• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums’ policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Musical Freestyle Requirements upped--let's try to rescind them

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Musical Freestyle Requirements upped--let's try to rescind them

    Cynthia Collins wrote this up. I think if everyone contacted the members multiple ways, maybe they might listen to the people paying the majority of fees. Either copy and paste, or add you own personal story.

    I tried posting this once with the emails I pulled off of the USDF site, but it wouldn't post, so I'll do this and then try posting the emails. I'm not doing anything nefarious. They are all on the ESEF site under the committee.


    Alright members, it's time for the BIG PUSH to the USEF Dressage Sport Committee asking them to respect the wishes of the USDF BOG vote to rescind USEF Rule 129.9
    Email, Facebook message, etc. the following members. Do it daily if you can as the USEF meeting starts next week.
    Start emailing them with your stories. January is the first possibility of meeting at the USEF Convention.


    Here's our letter, you can copy and paste or write your own.
    To the Dressage Sport Committee,

    We’re writing to let you know that many, many members of USDF and USEF, do not agree with the changing of Rule DR129.9 requiring a minimum score of 63% rather than the 60% at the highest test of the level, in order to ride a freestyle at a regular show, nor do we agree with the way it was changed.
    We freestyle riders have have 2 reasons that we do not agree with this Rule change.
    1.) According to USDF, a score of 60% is required in order to earn USDF Medals, Regional qualifying at most levels for Amateurs, and to qualify for Year end freestyle awards. That is the score USDF has set as “Satisfactory”. Since USDF has established 60% as a score to reward riders, then it would imply that this same score of 60% would be sufficient to ride a freestyle. Changing the score to 63%, at the highest test, seems unreasonable and unnecessary.
    Also, for Amateur and Juniors, the scores required to qualify at regular tests for Regional Championships are lower than this new score required to ride a freestyle. That really seems unfair to the largest dressage population, the amateurs. If these scores show enough proficiency to qualify for Championships, then why would a higher score be required just to ride a freestyle at a regular show?
    USDF stated, “a rider is expected to be more technically proficient to ride a freestyle” But by USDF standards, the old score of 60% at the highest level, IS sufficient.
    We understand a freestyle is a technical test ridden to music. However, the only way a freestyle rider is going to learn to adjust and ride a good freestyle, is by riding in the arena and getting the judge’s feedback. By not allowing riders to prove their proficiency by achieving a 60%, a satisfactory score according to USDF, at the highest test of the level, you are excluding many of your base riders from having an opportunity and reward of riding a freestyle.

    2.) This rule change was put in as an “Extraordinary” Rule Change thus bypassing the usual path that a rule change would follow. If it had been put in through the usual process, riders could have had a chance to let you, their representatives, know how they felt about the rule change. They are the members. You represent them.
    By putting this Rule in as an “extraordinary” rule change, it appears that you did not want riders to know about this change. It appears that you are not interested in the riders opinion. If the normal route for a rule change had been followed, and USDF had asked their membership, and the membership agreed, then we would be fine with that. But the way this was done, it appears that the riders opinions were left out of a change that affects them.
    Currently USDF has voted to ask you to rescind this Rule. By doing so, you are now the ones responsible for this Rule either becoming void, making the members happy, or staying in place, making your Committee the ones responsible for many unhappy members. This is really quite unfair to you.
    Make USDF take the responsibility, as they should, for the passing of this rule in a expedited way. Make USDF discuss a new Rule at their next convention with their members in a manner that they should have done in the first place.

    PLEASE rescind Rule DR 129.9 back to a 60% so that these riders can show their freestyles.
    The USDF BOG voted overwhelmingly to rescind the Rule. PLEASE respect the vote. Please rescind the Rule so it can be discussed and decided on with the entire dressage community with the normal procedures for passing rules.

    Thank you.
  • Original Poster

    #2
    Let's see if I can post the emails.

    Here are the ones with emails:
    MS KATHLEEN CONNELLY
    kathyconnellyavf@aol.com
    MS LISA GORRETTA
    reg2rd@aol.com
    MS GARDY BLOEMERS
    gardy@gardybloemers.com
    MS LISELOTTE FORE
    lilo4ore@gmail.com
    MRS JANET FOY
    Dressagejanet@yahoo.com
    MISS ELIZABETH JULIANO
    Havensafefarm@aol.com
    MRS HEATHER PETERSEN
    slush@drgw.net
    MR GARY ROCKWELL
    rckwllg@aol.com
    MRS ELISABETH WILLIAMS
    lizyh@aol.com
    MR CHRISTOPHER HICKEY
    chickey321@aol.com
    MRS CHARLOTTE BREDAHL
    cbredahl@silcom.com
    MR ROBERT DOVER
    rdover2@aol.com
    MRS DEBBIE MC DONALD
    DRESSAGEMC@gmail.COM
    MS CHRISTINE TRAURIG
    CTetienne@aol.com
    MR GEORGE WILLIAMS
    GEOROWMS@aol.com

    Comment

    • Original Poster

      #3
      It still won't post the emails. The USEF has made it hard to get them all in one spot. You have to click on each name individually and get them. I have them all copied and pasted if these don't show up, so message me and I can message them to you.

      https://www.usef.org/about-us/councils-committees/713

      Comment


      • #4
        MS KATHLEEN CONNELLY
        kathyconnellyavf@aol.com
        MS LISA GORRETTA
        reg2rd@aol.com
        MS GARDY BLOEMERS
        gardy@gardybloemers.com
        MS LISELOTTE FORE
        lilo4ore@gmail.com
        MRS JANET FOY
        Dressagejanet@yahoo.com
        MISS ELIZABETH JULIANO
        Havensafefarm@aol.com
        MRS HEATHER PETERSEN
        slush@drgw.net
        MR GARY ROCKWELL
        rckwllg@aol.com
        MRS ELISABETH WILLIAMS
        lizyh@aol.com
        MR CHRISTOPHER HICKEY
        chickey321@aol.com
        MRS CHARLOTTE BREDAHL
        cbredahl@silcom.com
        MR ROBERT DOVER
        rdover2@aol.com
        MRS DEBBIE MC DONALD
        DRESSAGEMC@gmail.COM
        MS CHRISTINE TRAURIG
        CTetienne@aol.com
        MR GEORGE WILLIAMS
        GEOROWMS@aol.com
        Do not confuse motion and progress. A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress.
        Alfred A. Montapert

        Comment


        • #5
          Done. I sent your letter to the Co-chairs and each member. I did it as separate emails, so it wouldn't get stuck in anyone's spam folder. What a PITA but totally worth it.

          Comment


          • #6
            This is why it's so important to write letters. The USDF does NOT know what the membership wants.

            I received this from Lisa Goretta:

            "Thank you for your email.

            The overwhelming message from all correspondence so far received is a universal reference that the scores recognizing achievement in USDF’s awards programs (in total) are apparently too low and that is the topic that seriously should be first addressed.

            While not the direct purview of this Committee, this has been recognized as a serious concern of the membership for the sport.

            As an adult amateur (outside competition eligibility) and volunteer myself, I appreciate your time and commitment invested in the sport.

            With best regards and wishes for the new year.

            Lisa Gorretta"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by xQHDQ View Post
              This is why it's so important to write letters. The USDF does NOT know what the membership wants.

              I received this from Lisa Goretta:

              "Thank you for your email.

              The overwhelming message from all correspondence so far received is a universal reference that the scores recognizing achievement in USDF’s awards programs (in total) are apparently too low and that is the topic that seriously should be first addressed.

              While not the direct purview of this Committee, this has been recognized as a serious concern of the membership for the sport.

              As an adult amateur (outside competition eligibility) and volunteer myself, I appreciate your time and commitment invested in the sport.

              With best regards and wishes for the new year.

              Lisa Gorretta"
              Please translate.

              I have dealt with Lisa in the past and found her willing to listen. Perhaps there is change coming to USDF.
              Do not confuse motion and progress. A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress.
              Alfred A. Montapert

              Comment


              • #8
                She's saying she supports the increase to 63%.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by xQHDQ View Post
                  She's saying she supports the increase to 63%.
                  Thanks.....I never could translate corporate speak.
                  Do not confuse motion and progress. A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress.
                  Alfred A. Montapert

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by xQHDQ View Post
                    She's saying she supports the increase to 63%.
                    She's also saying that the qualifying scores for all the awards are too low and should be raised.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think the letter in the OP misses some very important points.

                      It is not only the USDF that considers 60% satisfactory (which apparently they no longer do). According to the FEI definitions for judging, the FEI considers 60% to be satisfactory, and the USEF follows the FEI rules. So why does the USDF think they need to go against FEI and USEF definitions and redefine the meaning of satisfactory by raising the qualifying score?

                      It also mentions the USDF passing the change as an extraordinary rule change. USDF does not make rule changes, USEF does. USDF may have proposed the rule change, but the USEF passed it. They both need to be held accountable.

                      Comment

                      • Original Poster

                        #12
                        I did not miss the point. Cynthia Collins wrote that, and that's exactly what she said about changing the definition of satisfactory and it being an extraordinary rule change.

                        Please contact them. Again, message me if you want all of the emails instead of having to look the up one by one. COTH will not let me put them here.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          She's not just saying she thinks the scores are too low, but that allthepeople contacting her agree with her.
                          Let me apologize in advance.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            She saying that the “overwhelming majority” of people contacting her not only support the Freestyle qualification score increase, but think that qualifying scores need to be raised across the board for All The Things (championships, medals, etc.) because apparently 60% does not do an adequate job of keeping the riffraff out.

                            I’d personally be interested to see the data behind that claim.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I did reply and say that I respectfully disagreed with her.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Interesting that she equates scores for awards with scores to simply ride a test.
                                Lets see, we have judges who are paid to, you know, judge and score.
                                We have riders who have to go through the time and expense to create a freestyle, then pay the entry fee to enter the class.
                                And we have to protect those poor judges' eyes from the horrors of a poor freestyle!?! We couldn't expect the poor dears to give out deservedly low scores. They shouldn't have to watch such a travesty! Make the paying customers do more and pay more for the privilege of paying for a freestyle test score!

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I call BS that more people have written in support.

                                  Total BS.
                                  LarkspurCO: no horse's training is complete until it can calmly yet expressively perform GP in stadium filled w/chainsaw juggling zombies riding unicycles while flying monkeys w/bottle rockets...

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    and that people are saying the 60% for HOY / all breeds / regional championships are TOO LOW!

                                    man
                                    _\\]
                                    -- * > hoopoe
                                    Procrastinate NOW
                                    Introverted Since 1957

                                    Comment

                                    • Original Poster

                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by right horse at the right time View Post
                                      I call BS that more people have written in support.

                                      Total BS.
                                      Thank you. Yes, I think Lisa Gorreta is lying. There is no way most of the membership agrees with this. Perhaps, exQHDQ, you could write her back and ask for specific numbers about this and ask that she share them with everyone. I believe there are several hundred full names and regions at the bottom of the letter above sent as a group against this.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by GramV View Post
                                        I did not miss the point. Cynthia Collins wrote that, and that's exactly what she said about changing the definition of satisfactory and it being an extraordinary rule change.

                                        Please contact them. Again, message me if you want all of the emails instead of having to look the up one by one. COTH will not let me put them here.
                                        I didn't say YOU missed the point. I said the letter in the original post misses some important points. The letter you quoted, which I know was written by someone else.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X