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

George Morris on the SS list

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

    Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

    I see where your coming from. Your analogies are way off. I’ll use GM as the example.

    SS get complaints from multiple people about GM sexual molesting them as kids. SS takes a preliminary look into the allegations. SS decides it warrants an investigation. (On the SS web site you can see job openings and see the qualifications people have to have from intake to investigator etc)

    SS begins investigation gathers evidence. Tells GM he’s been accused by X,Y and Z. On going investigation continues. Phone calls are made to interview all people involved. Presumably for both sides. (Smart person has already lawyered up.).

    SS finds enough evidence for a life time ban at the conclusion of investigation. Tells GM. Name posted.

    GM can appeal.

    So the name name on the list is after the trial in your analogy not at the DA police investigation stage.

    Now, maybe FiSk123 can shed light on how much evidence to support the obvious denial that would happen is allowed by the accused during the investigation. I don’t think it’s as one sided as people make it out to be.

    So I get now where you are coming from. However, if the goal is to close the 2%-6% of innocent people getting hemmed up in the system, using the criminal justice system as a base is not going to work. That’s where those statistics come from.

    Further more, the percentage of false claims Safe Sport fields, never see the light of day unless there is enough evidence that someone poses an immediate danger. Then they get an interim suspension and either full suspension or exonerated. Like the CJ system, they are still named.
    It’s my analogy; if you don’t find it useful don’t use it. I tried to explain to you that in my analogy the SafeSport investigation is NOT analogous to a trial, it is analogous to police investigation and indictment by DA, with requested penalty.

    In my analogy, the first real “day in court” for the respondent is the appeal when SafeSport shows up as the adversary (prosecution) and has to meet its burden of proof to the arbitrator (judge).

    In the appeal, it is not the claimant that is the plaintiff, it is SafeSport. The claimant is a witness for the prosecution.

    I am using the criminal justice system as an analogy. Still not saying SafeSport should be the criminal justice system.

    Still saying that modest, well defined changes are worthy of discussion. Like sworn witness statements, or other specific elements of the criminal justice system that are not currently part of SafeSport.

    I don’t even know what you mean by “a goal of clos[ing] the 2-6% of innocent people getting hemmed up in the system”.

    Comment


      Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

      It’s my analogy; if you don’t find it useful don’t use it. I tried to explain to you that in my analogy the SafeSport investigation is NOT analogous to a trial, it is analogous to police investigation and indictment by DA, with requested penalty.

      In my analogy, the first real “day in court” for the respondent is the appeal when SafeSport shows up as the adversary (prosecution) and has to meet its burden of proof to the arbitrator (judge).

      In the appeal, it is not the claimant that is the plaintiff, it is SafeSport. The claimant is a witness for the prosecution.

      I am using the criminal justice system as an analogy. Still not saying SafeSport should be the criminal justice system.

      Still saying that modest, well defined changes are worthy of discussion. Like sworn witness statements, or other specific elements of the criminal justice system that are not currently part of SafeSport.

      I don’t even know what you mean by “a goal of clos[ing] the 2-6% of innocent people getting hemmed up in the system”.
      I was trying to explain how it really works. It’s hard to align an HR department, which is the best analogy, to a criminal case.

      You and HL Mom keep saying 6% of innocent people getting accused of crimes they didn’t commit is unacceptable and therefore Safe Sport should be made better to ensure that doesn’t happen. Well that 6% comes from the criminal justice system so if that’s what you want to see as your improvements to Safe Sport it won’t work.

      I don’t how better to explain it as I don’t think you have a good grasp of how police investigations work, trials work, and how the appellate process works.

      Honestly I’m questioning what dog you have in this fight as your only posts have to do with Safe Sport. Curious why you care so much about the horse community. I bet alter.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

        So you want it tossed to the courts and not work as an HR department?

        I disagree because none of that is necessary. No one is getting fined, sentenced to jail or probation, or other liberties revoked. It’s a freaking horse show and horse club.

        This post is why horse people look like jerks with Safe Sport. Putting the ability to be a member in a voluntary organization to participate in horse shows on the level of the courts.

        Again the 6% innocent getting caught up comes from the courts so I fail to see how that helps. That was the reason for why it needs to be tweaked.

        Denali, upthread you seemed to endorse the idea of signed witness statements if that would have successfully nailed the Taekwondo abusers. Is a signed witness statement different from a sworn statement or a statement under oath?

        Comment


          Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post


          Denali, upthread you seemed to endorse the idea of signed witness statements if that would have successfully nailed the Taekwondo abusers. Is a signed witness statement different from a sworn statement or a statement under oath?
          Yes. Police can get signed statements all day long. No oath with the court required. Hell I write them occasionally for work. No court or law enforcement involved. And those statements I sign are apart of why a multimillion dollar aircraft got damaged or someone got seriously hurt.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Pennywell Bay View Post
            Maybe if people actually read the links on SS page that tell exactly what the process are and the procedures. They have them advises the accused and the accuser.
            They do not list time frames for everything- neither does the law. Investigations can take as long as they take, and they keep all parties informed.

            Maybe if those in such a tizzy actually educated themselves they wouldn’t look like raving morons.
            It’s never a good idea to call ANYONE a “raving moron” without first proofreading your post. Just my opinion ...

            Comment


              Pennywell Bay nah, dude, you were spot on. Just my opinion.
              Let me apologize in advance.

              Comment


                Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post
                Pennywell Bay nah, dude, you were spot on. Just my opinion.
                Right on, ladyj!

                .....
                Let me apologize in advance.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post
                  Pennywell Bay nah, dude, you were spot on. Just my opinion.
                  Fantastic, then maybe you can translate.
                  It seems so silly to me to be calling names rather than just listening. It’s an interesting conversation to read, but there are clearly some who are “slinging” and others who are “explaining”.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                    Right on, ladyj!

                    .....
                    I fully support any and all typographical errors when calling people morons for the meat of their post. Oh and pssst you were supposed to use your other login

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                      Right on, ladyj!

                      .....
                      And good for you for congratulating yourself ... we should all do that more often (seriously!)

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                        I was trying to explain how it really works. It’s hard to align an HR department, which is the best analogy, to a criminal case.

                        You and HL Mom keep saying 6% of innocent people getting accused of crimes they didn’t commit is unacceptable and therefore Safe Sport should be made better to ensure that doesn’t happen. Well that 6% comes from the criminal justice system so if that’s what you want to see as your improvements to Safe Sport it won’t work.

                        I don’t how better to explain it as I don’t think you have a good grasp of how police investigations work, trials work, and how the appellate process works.

                        Honestly I’m questioning what dog you have in this fight as your only posts have to do with Safe Sport. Curious why you care so much about the horse community. I bet alter.
                        No one has said that 6% of innocent people get accused of crimes. The statement is that, of people accused of crimes between 2% and 6% are innocent. Neither HL Mom nor I have said 6% or 2% is “unacceptable”.

                        All we have said is that it is useful to have a discussion on what specific, well defined, incremental changes might be made in order to protect someone who, from the perspective of a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, contemplated the system
                        from the perspective of an innocent person wrongly accused.

                        I think that there are modifications that could be made that might improve the success rate at appeal (success defined as upholding the sanction) and at the same time improving the protection of the wrongly accused. My motivation for wanting to improve procedural protections for the accused is primarily to strengthen the legitimacy of SafeSport.

                        Why do you think you have the moral high ground in insisting none of this can be discussed and dumping on a poster for using the phrase “alleged victim”? Rhetorical question.

                        I am not an alter. Not for HL Mom and not for anybody. I am a dressage rider, as you should have figured out from my posts on fashion trends in dressage. I am also a victim of rape and have two children. Other than that, no dog in this fight.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                          Right on, ladyj!

                          .....

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                            No one has said that 6% of innocent people get accused of crimes. The statement is that, of people accused of crimes between 2% and 6% are innocent. Neither HL Mom nor I have said 6% or 2% is “unacceptable”.

                            All we have said is that it is useful to have a discussion on what specific, well defined, incremental changes might be made in order to protect someone who, from the perspective of a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, contemplated the system
                            from the perspective of an innocent person wrongly accused.

                            I think that there are modifications that could be made that might improve the success rate at appeal (success defined as upholding the sanction) and at the same time improving the protection of the wrongly accused. My motivation for wanting to improve procedural protections for the accused is primarily to strengthen the legitimacy of SafeSport.

                            Why do you think you have the moral high ground in insisting none of this can be discussed and dumping on a poster for using the phrase “alleged victim”? Rhetorical question.

                            I am not an alter. Not for HL Mom and not for anybody. I am a dressage rider, as you should have figured out from my posts on fashion trends in dressage. I am also a victim of rape and have two children. Other than that, no dog in this fight.
                            So why bring up that statistic. Y’all focused on the wrongly accused. I’m trying to impart some knowledge about the history of the criminal justice system. The 6% was HL Mom’s point. Maybe not yours.

                            Um all your posts are here and the RG thread so no clue about your Dressage riding.

                            I don’t think I have a moral high ground I’m correcting misinformation.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by skydy View Post

                              She was being funny about HL Mom and Horsegirl’s Mom being the same poster and “forgetting” they were logged into both accounts at the same time because they were using a laptop and desktop at the same time.

                              Comment


                                Oh. Thanks.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by skydy View Post

                                  oh because someone got called out for being multiple different logins and congratulating their alters like, within the last five pages, and then they admitted it like it was a totally normal and acceptable practice.

                                  I'm doing it wrong, because its just way too much work creating alters, but some people seem to really enjoy that echo chamber. And I mean, I really, really agree with me.

                                  Its frankly hilarious.
                                  Let me apologize in advance.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                                    I fully support any and all typographical errors when calling people morons for the meat of their post. Oh and pssst you were supposed to use your other login
                                    Calling people morons in posts that don’t even rise to the level of “semi-literate” when you don’t have a coherent argument to make to rebut the meat of a post is pretty much the literary and debating style of the ISWG group.
                                    Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Aug. 27, 2019, 12:43 AM.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                                      She was being funny about HL Mom and Horsegirl’s Mom being the same poster and “forgetting” they were logged into both accounts at the same time because they were using a laptop and desktop at the same time.
                                      this thread reads so much faster when you can ignore three people in one or is it one person in three??
                                      Let me apologize in advance.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by skydy View Post

                                        I think this is her cutesy way of accusing me of being an alter for HL Mom.
                                        But I am not an alter.

                                        Comment


                                          Tommy Serio was accused of sexual harassment. The accuser was found to have made a false claim. Tommy Serio is not banned from USEF.

                                          The system worked for Tommy Serio. Even though his wife hemmed and hawed about how "unfair" the whole thing was, in the end... The system worked.

                                          I do not understand why people are getting so bent out of shape over a process that is to protect children from child predators. The only thing people seem to want to do is turn SS into a court of law. Which is not the purpose of SS. The purpose of SS is literally to protect children from sexual abuse.

                                          I do not get the argument about a statute of limitations. Do you really think that after a period of time, every sexually abused person just suddenly gets over it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish with that stipulation?

                                          I'm not saying SS is perfect. But the things people keep whinging about are addressed over and over and over and yet it falls on deaf ears who keep shouting "DUE PROCESS!" "DISCOVERY!" "CROSS EXAMINATION!!!!!!"

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X