THE CORPORATE MENTALITY

I'm restricting my dialogues to the USCF Forum. Mike Nolan
is a decent guy who has to err on the side of caution because,
as of this monent, we have not been able to find liability
insurance for a moderated forum (hard to believe, but the sponsors
of unmoderated forums have no liability), but at least he does
censor the nut cases who make this place so unpleasant.
You can contact me there and I'd be happy to tell you all I know
about what's happening. -- Joel Channing


It makes no sense to say that one has to censor
the USCF forum for want of insurance but that the
internet also has such forums without insurance.

I am considering writing a real scorcher on the
history of the battle against Larry Evans -- the
hiring of the Pinkertons and the rest -- to observe
how it gets dropped in Nolanland.

Big heat is not for that forum.

Polling current members is probably not worth the
bother for several reasons.... -- Vince Hart

Yet another member of the political class checks
in with opposition to holding a Chess Life survey.
Amazing, really.

Don' ask the readers what they like! Instead,
assume that you know what they like.

Don't ask the dues-paying peons whether they
enjoy this or that writer! Instead, assume that you
know what writers they don't like.

Vinnie Hart, Greg Kennedy and others of their ilk oppose a
survey because they know the history of these surveys.
They have repeatedly produced results ranking Soltis
and Evans at the top. The politicians cannot
handle such a result at this moment. Hence no survey.

Interestingly, the surveys have shown high reader
satisfaction with the magazine among the many
thousands who have responded -- a totally different
result from what is suggested by the opinions posted
by the relative few who post here.

Joel Channing compares a reader survey to a
"plebiscite," and our Vinnie offers a set of imbecilic
reasons for not surveying reader opinion which amount
to this: POLITICIANS WANT TO GET RID OF DISSENT AND
LIFE IN CHESS LIFE, AND I SUPPORT THAT DECISION NO
MATTER WHAT THE MEMBERSHIP WANTS.

The latest excuse for not having a Chess Life
survey to determine the popularity of writers is that
we must also ask whether the readers want Chess Life
at all. The idea here is that a product no longer
seeks to discover what those receiving it wish to have
included. Rather, the makers of the product conduct a
poll about whether Parkay Margarine or Camel
cigarettes should continue to be made.

Wayne Praeder and I disagree about someone
such as Randy Bauer. To my mind, he is a powermonger
who will always come up with a reason NOT to survey
the readership because the politicians want to
eliminate dissent in the magazine by discontinuing GM
Evans and, perhaps, other writers who prove even
mildly critical. Such is the corporate mentality.

So, one asks customers this question: "Do you
want our product?" and only then does one ask, "Which
flavour do you prefer?" or "Should it be smooth or crunchy?"

The vital distinction is that USCF membership is
a package deal based on what is required to keep the
USCF in existence, which I favor doing even though I
will not pay membership dues because the Federation is
a de facto supporter of drug testing. The issue is not
whether the package membership should be discontinued,
which is to say, whether the USCF should be
discontinued, but how to make the package accord with
members' desires.

I have never heard of a magazine polling readers
about whether it should be discontinued. One hears
about reader surveys, though.

Still, one can certainly poll the readers about
whether they enjoy, reprehend or are lukewarm about
GM Evans and others. And, yes, if the only objection to
such a survey is that we must ask the ludicrous
question about whether the product should be
continued, then yes, let's ask that question, too.

Now, then, will Paul Rubin and others of his
kind now support a reader survey about what writers
they prefer?

Ah, somehow I think the answer will be no --
but this time, for other reasons.

Also see the never-before published transcript of THE GREAT
DEBATE between Larry Evans and Don Schultz in 1988 that explains much
of the hostility
of the political class for GM Evans' accurate reporting.

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....icle&sid= 674