Scioly.org

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:

It just so happens that the Electric Vehicle Event Supervisor is from Mentor.

Other agree that it was a bad move for Chalker to be the arbitrator in this situation simply because of the affiliation issue

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.

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.

PianoDoc wrote:

John Richardsim wrote:

Flea wrote:I disagree. With the claim that other teams would do the same. They knew exactly what they were doing and I'm sure most other teams would agree that it is definitely cheating, regardless of what Chalker wants to say about it.

Also can I remind everyone that Chalker is affiliated with Centerville?

Yeah, and the U.S. Government is behind NASA, so moon landing=fake.

But no, seriously, I'd recommend that you don't make blatantly false accusations; they just make you look bad. I know it is difficult for you given the events that occurred, and you do have a right to be upset, but errors will happen and you should not let your emotions lead you to make statements you will later regret.

There's no need to be sarcastic and condescending, especially if you're someone of authority trying to prevent false accusations from occurring. And he's speculating, not accusing. He brings up an important point in that the decision ought not to have been decided by a figure affiliated with any party, especially the one being reviewed.

He's speculating, but in a very aggressive and inflammatory way. Several forum rules guide against this. Chalker has already gone far above and beyond in order to try to rectify a tough situation; don't make it worse.

Also, please note that due to the sensitive nature of this topic, administrators reserve the right to delete posts we deem break the forum rules, and hand out warnings if necessary.

I'm pretty sure chalker wasn't even on the arbitration committee; if you read his post, he refers to the arbitrators in the third person when he was talking about deciding the five-point penalty.

Such an awesome day in Columbus yesterday. The energy and enthusiasm was great; made a few new friends as well. Too bad, the EV issue has thrown such a dark cloud on the day.

Unome wrote:I'm pretty sure chalker wasn't even on the arbitration committee; if you read his post, he refers to the arbitrators in the third person when he was talking about deciding the five-point penalty.

"Centerville appealed this penalty, and after lengthy conversations amongst the event supervisor, the state director, and the 2 arbitrators (I’m one of them), it was mutually agreed that we would instead issue an overall Team penalty (per the General Rules), which wouldn’t impact their EV score, but rather their team score."

Not that it really matters anyway

MrHaleStorm1 wrote:Such an awesome day in Columbus yesterday. The energy and enthusiasm was great; made a few new friends as well. Too bad, the EV issue has thrown such a dark cloud on the day.

I hadn't felt happier before than when they announced that we (Mentor) had made it.

I don't understand how Flea is being sarcastic and condescending by making a valid point. Eventually that point will be made, so it's better that it is discussed and refuted right now. I'm pretty sure Chalker will have a logical response to all of this when he comes on.

Sciolapedia wrote:I don't understand how Flea is being sarcastic and condescending by making a valid point. Eventually that point will be made, so it's better that it is discussed and refuted right now. I'm pretty sure Chalker will have a logical response to all of this when he comes on.

Uh, I think they were referring to me. And from the looks of it, Chalker already has given a logical response.

No, I'm referring to Flea.

And no, Chalker has not responded to this point. I'm not pointing fingers as I'm pretty sure Chalker is innocent.

John Richardsim wrote:

Sciolapedia wrote:I don't understand how Flea is being sarcastic and condescending by making a valid point. Eventually that point will be made, so it's better that it is discussed and refuted right now. I'm pretty sure Chalker will have a logical response to all of this when he comes on.

Uh, I think they were referring to me. And from the looks of it, Chalker already has given a logical response.

I think we all just need to take a step away, and wait for a response. Just calm down, it'll be better for all of us.