• 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 are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

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 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Bravo! HDS keeping members informed on proposed rule change!

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

  • Bravo! HDS keeping members informed on proposed rule change!

    Bravo to HDS for keeping GMO members informed, just saw that Syrisse added this to the site for us:

    Latest News


    More Info & Statistics Relating to Proposed Establishment of
    USEF Performance Standards

    These detailed reports (click here for Handout and Score Analysis) are provided to help inform members regarding issues involved in the upcoming USEF proposed rule change. If you have specific questions on the content of these documents, please contact Dr Rebecca Yount, dryount@yahoo.com

    Thank you also to Rebecca [Yount] for dedicating so much time and effort that you've put into keeping us informed, and keeping appropriate parties on their toes (so to speak)

    Edited to add: Thank you also to Ana and Mary. The information, numbers, and graphs were EXCELLENT!
    Last edited by AMDressage; Apr. 8, 2008, 10:57 AM.
    "The higher you hold your pinky, the more dignified you be." -Patrick Starfish

    "Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance" -Coco Chanel

  • #2
    http://www.houstondressagesociety.org/

    excellent!!
    Nothing says "I love you" like a tractor. (Clydejumper)

    The reports states, “Elizabeth reported that she accidently put down this pony, ........, at the show.”

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you for the feedback.

      Not every region / GMO is being as forthcoming in passing along the data .... an odd reaction to my mind, since data is data and informed decisions are made by examining data.

      *star* aka Mary
      "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."
      - Desiderata, (c) Max Ehrman, 1926

      Comment


      • #4
        Adding my Bravo!

        That was an extremely well done and thoughtful report! Thank you.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks for the compliments. We sent those documents to all GMOs to do with what they please.

          We think posting them on the websites is an excellent idea, so that members can be informed as to background on the proposed rule change.

          We are really not sure when the next draft of the rule change proposal will be released by the USEF Dressage Committee. But we feel that it is important for people to be ready to respond when/if it is released.

          As can be seen by reviewing the documents (click on links above, that'll take you to HDS website and there are links to the actual docs on there), a GREAT DEAL of work and analysis went into preparing this.

          Most of the credit for the stats and analysis goes to Shotenstar and Pluvinel. I am just the leader of the gang. (Even in Kindergarten they said I had "leadership qualities". That was their way of saying I was bossy. I have two t-shirts courtesy of Star: one says "She Who Must Be Obeyed" and the other says "Teamwork: A Whole Lot of People Doing What I Say").

          PS: There's a 3rd t-shirt, but I can't post on here what it says...

          Comment


          • #6
            Wow, impressive. Thanks for all the hard work
            Fillys By Vibank - 2017 Road to RRP
            https://www.youtube.com/user/jealoushe

            Comment


            • #7
              also Oregon Dressage Society

              scroll down to third item
              http://www.oregondressage.com/news/

              Comment


              • #8
                I overheard this week that the performance standard rule change will be voted on in June and not later in the year as some people think, possibly in an effort to pass it without protest?
                http://weanieeventer.blogspot.com/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Enjoy

                  what is the source of that information?

                  If true, we need to pounce on the right people.

                  However, at the Region 1 meeting, Sam Barish and Scott Hassler, both members of the USEF Dressage Committee, stated that the next version of the proposed standard would be made available for review and that website 'voting and commenting' would be set-up to get member input. So, is it possible that your information refers to the possible timeline for this?

                  *star*
                  "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."
                  - Desiderata, (c) Max Ehrman, 1926

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The source sits on the USEF board.
                    http://weanieeventer.blogspot.com/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rebecca yount View Post
                      Thanks for the compliments. We sent those documents to all GMOs to do with what they please.
                      Who sent this to the GMOs, and who in the GMO was this sent to? I'm the newsletter editor for a GMO in Texas, and I have not received this information.
                      Elisha

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The reports were sent to GMO presidents or preferred points of contact if that was what was listed. The sender was 'sm' of this board, who used her professional email software through Summit Marketing to help us do this.

                        Please check with your GMO officers to see which one received it. If we missed you, or the email address rejected the attachments, or there was some other delivery problem, let us know and we will send copies directly.

                        *star*
                        "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."
                        - Desiderata, (c) Max Ehrman, 1926

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I overheard this week that the performance standard rule change will be voted on in June and not later in the year as some people think, possibly in an effort to pass it without protest?
                          So has anyone here actually seen or been told what the new version of the standards will be?

                          I seem to recall that the USEF DC stated that after their March meeting they would send out the new proposal to the GMOs and take public comment through them, then have discussion at the summer meeting with a vote to follow. Is the meeting this June for board/committee members only? Or open to the public. And where will it be held?
                          "We don't ride the clock. We ride the horse." Reiner Klimke.
                          http://community.webshots.com/user/arnikaelf

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ShotenStar View Post
                            The reports were sent to GMO presidents or preferred points of contact if that was what was listed. The sender was 'sm' of this board, who used her professional email software through Summit Marketing to help us do this.

                            Please check with your GMO officers to see which one received it. If we missed you, or the email address rejected the attachments, or there was some other delivery problem, let us know and we will send copies directly.

                            *star*
                            That explains it. USDF keeps listing the wrong person for our official contact, even though I have requested this changed several times. Thanks for clearing that up!
                            Elisha

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Elisha View Post
                              Who sent this to the GMOs, and who in the GMO was this sent to? I'm the newsletter editor for a GMO in Texas, and I have not received this information.
                              Elisha, I have no answer for the Texas question you have, but I find it rather frustrating that some posters think that there is a responsibility for GMO or USDF officials to get this data report out to the members. While the data itself is very interesting....the report summary is certainly NOT unbiased and there is no question that the report draws conclusions that are meant to steer people down a certain path.

                              I am not at all surprised that the report may not have been disseminated by all who received it.

                              It would make more sense to me to share the data AFTER the new proposed qualification system comes out. This data report may not even be relevant to the new proposed system for all we know. I think the data report may INDEED be very helpful to those who are currently devising a new proposal, and I'm glad that there were those who were willing to do all the work on this.

                              Personally, I think it is presumptuous to expect GMO officials be required to share a data report that is clearly meant to persuade the readers of that report that there is no need for "Performance Standards". Especially when there is NO qualification system proposal on the table yet.

                              Again, I want to reiterate that I am glad the data was collected and that this information is available, but the conclusions and summary of the data as it is written in the report are certainly biased in one direction as to how the data was perceived.

                              Another person might look at all of the statistics and data and form a very different "summary" as to what it means.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by PennyRidge View Post
                                ....
                                Another person might look at all of the statistics and data and form a very different "summary" as to what it means.
                                Go for it ... the data is on the USDF website. Pull it out for yourself. Do your own analysis with the tools of your choice. That is what data is for ... to be examined from different perspectives.

                                And for the record: the conclusions are where the data took us, not where we took the data.

                                If the data had indicated a broad pattern of problems, say with lots of low scores at 3rd and 4th level, or a track record by individual riders of moving up levels with low scores at the previous levels, then the conclusions would have been much different.

                                *star*
                                "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."
                                - Desiderata, (c) Max Ehrman, 1926

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by ShotenStar View Post
                                  Go for it ... the data is on the USDF website. Pull it out for yourself. Do your own analysis with the tools of your choice. That is what data is for ... to be examined from different perspectives.
                                  You miss my point... IF the GMO officials/representatives are supposed to be neutral, and IF they are supposed to represent the views of their membership and not their own..then it would seem unwise for them to post a report on their website or in their newsletter that clearly states a strong position AGAINST A QUALIFICATION SYSTEM of any kind. The report says this!

                                  I have read on another bb and even a few posts here where folks ARE IN FAVOR of a qualification system. It seems that even some trainers are in favor of one because it will help them keep their students from showing above their abilities, etc. I imagine that there are riders, instructors and
                                  judges who support a qualification system who are also members of a GMO. Shouldn't the GMO leadership take their opinions into consideration as well?

                                  Are these GMOs who have posted the data report on their websites trying to lead their membership down a particular path? It would seem that way to me.

                                  Your data report is more than just a sharing of statistics and information, it is intended to spread the gospel to the nation that a qualification system is not needed and ill-advised. Those who choose to publish that report on their websites and in their newsletters are sending a strong message out to their membership that a qualification system is NOT NECESSARY. It speaks out against a proposal that is not even on the table anymore. And you surely know that many GMO members have NO clue what is going on with this qualification system and when they read the report they will start making assumptions that are incorrect.

                                  I think it is a mistake for GMO officials to start spreading fear that a qualification system is going to hurt your average rider. To me, this is what that report does. For those of you who WANT TO STOP such a system from taking place, then this is a fine thing...but for those of us who believe that a form of qualification system is needed, it is very unfair propaganda.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    I'm actually getting pretty riled up about this now. As I look at the websites of a couple of GMOs who have posted this report, I am more concerned than ever.

                                    Amongst GMO news about pizza partys and volunteer efforts is this statement included with the data report:

                                    More Info & Statistics Relating to Proposed Establishment of
                                    USEF Performance Standards

                                    These detailed reports (click here for Handout and Score Analysis) are provided to help inform members regarding issues involved in the upcoming USEF proposed rule change. If you have specific questions on the content of these documents, please contact Dr Rebecca Yount, dryount@yahoo.com

                                    For crying out loud...GMO members who don't read this bb and aren't in the know about this issue will read the above statement and assume that this data report is some sort of official report coming from USDF or USEF or something. And then to have DOCTOR Rebecca Yount as the contact makes it sound even more official and important.

                                    I'm sorry...I'm really letting loose on my thoughts here..but what would be more appropriate for GMO websites to say in the statement about the report is something more like:

                                    Here is a report that was compiled and analyzed by people who oppose any form of qualification system for dressage riders. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this executive board.

                                    And then...the GMO website should put videotape of 3rd level riders slamming around on their horses' backs, jerking on their faces and spurring them (with their faces blotted out of course) and say something like:

                                    Here are video clips that supply the anecdotal evidence that supporters of a qualification system find very compelling.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      I just looked at PVDA's website and was surprised to see that the President of that GMO is asking members to vote on whether or not they support or oppose the "rule change" for performance standards! Do I understand this correctly, Rebecca? Are members still under the impression that the old proposal is still on the table? Why is that polling thing even there? How can members decide whether they are for or against something when the details of that something aren't even known?

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by PennyRidge View Post
                                        Elisha, I have no answer for the Texas question you have, but I find it rather frustrating that some posters think that there is a responsibility for GMO or USDF officials to get this data report out to the members. While the data itself is very interesting....the report summary is certainly NOT unbiased and there is no question that the report draws conclusions that are meant to steer people down a certain path.
                                        .....
                                        The data is the data. I, author Diaz in the report, did the bulk of the Minitab statistical analysis. Given the length of the report, the analyses were actually very simple...there was no particularly sophisticated use of statistics. The conclusions arrived at in the report are just summary words for what the data represents:

                                        1-There are few scores below 40%
                                        2-The regression analysis showed NO CORRELATION between 2nd4 and the average scores for 3rd level.
                                        3-The data is "bell shape curve" perfectly suitable for analysis and represents ALL SCORES from open competition. No "representative samples" were done...it is the whole population from the dates the data was available.....the population in its entirety.

                                        Originally posted by PennyRidge View Post
                                        It would make more sense to me to share the data AFTER the new proposed qualification system comes out. This data report may not even be relevant to the new proposed system for all we know. I think the data report may INDEED be very helpful to those who are currently devising a new proposal, and I'm glad that there were those who were willing to do all the work on this.
                                        ......
                                        Thanks for the compliment....There was probably 1 man-month (person-month) spent on the analysis between ShotenStar and me. The data is the data. It is enshrined in history. It will not change. The analysis is appropriate to ANY qualification rule proposal that may come out in the future as the data represents the current state of competition scores.

                                        Originally posted by PennyRidge View Post
                                        ...........
                                        Another person might look at all of the statistics and data and form a very different "summary" as to what it means.
                                        I challenge anyone to look at the data and come to a different set of conclusions. As a volunteer, I was willing to donate my time and skills to the effort of understanding the data. I offered Sam Barish to help the USDF with the analysis. I personally did not care how the results came out. I just wanted there to be some analysis behind the qualifying rule proposal. Also, if not me, I offered referals to an unbiased, "non-horsey" PhD statistician....who would, of course, charge for their time. The offer still stands.

                                        If anyone has any questions about how the data was analyzed, how conclusions were arrived at, or any other questions about methods, etc., our e-mail addresses are all in the report. This includes the PennyRidge.

                                        We are available and willing to answer any questions. We have nothing to hide. The data is the data. It was analyzed by 2 professional analysts with standard statistical tools, nothing particularly exotic (ANOVA, regression, statistical summaries), very plebian analyses that anyone who has taken Stats101 would be familiar with.
                                        Last edited by pluvinel; Apr. 12, 2008, 06:33 PM.
                                        Do not confuse motion and progress. A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress.
                                        Alfred A. Montapert

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X