Davies out for HC violation

dmcougar wrote:

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

honor is good. the way its administered in terms of punishment is ridiculous. yes, it ultimately is davies' fault, he knew what he agree dto and then then didn't follow it, but its a high standard and everybody makes mistakes. it should be there to help them not freakin destroy them.

You're right. Let young people do things without any consequences. That will help us restore sanity to our civilization. :whistle:

I am pretty sure that nobody, at least not me, came even close to advocating that position. I support the honor code. nobody is advocating getting rid of consequences, at least i am not.

CAFB, try to understand its not about abandoning consequences. Its about an HC office that lives by its own code and inconsistencies.

Inconsistencies? Based on what? Personal experience? Anecdotal hearsay?

CougarPeasant wrote:
This sucks. For Davies, for his teammates, and for us fans. But life goes on.



Davies has been integral in BYU's success this season, no doubt about it. HOWEVER, he's had many games where he's spent more time on the bench than on the court due to foul trouble. He has gotten better the last month, but Rose has had to do without Brandon many a times during the season. I hope the team will adapt and still find success.



Now, with regard to the HC. It's a known entity and with Church tithes covering 70% of the tuition, the Church has every right to set the standards for enrollment and continued attendance. Since we don't know the facts regarding Davies' situation, it must have been serious enough to result in suspension. I just hope he gets his act together and has the fortitude to press forward through his trials and returns next season.

I don't think anybody here questions the church's RIGHT to do it. Just the wisdom of it.

urroner wrote:
For those of you who are demanding that the refs call every foul in the game and yet, at the same time, are demanding that the HC not call a foul on Davies, where is the consistency within this paradigm?



How many of us know what action that Davies took to get him kicked off? How egregious was this action? Was it a simple one time action or was it multiple actions? If it was multiple actions, had he been warned just one time or many times?



Did the HC purposefully make this public or was it the consequences of Davies' action cause it to be public? If the consequences of his actions caused him to be booted off the team, how can something like this be kept private?



I know a man who was ex'ed for immoral acts and very few in the ward knew about it. He was on the outside looking in for over two years, but when he was rebaptized, very few in the ward still knew that he had been ex'ed. About twenty people attended the baptism and five of those attending never knew he had been ex'ed. He just wanted them to attend.



Then there was the newly called bishop who got ex'ed due to immorality and when he was released, in spite of what ever actions the SP took to minimize the consequences, the whole ward knew what had happened. It became very apparent what had happened when his wife abruptly left, taking the kids, and moving back to her parents' place.



The way some of you people talk, you would probably want the Church of let the bishop remain bishop for a while so it wouldn't be embarrassing to the man and then you would probably try to convince the wife to "stand with her man," a many who had been boinking several women in the ward.



People, Brandon Davies fouled out of the school because of his actions and, to paraphrase Stephen R. Covey, "you have the freedom to choose the consequences of your action, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS."

I think you nailed it. Plus I think we need to look at this as consequenses for Davies' actions, and not punishment.



The goal here isn't to banish him from the University and shun him forever. He made a choice for which he knew the consequences. Now he has to deal with the consequenses before he can return to the team and school. Going to BYU is a privaledge, and being a BYU athlete is a very high privaledge. Because of his actions he has lost that privelegde for the time being. I fully support him and hope he gets back on the strait and narrow and back on the court.

Gunk wrote:
It would have been made public the moment he wouldn't show up for practice or to play against UNM. Better to control the communication of an event then let others control the communication. The Church still doesn't understand this.



Urroner, I'm not saying do away with the HC or it's a bad thing or BYU should let this one slide. I'm saying it isn't a perfect system and the system needs some tweaks.



Davies messed up. He should and has to pay the consequences. Doesn't mean though the system has its flaws. Don't confuse the two. It's just times like these where those of us that have seen the flaws of the HC office speak up.



And, Urroner, there's a difference between the HC Office and a Bishop/SP.

Okay, so how should have the HC office have handled the situation? Should they have let Davies continue to play?



I do know there is a difference between the HC office and a bishop/SP. I've been in the Church probably for longer than you have been alive, maybe not. Are you 152 years old?



There are students who get disciplined by the HCO all the time, but I bet that 99.9% of these cases, very few people really find out and I bet that most of the time, the consequences aren't being kicked out of school. The people in the HCO take their positions very seriously and they strive to do the best they can and they try to do their best to help those getting disciplined.



I have been involved with several bishop's courts and also when men have appeared before the SP and the SHC because of excommunicable actions. I have yet to see one case where the SP, the bishopric, or the SHC ever acted in anger or tried to do harm, emotionally or socially, to the person. They tried to minimized the consequences, but sometimes that is very difficult and sometimes, there is nothing they can do to minimize anything, like with the new bishop who enjoyed seducing women who weren't his wife.



I'm also sure that the members of the SHC are cut from the same cloth as most SP, bishops, and SHC are cut from.

taekwondave wrote:

taekwondave wrote:
I've said this so many times in the last few years: BYU should have an honor code, but it should only be involved in appropriate things related to the student's relationship with the university itself and not regarding their worthiness in the church.

In other words, it should be just like any other institution of higher learning. This is a tired argument. The HC isn't a secret. It involves no more than average righteous Mormon living (no unmarried sex, no drugs, no alcohol, no weed, etc...). Is that really so hard?

I don't think it's about "being so hard", it's about it being appropriate. I don't think it is. As for our honor code being like every other institution's of higher learning, I addressed that in the rest of my note that you didn't quote. I don't think BYU needs an over the top, inappropriate honor code/system to be unique. It's unique in plenty of other major ways already.

Yeah, you're right. BYU is unique in that it is the only place in North America where you can buy caffeine free Mountain Dew.



Without the Honor Code BYU is just a Mormon Baylor.

taekwondave wrote:

jonnylingo wrote:
honor is good. the way its administered in terms of punishment is ridiculous. yes, it ultimately is davies' fault, he knew what he agree dto and then then didn't follow it, but its a high standard and everybody makes mistakes. it should be there to help them not freakin destroy them.

You're right. Let young people do things without any consequences. That will help us restore sanity to our civilization. :whistle:

You can't avoid the consequences of your decisions. But BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.

You forget that Brandon signed an agreement to live by the Honor Code when he enrolled. It's not like BYU is arbitrarily choosing what punishments to inflice on what behavior on pure whimsy. Yes, BYU sets forth what the consequences are, but the only reasons Brandon is subject to them are (a) he agreed to be subject to them, and (b) he broke his word to live up to certain standards.



I guess we should get rid of the criminal justice system and all criminal and civil courts in general as they manifest some distrust for the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world too, right??? Because really what it boils down to is this: the kid signed the contract, the kid breached the contract, and now the punishments he agreed to are being levied. If you have a problem with the Honor Code and the office enforcing violations, the school up North has room on its bandwagon each and every year.

dmcougar wrote:

MOre time to make a decision.......hmmm..... about what? Whether he stays in school and whether getting kicked off the bball team is sufficient punishment to help him change his ways? My points (in 2 and 3), exactly.

Oh, and by the way, good job HC office to drag out this public display of judgment.

It is terribly difficult to imagine a hypothetical situation in which a) suspension from the team seems to be a necessary step, b) suspension from BYU may not be a necessary step, and c) prolonged observation of behavior, including marked and recognizable penitence for whatever he's done, might be enough to mitigate future consequences?

I got news for some of you who are afraid to criticize the HC office: they arent the angels in heaven and its not criticizing The Brethren.

...and this is where I stop arguing. Clearly, my reluctance to call out the HC office stems from fear generated by my religious convictions that prohibits me from critically addressing its institutions. Yep, I'm afraid of the damnation that comes from calling out BYU. Because, after all, there's NO WAY I might actually, y'know, AGREE WITH the Honor Code. I went to BYU in large part because I wanted to be surrounded by people with similar ideals and lifestyle preferences. Sad as it is, that's something that can't always be left to the student body to self regulate. It has to be reflected in the rules and regulations of the student body.



I currently go to a University that has a large LDS population, but no standards-based honor code. It's called the University of Utah, and it sucks.



I'm not going to say that what happened here was too harsh because what I don't know what happened; concurrently, I'm not going to ask what happened because I respect Brandon Davies and it's none of my business. I hope he chooses (and is able) to come back for future seasons. End of story, I'm through posting on this topic. I'll leave Monday-morning quarterbacking of the HC to the rest of you guys.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

I've said this so many times in the last few years: BYU should have an honor code, but it should only be involved in appropriate things related to the student's relationship with the university itself and not regarding their worthiness in the church.

In other words, it should be just like any other institution of higher learning. This is a tired argument. The HC isn't a secret. It involves no more than average righteous Mormon living (no unmarried sex, no drugs, no alcohol, no weed, etc...). Is that really so hard?

I don't think it's about "being so hard", it's about it being appropriate. I don't think it is. As for our honor code being like every other institution's of higher learning, I addressed that in the rest of my note that you didn't quote. I don't think BYU needs an over the top, inappropriate honor code/system to be unique. It's unique in plenty of other major ways already.

Yeah, you're right. BYU is unique in that it is the only place in North America where you can buy caffeine free Mountain Dew.



Without the Honor Code BYU is just a Mormon Baylor.

I just don't see what's so wrong with that.

snoscythe wrote:

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

honor is good. the way its administered in terms of punishment is ridiculous. yes, it ultimately is davies' fault, he knew what he agree dto and then then didn't follow it, but its a high standard and everybody makes mistakes. it should be there to help them not freakin destroy them.

You're right. Let young people do things without any consequences. That will help us restore sanity to our civilization. :whistle:

You can't avoid the consequences of your decisions. But BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.

You forget that Brandon signed an agreement to live by the Honor Code when he enrolled. It's not like BYU is arbitrarily choosing what punishments to inflice on what behavior on pure whimsy. Yes, BYU sets forth what the consequences are, but the only reasons Brandon is subject to them are (a) he agreed to be subject to them, and (b) he broke his word to live up to certain standards.



I guess we should get rid of the criminal justice system and all criminal and civil courts in general as they manifest some distrust for the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world too, right??? Because really what it boils down to is this: the kid signed the contract, the kid breached the contract, and now the punishments he agreed to are being levied. If you have a problem with the Honor Code and the office enforcing violations, the school up North has room on its bandwagon each and every year.

Good points. I agree that the kid signed the contract. I just don't think he should have to. I just don't think it's appropriate.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

I've said this so many times in the last few years: BYU should have an honor code, but it should only be involved in appropriate things related to the student's relationship with the university itself and not regarding their worthiness in the church.

In other words, it should be just like any other institution of higher learning. This is a tired argument. The HC isn't a secret. It involves no more than average righteous Mormon living (no unmarried sex, no drugs, no alcohol, no weed, etc...). Is that really so hard?

I don't think it's about "being so hard", it's about it being appropriate. I don't think it is. As for our honor code being like every other institution's of higher learning, I addressed that in the rest of my note that you didn't quote. I don't think BYU needs an over the top, inappropriate honor code/system to be unique. It's unique in plenty of other major ways already.

Yeah, you're right. BYU is unique in that it is the only place in North America where you can buy caffeine free Mountain Dew.



Without the Honor Code BYU is just a Mormon Baylor.

Actually, Baylor has an Honor Code too, but it is a joke. The Baylor Honor Code also bans premarital sex and drinking (yes, supposedly good Baptists don't drink). However, the only enforcement of the Honor Code comes from reports by faculty/students into their compliance office. There is no ecclesiastical endorsement equivalent. At BYU, the person who signs your EE commits to call in and revoke the EE if circumstances change or they learn something that changes their mind. At Baylor, there is no such mechanism. Someone has to go in and report you. Further, Baylor only enforces on campus violations. So, go to off-campus parties, light up, get sloshed, get laid, and return to your dorm later, and there is nothing the compliance people can do about it. In short, the Honor Code at Baylor is a joke---the kind of joke many people would like to see at BYU because it would make our sports teams better.....like Baylor's.

taekwondave wrote:

taekwondave wrote:

jonnylingo wrote:
honor is good. the way its administered in terms of punishment is ridiculous. yes, it ultimately is davies' fault, he knew what he agree dto and then then didn't follow it, but its a high standard and everybody makes mistakes. it should be there to help them not freakin destroy them.

You're right. Let young people do things without any consequences. That will help us restore sanity to our civilization. :whistle:

You can't avoid the consequences of your decisions. But BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.

You forget that Brandon signed an agreement to live by the Honor Code when he enrolled. It's not like BYU is arbitrarily choosing what punishments to inflice on what behavior on pure whimsy. Yes, BYU sets forth what the consequences are, but the only reasons Brandon is subject to them are (a) he agreed to be subject to them, and (b) he broke his word to live up to certain standards.



I guess we should get rid of the criminal justice system and all criminal and civil courts in general as they manifest some distrust for the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world too, right??? Because really what it boils down to is this: the kid signed the contract, the kid breached the contract, and now the punishments he agreed to are being levied. If you have a problem with the Honor Code and the office enforcing violations, the school up North has room on its bandwagon each and every year.

Good points. I agree that the kid signed the contract. I just don't think he should have to. I just don't think it's appropriate.

He doesn't have to. There are nearly 200 other D-IA basketball programs he could have chosen, and some dang good ones that offered him scholarships. But he chose that contract over all the other ones on the table that didn't come with the Honor Code obligations.

taekwondave wrote:
YBut BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.

So, when my boss disciplines somebody for bad judgment, is he playing the role of God? What does that mean?



What is the system that God has already set in order from the foundation of the world? What do you mean? I thought the system He set in order was there was consequences to our actions and He isn't going to rescue us from all of them. Is that the one you mean?

taekwondave wrote:

jonnylingo wrote:
honor is good. the way its administered in terms of punishment is ridiculous. yes, it ultimately is davies' fault, he knew what he agree dto and then then didn't follow it, but its a high standard and everybody makes mistakes. it should be there to help them not freakin destroy them.

You're right. Let young people do things without any consequences. That will help us restore sanity to our civilization. :whistle:

You can't avoid the consequences of your decisions. But BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.

You've got to be kidding me?! So now if a person or institution has standards and enforces them they are playing God?!



So it is cool to have an Honor Code, just don't ever hold any one to it. BYU turns into the UN.

taekwondave wrote:

jonnylingo wrote:
honor is good. the way its administered in terms of punishment is ridiculous. yes, it ultimately is davies' fault, he knew what he agree dto and then then didn't follow it, but its a high standard and everybody makes mistakes. it should be there to help them not freakin destroy them.

You're right. Let young people do things without any consequences. That will help us restore sanity to our civilization. :whistle:

You can't avoid the consequences of your decisions. But BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.

Bishops and the HC are asked to maintain the integrity of the honor code that the Board of Trustees has established. How that translates to "BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves" is where you lose me. Trust the system God already set in order? Which order is that? An eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?

snoscythe wrote:

taekwondave wrote:

taekwondave wrote:
I've said this so many times in the last few years: BYU should have an honor code, but it should only be involved in appropriate things related to the student's relationship with the university itself and not regarding their worthiness in the church.

In other words, it should be just like any other institution of higher learning. This is a tired argument. The HC isn't a secret. It involves no more than average righteous Mormon living (no unmarried sex, no drugs, no alcohol, no weed, etc...). Is that really so hard?

I don't think it's about "being so hard", it's about it being appropriate. I don't think it is. As for our honor code being like every other institution's of higher learning, I addressed that in the rest of my note that you didn't quote. I don't think BYU needs an over the top, inappropriate honor code/system to be unique. It's unique in plenty of other major ways already.

Yeah, you're right. BYU is unique in that it is the only place in North America where you can buy caffeine free Mountain Dew.



Without the Honor Code BYU is just a Mormon Baylor.

Actually, Baylor has an Honor Code too, but it is a joke. The Baylor Honor Code also bans premarital sex and drinking (yes, supposedly good Baptists don't drink). However, the only enforcement of the Honor Code comes from reports by faculty/students into their compliance office. There is no ecclesiastical endorsement equivalent. At BYU, the person who signs your EE commits to call in and revoke the EE if circumstances change or they learn something that changes their mind. At Baylor, there is no such mechanism. Someone has to go in and report you. Further, Baylor only enforces on campus violations. So, go to off-campus parties, light up, get sloshed, get laid, and return to your dorm later, and there is nothing the compliance people can do about it. In short, the Honor Code at Baylor is a joke---the kind of joke many people would like to see at BYU because it would make our sports teams better.....like Baylor's.

Ha. I get your point. No, we don't want to be Baylor and obviously we don't want to trade sports programs with them, but as much as I hate losing players to this issue, that's not my problem with the HC. For me it's the lost opportunity to let people experience the church on their own without pressure and without fear. I think the HC pushes too many away from what they could sincerely love. Do people get baptized at BYU? All the time. But I think we can do better than we now are, and I think the HC stands in the way of that.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

honor is good. the way its administered in terms of punishment is ridiculous. yes, it ultimately is davies' fault, he knew what he agree dto and then then didn't follow it, but its a high standard and everybody makes mistakes. it should be there to help them not freakin destroy them.

You're right. Let young people do things without any consequences. That will help us restore sanity to our civilization. :whistle:

You can't avoid the consequences of your decisions. But BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.

You forget that Brandon signed an agreement to live by the Honor Code when he enrolled. It's not like BYU is arbitrarily choosing what punishments to inflice on what behavior on pure whimsy. Yes, BYU sets forth what the consequences are, but the only reasons Brandon is subject to them are (a) he agreed to be subject to them, and (b) he broke his word to live up to certain standards.



I guess we should get rid of the criminal justice system and all criminal and civil courts in general as they manifest some distrust for the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world too, right??? Because really what it boils down to is this: the kid signed the contract, the kid breached the contract, and now the punishments he agreed to are being levied. If you have a problem with the Honor Code and the office enforcing violations, the school up North has room on its bandwagon each and every year.

Good points. I agree that the kid signed the contract. I just don't think he should have to. I just don't think it's appropriate.

He doesn't have to. There are nearly 200 other D-IA basketball programs he could have chosen, and some dang good ones that offered him scholarships. But he chose that contract over all the other ones on the table that didn't come with the Honor Code obligations.

I get that. It's like you don't think I get that. But BYU IS different aside from the HC and people come here for THOSE differences as well. They ACCEPT the honor code as a trade-off for everything else they get here. No other University can truly offer what BYU has to offer, but unfortunately people who want those benefits must accept this awful aspect of it. It's just too bad is all.

urroner wrote:

YBut BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.

So, when my boss disciplines somebody for bad judgment, is he playing the role of God? What does that mean?



What is the system that God has already set in order from the foundation of the world? What do you mean? I thought the system He set in order was there was consequences to our actions and He isn't going to rescue us from all of them. Is that the one you mean?

Sno made this point and I conceded it. Again, as said before, I don't question BYU's RIGHT to do this, only the wisdom of it. Relax.

urroner wrote:

It would have been made public the moment he wouldn't show up for practice or to play against UNM. Better to control the communication of an event then let others control the communication. The Church still doesn't understand this.



Urroner, I'm not saying do away with the HC or it's a bad thing or BYU should let this one slide. I'm saying it isn't a perfect system and the system needs some tweaks.



Davies messed up. He should and has to pay the consequences. Doesn't mean though the system has its flaws. Don't confuse the two. It's just times like these where those of us that have seen the flaws of the HC office speak up.



And, Urroner, there's a difference between the HC Office and a Bishop/SP.

Okay, so how should have the HC office have handled the situation? Should they have let Davies continue to play?



I do know there is a difference between the HC office and a bishop/SP. I've been in the Church probably for longer than you have been alive, maybe not. Are you 152 years old?



There are students who get disciplined by the HCO all the time, but I bet that 99.9% of these cases, very few people really find out and I bet that most of the time, the consequences aren't being kicked out of school. The people in the HCO take their positions very seriously and they strive to do the best they can and they try to do their best to help those getting disciplined.



I have been involved with several bishop's courts and also when men have appeared before the SP and the SHC because of excommunicable actions. I have yet to see one case where the SP, the bishopric, or the SHC ever acted in anger or tried to do harm, emotionally or socially, to the person. They tried to minimized the consequences, but sometimes that is very difficult and sometimes, there is nothing they can do to minimize anything, like with the new bishop who enjoyed seducing women who weren't his wife.



I'm also sure that the members of the SHC are cut from the same cloth as most SP, bishops, and SHC are cut from.

Urroner, I'm 151 years old, so you got me beat. :)



Like you, I've been involved in disciplinary councils as well. And, like you mention everything done in those is out of love. I'm sure the HC is doing their best to be sensitive to Davies and trying to handle everything with care and compassion. At least I hope so.



I think standards and set guidelines/policy needs to be set forth among BYU Bishops as to what gets reported to the HC and what doesn't. We of course, don't even know if the violation was reported through a Bishop, though. A fellow student or someone else could have made the claim.



My second area of change would be that the consequences are the same across the board for all students, whether an athlete or not. If a student violates the HC to the point where they are no longer eligible to attend BYU then fine, they lose their spot. Same should go with athletes. I don't think an athlete should be kicked off the team for violating the HC if that violation doesn't warrant them being kicked out of the school.



I understand coaches may have their own team rules when it comes to HC violations. That's fine, let the coach have their own rules and should a player infringe on the coach's rules so much that they warrant being kicked off the team, fine, kick them off, just don't say it was for HC reasons. It was for breaking team rules.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

honor is good. the way its administered in terms of punishment is ridiculous. yes, it ultimately is davies' fault, he knew what he agree dto and then then didn't follow it, but its a high standard and everybody makes mistakes. it should be there to help them not freakin destroy them.

You're right. Let young people do things without any consequences. That will help us restore sanity to our civilization. :whistle:

You can't avoid the consequences of your decisions. But BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.

Bishops and the HC are asked to maintain the integrity of the honor code that the Board of Trustees has established. How that translates to "BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves" is where you lose me. Trust the system God already set in order? Which order is that? An eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?

Haha, I have been jumped on by like FIVE people now for this comment. I already conceded the point. As for the "order" that I refer to, are there not consequences to drinking? Does BYU need to kick you out of school in order for you to face consequences? You will face consequences for drinking and drug use regardless of whether BYU tries to get involved, that is sure. And yet they do. Are there not consequences to having premarital sex? If BYU doesn't get involved will those consequences not still exist? And yet they DO get involved. Again, I get that you want to tie all this to our legal system and justify it by that but I think this is different. They're going where they ought not, in my opinion. They are simply going about this the wrong way.

Isola wrote:

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

honor is good. the way its administered in terms of punishment is ridiculous. yes, it ultimately is davies' fault, he knew what he agree dto and then then didn't follow it, but its a high standard and everybody makes mistakes. it should be there to help them not freakin destroy them.

You're right. Let young people do things without any consequences. That will help us restore sanity to our civilization. :whistle:

You can't avoid the consequences of your decisions. But BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.

You've got to be kidding me?! So now if a person or institution has standards and enforces them they are playing God?!



So it is cool to have an Honor Code, just don't ever hold any one to it. BYU turns into the UN.

I don't think you've understood what I've said. I said it's cool to have an honor code and YES people should be held to it, but the things that are included in our honor code cross the line of being appropriate in my opinion. That is all.