General > General Discussion

Possible VT solutions

(1/21) > >>

Chris Nelson:
Hey Folks,

So we are going to work through some possible solutions here, and also rule out some suggestions that just aren't feasible.

Things that aren't feasible:

1) Banning anyone based on emails alone.   This just doesn't work.    Much as I would love to think that everyone is a great and friendly person in the agility world, sometimes that just isn't the case.   And we can't ban someone based off word of mouth alone.   So anyone suggesting this can move on and focus their efforts on a different solution.

2) Limiting VT's to 50%.   This would be massively difficult.    Depending on the application.   If it was 50% of every single title and award, I will be grey before my next birthday.     If it was 50% for a NATCH only, that is much more doable, albeit still very headache inducing.

3) Separating the VT program completely.   This is 100% doable, but I really don't like it.   The only way this will happen is with overwhelming support from everyone.    This would essentially eliminate the VT program for most people, and at that point we might as well just end the program entirely.


Possible solutions that are workable:

A) VT's do not count towards Top Ten or Qualifying points for Championships.   This is incredibly simple to do and would help with 70% of the problems people have.

B)   Mileage rules and time from trial is more strictly and accurately enforced.   This will take some time to make accurate, but currently it's done by good faith.   So any step forward here will be an improvement.   The mileage number would need to be decided.   

C) If you are questioned about the validity of your runs you are required to have another person, approved by NADAC,  to sign off on your videos.    This would help since 90% of the people submitting videos are doing it correctly and with the right intentions.    And the other 10% who we question but don't have proof of anything can be supervised by someone we deem trust worthy.   

D) Only 2 course sets will be posted per month.     This will bring the program more in line with how many trials an average competitor can go to each month.


 
Now some of these solutions will cause new issues.  Mainly with the folks who like to do VT because they just aren't comfortable at trials or have issues with the local club and don't want to trial with them.   And sadly there is no good answer to this and it's just going to be the case, it's still the better option considering the alternative of cancelling the program entirely.

So let me know your thoughts, and try to keep it productive.    I get that everyone is upset, with myself and with the people who created this issue.    But at this point it is what it is and we need to focus on how to fix it for the future, not how we got here.

KarissaKS:

--- Quote ---3) Separating the VT program completely.   This is 100% doable, but I really don't like it.   The only way this will happen is with overwhelming support from everyone.    This would essentially eliminate the VT program for most people, and at that point we might as well just end the program entirely.
--- End quote ---

Why would keeping the two programs separate eliminate the VT program for most people? They still have the option of working towards VT titles. And they have the option of working towards regular titles at trials. The two just wouldn't be combined, which they shouldn't be. If people don't see value or worth in VT titles I would ask them why they support the program.

Titles and awards are not a god-given right. Not every team is guaranteed a NATCH, be it through financial limitations, training limitations, medical limitations (dog or human) or geographical limitations. Further, if people find it difficult to complete goals towards Versatility NATCH or All Around awards due to class schedules at local trials then that is something to bring up with local clubs. If you just plain old can't afford to run all of your dogs in all of the runs at trials and feel slighted for that reason, that is a *PERSONAL CHOICE* (says she who has five dogs and absolutely makes choices about who does what because of $$).

Or, you just focus on earning those awards in the VT program.

If the programs remain combined, the mileage rule should be boosted greatly. If you have a trial available within a 3 hour drive within a one-month period you shouldn't be able to VT, maybe unless you ALSO go support the trial. VT was originally created to help fill the void for areas without NADAC trials -- not to supplement your trials to allow you to get titles faster and cheaper.

On that note, why not up the cost of VT submissions? Who wouldn't find it appealing to earn titles at a fraction of the cost of attending trials? With VT you have a 100% Q-rate at $5/run. At trials a person is paying $10-$15/run and might have a 20% Q-rate. If you were that person, which would you choose? I mean sure, I'd rather pay $200 for a NATCH than $2000. Make it so that VT submissions cost more than a trial entry -- maybe $20 -- then we'll see what titles really mean to people I guess. And bonus, more $$ for NADAC.

Chris Nelson:
I just think a lot of people would feel slighted.   Even though it makes total sense to me to separate them,   I can already see a lot of issues from someone being in Elite-VT-Regular but only in Open regular for trials.
I think folks would just stop competing in one or the other.

Iím more on board with making VTs difficult to do when a trial is nearby and encouraging more people to trial instead,  and if they choose not to support the trial they canít do a VT, period.

The cost thing Iím on the fence about.   I agree it is a very different situation only paying for your Qís instead of paying for your attempt at a Q like at a trial.   Just have to think about the possible negative ramifications from that before I say too much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jmurdock:
Hi Chris,
Just a thought on the enforcing the mileage rule... I believe the current rule is somewhere around 200 miles which for us is fine most of the year; however, driving over the Sierra Nevada mountains in mid-winter can be difficult if not downright treacherous.  Would you allow us to request specific exceptions at certain times of the year?
thanks for all you do,
Jill Murdock

Chris Nelson:

--- Quote from: jmurdock on December 01, 2017, 12:27:17 PM ---Hi Chris,
Just a thought on the enforcing the mileage rule... I believe the current rule is somewhere around 200 miles which for us is fine most of the year; however, driving over the Sierra Nevada mountains in mid-winter can be difficult if not downright treacherous.  Would you allow us to request specific exceptions at certain times of the year?
thanks for all you do,
Jill Murdock

--- End quote ---

Since we're really in a planning phase right now we won't rule anything out.
That also means I can't guarantee anything either!

In the end I think the majority of the smaller intricate rules will be left to a vote, because there is just no obvious or easy answer.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version