All true, unlike the other responses to my post, which is the usual
case which is why I voted for Sam. I would say I strongly agree with
most of what Sam says. While others were allowing or apologizing for
others highly dubious credentials for the EB and was sanctioned on the
following day. Similarly, he has consistently been accurate about the
USCF finances, or at least what little we know of them, while others
on the EB have been opposed to financial transparency or prior ratings
transparency. One shouldn't forget that dozens of my posts were
deleted. If those posts were returned to the forum, I believe most of
them would be strangely prophetic of what has transpired and give
members a much better understanding of the current state of affairs.
Let's see, I was sanctioned for reposting what an anti-Sloan character
had said. Of course, I was sanctioned and the anti-Sloan person wasn't
for making the identical post. I was sanctioned for pointing that out
and stating there are online bullies on the forum and giving academic
references that support my contention. In other words, I was
sanctioned for providing information to other members that may have
influenced the election results and responding to those who disagreed
with me with thoughtful arguments and factual information. There is no
need to speculate as to why I left because I already explained that
before I left the forum and when I returned. There is no need for me
to be redundant unless someone responds who clearly indicates they
don't understand what I said.

I also found other individuals who said the same things that I said
but in reverse. So since I was sanctioned for my comments and they
were not, I informed the censors of these discrepancies. I received
several responses about a month later indicating that no one was
willing to vote either for or against sanctioning the individuals who
had said exactly what I had been sanctioned for. However, the
committee did change it's rules in response to my 50 complaints. It
changed the rules so that if someone files 50 complaints, they can be
sanctioned. I took that as a threat. I also took it has a threat when
one of the members of the committee stated in a rather sarcastic
fashion that I would get a response. But they were wrong, I never got
any response at all.

I was hoping Sam would request discovery on prior rating records. I
believe that would show that another problem with the USCF is that
some people who are part of the current administration have rather
dubious rating histories and that they have received financial rewards
by using these dubious credentials either for coaching or to obtain an
elected position. Of course, we already have one known example of that
but as I stated in one of my deleted posts. I noticed numerous ratings
prior to the Tanner scandal among coaches. Some of these don't seem to
fit into the explanation of updating/correcting ratings or to
consistently touted explanation that ratings prior to 1990 were
destroyed by one individual a long time ago. Is that a negative
comment or is it a negative comment to claim that the Sam Sloan
lawsuit has no basis.

One comment might seem negative to a Goichberg supporter but positive
to a Sloan supporter. Similarly, one truthful comment may be flaming
if the vast majority of supporters believe the opposite. In contrast,
a lie that supports the majority position may go unnoticed.

Some may argue that to allowing moderators to delete one point of view
from the forum is censorship while others may argue that to even point
that out if grounds for removing the post from the forum.

My own view is we should just mass mail all members and ask them. And
if they believe that a censored forum is the way to go or that the
current board should resign then either way we'll have an answer
that's consistent with the membership's views.

Oldtimer