wrote:
Rob wrote:
.
Thanks James.
It is a problem and I also agree that ultimatly it is the parents job
to make sure their children are same. Many kids want the experience of
scholastic chess. For those childrenand as a parent it is why I ask the
question..

I just can't figure out how prevalent it is and what sort of safeguards
are acceptable. It would seem to me that a study should probably be
comissioned to get some data.

How would you construct the definition of "abuse"? "Mommy, the TD was
mean to me!?"

The cases we see are high-profile,
probably because the world doesn't associate chess with abuse,
especially sexual. What happens in other countries? I know in Germany
there are various trainer levels, are these things covered?


Maybe there is nothing we can do.The world isn't the same place it was
40 years ago. Things that would have seemed silly paranoia then may be
common sense today.

May be. Perhaps it is then the environment that needs changing, not the
people. That can bring you back to my point (scholastic tournaments
should be small) or one of many others.

Or scholastic events should be eliminated entirely. (Calm down David,
and wipe the foam off your lips; this is just a discussion of
possibilities.) Child abuse seems to take place when one sick adult is
in a position of authority over children. A few prodigies playing in an
adult tournament are probably safe - what perv will try something with
a roomful of adults?

We have so many laws in this country, for example, and it seems to me
that much abuse stems from not properly implementing those laws. Once
you start layering this on top of that, it becomes pretty complicated.

One small step might be to revive the USCF'S certified coaches program,
but put more teeth in it. That would make it no more different than a
certification a nurse, an LPN, a NA, an RT, or any number of health
professionals take and pass to provide a modicum of protection to
patients, who are in probably even more compromised positions than
these players. No felony convictions, pass a test that includes moral
dilemmas, etc.

What would you do about TDs? They are all volunteer, and the only
requirement for the title is a signed statement that you have read the
rulebook and that you will abide by it.

But this may simply lead to a system without teeth as well, and there
is nothing worse than more government or administration than is
necessary.

But I hold little hope that the USCF will do this, although one can't
help think that it wouldn't make money for them, properly implemented.
And I said that without laughing!

Perhaps David Kane, in his-ever-so-polite way, was suggesting a greater
role for the USCF. But over the grunting and squealing I found it hard
to hear what the heck he was talking about, except perhaps that I lost
to kids too often.

Scholastic chess industy employees always argue along those lines.
Think back to Richard Petersen and Kevin Bachler.

This should perhaps be posted somewhere else, like a blog where
comments could come in on both sides - another way to gather data to
see if this is worth pursuing.

wrote in message
oups.com...


Perhaps David Kane, in his-ever-so-polite way, was suggesting a greater
role for the USCF. But over the grunting and squealing I found it hard
to hear what the heck he was talking about, except perhaps that I lost
to kids too often.

It was obvious from your references to profit motive
that you have not the faintest idea of what scholastic
chess (or youth soccer, for that matter) is about. But
despite your ignorance, you are obviously hostile to it.

I wasn't commenting on Rob's feigned concern for
children, at all. However, I think the less the USCF has
to do with scholastic chess the better (the USCF is filled
with people like you, after all) However, in my state
background checks for parent volunteers in youth activities
are done by the police. I don't know how effective or
expensive it is compared with other methods, but it's
hardly something cooked up to enrich the evil and
greedy capitalists.

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
David Kane wrote:

So are you bitter because the kids are beating you or because
you just can't stand to watch normal people participate in
something hitherto reserved for the socially challenged?

Um, no, I have a very good record against kids, not that that matters.
They aren't fun to win against anyway.

Your second comment is simply a non-sequitor.

No surprise there.


It wasn't a comment. It was a speculation as to why a poster
who was ignorant of scholastic chess was hostile to it. It applies
equally to you.

"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
A simpler solution: Dissolve the profit-driven scholastic chess
movement, returning chess to a game played for fun in youth and
adulthood. Eliminate the mega-tournaments with the mega-trophies.

Pretty soon everyone walking in to a tournament or wanting to coach a
team will have to **** in a bottle , be fingerprinted, and submit to
temporary chemical castration.

Ridiculous? Yes. But no less so than a program that would be incredibly
expensive to design and could only benefit those who already profiteer
from the angst of Americans and the soccer moms.

Parents are the guardians of their children, not the rest of the world.

Well said. The proposed program reminds me of all the political
correctness crap floating around these days.

I wonder what would cause anyone to be reminded of the actual offense -
rape - or in more general terms, aggravated sexual assault.

I do not have the slightest objection in resenting any schemes put in place
to deal with that, as long as it is a sincere response to looking at both
the extent and the momentum this issue has.

But almost all responses skip addressing this issue, and instead set up
strawmen arguments which restrict their freedom which they are then pleased
to rubbish.

No one afraid to inform themselves by candidly looking at the offense this
situation contains need be taken seriously.

Phil Innes

David Kane wrote:

It was obvious from your references to profit motive
that you have not the faintest idea of what scholastic
chess (or youth soccer, for that matter) is about. But
despite your ignorance, you are obviously hostile to it.

I am not usually able to determine people's ignorance of a topic that
quickly. I was taught to take time and discuss before making such
pronouncements. Congratulations on your keen and quick senses.


I wasn't commenting on Rob's feigned concern for
children, at all. However, I think the less the USCF has
to do with scholastic chess the better (the USCF is filled
with people like you, after all) However, in my state
background checks for parent volunteers in youth activities
are done by the police. I don't know how effective or
expensive it is compared with other methods, but it's
hardly something cooked up to enrich the evil and
greedy capitalists.

I am sort of unsure as to what threat I pose to scholastic chess, or
for that matter, all those other people like me affiliated with USCF
(my only current affiliation is as member; again I don't see what
threat USCF members "like me" pose to scholastic chess, but so be
it)However, again, I am sure your Sherlockian senses are serving you
well by denigrating me and other USCF members, as well as "evil and
greedy capitalists."

Thank you, David Kane, for keeping scholastic chess safe from the likes
of me.

David Kane wrote:

It wasn't a comment. It was a speculation as to why a poster
who was ignorant of scholastic chess was hostile to it. It applies
equally to you.

Since when are expressed speculations not comments?

As to hostility.... you certainly do not lack in that area....

wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:

It was obvious from your references to profit motive
that you have not the faintest idea of what scholastic
chess (or youth soccer, for that matter) is about. But
despite your ignorance, you are obviously hostile to it.

I am not usually able to determine people's ignorance of a topic that
quickly. I was taught to take time and discuss before making such
pronouncements. Congratulations on your keen and quick senses.

Well you led with some comments demonstrating
astonishing ignorance, so I was able to form a
conclusion very quickly. I've yet to see anything
to believe my evaluation was faulty.


I wasn't commenting on Rob's feigned concern for
children, at all. However, I think the less the USCF has
to do with scholastic chess the better (the USCF is filled
with people like you, after all) However, in my state
background checks for parent volunteers in youth activities
are done by the police. I don't know how effective or
expensive it is compared with other methods, but it's
hardly something cooked up to enrich the evil and
greedy capitalists.

I am sort of unsure as to what threat I pose to scholastic chess, or
for that matter, all those other people like me affiliated with USCF
(my only current affiliation is as member; again I don't see what
threat USCF members "like me" pose to scholastic chess, but so be
it)

You are ignorant about scholastic chess and apparently unwilling
to address your ignorance. In combination with your willingness
to offer "solutions", you are indeed very dangerous.

However, again, I am sure your Sherlockian senses are serving you
well by denigrating me and other USCF members, as well as "evil and
greedy capitalists."

Thank you, David Kane, for keeping scholastic chess safe from the likes
of me.


Sadly, it's not just you. Hating that which they don't understand is
one of the worst traits of our species and depressingly common
in this group.

David Kane wrote:

You are ignorant about scholastic chess and apparently unwilling
to address your ignorance. In combination with your willingness
to offer "solutions", you are indeed very dangerous.

I had no idea I was offering an actual solution - as I noted, I simply
provided a contrary view or "solution", thinking that, as with most
things, the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes.

But now that I understand that even discussion of scholastic chess by
folks like me is very dangerous. Strange animal, this scholastic chess.

wrote in message
oups.com...

I had no idea I was offering an actual solution -

"A simpler solution: Dissolve the profit-driven scholastic chess
movement ...."

as I noted, I simply
provided a contrary view or "solution", thinking that, as with most
things, the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes.


But now that I understand that even discussion of scholastic chess by
folks like me is very dangerous. Strange animal, this scholastic chess.


Am I not allowed to express a preference for *informed* discussion?

Boys throw stones at frogs for sport; the frogs, they die in earnest.

David Kane wrote:
Am I not allowed to express a preference for *informed* discussion?

Doing so by calling other discussants ignorant will lead to the
opposite effect. That is, unless you think only your own views qualify
as "informed" discussion. However, I again was mistaken. I thought
newsgroups were not for the experts or the informed, necessarily, but
for everyone to come in and join a discussion in which they might have
interest and want to learn something.

Again, my statement was clear that this was an extreme, to foster
dialogue. There are many examples of the scholastic community being
shown as driven by greed - Peterson's selling water at a buck per is
just one that is well known here. They may or may not be true; I've had
a passing interest in this for some time, and have never been able to
determine the truth. I am fairly sure that the megatournaments do more
harm than good (in my ignorant opinion), but I don't know what
percentage of scholastic chess this entails. I do know that as a junior
I avoided scholastic chess specifically because it did not seem like
the proper means in which to grow as a player. Was this a correct
decision? I will not dare answer, as only David Kane seems to have the
information needed to make his informed decision.

I've also served on several campus committees designed to protect the
rights of those mentioned here, and I am not sure how you protect some
types of people (like juniors) to the fullest without taking away
rights from others. In fact, on these very committees, our collegiate
chess club was discussed, since we allowed, at the time, local juniors
to participate - which led to more than one problematic situation.
These situations must "bleed" into scholastic chess, especially at the
high school level.

So again, I would have liked to seen that discussed (it seems relevant
to my ignorant and uninformed brain), but again, you have deemed my
ideas as unfit, and you must be right. I can't be informed on any of
this because you have deemed it so.

But again, you have shown the way. Only the wise may speak, and you
have deemed me unwise, unfit for the discussion, and a danger to
scholastic chess, along with hordes of unnamed USCF members. I suppose
since your chorus of one says so, it must be true.