This was a very good and thoughtful comment on the topic, and I'd like to take the time to respond to each point. I apologize in advance to any one with ADD or any other form of short attention span for the length of this post, but I think that the discussion may be good.
veiled threats about available weaponry and pugilistic abilities
My point above was not that I am an expert fighter who will hurt people. We could have each been Army Rangers with a better draw than Raylan Givens and a platoon at our back, or we could have been two out of shape nerds with no friends and nothing more dangerous than butter knife at our disposal. What I was trying to get across was that making retroactive threats that you would have definitely beaten me up with all of your friends is both juvenile and presumptive at best. Most of you don't really know who either of us is, and to say that you would have broken the law as a result of some one's actions is ascinine. You weren't there, and the violent person who was there didn't do anything, so quit the threats.
Also, I don't see where in the notes it states that the rep falsified the score cards. I do see where it states "[two tables were short judges, and cards were falsified in the two categories. The rep who called into the meeting could not explain how this happened ] . Based on what I see presented the cards could very well have been falsified by someone else and the rep failed to catch it and/or correct it accordingly to the established criteria.
Sounds very similar to your situation Dan, in that as the contest rep or team head cook, you both were the ones ultimately held accountable for not only your own actions but for others as well.
These are fair points, but does it matter? Even if the reps didn't cheat and I didn't wear the apron, we were all guilty by association. Does it make sense for guilt of cheating by association to carry a lesser punishment than guilt of innappropriate clothing by association? Don't forget that this board could have voted to change my punishment to one year, and they chose not to. They could have chosen to punish this rep for longer than one year, and they chose not to. If you think that makes sense and is okay, then that's your position and the end of it.
It also begs the question of how good is an organization where this is even possible? If the reps didn't cheat, who did? How did this happen, and what's to prevent it from happening again? What, if anything, was done to find the people responsible? Was anything done to keep this from happening again? Do you even care?
Furthermore the reps involved were not banned, they were terminated
Moot point. They were fired as reps but are still allowed to attend competitions. I was banned from competing, but I'm allowed to attend KCBS competitions. Semantics. Either of us
may be allowed to judge, but I'd question whether any organizer would want that.
I know your ban was 3 years, will you be automatically reinstated at that point or do you have to formally reapply?
I don't have to reapply for anything at the end of the three years. I go immediately to probation, should I choose to compete.
I think that having score cards falsified on your watch would be a bigger issue that someone wearing inappropriate clothing on your watch.
...I can see where a rep that has a record of serving an orginization would draw less of a sentence than a team captain with a history if being quick to criticize an organization....
And here's the crux of it. You can see it. I can see it. It's apparently what happened. Is that right? Are you okay with it? Is any one okay with it? Does some one being chummy with the BOD allow for association with cheating to be punished lighter than association with a penis apron? I mean, it's a simple question in the end: "Are you okay competing under a sanctioning body that allows friendship or some other factor to bring those associated with cheating back into the fold sooner than those associated with annappropriate clonthing?" If you're fine with it, then you can say so, and I won't attack you for it. If not, then I'd agree with you, but
everything else in this thread is subterfuge from that central issue.
you can't really think that continuing to bash the organization and its leadership as a whole...is going to improve your odds of being reinstated early.
I think you have a serious misunderstanding about me and my intent. I have never asked to be reinstated early. Let's be clear on that. When a board member voluntarily offerred to move to reduce my ban to one year, I was happy, but when other board members, and eventually even that person, chose to waylay that motion and then ask me for a payoff to get it heard, I got angry. When some one else voluntarily made a similar motion, it was voted down. The
only reason this thread even exists is because I came to The Brethren to sell my competition rig and I decided to check out the forum while I was signed in, leading me to find this mess. Read my sig if you're interested in the pit. I'm not here to try to convince people to let me compete. I'm here to tell you the truth that the folks running the KCBS treat people differently based on their BBQ pedigree and revenue production.
I don't deny that I've been a critic of the KCBS when I felt it was warranted, but should critics be punished for not towing the company line and being lemmings? Most of my critiques have been that KCBS is concerned with little more than money. My experiences since being banned only confirm that. I'm not asking any one if it "makes sense" to them, I'm asking if you think it's right...and if you do, you all deserve each other!
dmp
