Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Final Round Discussion

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

  • Ali Thomas
    started a topic Final Round Discussion

    Final Round Discussion

    Watch the final round?
    Thoughts?
    Who did you have winning?
    Best witnesses?
    Favorite moments?

  • Radagast
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Random
    replied
    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 Yaleís Fisher do?

    Leave a comment:


  • Zephaniah
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Radagast
    replied
    Originally posted by Zephaniah View Post
    Yale didn't just earn that championship, they demonstrated greatness. They deserve respect, not this mob campaign to take them down and hold back the future of the game. /2cents
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Zephaniah
    replied
    Sure but context doesn't mean anything when Yale just keeps outplaying everyone on content knowledge. If you've heard the Mock Review episode with Bays it's probably crystal clear how they got to where they got on the Rivers cross and Rivers' behavior is at least consistent with Yale deliberately focusing on the details of the fact pattern at a level that kills almost all opponents' fancy flourishes.

    Elliot just gave their Rivers a nanometer more wiggle room than he should've gotten, and Rivers ran away with it. The details and context don't matter as much when we're just looking at what's just a fancy variation on the typical "control your witness tightly" scenario that we all learn about as first-years. Yale is the GSW of Mock and accordingly they've mastered an important part of the game that the rest of us have overlooked; it's dismaying that people on Perjuries and MTC are clamoring for AMTA to shut that down with rules when instead we could let the sport evolve and respect a team that's pushing it forward.

    Honestly, the stuff in here is hardly distinguishable from what you hear bad NBA commentators say about James Harden's game. Trying to label it all a "travel" or "flopping" or just complaining that it "ruins the sport." If it really were that easy and cheap a move, your team would be able to pull it off too. The NBA got past that resistance phase (finally) and this season we saw offenses that are just killing it compared to the NBA of even 2 years ago, let alone 5. Meanwhile, for all the years Yale has had its "reputation" for creativity (i.e., salty accusations of invention that always fail), who's really learned from them? Clearly not most of the people here.

    Yale didn't just earn that championship, they demonstrated greatness. They deserve respect, not this mob campaign to take them down and hold back the future of the game. /2cents
    Last edited by Zephaniah; April 12th, 2019, 04:38 PM. Reason: (was drunk when i wrote this, so i took out typos)

    Leave a comment:


  • FBKR
    replied
    Originally posted by Doobs View Post
    Insofar that closing arguments aren't allowed to contain any information that wasn't already put on the record through the testimony of the witnesses, if the invention was used in the closing argument, then there was an invention.
    I think the distinction here is that it's against the rules for a closing to contain an invention already put onto the record explicitly. There's no rule against a closing spelling out conclusions that the attorney hopes the jury will draw from testimony actually put onto the record. Take the P expert, for example. They can't say that Anderson's post caused the drop in sales. But they can say there was a drop in sales, and that the drop started right after the post. Even though the P expert would be making an egregious invention by explicitly stating the causal link while on the stand, the closing attorney can (and probably should) connect the dots explicitly in closing, and that isn't against the rules even though the expert themselves never said so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doobs
    replied
    Originally posted by bdopl View Post
    Lmao I know Iím in the minority here but after reviewing the transcriptions posted on this thread, I disagree with the even the initial premise thatís Yale broke the material invention rule at all. For there to have occurred a material fact, it would have needed to have been stated for the record.

    I think you underestimate how strong of a case Yale has here in their defense; beginning with the fact that, in my opinion, they didnít violate 8.9 at all.
    I very well could be wrong here, but I don't believe anywhere in rule 8.9 that the contradiction has to be "on the record." In fact, it states that if the alleged invention is used in closing arguments, the CRC should consider that when determining whether or not the invention was material. Insofar that closing arguments aren't allowed to contain any information that wasn't already put on the record through the testimony of the witnesses, if the invention was used in the closing argument, then there was an invention.

    Similarly to how you've described, last year's Bailey that was sanctioned never directly contradicted the affidavit. Instead, rather than saying "yes" to questions on cross, Bailey said things like "that's what I am supposed to say" and "I don't know - what do you want me to say?"

    In that instance, the CRC took the message in context - in that case, the context was that Bailey was listening to pre-determined statements that Kerry and her lawyers told her to say. In this case, the context was that Rivers was going to put anything in the affidavit that would allow him to not be sued ("of COURSE I said that, I didn't want to get sued, too!") Last year, the CRC determined that "the context here made it clear this was a strategic move to deny that a stated fact in her affidavit occurred." Furthermore, The CRC determined that Bailey's actions "totally separate a trial from the case materials, and eliminates impeachment as an effective remedy. In doing so, it gives teams an unfair competitive advantage for which their opponent has no recourse." In this case, Yale separated the trial from the case materials.

    Leave a comment:


  • bdopl
    replied
    Lmao I know Iím in the minority here but after reviewing the transcriptions posted on this thread, I disagree with the even the initial premise thatís Yale broke the material invention rule at all. For there to have occurred a material fact, it would have needed to have been stated for the record. At not point, I believe, did Rivers ever state, for the record, that he sent the two men to the store to try and get the defendant to run a negative tweet. He did not recant his affidavit either. Arguing that fact in closing, or overpromising it in opening, doesnít violate the rule either. It serves merely as an indicator as to whether a would-be invention would be material, if itís ever stated in round.

    When Elliot was crossing him, the reason it was not clean was because it wasnít a direct contradiction. Unfortunately, Elliot tried to get Yaleís witness to admit, ď<If you had known that Anderson was going to lie, you would have told her not do it.Ē> The witness said no to this. To me, thatís because the affidavit specifically says, ď<If I would have known *what Anderson was going to say*, I would have told her not to do it.Ē> Thatís an entirely different fact than, for example, whether heíd tell her not to do it if she just lied in general. Furthermore, itís also asking the witness to assert that it was a lie, and while Yale was not disputing the falsity, the witnesses donít share that burden. The witness has no obligation to say yes to it being a lie just because the crossing attorney said so.

    Then when Elliot tried to confirm the impeachment again, he said, ď<So I need you to answer my question. You would agree with me that had the defendant told you of this post before she made it, you would have told her not to do it. Yes or no?Ē...>
    The witness said no. I think the major issue here is that telling someone about a post, and telling someone what they were specifically going to say in the post are two different facts (If I tell someone ďIím going to trash a celebrity online,Ē I havenít told them what it was I was going to say). I think Iíve said it before but it comes down to semantics. If Elliot had stuck to the words in the affidavit, instead of trying to backdoor his theory into the impeachment follow-up questions, Rivers would have answered yes. I think Yale did nothing wrong here and contrary to a lot of the beliefs Iíve seen on this thread, I no longer believe Yaleís Rivers ďslipped upĒ on cross. I think he just knew his affidavit so well that he disagreed with Elliot when he misquoted the affidavit during impeachment.

    Everything else is ancillary to this main question. For those of you jumping to talk about sanctions already, and taking the breaking-of-the-rule as a done deal, I think you underestimate how strong of a case Yale has here in their defense; beginning with the fact that, in my opinion, they didnít violate 8.9 at all.
    Last edited by bdopl; April 12th, 2019, 01:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ali Thomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Zephaniah View Post
    Y'all keep playin' Judge Judy and executioner.
    Underrated line.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amanda_The_Corgi
    replied
    Originally posted by Nur Rauch View Post

    I think it's a serious sanctionable problem, clearly as defined by AMTA rules and precedent, even if Yale won every ballot by 20 points.
    Precisely. Otherwise the rule is effectively "No cheating, unless you know you're so good that it doesn't matter that you cheated because your presentation was better than the other team's."

    Leave a comment:


  • bluedress
    replied
    I just wanted to apologize for my previous post. I shouldnít (and normally do not) comment here but my exhaustion got the better of me and Iím mostly just bummed that this has been the primary discussion of the final round. I would rather the conversation be about how Sullivan might be one of the funniest character witnesses Iíve ever seen. Or what a great speaking style Matthew Broussard has. Or how people felt about the cross styles. Instead all of the great things about the round have been glossed over and that takes away the fun of being there. I recall when this forum was first made and the vigorous critiques I received from various members of this forum about my performance and, while it wasnít fun to hear, it made me a better performer and a better coach of the activity.

    So to Yale: I apologize for comparing what you did to my attempt at a humorous but hyperbolic example. There were many things about your team that I thought were amazing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mocktrocity
    replied
    I think the best thing AMTA can do here is deduct points from Yale until enough ballots flip for Rhodes to be declared winner. Points should be deducted from Yale's directs, crosses, and speeches as they were all tainted by the invention. That should eliminate any incentive for teams to attempt a similar move in the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • Radagast
    replied
    I also don't think it matters what the PDs were. Yale blatantly violated the rules, in a way that was obvious to many people watching the round. Whether or not those particular parts of the round determined outcome shouldn't matter when we're talking about this kind of rules violation on AMTA's biggest stage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nur Rauch
    replied
    I think the most important thing is what was the PD on the ballots. Especially if the PD is within 6-8 points.
    I think it's a serious sanctionable problem, clearly as defined by AMTA rules and precedent, even if Yale won every ballot by 20 points.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X