Skip to main content

Due to decreasing use over the years, I have decided to disable the forum functionality of the site.

Forums will still be available to view but new posts are no longer allowed.

Critiquing stallions at stud

Acc wrote in the critique forum: [quote]Well Admin has final say, but I disagree about stallions standing. If a person is seriously considering breeding to said stallion, and said stallion has photo posted on his website, he is open for critique IMO. Just random horses, no I don't thinkt hey should be free for criticism, but stallions, yes. It's expected IMO. [/quote] I've brought this into the Admin forum so we can discuss the ramifications of this. In my opinion, I think this is something we can get away with, as long as we talk to what strengths said stallion would bring to the mare. That would be constructive criticism/critiquing, and if handled right, shouldn't be seen as negatively talking about a particular stallion, especially if we avoid things like "how can they be standing an inferior genetic animal (in cases of horses with HyPP for example). Diane

Daylene Alford Fri, 04/10/2009 - 18:53

The problem would be limiting it to constructive criticisms. I'm not completely closed to the idea. I think it could be very valuable to our members. I just don't want the board to get into sticky legal areas and/or bad feeling among members.

I will defer to Diane's legal experience on this one. If she thinks its ok then we'll do it.

Diane, should we work up some basic ground rules?

Daylene

NZ Appaloosas Fri, 04/10/2009 - 18:56

Definitely have ground rules, and I'd prefer stricter rather than looser...I know we don't want a mish-mash of sections, but maybe we should start with a sub-section of the critique forum, specifically for "studs I'm considering" type posts, where all posts are moderated? At least to start with, to see how well people can control impulses? :flower

Diane

Daylene Alford Fri, 04/10/2009 - 19:16

How about this....

Post a good conformation shot of the mare being considered along with the stallion.
Keep criticisms limited to how the stallion relates to the mare being considered.
DO NOT say the stallion is fugly and should be gelded or anything related. Again limit all comments to how the stallion compliments or does not compliment the mare.

Just rough ideas feel free to change or add more.

Daylene

Maigray Mon, 04/13/2009 - 11:05

My opinion? No way. Simply restrict to their own horses or horses they have permission to post. Don't try and dictate what kinds of pictures they put up, that is up to them. You can ask for constructive criticism, but I can absolutely, 100% guarantee that it won't always work. There are going to be times when massive arguments flare up. It's par for the course. If you are seriously worried, then honestly? I would just drop it.

For the record, I am with ACC in that if a stallion owner puts an animal up, they're open game. But I will also absolutely, 100% guarantee that it can lead to problems for you and us. It can seriously backfire either way and I have seen it happen on every forum I have ever been on - you will either get slammed for having to censor so fiercely you piss your membership off or you will get slammed for allowing bashing to go on.

Jenks Mon, 04/13/2009 - 11:24

I think we've agreed that we'll not ever just state something bad, but will state what it is and what it's useful for, as opposed to why it's bad - with all critiques - not just any horse.

But the rules are good I think for this particular site since our focus is more color genetics than conformation. My conformation group will rip anything and everything publicly posted to shreds sometimes. But it is a conformation focus, and a yahoo group as well, which may or may not make it different.

Maigray Mon, 04/13/2009 - 11:48

I will also say that the rules for the site apply to the conformation forum just as much as to the rest of the forum. They should cover it. The copyright issue can be nixed by restricting to your own images.

Jenks Mon, 04/13/2009 - 13:57

Can someone remove Riddle Me This' nasty comment on Sara's "Not a critique" thread in the conformation forum? I'm trying to figure that out now. I don't remember who owned Spook or if she came over with us, but I've PM'd her on it's inappropriateness.

I edited it out.

Should I be checking with you all first? Or are we keeping any type of reporting for this type thing? It's my first edit.

accphotography Mon, 04/13/2009 - 14:07

I didn't know we were supposed to be protecting member's feelings here. An opinion is an opinion. Quite frankly, in that particular photo, I agree with her.

By the way, RMT had absolutely no way of knowing that horse belonged to a member. Are members supposed to be able to just automatically know whose horses are fair game and whose aren't? They can bash on about the horse in the general forum from pics that show MORE of his body than Spook's pic and that's ok, but since Spook belongs to a member it's not?

Danger Ranch... and yes she did come over.

Maigray Mon, 04/13/2009 - 15:23

Jenks, to be honest, I would never ever remove or edit a member's post, not unless I was expressly directed to by admin. It is censorship. Someone did that to me once, on another forum, because they were of the opinion I had gone off topic on a thread. I censured them publicly, had the record removed, and then I left, and I never went back.

Jenks Mon, 04/13/2009 - 15:29

Perhaps I was out of line. But I posted a class of rear ends from our old site, that I thought I made clear were a class of horses from our old site with one famous TB racer in there to demo Posty. Perhaps I should not have posted it, but she made a nasty statement about someone else's horse.

So, now do I remove the pic too? Add back her nasty comment?

Sara Mon, 04/13/2009 - 15:38

I think it's a gray area. In the conformation section we are instructed to be honest but not nasty, or something along those lines. I think RMT went beyond constructive and was firmly in the nasty category, but I can also see that maybe she did not understand that was a member's horse. Perhaps a warning would have been better than editing the post, and RMT could have edited it herself, but if it was edited out before the horse's owner saw it and feelings were saved I think that outweighs the possibly-overstepped moderator duties.

Having a post of mine deleted for being off-topic would drive me crazy too but editing or deleting to save a member's feelings is a little different.

Maigray Mon, 04/13/2009 - 15:58

I would check with Daylene to see if she has any opinion on how it should be handled. I have not read the thread or the comment. If you wish to reverse your decision, but cannot restore the comment, then you can PM the poster she is welcome to restore it herself, and note on the thread that you edited it, so everyone is clear about what happened. I would do the latter regardless.

Jenks Mon, 04/13/2009 - 16:52

I put it back (her comment - I don't think RMT noticed) and removed the class (photo) so know one will know what she's talking about. Just because it was on the old site doesn't make it mine! I will just use Lacy's butt alone and hope we can get a comparison collage together again one day by submitters here.

accphotography Mon, 04/13/2009 - 17:06

From: http://www.equine-color.info/phpBB3/vie…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[quote]I'm not interested in turning this forum into a sunshine and roses board. We're talking about breeding living, feeling creatures who will live for 25 years or more, not whether or not we like some kid's sweater[/quote]

How is editing to prevent a member from being embarrassed not creating a sunshine and roses environment? Are you withdrawing this statement?

[quote]IMO this is the ugliest example of a halter horse.
Its so freaky & unnatural looking.[/quote]

[quote]that is just horrid, it looks like it has deformed butt! Why would you ever want to breed something that looks like that! [/quote]

Etc., is allowed to be said about a horse whose entire body, save for his head, is visible. This is a horse, standing to the public, whose owner's could be reading this thread as we type. Of course the horse is not identified, but feelings will be hurt nonetheless and it might discourage their membership or even viewership. This is something that might stop ANYONE in the halter business from feeling welcome in this forum. There are halter breeders that are interested in color so I definitely feel they might come to this forum. Would this thread not alienate them any more than a derogatory (I refuse to call it nasty) about Spook would alienate DR?

Don't get me wrong, I am truly of the opinion that if you're going to stand a stallion to the public, you better be willing to stand behind him and fight for him. You better have a thicker skin than that of a young kid with a pasture pet.

That particular photo of Spook is NOT flattering to him IMO. I would have serious questions about his conformation (enough that I wouldn't consider breeding to him) from that photo. However, I have the benefit of having seen other photos of him and I know that photo does not do him justice. If it had been me, I would have posted another photo and politely pointed out that the photo was deceptive. Answered her question of WHY he was the best before going off on her and scolding her like a child. That's what the purpose of the post was... to learn. She was simply saying she disagreed based on that photo and asked for a reason to change her mind.

I honestly don't believe DR would have been upset about this. I know her and I know she knows and has confidence in her stallion. I believe she would have been more than happy to just show her another photo. Even if RMT still disagreed, I really believe DR would have shrugged it off. Sometimes you have to take things with a grain of salt.

Either way, there's a problem. You have a very upset member because she was scolded for something she didn't feel was wrong, or you have an upset member for allowing her baby to be bashed. There is no win-win here, but I'd personally rather let the two members handle it with each other than a mod choose which member to defend. In this situation I have to wonder if seniority didn't play a part in the decision.

Jenks Mon, 04/13/2009 - 17:39

I apologized. I was wrong to begin with for posting the whole class and told her so. I told her I would do Lacy on the thread and we could work through it.

If she'd just asked "why" instead of adding the unnecessary insult, we'd still be discussing it. But it is my fault for posting the whole class instead of just Lacy. So I will eat it and learn my lesson.

Sara Mon, 04/13/2009 - 17:53

[quote="accphotography"]From: http://www.equine-color.info/phpBB3/vie…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[quote]I'm not interested in turning this forum into a sunshine and roses board. We're talking about breeding living, feeling creatures who will live for 25 years or more, not whether or not we like some kid's sweater[/quote]

How is editing to prevent a member from being embarrassed not creating a sunshine and roses environment? Are you withdrawing this statement?[/quote]

Nope, not withdrawing my statement. There is a huge difference between gently pointing out a horse's faults and saying you "wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole". I gather RMT is a child and behaves with all the tact of one. If I were her, I would have been embarrassed and apologetic about that statement but it seems she is only upset over being scolded. Jenks was very gracious to apologize to RMT.

There have been several members here who have stated that my own horses are not their type. Their flaws have been pointed out. I take this all in stride because no horse is perfect and not everyone likes the same thing. One person, however, stated that one of my horses was ugly. That stung, and I still remember the specifics although it was years ago. I have a hard time believing DR would "shrug off" the nasty comment although I'm sure she would be fine with constructive criticism.

By the way, some of what is being said in the halter horse thread also bothers me. It's moved beyond constructive and has become pretty nasty.

Maigray Mon, 04/13/2009 - 17:55

It's all a pretty good example of just what I was talking about. A single comment on the backend of a horse. Some will think it rude, others think it's perfectly fine. But someone gets pissed off and 5 seconds later the whole things could go down in flames.

Now, I actually have no problem with that scenario. I think if you run a forum, it's going to happen. But it's no use telling people how to give opinions. People don't think alike. What's rude to one person is honest to another. What's ethical to one person is total fraud to someone else. You can't moderate that. ACC has proven the point out that we [u]don't[/u] consistently moderate that, and that when you try, it just ends up in disaster. You piss everyone off.

Jenks Mon, 04/13/2009 - 18:05

Well let's just be rid of the conformation forum. I don't want to risk THIS site over THAT. I can stick with my conformation group and just stick with this for good color genetic info!

accphotography Mon, 04/13/2009 - 18:26

[quote="Sara"]
Nope, not withdrawing my statement. There is a huge difference between gently pointing out a horse's faults and saying you "wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole". I gather RMT is a child and behaves with all the tact of one. If I were her, I would have been embarrassed and apologetic about that statement but it seems she is only upset over being scolded. Jenks was very gracious to apologize to RMT.

I have a hard time believing DR would "shrug off" the nasty comment although I'm sure she would be fine with constructive criticism.

By the way, some of what is being said in the halter horse thread also bothers me. It's moved beyond constructive and has become pretty nasty.[/quote]

RMT is far from a child and has plenty of tact, she's just very honest. Seriously, you can let Rabbit say the things she does and shrug it off that it's just Rabbit but if someone else is honest they're a tactless child? Yeah there is a seniority battle going on here.

You can believe what you will about DR, but I guess we'll never know.

Maigray: You predicted it would happen, I'm just surprised it happened so quickly. You're exactly right that it's a trade off... piss one off, or piss the other off. Who are we to decide which? Taking the easy route just makes us sunshine and roses.

I'd love to leave the conformation forum, but I think it needs to be made very clear in the beginning that if you willingly post your own horse, it's fair game. Posting someone else's, with or without their permission, could cause trouble.

accphotography Mon, 04/13/2009 - 18:27

Oh and when was the halter thread ever constructive when this was the 3rd line of the first post:
[quote]IMO this is the ugliest example of a halter horse.[/quote]

Jenks Mon, 04/13/2009 - 18:53

I disagree about RMT's tact, she has shown in other threads to be somewhat combative, hard-headed and willful. But I truly like her questioning nature, just the fact that it was a little vicious - I DO understand her need to understand - and I feel compelled to work with her privately. I think we should be rid of it, the whole conformation forum and move on with facts and opinion on color which hopefully will not turn out as badly though they too are subject to opinion and could always be as troublesome. It is up to Daylene.

accphotography Mon, 04/13/2009 - 19:01

[quote="Jenks"]I disagree about RMT's tact, she has shown in other threads to be somewhat combative, hard-headed and willful. But I truly like her questioning nature, just the fact that it was a little vicious - I DO understand her need to understand - and I feel compelled to work with her privately. I think we should be rid of it, the whole conformation forum and move on with facts and opinion on color which hopefully will not turn out as badly though they too are subject to opinion and could always be as troublesome. It is up to Daylene.[/quote]

If I didn't know RMT as well as I do I might agree. She can be very tactful when in a situation that calls for it. Yes she is very opinionated and a bit bullheaded, but that doesn't make her a child or ignorant. She's actually quite intelligent (quite a bit moreso than me to my dismay). She is also very good about toning down if asked to, even if she doesn't like it. I think she would TOTALLY disagree that what she said was uncalled for, but I suspect she would refrain from doing it again if she were asked.

accphotography Mon, 04/13/2009 - 19:01

[quote="Jenks"]she has shown in other threads to be somewhat combative, hard-headed and willful.[/quote]

Just to add, I actually like these things in a person. :lol:

NZ Appaloosas Mon, 04/13/2009 - 19:08

Well, I've obviously slept thru' some fun and games...

My concern is not (and probably never will be) whether someone's feelings have been hurt because of someone else's opinion. My concern is two-fold--that this site never be in a position where someone can get their knickers in a knot and start talking to a lawyer, and that people don't start talking bad/putting down the forum as a hateful-spiteful place full of know-it-all wannabes who don't let anyone who doesn't fit into the clique...there are enough forums and lists that fulfill these niches already.

Diane, off to find out what the brouhaha is all about before commenting on [i]that[/i] aspect of things

Daylene Alford Mon, 04/13/2009 - 21:06

Well I missed all the fun also but I'm very proud of they way you guys handled this. I think that does answer the questions about doing stallion critiques...I think we'll pass on that one. However, I do like the critique section and think it should remain. I really like the skeletal drawings those are very enlightening.

I think I will lock the topic in general. There was actually the name of a well known stallion posted and I don't like that.

Daylene

Sara Mon, 04/13/2009 - 21:15

[quote="accphotography"]Oh and when was the halter thread ever constructive when this was the 3rd line of the first post:
[quote]IMO this is the ugliest example of a halter horse.[/quote][/quote]

Oh for fuck's sake. Do you thrive on being argumentative? I never thought that particular thread was constructive. If we have to dissect my sentence from the previous page, what it meant was that [b]that thread[/b] had moved beyond what we had been doing earlier in [b]other threads[/b] (constructive conformation critiques) and just on into nasty. I actually attempted to redirect some of the general AQHA bashing that was going on.

I vote in favor of dropping the conformation forum.

Now I'm going to try to rekindle some of the positive feeling I had just now when I walked in the house from riding the piss out of a bucking gelding. *grump grump grump*