It's a false accusation in that you are insinuating that chalker has a conflict of interests on some pretty loose evidence. Yes, he did play the same card by mentioning that the EV ES was from Mentor...and also that they were also involved in pretty much every part of the situation, including the decision to remove the 1000 point penalty in EV for a 5 point team penalty.Flea wrote:How was that a false accusation? I think it's important, for the sake of transparency, that everyone knows Chalker is affiliated with Mentor.
Chalker played the same card in the post above:
Other agree that it was a bad move for Chalker to be the arbitrator in this situation simply because of the affiliation issueIt just so happens that the Electric Vehicle Event Supervisor is from Mentor.
And who are these "others" you are mentioning? Are they others who may be biased by strong emotion? As someone who is not affiliated with either Mentor or Centerville, there doesn't really seem to be a problem here; in fact he has gone well out of his way to describe everything that has occurred.