Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Penn State sanctions

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

  • Nur Rauch
    replied
    Originally posted by clustermock View Post
    Unlike a court of law, pleading the fifth does you no good here. They can interpret your refusal to speak to them HOWEVER they want, just like they took Penn State's conflicting statements as lies as opposed to confusion.
    It's true. Just look on AMTA's website. In adopting the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, it appears AMTA has omitted the Miranda stuff. Oh yeah, and all Constitutional objections are waived.

    Leave a comment:


  • clustermock
    replied
    Originally posted by 7Redacted View Post
    Is there any firm history of AMTA *ever* reconsidering any decision based on an appeal?

    I'm skeptical board members bothered to read that lengthy appeal document; another vote was probably taken just so AMTA could go through the motions.

    I think the take-home message to all programs here is to keep your head down, and instruct all of your team members to NEVER speak with an AMTA representative, ever.

    Unlike a court of law, pleading the fifth does you no good here. They can interpret your refusal to speak to them HOWEVER they want, just like they took Penn State's conflicting statements as lies as opposed to confusion.

    Also yes AMTA has reconsidered decisions/punishments based upon appeals.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nur Rauch
    replied
    Originally posted by 7Redacted View Post
    I think the take-home message to all programs here is to keep your head down, and instruct all of your team members to NEVER speak with an AMTA representative, ever.
    Wat.

    Leave a comment:


  • 7Redacted
    replied
    Is there any firm history of AMTA *ever* reconsidering any decision based on an appeal?

    I'm skeptical board members bothered to read that lengthy appeal document; another vote was probably taken just so AMTA could go through the motions.

    I think the take-home message to all programs here is to keep your head down, and instruct all of your team members to NEVER speak with an AMTA representative, ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • clustermock
    replied
    Don't Be Bitter, Be Better

    (cause there was not denatonium on the beads anyways)

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris_Hitch
    replied
    Originally posted by Baltimore-Nittany View Post
    I am fighting to beat back the urge to scoff at what is going on. I know Penn State is on thin ice next year, and that is all that matters to me. We cannot let what happened this year put our whole organization in jeopardy. Kudos to My exec board for everything they did this year, molding us into competent mockers and setting up what could have been a great championship run. Being from Baltimore, i liken this to what happened to the Ravens this year. We were so close, but the ball was dropped. Next year.... I will personally give my all to carry on tradition. This sanction is the start of something great. A rose out of concrete, like Tupac. Keep ya Head, and Hold ya Head, ladies and Gentlemen. Watch out.... Hustle Hard
    THIS, ladies and gentlemen. This.

    GET HYPE. PSU 2K13

    Leave a comment:


  • Baltimore-Nittany
    replied
    I am fighting to beat back the urge to scoff at what is going on. I know Penn State is on thin ice next year, and that is all that matters to me. We cannot let what happened this year put our whole organization in jeopardy. Kudos to My exec board for everything they did this year, molding us into competent mockers and setting up what could have been a great championship run. Being from Baltimore, i liken this to what happened to the Ravens this year. We were so close, but the ball was dropped. Next year.... I will personally give my all to carry on tradition. This sanction is the start of something great. A rose out of concrete, like Tupac. Keep ya Head, and Hold ya Head, ladies and Gentlemen. Watch out.... Hustle Hard

    Leave a comment:


  • JayZ
    replied
    Originally posted by Nur Rauch View Post
    2012: The year mock trial became a moot court competition.
    *shudder*

    Leave a comment:


  • Nur Rauch
    replied
    2012: The year mock trial became a moot court competition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mind
    replied
    There is so much evidence against Penn State. Even if you don't like one argument AMTA makes, they have so many right behind. There is no doubt Penn State was dishonest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cloud
    replied
    Originally posted by The J View Post
    What letter was this? I didn't see it as one of the addendums to your appeal.
    It was sent in separately. The individual works in no official capacity with the organization. He served as a judge frequently and spent a lot of time helping younger teams learn the basics. I will see if we can get a copy here.

    Edit:
    He doesn't want it published at the time being, but possibly down the line. But I assure you AMTA received the letter and it was discussed, so Dave's statement that they were presented with "no evidence" that we thought the teams were equal is a stretch.
    Last edited by Cloud; March 2nd, 2012, 02:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The J
    replied
    Originally posted by Cloud View Post
    On that note, we had a law school member that has been working with us write a letter on our behalf that was sent in with the appeal.
    What letter was this? I didn't see it as one of the addendums to your appeal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cloud
    replied
    Originally posted by BrennaThorpe View Post
    I don't know. I can't speculate to the ego of the exec board A-team members, or how they felt. I think if I do I'd be biased anyways, because there is some friction among our membership for things wholly unrelated to mock trial. That, in addition to the fact that our exec board is composed of type-A personalities with a lot of power, probably made it seem to some that they may have 'acted' like they were better.

    Were they designed to be better? No, I don't think so. Did they think they were better? It's very possible. My impression (a lay opinion, if you will ), having no real information on the logic of our stacking, was that our A and B teams are made up of similar strength mockers that were split into compatible working groups based on friendships and personalities. Honestly, I appreciated the move from A to B because it removed some issues of personal friction, and also ultimately put me in a leadership position, so I didn't view it as a demotion. I don't know how they viewed it.
    I've said this a few times but it seems most relevant now. We don't have a coach that makes the most competitive decisions. We have an organization that is very close knit and the members picking teams have friendships that sometimes overtake what the best team should be. While I have tried to do away with that, it is impossible and is always a very relevant factor in picking teams. I assure you that if an outside coach from another program came in and stacked our teams with the current individuals, they would almost certainly look different.

    On that note, we had a law school member that has been working with us write a letter on our behalf that was sent in with the appeal. As a successful mocker during his three year tenure doing AMTA, and as an individual who judged a ton of intramural trials and is very familiar with the talent level of our membership, he explained how he felt the best attorney and witness were not on the A team. This letter also included conversations between himself and I where my equal rationale in selecting the teams was explained long before roster assignments were due.
    Last edited by Cloud; March 2nd, 2012, 01:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrennaThorpe
    replied
    Originally posted by Spidey View Post
    I think then, that I buy the argument that the responsibility outside of (possibly) the exec board is relatively small. So the real question then, is do you think that your A team (essentially the exec board) legitimately feels that the B team they put you on is their equal? Or do you think that while the results have been equal, and the memebers of the B team certainly feel confident that they are equal, that the A team internally believes that they are the A team because they are the best 6 or 7 competitors in your program?

    In other words, do you believe they thought they were demoting you when they put you on the B team?

    I will say that I highly doubt that there was any outright lying from Penn State. Every interaction I've had with Penn State mockers has generally been positive. It just sounds to me like there is a little tension internally that may have resulted in confusion, leading to what is possibly a technical violation of an AMTA rule.
    I don't know. I can't speculate to the ego of the exec board A-team members, or how they felt. I think if I do I'd be biased anyways, because there is some friction among our membership for things wholly unrelated to mock trial. That, in addition to the fact that our exec board is composed of type-A personalities with a lot of power, probably made it seem to some that they may have 'acted' like they were better.

    Were they designed to be better? No, I don't think so. Did they think they were better? It's very possible. My impression (a lay opinion, if you will ), having no real information on the logic of our stacking, was that our A and B teams are made up of similar strength mockers that were split into compatible working groups based on friendships and personalities. Honestly, I appreciated the move from A to B because it removed some issues of personal friction, and also ultimately put me in a leadership position, so I didn't view it as a demotion. I don't know how they viewed it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cloud
    replied
    Originally posted by Spidey View Post
    I think then, that I buy the argument that the responsibility outside of (possibly) the exec board is relatively small. So the real question then, is do you think that your A team (essentially the exec board) legitimately feels that the B team they put you on is their equal? Or do you think that while the results have been equal, and the memebers of the B team certainly feel confident that they are equal, that the A team internally believes that they are the A team because they are the best 6 or 7 competitors in your program?

    In other words, do you believe they thought they were demoting you when they put you on the B team?

    I will say that I highly doubt that there was any outright lying from Penn State. Every interaction I've had with Penn State mockers has generally been positive. It just sounds to me like there is a little tension internally that may have resulted in confusion, leading to what is possibly a technical violation of an AMTA rule.
    If you look at the letter of support from Brandeis in our appeal, it recalls a conversation with Noah Simmons (the member who switched with Brenna) in December in which he states that he believes the letters are irrelevant and he finds the teams to be of equal strength. He was a member that competed in some capacity on both teams.
    Last edited by Cloud; March 2nd, 2012, 01:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X