"Joe Nanna said that we are not generating enough income “to keep this
thing afloat” and that he has been harping on that for a long time.

"The revenue stream is dropping faster than the expenses. Membership
continues to drop.

"There is not enough income to service the current debts…the legal
fees…they can only chip at them."

The above are all quotes from the latest board meeting, as provided by
Donna Alarie. Thank you Donna.

These are the same issues I have complaining about for the last
several years, and will continue to complain about this election year.
Our income and memberships continue to drop while our expenses remain
steady, so we keep getting deeper and deeper in the hole.

During my one year on the board I made many proposals to both increase
our revenues and reduce our expenses. All were squelched primarily by
Bill Goichberg, who does not like anybody's ideas other than his own
and who had two other board members in his hip pocket so nothing could
pass. A few of my motions did actually pass but then were ignored,
forgotten and never implemented.

Just to cite one example of this, I moved that we buy a video camera
at the approximate cost of $2500 and then make videos of our chess
events especially our national scholastic tournaments and broadcast
them on youtube which is watched by millions of young people. This
will bring in a lot of memberships and therefore money.

I raised this idea repeatedly at board meetings and mentioned it on
Internet postings. Everybody agreed that this is as good idea.

Everybody but Bill Goichberg that is. He does not like it because then
I will get credit for this idea.

Take a look at the minutes of the board meetings and see how many
times I brought this up and how many times it was shouted down by the
mindless Goichberg sycophants.

It is time that this organization allows a diversity of ideas and
views and no longer is subjected to one man rule.

Otherwise, we will continue to be "not generating enough income to
keep this thing afloat”.

Sam Sloan

On Mar 2, 10:47*pm, boring samsloan wrote:

[...] I moved that we buy a video camera
at the approximate cost of $2500 and then make videos of our chess
events especially our national scholastic tournaments and broadcast
them on youtube which is watched by millions of young people. This
will bring in a lot of memberships and therefore money.

I raised this idea repeatedly at board meetings and mentioned it on
Internet postings. Everybody agreed that this is as good idea.


So, where are these youtubes?

It is time that this organization allows a diversity of ideas and
views and no longer is subjected to one man rule.

Otherwise, we will continue to be "not generating enough income to
keep this thing afloat”.

Sam Sloan

Talking is cheap. Ideas are cheap.
Where are these youtubes? D'u mean
that there are none? U'r no good;
Sam, u'r useless. If you need USCF
to make some youtubes then nobody
needs you.

Wlod

On Mar 2, 11:50*pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:
On Mar 2, 10:47*pm, boring samsloan wrote:



[...] I moved that we buy a video camera
at the approximate cost of $2500 and then make videos of our chess
events especially our national scholastic tournaments and broadcast
them on youtube which is watched by millions of young people. This
will bring in a lot of memberships and therefore money.

I raised this idea repeatedly at board meetings and mentioned it on
Internet postings. Everybody agreed that this is as good idea.

So, where are these youtubes?

It is time that this organization allows a diversity of ideas and
views and no longer is subjected to one man rule.

Otherwise, we will continue to be "not generating enough income to
keep this thing afloat”.

Sam Sloan

Talking is cheap. Ideas are cheap.
Where are these youtubes? D'u mean
that there are none? U'r no good;
Sam, u'r useless. If you need USCF
to make some youtubes then nobody
needs you.

* * Wlod

This is unwarranted criticism.

In fact, it is a great idea. I wish I had thought of it and promise
to steal this idea. Attacking Sam over this is absurd.
US Chess totally missed television as a media for expanding our base.
Youtube would give us the opportunity to get word of our major events
out, something that does not happen with all the press releases which
go directly in the circular file.
Ask the kids who won the US Championship the last three years and who
will be met with total silence. They don't know or much care, but
show them pictures of thousands of kids at the scholastic nationals
and pretty soon you will have sponsors.

Rp

Vote for Sam Heverett Sloan and vote for temperance, order,
resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation,
cleanliness, tranquility, chastity and humility!

VOTE SLOAN!

Perhaps I should explain it a little better.

I have filed only two cases against the USCF. The first case was not a
lawsuit. It was an Article 78 Proceeding. An Article 78 Proceeding is
a creature unique to New York State. It is in the nature of a mandamus
petition directing a body or officer to do his duty. It does not seek
money or damages. It merely seeks to compel someone to obey the law.
In this case, the law that I sought to have the USCF defendants obey
was the legal requirements in order for a not-for-profit corporation
to sell their principal or only asset, in this case a building.

The second case was after more than 2500 obscene postings appeared on
the Internet signed "Sam Sloan". The Mottershead report established in
October 2007 what I already knew which was that Paul Truong had done
it. Truong had gotten elected to the board through the use of this
identity theft. He was at the time I filed suit the USCF Vice-
President for Marketing and Communications and his wife Susan Polgar
was at that time Chairman of the United States Chess Federation.
Obviously I had to sue both the USCF plus Polgar and Truong to reverse
their fraudulently obtained election. The other board members could
have greatly reduced the ultimate damage to the USCF by taking strong
action against Polgar and Truong in October 2007 when the Mottershead
Report came out. Instead, they stood solidly behind Polgar and Truong
until at least January 2008 and did not expel them until August 2009,
nearly two years after the Mottershead Report came out

Sam Sloan

It is true that at one time there were about 15 names on the list of
persons suspected of being the Fake Sam Sloan. At that time neither
Polgar nor Truong were on the list.

They were not on my list because I was on friendly terms with them
and thought they were my friends. However, Duncan Oxley, Neil Brennen
and possibly Stan Booz had pegged them as being the Fake Sam Sloan
months before I did.

In August 2006 I suddenly realized that Paul Troung was it. This was
because in the days after I won the election Truong made hundreds of
postings in the style of the Fake Sam Sloan and signed his name to
them. As a result, at my first meeting of the board on August 14, 2006
I presented absolute proof that Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan and I
demanded that the IP addresses from which Truong was posting be
checked to establish that Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan.

The Board rejected my request. Thus it was not until September 2007,
more than one year later, that Brian Mottershead did the thing I had
asked the board to do in August 2006 which was to check the IP
addresses and that established that Truong was indeed the Fake Sam
Sloan.

The Real Sam Sloan

On Mar 2, 11:47*pm, samsloan wrote:
"Joe Nanna said that we are not generating enough income “to keep this
thing afloat” and that he has been harping on that for a long time.

"The revenue stream is dropping faster than the expenses. Membership
continues to drop.

"There is not enough income to service the current debts…the legal
fees…they can only chip at them."

The above are all quotes from the latest board meeting, as provided by
Donna Alarie. Thank you Donna.

Sam,

I certainly would not vote for you, that is if I could, but you are
right about the problems of the USCF. Part of the problems in loss of
membership and funds I have to fairly lay at your doorstep, after all
YOU were the one that started the litigation circus. That said
*sometimes* you have some very creative ideas... and *most* times I
wonder what you have been smokin'. I think that the root causes --
besides your lawsuits -- for declining revenues and membership is
because USCF simply "does not get it": First the "products" that the
USCF offers is not only limited and duplicated online, but expensive
as well. USCF exists simply to RATE OTB play and maintain the ratings
database. The second "product" is putting out a so-so chess magazine
called Chess Life, which you can only get if you pay extra for. And
that's it. Many on-line chess sites do a far better job both in the
ratings department and having and interesting website at a far lower
cost, including FREE!!! The problem is they are ON-LINE and not OTB
sites. What USCF FAILS to do is ask members why they are leaving.
Much of the problem has to do with the "Scholastic Crowd". Older
members simply despise having to play some 8-12 year old in a
tournament. In addition many of these kids are being coached by USCF
Experts, and Masters in school, something that older ADULTS do not
have access to. Second many of the most popular tournament formats --
G/30 -G/60 -- are rigged to favor Scholastic Players by being "Duel
Rated" while in fact these are skittles time controls. Most older
adults tend to take a ratings hit every time they enter on of these
tournaments which tend to be packed to the gills with Scholastic
Players. Third USCF does not allow ADULTS who enter these these
tournaments the option to be ONLY "Quick Chess rated" or choose "Duel
rated". Fourth too much effort is being spent on Scholastic Chess,
but not on Adult Membership.

Here is the reality Sam: Scholastic Chess is extremely important to
the health and well being of the USCF, HOWEVER most Scholastic players
have dropped out of the USCF by the time they enter High School, and
certainly by the end of High School. The backbone of the USCF its
ADULT membership is neither being served, or being listened too, yet
they pay the bulk of the membership dues that is taken each year,
though they represent only 45% of the total membership. That brings
us back to the chief "product" that USCF offers: its RATING services.
Because SCHOLASTIC players are allowed into what should be ADULT ONLY
tournaments there is a siphoning of rating points from older ADULT
players to CHILDREN who are being COACHED in SCHOOL, and who are not
likely to remain USCF members much beyond High School, there there is
a "Black Hole Effect" of ratings points being lost to a system that is
over emphasizing Scholastic Chess and Ratings.

USCF needs to do a better job of listening to its core membership --
its ADULTS!!! A step in the right direction would be to give members
the right to choose how they want to be rated in the G/30- G/60
formats -- Quick Chess Rated ONLY or Duel Rated. That would be a
simple fix and might put the FUN back into these formats for older
ADULTS. Alternately USCF should split off it Scholastic Chess
Component and form the USSCF, and ban scholastic members from playing
in Adult tournaments. To play in an ADULT tournament you must be at
least 18 years of age. A third intermediate idea would allow
scholastic members the right to a Regular USCF membership ONLY via
nomination with the following provisions: The child must have obtained
the age of at least 12 years of age; the child must then be nominated
for membership by 3 USCF active members: one must be a rated EXPERT
(Candidate Master) or above0, one must be Class B rated or above, one
must be Class D rated or above. The Child will then have to obtain a
Regular Rating first by entering as an UNRATED player, then Obtaining
a PROVISIONAL RATING, and then after the request number of games will
then obtain his/her REGULAR RATING. The child's "SCHOLASTIC RATING" is
be used SOLELY for PAIRING PURPOSES during the time until s/he obtains
their Regular Rating. As an UNRATED player the child will be assumed
to have a USCF rating of 1500 unless they have a SCHOLASTIC rating
which is higher. Which ever is higher will be used, so as not to drain
rating points from older ADULT players. A performance penalty should
be considered since the child is being coached in school.

There Sam is something for you and the USCF to consider on how to
reverse those declining numbers. Besides the politics, corruption,
nothing will save the USCF unless it starts to address the needs of
its CORE CONSTITUENTS: It ADULT membership. Given that USCF offers
NOTHING other than as a RATINGS ORGANIZATION, it had better do a
better job and realizing that the RATINGS of its ADULT Membership --
ratings that have been earned over the course of an entire lifetime in
many cases --are being horribly skewed by the Scholastic Player
Churn.

On Mar 2, 11:47*pm, samsloan wrote:
"Joe Nanna said that we are not generating enough income “to keep this
thing afloat” and that he has been harping on that for a long time.

"The revenue stream is dropping faster than the expenses. Membership
continues to drop.

"There is not enough income to service the current debts…the legal
fees…they can only chip at them."

The above are all quotes from the latest board meeting, as provided by
Donna Alarie. Thank you Donna.

Sam,

I certainly would not vote for you, that is if I could, but you are
right about the problems of the USCF. Part of the problems in loss of
membership and funds I have to fairly lay at your doorstep, after all
YOU were the one that started the litigation circus. That said
*sometimes* you have some very creative ideas... and *most* times I
wonder what you have been smokin'. I think that the root causes --
besides your lawsuits -- for declining revenues and membership is
because USCF simply "does not get it": First the "products" that the
USCF offers is not only limited and duplicated online, but expensive
as well. USCF exists simply to RATE OTB play and maintain the ratings
database. The second "product" is putting out a so-so chess magazine
called Chess Life, which you can only get if you pay extra for. And
that's it. Many on-line chess sites do a far better job both in the
ratings department and having and interesting website at a far lower
cost, including FREE!!! The problem is they are ON-LINE and not OTB
sites. What USCF FAILS to do is ask members why they are leaving.
Much of the problem has to do with the "Scholastic Crowd". Older
members simply despise having to play some 8-12 year old in a
tournament. In addition many of these kids are being coached by USCF
Experts, and Masters in school, something that older ADULTS do not
have access to. Second many of the most popular tournament formats --
G/30 -G/60 -- are rigged to favor Scholastic Players by being "Duel
Rated" while in fact these are skittles time controls. Most older
adults tend to take a ratings hit every time they enter on of these
tournaments which tend to be packed to the gills with Scholastic
Players. Third USCF does not allow ADULTS who enter these these
tournaments the option to be ONLY "Quick Chess rated" or choose "Duel
rated". Fourth too much effort is being spent on Scholastic Chess,
but not on Adult Membership.

Here is the reality Sam: Scholastic Chess is extremely important to
the health and well being of the USCF, HOWEVER most Scholastic players
have dropped out of the USCF by the time they enter High School, and
certainly by the end of High School. The backbone of the USCF its
ADULT membership is neither being served, or being listened too, yet
they pay the bulk of the membership dues that is taken each year,
though they represent only 45% of the total membership. That brings
us back to the chief "product" that USCF offers: its RATING services.
Because SCHOLASTIC players are allowed into what should be ADULT ONLY
tournaments there is a siphoning of rating points from older ADULT
players to CHILDREN who are being COACHED in SCHOOL, and who are not
likely to remain USCF members much beyond High School, there there is
a "Black Hole Effect" of ratings points being lost to a system that is
over emphasizing Scholastic Chess and Ratings.

USCF needs to do a better job of listening to its core membership --
its ADULTS!!! A step in the right direction would be to give members
the right to choose how they want to be rated in the G/30- G/60
formats -- Quick Chess Rated ONLY or Duel Rated. That would be a
simple fix and might put the FUN back into these formats for older
ADULTS. Alternately USCF should split off it Scholastic Chess
Component and form the USSCF, and ban scholastic members from playing
in Adult tournaments. To play in an ADULT tournament you must be at
least 18 years of age. A third intermediate idea would allow
scholastic members the right to a Regular USCF membership ONLY via
nomination with the following provisions: The child must have obtained
the age of at least 12 years of age; the child must then be nominated
for membership by 3 USCF active members: one must be a rated EXPERT
(Candidate Master) or above0, one must be Class B rated or above, one
must be Class D rated or above. The Child will then have to obtain a
Regular Rating first by entering as an UNRATED player, then Obtaining
a PROVISIONAL RATING, and then after the request number of games will
then obtain his/her REGULAR RATING. The child's "SCHOLASTIC RATING" is
be used SOLELY for PAIRING PURPOSES during the time until s/he obtains
their Regular Rating. As an UNRATED player the child will be assumed
to have a USCF rating of 1500 unless they have a SCHOLASTIC rating
which is higher. Which ever is higher will be used, so as not to drain
rating points from older ADULT players. A performance penalty should
be considered since the child is being coached in school.

There Sam is something for you and the USCF to consider on how to
reverse those declining numbers. Besides the politics, corruption,
nothing will save the USCF unless it starts to address the needs of
its CORE CONSTITUENTS: It ADULT membership. Given that USCF offers
NOTHING other than as a RATINGS ORGANIZATION, it had better do a
better job and realizing that the RATINGS of its ADULT Membership --
ratings that have been earned over the course of an entire lifetime in
many cases --are being horribly skewed by the Scholastic Player
Churn.