Printable View
HRV have issued a reminder about their Social media policy for participants
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=35739
There may be times that I edit posts for the poster's protection in light of this policy
http://www.hrv.org.au/integrity/stew...-participants/
I posted this in another thread the other day
After receiving some feedback and reflecting on it
I cannot help but wonder:
Is HRV trying to silence people?
People (and Forum moderators on their behalf) have to be careful of what they write and say
but if they exercise care and show common sense, discussion amongst the faithful has to be healthy and something Administrators should be taking note of
Warnings like this recent one - due to the timing, can easily be interpreted as Administrators wanting to hush things up.
Of course organizations like HRV cannot themselves be voicing opinions on matters before the court and on matters under investigation
but they have to be careful not to look like they are wanting to dampen sensible discussion in the hope that 'it will all go away"
Football clubs like Hawthorn have been revered in the past for keeping their problems 'in house'
BUT of late our industry is talking about matters that affect more than just direct participants and can hardly be kept 'in house' when they are the subject of court reports or stewards reports
HRV may see it as nothing more than a timely reminder and that may have been their sole intention but I can assure them that this has not been the perception of some and maybe they might consider doing things differently next time
Hi Kevin,
Happy to take feedback on this, and suggestions for how we might do things differently next time. You will note in the release it talked to the fact that we genuinely want to promote discussion and debate, but there are a very small number of people who cross the line of what is acceptable. At times that unfairly results in adverse outcomes for HRV personnel, other participants, or the broader industry. I for one have activiely stimulated debate and discussion, including positive and negative fedback, and in all but a tiny percentage of interactions the dialogue has been appropriate. The reminder is not about silcencing people - absolutely not. We've been extremely transparent about the issues that our industry faces, and things that have or haven't worked as we try things to turn it around. A guide I learnt many years ago was to play the ball not the man. If the tiny percentage of people who do cross the line adopted that approach, then we wouldn't have a need for a social media policy or reminders.
Cheers, David
Hi David,
Sometimes I think 'broad' reminders can have far reaching consequences. In this case I know I have received pm's from participants who are reluctant to say anything 'in case they ...' It is an easy way to eliminate the chance of getting into trouble
I think reminders to those who are doing the wrong thing could work better
I understand that it is a tricky one. I might support ads on TV telling people of the consequences of speeding but I would not want a policeman warning me if I had not been speeding in the first place. I know you would hope that participants do not see you as 'policemen' in this scenario but I am not sure they see you as non-threatening as a television set either. Apologies to police for suggesting they are 'threatening' but the clumsy analogy was the best I could think of for now
Thanks Kevin,
All i can say now is that for the overwhelming majority of people who do contribute their ideas, frustrations, suggestions, criticisms, etc., in a respectful manner then please continue to do so. We are not afraid of debate and criticism of things we do at HRV, in fact it's often how organisations improve. The issue is the very small number of people who cross lines in their communications and interactions, not just with HRV, but with each other. The policy and reminder is there so we all remember to play the ball, and where necessary in a very, very small number of cases, direct letters are sent for people to meet with stewards.
As a guide, I have responded to a number of different lines of conversation tonight in this forum, several of which are critical of HRV and/or the industry's direction, but none of which go anywhere near breaching the policy. Hence, I have sought to provide consutructive feedback to their comments and I would welcome their responses.
Cheers, David
OK, this is a HRV thread but this effort in NSW is surely of the shake head or take the piss variety. Trawling through social media almost four years old for a bit of revenue raising. If this is the priority over all the shenanigans going on lately, then it's easy to see why the sport is in such a bad state of affairs. What a farce.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++
PENRITH HARNESS RACING CLUB
THURSDAY 21 DECEMBER 2017
STEWARDS REPORT
GENERAL
R Bates pleaded guilty to a charge under Rule 248 in that on Tuesday 28th January 2014, Mr Bates made improper comments via the social medial platform Facebook regarding a decision of the Stewards at Goulburn Monday 27th January 2014. Mr Bates was fined $1500 of which $750 was suspended for a period of 2 years pending he does not reoffend under this Rule or any conduct related matters. In considering penalty, Stewards took into account Mr Bates guilty plea, overall offence history, Mr Bates’ remorse and the circumstance of the case including its serious nature.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++
There's an ANT! Get the sledgehammer, quick!Quote:
Originally Posted by thepacingman
Crime of the century solved. Well done, HRNSW Stewards!
It seems unbelievable that they would do that nearly 4 years later.
I do not want to hear HRNSW claim that they are pro social media whether R Bates posts were appropriate or not - what message are they sending participants