Topic: ONU Tournament (Read 6864 times)

contractualobligations · « **on:** December 16, 2008, 11:18:37 pm »

Does anyone have any information about this tournament? Are they full or are they still taking teams? Also any information about the quality of the tournament (how many teams normally, facilities, efficency and overall friendliness of the hosts) would be greatly appreciated.

Alan S. · « **Reply #1 on:** December 18, 2008, 12:41:53 pm »

My team has attended every year that they have conducted the tournament and typically (from what I can tell) they take as many teams as they can get. Last year I believe there was something close to 40 teams there.

The tournament runs very smoothly and the facilities are the typical mix of classrooms. Although they do have a law building on campus and there are a couple of courtrooms in there.

The judges are all practicing attorney's/judges and law professors, with a few coaches and 3L's thrown in the mix. The team makeup is fairly vast. There are top teams and teams that aren't...at the top. It is a great place to get experience.

I would recommend it.

Dr. JoAnn Scott is the adviser there. Her email is as follows: j-scott@onu.edu

pbearmt · « **Reply #2 on:** December 18, 2008, 07:06:39 pm »

Thank you for taking an interest in our tournament and who are you????? The tournament as of today is full. Sorry! As of now, there are 52 teams registered to participate coming from across the U.S. (literally). I have not heard any comlaints, although I am cerain some are out there, regarding the tournament. My coaching staff is beyond themselves because I allowed more teams to register and compete. If you are interested in participating next year please send me an email and I will reserve a slot for you.

EEBO · « **Reply #3 on:** December 20, 2008, 01:40:39 pm »

This is the first year my team will be competing there and I'm looking forward to it. The tournament set-up looks good and Dr. Scott seems to be on top of things.

I'm just kinds curious which teams are going, I know the Buffalo team is sending 2.

contractualobligations · « **Reply #4 on:** December 29, 2008, 08:30:38 am »

I emailed a person I know was on the team last year that I met at Nationals and he said he cannot because he is still affilliated with the program and the existence of a rule within the program comment on behalf of the ONU program but assured me that there will be cross country coverage with the Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest parts of the country sending at least one team, and the level of competition will be suitable for all but still notable with St. Francis, Loyola, Central Florida, OSU, and other national participating teams competing. Wish my coach had contacted Dr. Scott earlier sounds like a fun time in Northcentral Ohio.

arcticlawyer · « **Reply #5 on:** January 11, 2009, 05:03:34 pm »

We are t minus 6 days from opening rounds and it should be a great weekend for mock trial. I just saw the weather prediction and everyone coming in should be in for quality Northern weather with the wind chill being right about single digits and some snow on Sun. Everyone please drive safe and allow plenty of time to get here on Sat. as there will still be lots of snow on the ground. We are looking forward to making this the best invitational yet. See you all next weekend.

eggy24 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2009, 10:19:06 pm »

yeah...checked that yesterday as well...4 degrees when we land...not cool...but I am looking forward to the competition...

arcticlawyer · « **Reply #7 on:** January 15, 2009, 12:18:02 pm »

Weather update we will be having warmer temps this weekend than the single digits we have been having. Friday will be chilly but Sat and Sun should be in the mid twenties. However, we are famous for our wind so please pack winter accessories everyone, we look forward to seeing everyone this weekend and look forward to an exciting and competitive weekend. Safe travels and we will see everyone in a few days.

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum · « **Reply #8 on:** January 15, 2009, 01:05:28 pm »

Does anyone know what schools are coming this weekend?

Alan S. · « **Reply #9 on:** January 15, 2009, 04:06:52 pm »

Participating schools are Bowling Green State University, University of Buffalo, Butler University, California Polytechnic at Pomona, Carleton College, Carnegie Mellon University, Case Western Reserve, Drexel University, Eastern Michigan University, Elgin College, Elon University, Illinois State University, Kenyon College, Loyola University, Marian College, Miami (Ohio) University, Michigan State University, Mississippi Valley State University, Murray State University, Northwood University, Ohio Northern University, St. Vincent University, Sullivan University, The Citadel, The Ohio State University, University of Central Florida, University of Dayton, University of Maine, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, University of St. Francis, University of Toledo, University of Wittenberg, Western Michigan University and Wilmington University.

misterdan · « **Reply #10 on:** January 15, 2009, 10:25:25 pm »

looks like the weather is going to be freeeeeezing

arcticlawyer · « **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2009, 08:54:04 am »

I just looked at the weather.com for Ada and it is -15 with a wind of -37. But then a heat wave is supposed to emerge this weekend and take the temp before wind to mid 20's.

Haskins · « **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2009, 10:52:20 pm »

Is this tournament using the new high-low pairing system? Or are they sticking with the traditional method?

thepezking639 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2009, 12:54:55 am »

turned out to be the new high-low pairings. while they do improve your chance to finish higher, your last rounds are usually no fun, as there is no competition, and you are either outclassed, or bored to tears with a team that doesn't understand simple courtroom mechanics. personally i could do without the use of high low pairings at invitationals, it effectively turns a tournament into a three round weekend. why not just give 5-1 and 6-0 teams a bye for the final round.

Haskins · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2009, 12:41:41 pm »

Anyone have a list of the top finishers? Or maybe even the tab summary?

Nur Rauch · « **Reply #15 on:** January 19, 2009, 04:11:26 pm »

Quote from: thepezking639 on January 19, 2009, 12:54:55 am

turned out to be the new high-low pairings. while they do improve your chance to finish higher, your last rounds are usually no fun, as there is no competition, and you are either outclassed, or bored to tears with a team that doesn't understand simple courtroom mechanics. personally i could do without the use of high low pairings at invitationals, it effectively turns a tournament into a three round weekend. why not just give 5-1 and 6-0 teams a bye for the final round.

The current system also runs the risk that the 5-1 and 6-0 teams could actually drop a ballot or more to an under-classed team. Sometimes the difference in skill is very great, and yet the difference in score is hardly reflected. That can happen when the judges feel a mix of pity, confusion, and such a high dose of boredom that after awhile they stop listening.

The good thing about those kinds of rounds is that it forces the good teams to step it up a notch and not only perform well, but adapt to a confused, unpredictable setting, which builds flexibility and patience.

The problem (which I believe far outweighs the good) is that "adapting" to a less-experienced team and a confused judge entails lowering yourself to the other team's level. Example: We were plaintiff for a round against a team that was significantly less experienced this year, and they objected to statements that were not being offered by us for the truth of the matter on Walton's direct (statement by Hamilton about Walton's father), and the judge sustained them immediately. We "adapted" by doing the same thing on their case in chief and throwing out all of Reagan's very relevant and admissible testimony about the statements he gathered during his investigation by objecting to hearsay and speculation on literally everything, which the terribly confused judge sustained without hesitation. It was cheap, but it's possible our normal performance style would not have convinced the judge we were better.

mocksluzer · « **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2009, 09:54:11 am »

Wow! If that's true, that's too bad, sorry to hear it. I wonder if students felt that it gave them a real-life jury type trial (even though they probably weren't looking for one). Anyone have word on top-10?

nmy060504 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:10:14 am »

Quote from: Jeonnay on January 20, 2009, 09:39:25 am

It is rumored that there were rounds judged by bus drivers-- this is absolutely unexceptable and unfair to the hard working teams.

To the best of my knowledge ONU had some practicing attorneys, judges, law students and coaches judging. I am unaware of any bus drivers who acted as judges. Perhaps you could fill me on the rumored bus driver judges and what rounds the judged. Also if there was a problem with any judges in a round why was this not brought to the attention of the tournament director?

SilentAssassin · « **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2009, 12:33:44 pm »

Quote from: Jeonnay on January 20, 2009, 09:39:25 am

The Polar Bear ONU tournament was a learning experience. I would have to encourage ONU not to invite so many teams if you can not provide the needed amount of judges.

It is rumored that there were rounds judged by bus drivers-- this is absolutely unexceptable and unfair to the hard working teams.

Personally I feel as if the incompetence of the round judges created inaccurate results for the overrall competition.

Jeonnay
Northwood University 931

I think that's just Tab Room humor, that dates back to the first Polar Bear tourney, where the weather was so bad that there was talk of needing to bring in people off the streets to judge rounds.

changebox · « **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2009, 02:15:13 pm »

I don't have the exact tab summary but 6 teams went 6-2, 2 teams went 6.5, and 4 teams went 7-1.

Ohio State 1449 won the tournament at 7-1 with a CS of 20, Case Western Reserve 1117 came in second at 7-1 with a CS of 18.

I believe they hit each other in the third round.

EEBO · « **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2009, 05:27:17 pm »

I doubt there was any classless activity coming from Ohio Northern. Dr. Scott has her stuff together, so I would bet money that there's nothing wrong going on. Obviously someone gave you some bull about bus drivers and you took it.

edit: I heard it was a good tournament and all sorts of fun for those involved.

thepezking639 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2009, 05:32:44 pm »

the "bus-driver" introduced himself as a professor of something entirely unrelated to law, to be honest, i forgot his specialty and his only affiliation to mock trial was that he would help drive the vans for his school.

perhaps "bus-driver" is an overstatement, but obviously he isn't fit to be the PRESIDING JUDGE in a first round tournament.

during the tournament we actually had two judges that were professors in something else than political science, one was a presiding judge the other was a scoring judge.

itsjustagame · « **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2009, 08:25:02 pm »

We had round judged by a homeless looking man with cargo pants, crazy hair, and a beard. He hobbled in after the presiding judge who practically dragged him in. He looked very confused and a little high, told us he didn't know what he was doing there, fell asleep for a brief period, never looked up at anyone, took the luxury of a 20 minute break from which he came in with a full plate of food, ate a granola bar loudly during closings and included fascinating graphics of what happened during trial on the ballots.

The best part was when his cell phone started ringing to "good vibrations" during a cross exam. We affectionately called him "the dude."

arcticlawyer · « **Reply #23 on:** January 20, 2009, 09:06:27 pm »

Out of curiosity what did the dude draw on the ballots in particular?

Nur Rauch · « **Reply #24 on:** January 20, 2009, 11:40:37 pm »

Quote from: itsjustagame on January 20, 2009, 08:25:02 pm

We had round judged by a homeless looking man with cargo pants, crazy hair, and a beard. He hobbled in after the presiding judge who practically dragged him in. He looked very confused and a little high, told us he didn't know what he was doing there, fell asleep for a brief period, never looked up at anyone, took the luxury of a 20 minute break from which he came in with a full plate of food, ate a granola bar loudly during closings and included fascinating graphics of what happened during trial on the ballots.

The best part was when his cell phone started ringing to "good vibrations" during a cross exam. We affectionately called him "the dude."

Well, if it makes you feel better, at the Hatting Invite this weekend, we got a cocky-ass 3L-turned-presiding-judge, and he sustained opposing counsel's objection to relevance when we called a witness on the defense who challenged the element of falsity. I was so pissed at him by that time in the trial (he'd already sustained relevance objections to a lot of our case) that I interrupted him mid-ruling and pointed to opposing counsel's demonstrative where it quoted the element of falsity. He hesitated and then overruled the objection, but if he hadn't I probably would have flipped out on him and marched down to the tab room to request that they remove the presiding judge for not allowing us to call a witness on the grounds of relevance.

mockrook86 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:13:29 am »

For me it wasn't the judges as much as that guy running the captains meetings. He was ineffective, thought he was funny with the tempurature stuff, he said he was a coach but I would hate to be on his team as he seems to be unable to put two thoughts together. Someone said he was judging too, "the dude" probably was more with it than this guy.

nmy060504 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:18:22 am »

Quote from: thepezking639 on January 20, 2009, 05:32:44 pm

the "bus-driver" introduced himself as a professor of something entirely unrelated to law, to be honest, i forgot his specialty and his only affiliation to mock trial was that he would help drive the vans for his school.

perhaps "bus-driver" is an overstatement, but obviously he isn't fit to be the PRESIDING JUDGE in a first round tournament.

thepezking- I am sorry that you feel that way, but "the bus driver" sorely misrepresented himself and drastically understated his experience with mock trial and as a respected professor at the university. He has assisted the ONU mock trial team for at least 8 years to the best of my knowledge. He has been involved judging for 3 other tournaments (not including the tournament this weekend) as well as assisting in scrimmages.

I would caution you (and others for that matter) not to make snap judgements of hasty decisions about a person's qualifications (or lack thereof) until you know more about them. These people willing gave up their time to come and judge at a mock trial tournament so that you (and 40+ other teams) could compete. Ideally we would all love to be judged by practicing attorneys who specialize in litigation and judges who have been on the bench for years, but as you well know the ideal isn't always what happens. So unfortunately we must make due with the hands we are dealt in life and make every experience (no matter how bad or good it is) a learning experience.

thepezking639 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2009, 12:59:41 pm »

Quote from: nmy060504 on January 21, 2009, 09:18:22 am

thepezking- I am sorry that you feel that way, but "the bus driver" sorely misrepresented himself and drastically understated his experience with mock trial and as a respected professor at the university. He has assisted the ONU mock trial team for at least 8 years to the best of my knowledge. He has been involved judging for 3 other tournaments (not including the tournament this weekend) as well as assisting in scrimmages.

I would caution you (and others for that matter) not to make snap judgements of hasty decisions about a person's qualifications (or lack thereof) until you know more about them. These people willing gave up their time to come and judge at a mock trial tournament so that you (and 40+ other teams) could compete. Ideally we would all love to be judged by practicing attorneys who specialize in litigation and judges who have been on the bench for years, but as you well know the ideal isn't always what happens. So unfortunately we must make due with the hands we are dealt in life and make every experience (no matter how bad or good it is) a learning experience.

my issue isnt with a "lay person" being a judge, its with a layperson being a presiding judge who doesn't even have a lose handle on courtroom procedure or evidence. especially when you have three judges, two scoring one presiding. it wouldnt have been hard to make sure that each round had a judge who could run a trial fairly through knowledge of procedure and rules as i would imagine nearly every coach at the tournament could do so, and were required to do when the judge pool dried up. its not that i feel his rulings effected the outcome of our trial, however it was detrimental to the overall feel of mock as both an academic exercise and as a competitive entity.

mcm61284 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2009, 02:31:54 pm »

Quote from: itsjustagame on January 20, 2009, 08:25:02 pm

We had round judged by a homeless looking man with cargo pants, crazy hair, and a beard. He hobbled in after the presiding judge who practically dragged him in. He looked very confused and a little high, told us he didn't know what he was doing there, fell asleep for a brief period, never looked up at anyone, took the luxury of a 20 minute break from which he came in with a full plate of food, ate a granola bar loudly during closings and included fascinating graphics of what happened during trial on the ballots.

The best part was when his cell phone started ringing to "good vibrations" during a cross exam. We affectionately called him "the dude."

Thanks from "the dude"---that's most definitely me. In actuality, I'm a 1L at Ohio Northern and was confused because I had just agreed to judge five minutes earlier, after a 2L or 3L (3L I think) approached me about it. It turned out a scheduled judge was stuck in a meeting.

Your memory falters a bit, though. For starters, I have a goatee, not an actual beard. I was most definitely not high---I've never used an illegal drug in my life (or tobacco for that matter). I never fell asleep, and I did watch you guys as you were presenting. If you saw me looking down, that's because I was writing. I probably shouldn't have done the graphics, but the young lady was rapidly falling apart and I wanted to illustrate that. During the closing, I was eating dum-dum pops, not a granola bar. I should've just sucked them rather than chewing though.

Needless to say, I'm not homeless. I live in a university-owned apartment complex where most of the population consists of fellow law students like myself. As for the "crazy hair," I'm just kinda letting it go and seeing how long it can get. I haven't had a haircut since July of 2007. When I finally do get it cut, I'm planning to donate it to Locks of Love so some cancer patients can wear it as wigs.

I have to say, I was impressed with several of the attorneys. I think any of you folks, with the proper training, could be fine lawyers. I enjoyed judging, and I hope I made it more enjoyable for you too.

Matthew C. Murray
aka "The Dude"

Blue · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2009, 02:49:46 pm »

Wow, I would just like to add to this conversation by saying I am highly impressed with "the dude"s response. One of the reasons I enjoy to read this site is the professionalism of the questions and responses. I thought that at times this thread came close to falling below that line and he promptly restored it.

In addition I think everyone needs to be reminded that many people may come to this site and see your remarks. I don't feel that those remarks should belittle any one that has donated their weekend time to help out a mock trial tournament for nothing in return. With out those people many tournaments would be unable to function.

itsjustagame · « **Reply #30 on:** January 21, 2009, 03:13:36 pm »

I think I like Mr. Murray even more now than I did before

Also, I should mention that in addition to the graphics, he did have insightful and accurate comments of both sides' performances. Regardless of some things that my team found humorous, he was a very competent judge which is probably why these eccentricities were especially funny. I did not intend to offend him and obviously, certainly did not think he would be reading this thread

Kudos to the dude for taking the time to judge us and for being an entertaining judge at that. My sincerest apologies if my comments were disrespectful in any way. Good luck with law school!

pbmtfan · « **Reply #31 on:** January 21, 2009, 04:02:27 pm »

Quote from: mockrook86 on January 21, 2009, 09:13:29 am

For me it wasn't the judges as much as that guy running the captains meetings. He was ineffective, thought he was funny with the tempurature stuff, he said he was a coach but I would hate to be on his team as he seems to be unable to put two thoughts together. Someone said he was judging too, "the dude" probably was more with it than this guy.

Just a quick reminder to those of you who have never helped to put together or run a mock trial tournament, the individuals involved have a number of things on their minds while running these proceedings. This young man had numerous duties in addition to being a coach this weekend. If you can not speak respectfully of those with more experience than you, do not say anything at all. Also, as to this gentleman's coaching/judging ability, this is his ninth year of involvement in mock trial, and his third year helping with this tournament. If you feel you have more experience, try helping to run a mock trial tournament of your own, then let me know how you feel.
As to the judges, if all coaches had followed AMTA rules and attended judges meetings as they were requested, there would not have been a need for judges who were not attorneys/judges/coaches. I would like to thank those who volunteered their time, especially those coaches who gave up the opportunity to watch their teams compete. The tournament could not have gone on without them. For everyone who competed, I hope it was a learning experience, and that you are able to find positives in EVERY MT experience.
On a side note, I am not involved with ONU MT. I am merely someone who has observed this tournament since its inception, and I feel Dr. Scott, Andrew ("that guy" who ran captains' meetings), Nicole, Rachel, and all those who volunteer their time should be applauded for their dedication.

mcm61284 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 21, 2009, 04:37:18 pm »

Quote from: itsjustagame on January 21, 2009, 03:13:36 pm

Kudos to the dude for taking the time to judge us and for being an entertaining judge at that. My sincerest apologies if my comments were disrespectful in any way. Good luck with law school!

You're welcome. I was somewhat offended at first but it's all good. I realize I didn't present myself in a very professional manner. At any rate, no harm in joking, and good luck with undergrad and graduate school!

Matt

spartans_mock · « **Reply #33 on:** January 21, 2009, 05:06:55 pm »

To "the dude", or as you were known on my team, "huckleberry jesus":

We enjoyed being judged by you that round. Your comments were very beneficial and the drawing on the ballot was excellent and very amusing when we discovered it over dinner late Sunday night. Judges like you make mock trial awesome. Keep it up and good luck to you.

thepezking639 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 23, 2009, 12:28:57 pm »

are we ever going to get a full tab summary posted anywhere?

eggy24 · « **Reply #35 on:** January 23, 2009, 01:10:59 pm »

I must say that the tournament this past weekend at Ohio Northern was one of the best organized I have seen this season. It is difficult enough to get judges to come out and judge a tournament. When you add in the snow and weather conditions in Ohio last weekend, I would not blame the host for the lack of judges. In all our rounds, we had well qualified judges who left very helpful and thorough comments. The polar bear invitational was a blast for our team and I am greatly looking forward to attending next year.

thepezking639 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 23, 2009, 01:15:33 pm »

Quote from: eggy24 on January 23, 2009, 01:10:59 pm

I must say that the tournament this past weekend at Ohio Northern was one of the best organized I have seen this season.

what other tournaments have you been to this year?

eggy24 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 23, 2009, 06:56:32 pm »

southeastern and harvard

Bloch · « **Reply #38 on:** January 24, 2009, 03:06:49 pm »

Quote from: thepezking639 on January 23, 2009, 01:15:33 pm

what other tournaments have you been to this year?

I've been lurking a couple of days, as always on these Tournament threads, but now I'll comment. Here we have a very useful discussion by Nur Rauch and others on the new Round 4 pairing scheme's implications. That's important discussion for AMTA. The soon-to-be qualifiers must use the revised pairing scheme while the Championship will not.

I'm interested in seeing whether ONU used the revised scheme since there are a fairly low number of invitationals that have used it. AMTA and its tab committee are in assessment mode this season on that subject-to-controversy scheme.

Despite the utility of the discussion on an important topic, this thread is burdened with the unproductive whining about judge credentials and tournament organization.

Look, Dr. Scott and I are likely the two most experienced "organizers" in AMTA history. We are easily the two most traveled AMTA reps in history and every AMTA rep knows that we can arrive at a tournament site in any of a wide range of array to disarray. So, if thepezking639's last comment is meant to imply that ONU's invitational was not well organized, AMTA-world would be most interested to know tpk639's bases of experience. Is this someone's freshman mocker criticizing his first invitational with all of the experience of one Fall semester scrimmage under the belt?

I'll simply report that Dr. Scott and I together have administered at least 50 mock trial tournaments: invitationals, qualifiers, nationals. I have known of exactly one scenario which proved too much for Dr. Scott's considerable organizational talents. (There once was a coach with a hopefully momentary anger management issue and dealing with threats of physical violence is not JoAnn's forte. She assigned me to that regional site the next year but there was no eruption to address.) Other than participating in mixed martial arts cage matches (where I'm willing but she'd bow out), I must wonder where the doubt lies on ONU's tournament organizing.

Seems wierd to me that anyone would mention captains meetings. A captains meeting moderator doesn't need the ability to string sentences together. I've done probably 1000s of them (including the first) and what has been called my "brutally efficient" captains meetings start and end in about 5 minutes. I wait 2 minutes in case there's a demonstrative dispute and then I leave to be there for the stickier judge assignment task.

So now we reach judge credentials and the stereotyped "bus driver/judge" complaints of those who - oh my! - dropped a ballot. When will undegraduate mockers learn that their notions of who should preside and who should score and who should hold a ballot are really only undergrad mock trial nonsense? If every mock trial were presided over by sitting judges with 30 years on the bench, there'd still be vast differences on rulings on the same objections and same proferred evidence. With what some estimate as 300+ real jury trials under my belt, I am surprised that any would express preference for "sitting judges" or "litigators" or "attorneys." Today I'm involved in a matter where a trial lawyer (who all with such notions would prefer) must address implications of one of his opening statements which -trust me - my most inexperienced freshman mockers would have done better.

Wait 'til AMTA mockers pass admission and must actually argue their cases to juries filled with the likes of ... well, bus drivers. That's the real world.

I specifically lock horns with pezking's argument on presiders. The best exercise I ever had as a law student when even mock trials were rare was a law prof who knew every syllable on evidentiary law but insisted his students literally survive flip-of-the-coin rulings.

Perhaps some day AMTA circuits will grow out of the lunacy and come to realize that a ballot is only an opinion and everyone has opinions. Maybe then we'll stop reading foolish comments on AMTA ballots. My favorite foolish comment of the Fall Semester was from a Windy City mock trial judge who claimed that mock attorneys should utter MRE rule numbers "to complete" their evidentiary objections. Huh? Real practitioners and real judges recognize MOST rule numbers to be gibberish. Hearsay is hearsay - without rule numbers. The relevancy standard is the relevancy standard - without rule numbers. We don't need a rule number to address the weighing of probative value versus unfair prejudice or confusion of jurors. "To complete" is bullshit.

So, I suggest that before the next undergrad (or his coach) whine about judging credentials, they first identify how many capable judges their program contributed to the invitational. (This year has seen significant increases in the numbers of invitationals that will not accept entry of teams not accompanied by one who will judge.) Next identify how many judge meetings the complaining program's judges actually attended. (It's miraculous how often certain coaches, etc., need to use the restroom at abnornal length once they've completed an eye-count of recruited judges present. "Present" and "serving" are two very different things.)

I, of course, champion and will continue to champion free speech on perjuries.com. So, the pezkings complaining are nothing new and nothing that should be stifled. But they sure do fuel the motivations to make AMTA invitationals even more exclusive.

Alan S. · « **Reply #39 on:** January 24, 2009, 04:08:23 pm »

Excellent comment Bloch!

thepezking639 · « **Reply #40 on:** January 26, 2009, 12:06:48 pm »

Quote from: Bloch on January 24, 2009, 03:06:49 pm

So, if thepezking639's last comment is meant to imply that ONU's invitational was not well organized, AMTA-world would be most interested to know tpk639's bases of experience. Is this someone's freshman mocker criticizing his first invitational with all of the experience of one Fall semester scrimmage under the belt?

I've been to 17 tournaments, (including ONU before) and i am in my fourth year of mock trial. and in those 17 tournaments, i never waited longer for pairings or ballot results than at ONU. and what a surprise we're still waiting on a full tab summary, did the fact that 47 teams in one division make for a hellish tab room, and delay after delay?

Quote from: Bloch on January 24, 2009, 03:06:49 pm

So now we reach judge credentials and the stereotyped "bus driver/judge" complaints of those who - oh my! - dropped a ballot. When will undegraduate mockers learn that their notions of who should preside and who should score and who should hold a ballot are really only undergrad mock trial nonsense? If every mock trial were presided over by sitting judges with 30 years on the bench, there'd still be vast differences on rulings on the same objections and same proferred evidence. With what some estimate as 300+ real jury trials under my belt, I am surprised that any would express preference for "sitting judges" or "litigators" or "attorneys."

Wait 'til AMTA mockers pass admission and must actually argue their cases to juries filled with the likes of ... well, bus drivers. That's the real world.

I specifically lock horns with pezking's argument on presiders. The best exercise I ever had as a law student when even mock trials were rare was a law prof who knew every syllable on evidentiary law but insisted his students literally survive flip-of-the-coin rulings.

first off, we took both the ballots, so this isn't sour grapes. you're right there would be a VAST difference in the way trials are run, for the better. at other tournaments my team and i have been at when we have real attorneys we do just as well. its more so the educational experience and over all experience of mock trial are ruined by someone who is trying to find their way through a simple hearsay exception because they are getting improper character evidence and hearsay confused. its most certainly different than a judge trying to mess with you to elicit a response. (which is entirely asinine on its face but is somehow acceptable in amta) i highly doubt our team will be returning to onu next year for lack of competition and poor organization, compared to the other tournaments we visit yearly. though perhaps our team is blessed with going to the best run tournaments in the country every year.

Quote from: Bloch on January 24, 2009, 03:06:49 pm

So, I suggest that before the next undergrad (or his coach) whine about judging credentials, they first identify how many capable judges their program contributed to the invitational. (This year has seen significant increases in the numbers of invitationals that will not accept entry of teams not accompanied by one who will judge.) Next identify how many judge meetings the complaining program's judges actually attended. (It's miraculous how often certain coaches, etc., need to use the restroom at abnornal length once they've completed an eye-count of recruited judges present. "Present" and "serving" are two very different things.)

I, of course, champion and will continue to champion free speech on perjuries.com. So, the pezkings complaining are nothing new and nothing that should be stifled. But they sure do fuel the motivations to make AMTA invitationals even more exclusive.

our program is lucky enough to have two judges, one who has been a coach for the better part of a decade, and a noted constitutional law scholar, and our attorney coach who is a retired attorney and judge. both of them judged every round at ONU. qualified, yes. serving, yes.

and i do pray that invitationals become more exclusive. the harder the competition the more fun our team has, win lose or draw. i also pray that when i have 300+ jury trials under my belt, i can do something a little more productive than waste my time trolling on a computer forum to tell undergraduates my opinion on their fake law/academic/theater exercise.

Rane · « **Reply #41 on:** January 26, 2009, 01:18:49 pm »

When did helping out undergraduate students on a path to a law degree become anything BUT admirable?

changebox · « **Reply #42 on:** January 26, 2009, 01:31:14 pm »

Quote from: thepezking639 on January 26, 2009, 12:06:48 pm

I highly doubt our team will be returning to onu next year for lack of competition

That lack of competition must have helped you win the tournament...I'm assuming you did, right???

Right???

thepezking639 · « **Reply #43 on:** January 26, 2009, 03:25:45 pm »

Quote from: changebox on January 26, 2009, 01:31:14 pm

That lack of competition must have helped you win the tournament...I'm assuming you did, right???

Right???

if there was a tab summary available from the tournament you'd learn that just about every position 1-10 was determined by CS, due to the regional high - low pairings. its stupid for three teams to go 7-1 and call the team who got the better luck of the draw out of the first round with a marginally stronger opponent the champion. not to say 7-1 isnt impressive by the top three schools at that event, but CS A: shouldn't crown a "champion" in any tournament. B: CS isnt as good of an indicator of a teams performance as point differential when competing against weaker teams. and finally C: the reason why ONU used the new regional pairing system was so that the tab room officials could get some practice. seriously, i could write an excel spreadsheet, or even a Visual Basic program that could do all the math for the new pairing system, its simple math. i mean hell they had such a spreadsheet at Pittsburgh that did just that.

simple truth is, mock is mostly about education, the rest is competition. if you're going to neuter the competitive aspect of an adversarial system through high-low pairings when the two top teams dont meet up, whats the point of having tournaments?

SilentAssassin · « **Reply #44 on:** January 26, 2009, 03:44:54 pm »

Quote from: thepezking639 on January 26, 2009, 03:25:45 pm

if there was a tab summary available from the tournament you'd learn that just about every position 1-10 was determined by CS, due to the regional high - low pairings. its stupid for three teams to go 7-1 and call the team who got the better luck of the draw out of the first round with a marginally stronger opponent the champion. not to say 7-1 isnt impressive by the top three schools at that event, but CS A: shouldn't crown a "champion" in any tournament. B: CS isnt as good of an indicator of a teams performance as point differential when competing against weaker teams. and finally C: the reason why ONU used the new regional pairing system was so that the tab room officials could get some practice. seriously, i could write an excel spreadsheet, or even a Visual Basic program that could do all the math for the new pairing system, its simple math. i mean hell they had such a spreadsheet at Pittsburgh that did just that.

simple truth is, mock is mostly about education, the rest is competition. if you're going to neuter the competitive aspect of an adversarial system through high-low pairings when the two top teams dont meet up, whats the point of having tournaments?

your taking mock trial waayyyyy too seriously.

mocksluzer · « **Reply #45 on:** January 26, 2009, 04:01:26 pm »

Quote from: thepezking639 on January 26, 2009, 12:06:48 pm

i also pray that when i have 300+ jury trials under my belt, i can do something a little more productive than waste my time trolling on a computer forum to tell undergraduates my opinion on their fake law/academic/theater exercise.

I know this was meant (or at least I hope) this was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but still, I find this comment quite disrespectful. Simply put, collegiate mock trial would not be even half of what it is without Brad Bloch. I believe you'll be incredibly hard-pressed to find a current or former mocker who would disagree. Not only (as he mentioned) was Bloch there from the very beginning- first captain's meeting (I'm sure it was at least as brutal as all your others!), first invitational, first national, first everything, essentially. Bloch was planning, coaching, and running invitationals when you were still an itch in your daddy's pants. Had Bloch decided that he wanted to be more productive than spending his time with pesky, whining undergrads, I have a feeling that you'd be complaining about a helluva lot more than who presides in your rounds.

And while I may not always agree with him, I, for one, am infinitely grateful and honored that Brad Bloch, a man with 300+ jury trials under his belt, isn't as productive as some might hope; instead dedicating the majority of his free time to selflessly ensure that AMTA stays educational, competitive, and fair.

iwgbtp · « **Reply #46 on:** January 26, 2009, 04:42:22 pm »

Quote from: thepezking639 on January 26, 2009, 12:06:48 pm

i also pray that when i have 300+ jury trials under my belt, i can do something a little more productive than waste my time trolling on a computer forum to tell undergraduates my opinion on their fake law/academic/theater exercise.

Wow. I can only imagine how embarrassed your school, your team, and your coaches are right now. Let's not forget who you're talking about here. Mr. Bloch is not just some idoit off the street who is trying to show how pathetic your whining is. As others have already posted, he's largely responsible for mock trial as we know it today. I'm embarrassed to be involved with mock trial when I hear about people like you. Let's show a little bit more respect here.

And please grow up. I hope you will come to realize that if you don't like the way something is run, there are a lot of options to fixing it. This is not one of them. To tell people who have dedicated years and years to helping undergrads, like you, is disgusting.

Nur Rauch · « **Reply #47 on:** January 26, 2009, 06:44:12 pm »

Quote from: iwgbtp on January 26, 2009, 04:42:22 pm

Wow. I can only imagine how embarrassed your school, your team, and your coaches are right now. Let's not forget who you're talking about here. Mr. Bloch is not just some idoit off the street who is trying to show how pathetic your whining is. As others have already posted, he's largely responsible for mock trial as we know it today. I'm embarrassed to be involved with mock trial when I hear about people like you. Let's show a little bit more respect here.

And please grow up. I hope you will come to realize that if you don't like the way something is run, there are a lot of options to fixing it. This is not one of them. To tell people who have dedicated years and years to helping undergrads, like you, is disgusting.

I bump into folks who read but don't post on perjuries.com, and often times their criticism of the site is that it's filled with what one particular guy called "sophistic bullshit." I don't want to imply that I think the pezking's behavior is appropriate, but to step in the middle of this, I don't think it's alright to attack someone simply because they challenged the word of an authoritative figure in a field, either. We can agree: Bloch's been amazing for mock trial, and I side with everything he said in the post above, but I can see why someone might think he's weird for coming out of the blue and posting on here. That's what I thought back when I was new to the site as well, and that's because I didn't know who Bloch was. In either case, Bloch can take care of himself (look at the darn novel of a post he just wrote). He doesn't need everyone else jumping upon the heretic who dared to speak his mind. It's unnecessary (silly, IMHO) to say the whole mock trial community has been embarrassed by the words of some anonymous participant in mock trial.

The Gelf · « **Reply #48 on:** January 26, 2009, 07:00:28 pm »

Quote from: Nur Rauch on January 26, 2009, 06:44:12 pm

I bump into folks who read but don't post on perjuries.com, and often times their criticism of the site is that it's filled with what one particular guy called "sophistic bullshit."

I knew my posts were the most popular on the site!!

Bloch · « **Reply #49 on:** January 26, 2009, 07:19:46 pm »

Quote from: The Gelf on January 26, 2009, 07:00:28 pm

I knew my posts were the most popular on the site!!

Your posts are the most popular on perjuries and for very good reason.

And again I agree with my friend Nur Rauch. No one should criticize the pezking639 for his or her comment on my productivity. I can handle what's slung my way. (My mixed martial arts cage match comment is true! Today's mockers weren't around when I announced the schedule at the Championship General Meeting in Des Moines to include the Mock Sumo Championship. (The tattoo of the AMTA Seal is still where I said it was!)

I assume tpk639 is candid with us. I can't imagine why a two rounder on two days would be noticeably delayed.

Just to keep the record straight, I was not at the First National. My first was the 4th in 1988. But we will all celebrate the 25th Anniversary of intercollegiate mock trial based on the First National where all rounds were completed on February 16, 1985.

Rane · « **Reply #50 on:** January 27, 2009, 01:06:55 am »

My post was not to defend Bloch by any matter, I am more than fully aware that he can defend his own integrity. I simply wanted to ask a question. How can you justify Ad Hominem attacks on those that devote their time to us, to make our education better. Whether they be long time vets to AMTA (such as the esteemed Mr. Bloch) or they are former mockers revitalizing programs (many names come to mind, out of fairness to those I cannot name I won't glorify any one individual that I can name) or simply if they are attorneys who thought it would be interesting to help out a bit by judging a single round. Accusing attorneys who have already reached a position where they no longer need to impress others to advance through their ambitions, of not having a life because they help others is just absolutely ridiculous. We -need- coaches, AMTA reps, judges, etc. and how do we expect to continue to receive their help when we insult them after they give it?

Just my two cents, which I am rarely ever afraid of sharing.

arcticlawyer · « **Reply #51 on:** January 27, 2009, 08:29:26 am »

Here is the Summary and the full should be on the site soon. For those who have been malcontent all we can do is apologize again and ask mindfulness to the fact that the weather was not at all helpful, and a member of the tabroom absconded with the witness scores after the awards ceremony and we had to locate those to compile the summary. Again we apologize and hope that those who saw some good in our tournament join us again next year.

Spirit of AMTA: Mississippi Valley State College, 30 points

Top Twelve Teams:

1. Team 306, The Ohio State University, 7-1 CS 20
2. Team 394, Case Western Reserve University, 7-1, CS 18
3. Team 386, Eastern Michigan University, 7-1, CS 12.5
4. Team 981, Illinois State University, 7-1, CS 11
5. Team 307, The Ohio State University, 6-1-1, CS 16
6. Team 834, Murray State University, 6-1-1, CS 13.5
7. Team 869, University of Central Florida, 6-2, CS 18
8. Team 495, Loyola University of Chicago, 6-2, CS 17.5
9. Team 544, Butler University, 6-2, CS 16.5
10. Team 868, University of Central Florida, 6-2, CS16
11. Team 716, Sullivan University, 6-2, CS 15
12. Team 992, Miami University of Ohio, 6-2, CS 12

Outstanding Witnesses:

Pablo Kenney, Team 361, Carleton College, 20 pts. on Defense
Jeonnag Sullivan, Team 921, Northwood University, 20 pts. on Plaintiff
Lauren Hodge, Team 544, Butler University, 20 pts. on Defense
Cassie Marchia, Team 494, Loyola University of Chicago, 20 pts. on Defense
Steve Klein, Team 752, Buffalo, 19 pts. on Defense and Plaintiff
Portia Weeks, Team 934, Mississippi Valley, 19 pts. on Defense
Jessica Gordon, Team 870, University of Central Florida, 18 pts. on Defense
Shelley Teems, Team 891, St. Vincent, 18 pts. on Defense
Alex Turner, Team 980, Illinois State University, 18 pts. on Plaintiff
John Tatman, Team 387, Eastern Michigan, 18 pts. on Defense
Brandon Robertson, Team 981, Illinois State, 18 pts. on Defense
Mike Lill, Team 981, Illinois State, 18 pts. on Plaintiff
Ashley Hardin, Team 309, The Ohio State University, 17 pts. on Plaintiff
Priyamvada Gupta, Team 725, Carnegie Mellon, 17 pts. on Plaintiff
Stephen O'Neal, Team 868, University of Central Florida, 17 pts. on Plaintiff
Elizabeth Gonzalez, Team 590, Cal Poly Pomona, 17 pts. on Defense
Chie Halton, Team 716, Sullivan University, 17 pts. on Plaintiff
Uriah Harrell, Team 506, Bowling Green, 17 pts. on Defense
Ryan Johnson, Team 387, Eastern Michigan, 17 pts. Plaintiff
Algebra Lanni, Team 386, Eastern Michigan, 17 pts. on Plaintiff
Katie Elsass, Team 450, Ohio Northern University, 16 pts. on Defense
Jake Yosefat, Team 724, Carnegie Mellon, 16 pts. on Defense
Mike Latham, Team 674, Wilmington, 16 pts. on Plaintiff
Taylor Kraus, Team 502, Minnesota, 16 pts. on Defense
Morgan Jenkins, Team 834, Murray State, 16 pts. on Defense
Elizabeth Bejarano, Team 868, University of Central Florida, 16 pts. on Plaintiff
Jennifer Zang, Team 981, Illinois State, 16 pts. on Plaintiff
Greg Yeager, Team 774, Wittenberg, 16 pts. on Defense

Outstanding Attorneys:

Emily Smart, Team 306, The Ohio State University, 19 pts. on Defense
Jordan Oswald, Team 868, University of Central Florida, 19 pts. on Plaintiff
Sam Curcuruto, Team 955, Michigan State, 19 pts. on Defense
Kristin Keppler, Team 307, The Ohio State University, 19 pts. on Plaintiff
Chris Mondoya, Team 590, Cal Poly Pomona, 19 pts. on Plaintiff
Ivory Johnson, Team 934, Mississippi Valley, 18 pts on Defense
Uriah Harrell, Team 506, Bowling Green, 18 pts. on Plaintiff
Andrew Hornung, Team 890, St. Vincent, 18 pts. on Plaintiff
Angela Moorman, Team 387, Eastern Michigan, 18 pts. on Defense
Amy Messner, Team 716, Sullivan University, 18 pts. on Defense

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum · « **Reply #52 on:** January 27, 2009, 02:02:45 pm »

Someone was left off the attorney awards: Ashley Rodabaugh of Loyola 495 received 18 ranks on defense.

The Gelf · « **Reply #53 on:** January 27, 2009, 07:13:22 pm »

Quote from: mockrook86 on January 21, 2009, 09:13:29 am

For me it wasn't the judges as much as that guy running the captains meetings. He was ineffective, thought he was funny with the tempurature stuff, he said he was a coach but I would hate to be on his team as he seems to be unable to put two thoughts together. Someone said he was judging too, "the dude" probably was more with it than this guy.

I think it's safe to say we've reached some kind of odd milestone on this site when the primary criticism of somebody running a captain's meeting is that he TELLS BAD JOKES. Jeez, I torture students with at least five bad jokes in every round I judge, and the students are forced to laugh (and make it sound as genuine as possible) since I am, like, the all-powerful judge and stuff.

And given my somewhat polarizing style of judging, I'm sure there are at least some mockers out there who are CONVINCED that I can't put two thoughts together (1.5 on good days, but never two).

Bloch · « **Reply #54 on:** January 28, 2009, 11:23:08 am »

Quote from: RaneofDeath on January 27, 2009, 01:06:55 am

My post was not to defend Bloch by any matter, I am more than fully aware that he can defend his own integrity. I simply wanted to ask a question. How can you justify Ad Hominem attacks on those that devote their time to us, to make our education better. Whether they be long time vets to AMTA (such as the esteemed Mr. Bloch) or they are former mockers revitalizing programs (many names come to mind, out of fairness to those I cannot name I won't glorify any one individual that I can name) or simply if they are attorneys who thought it would be interesting to help out a bit by judging a single round. Accusing attorneys who have already reached a position where they no longer need to impress others to advance through their ambitions, of not having a life because they help others is just absolutely ridiculous. We -need- coaches, AMTA reps, judges, etc. and how do we expect to continue to receive their help when we insult them after they give it?

Just my two cents, which I am rarely ever afraid of sharing.

In attempt to restore my integrity, I confess that I again intend to waste time this weekend on another undergraduate "fake law/academic/theater exercise" when I will assist Professor and lawyer Mary Lynn Neuhaus for something approaching the 20th time in the organization/administration of the Tri-State National at Loras. That waste will target 78 teams. Using our traditional but now conservative estimate of 7.5 undergrads per team, that is 585 undergrads exercising for 12 hours each. That is 7020 exercise hours which I at least hope will force thought and adaptation.

I believe Loras will host the second largest single field ever - second to the 98 team 7th National - and third largest gathering at a single site - behind the 7th and the 8th's 54 Gold and 40 Silver team fields. I look forward to seeing many p.com folks all of whom can again observe my waste of time, captains meeting efficiency and struggle against delay not caused by tournament hosts.

mocksluzer · « **Reply #55 on:** January 28, 2009, 12:04:19 pm »

I'm thoroughly looking forward to this weekend except for two things: the weather and Bloch's captain meetings. DO NOT BE LATE! And I'm quite serious about it. I personally plan on leaving here in about 15 minutes for first round's captain meeting.

Bloch · « **Reply #56 on:** January 28, 2009, 01:51:25 pm »

Quote from: mocksluzer on January 28, 2009, 12:04:19 pm

I'm thoroughly looking forward to this weekend except for two things: the weather and Bloch's captain meetings. DO NOT BE LATE! And I'm quite serious about it. I personally plan on leaving here in about 15 minutes for first round's captain meeting.

Well, at Loras, I have sometimes handled first round challenge pairing and then sometimes captains. We have extraordinarily seasoned administrators and at times distribute instant tasks a little ad hoc. I've also been known to be tournament concierge so to speak. Professor Neuhaus forwards for each Tri-State a detailed cuisine review of each dining opportunity that is not of typical chain, "Golden Arches" fare. Some spots reviewed are "pricey" so I'm quite visible offering suggestions for students from programs like mine who have public unversity budgets. The important thing from the view of we from the Tri-States is that our guests coming from greater distances be guided to real Tri-State food and beverage. If our guests can find it nowhere else, Bloch might do the baking, roasting and pouring himself. Bloch comes from great farm stock.

May I reemphasize here Professor Neuhaus's new directions for tournament parking which she has fully detailed in the e-mailed tournament memo. The Tri-State National field has many programs who have journeyed for Duhawk programming now for decades. In hopes of teaching these "old dogs" necessary new tricks, I reemphasize that parking policy is new.

Otherwise, I see nothing out of the Tri-State ordinary. Captains meetings last maybe twice as long as 39 pairs take longer to introduce and confirm then do twelve. That doesn't matter because judge assignment takes longer everywhere than the simultaneously scheduled captains meetings. Tri-State policy has been (since Tri-State I) that all judges report to every judges meeting.

Mockers who have never seen pairing procedures before may want to check the procedures out one of the rounds in Dubuque. The difference is that each set of cards desperately needs at least two tables so there's a lot more to see. Since absolutely every head AMTA tabulator has been a Tri-Stater throughout the glorious 25 year history of intercollegiate mocking, watching a Tri-Stater pair is sort of like watching a shepherd knit.

Tri-Staters (globally) have seasoned measures of tournament delay. We are the great majority of those who survived the delay of three-on-Saturday Nationals where Round 3 scheduled for maybe 6 P.M. often had trials commence as late as 9 P.M.. Of course, we Tri-Staters also solved that problem, 16 years ago, with 'The Milwaukee Schedule" for AMTA national events. So, if some who thought they suffered delay outside the Tri-States recently will join us in Dubuque. y'all should understand that we intentionally slow things down from brutal efficiency so that teams have chances to mix with their opponents and plan out their mutual socials for their evenings together in lovely Dubuque.

As for Mocksluzer's concern with weather, I counsel to be as best prepared as you can be. Every Tri-Stater is expert at "layering" their attire. For our Sun Belt friends, that means we often wear four or five tops and three or four bottoms AT THE SAME TIME! "Layering" insulates wonderfully.

I always remember my three bitterly cold AMTA events. I was AMTA rep at a qualifier at Hamline where the Pioneer Press headline read "Eighty Below!" All the mockers did well save, as I recall, a team from the Duluth-Superior area who tragically dropped their entry when all batteries in both municipalities froze. BUT, only the Superior part of the locale is "Tri-State!"

Then there was the Des Moines National with the horrendous ice storm on Thursday's travel day. By Sunday, we had enjoyed, as always, "de-layering" and stood outside the law school in short sleeves.

And then there was the chjallenging Silver National in Milwaukee (conducted in March during UWM's Spring Break) when the field included a delightful team of young ladies representing the University of Redlands. That may have been the first Southern California team to compete in an AMTA National event. When our field was directed to walk from our campus tournament site no more than three blocks to the UWM Union (I forget if the walk was for the Saturday evening Gasthaus introduction to Milwaukee beverages or for the Awards Banquet), it indeed was bone-chilling and I suspect the beautifully tanned and delightful Redlanders needed Milwaukee hospitality through "instant layering" the most. Those new friends obviously enjoyed their new adventure into the layered life as they took our tricks home with them, undoubtedly realized the special social benefits of "de-layering" and soon wrote a letter to me with the thanks of each team member as well as Professor Art. I still have that lovely letter and remain pleased that mock trial taught what now is likely all of Southern California why we Tri-Staters are so committed to the habit of layering.

Mocksluzer, the only downside I know of to layering is that it forces one of two choices. The first choice is for each mocker to load maybe three times the volume of their normal suitcase. The second option (which really works fine) is for a squad to purchase one of those creative devices that sucks the air out of a clothing storage bag tripling the numbers of garments in one bag. (We buy them at Walgreens.) Fortunately, Professor Neuhaus's attachment to the field lists all of the programs coming to Dubuque! Sun Belters should not hesitate to contact each other to work out a deal to share the expense of a garment bag sucker device.

Well, there I go again! I'm now once more opening myself for mass criticism that I have wasted time sharing opinions with undergraduates on "false law/academic/theatre exercise." All I can say is that I've been defending citizens from "true law" allegations of crime for now 30 years, 4 months and 13 days. The experience increases my efficiency in defending which, in turn, forces me occasionally to find ways to waste time. Wasting time is not all bad.

fiveoncross · « **Reply #57 on:** January 29, 2009, 03:49:47 pm »

Quote from: arcticlawyer on January 27, 2009, 08:29:26 am

Here is the Summary and the full should be on the site soon.

Outstanding Witnesses:

Algebra Lanni, Team 386, Eastern Michigan, 17 pts. on Plaintiff

Algebra is an amazing person. She not only plays the best Drew Walton, she helps me with my arithmetic. She even bought me a drink at the Crazy Donkey. Any mocker would find it a privilege to have her on their team. Cheers to you, Algebra...

mockboxoflove · « **Reply #58 on:** January 29, 2009, 09:42:02 pm »

Quote from: arcticlawyer on January 27, 2009, 08:29:26 am

Algebra Lanni, Team 386, Eastern Michigan, 17 pts. on Plaintiff

Who named you?

News:

Author Topic: ONU Tournament (Read 6864 times)