Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Final Round Discussion

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

  • Okay, I'll take your word for it that this is just criticism about cheating.

    There's an official, formal process to investigate this. We've known for 4 days now that said investigation is currently ongoing- by a body that's handled similar allegations in the past, has access to more information and insight than any one of us, and has a series of relatively well-thought-out mechanisms to handle this type of situation.

    Yale blatantly violated the rules, in a way that was obvious to many people watching the round.
    Do you think statements like this help, Radagast? At best, they're prematurely jumping the gun. At worst, you're either going to undermine the process (What happens if/when AMTA disagrees with your assessment? Are they going to be compromised "in a way that [is] obvious to many people watching"?) or you're just casting aspersions on a team that may yet turn out to be innocent.

    There are a good few comments on here that discuss the rules on substance and try to apply them; some people were even kind enough to transcribe pertinent parts of the cross-examination or make legal-ish rules arguments. That's well within the bounds of criticism and, hey if the thread were just that, then it'd be 80% shorter and pretty damn good. But you're also seeing this unhealthy discourse both on here and on MTC to the tune of "AMTA can't keep letting Yale get away with this!"

    That's the mob campaign I'm talking about, your posts included. This isn't mere criticism. These are outright judgments and calls for punishment. This is sidestepping and subverting the parties and processes that actually address rules violations, refusing to wait for them to do their jobs, and sullying the name of what may turn out to be a team that yet again acted perfectly within its bounds in spite of all the people that want to believe otherwise.

    We'll find out soon enough whether Yale cheated. If you've been active long enough to somehow forget that there has been shade thrown over Yale's creativity for the last 3 years at least, surely you have the patience to at least wait a couple weeks for this to wrap up before telling us what the investigation's answer's going to be or how AMTA should punish the not-yet-guilty.
    Last edited by Zephaniah; April 13th, 2019, 12:36 PM.
    things are really heating up in the lawyer impersonation fandom

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Radagast View Post

      Couldn't disagree with this more. Mock Trial has changed a great deal in the last 10-15 years, and your implication that people are attempting to take down innovative teams is misplaced. There is a difference, however, been innovation and cheating, and Yale this year fell on the wrong side of that line.

      Calling criticism of Yale a "mob campaign" does a disservice to everyone. Yale didn't demonstrate greatness--they demonstrated a willingness to push the rules farther than they've been pushed before, and pushed them so far that they finally broke.Plenty of teams do creative things every year, and they are not attacked for it. By your logic, when Yale's Fisher testified in 2016, people should have been clamoring for sanctions, because, if anything, that was more egregious relative to what other teams were doing at the time. This year is special, because it was so far over the accepted line and, in my view, indefensible (unlike Fisher).
      For those of us out of the loop, what did Yale’s Fisher do?

      Comment


      • Fisher essentially changed his tune on the height of the person he saw at the docks relative to the defendant, based on what he saw in the courtroom. It was extremely creative, and certainly flirted with the line of going too far. In my view, it didn't, but I think reasonable people could argue even then that it did.

        Comment

        Working...
        X