KCBS Says Cheating Better Than Offending TOTY

[Smokedelic]

Someone speak up.. is there any team out there that cares if a contest has no significant sponsorship as long as the prize pool is intact.? if sponsors dropped out becase of the apron, again, no effect on teams, no effect on the event. Teams dont care about sponsors, but they care about scoring.

I'll speak up and respectfully disagree.

I don't know of too many contests that can survive without sponsors. It's extremely difficult for a contest to cover expenses and pay out decent prize money just from entry fees. Without sponsors, there would be a lot less contests.

So, yes, I care about sponsors just as much as I care about accurate scoring, because without sponsors, there would be no need for accurate scoring.

 

[Muzzlebrake]

My responses are in blue. :Answer me this, AS A FELLOW COMPETITOR, would you accept 'averaged' scores with a grain of salt? Would you feel whole if 2 of your categories received fictitious scores, or would you feel royally screwed? I dont think everyone feels as though they were made whole, and as a member of KCBS, I'm disillusioned that acts of a contest official that negatively effect the outcome of a contest were not dealt with harshly.

This you too?

And please understand that I am not quoting to single out a person just rather make a point on something. I'm not picking on anyone, hope it doesn't seem like that.

 

[kenthanson]

I'll speak up and respectfully disagree.

I don't know of too many contests that can survive without sponsors. It's extremely difficult for a contest to cover expenses and pay out decent prize money just from entry fees. Without sponsors, there would be a lot less contests.

So, yes, I care about sponsors just as much as I care about accurate scoring, because without sponsors, there would be no need for accurate scoring.

But that would be on the organizers to deal with sponsorship, he was stating that KCBS doesn't have any irons in the fire for sponsorship but they have the biggest one in the fire for scoring. I understand where your coming from, no sponsors equals no contests, but like I mentioned that's not what KCBS does.

 

[dmprantz]

If it makes any difference whatsoever, in regards to the specific competition where I was involved, I personally called the organizer and the mayor of the town after the event to apologize for what happened. I felt that they were owed an apology from some one. Both of them told me that they were not offended nor bothered by the event. Apparently some one told the KCBS BOD that at least one of them was, and they never verified the statement.

dmp

 

[Smokedelic]

But that would be on the organizers to deal with sponsorship, he was stating that KCBS doesn't have any irons in the fire for sponsorship but they have the biggest one in the fire for scoring. I understand where your coming from, no sponsors equals no contests, but like I mentioned that's not what KCBS does.

Again, I respectfully disagree.

My reply was to a direct question asked, which I included in my post. There was nothing in the question that was asked about KCBS's role in obtaining sponsors.

However, since you brought it up, KCBS has a lot of "irons in the fire" when it comes to sponsorship. KCBS sells a product to organizers. That product consists of a standard set of rules, a standard scoring system, certified judges, KCBS Reps to manage the contest, and a name that is recognizable in the BBQ community.

KCBS also does a lot of marketing for organizers through their website and the Bullsheet advertising their contest to potential cook teams. More cook teams can mean more public attendance, which makes it easier for organizers to find sponsors. It's one of the biggest reasons why sanctioned contests typically pay more than "backyard" events.

KCBS would be wise to protect the brand they've developed, which is why the possible reinstatement of a Rep, found to have blatantly disregarded established rules and procedures, is foolish at best, IMO.

 

[Here Piggy Piggy]

I do believe that you should hear from someone on the BOD and while I was not on the BOD for either one of these issues, I have voted on them both when they have come up again this year.
Like I am sure that you are aware, I cannot go into details that were discussed in closed session, I can only explain some of my thoughts and why I voted the way that I did. Either way, I support the decisions of the BOD.
Apron issue - Because of not experiencing discussion firsthand when the issue happened, I had to rely on the recollection of the BOD experiences. I honestly do not remember which way that I voted at the time. I think that the lesson I learned, that I have tried to put into play since is to address the issue. I certainly did not put any merit to whether the individual was a member or not concerning the penalty.
Rep in Training - people have talked about there being a connection with the new scoring system and the reinstatement. This is all news to me. I highly doubt that it was considered. What I personally did consider was the length of service this individual had prior to his termination. According to his questionnaire filled out when he ran for the BOD in Dec 2011, at that time he states 12 years as a member, 10 years as a CBJ and 7 years as a rep. This means countless contests judged and repped with no major issues (as far as I know) until this one. Not to discount the severity but it was fixed at the time, maybe not correctly, but fixed at the time, discussed to insure it does not happen again, and the rep was terminated. He has been approved to retrain and must shadow current reps before coming back before the board to possibly be reinstated.
I am not perfect and never can claim to be. I have made mistakes and have paid for those mistakes, but thankfully do not make the same mistake twice. I believe that any person who gets what they love doing pulled away from them because of an error that they made will not make that mistake again should they get another chance.
I appreciate all the interaction and comments on this forum and want to be an active participant. Those of you that know me, know that I want nothing but good things for KCBS and competition BBQ. The lifelong friendships that I have been fortunate to have because of this wonderful sport of BBQ keep me going. I strongly encourage members to forward concerns to bod@kcbs.us and to me directly at mpeters@ksbs.us.

Mike Peters
KCBS Board Member

 

[Smoke'n Ice]

Thank You Mike.

Length of service does not equate to to an automatic pass. I will not consider doing a contest if this particular rap, weather in training or not, is involved. He has joined my short list of KCBS reps that do not have the integrity of the sport as his or her first concern.

Mack Yarbrough
Smoke'n Ice

 

[Hawg Father of Seoul]

I do believe that you should hear from someone on the BOD and while I was not on the BOD for either one of these issues, I have voted on them both when they have come up again this year.
Like I am sure that you are aware, I cannot go into details that were discussed in closed session, I can only explain some of my thoughts and why I voted the way that I did. Either way, I support the decisions of the BOD.
Apron issue - Because of not experiencing discussion firsthand when the issue happened, I had to rely on the recollection of the BOD experiences. I honestly do not remember which way that I voted at the time. I think that the lesson I learned, that I have tried to put into play since is to address the issue. I certainly did not put any merit to whether the individual was a member or not concerning the penalty.
Rep in Training - people have talked about there being a connection with the new scoring system and the reinstatement. This is all news to me. I highly doubt that it was considered. What I personally did consider was the length of service this individual had prior to his termination. According to his questionnaire filled out when he ran for the BOD in Dec 2011, at that time he states 12 years as a member, 10 years as a CBJ and 7 years as a rep. This means countless contests judged and repped with no major issues (as far as I know) until this one. Not to discount the severity but it was fixed at the time, maybe not correctly, but fixed at the time, discussed to insure it does not happen again, and the rep was terminated. He has been approved to retrain and must shadow current reps before coming back before the board to possibly be reinstated.
I am not perfect and never can claim to be. I have made mistakes and have paid for those mistakes, but thankfully do not make the same mistake twice. I believe that any person who gets what they love doing pulled away from them because of an error that they made will not make that mistake again should they get another chance.
I appreciate all the interaction and comments on this forum and want to be an active participant. Those of you that know me, know that I want nothing but good things for KCBS and competition BBQ. The lifelong friendships that I have been fortunate to have because of this wonderful sport of BBQ keep me going. I strongly encourage members to forward concerns to bod@kcbs.us and to me directly at mpeters@ksbs.us.

Mike Peters
KCBS Board Member

Thank you for your response.

Please remember that if you do not know enough of the facts to make an informed decision there is more honor in abstaining from a vote than voting with the majority.

You have every right to cast your vote however you wish, but there are ALWAYS consequences.

Again, thanks for having the apron to speak your mind.

 

[Hawg Father of Seoul]

I am not perfect and never can claim to be. I have made mistakes and have paid for those mistakes, but thankfully do not make the same mistake twice. I believe that any person who gets what they love doing pulled away from them because of an error that they made will not make that mistake again should they get another chance.

BTW- you still have the opportunity to practice this philosophy. It is a noble one.

AND now you know that in one case there was no prior knowledge, so there was no mistake.

 

[Icekub]

Again, thanks for having the apron to speak your mind.

This made me coat my monitor in a nice spritz of ice water! :mrgreen:

 

[Teamfour]

Ever hear of a company hire back an employee that falsified a document?.. maybe as simple as lying on a resume?. Not likely. You're fired, and escorted to the door with your chit in a box.

Yep, the company is called the United States of America. The American people constantly look the other way when the "reps" for our people screw up royally and then reapply for the position (run again) and promptly get elected.

I'm not disagreeing with the position that serious wrong-doers should receive harsh punishments. My point is that, society today, has lost its sense of decorum, honesty, and integrity and therefore is all too willing to be conflict-averse.

 

[Here Piggy Piggy]

"Please remember that if you do not know enough of the facts to make an informed decision there is more honor in abstaining from a vote than voting with the majority."

Might or might not have voted with the majority, I certainly do not recall. Tried to go back to confirm one way or the other and could not find the answer.
I vote based upon the information that I have at the time and live with that decision...

 

[dmprantz]

Mr Peters,

Thank you for taking the time to address this issue publically. I am honestly still deciding whether or not there is more I wish to say, but I started this thread because you personally were one of six people who voted in March to uphold my competition ban at 3 years plus probation, and then voted this month to "re-hire" the rep responsible for, shall we call it "illegal scoring," back as a RIT after less than one year. Before I say anything else, I'd like to confirm that I understand your position correctly. Of course, I don't expect anything that you say to apply to other members of the board.

On the primary issue, do I understand correctly that for the vote in March, you did not have know anything about the vote nor have a position and simply voted with the majority, but immediately after that vote realized that it was a good idea to understand the issue upon which you are voting? Is that the reason why the votes from you were so different?

On another question regarding the rep's history with the organization, am I to understand that you as a board performed research to find facts related to him? You looked up old documentation from 18 months earlier when he ran for the board, and you used information contained in that documentation detailing the length and magnatude of his membership and service to the organization to factor into your vote?

Thank you,

dmp

 

[Here Piggy Piggy]

dmp,
As I stated, I voted based upon the information that I had at the time to not lessen the penalty that was given to you. It just happened to be in the majority. Two different issues, two different votes.
As to the rep, I have met him in the past and knew basics of his history. I looked on the KCBS member section to find out exactly how long he served KCBS. I used that information along with other information that was learned in closed session to make my decision to vote for him to join the RIT pool. If and when he completes those requirements, I will then vote based upon the information that I have whether I agree or disagree for him to be a KCBS Rep. No matter the outcome, I will support the decision of the BOD.
Should you ever compete in a KCBS event going forward, I would guess that you will make sure that no member of your team act inappropriately.

 

[sdbbq1234]

"Please remember that if you do not know enough of the facts to make an informed decision there is more honor in abstaining from a vote than voting with the majority."

Might or might not have voted with the majority, I certainly do not recall. Tried to go back to confirm one way or the other and could not find the answer.
I vote based upon the information that I have at the time and live with that decision...

Look, at face value, someone tried to kill a mosquito with a sledge hammer (DM).

Then when another offense happened, more severe in most folks views, it was a slap on the wrist.

op2:

Whatever, I do not agree with the punishment for DM, nor do I agree with the KCBS rep's punishment. They are reversed.

wallace

 

[Uomograsso]

dmp,
As I stated, I voted based upon the information that I had at the time to not lessen the penalty that was given to you. It just happened to be in the majority. Two different issues, two different votes.
As to the rep, I have met him in the past and knew basics of his history. I looked on the KCBS member section to find out exactly how long he served KCBS. I used that information along with other information that was learned in closed session to make my decision to vote for him to join the RIT pool. If and when he completes those requirements, I will then vote based upon the information that I have whether I agree or disagree for him to be a KCBS Rep. No matter the outcome, I will support the decision of the BOD.
Should you ever compete in a KCBS event going forward, I would guess that you will make sure that no member of your team act inappropriately.

Mr. Peters, yes taking a persons years of service into account should be done in relation to the severity of the offense. Since the matter was discussed in closed session there is no way anyone that is not on the BOD would know what the facts are. Going off second hand information in this thread there is one thing that troubles me. That is that the rep in question refused to give no explanation of what occurred and what part they played in the incident. If that is true there is no way they should ever be reinstated. That's what your research should have looked into. If you didn't have enough info you should have requested that the motion be tabled and brought back up at a time in which you had the proper information. Same thing with apron incident. I don't think it would have been that difficult to have the matter tabled and then contact DMP directly. I just get the feeling that you went along with the members of the BOD that have been there for quite a while and which some might label as "good ole boys." I think that is what many of the posters here are frustrated with. The more the BOD changes, the more it stays the same.

 

[dmprantz]

As to the rep, I have met him in the past and knew basics of his history....Should you ever compete in a KCBS event going forward, I would guess that you will make sure that no member of your team act inappropriately.

I find these comments to be evidence of why I started this thread. Either I'm misunderstanding you, or you are saying that you feel that having a team member act inappropriately is worthy of stricter punishment than a rep, that you knew, who submitted false score sheets.

dmp

 

[drbbq]

Guys, i feel lucky that we have a board member here being honest. If we beat the hell out of him we won't have him anymore.

 

[sdbbq1234]

Mr. Peters, yes taking a persons years of service into account should be done in relation to the severity of the offense.

What??? You have got to be kidding me!!:shock:

wallace

 

[BBQchef33]

However, since you brought it up, KCBS has a lot of "irons in the fire" when it comes to sponsorship. KCBS sells a product to organizers. That product consists of a standard set of rules, a standard scoring system, certified judges, KCBS Reps to manage the contest, and a name that is recognizable in the BBQ community.

KCBS also does a lot of marketing for organizers through their website and the Bullsheet advertising their contest to potential cook teams. More cook teams can mean more public attendance, which makes it easier for organizers to find sponsors. It's one of the biggest reasons why sanctioned contests typically pay more than "backyard" events.

just to clarify something (which you may already know.)

The only advertising KCBS does for a contest is list it on the website and posssibly in a schedule in the bullsheet, both of which the organizer pays a $350 listing fee for. Any real ads you see in the bullsheet for a contest is advertising space also purchased by the organizer separate and apart from any listing/sanctioning fees.

As an organizer, the only value I see in KCBS sanctioning is the perceived 'integrity' of a sanctioned event. Everything else,(scoring system and reps) can be gotten from multiple sources. So, since all IMO, I am paying for is the veil of integrity, which in this case was compromised... all i would be left with after this contest is a black eye.