General > General Discussion

Possible VT solutions

<< < (16/26) > >>

BeckyAH:
Re: Cost of judge/trials.  To keep things relatively impartial and fair there are also rules about how close to 'home' a judge can judge.  So a local person really isn't an option for saving money for clubs.   As Chris said, it's just expensive.

And of course entries are what is used to recoup those costs, and when the trial is small (either in number of people or number of runs) that actually makes it harder to do.   Those 10-15 whatever people show up to run a few courses at a VT run aren't going to come close to enough entries to pay for a real trial, as I understand the math.

Sheila & the Shelties:
It seems that a lot of these answers, and I haven't read them all yet, support or suggest things that don't affect them. For instance, if people have a lot of local trials that are nearby in their area, they support the 200-mile limitation. (I thought it was 150 mile limitation.) But anyway, they seem to support that issue because it won't affect them at all. And I will support Jill's suggestion that in the winter, traveling 150 miles over a place such as the Sierra is a lot more difficult then traveling somewhere in the Midwest, an exemption might be considered. And I say that having lived for quite a while in the Midwest.

That's only one example. Chris, I think in evaluating these suggestions you have to look at what is best for the program overall, and not suggestions that are specific to certain people in certain locations. A lot of people have said that VTS were started for people in remote locations, and that is true. But I also thought there were other reasons, such as people having certain dogs that did not do well at trials or were aggressive, and they wanted to do agility somewhere else.  If this is no longer reason for VTS, then  that reason should be dropped. And I will note that this does not apply to me.

I think any solutions that are proposed should be addressing the main problem, which is 10% of the people who are cheating. It should not be for other people to beat the drum again for reasons they did not want the VT program in the first place. I don't think I see how changing up the mileage for VT trials addresses the issue of cheating, unless the whole program is open to review, and that is somehow seen as addressing some other issue.

The only way I see to address the issue of cheating is you have some kind of verification process. Perhaps there should be a document everyone should sign when submitting a VT run to testify they have done it according to the rules. And anyone making a complaint that someone has not abided by the rules should have to sign a statement as well. If one or the other has signed the statement and is found to be lying, then throw the book at them. I don't think a complaint should be anonymous, but I think people should be able to make complaints without having their name made public. As Lynne said, sometimes just putting your name on a document like that, knowing the penalty will be expulsion forever if you're found to be cheating may cause some people pause.

The other way to stop cheating is to eliminate the reason people are cheating. Are they doing it to qualify for championships? Are they doing it so they get titles cheaper?  Whatever the reason, it should be addressed to that issue. If people are doing it because it's cheaper, then I guess raising the price to $10 a run might address that issue.

And finally, and I know I'm not the first person to bring this up, if it's only 10% of the people, why penalize everyone else? I am a firm believer that if you have to cheat to get something, how can you live with yourself that you've actually earned something when you had the cheat to do it? Pick a category that can be easily verified, such as you can't use VTs to qualify for Champs or top 10 or whatever other category you wish, and then don't worry about the rest. In the end anybody else who knows, and there will be others that know, will know that they really didn't earn it. But since we aren't competing against anyone else except ourselves, then let those people live with their fake results.

If the reason to dispose of the VT program is because it is too much work and not cost effective for NADAC, then you either have to make that decision based on business reasons or solicit reasons that might assist with that problem.

I will note that having VTs is not the reason, or the only reason, people are not coming to trials. For me, often the cost of lodging elsewhere is prohibitive. Maybe start a list with people who are willing to rent out a room cheaply for those attending trials in their area? Others will go to trials with the runs are the cheapest. Others won't go to trials because of the club, or political reasons or petty issues that have come up. There are other reasons too, is Sharon has mentioned. VTs are not the only reason that there is fewer people attending trials. I think that clubs may have to look at themselves as to why they may not be having the attendance they would like.


Thank you, Chris, for sharing that list indicating the number of VT run submitted from what places. I think that is an interesting tool to maybe decide how to pin address the problem, and addresses some arguments people have for or against VT trials in their area.

Sheila & the Shelties:

--- Quote from: JimmyS. on December 04, 2017, 08:13:15 AM ---Itís simply a difference of only paying for Qís vs paying for every run and the trial staff doing all the work vs the Nadac Office doing all the work.

There is no way to describe the amount of behind the scenes work that goes into VTís between Chris, Amanda, and Stefan.

Convenience always costs more. Thatís just life. It never fails, when itís convenient for the end user, itís twice as much work for the people offering it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

--- End quote ---

If one of the reasons for reevaluating the program is that the amount of work involved is not cost-effective, let's throw that into the mix as well as the cheating issue. It seems to me this is a separate issue from cheating and needs to be addressed as well.

Rosemary:
I may be wrong, Sheila, but I am guessing that since a problem has come to light regarding the current state of the VT program Chris and company have decided to address the program as a whole and make any changes necessary at one time. 

I do not participate in the VT program, but I do see the value of it for those who have little opportunity to attend actual trials. 

Often you will hear someone say "I'm not hurting anyone".  I do hope that the folks who were dishonest will see that they are, in fact, potentially hurting someone after all.

Thank you Chris, Amanda, Jimmy, Becky and everyone else at NADAC HQ for all of your hard work.

Sheila & the Shelties:
You are probably right, Rosemary, and that's why I was commenting.  Is the whole program up for review, or is it just dealing with the cheating?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version