Sport Horse Spotlight

Vitalis_img_4461skawx LL_Fotos

Real Estate Spotlight

Sale Spotlight

COTH_without Subscribe
  • 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

George Morris on the SS list

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

  • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

    They use “constitutional rights” as a buzzword. If you push them to use complete sentences, I think they have in mind 1) the constitutional right to a fair trial and 2) the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a fair trial.

    What is too subtle for them to understand is that those constitutional rights apply to criminal and civil prosecution by the state, and do not apply to SafeSport or the SafeSport code, even though SafeSport was created and mandated by federal legislation.

    Actually, I think some of them do understand it by now, but lacking a legitimate objection, they keep falling back on the misused “It’s unconstitutional!” Think of it as a pretentious way of saying “But I don’t like it!”

    There’s a reason they don’t speak in complete sentences or articulate a coherent position. They don’t have a coherent position to articulate.
    Agreed. It became clear that the willfully ignorant were out in force at the Q&A. Especially when Ms. "I had heard there's a fee" wouldn't let that go.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jenerationx View Post

      Agreed. It became clear that the willfully ignorant were out in force at the Q&A. Especially when Ms. "I had heard there's a fee" wouldn't let that go.
      And Bonnie is STILL pushing the idea that there is a fee. She said, there wasn't a fee to start an investigation, but once someone was banned, there was a fee to determine if you should get temporary measures. No, if your are banned, you've already gotten temporary measures. If you want to be taken off temporary measures, you have to go to arbitration, for which there is a fee. If you want to fight your ruling, it is done through arbitration, for which you have to pay.

      Why do people think these things should be free? If you face civil charges, you pay for everything to defend yourself.
      *****
      You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by fair judy View Post

        I did see his post, oddly and solely because I changed my Facebook presence to Sarah pair simply because I wasn’t comfortable with unfriending 150 people. Facebook became to triggering for me and now all the people I blocked under Sarah Hochschwender are visible again.😎 I have no problem with Duncan’s comments although it is telling that he immediately backed up when I revealed to him that I am Sarah Hochschwender. I have given
        him my phone number to contact me. Sadly, I learned some time ago not to have in-depth private conversations in private messaging. I do hope he contacts me. I believe in restorative justice, the trigger for Duncan was when I asked him if he really thought George was interested in participating in that process.
        The day George Morris sincerely and genuinely admits that what he did was wrong will be the day I grow a second, third, and fourth head.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

          Duncan's comment speaks to exactly the intersectional crisis I said months ago was coming for people like Dover, and obviously duncan:

          These guys ostensibly believe they're defending a gay man from homophobia, but really they're defending a pedophile who happened to prefer boys, thus perpetuating the worst homophobic stereotype of all.
          I IMMEDIATELY thought of your earlier comment on the intersectional crisis.

          You were so on point with that. And here it is ... again.

          In my opinion, he’s doing the same thing he has been doing all along... he’s trying to portray himself as some sort of super smart, super enlightened, philosophical and cultural leader.

          And of course, he’s also trying to cozy up to the powerful old guard in sport. Like so many others in the ISWG crowd. Because these people are all about using a crisis in sport involving a revered coach and Olympian who has been banned for the sexual abuse of minors to....

          wait for it....

          advance their own profile as a professional in the industry.

          In another comment, he mentioned actually working with Jonathan years ago, and essentially said that he thought the relationship was consensual.

          For everyone who has forgotten, JS went to ride with George and live at Hunterdon back in 1968, I think. He was 13 or 14 years old at the time. And an emotionally vulnerable teen, as his father had passed away at age 6.

          JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. Pause on the issue of possession of child pornography, discovered years and years later. Just think about a young teenage boy, from a middle class background, whose father had died, and who was living with a coach and had dreams of making it as a professional in the sport.

          Its awful. And really sad. And these people excusing it? Whitewashing it? Awful. Just AWFUL.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

            They use “constitutional rights” as a buzzword. If you push them to use complete sentences, I think they have in mind 1) the constitutional right to a fair trial and 2) the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a fair trial.

            What is too subtle for them to understand is that those constitutional rights apply to criminal and civil prosecution by the state, and do not apply to SafeSport or the SafeSport code, even though SafeSport was created and mandated by federal legislation.

            Actually, I think some of them do understand it by now, but lacking a legitimate objection, they keep falling back on the misused “It’s unconstitutional!” Think of it as a pretentious way of saying “But I don’t like it!”

            There’s a reason they don’t speak in complete sentences or articulate a coherent position. They don’t have a coherent position to articulate.
            They also conveniently (for them) overlook the fact that your constitutional rights do not prevent you being held in jail until your fair trial, should the judge decide it's necessary. They only need look as far as Michael Barisone for an example.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

              They use “constitutional rights” as a buzzword. If you push them to use complete sentences, I think they have in mind 1) the constitutional right to a fair trial and 2) the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a fair trial.

              What is too subtle for them to understand is that those constitutional rights apply to criminal and civil prosecution by the state, and do not apply to SafeSport or the SafeSport code, even though SafeSport was created and mandated by federal legislation.

              Actually, I think some of them do understand it by now, but lacking a legitimate objection, they keep falling back on the misused “It’s unconstitutional!” Think of it as a pretentious way of saying “But I don’t like it!”

              There’s a reason they don’t speak in complete sentences or articulate a coherent position. They don’t have a coherent position to articulate.
              I think what's happening is that both sides are conflating two concepts:

              1. True "Constitutional rights" that would create a right of action in court; and

              2. The intuition that any large body that has a substantial impact on people's lives and livelihoods should function according to certain norms of procedural and substantive fairness (sometimes short-handed as "due process.")

              The latter is why, for example, a huge contingent of Harvard Law School professors rebelled when the university instituted a sexual misconduct adjudication policy that they felt leaned too far toward the rights of the accuser and did not allow the accused a fair chance to mount a defense. NB: Harvard Law is a private institution and no one has a "Constitutional right" to attend.

              I hope that most horse people, recognizing the huge impact that USEF can have on people's lives and livelihoods, would also embrace the value of fundamental fairness in SafeSport's procedures.

              I will say that the presence in SafeSport of so many criminal defense attorneys, former prosecutors, and judges (i.e., the JAMS folks) gives me confidence that they have a very good understanding of due process and are unlikely to allow an accused person to be railroaded.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

                I IMMEDIATELY thought of your earlier comment on the intersectional crisis.

                You were so on point with that. And here it is ... again.

                In my opinion, he’s doing the same thing he has been doing all along... he’s trying to portray himself as some sort of super smart, super enlightened, philosophical and cultural leader.

                And of course, he’s also trying to cozy up to the powerful old guard in sport. Like so many others in the ISWG crowd. Because these people are all about using a crisis in sport involving a revered coach and Olympian who has been banned for the sexual abuse of minors to....

                wait for it....

                advance their own profile file as a professional in the industry.

                In another comment, he mentioned actually working with Jonathan years ago, and essentially said that he thought the relationship was consensual.

                For everyone who has forgotten, JS went to ride with George and live at Hunterdon back in 1968, I think. He was 13 or 14 years old st the time. And an emotionally vulnerable teen, as his father had passed away at age 6.

                JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. Pause on the issue of possession of child pornography, discovered years and years later. Just think about a young teenage boy, from a middle class background, whose father had died, and who was living with a coach and had dreams of making it as a professional in the sport.

                Its awful. And really sad. And these people excusing it? Whitewashing it? Awful. Just AWFUL.
                In all fairness this is coming from someone who believes his 10 year old daughter can make her own choices about having sexual contact with an adult and she has to live with those choices. He also believes that one is ONLY a victim if they choose to remain quiet about abuse. If nothing else, he’s consistent.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Midge View Post

                  And Bonnie is STILL pushing the idea that there is a fee. She said, there wasn't a fee to start an investigation, but once someone was banned, there was a fee to determine if you should get temporary measures. No, if your are banned, you've already gotten temporary measures. If you want to be taken off temporary measures, you have to go to arbitration, for which there is a fee. If you want to fight your ruling, it is done through arbitration, for which you have to pay.

                  Why do people think these things should be free? If you face civil charges, you pay for everything to defend yourself.
                  Apparently there are some fees. If you are on an interim suspension while the investigation is going on (which is very rare), you can pay a fee to have arbitration of the interim suspension; if you want to appeal the final sanction, you pay a fee for the arbitration.

                  So there are fees. I am all for the ISWG types donating their own money to pay these fees and pay for lawyers to defend their friends. Since SS issues interim suspensions in only 2% of cases, and only 1% of sanctions are overturned (which suggests that the vast majority of those sanctioned will wise up and not waste money on an appeal), it’s probably not even a lot of money involved. If funding the defense of the accused were a moral issue, you would think these funds would appear for all the accused, not just for the famous people like GM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                    I think what's happening is that both sides are conflating two concepts:

                    1. True "Constitutional rights" that would create a right of action in court; and

                    2. The intuition that any large body that has a substantial impact on people's lives and livelihoods should function according to certain norms of procedural and substantive fairness (sometimes short-handed as "due process.")

                    The latter is why, for example, a huge contingent of Harvard Law School professors rebelled when the university instituted a sexual misconduct adjudication policy that they felt leaned too far toward the rights of the accuser and did not allow the accused a fair chance to mount a defense. NB: Harvard Law is a private institution and no one has a "Constitutional right" to attend.

                    I hope that most horse people, recognizing the huge impact that USEF can have on people's lives and livelihoods, would also embrace the value of fundamental fairness in SafeSport's procedures.

                    I will say that the presence in SafeSport of so many criminal defense attorneys, former prosecutors, and judges (i.e., the JAMS folks) gives me confidence that they have a very good understanding of due process and are unlikely to allow an accused person to be railroaded.
                    Comparing a power imbalance among adults for grades, letters of recommendation, a law clerk position or just plain fraternization is widely different than penetrating and molesting kids.

                    Yes having sex with kids ruins ones ability to make money in their chosen field. That is not unique to the USEF. I’m appalled that people find all of this revolutionary.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

                      Comparing a power imbalance among adults for grades, letters of recommendation, a law clerk position or just plain fraternization is widely different than penetrating and molesting kids.

                      Yes having sex with kids ruins ones ability to make money in their chosen field. That is not unique to the USEF. I’m appalled that people find all of this revolutionary.
                      I can't determine if you don't understand my post, or if you are actually arguing that it doesn't matter whether SafeSport's procedures are fair.

                      My position, to put it more simply, is that as moral human beings, we all ought to have an interest in ensuring that SafeSport's procedures are fair. Having learned more about how the process works, the statistics regarding how often a SafeSport violation is found (which turns out to be in a small minority of reported cases), and the qualifications of SafeSport personnel, I am leaning toward believing the process is overall fair and is not likely to result in someone being railroaded.

                      Comment


                      • I think that "fair" is a word open to an incredible array of interpretations, hence the outcry from all sides.

                        Let me apologize in advance.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                          Apparently there are some fees. If you are on an interim suspension while the investigation is going on (which is very rare), you can pay a fee to have arbitration of the interim suspension; if you want to appeal the final sanction, you pay a fee for the arbitration.

                          So there are fees. I am all for the ISWG types donating their own money to pay these fees and pay for lawyers to defend their friends. Since SS issues interim suspensions in only 2% of cases, and only 1% of sanctions are overturned (which suggests that the vast majority of those sanctioned will wise up and not waste money on an appeal), it’s probably not even a lot of money involved. If funding the defense of the accused were a moral issue, you would think these funds would appear for all the accused, not just for the famous people like GM.
                          Exactly. I also find it odd Bonnie is STILL beating the drum regarding the fees. She claims to have represented people pro-bono. I have no reason at this time to question this particular claim (that she hasn’t charged people for work she has done on Safe Sport issues). But I find her focus on the arbitration fees strange. She’s a LAWYER. She KNOWS that the REAL expense is the actual billable hours people have to pay attorneys if they don’t have someone defending them on a pro bono basis.

                          By all means... if others disagree with my take on this, especially the actual attorneys who follow these threads, feel free to educate me. But honestly... the arbitration fees do not seem like a major concern to me.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                            Apparently there are some fees. If you are on an interim suspension while the investigation is going on (which is very rare), you can pay a fee to have arbitration of the interim suspension; if you want to appeal the final sanction, you pay a fee for the arbitration.
                            Isn't that what I said?
                            *****
                            You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mvp View Post

                              Well,.... the PR disaster was perhaps a bit of a self-inflicted wound. Moroney might helped himself if he had issued a stronger statement of reaction to the results of the GM Lifetime ban. I'm not sure it would have made a difference to the crowd of entitled, clueless USEF members who felt sure they had grounds for debating the merits of SafeSport's process. Had those people seen the NGB come down fully on the side of SafeSport just a couple of weeks earlier, however, they might have been forced to consider SafeSport more carefully`or soften their unpopular position. As Moroney's curt statement stood, it left some implied room for unhappy USEF members to contest SafeSport.
                              Two points:
                              1) The higher ups in USEF are not privy to any of the details or evidence of the investigation or arbitration any more than we, the membership, are, so I don’t see how they are in a position of authority to say to what degree they “agree with” or “fully support” or “applaud” the decision.
                              2) SS may not want “support” from USEF beyond USEF fulfilling its legal obligation of enforcing the ban. I am old enough to be reminded of a time in the late 70’s when post resignation Nixon reached out to the Republican Party offering his support or assistance in some election or other, and the Republican Party responded with “Thanks for the offer, Mr. Nixon, but you’ve done quite enough.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Midge View Post

                                Isn't that what I said?


                                Yes, but you said it in the context of Bonnie Navin continuing to hammer on about fees. I have a lot of issues with Bonnie Navin, but I wouldn’t criticize her for complaining about fees, when there are, in fact, fees. She probably wants SS (I.e. the taxpayer) to pay all the arbitration costs, but that is unfair to taxpayers and creates the wrong incentives.

                                The solution to the existence of fees is for ISWG and other SS-bashing groups to raise the funds privately and make the funds available to their friends.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post



                                  Yes, but you said it in the context of Bonnie Navin continuing to hammer on about fees. I have a lot of issues with Bonnie Navin, but I wouldn’t criticize her for complaining about fees, when there are, in fact, fees. She probably wants SS (I.e. the taxpayer) to pay all the arbitration costs, but that is unfair to taxpayers and creates the wrong incentives.

                                  The solution to the existence of fees is for ISWG and other SS-bashing groups to raise the funds privately and make the funds available to their friends.
                                  Mr. Henry did emphasize that hardship exemptions from fees are considered on a case-by-case basis. Something else the ones repeatedly whining about fees seem to have missed.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                                    I can't determine if you don't understand my post, or if you are actually arguing that it doesn't matter whether SafeSport's procedures are fair.

                                    My position, to put it more simply, is that as moral human beings, we all ought to have an interest in ensuring that SafeSport's procedures are fair. Having learned more about how the process works, the statistics regarding how often a SafeSport violation is found (which turns out to be in a small minority of reported cases), and the qualifications of SafeSport personnel, I am leaning toward believing the process is overall fair and is not likely to result in someone being railroaded.
                                    Typically, when BN and others crow about it not being “fair” what they mean is it’s not fair their friends got caught.

                                    I understood your point just didn’t like the analogy. The second paragraph was more wondering, why professionals in our sport, feel the need to be held to a lesser standard than other professionals that work with children?

                                    For example, upon an accusation that prompts a police investigation a teacher will be removed from their position and put on the news. It’s only after a complete investigation and maybe a trial is the teacher allowed back (maybe) or put in jail or just fired and good luck with a rehire.

                                    That is what confuses me about the “fair argument.” No one as of yet has gone to jail. Not even Randall Cates. The police and prosecutor didn’t have enough for a trial. Yes it impacts ones ability to make a living in their chosen profession, but I do not think that coaches should have a lower bar than anyone else who works with minors.

                                    Honestly, any horse pro worth their salt that I have met and worked for has told me to go to college, have a day job or marry rich to have a secondary income in order to make a go at being a pro.


                                    So as someone who has worked for UL riders, S judges, and olympians who all told me the same career advice, this separate bar for coaches just doesn’t fly.

                                    I also have noticed, it is by and large the BNT/R H/J crowd pitching a fit and falling in it publicly all over social media.

                                    I understand the skepticism of policies that have seemingly hit over night. I understand the squirming when some of the biggest names get banned. I do not understand the insistence that pros in our sport who work with kids should be held to a lessor standard. Nor do I understand the belief that not being able to ride and show luxury sport pets equates to a jail sentence or being on a sex offender list.


                                    ETA: I am unclear why it is so difficult for people to read the policies and procedures on the Safe Sport website so hard. I am also unclear why people don’t email the liaison at the USEF with their questions. I never thought SS was unfair because I knew from reading the website that they used JAMS for arbitration and looked at their hiring page to see what they require for the different positions.

                                    And please don’t take any of my post as me thinking you do this, it’s just what I have seen over the past two years.
                                    Last edited by TheMoo; Dec. 13, 2019, 04:51 PM.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post



                                      Yes, but you said it in the context of Bonnie Navin continuing to hammer on about fees. I have a lot of issues with Bonnie Navin, but I wouldn’t criticize her for complaining about fees, when there are, in fact, fees. She probably wants SS (I.e. the taxpayer) to pay all the arbitration costs, but that is unfair to taxpayers and creates the wrong incentives.

                                      The solution to the existence of fees is for ISWG and other SS-bashing groups to raise the funds privately and make the funds available to their friends.
                                      The fees are charged by JAMS. Not Safe Sport. No one, not even in criminal trials, is forced to appeal. It’s optional. She is very misleading about the fees.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post



                                        Yes, but you said it in the context of Bonnie Navin continuing to hammer on about fees. I have a lot of issues with Bonnie Navin, but I wouldn’t criticize her for complaining about fees, when there are, in fact, fees. She probably wants SS (I.e. the taxpayer) to pay all the arbitration costs, but that is unfair to taxpayers and creates the wrong incentives.

                                        The solution to the existence of fees is for ISWG and other SS-bashing groups to raise the funds privately and make the funds available to their friends.
                                        But there are only fees if you choose to go to arbitration. That's not how she's presenting it.
                                        *****
                                        You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

                                          The fees are charged by JAMS. Not Safe Sport. No one, not even in criminal trials, is forced to appeal. It’s optional. She is very misleading about the fees.
                                          No one is forced to appeal, but even an ardently pro-SS person like me thinks that the opportunity to appeal is an important safeguard to protect the rights of the accused (and thereby strengthen the legitimacy of SS).

                                          If you want to avail yourself of an appeal of your SS sanction, you, the respondent, must pay for the arbitration yourself. So you pay JAMS, not SS. The point is that the cost of arbitration of a SS sanction is borne by the respondent, not by SS. (Except in the case of hardship or if you win the appeal.)

                                          I have no problem with the respondent paying the arbitration costs, as that creates the right incentives, and the alternative is that the costs are paid by SS = taxpayer = me.

                                          But there are fees. Of all of Bonnie Navin’s complaints, this one is basically correct. If she is morally outraged that the accused pay for their defense and arbitration, she can channel that outrage into Go Fund Me campaigns to raise money to pay her to defend these people. All of that seems harmless to me.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X