Board member Randy Hough won an award from the Chess Journalists of
America for the "best humorous article" for writing what was
essentially an attack piece on Sam Sloan.

There is one significant quote, where Hough writes, "I kept thinking
of the one Board member who, after wasting an inordinate amount of our
time .... asking us to use USCF money to track down someone who was
impersonating him on the Internet ..."

In fact, Sam Sloan did repeatedly ask the board to find out who the
Fake Sam Sloan was. Whether this would have cost the USCF any money is
questionable, since Mike Nolan could easily have done so as part of
his regular duties in 2006, using the same techniques that Brian
Motteshead finally used in September 2007 to identify Paul Truong as
the perp.

Now that Paul Truong has been elected to the board and in view of the
fact that he without doubt would not have been elected had he been
identified as the Fake Sam Sloan before the election, one wonders how
much money the USCF really saved by not identifying the person who,
back in 2006, was impersonating a board member thousands of times, a
subject about which the board should have been legitimately concerned.

Would it not have been better to identify the perp any time in 2006 or
in early 2007, which would have prevented this person from being
elected to the board and thus saved the USCF the attorneys fees and
other consequences from having to defend this lawsuit? Does the
membership of the Chess Journalist of America still find it to be
humorous that the board ignored the repeated demands of Sam Sloan that
the board take steps to identify the person who was impersonating a
fellow board member?

The full text of the article that won the Chess Journalists of America
award as best humorous article for 2006-07 is on the Personal Website
of Randy Hough at

http://www.randyhough.com/word/