain about something Columbia did but they know that the CRC chair coaches Columbia.

                              ​​​(I know of no allegations against Columbia. They're a fine program. Just using them as an example.)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                From what I've heard, Penn State's complaint against Cornell didn't end up going anywhere. Not sure if that means that they investigated and let Cornell of the hook or if Penn State just didn't end up filing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X