Bradley Williams Suspended

[Hampstead]

Read the thread. My question isn't answered in it.

Your question is why 18 months instead of 36, 54 or 71?


It's been answered several times.


Try to keep up.

 

[dashiellx]

Read the thread. My question isn't answered in it.

I think you answer has been answered several time.

Previous discipline was 3 months suspension. So, new discipline is 6 months suspension and since he was still under 12 months probation, that automatically kicks in as additional suspension time.

 

[loki the trickster]

I think you answer has been answered several time.

Previous discipline was 3 months suspension. So, new discipline is 6 months suspension and since he was still under 12 months probation, that automatically kicks in as additional suspension time.

Exactly. :clap: :clap: :clap: :thmbup:

 

[stratedge]

Read the thread. My question isn't answered in it.

You didn't, because it is. Many, many times over, it's answered.

 

[AByrd]

 

[Sketto]

You didn't, because it is. Many, many times over, it's answered.

Forgive me, among the Anthony Wiener and Josh Anthon jokes, and the 60 pages of comments, I missed that.

But then I have a follow up: Is that explanation of 18 months explicitly from the PDGA? Or someone's logical guess on this thread?

And a second question (and I'm being sincere): do you feel his punishments so far (all deserved) have been appropriate in length? I'm talking beer, basket, shoulder.

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

It's really not up to us to judge whether the punishments are appropriate. That's what the DC is for.

I guess if you want "in" to that level of detail, you'll need to make yourself available to be appointed to the DC. Or wait for the disciplinary process to finish out like the rest of us.

 

[unclemercy]

yeah theyre guessing under the guise of logic. to question it is illogical.

 

[Sketto]

It's really not up to us to judge whether the punishments are appropriate. That's what the DC is for.

I guess if you want "in" to that level of detail, you'll need to make yourself available to be appointed to the DC. Or wait for the disciplinary process to finish out like the rest of us.

Why can't we question whether the punishments are appropriate? The DC is made up of people who make decisions. They're not perfect and it seems possible that they may be out of step with the players. Or not. I don't know. But why can't we question it?

The PDGA certainly seems out of step with all the players who were there on the card and several other of the best pros.

I think these questions have to be asked as the sport grows. Right now, it appears that the PDGA has a level of discipline for such infractions as drinking beer and kicking baskets that far exceeds the discipline given in larger, more established sports for much worse infractions.

I think the question of whether the DC is exceeding itself is a worthwhile question.

I'll restate my opinion - I think Williams sounds like a repeat offender, a real dick, who deserves some form of discipline. YET I think his punishments are excessive. His peers seem to agree on that as well.

 

[DanJon]

I think McCray was quite a ways away from "verbally attacking" another player. Whiny, childlike....sure. Discussions can get contentious, and punitive intervention would not be called for.
BW made physical contact. That is inexcusable and is assault. That is a line that cannot be crossed. Shall we make certain assault OK, but make a grey line on what is too much? I think he got lucky with only 18 months. The PDGA CANNOT allow physical confrontations. I can't imagine having to deal with some adolescent putting their hands on me in aggression in a tournament.

Exactly

Physical assault sure (for a shoulder bump), but threatening to do physical violence to someone could also get you arrested.

So why was that ignored in this case?

 

[ru4por]

You've been really patient with posters who keep asking the same question JC, I give you a lot of credit for keeping your cool and continuing to post the logic most likely used by the PDGA DC. This thread has really taken some wild twists and turns, and it's pretty clear not many have read all the posts.

None of us know the entirety of what the DC has for testimony in this complaint, and until the appeals process is complete the outcome is not set in stone. Even though Brad has quite a checkered past that's been well documented here and in other threads, this particular situation should be judged on it's own merit. And as part of the appeal process, I would hope the DC reconsiders whether this whole thing should have just been left as a courtesy warning and leave it at that, especially if those who originally gave their accounts agree. This isn't a court of law and players aren't robots, Brad was given only given a CW, and by all accounts it was over by the time they got to the circle. Again, on the surface, it just doesn't seem like this should have ever gotten this far. I know I'm in the minority but I still hope the whole thing gets thrown out if all parties who gave testimony don't believe there's enough there to warrant disciplinary action. And I know people will say it's not up to them to "decide", but if they all feel that way then to me that says a lot and should be factored into the final decision.

Don't agree here. By the definition of his probation, he indeed should be judged on more than just the actual physical encounter. Probation dictates that, if another incident occurs, the previous one is a factor. (up to and possibly including automatic suspension) I think it sets a dangerous precedent to dismiss physical interactions (assault by MD account). As a tournament player, I would like to be assured that if I am assaulted, the very least would be PDGA penalization.

 

[Consult20]

Why can't we question whether the punishments are appropriate? The DC is made up of people who make decisions. They're not perfect and it seems possible that they may be out of step with the players. Or not. I don't know. But why can't we question it?

The PDGA certainly seems out of step with all the players who were there on the card and several other of the best pros.

I think these questions have to be asked as the sport grows. Right now, it appears that the PDGA has a level of discipline for such infractions as drinking beer and kicking baskets that far exceeds the discipline given in larger, more established sports for much worse infractions.

I think the question of whether the DC is exceeding itself is a worthwhile question.

I'll restate my opinion - I think Williams sounds like a repeat offender, a real dick, who deserves some form of discipline. YET I think his punishments are excessive. His peers seem to agree on that as well.

Imagine what would happen if the PDGA ever implemented random drug testing.

 

[jeffmonty]

Read the thread. Understand the suspension. Questioning, as McBeth does, the severity and how the number 18 is chosen. And who decides. That's the missing transparency.

Again I ask, why not 36 months? Why not 12 or 42 or 9 months?

Do you not see that this is exactly what McBeth is questioning?

I'm not sure how JC or anyone else could explain it more clearly. And for what, like the 10th time in this thread?
Some may think it's excessive, but it's logical how the 18 mos. was arrived at.

His last suspension was 3 months plus two years of probation. The most likely next step in length of punishment for another offense is 6 months. Not sure anyone would argue that.

He had 12 months of probation left to serve when this new violation occurred. Remaining probation becomes suspension and the new suspension is added to the end of that period. 18 months. Not really that hard to follow the logic here.

I very much doubt this was just a randomly made up period of suspension. But clearly stopping to think and use a bit of deductive logic isn't a strong suit in the hyper-reactive social media society we now live in.

 

[Lefty23899]

Physical assault sure (for a shoulder bump), but threatening to do physical violence to someone could also get you arrested.

So why was that ignored in this case?

I'm not so sure a threat of retaliation as a warning after being "assaulted" would warrant an arrest. I also find it funny that Dollar used to play and travel with Brad Hammock often, so he's no stranger to douchebaggery

 

[juju]

Physical assault sure (for a shoulder bump), but threatening to do physical violence to someone could also get you arrested.

So why was that ignored in this case?

Because nobody reported it to the PDGA.

 

[Didn'tSeeThatTree]

Why can't we question whether the punishments are appropriate? The DC is made up of people who make decisions. They're not perfect and it seems possible that they may be out of step with the players. Or not. I don't know. But why can't we question it?

The PDGA certainly seems out of step with all the players who were there on the card and several other of the best pros.

I think these questions have to be asked as the sport grows. Right now, it appears that the PDGA has a level of discipline for such infractions as drinking beer and kicking baskets that far exceeds the discipline given in larger, more established sports for much worse infractions.

I think the question of whether the DC is exceeding itself is a worthwhile question.

I'll restate my opinion - I think Williams sounds like a repeat offender, a real dick, who deserves some form of discipline. YET I think his punishments are excessive. His peers seem to agree on that as well.

I'm right there with you buddy! No excuses for BW's behavior, but the process and punishment are not beyond question.

How the current process works is not the question.

IMO the questions are: Is it a good process? Are the punishments fair?

To me it seems like a great process...but the length of punishment are questionable Also, documented guidelines as to what infractions merit what punishments seem to be needed. The DC should always retain some discretion since every incident is different, but a few changes seem to be in order.

Questioning (politely) a policy is not a bad thing.

 

[Consult20]

Don't agree here. By the definition of his probation, he indeed should be judged on more than just the actual physical encounter. Probation dictates that, if another incident occurs, the previous one is a factor. (up to and possibly including automatic suspension) I think it sets a dangerous precedent to dismiss physical interactions (assault by MD account). As a tournament player, I would like to be assured that if I am assaulted, the very least would be PDGA penalization.

I think you're confusing "judged" and "outcome". The case should be judged on it's own merits, then after the judgment is made, if found guilty, other factors such as history can be used to factor in the sentence.

Which brings up something McBeth "may" be concerned about -- the idea of card mates ganging up on a player. When you're at the top it's a legitimate concern.

 

[joecoin]

Physical assault sure (for a shoulder bump), but threatening to do physical violence to someone could also get you arrested.

So why was that ignored in this case?

Because the threat was an "If you do this, I will do that" type of threat.

Not a "I'm going to do this to you" threat.

More of a warning than a threat. If you intentionally shoulder bump me I just might put you on notice as to what I will do if you repeat the act.

 

[Lefty23899]

What if it resulted in an all out brawl? Would anyone question a decision that gave BW 18 months and Dollar 6 or less?

 

[onemilemore]

I'm not sure how JC or anyone else could explain it more clearly. And for what, like the 10th time in this thread?
Some may think it's excessive, but it's logical how the 18 mos. was arrived at.

It is logical, but I think most people's concern is that, while logical, it has not been explicitly articulated by the PDGA that this was the rationale for the suspension. Dots should not have to be connected. It's easy enough to put it together, but it's also easy for the PDGA to explain that part without compromising privacy.