Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Final Round Discussion

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by REO Speedwagon View Post
    I think both teams should hug it out.
    I'd tend to agree.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Mocktrocity View Post

      You are isolating the incident too much here. The material invention,whether successfully impeached or not, had a huge influence on Yale winning because it permeated to the rest of their presentation. Rhodes crosses (aside from Elliot) seemed flat because the witnesses they were crossing were basically inhabiting a different universe then the closed one everyone else practiced in. The Yale crosses were equally boosted by having a narrow case theory (based on this new universe they created) that allowed them to shine.
      I'm having some trouble following your logic. I totally agree that Yale created a new universe by advancing a case theory that blamed the Dairy Farmers, and that this theory gave them an edge on cross. That's what unexpected theories do.

      What I don't see is how that is in any way dependent on Rivers answering "no" to two questions on cross examination. Are you suggesting that if he had said "yes" to those questions, judges would have gone back and altered their earlier cross scores to compensate? Do you think it would make him look so trustworthy that Yale's theory falls apart, if he enthusiastically agreed that he would of course tell Anderson not to post it because legal trouble is the last thing he wanted? Because honestly, that's what I was expecting him to answer. That's what I would expect a real Rivers to answer if he were really to blame for the post. I still don't see how the answer he gave helped Yale, and I certainly don't see how it could have retroactively helped Yale on all the scores they had already earned.

      Obviously this is all highly speculative, and there's no way to know for sure what determined the outcome of the round. But I think we need to take care to distinguish between Yale's case theory (shocking, very successful, and within the bounds of the rules) and Yale's invention of fact (shocking, largely unhelpful, and clearly not allowed).
      Last edited by Voir Dire; April 8th, 2019, 07:24 PM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Yale cheated. It's not the first time Yale has cheated. But it's probably the most egregious. And it's also on the biggest stage. There isn't really a question of whether Yale broke the rules. I think it's a question of what AMTA will do about it.

        There is an egregious material invention even before we get to the cross examination. In the context of their case, it's clear that Yale's Rivers was saying that he planted the people in the grocery store. Using the transcript someone else posted earlier, the Rivers direct went accordingly:

        Q: Yes, or no, in your contract, you asked Ms. Anderson to post something negative?
        A: Yes.
        Q: And sir, what was Ms. Anderson’'s stance on posting something negative?
        A: She wouldn'’t do it …
        Q: Sir.
        A: … Unless she believed it was true.
        Q: So sir, we'’ve all heard what Ms. Anderson posted, I have to ask, sir – did you do something to make that happen?
        Q: Sir?
        A: All we did was we gave her a push – we had to. We had to.

        What is the "push" Rivers was referring to? That has to mean something.The CRC has stated that it doesn't consider statements of invention in isolation. It looks at them in the context of other statements to determine their meaning. So in order to determine what that "push" was, look at other statements Yale made.

        It's not the contract because Rivers already stated that the contract wasn't enough. Rivers suggests that it's something that would cause Anderson to believe it to be true. In light of their case theory, it is obvious that Rivers is referring to planting the people in the grocery store. Yale's opening and closing made it clear that Rivers was referring to planting people in the store. In isolation, "push" is ambiguous. In the context of their case, it's not.

        And that's all before you get to the cross where the witness clearly recants the affidavit. The language of Rivers on that cross examination tracks very closely with the language of the Bailey described in the prior recanting sanction.



        What Yale did here, and has done in the past, doesn't show any real skill of advocacy. It shows some level of creativity to be sure. But other teams have those creative skills as well and choose not do those case theories because they believe them to be cheating. The difference between Yale and other teams in AMTA isn't Yale's skill or creativity. It's Yale's lack of integrity.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by ImproperCharacter View Post
          Yale cheated. It's not the first time Yale has cheated. But it's probably the most egregious. And it's also on the biggest stage. There isn't really a question of whether Yale broke the rules. I think it's a question of what AMTA will do about it.

          There is an egregious material invention even before we get to the cross examination. In the context of their case, it's clear that Yale's Rivers was saying that he planted the people in the grocery store. Using the transcript someone else posted earlier, the Rivers direct went accordingly:

          Q: Yes, or no, in your contract, you asked Ms. Anderson to post something negative?
          A: Yes.
          Q: And sir, what was Ms. Anderson’'s stance on posting something negative?
          A: She wouldn'’t do it …
          Q: Sir.
          A: … Unless she believed it was true.
          Q: So sir, we'’ve all heard what Ms. Anderson posted, I have to ask, sir – did you do something to make that happen?
          Q: Sir?
          A: All we did was we gave her a push – we had to. We had to.

          What is the "push" Rivers was referring to? That has to mean something.The CRC has stated that it doesn't consider statements of invention in isolation. It looks at them in the context of other statements to determine their meaning. So in order to determine what that "push" was, look at other statements Yale made.

          It's not the contract because Rivers already stated that the contract wasn't enough. Rivers suggests that it's something that would cause Anderson to believe it to be true. In light of their case theory, it is obvious that Rivers is referring to planting the people in the grocery store. Yale's opening and closing made it clear that Rivers was referring to planting people in the store. In isolation, "push" is ambiguous. In the context of their case, it's not.

          And that's all before you get to the cross where the witness clearly recants the affidavit. The language of Rivers on that cross examination tracks very closely with the language of the Bailey described in the prior recanting sanction.



          What Yale did here, and has done in the past, doesn't show any real skill of advocacy. It shows some level of creativity to be sure. But other teams have those creative skills as well and choose not do those case theories because they believe them to be cheating. The difference between Yale and other teams in AMTA isn't Yale's skill or creativity. It's Yale's lack of integrity.
          Your user date seems to indicate you would know, so correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Yale ran a case theory at the NCT for the BNN v Walton case that was a huge invention of fact. I can't recall the details specifically, but I certainly recall it involved having a witness be of a certain race and then making the trial about all about racism (instead of what AMTA intended the trial to be about).
          Last edited by Mocktrocity; April 8th, 2019, 07:34 PM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Mocktrocity View Post

            Your user date seems to indicate you would now, so correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Yale ran a case theory at the NCT for the BNN v Walton case that was a huge invention of fact. I can't recall the details specifically, but I certainly recall it involved having a witness be of a certain race and then making trial about all about racism (instead of what AMTA intended the trial to be about).
            I also recall that being discussed but cannot remember the specifics. I did not see it personally. I was referencing more recent Yale inventions because I think the Yale team circa BNN v. Walton has little relation to the Yale team now. But it's still an interesting point.

            Comment


            • #96
              For me, the issue isn't whether Yale violated AMTA rules. It seems obvious that they did, and not in a minor way. I'm squeamish about vacating a national championship (not awarding the win to Rhodes, mind you, but just not having a national champion for 2018-2019), even though that's an available and (potentially) commensurate punishment to the "crime". We could also revoke the eligibility of the non-graduating competitors, but that doesn't work as a deterrent. A team of seniors in the future could decide to do just this, and not care about the consequences. And I think deterrence should be the ultimate goal, more than punishing Yale for what they did here. We want to make sure teams in the future don't violate this same rule, and I think schools (coach-led or student-led) will be less likely to make aggressive inventions if it threatens their own eligibility, as opposed to just risking an eventually revocation of their win, long after the glow has faded anyway.

              So, for me, the big issue is what do we do to Yale? And I think that's where AMTA will get stuck too, and that's the problem. Because if you can't decide on a punishment, the whole thing becomes kind of toothless.

              Comment


              • #97
                This thread in a nutshell
                things are really heating up in the lawyer impersonation fandom

                Comment


                • #98
                  I think it is very interesting that we have not yet seen a tab summary from the final round. I very much so believe the tab summary will show the point differential to be so close and the score to have been affected or not affected by what occurred on the third Yale witness that AMTA is worried that publishing that tab summary will only inflame the community more .

                  we have to remember this was a 5 to 2 victory for Yale. That is not a unanimous result. If the point differentials are within 3 to 4 points on those other five ballots then AMTA has a serious problem on their hands and it may be days before we hear from them as to what course of action is next .

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    ^ only took 8 minutes to prove meme magic is real
                    things are really heating up in the lawyer impersonation fandom

                    Comment


                    • Yale should have the championship vacated IF the cross scores of Rivers determined the outcome of the trial.

                      If not, I still think they are the best team in the country - I don't think they reached the final round unfairly, unless there is evidence of similar recanting in the UMBC trial.

                      If AMTA finds there was an egregious invention, the witness playing Rivers and the attorney directing Rivers should be suspended, in line with AMTA's decision last year.

                      Because this was the final round, I think additional sanctions are appropriate - Yale should be suspended from the National Championship next year. I think that inventions like this are only really a big problem at the National Championship - when this happens during the regular season, teams are usually more equipped to respond.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mocktrocity View Post

                        Rhodes crosses (aside from Elliot) seemed flat because the witnesses they were crossing were basically inhabiting a different universe then the closed one everyone else practiced in. The Yale crosses were equally boosted by having a narrow case theory (based on this new universe they created) that allowed them to shine.
                        I think you're doing Rhodes' attorneys a serious disservice in calling their crosses flat. The Sullivan and Anderson crosses were as dynamic and well-paced as Elliot's, and they consistently drew out weak facts in a manner that made both witnesses seem more biased and reluctant. Yale's crosses on the other hand occasionally felt repetitive, as a byproduct of their theory, though they were obviously well delivered. Considering that both Sullivan and Anderson presented before Rivers got on the stand, it seems like a stretch to blame any flaws you perceived in Rhodes' crosses on that. I agree that the circumstantial evidence they presented built up Yale's theory, and helped fulfill Yale's opening promise of showing evidence towards a conspiracy, but I disagree that it was only successful because of River's testimony. I echo a lot of people in saying that the Rivers cross seemed to weaken Yale's theory and confuse the issue, rather than strengthen it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gryffindork View Post

                          Considering that both Sullivan and Anderson presented before Rivers got on the stand, it seems like a stretch to blame any flaws you perceived in Rhodes' crosses on that. I agree that the circumstantial evidence they presented built up Yale's theory, and helped fulfill Yale's opening promise of showing evidence towards a conspiracy, but I disagree that it was only successful because of River's testimony.
                          It doesn't matter that the Sullivan and Anderson went first. The presentation of Sullivan and Anderson only worked because of the case theory Yale said they were going to present in the opening. That case theory was entirely based on invented facts that originated with Rivers wanting to give Jerry a "push." The trial was poisoned by Yale introducing an egregious material fact invention that they shouted about from the open til close.
                          Last edited by Gronksmash; April 9th, 2019, 08:37 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Does anyone know if there's any way to sort posts by popularity? This one is already at over 100 replies and 11,000 views. Would be interested to know how that ranks among the most popular posts ever on this forum.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Real Mock Prodigy View Post
                              Does anyone know if there's any way to sort posts by popularity? This one is already at over 100 replies and 11,000 views. Would be interested to know how that ranks among the most popular posts ever on this forum.
                              The "word association" post in off-topic has
                              32,141 responses
                              869,030 views

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ImproperCharacter View Post

                                I also recall that being discussed but cannot remember the specifics. I did not see it personally. I was referencing more recent Yale inventions because I think the Yale team circa BNN v. Walton has little relation to the Yale team now. But it's still an interesting point.
                                For sure, I think it just goes to show Yale has been getting away with stuff like this for quite a while.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X