KCBS Says Cheating Better Than Offending TOTY

Here Piggy Piggy said:
The truth is that a prior board handed down the punishments. They were in office when all this occured. They had all the immediate first hand knowledge of both issues. They voted for the punishments based upon that knowledge.

There must have been a reason for them to issue the punishments that they did. I am not going to go back and second guess each and every decision that a prior board makes and have to vote on motions based upon the information that I have at the time.

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.

Mike Peters
KCBS Board Member
Click to expand...


Mr. Peters, I'm not trying to split hairs here or berate you in any way, but I think that the 2 points in red above is where the confusion lies in my mind concerning this issue.

Regarding the apron issue, you stated that you relied on the knowledge of the board concerning the incident and you voted based on that knowledge. But then, when it came to the rep's issue in question, it appears that you took the time to look up answers to questions from a questionnaire from years past to help you make that decision. Thereby not just relying on the boards decision, but actually doing some leg work to come to your conclusion.

It just seems that the way you voted for one was dealt with and approached very differently than the other looking at it from the out side in.

Maybe you can shed some clarity on the confusion as I am certain that I am not the only one a little confused by these apparently contradicting statements.
 
drbbq said:
He's telling us what he thinks. The vote has been counted. I appreciate his honesty. Like it or not.

Instead of picking a meaningless fight here, just don't vote for him next time. Maybe even run for the board yourself.
Click to expand...

i'm not "picking a fight". i'm voicing my opinion and addressing it to the board member direct.

i surely would run if i thought i had a rat's a** chance, but i'm an asshat and wouldn't get any votes.
 
drbbq said:
And we wonder why the board members stay away.

But yet...you asked for other board members to chime in???
Where are the board members that we all voted for so they'd help change things? Steve and Candy at least post once in a while and I understand not standing in the middle of the fire.

Dave? Jeff?
Click to expand...

????
 
I'm sticking by my guns too. this thread has nothing to do with KCBS stating cheating is better than offending the Team of the Year as the title states.

As I thought from the onset, it a sensational way to once again draw undue attention to an incident in which someone felt wronged.

In the course of this discussion many have complained about people not being treated equally and look to the two disparate examples given. Yet during this discussion those same people stumping for equlaity have never once metioned the fact that another team and person involved in the very same incident of inappropriate behavior recieved a much lesser punishment. Instead all anger and comparison is being drawn to another completely separate incident with an entirely different set of circumstances. So let's be honest, if this was really about equailty and people treated the same shouldn't we at the very least start with comparing the punishments of all parties involved in the same incident? If we are in search of equality lets start by comparing apples to apples. Why was it that 2 people involved were banned for 3 years and the other person implicated was only given one year of probation? That doesnt seem equal to me, yet not one person including the OP has mentioned that, nor has that been the basis of comparing punishments. I too think that Dan's 3 year ban was kind of harsh, but lets look at this entire picture before start comparing it to others.

In the case of the Rep, i understand that many feel the punishment was too light and this was a much more ergregious act. Those may be fair points, in fact I may tend to agree with some of them, but that is another discussion altogether and has nothing to do with a ban for inappropriate behavior. In fact if we are to compare the severity of the rep's punishment it would be much more fair to compare it to actions taken against other reps for mistakes, errors, oversights or whatever you would like to call it.

And whil many have complained that the rep's punishment was too light yet not one person has made mention of bringing that to the rules committee. I'm not sure if that is the proper place to start but I guarantee it is more effective than bitching about he got a year and somone else got 3 for a much lesser offense. The solution seemingly offered by this discussion is to bash the board member naive enough to bravely step in and try to explain, scream poor Dan and complain how the entire organization is rife with corruption, nepotism, cronyism and lacks and integrity.

If you think the rep should have recieved a stiffer punishment, than let's try and direct that discussion towards the proper channels. Complaining that someone else was punished more for less in this thread, may bring some new light to the 3 year ban, is not going to change the way reps are punished.

The other thing that many seem to have issue with is with the reinstatement of the rep and not a reduction in 3 year ban. Once again I am failing to see the logic in this argument.

In one case we have a person that served their sentence (i understand it may not be harsh enough for some) and then applied to be reinstated. The other has admittedly done nothing to ask to have his sentence reduced and has since quit the organization and objects to taking the most basic steps towards once again becoming part of the organization. So I am confused as to how these people are to be treated the same.

One is someone that made an incredibly stupid mistake that accepted the punishment, continued to be part of the organization and is now taking steps towards once again holding postions of greater responsibility within the organization. the other issomeone that made an incredibly stupid mistake that has not accepted the punishment, is no longer part of or willing to rejoin the organization and instead chooses to throw stones and accusations from the outside. Once again to me I see apples and oranges.

So I'm sticking to my guns too. The more this discussion goes on the more I see it as a way to bash KCBS over 2 very differnt but in both cases very unfortunate events that have left a seeping wound on the collective organization. Are they both problems that should be dealt with? Absolutely. But to think they are one and the same or in any way present eveidence the BOD approves of cheating more than offending someone is miles from the truth.
 
Muzzlebrake said:
In one case we have a person that served their sentence (i understand it may not be harsh enough for some) and then applied to be reinstated. The other has admittedly done nothing to ask to have his sentence reduced and has since quit the organization and objects to taking the most basic steps towards once again becoming part of the organization. So I am confused as to how these people are to be treated the same.

One is someone that made an incredibly stupid mistake that accepted the punishment, continued to be part of the organization and is now taking steps towards once again holding postions of greater responsibility within the organization. the other issomeone that made an incredibly stupid mistake that has not accepted the punishment, is no longer part of or willing to rejoin the organization and instead chooses to throw stones and accusations from the outside. Once again to me I see apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

You make some good points. Some I agree with and others not so much. What I've tried to say many times is that it's really up to how you personally feel about this. If you want to look at individual actions in a vacuum, then that is your right. I do not look at things that way, and to me the point is specifically to compare the punishments handed down. You don't see it, or don't agree with it, and I think it's best that every one agree to disagree on that.

In response to the paragraph above, it contains inaccuracies and misconceptions that I would like to clear up: I was not a member of KCBS at the time of the incident and have not renewed since then. While I didn't "drop out" after my punishment, you can bet your a$$ that I didn't rejoin after being banned and then extorted for the membership fees. What's more, I believe that it is against the law for my punishment to be based on my membership in the organization. I really wish you would acknowledge that and say that either you feel the KCBS should violate the law or not. It's a red herring. It may be important to you, and I know it's important to some on the KCBS BOD, but if it were legal, they'd require memberships to compete, and this would all be moot.

Also, though it was not my intent to make a big deal of this at the onset of this thread, you seem to be glossing over the fact that I did not make an incredibly stupid mistake. I signed a piece of paper and let some one else accept a 9th place call because I didn't feel well. I could go on about what Mr Peters has done and said to me on this thread and how that deserved a three year punishment or not, but it's a dead horse. The facts are that he thinks what I did (or didn't do) deserves to be away from competitions for three years, and he thinks that what Mr. Ashford did deserves only one. I see a problem with that. You do not. I'm sure we'll both live.

dmp
 
dmprantz said:
You make some good points. Some I agree with and others not so much. What I've tried to say many times is that it's really up to how you personally feel about this. If you want to look at individual actions in a vacuum, then that is your right. I do not look at things that way, and to me the point is specifically to compare the punishments handed down. You don't see it, or don't agree with it, and I think it's best that every one agree to disagree on that.

In response to the paragraph above, it contains inaccuracies and misconceptions that I would like to clear up: I was not a member of KCBS at the time of the incident and have not renewed since then. While I didn't "drop out" after my punishment, you can bet your a$$ that I didn't rejoin after being banned and then extorted for the membership fees. What's more, I believe that it is against the law for my punishment to be based on my membership in the organization. I really wish you would acknowledge that and say that either you feel the KCBS should violate the law or not. It's a red herring. It may be important to you, and I know it's important to some on the KCBS BOD, but if it were legal, they'd require memberships to compete, and this would all be moot.

Also, though it was not my intent to make a big deal of this at the onset of this thread, you seem to be glossing over the fact that I did not make an incredibly stupid mistake. I signed a piece of paper and let some one else accept a 9th place call because I didn't feel well. I could go on about what Mr Peters has done and said to me on this thread and how that deserved a three year punishment or not, but it's a dead horse. The facts are that he thinks what I did (or didn't do) deserves to be away from competitions for three years, and he thinks that what Mr. Ashford did deserves only one. I see a problem with that. You do not. I'm sure we'll both live.

dmp
Click to expand...

I find it a little humorous that in the midst of all this you and I have been having the one of the more constructive discussions about this.

I agree with you that we should compare punishments, just not the 2 you choose to use. I dont think that punishments should be looked at in a vacuum I think they should be compared to others with similar circumstances. Once again the ones you have chosen do not meet that criteria and the one that is similar is being ignored.

I am not sure what inaccuracies and misconceptions you are refering too. Am I wrong in thinking that you are no longer part of the KCBS? I do not think that the KCBS took your membership into account when they doled out your punishment. While that punishment may have been harsh, I am sure that it was done legally and within the scope of powers the the BOD possesses. You will have to excuse me if I do not consider asking you to pay the $35 fee for membership that everyone else in the world also has to pay as extortion. I stand by my remarks that you are no longer a part of the organization and continue to critcize from without.

I also stand by my remark that you made a stupid mistake. If the word stupid is a little harsh, I apologize but I think it is. The fact of the matter is that as head cook you are responsible, like it or not. A member of your team did something inappropriate, you get the blame. Like it or not thats how it is. You not liking or accpeting that fact is not going to change it. In fact IMO your continued refusal to accept this further demonstrates your unwillingness to accept and abide by the established rules.

Thoughout this thread you have claimed no responsibility for the act and consistently claimed you were wrongly accussed, yet you freely admit to offering an apology to the organizer and mayor for the same act. To me that is ambiguous at best, proclaiming to one side you didn't do anything and apologizing for it to another.

Why is it that you continually skirt the fact that another person involved in the same incident also received a much lesser sentence and continue to use Mr Ashford's punishment as a comparison? Why was their punishment so much less than yours? Once again I stand by my statement that is a much more equitable basis for comparison than comparing it to Mr Ashford's. Granted it might not have the same effect as throwing stones at a disgraced rep, but I think we all know that.
 
Sean,

I'm not sure of the legal terminology but I think folks aren't addressing the disparity of punishment between the team members for the same reasons an accomplice in a crime gets a different sentence than the someone else more directly involved. IE; the trigger man gets life and the driver of the getaway car gets 10 years and probation. in the case of DMP it seems he was considered the triggerman.

just a thought. ;)


now.... folks... I'm telling u know you are shooting yourself in the foot by expecting mike to explain his action s as an Individual. the way he voted for something long ago has no relevance to him as a member here offering us insight. it was a majority vote by the whole board. keep badgering him and all we will see his shadow.
 
Here Piggy Piggy said:
Uomograsso, I see your point. As to the rep issue, that was all handled by the previous board. I have to trust in their judgement to allow possible reinstatement which is what I voted on to put the rep back in the RIT program.
Things can be tabled and tabled until possibly forgotten without a decision being made. I make decisions based upon the information that I have.
dmp, I am making decisions based upon what has happened in the past and punishment that was handed out which is now coming up. I apologize if my comment was interpreted differently than I intended. I doubt that the rep will make the same mistake again should he make it back into the rep pool.
Ray, thanks for the thoughts. I could have kept to myself but I think it is important to explain my decisions when I can. I will pay the price one way or another...
Click to expand...

I think the frustration of a lot of poster's here is the perceived inequality between the two punishments. Like the old saying, it is like trying to compare apples to oranges. But one thing stands out to me is to my knowledge there is no formal code of conduct for BBQ contests other than "moral turpitude" which so vague it could include almost anything. Therefore the punishments can seem arbitrary and capricious. I think that is at the heart of DMP's complaint. He was given the hammer because he feels that a couple of teams with connections to the BOD complained about the apron incident so the BOD hammered him. Then we have a rep who at best made a gross error in handling scoring at a contest and worst out and out cheated. To many this appears to be a far worse incident than the apron' This was further enhanced by DMP being denied reinstatement after a year and the rep being allowed a chance to regain their status by becoming a rep-in-training. Wouldn't it have also been fair to give DMP a second chance by allowing him to return with probation as well?

So the perception is cheat and you are banned for year, then you can get your job back....have a lapse in judgement (or in this case be the captain for a team in which one person had a lapse in judgement) and get banned for three years. Can you see how some might perceive this as a gross inequality in punishment? Perception is reality unfortunately in some cases.


Also, for those wising to contact the KCBS BOD, you can use the link below which gives a list of board members and their KCBS email address.

http://www.kcbs.us/about_board.php
 
Let's take this one step at a time. It will likely be long, but such is life.

Muzzlebrake said:
I agree with you that we should compare punishments, just not the 2 you choose to use. I dont think that punishments should be looked at in a vacuum I think they should be compared to others with similar circumstances. Once again the ones you have chosen do not meet that criteria and the one that is similar is being ignored.
Click to expand...

I honestly think it's fair to say that we agree to disagree on this. It's not that I think my punishment relative to "Fred's" was fair, but I think it's a bigger deal when comparing the punishment from an apron to falsifying scores. Like I said, agree to disagree. That horse is dead, butchered, and being fed to dogs as I type this.

Muzzlebrake said:
I am not sure what inaccuracies and misconceptions you are refering too. Am I wrong in thinking that you are no longer part of the KCBS?
Click to expand...

I did not quit KCBS after the punishment. I was already not a member. Maybe a small difference, but the way you characterized the situation, it sounded like I stopped paying dues because of the punishment, when in fact, I stopped paying dues because in 2011 the KCBS promised a free membership to Sam's Club on their website if I joined. After I joined and couldn't get the free membership, the KCBS office staff said that they just hadn't updated the website (and did that day). I felt cheated and lied to, so I didn't re-up the next year. I never slammed the KCBS publically for it because I thought it was petty, but a member of the BOD said in this forum that he would refuse to take action on things I wrote in this forum because I wasn't a member.

Muzzlebrake said:
I do not think that the KCBS took your membership into account when they doled out your punishment. While that punishment may have been harsh, I am sure that it was done legally and within the scope of powers the the BOD possesses.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, at least to a point. I don't know what was discussed in August of last year, but in September or October when one of the members of the BOD who voted to punish me tried to make a motion to reduce the punishment, some one on the board argued that it shouldn't be done because I wasn't a member. Yeah, it happened in Executive Session, but I know about it. Don't expect any one to confirm or deny it, but it happened, and I don't think it was legal according to government.

Muzzlebrake said:
You will have to excuse me if I do not consider asking you to pay the $35 fee for membership that everyone else in the world also has to pay as extortion. I stand by my remarks that you are no longer a part of the organization and continue to critcize from without.
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive me if I disagree with you. You'll also have to forgive the IRS if it violates the law. You do not have to be a member to compete, and I am banned from competing. Why should I have to join to change that? They are unrelated, except for those who want to increase the bottom line of the company.

Muzzlebrake said:
The fact of the matter is that as head cook you are responsible, like it or not. A member of your team did something inappropriate, you get the blame. Like it or not thats how it is. You not liking or accpeting that fact is not going to change it. In fact IMO your continued refusal to accept this further demonstrates your unwillingness to accept and abide by the established rules.
Click to expand...

Sadly, you are wrong again. Contrary to popular belief, the 2012 KCBS rules do not indicate that a head cook is responsible for everything his team does. A lot of people want it to say that, but it just doesn't. I encourage you to read the first two sentences of those rules. They say that the entire team is responsible "jointly and severally" which means that any person on the team can be held responsible for any other's actions, including guests. While that certainly opens up the door for me to be punished for him, it is not the same thing as saying that I am responsible for everything he does. As much as people want it to mean that the board was obligated to hold me responsible, it means something different.

Muzzlebrake said:
Thoughout this thread you have claimed no responsibility for the act and consistently claimed you were wrongly accussed, yet you freely admit to offering an apology to the organizer and mayor for the same act. To me that is ambiguous at best, proclaiming to one side you didn't do anything and apologizing for it to another.
Click to expand...

So the apologies. The two days after the competition, I called every one I knew on the BOD to apologize that the incident had happened. I was sorry to them that they had to go through an emergency meeting on account of the incident. I also called the organizer to apologize to her. It doesn't mean that I admitted culpabillity for it, but I felt badly that the whole thing happened. Keep that in mind the next time some one claims that if I had apologized to the board I would have been punished lighter.

The day after the punishment was handed out, some one on the board who voted to ban me called me up in order to explain why. One of the things he said was that the board was told that the mayor of the town was embarressed because of not only the incident, but also the publishing of a photograph of it. I didn't take the photo, didn't publish it, and have honestly never seen it (nor do I want to). My former teamate didn't take or publish the photo either. I felt that the honorable thing to do was to call him and apologize for his embarressment, even though I didn't do it. The funny thing is that he has twice told me that he was not embarressed...some one lied to the BOD. Still, I apologized because I was sorry for some things that happened. I don't think that means that I was responsible for it. You may disagree.

Muzzlebrake said:
Why is it that you continually skirt the fact that another person involved in the same incident also received a much lesser sentence and continue to use Mr Ashford's punishment as a comparison?
Click to expand...

I don't think I've skirted it. I've explained what happened. To me, the point of this thread is that submitting false score sheets is worse than wearing the apron, worse than providing said apron, and worse than being a team captain in that situation. My point is comparing those two punishments. Your point is to compare two different punishments, and it honestly sounds like subterfuge to me. Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

dmp
 
From the KCBS rules:

CAUSES FOR DISQUALIFICATION & EVICTION of a team, its members and/or guests: A cook team is responsible jointly and severally for its head cook, its team members and its guests.

This seems to be the reason why you were jumbled in for what your team mate did. Again, not your fault, but it is in writing.

KCBS Creed: Rules are designed to be fair and equal to all cookers. Integrity of the Contestants, Judges, KCBS Contest Representatives, and Organizers is essential.

What they got you on I ASSUME is INTEGRITY. BUUUTTTTT, opens up a can of worms for the actions of a contest rep.

edit: I was typing as you were so I have the rule posted up top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
What happened to comps?
Replies
3
Views
609
twatsonr1
T
L
chips and splinters
Replies
4
Views
836
Smoked&Baked
S
P
Amateur KCBS help
Replies
1
Views
292
thirdeye
thirdeye
shares
Competition BBQ trailer
Replies
2
Views
2K
shares
shares
NCGrimbo
Question for the pizza oven guys and gals.
Replies
14
Views
832
bonz50
bonz50
Back
Top