View Single Post
  #4  
Old June 10th 13, 04:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
samsloan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,871
Default On the USCF Issues Forum, Reasonable Limits Should be Placed onattacks by Particular Posters on Particular Candidates

On 6月3日, 上午9时10分, samsloan wrote:
On the USCF Issues Forum, Reasonable Limits Should be Placed on
attacks by Particular Posters on Particular Candidates

I am strongly opposed on censorship, especially during election
seasons. I have been a victim of censorship myself as during the 2007
election campaign I was not allowed to post in self defense whereas my
opponents were given unlimited rights to attack me as often as they
wanted without me being allowed to respond.

In the current election campaign we have a different kind of problem.
I need not name any names as everybody will know exactly whom I am
talking about.

There is one particular poster who attacks a certain particular
candidate 10, 20 or 30 times a day. This particular poster is new to
chess, joined the USCF recently and has never won a rated game of
chess in his entire life.

What compels him to spend his days attacking this particular candidate
is unknown to me.

What concerns me is that the average voter when looking at these
threads will see a particular candidate being attacked 10, 20 or 30
times a day and will reasonably conclude that this particular
candidate must truly be a bad person, not realizing that it is just
one or two people attacking this candidate over and over again.

Also, a person's knowledge and experience in chess should be
considered as a factor. There was a poster who went by the user name
of "Old Timer". He really was an old timer, having been active in
tournament chess in the 1960s. Needless to say he supported me as most
of the real old timers do and as a result he was blocked from posting.

However, a person who claims to be an old timer but who in reality is
a newcomer to chess should have some reasonable limits places on his
posting.

Therefore, I propose that a limit should be placed that no single
poster shall be allowed more than ten posts per day in which the name
of a particular candidate is used.

Also, euphemisms should be counted. For example, during a previous
election campaign, one candidate became known as "the name that one
dare not speak". All the regulars here knew what that name was but
outsiders probably did not know and perhaps as a result that candidate
was elected with destructive results.

So, I am asking not that this particular objectionable poster be shut
down but that he not be allowed to post more than ten times a day in
his attacks of a particular candidate.

Sam Sloan


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Payne
I can testify, all of this is, in fact accurate.
And she did actively work against the USCF's official position. I
considered voting for Beatriz, but then did some thinking back, and
decided perhaps not.
How can you testify that anything is accurate? You know nothing about
chess. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have never won
a rated chess game in your life. The only USCF event you have ever
attended as far as I can tell is the 2007 US Championship and
Executive Board Meeting in Stillwater, Oklahoma.

You certainly were not at the 2012 FIDE Congress in Istanbul Turkey
nor at the 2010 FIDE Congress in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia. I was at
those events and I am not aware of anything Beatriz did to "actively
work against the USCF's official position".

Sam Sloan