Stallion Spotlight

C-Quito1

Real Estate Spotlight

DSC_0001
  • 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

  • no fordtraktor's credentials definitely aren't of interest to me. I'm just confused because this is a person claiming the safe sport investigators aren't trained and has not answered my question who specifically isn't trained for the position they occupy at safe sport?
    Let me apologize in advance.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

      So we can't presume investigators for safe sport are trained but we can presume a person on the internet who says they're a lawyer is a lawyer and has done all the research
      She's a lawyer.

      I don't think her line of thinking is wrong - it'd be nice if there was distinction and clarity.

      There's always ways things can be improved.

      SS is far from perfect, but god I am thankful it exists.
      AETERNUM VALE, INVICTUS - 7/10/2012

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

        This is actually the third time this has been posted on this thread alone
        Apologies, I went through all 50 pages but missed it. I just thought it was interesting, particularly since to the best of my knowledge, at least one of the individuals named is still a trainer and working in the industry.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by fordtraktor View Post

          I would hope so but I gather there are many who are willing to say the process is JUST FINE and is working well. They have on this thread. I find that lack of nuance in thought depressing for actual justice.
          There is no process that can't be improved.

          I'd agree that notification by email alone is not legal notice - it's not reliable enough for a number of reasons, nor is it necessarily timely. A phone call - even if it's "check your email" is I think appropriate. In addition, email can be sent in a way that allows the sender to know if it was opened, with a timestamp. They should consider this if they are sending any important information that way.

          The interim suspension process is always hard and there's no way to make it without error. The question is, do you prefer the error of letting someone stay in the community longer or the error of putting an innocent name out? This is always going to be a judgement call and the factors I'd consider would be proximity to minors, the weight of what you have in hand, and the reliability of it. This kind of judgement call is made all the time in workplaces. When you're in a school, you don't have to move as fast in summer as you do the day before a multiday overnight field trip. I think this has been the rockiest area of SafeSport.

          There aren't many people who have been genuinely interested in making SafeSport work better and fairer who have made solid, informed suggestions. I think this is because there are very few outsiders who both want that and have the insight to know what would improve it. Our journalists may be of help there.

          It is a new organization with new staff working in the confines of new legislation and hopefully they are coming up the curve quickly.

          And certainly, if they find that someone needs to leave sport, we want their judgement to be correct and also to stand up to any further appeal or legal scrutiny.

          All that said, I'm not aware of any case where a final judgement was reached by SafeSport that wasn't fairly serious and worthy of their attention, even when they were overturned.
          If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post
            no fordtraktor's credentials definitely aren't of interest to me. I'm just confused because this is a person claiming the safe sport investigators aren't trained and has not answered my question who specifically isn't trained for the position they occupy at safe sport?
            Oh COME ON. You just said that there was no proof she was a laywer, people say that she actually is, and she offers for you to PM her for details, and then you say it isn't of interest to you.

            I would assume that people in similar fields would have a good deal of experience and what they have to say could be quite helpful.
            http://weanieeventer.blogspot.com/

            Comment


            • I'm not the one questioning qualifications. I didn't suggest people weren't qualified for their job, I asked who specifically fordtraktor feels isn't qualified for their job as an investigators with safe sport.
              Let me apologize in advance.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by khall View Post
                fordtraktor then you must have problems with the Boy Scouts and how they proceed as well. A child has to make one complaint and then that adult is removed from contact with any child at that point. No trained investigator at all. I have problems with what the BS are doing in other areas, but their policies for protecting the children now are IMO well done.
                I am not responding any longer to Denali or Ladyj but will respond to you as you have a legit question. I have been involved in the BSA as a helper. No BSA leader is allowed in a room with Scouts without another adult present. I have rescheduled work meetings to meet this requirement. It is a great idea for a once a week, one hour club with some weekend activities, and I fully support it.

                I could not find procedures or a published list of currently interim suspended people. Am I missing it? They absolutely should prohibit contact during an investigation of abuse, but it is not evident to me they publish this information outside those concerned.

                http:/www.crossroadsbsa.org/report/

                Also, they have mandatory reporting to the police so the determination is made by the justice system, as far as I can tell. Maybe we should do mandatory reporting and follow the edicts of the court system like they do.

                ““Reason to Believe” means evidence which if presented to individuals of similar background and training would cause those individuals to believe that a child was abused or neglected. Under no circumstances are you to conduct an investigation or ask others to look into it. Confidentiality is a must as well as immediate reporting. When in doubt, report.”

                or not, as I want something broader, myself. Broader, but fair and accurate.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 541hunter View Post
                  ladyj79 it's not that the investigators aren't trained, it's that the policy doesn't specify that the investigators are the ones evaluating the claim at the very beginning of the process. They assign a trained investigator after someone (unclear who) performs an "initial inquiry" to determine if the claim should be investigated. That "someone," it seems, has the right to decide if interim sanctions should be applied. Small distinction, and it may just be that the "someone" IS a trained investigator, but it's not laid out in the Code.
                  I am certain that person is trained in some way and is not, for example, today's temp from the Kelley agency.

                  The way I read that section, for what it is worth, is that there is someone who does intakes and assigns them but does not stay with the case. They assign them to a person - a trained investigator - who will stay with the case from beginning to end.

                  This is, for example, the process we use in my workplace for software development, for new bugs and features. The person doing the assigning is manager level, more experienced and more trained than the developers who get the assignment. This person evaluates and creates the requests, gives them priority, then hands them off to the best available developer, who then is responsible for making sure the work is completed and reports back to a manager when done.
                  If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post
                    I'm not the one questioning qualifications. I didn't suggest people weren't qualified for their job, I asked who specifically fordtraktor feels isn't qualified for their job as an investigators with safe sport.
                    There is no requirement that the interim investigators be trained, maybe they are, we have no way of knowing that. That's the point, they might be trained, they might not. A trained investigator is only required after the interim. If we were concerned about people getting caught up in false claims, a trained investigator required from the start would help calm those fears and provide more legitimacy it would keep the people saying Safe Sport is flawed at bay.
                    http://weanieeventer.blogspot.com/

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by beowulf View Post

                      She's a lawyer.

                      I don't think her line of thinking is wrong - it'd be nice if there was distinction and clarity.

                      There's always ways things can be improved.

                      SS is far from perfect, but god I am thankful it exists.
                      I agree. It needs improvement so the findings seem legitimate to all.

                      Comment


                      • SafeSport sure has alot of people with “skeletons in their closet shaking in their boots”. I say GOOD!

                        Makes me really wonder about some of the most vocal opponents to SafeSport.

                        Time to drain the equestrian swamp!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                          I am certain that person is trained in some way and is not, for example, today's temp from the Kelley agency.

                          The way I read that section, for what it is worth, is that there is someone who does intakes and assigns them but does not stay with the case. They assign them to a person - a trained investigator - who will stay with the case from beginning to end.

                          This is, for example, the process we use in my workplace for software development, for new bugs and features. The person doing the assigning is manager level, more experienced and more trained than the developers who get the assignment. This person evaluates and creates the requests, gives them priority, then hands them off to the best available developer, who then is responsible for making sure the work is completed and reports back to a manager when done.
                          I believe it would be better if the intake person was known to be trained in the issues at hand, the requirements should be at least equivalent to the other assigned investigators, easy peasy, but costs a bit more to hire them.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                            I am certain that person is trained in some way and is not, for example, today's temp from the Kelley agency.

                            The way I read that section, for what it is worth, is that there is someone who does intakes and assigns them but does not stay with the case. They assign them to a person - a trained investigator - who will stay with the case from beginning to end.

                            This is, for example, the process we use in my workplace for software development, for new bugs and features. The person doing the assigning is manager level, more experienced and more trained than the developers who get the assignment. This person evaluates and creates the requests, gives them priority, then hands them off to the best available developer, who then is responsible for making sure the work is completed and reports back to a manager when done.
                            I too feel that's probably the case; I'm the head writer in my department and I have a similar process when a request comes in from a client so I see how that is a fine way to mete out cases. I'm simply suggesting (and perhaps poorly so) that spelling that out in the policy document would be helpful, so that those of us who are defending Safe Sport in hullabaloos like the one we're currently embroiled in can point to something concrete.

                            Once again, very few cases are affected by my small suggestion to clarify the process; it would only be claims where the perpetrator in question is deemed to need interim measures against them before the official investigation starts, which I don't think we have evidence has even happened yet. But clearer policies make for better trust in the process IMO.

                            Comment


                            • fordtraktor, I do not know if a list is published or not. I do know that DFACS or LE are involved as well as going up the food chain in the scouting organization. Both the BS organization and LE will do an investigation, a determination will be made by both based on that investigation. BS are volunteers not trained investigators.

                              As for pointing out the LE should be involved and the court system in general I give you Epstein as a reason why the courts can and do get it wrong.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by fordtraktor View Post
                                Also, they have mandatory reporting to the police so the determination is made by the justice system, as far as I can tell. Maybe we should do mandatory reporting and follow the edicts of the court system like they do.
                                Everyone involved with youth in any official way has mandatory reporting to law enforcement, including SafeSport. What is different for SafeSport is that because they are taking a civil action, they can work with claims that are beyond statute of limitations and also are able to act in other circumstances where there isn't any one crime that can be charged under current code but there is a strong pattern of behavior that makes someone a threat.

                                In most of these organizations, we are able to act on quite a bit less than law enforcement needs. For example, if we had a volunteer pick up a teenage girl and sling her over his shoulder and carry her when she was not injured and in no way needed or asked to be carried - we can tell that individual goodbye and don't come back even though it is not a crime.
                                If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                                Comment


                                • I noticed that SafeSport did just revamp their website substantially. I hope they notice that we're beta-reading their documentation for them.
                                  If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                                  Comment


                                  • @ Tiramit

                                    it hasn't been OK for a 30 something adult to engage in sexual relations with a teenager, especially a young teenager, since the 1800s. Actually, that may be too recent. 1700s?
                                    I'm not arguing that it's OK, or has ever been OK, but here's what Wikipedia has to say:
                                    While the general age of consent is now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.
                                    For example, Edgar Allen Poe married his first cousin in 1835 when she was 14. Sorry, I was a history major.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                                      Everyone involved with youth in any official way has mandatory reporting to law enforcement, including SafeSport. What is different for SafeSport is that because they are taking a civil action, they can work with claims that are beyond statute of limitations and also are able to act in other circumstances where there isn't any one crime that can be charged under current code but there is a strong pattern of behavior that makes someone a threat.

                                      In most of these organizations, we are able to act on quite a bit less than law enforcement needs. For example, if we had a volunteer pick up a teenage girl and sling her over his shoulder and carry her when she was not injured and in no way needed or asked to be carried - we can tell that individual goodbye and don't come back even though it is not a crime.
                                      I agree which is why I prefer something broader. Fair and accurate, but broader. Have the process done by people required to be qualified. Follow the procedure. It isn’t much to ask.

                                      Comment


                                      • @ RainWeasely

                                        That actually might be good, the flaws can be found and fixed.
                                        Except if it means that GM gets off on a technicality.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by khall View Post
                                          fordtraktor, I do not know if a list is published or not. I do know that DFACS or LE are involved as well as going up the food chain in the scouting organization. Both the BS organization and LE will do an investigation, a determination will be made by both based on that investigation. BS are volunteers not trained investigators.

                                          As for pointing out the LE should be involved and the court system in general I give you Epstein as a reason why the courts can and do get it wrong.
                                          Courts can get it wrong, orgs can get it wrong. That is why we need a good procedure. Fair procedure is the best way to protect all sides.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X