This landed in an ex-USCF member's mailbox an hour or so ago; the
relevant stuff is summarized below.

"WORLD OPEN, CHICAGO OPEN, USCF ELECTION COMING UP!

Dear Subscriber,

The two tournaments with the largest prize funds in the US, the World
Open and Chicago Open, are coming up in about a month or two! And
details are now posted at www.chesstour.com for all major CCA
tournaments to be held between now and Labor Day.

Also, we urge you to vote in the USCF Executive Board election this
June. If you haven't followed USCF governance lately, you probably
won't believe the reckless attacks one candidate, a current board
member, has been making, and the content of his website is also
something that USCF should definitely be associated with. [sic!--WHB]
Please see details and candidate analysis at www.checkmate.us, and
help promote American chess by electing respectable and professional
people.

[...]

2007 USCF ELECTION- PLEASE VOTE!

USCF membership has surged during the past 7 months, the second
largest increase of any 7 month period in Federation history! However,
we need respectable, professional Executive Board members to continue
this growth. Please see www.checkmate.us for details- you may find the
reckless attacks of one candidate, and the nature of his website, hard
to believe! Ballots will be part of the June Chess Life."

***

Goichberg's commentary re Sloan may be found at http://www.checkmate.us/Sloan.htm

Funny: Goichberg argues that "the content of [Sloan's] website is also
something that USCF should definitely [not] be associated with," and
later claims that per the details furnished on www.checkmate.us , we
"may find the reckless attacks of one candidate, and the nature of his
website, hard to believe! " Yet one finds zero observations on the
nature of Sloan's website referenced on checkmate.us.

What objectionable content could *possibly* be on Sloan's website?
Larry "Thai soldiers on leave" Parr has given it his nihil obstat and
imprimatur; Don Schultz hasn't gotten around to looking. Bill G. is
silent.

Therefore, Goichberg must be projecting....

By the way, is Dubeck once again endorsing the author of BINFO
200603590?

On Apr 26, 7:59 pm, someone posing as eedledicknay ( http://tinyurl.com/yofbbe
) wrote:
I would definitely vote against anyone that Goichberg recommends.

Were USCF politics not dysfunctional, virtually all of the candidates,
individually, would make suitable Board members.

The problem is not Sloan (who can't help being Sloan), or Goichberg or
Truong/Polgar (naive person that I am, I believe in the good faith of
the leaders of each opposing camp); it's not even losers like Chessdon
or Dubeck.

It's the culture of pointless bickering, the culture that would like
to pretend that a certain BINFO wasn't written, the culture that comes
up with brilliant ideas like the Forum Oversight Committee, dedicated
to the promotion of pointless bickering. (Yeah, much of this is
attributable to Bill G. this time around, but similar crapola has been
attributable to The Other SIde in past pointless campaigns...)

If you really want to get folks upset, post some PGN on the USCF
Issues Forum. Chess is not popular over there....

"Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" wrote in message
ups.com...

What objectionable content could *possibly* be on Sloan's website?


LOL!!! LOLOLOL!! Where have you been the last 10 years? Do you even
have a clue?

On Apr 26, 10:17 pm, "Chess Freak" wrote:
"Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" wrote in oglegroups.com...



What objectionable content could *possibly* be on Sloan's website?

LOL!!! LOLOLOL!! Where have you been the last 10 years? Do you even
have a clue?

*If* such content exists, has anyone ever taken the trouble to
document it?

"Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 26, 7:59 pm, someone posing as eedledicknay (
http://tinyurl.com/yofbbe
) wrote:
I would definitely vote against anyone that Goichberg recommends.

Were USCF politics not dysfunctional, virtually all of the candidates,
individually, would make suitable Board members.

The problem is not Sloan (who can't help being Sloan), or Goichberg or
Truong/Polgar (naive person that I am, I believe in the good faith of
the leaders of each opposing camp); it's not even losers like Chessdon
or Dubeck.

I think Bill Brock's opinion posted here is an astute and pert observation
at this time. Individually candidates can be likeable or otherwise, a
subjective measure, but good organisations are not run by likability, and
instead by systems routines, competencies and standards - board members can
then determine and audit systems for optimum performance in whatever
direction they want to go.

Many small businesses are like this, and in order to grow and sometimes even
to survive after the first flush of youth, have to transit from the original
personality driven nature of the founders, which was essential! at the time,
to a more systemic approach where personality alone does not do enough.

USCF unfortunately still look like a start-up after 50 years, and is so
personality determined it can't escape the heavy gravity of individual
orientations: The consequence is that it still looks like a start-up.

There is even a secondary transition in scaling organisation to maturity,
when non-enthusiasts join the board, whose expertise or passion might not be
chess at all, but, for example, financial management or marketing - or even
media.

Two exceptions to personality basis [or bias] must be, in this case, age and
social orientation. The current board is very old indeed with /at least/ one
generation missing between its own peer group and that of the majority of
USCF members, the Scholastics market.

Social orientation is also an apt issue, since it can be no more than a
propensity to preach to the current faithful, and passively accept new
memberships as replacement for those who are bored of the board. This may be
an age related factor, but is likely a greater sense of being unresponse to
furthering chess to US culture - since it gave up even trying to penetrate
mainstream years ago!

It's the culture of pointless bickering, the culture that would like
to pretend that a certain BINFO wasn't written, the culture that comes
up with brilliant ideas like the Forum Oversight Committee,

At least we have to thank some one with a sence of humor for that acronym!
)

Seriously, when past-presidents [or Ring Wraiths as Tim Redman says they
prefer to be called] state that the great majority of posts are political,
and the pretence that they are not and the FOC are not a bunch of
hand-picked commissars - well...

Wasn't this intended to be a forum for /members/ to write about chess?

The proof of Mr. Brock's pudding is that this too has been him hijacked by
the politicians who either seek to dominant or suppress each other there,
rather than in the [virtual] board room.

dedicated
to the promotion of pointless bickering. (Yeah, much of this is
attributable to Bill G. this time around, but similar crapola has been
attributable to The Other SIde in past pointless campaigns...)

It will be interestering then, to compare which candidates can address
USCF's forward looking needs on some other than a personality basis, and
either attend to its systemic infrastructure, then internal competencies,
broader and active engagment with mainstream culture, and even formal
educational possibilities.

This is not to say that personality dissapears, but that it plays its
correct role. Personality becomes a vehicle of engagement, not inflated to
become simply a war of differing egos, which absolutely inevitably land on
that corner square; the one which says, Go To Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not
Collect $200.

Which progressively exhausts the organistion of any momentum.

If you really want to get folks upset, post some PGN on the USCF
Issues Forum. Chess is not popular over there....

How awful!

I would add one thing to this list which is glaringly absent: and that is
the standards by which we audit both board and staff members who have either
role of determining or implementing chess to any constituency. If sufficient
standards are present and independently monitored, then there can be a
regained sense of confidence in, at least, that area of USCF activity.

Without that, other writers will be making the same remarks here in 10
years, as yet others did 10 years ago. Nothing really having transpired of
any significance in the interim.

Cordially, Phil Innes
Vermont

Perhaps I was unfair to Goichberg: I overlooked this passage at
http://www.checkmate.us/Sloan.htm

Bill Goichberg (expressing his personal opinion) writes:

"Sloan's charges of a "gravy train" and "milking the membership funds"
are unsupported and outrageous. Sloan's reckless charges and the
sexual content of the samsloan.com website have hurt the image of
USCF, and cost us at least one major sponsor during the past year."


But I'm still looking for more specificity: precisely what problem
does Goichberg have with "the sexual content of the samsloan.com
website"? And why does Goichberg *now* consider this a USCF issue?

And why is BINFO 200603590 and Sloan's response to Vaughn (both
statements having been made by Sloan in the course of his duties as a
Board member) *not* a USCF issue?

On Apr 28, 2:27 pm, "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius"
wrote:
Perhaps I was unfair to Goichberg: I overlooked this passage athttp://www..checkmate.us/Sloan.htm

Bill Goichberg (expressing his personal opinion) writes:

"Sloan's charges of a "gravy train" and "milking the membership funds"
are unsupported and outrageous. Sloan's reckless charges and the
sexual content of the samsloan.com website have hurt the image of
USCF, and cost us at least one major sponsor during the past year."

But I'm still looking for more specificity: precisely what problem
does Goichberg have with "the sexual content of the samsloan.com
website"? And why does Goichberg *now* consider this a USCF issue?

And why is BINFO 200603590 and Sloan's response to Vaughn (both
statements having been made by Sloan in the course of his duties as a
Board member) *not* a USCF issue?

Bill Goichberg admitted in Monrovia that he has never actually typed
in the URLs and looked at my website. He just relies on what Bill
Brock says about it.

Sam Sloan

On Apr 29, 4:52 am, samsloan wrote:
On Apr 28, 2:27 pm, "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius"



wrote:
Perhaps I was unfair to Goichberg: I overlooked this passage athttp://www.checkmate.us/Sloan.htm

Bill Goichberg (expressing his personal opinion) writes:

"Sloan's charges of a "gravy train" and "milking the membership funds"
are unsupported and outrageous. Sloan's reckless charges and the
sexual content of the samsloan.com website have hurt the image of
USCF, and cost us at least one major sponsor during the past year."



Follow the link to register your vote. Results will be posted.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...eys?id=2490065
Who would you vote for in the 2007 USCF Election?


But I'm still looking for more specificity: precisely what problem
does Goichberg have with "the sexual content of the samsloan.com
website"? And why does Goichberg *now* consider this a USCF issue?


That vast majority of parents and women who might view such content
would be offended and driven away from membership in the USCF.

Straw poll your preferances. Follow the link to register your vote.
Results will be posted.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...eys?id=2490065
Who would you vote for in the 2007 USCF Election?
Rob



Sam Sloan

On Apr 29, 4:52 am, samsloan wrote:
On Apr 28, 2:27 pm, "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius"



wrote:
Perhaps I was unfair to Goichberg: I overlooked this passage athttp://www.checkmate.us/Sloan.htm

Bill Goichberg (expressing his personal opinion) writes:

"Sloan's charges of a "gravy train" and "milking the membership funds"
are unsupported and outrageous. Sloan's reckless charges and the
sexual content of the samsloan.com website have hurt the image of
USCF, and cost us at least one major sponsor during the past year."

But I'm still looking for more specificity: precisely what problem
does Goichberg have with "the sexual content of the samsloan.com
website"? And why does Goichberg *now* consider this a USCF issue?

And why is BINFO 200603590 and Sloan's response to Vaughn (both
statements having been made by Sloan in the course of his duties as a
Board member) *not* a USCF issue?

Bill Goichberg admitted in Monrovia that he has never actually typed
in the URLs and looked at my website. He just relies on what Bill
Brock says about it.

Sam Sloan

If Goichberg's statement is unfounded, then you should file ethics
charges against him.