Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Final Round Discussion

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

  • #16
    Interesting. I will say that I scored it as Yale +3, and the Rivers situation might have been the difference on my ballot. I thought Yale won on the strength of their case theory--and the Rivers DX was a crucial part of that. I thought Elliott did handle the CX as well as he could have, but he (and more broadly, Rhodes's case theory) were put in an almost impossible situation. They couldn't really say: "No, you didn't manipulate her to do that!" In particular, I thought Bays's closing was considerably stronger than McClain's, and without the Rivers meltdown their theory would have been a lot harder to sell. I also felt like Rhodes didn't adapt their case-in-chief well to Yale's theory. They should have steered their questions away from anything about the dairy farmers and just towards Anderson individually.

    I think there's definitely a strong argument for a rules violation (and that might be why we have no word from AMTA on twitter or the website about the results from the final round). In particular, I think Rivers crossed a line when he said (regarding his affidavit), "Of course that's what I said, I didn't want to get sued!" I think without that quote Yale might have been fine, but that is a pretty clear recanting of the affidavit, in the same way that was sanctioned last year.

    Comment


    • #17
      cfredricks I agree about that line in particular. I thought Yale toed the line well until he said that. And it seems so incredibly similar to the sanction last year for Bailey saying "that's what they told me to say" that I cannot fathom why it is not sanctionable here.

      Comment


      • #18
        What Yale did was an egregious violation of the rules and should be punished. I hope AMTA addresses this.

        Comment


        • #19
          What was the violation for Bailey last year again? The two students were suspended, but I dont think the results of a round were changed. Same result here?

          Comment


          • #20
            I agree with most commenters here: Yale's Rivers felt quite icky to me as well, particularly that one line. That being said, I also felt like Rhodes simply didn't do enough to counter Yale's theory. The second I heard Yale's theory, I thought Rhodes would win easily because the facts just don't support their theory at all. But it goes to show success is more about execution.

            Edited to add the "I don't know how to answer that" moves. Just generally icky, but hey, it works?
            Last edited by happygolucky; April 7th, 2019, 10:22 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              This should have been addressed by AMTA before the results were ever announced by Woodward. They had 20 minutes and a brain trust of several representatives to handle this situation as it happened. I also doubt they were unaware of this theory and witnessís existence from the previous days of tournament and scrimmaging.

              This is going to send shockwaves through the Amta community and may honestly kill any sort of honest extrapolation of case materials for the future.

              The last two years Yale has clearly disregarded rules prohibiting material invention yet AMTA does nothing about it. The Red Envelooe + money exchange line from last year and this recantation prove that.

              It is a shame because Yale would have won without that witness.

              Comment


              • #22
                Yale definitely has/does push[ed] the envelope (no pun intended), however I think at that point the opposing team needs to do a better job of making it SO clear for an outsider to see that this is a clear violation of the rule. I think in this case especially it is a bit muddy... There needed to be a question flat out asking what would have violated the rule. Personally, I think they got away with it, but I think it could have gone in Rhodes favor had they asked that question.

                Comment


                • #23
                  My question is will they vacate the title at all? It is impossible to know for certain whether Yale would have still won without the invention. Some people seem convinced they would have, me not so much. I think part of Yale's strength for that round came from them using an unconventional theory in opening and closing based on invented facts. But vacating a title is unprecedented and would cause a ripple felt across the AMTA world.

                  Regardless, this is quite the shitshow for AMTA to figure out. Tomorrow's set of confessions should give us a good indication of the overall community's opinion on the subject.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by VoirDeerInTheHeadlights View Post
                    Yale definitely has/does push[ed] the envelope (no pun intended), however I think at that point the opposing team needs to do a better job of making it SO clear for an outsider to see that this is a clear violation of the rule. I think in this case especially it is a bit muddy... There needed to be a question flat out asking what would have violated the rule. Personally, I think they got away with it, but I think it could have gone in Rhodes favor had they asked that question.
                    I'm confused by what you mean by this. What question would you be looking for? Something like "Sir, are you recanting your affidavit?"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by STC
                      From what I have heard (very much hearsay), this theory was not run earlier in the tournament
                      I talked to the father of a student from Emory today who said Yale's twist on the case was "the dairy industry sent the guys." So, depending on what round Yale saw Emory, it most likely started then.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gronksmash View Post

                        I talked to the father of a student from Emory today who said Yale's twist on the case was "the dairy industry sent the guys." So, depending on what round Yale saw Emory, it started most likely started then.
                        I believe this was round 1.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Random View Post
                          The last two years Yale has clearly disregarded rules prohibiting material invention yet AMTA does nothing about it. The Red Envelooe + money exchange line from last year and this recantation prove that.
                          I think you made some good points, but I just want to start by addressing Yale's history of invention. The thing is, I don't think any of their previous inventions have necessarily crossed the line. They definitely pushed it, but I think that in those instances, it was more interpretation of the evidence rather than actually fabricating or denying facts that made the inventions less severe. There wasn't a single case where the impeachment wasn't, to some degree, effective at remedying the situation.

                          What strikes me about the Rivers inventions is that it IS explicitly recanting the affidavit, which is a much more severe violation of AMTA rules. In addition, several judges when giving comments (I think Lampert in particular) pointed out how effective they found Rivers' testimony to be. That is what demonstrates how ineffective impeachment was at that point, that those judges likely wouldn't score Yale down because one of their witnesses was straight up lying.

                          Because AMTA already announced Yale as the official winners without taking more time to consider the issue, I think it's unlikely that they make an effort to address these concerns. They may do something to address it because they've yet to post results on their website, but it would hardly surprise me if they try to just ignore the issue for the foreseeable future. It's a shame because I do truly think this case strategy was effective and could have worked even if Rivers didn't explicitly recant his affidavit. I was hopeful Yale wouldn't push it that far, but the witness clearly recanted on direct, and then several times later on cross examination. I genuinely hope the invention of fact issue is cleared up soon, because tit's been a problem for a while now, and this invention is what that lack of clarity about the rules was leading up to. Whether or not Yale would have won is irrelevant, because what matters is that all competitors get a fair shot at winning a round based on the materials they are given.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by RedRupee1 View Post
                            My question is will they vacate the title at all? It is impossible to know for certain whether Yale would have still won without the invention. Some people seem convinced they would have, me not so much. I think part of Yale's strength for that round came from them using an unconventional theory in opening and closing based on invented facts. But vacating a title is unprecedented and would cause a ripple felt across the AMTA world.

                            Regardless, this is quite the shitshow for AMTA to figure out. Tomorrow's set of confessions should give us a good indication of the overall community's opinion on the subject.
                            Would this mean Rhodes wins by default? I canít imagine anyone involved would be truly happy if that was the case.

                            Why this obvious issue was not addressed as it was happening or at least immediately after the round ended is truly a blunder on AMTAís part.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by happygolucky View Post

                              I'm confused by what you mean by this. What question would you be looking for? Something like "Sir, are you recanting your affidavit?"
                              Exactly.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by VoirDeerInTheHeadlights View Post

                                Exactly.
                                To be fair, the Rhodes attorney did the following:

                                Q: "Am I reading this correctly"
                                A: "I don't know what to say to that"

                                But yes, I suppose he could have gone one step farther. But should our egregious invention rule require someone to affirmatively state "I am recanting my affidavit" for it to be a violation? If so, there would never be any violation.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X