Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Penn State sanctions

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

  • TheHamborgler
    replied
    Originally posted by Rhodes_Strasberg View Post
    I'll not weigh in as to whether swapping A and B teams generally should be subject to sanctions and I lack the information necessary to assess whether such a swap took place here, but I find this result abhorrent given the far more blatant A and B swapping that occurred at nationals last year that went unsanctioned.

    Edit: Does anyone know if AMTA issued these sanctions nostra sponte or whether a third party petitioned for the sanctions?
    well, yeah, that is kind of the point. UVA swapped their A and B teams last year at nationals and there was a huge outcry about it. Unless I'm mistaken, the board even adopted a rule to keep something like that from happening again. I doubt that Penn State would have received this kind of punishment last year.

    As a disclaimer, I have no personal knowledge about any of this, that just seems like the most obvious explanation of the disparity in treatment of the two situations to me. I don't think the differences in treatment were based upon one team having a "presence on the board" while the other does not.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrennaThorpe
    replied
    Because my name/position has been brought up a few times (B team captain), I want to clear the air. I was under the impression when interrogated by AMTA reps at Buffalo (I don't use the word interrogated lightly, they wouldn't even let me leave the tab room to go to the bathroom), that a) we switched regionals for logistical purposes, and b) that my president (Cloud, on here) had checked with AMTA to make sure this was ok. I told this to AMTA then, I maintain it now, it's what I believe and what I knew at the time.

    There was never any malicious intent, whatsoever. I'd hope that those of you on here that have competed against us, particularly my team, realize that we absolutely love this competition and would never do anything to jeopardize our stance in it. I personally feel (and know for a fact) that several board members did this to just 'make an example of us.' They also completely disregarded the clause that indicates that penalties should be restricted to those responsible. I am not on our executive board, I have no say in AMTA teams, and I have never had any interaction with AMTA in any official capacity until speaking with them in the tab room at Buffalo. I (and every other member of my B team) had absolutely no responsibility for anything that happened, was under the impression it was a-ok the whole time, and despite that, hundreds of dollars and 5 competitions later my team's bid was stripped. It really is ridiculous.

    I appreciate that there is a good debate going on here, but for any of those speculating that this was anything other than an honest mistake, I promise you that it wasn't. If you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to message me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cloud
    replied
    Originally posted by ImproperCharacter View Post
    For me, this basically comes down to the determination of whether Penn St's A team was stronger than the B team. If that was the case, I do not buy that this was harmless error. The simple fact that they both went 7-1 is indicative of very little. Imagine that the seven ballots that the A team won could not have been won by the B team. The A team would still have won the ballots that the B team won, but the B team may not have received a bid. Changing the strength of teams at a regional also affects all of the other teams chances of moving on, thus upsetting what I am sure AMTA feels is a calibrated balance. If one of the teams really was a true A team, I think the punishment, while harsh, is not entirely unfitting.

    According to Bernstein's email, the Board clearly felt that the teams were not equal. While I am not saying the Board didn't have a rationale for that determination, I don't know what it was. Of course I would like an explanation to satisfy my own curiosity, but I am not sure where in the rules it says I am entitled to one. In fact, I am not sure where it says Penn St. is entitled to one. Ultimately, I am not sure how anyone outside of Penn St. and the board can have a very strong opinion about this without knowing more. Right now I have Penn St. telling me that its teams were equal and I have a board determination that they were not.

    I am also curious to know how AMTA became aware that an A team was at one regional while a B team was at another. Did rosters not match competitors? I understand someone complained, but how would anyone know who is on Penn St.'s A team vs. their B team? Perhaps I am just out of the loop.
    The rosters for three teams were correct for the individuals that showed up. The roster for the D team at Buffalo was not. This was due to an oversight on my part. I submitted the rosters while busy with a ton of school things and I was just copying them off a paper. I accidentally submitted the roster for our internal D team to both regionals (but with the correct assigned team number for the tournament they competed at). Thus, the team that went as 1489 to Buffalo saw a roster that had every member of the team at Pitt. It was on oversight on my part and nothing in the system is there to catch repeat entries.

    As for the teams being equal, there are 3 tab summaries of tournaments before regionals that support A and B being equal (honestly, B being better than A). That information is in our appeal.

    Leave a comment:


  • ImproperCharacter
    replied
    For me, this basically comes down to the determination of whether Penn St's A team was stronger than the B team. If that was the case, I do not buy that this was harmless error. The simple fact that they both went 7-1 is indicative of very little. Imagine that the seven ballots that the A team won could not have been won by the B team. The A team would still have won the ballots that the B team won, but the B team may not have received a bid. Changing the strength of teams at a regional also affects all of the other teams chances of moving on, thus upsetting what I am sure AMTA feels is a calibrated balance. If one of the teams really was a true A team, I think the punishment, while harsh, is not entirely unfitting.

    According to Bernstein's email, the Board clearly felt that the teams were not equal. While I am not saying the Board didn't have a rationale for that determination, I don't know what it was. Of course I would like an explanation to satisfy my own curiosity, but I am not sure where in the rules it says I am entitled to one. In fact, I am not sure where it says Penn St. is entitled to one. Ultimately, I am not sure how anyone outside of Penn St. and the board can have a very strong opinion about this without knowing more. Right now I have Penn St. telling me that its teams were equal and I have a board determination that they were not.

    I am also curious to know how AMTA became aware that an A team was at one regional while a B team was at another. Did rosters not match competitors? I understand someone complained, but how would anyone know who is on Penn St.'s A team vs. their B team? Perhaps I am just out of the loop.
    Last edited by ImproperCharacter; February 25th, 2012, 03:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cloud
    replied
    Originally posted by philbertk View Post
    At the risk of becoming too deeply enmeshed in this 'personal attack' issue ancillary to the thread, there are a few points I cannot resist making:



    While I appreciate you stepping up, there is a theme here that has bothered me throughout the thread. On multiple occasions, you or a member of Penn State has jumped to some negative remark and then gone back and edited your post to remove or alter the remark. I understand this is an emotional issue, but it's one thing to say something unjustifiably negative the first time or even the second time, in the heat of the moment, and its certainly appropriate to edit that first or second remark. But it's another thing entirely to do it over and over again. That just tells me that the editing process isn't a learning process but, rather, designed to bolster your later position. Maybe it's just me (and if so, then I'm happy to accept a label as overly sensitive), but it detracts from your credibility.

    Another theme I've noticed that I feel detracts from your credibility is the tendency to spin things instead of just admitting to how things are. For example, what turned me off wasn't an arguably innocent remark that "comes off as a personal attack." It was a personal attack. There's no gray area here. Calling a board member "Big Brother [name]" is not defensible. That is a personal attack. Period. If you are going to apologize, then do it without the spin.




    You've released your appeal. It includes the evidence you claim supports your position of harmless error. Fine. As of yet, we have seen no evidence from the other side. It's perfectly fine to point that out and ask for it. But absence of proof does not equal proof of absence. Your continuous insistence that "there is no evidence to refute the positions held in our appeal" is, at the very least, premature. People have pointed out that the harmless error issue, while seemingly a strong point for your position, may not be as cut and dry as you claim. But again, every time you ignore that and stubbornly insist on refusing to even acknowledge the other side, you detract from your credibility.



    This, it seems to be, goes not to the merits of whether the conduct deserved sanctions in the first place but, rather, whether the board's sanctions were too harsh. And it's a fair enough point to argue that not everyone should be punished for something one person supposedly did. Regardless, if this is what you are hanging your hat on, I think it's an uphill battle. My reading of the rules suggests that this is a factor the board can take into account in determining sanctions but that it's a balancing test. If you are going to use the legal standard of harmless error to argue that sanctions shouldn't have been imposed in the first place, I submit that when analyzing the board's decision based on a balancing test, the standard should be abuse of discretion.
    The editing of posts is an entirely emotional response. To my knowledge, only myself and Lionlawyer (a fellow member of the A team) have commented on the issue in this thread. We are both extremely distraught over this. We have worked our entire last year of college off to this point and have (in my mind) created the best teams Penn State has had to offer in years. It has been a tireless process. We have been in communication with the board, have seen their evidence, have spoken with board members, have seen and heard things that label this decision as one of making an example out of us, have been told the only possible reason someone could not support us is if they think we are liars, have proven statements by board members to be incorrect with concrete evidence during the process, have heard that members of the board are being dishonest in this process to make an example out of us, and while I can't prove any of those sentiments about the board to be true, I can't help but wonder given how truly I believed in my actions and how the rules don't tell me what I did was wrong. I have given my life to this organization this year and I swear to God that every single sentiment I have shared is true.

    I have always thought the teams to be equal. In reading the rules, it said send your best team. I thought both teams were our best team and I thought both C and D were our 2nd best team. Thus, where in the rules does it say that internal designations must overtake the decision maker's personnel belief of the competitive ability of the teams? Where in the rules does it say I have to change internal designations? When I pressed Bernstein on this, he said it is not clear in the rules and is something I should put in our appeal. This decision has turned my life upside down and the worst part is, I don't know why. I have always thought my reading of the rules was right (mostly based off the UVA issue last year) and the rules chair told my interpretation is absolutely correct. Tab summaries all the way from November support this notion. Georgia A's captain (an incredible team, I don't think anyone will disagree with that) said that our B team was incredibly competitive, more so than Texas A and one of the best teams they have seen. That B team was only made better after the round with Georgia and they have shown it the entire semester. While they don't have "four senior officers" on the team, they are incredibly talented. I don't think A is our best team. If I had complete control to competitively stack our teams best to worst, I could make an A team that is our best team. But that is not how it works. We are student run and we have friends picking friends for teams. Chemistry plays a bigger role that competitiveness. I have done as much as I can to change the format of our organization this year to improve the competitiveness of our teams, but I still do not get to make the teams alone. And after our AMTA teams came out, the top two teams took a format that did not display a competitive distinction. Any distinction that came through supported B over A. Our switch at regionals would honestly probably ended up worse for our records. Our team at Pitt had an easy hand when it came to pairings. While it (theoretically) should have been the tougher regional, we only hit one team that received a bid (Michigan C) and a slew of other weak team (CS of 11). Our B team at Buffalo should have had a (theoretically) easier time given that there were less power team. But they hit several good teams (CS of 18!) and hit two that moved on. One being Michigan A, a team that they beat and tied at Cornell, an outcome that I'm not sure my team could have achieved.

    I apologize for the wall of text this is becoming but this has devestated my soul more than I ever thought mock trial (or any extracurricular activity for that matter) could.

    I'm a Senior and my social life has been strongly influenced by mock trial here. We have the pleasure of having a huge intramural tournament that provides us with an extreme number of individuals compared to most programs. I have met individuals from every spectrum of life that have a passion for mock trial. I have built my college life around PSMT and with three months til I graduate, my life has been shattered by this decision. At this point, I don't even care about competing. I have gone against and seen enough top teams over the years to know were we stood. And I assure you, our two teams would have been a factor in every tournament the rest of the year. But this decision goes so far beyond on that. I swore to my friends that I knew what I was doing. I watched my friends work their asses off day and night to be elite teams, watched them put their heart and soul into this activity, and knew that it was because they believed in me. I, like ever president before me, would make sure things were in order. I would know what the rules said and what they allowed us to do. I did not make this switch on a whim. While the initial thought to do it was from convenience (and honestly, to let my parents see me compete one last time. They put up with watching my pathetic attempt to do mock trial all through high school. They drove to DC last year to watch me personally lose my teams shot at going to nationals by freezing at the end of a cross on a bad witness because I didn't know the rules well enough. But I was going to make them proud this year. I studied my ass of and I got to pick the teams and I knew my team would entertain. I wouldn't freeze. They wouldn't be bored. My parents would be proud of me). That last sentiment by me was where I went wrong. I was being selfish. I wanted to make the switch and I had an initial thought that I didn't challenge in my mind. I didn't want the thought to be challenged. I wanted the switch, I wanted to be at my house for regionals. I should have contacted AMTA, I should have explained my logic and make sure what I thought the rules said was right. I didn't and I had a false sense of security about the situation.

    Still, in intensely scrutinizing the rules on this,I still, don't know where I went wrong so completely wrong that my program has suffered this fate. I sent the right rosters in and our teams admitted to their internal designations when asked because I wasn't trying to be shady. I wasn't trying to get an advantage. If I was being shady, I would at least of told the teams to lie about their designations! This was brought to the attention of AMTA because a freshman who had no idea we were doing anything wrong (because she believed in me to do this right) asked the tab room where our internally designated A team was. She was lost in the building after round and wanted to find me. She knew my team had been called the A team all year so she asked the reps for where the A team was and they told her our B and C teams were here. She didn't know AMTAs rules. She didn't know that our internal designations differed from where our teams went. She didn't know why I made the switch. Most people didn't know why we made the switch because when I read the rules, I didn't know internal designations meant to damn much!

    Jesus, in four years of regional competition, I've only lost 3 ballots. I'm not trying to come off as an arrogant asshole with that statement, but to me, regionals have not been stressful. I never, in four years, have been worried about getting a bid. My team has always had the talent to overcome every team at regionals but the elite few and Penn State has always received a lot of bids due to the huge pool of talented members to make teams from. We have gotten 13 bids out of regionals in the past 4 years! I never ever thought of manipulating the system. I never thought I had to! I never thought we needed any advantage to get bids! If any schools thought we ruined their chance at moving on and thought they did not get a fair chance at one of our regionals, please, let me know. I want to apologize to you from the bottom of my heart. I never meant skew the system and I never thought my actions would affect your team and I'm truly sorry if you feel it did.

    Again, I'm sorry for my long response that says probably way more than it should. But my being has been devastated by this and to hear some people on here say they believe me and they think the decision was not just, well, it helps me accept the decision right now. It helps me feel just the tiniest bit better about this. But I will never be able to move on from how I betrayed people I care about it. It's not about mock trial to me at this point. It's about trust. I violated a lot of peoples trust and I would give up everything to make this right. So I'm sorry for talking from emotion and ranting before thinking every thing through in this thread. I don't know if it is something I can control though at this point. Hell, I will probably edit something in this post down the line. But I don't want to make personal attacks. I have heard rumors but have seen no direct evidence that this decision against us was motivated by the belief that we are dishonest, not by what the facts say.

    When I feel so justified and innocent, but am still labeled guilty, my gut can't resist from telling me something isn't right with how this played out. I could understand if I was trying to cheat the system. If our stance was a huge lie and we were trying to deceive the world of college mock trial. If that was the case, I wouldn't spend my time make long, desperate posts explaining myself on perjuries. I would accept that I am a piece of shit, that I got caught, and that I have to life with myself being a dishonest, selfish, and idiotic person. But that's not the case.

    I can't help but think what is happening to me and my friends is not fair. It could be because I don't want to give up on mock and I can't look at this objectively, but I have worked so hard this year and I find it near impossible to stand by and be told my honest to God belief on this matter if an "after the fact fabrication." I can't accept that as a conclusion. I'm not a liar. I'm not a dishonest person. We didn't concoct this equal rationale theory after the fact. The evidence doesn't support the equal team notion because it's a lie on my part. The evidence supports that notion because I am telling the truth.

    So, for those of you in this thread that believe me, and have felt uncomfortable by AMTAs decision, I am so grateful for that support. This has been a complete nightmare that came out of nowhere and your belief that the sanctions should be questioned have helped me cope. Thank you.
    Last edited by Cloud; February 25th, 2012, 05:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • philbertk
    replied
    At the risk of becoming too deeply enmeshed in this 'personal attack' issue ancillary to the thread, there are a few points I cannot resist making:

    Originally posted by Cloud View Post
    As president, I would like to apologize for any comments that have come off as personnel attacks on the board.
    While I appreciate you stepping up, there is a theme here that has bothered me throughout the thread. On multiple occasions, you or a member of Penn State has jumped to some negative remark and then gone back and edited your post to remove or alter the remark. I understand this is an emotional issue, but it's one thing to say something unjustifiably negative the first time or even the second time, in the heat of the moment, and its certainly appropriate to edit that first or second remark. But it's another thing entirely to do it over and over again. That just tells me that the editing process isn't a learning process but, rather, designed to bolster your later position. Maybe it's just me (and if so, then I'm happy to accept a label as overly sensitive), but it detracts from your credibility.

    Another theme I've noticed that I feel detracts from your credibility is the tendency to spin things instead of just admitting to how things are. For example, what turned me off wasn't an arguably innocent remark that "comes off as a personal attack." It was a personal attack. There's no gray area here. Calling a board member "Big Brother [name]" is not defensible. That is a personal attack. Period. If you are going to apologize, then do it without the spin.


    Originally posted by Cloud View Post
    However, to an extent, we honestly feel we are being persecuted here. I will not post the board's position on the matter but we have been aware of it the whole time and there is no evidence to refute the positions held in our appeal, particularly the "harmless error" clause.
    You've released your appeal. It includes the evidence you claim supports your position of harmless error. Fine. As of yet, we have seen no evidence from the other side. It's perfectly fine to point that out and ask for it. But absence of proof does not equal proof of absence. Your continuous insistence that "there is no evidence to refute the positions held in our appeal" is, at the very least, premature. People have pointed out that the harmless error issue, while seemingly a strong point for your position, may not be as cut and dry as you claim. But again, every time you ignore that and stubbornly insist on refusing to even acknowledge the other side, you detract from your credibility.

    Originally posted by Cloud View Post
    Gelf, to respond to your comments in particularly....yes, members did come to me and ask if what we were doing was okay long before regionals. When a C team member in my apartment asked me if what we were going was okay in early January, I said, "yes, UVA did this last year. If we feel our A and B are competitively equal, then we are allowed to switch." I have had this position the entire time and anyone in our organization that raised a concern (which there were a few), I responded with the equal rationale (but only to members that asked me about it, I did not issue a blanket statement with my reasoning). When my girlfriend pressed me, I assured her that this was okay because our teams were equal long before regionals. I gained the trust of my organization, told them I knew how to read the rules, and was apparently wrong.
    This, it seems to be, goes not to the merits of whether the conduct deserved sanctions in the first place but, rather, whether the board's sanctions were too harsh. And it's a fair enough point to argue that not everyone should be punished for something one person supposedly did. Regardless, if this is what you are hanging your hat on, I think it's an uphill battle. My reading of the rules suggests that this is a factor the board can take into account in determining sanctions but that it's a balancing test. If you are going to use the legal standard of harmless error to argue that sanctions shouldn't have been imposed in the first place, I submit that when analyzing the board's decision based on a balancing test, the standard should be abuse of discretion.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Gelf
    replied
    Originally posted by Cloud View Post
    As president, I would like to apologize for any comments that have come off as personnel attacks on the board. However, to an extent, we honestly feel we are being persecuted here. I will not post the board's position on the matter but we have been aware of it the whole time and there is no evidence to refute the positions held in our appeal, particularly the "harmless error" clause. Again, you obviously have to take my word on this, but we had several lawyer parents in our organization look at both the boards position and ours and assure us that our argument is incredibly strong and responded to every board point fully.


    Gelf, to respond to your comments in particularly....yes, members did come to me and ask if what we were doing was okay long before regionals. When a C team member in my apartment asked me if what we were going was okay in early January, I said, "yes, UVA did this last year. If we feel our A and B are competitively equal, then we are allowed to switch." I have had this position the entire time and anyone in our organization that raised a concern (which there were a few), I responded with the equal rationale (but only to members that asked me about it, I did not issue a blanket statement with my reasoning). When my girlfriend pressed me, I assured her that this was okay because our teams were equal long before regionals. I gained the trust of my organization, told them I knew how to read the rules, and was apparently wrong.
    Most of this is addressed in my response to LionLawyer. On the harmless error issue, I think it's difficult to do a harmless error analysis because nobody really knows what would have happened had the four teams been at the proper regionals. Maybe the results would have been the same; maybe they would have not been. While some teams did benefit from this (the teams that were supposed to play Penn State "A" played Penn State "B", etc.), the teams who were supposed to play Penn State "B" played Penn State "A". The teams who were supposed to play Penn State "D" played Penn State "C". At least in theory, those teams faced harder opposition than they should have. And at least some of those teams probably dropped ballots which prevented them from getting bids.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Gelf
    replied
    Originally posted by lionLawyer View Post
    Those questions were asked, and the respective answers were "Yes. No. No." If 99% of the organization was assured that nothing wrong was being done, then why should they suffer the resulting punishment from the president's mistake? There was clearly no attempt to minimize the harm done to those not responsible, and harm was never proven (referencing the harmless error clause).

    The point here is that some very valid critiques have been raised (severity of the punishment, harmless error), and from reading the board's rationale it doesn't seem that these subjects that are required to be contemplated were looked at.
    There are 25 board members, presumably all of whom had a vote. They may have given different amounts of weight to different pieces of evidence. Unfortunately, none of us is in a position to know what truly motivated each board member's vote. Moreover, the fact that somebody is not persuaded by evidence does not mean they disregarded it. The Board members may have decided that simply asking the President if something violates the rules isn't enough. The Rulebook binds every student registered with AMTA and is on the website for all to see, as is the Regional Assignment Sheet. The relevant language in Rules 2.9, 9.5 and 9.8, and on the Regional Assignment Sheet is not long. It is possible that the Board members decided that the other members of the program were indeed culpable even if everything the President said is true. It seems like bad precedent to say you can be completely non-culpable for rule violations as long as you ask your President, coach or captain if something is okay.

    That said, I think some kind of rationale for the decision is very necessary. I think the rules, taken as a whole, are very vague, and concepts such as the Rule of Lenity seem to weigh against the severe sanctions that were imposed on the entire program. Is a team is in violation if it sends its internally designated "A" team as the "B" team if there is at least some evidence that the "A" and "B" teams are of close, if not equal, strength? What is a team to do if it believes its internally designated "B" team (as communicated to AMTA) has surpassed its "A" team in strength? What factors is a team expected to utilize in making this type of a decision? The rules are silent on these issues. Also, did the Board believe that Penn State intended to secure itself a competitive advantage? If not, what role did this play in the decision?

    Leave a comment:


  • philbertk
    replied
    Originally posted by fume View Post
    Not to derail this discussion or defend any character attacks by Penn, but this isn't true. If the board wanted to talk, they could. If they wanted to explain their reasons, they could.
    As I recall from the Regional Misconduct thread, board members have been asked not to post about this issue on Perjuries. And as long as AMTA has not released an official statement, if I were a board member, I certainly would not post my own thoughts on the issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cloud
    replied
    Originally posted by The Gelf View Post
    While I would be hard-pressed to level the sanctions that were given, I am not sure it is anywhere near that simple. While the President took full responsibility, the conduct of the other team members isn't just automatically off the hook. At least some of them were told they were switching regions and were not going to the region to which they were assigned. At the every least, the B team captain was told the rationale for this was to save money on hotels. Nobody asked: yeah, that makes sense, but do the rules allow it? Do we have to make sure this is okay with AMTA? Is there anything we have to do to make sure we're not violating the rules?
    As president, I would like to apologize for any comments that have come off as personnel attacks on the board. However, to an extent, we honestly feel we are being persecuted here. I will not post the board's position on the matter but we have been aware of it the whole time and there is no evidence to refute the positions held in our appeal, particularly the "harmless error" clause. Again, you obviously have to take my word on this, but we had several lawyer parents in our organization look at both the boards position and ours and assure us that our argument is incredibly strong and responded to every board point fully.


    Gelf, to respond to your comments in particularly....yes, members did come to me and ask if what we were doing was okay long before regionals. When a C team member in my apartment asked me if what we were going was okay in early January, I said, "yes, UVA did this last year. If we feel our A and B are competitively equal, then we are allowed to switch." I have had this position the entire time and anyone in our organization that raised a concern (which there were a few), I responded with the equal rationale (but only to members that asked me about it, I did not issue a blanket statement with my reasoning). When my girlfriend pressed me, I assured her that this was okay because our teams were equal long before regionals. I gained the trust of my organization, told them I knew how to read the rules, and was apparently wrong.
    Last edited by Cloud; February 25th, 2012, 01:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • fume
    replied
    Originally posted by philbertk View Post
    particularly when you control how your one-sided story is presented and when the board members cannot defend themselves
    Not to derail this discussion or defend any character attacks by Penn, but this isn't true. If the board wanted to talk, they could. If they wanted to explain their reasons, they could.

    Leave a comment:


  • lionLawyer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Gelf View Post
    Nobody asked: yeah, that makes sense, but do the rules allow it? Do we have to make sure this is okay with AMTA? Is there anything we have to do to make sure we're not violating the rules?
    Those questions were asked, and the respective answers were "Yes. No. No." If 99% of the organization was assured that nothing wrong was being done, then why should they suffer the resulting punishment from the president's mistake? There was clearly no attempt to minimize the harm done to those not responsible, and harm was never proven (referencing the harmless error clause).

    The point here is that some very valid critiques have been raised (severity of the punishment, harmless error), and from reading the board's rationale it doesn't seem that these subjects that are required to be contemplated were looked at.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Gelf
    replied
    Originally posted by lionLawyer View Post

    But more alarming is the board's blatant disregard for Rule 9.5(4). If you except the events as harmful and worthy of conduct, no one can disagree that these were the actions of the president. He told everyone where to go, and none of the team members knew that anything was wrong.
    While I would be hard-pressed to level the sanctions that were given, I am not sure it is anywhere near that simple. While the President took full responsibility, the conduct of the other team members isn't just automatically off the hook. At least some of them were told they were switching regions and were not going to the region to which they were assigned. At the every least, the B team captain was told the rationale for this was to save money on hotels. Nobody asked: yeah, that makes sense, but do the rules allow it? Do we have to make sure this is okay with AMTA? Is there anything we have to do to make sure we're not violating the rules?

    Leave a comment:


  • JayZ
    replied
    Originally posted by TenaciousDRB:83358
    Originally posted by philbertk View Post
    I have refrained from commenting so far, mostly because whatever my comments may be, they would ultimately be based on incomplete information. However, the tenor of this thread has taken such a turn that I feel compelled to voice my distaste. Initially, I, like Jay-Z, was impressed with the appeal (though I also felt uncomfortable about the manner in which it was aired). I chose not to come down one way or the other on the merits because there is just no way for us to get the full picture, including with respect to the harmless error issue. Nonetheless, I understood and completely agreed with people's outcry for an explanation and transparency. I also respected, though I didn't necessarily agree with, people's own assessment of the propriety or severity of the sanctions.

    But the last few posts by members of the Penn State team have disabused me of any sympathy I may have had. Discussing the merits of the appeal is laudable. Questioning the propriety or severity of the sanctions is justifiable. Expressing disappointment is understandable. Making personal attacks on board members, particularly when you control how your one-sided story is presented and when the board members cannot defend themselves, is unforgivable.
    Concur. Y'all might want to settle down before you do damage that extends past this year (if you haven't already).
    A little civility goes a long way. One can disagree with the board as a whole, one can criticize the process but there are several people on the board I and others know personally and respect (even consider friends as much as I can be friends with someone I see once or twice a year.) Singling them out undermines your position.

    Leave a comment:


  • TenaciousDRB
    replied
    Originally posted by philbertk View Post
    I have refrained from commenting so far, mostly because whatever my comments may be, they would ultimately be based on incomplete information. However, the tenor of this thread has taken such a turn that I feel compelled to voice my distaste. Initially, I, like Jay-Z, was impressed with the appeal (though I also felt uncomfortable about the manner in which it was aired). I chose not to come down one way or the other on the merits because there is just no way for us to get the full picture, including with respect to the harmless error issue. Nonetheless, I understood and completely agreed with people's outcry for an explanation and transparency. I also respected, though I didn't necessarily agree with, people's own assessment of the propriety or severity of the sanctions.

    But the last few posts by members of the Penn State team have disabused me of any sympathy I may have had. Discussing the merits of the appeal is laudable. Questioning the propriety or severity of the sanctions is justifiable. Expressing disappointment is understandable. Making personal attacks on board members, particularly when you control how your one-sided story is presented and when the board members cannot defend themselves, is unforgivable.
    Concur. Y'all might want to settle down before you do damage that extends past this year (if you haven't already).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X