Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Penn State sanctions

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

  • Cloud
    replied
    The only rationale for us being dishonest comes from, in my mind, this:

    When I was pulled out of a round and asked what team we were and why we were there, I gave the exact same explanation as in my personnel statement. I was the one to make the decision and my story never changed, because I truly believed how I read the rules was correct. When our B team captain was questioned in Buffalo (before me), she was confused and did not know my rationale in making that decision. I had just told her to go to Buffalo and my team was going to go to Pitt cause we have houses there. I did not think I needed to explain to her my reading of the rules and why I thought that was legitimate. I never thought it would be an issue. So when they asked her why she was there, she only said the convenience reason and not the equal rationale (because she didn't know my rationale). She is not an officer or on the board. Therefor, because my statement was after hers, it must have been an after the fact fabrication. Even though I did not speak to her about anything until after I was questioned by reps in Pitt. When I was pulled out of comments, I had no idea what was going on and had no chance to talk to Brenna to know we were being "investigated."

    To simplify, confused members gave conflicting stories when pulled out of rounds and questioned by reps. When the person who made the decision was pulled out and asked (me) I gave my rationale that is the exact same as I later explained in the appeal.
    Last edited by Cloud; February 24th, 2012, 09:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The J
    replied
    Originally posted by Cloud View Post
    We've heard that members of the AMTA board found us "dishonest," and that is what motivated the decision. Not sure if there is any truth to that statement or not.
    This is what I mean by us being unable to judge whether or not the error was harmless. Tab summaries only tell a small part of the story. If part of the reason for the sanctions were because AMTA believed you were being disingenuous or flat-out dishonest, then that's information we don't have access to and why we can't make an informed judgment.

    Leave a comment:


  • The J
    replied
    Originally posted by JayZ View Post
    Nor am I entirely certain WHAT competitive advantage a nefarious team switch would have. Power balancing is done to make regionals as a whole more balanced from region to region. For each, individual team it tends to advantage the higher teams while disadvantaging the weaker ones. By swapping teams, PSU should, in theory, have been sending their A team to a "harder" region (since that region was balanced with more A teams from other programs) and their B team to an easier region (since they had fewer A teams.) While that might benefit A, it would disadvantage B by a similar measure. So the overall benefit to the program would be negligible.
    By this logic, switching teams would always be harmless error and no team should ever be punished.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cloud
    replied
    Originally posted by The J View Post
    His email was in response to your email. Your email only discussed A and B. He made it pretty clear that he was not addressing the swapping of C and D. To then interpret his email to state that AMTA didn't care about you switching C and D is poor reading comprehension at best.
    I disagree. This was supported by a phone call with Nelmark when discussing the appeal (to focus on A and B). We've heard that members of the AMTA board found us "dishonest," and that is what motivated the decision. Not sure if there is any truth to that statement or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cloud
    replied
    Originally posted by The J View Post
    Since no one outside of your program and the AMTA board has access to anything other than what you've posted here, how would we know?
    Tab summaries?

    Leave a comment:


  • The J
    replied
    Originally posted by Cloud View Post
    I'm sorry, this is the wording:

    "The sanction issued by the EC is based on the conclusion that A and B were not of equal strength"

    It clearly states that the decision was based off A and B, not C and D.

    His email was in response to your email. Your email only discussed A and B. He made it pretty clear that he was not addressing the swapping of C and D. To then interpret his email to state that AMTA didn't care about you switching C and D is poor reading comprehension at best.

    Leave a comment:


  • The J
    replied
    Originally posted by Cloud View Post
    Is there any evidence to support that the error was anything but harmless?
    Since no one outside of your program and the AMTA board has access to anything other than what you've posted here, how would we know?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cloud
    replied
    Originally posted by The Gelf View Post
    Whether one finds it persuasive or not, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the Board concluded that the error was not harmless.
    Is there any evidence to support that the error was anything but harmless?
    Last edited by Cloud; February 24th, 2012, 06:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Gelf
    replied
    Originally posted by Intranetusa View Post
    Who runs the AMTA board?
    http://www.collegemocktrial.org/about_amta/board.php

    Leave a comment:


  • Intranetusa
    replied
    Who runs the AMTA board?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Gelf
    replied
    Originally posted by Cloud View Post
    This decision is in direct contradiction with their by-laws, at least on the ground that they include harmless error. The board votes by robert's rules, right?

    From Robert's rules
    47. Votes that are Null and Void even if Unanimous. No motion is in order that conflicts with the laws of the nation, or state, or with the assembly's constitution or by-laws, and if such a motion is adopted, even by a unanimous vote, it is null and void.
    Whether one finds it persuasive or not, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the Board concluded that the error was not harmless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cloud
    replied
    This decision is in direct contradiction with their by-laws, at least on the ground that they include harmless error. The board votes by robert's rules, right?

    From Robert's rules
    47. Votes that are Null and Void even if Unanimous. No motion is in order that conflicts with the laws of the nation, or state, or with the assembly's constitution or by-laws, and if such a motion is adopted, even by a unanimous vote, it is null and void.

    Leave a comment:


  • Krafty
    replied
    I rarely post on this board nowadays, but this post got my attention. This is a very well written appeal and I, like others here, would like to see a response from the board.

    This punishment seems very harsh for these circumstances. I wonder if other, lesser sanctions, would have been more appropriate.

    Leave a comment:


  • JayZ
    replied
    Originally posted by TenaciousDRB View Post
    Having previously been unaware that there was a "harmless error" provision in the AMTA rulebook, I'm kind of at a loss for how it wouldn't apply to this situation. By pretty much any objective measure, Penn State "B" has outperformed Penn State "A" this year (including at regionals). I'm curious as to how the switch wouldn't constitute harmless error.
    Nor am I entirely certain WHAT competitive advantage a nefarious team switch would have. Power balancing is done to make regionals as a whole more balanced from region to region. For each, individual team it tends to advantage the higher teams while disadvantaging the weaker ones. By swapping teams, PSU should, in theory, have been sending their A team to a "harder" region (since that region was balanced with more A teams from other programs) and their B team to an easier region (since they had fewer A teams.) While that might benefit A, it would disadvantage B by a similar measure. So the overall benefit to the program would be negligible.

    Point being, the math geek in me can see stripping one bid, but both? How is that justified? That's not a rhetorical question, I think we deserve a public clarification of the rule and aggravating/mitigating analysis justifying the punishment.

    Leave a comment:


  • TenaciousDRB
    replied
    Having previously been unaware that there was a "harmless error" provision in the AMTA rulebook, I'm kind of at a loss for how it wouldn't apply to this situation. By pretty much any objective measure, Penn State "B" has outperformed Penn State "A" this year (including at regionals). I'm curious as to how the switch wouldn't constitute harmless error.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X