Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCT Sanctions

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

  • #16
    So... what happened that led to these sanctions?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 12 yr old prodigy View Post
      So... what happened that led to these sanctions?
      Yale cheated and stole a national championship, as well hurt the brand of AMTA on a national stage.

      Comment


      • #18
        12 yr old prodigy check out this thread: https://perjuries.com/forum/mock-tri...und-discussion

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by FBKR View Post
          Why is AMTA's memo so vague as to what inventions they're sanctioning? There's very little guidance in here about the improper invention rules, especially compared to the other sanction memos they've released recently.
          Based on descriptions of what happened in the other thread about this + my reading of last year's "recanting the affidavit" sanction, what happened here is really no different. If you need a specific example of what recanting the affidavit looks like, that memo has a great example. Just don't do anything remotely close to that. If your case strategy involves making a witness walk back on something clearly stated in their affidavit and claim that they were somehow compelled to put something in there that isn't true, that's recanting the affidavit.
          May I please the court?

          Comment


          • #20
            This is probably a dumb question but I think an important one in light of some of the discourse on the Facebook Groups. Were there any non seniors on the team banned from ORCS next year?

            Comment


            • #21
              Without pictures of the ballots, it strikes me as really ill-advised for anyone to craft an argument around what the scores were. We don't know how much they were "scored down" or "scored up" and we don't know, even if they were to a significant degree, whether that scoring down or up is because of what the witness did

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Ali Thomas View Post
                This is probably a dumb question but I think an important one in light of some of the discourse on the Facebook Groups. Were there any non seniors on the team banned from ORCS next year?
                Yes. I competed at NCT, and so far as I know, only 3/9 people on Yale's Nats roster were seniors. I think they had 3 juniors, 2 sophomores, and 1 freshman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by HeWasMonologuing View Post
                  Without pictures of the ballots, it strikes me as really ill-advised for anyone to craft an argument around what the scores were. We don't know how much they were "scored down" or "scored up" and we don't know, even if they were to a significant degree, whether that scoring down or up is because of what the witness did
                  Someone earlier said that the Rhodes coach said on Facebook that was true about the scores. I can't seem to find that post on the thread now, but does anyone know where on Facebook I could find that post by the Rhodes coach? If she included more tangible detail there then it could be pretty helpful in figuring out what actually happened

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by QualityQuaffles
                    Just saying, people that say Yale deserved this, or that AMTA made a good call. Please stop. You are wrong, you are probably from Rhodes, and you should just stop taking about something you obviously don’t understand. This sanction was clearly an overstep. Everyone knew Yale was the better team, to take away their championship is out of line. AMTA not releasing the final round shows that they don’t want people looking to carefully at this. The step up in sanction level from worse violations that we saw last year is unfair.

                    The fact that Yale won’t get a chance to defend themselves next year just goes to show how scared AMTAs board is of them. Yale changed mock trial for the better, they made it more than just memorizing stuff your coach told you to say. They made it creative. The board clearly doesn’t understand that that is what WE WANT! To all the old white men running this organization stop being afraid of change, it is coming whether you want it or not. I am not sure if they are still able to appeal or how that works, but either way Yale won the final round and there is nothing anyone can say or do to change my mind about that. If you want to be in denial go for it, Rhodes.

                    and to Rhodes, congratulations are in order! You finally figured out a way to win even when you lost the ballots! I hope I can figure out a way to do that, I thibk it will make mock Trial more fun if I can complain to AMTA whenever I lose a ballot and get them to overturn the result. Cheers to next year, and thank you for ruining an activity I loved.

                    Sincerely,
                    Disappointed
                    Cool story, care to explain why what happened wasn't cheating? Is it not cheating if you are also technically better than your opponent, but you also break the rules?
                    May I please the court?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by QualityQuaffles
                      Just saying, people that say Yale deserved this, or that AMTA made a good call. Please stop. You are wrong, you are probably from Rhodes, and you should just stop taking about something you obviously don’t understand. This sanction was clearly an overstep. Everyone knew Yale was the better team, to take away their championship is out of line. AMTA not releasing the final round shows that they don’t want people looking to carefully at this. The step up in sanction level from worse violations that we saw last year is unfair.

                      The fact that Yale won’t get a chance to defend themselves next year just goes to show how scared AMTAs board is of them. Yale changed mock trial for the better, they made it more than just memorizing stuff your coach told you to say. They made it creative. The board clearly doesn’t understand that that is what WE WANT! To all the old white men running this organization stop being afraid of change, it is coming whether you want it or not. I am not sure if they are still able to appeal or how that works, but either way Yale won the final round and there is nothing anyone can say or do to change my mind about that. If you want to be in denial go for it, Rhodes.

                      and to Rhodes, congratulations are in order! You finally figured out a way to win even when you lost the ballots! I hope I can figure out a way to do that, I thibk it will make mock Trial more fun if I can complain to AMTA whenever I lose a ballot and get them to overturn the result. Cheers to next year, and thank you for ruining an activity I loved.

                      Sincerely,
                      Disappointed
                      This activity is supposed to help us learn about the legal profession. That includes the ethics you should have as an attorney. As someone pointed out on the facebook group, if you behaved this way as an attorney you would be sanctioned far more severely.

                      I have no idea what impact Yale has had on the activity- I've certainly never used content that my coach "told me to say," but I digress. Yale's impact doesn't make them above the rules we agreed to follow by participating in this activity. You may not have examined the round closely when it happened, but there are pages and pages of analysis of the final round with word for word transcripts of rule violations.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I'm glad AMTA actually reviewed the final round and answered the question of whether it was or wasn't an egregious invention (absolutely was). Vacating the title was probably the best idea, I think suspensions for students specifically involved in the inventions is fine, but suspending the entire Defense team is a step too far. I feel like this particular punishment is way more severe than any of their past ones, especially considering how tough it is to have to expect students to firstly deal with this publicly on top of being banned from AMTA tournaments next year.

                        It's important people be more respectful when talking about these teams (Yale and Rhodes) because I'm sure the competitors have already dealt with a lot of flack from the community (seriously, people gotta chill on MTCBIAU). I'm not saying I didn't go to far, I probably didn't need to talk so much about the final round and should have just let it go at a certain point. But I think as a community, we need to be less toxic about issues like this, because while it's important to discuss issues like improper impeachment, it's not right to really analyze different individuals and knock them down, even if we agree they broke rules in what is essentially LARPing but for lawyers. It's a fun and important activity to many, but it isn't that serious.

                        As far as the whole improper invention rule is concerned, I think AMTA shares the majority of the blame on this issue. They've never really defined the rule in a super clear way, and when examples of improper inventions come up, people still debate whether they actually break the rules as written out in the rulebook. I'm glad they'll be going more in depth on the matter soon, but it needs to include clear examples of what does and doesn't constitute improper invention. This is especially important given that certain witnesses are given free reign to invent facts on the stand, even if the Nationals case didn't have such a witness. Even if you want there to be more freedom with regards to inventions, the debate with regards to these rule breaking isn't about whether or not you prefer inventions being allowed, but rather about whether the rules are definied clearly enough so that we can more easily distinguish inventions from reasonable extrapolations. If this is done, then I think we'll argue about this topic much less in the future.
                        Last edited by Mocker999; June 4th, 2019, 04:50 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I read through Elizabeth Bay's post and attached documents, and she sheds a bit of light on the ballots (section E of the "Sanction Letter Redacted" document):

                          Yale, by double digits (x3)
                          Yale, +5
                          Yale, +3
                          Rhodes, +2 (Lampert)

                          I believe Johnathan Woodward said on the livestream 5-2 Yale, so the last ballot must have been a Rhodes win.

                          I'm surprised Yale was able to take three by double digits, and also that Lampert picked Rhodes.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Lampert going with Rhodes is really interesting given that he was the only judge familiar with mock trial at all, and thereís no doubt he is very familiar with the rules on inventions and impeachment. If his ballot reflects a punishment for inventions and impeachment where the other ballots do not, I think thatís only more proof that impeachment is not a sufficient remedy when youíre in a round with a high level witness and judges who arenít deeply familiar with AMTA competition.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I am still working through this take but I think there's another factor that may have led to this specific situation that I think is worth examining if we are thinking about how to maintain integrity to our finals while maybe allowing for more boundary pushing. I think we should consider rethinking the judging panel in round 5 of NCT, and prioritize judges with AMTA experience as competitors or frequent regionals and ORCS judges. I know it's not as special but especially since distinguishing between two extremely high level teams requires grasping some of the subtleties associated with certain performance choices. It would also make the in-round remedy of impeachment more functional. At the moment I do have a certain level of unease with that idea because it could have the potential to lop off AMTA from the rest of the legal community and take it as it's own thing. IDK.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Some people mentioned bringing in AMTA alum as a potential solution. I'm not really on board with this idea for a few reasons. One, we don't know why Lampert gave the win to Rhodes. It's possible he though the impeachment was ineffective, but that their other crosses and witnesses did the job. It's possible he thought both teams were equal, but the very slight differences in score was what ultimately gave Rhodes the win. +2 is not a very clear cut win, so I don't think him being an alum an understanding improper invention is what made him give Rhodes his ballot. On top of this, his comments at the end of the round, particularly his praise of Yale's Rivers, makes it seem unlikely that he would drop and points for that performance.

                                The reality is that the type of judges we have in our rounds is a separate issue from improper inventions. I don't think there's really a connection, and even if there was one, it would mean you have to weigh the pros and cons of having experienced mock trial competitors judging over legal professionals judging. There's some debate about which of those two groups is better for judging a round, but I feel it's just not the same issue as improper invention.

                                One of the major issues with improper invention is that when it is used in round, it's impossible to effectively counter it, particularly when the witness recants their affidavit. That's the reason it is banned, because when it is used, there is no effective course of action one can take in round to gain control of the situation. Not arguing for or against Yale here, just saying that the reason rule breaking is hard to deal with is because the only remedy is to file a complaint with AMTA. Not trying to argue one way or another on the judge issue here, just trying to help figure out solutions to the problem that is the current ruleset in AMTA.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X