The Great Issue of the Day which is currently being debated by the
USCF Executive Board is whether there should be "enforcement" of the
guidelines for allowing postings to the moderated USCF Issues Forum,
or whether that is insufficient and there should rather be "strict
enforcement".

Bill Goichberg feels that "enforcement" should be sufficient, but
Channing, Truong and Polgar insist that rather there must be "strict
enforcement".

If one wants to read some truly hilarious postings over a period of
days on this vital subject one should read the USCF Executive Board
BINFOS.

The only two board members who seem to have retained their sanity are
Jim Berry and Randy Bauer. Berry opines that the motion "seems
unnecessary" whereas Bauer asks "Don't we have anything more important
to do or talk about?"

Going further on this point, Bauer writes:

"I don't see this as rising to the level of the need for a Board
motion.

" 'So, EB member, what has been occupying your time and attention for
the betterment of chess in the US?'

" 'Why, just yesterday I voted for strict enforcement of the Forum
Guidelines.'

"Don't we have anything more important to do or talk about?

"RB"

Bauer later adds:

"Sorry, this is all too school marm-ish for me. I guess I'm just not
that much of a disciplinarian.

"If I thought it was worth the time, I would move to substitute "firm,
fair, and consistent" for "strict." Or, how about "fact-based, common-
sense" or "logical, even-handed" etc., etc.

"I've yet to see or hear from the average member, let alone the
average Forum poster, who is clamoring for this action.

"Isn't there something of more importance we should be spending our
time worrying about?

"RB"

Sam Sloan

Is it just a pure coincidence that the three board members who are
demanding "strict enforcement" rather than merely "enforcement" of the
posting guidelines are the same three board members who are most often
criticized on the USCF Forums?

Sam Sloan

a greater level of civility = censorship

Sam Sloan

a greater level of civility = censorship


**You should know! You censored your own critics in this very newsgroup,
making the most laugh out loud excuses I ever heard. As if the same Rob
Mitchell who just defended the destruction of your Wiki article against
Moderator-in-a-big-hat Blair, was someone unknown to you.

**When you get over your own *special* status in your own mind, then accept
what the rest of us do, and join in, or criticise from the outside of chess
entirely.

**You are the last person to comment on the USCF forums, and your ability to
act with 'civility' is [ROFL] unknown, since it is obscured by your words.

**I got a great laugh out of Bill Hall on the phone when I suggested that
the USCF-forum would regulate itself if chess politicians didn't post there
at all, and a non-chess player regulated the whole shebang.

**Now - Sam Sloan likes to play-act the bad boy bandit role, and others the
shining knights of discourse, but after a year of intense nonsense about
that forum, [which hired people of equally intense nothingness to moderate
it] the collective wisdom has reduced it, at massive expense, to a witless
exchange medium, where nothing bad may be said, even about very bad things!

**It is hard to think chess players did this. But then again, so many are
*special* chess players. That is, not chess players at all. They are chess
talkers, and its all about them.

Phil Innes
---

Sam Sloan

One thing for sure is that posters have been sitting around trying to
figure out how to get the point across that they were trying to make
without being censored.

For example, Happy Payne used to write about S.ome P.oor S.oul but
giving us enough clues as to enable us to figure out who that "S.ome
P.oor S.oul" was.

Brian used to write about "The Name that One Dare Not Speak". We knew
who that was too.

Sam Sloan

On Aug 31, 2:24 pm, samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry_Vibbert Quote: Originally Posted by samsloan Quote: Originally Posted by joelchanning As far as I'm concerned the significance of the motion is that we're making it clear that we think that a greater level of civility is what we want. Joel a greater level of civility = censorship Sam Sloan What do you think moderators do in a moderated forum, Sam? The defining feature of a moderator is censorship. If not censorship, what do you think moderators do? Do you think they sit around and design posts based on assumption and then go on to condemn the subjects of the assumption implying impropriety via innuendo? Terry Vibbert

One thing for sure is that posters have been sitting around trying to
figure out how to get the point across that they were trying to make
without being censored.

For example, Happy Payne used to write about S.ome P.oor S.oul but
giving us enough clues as to enable us to figure out who that "S.ome
P.oor S.oul" was.

Brian used to write about "The Name that One Dare Not Speak". We knew
who that was too.

Sam Sloan

I moderate three different discussion groups and am a co-moderator on
another one. I have three rules as a moderator

a) Stick to topic
b) No peddling your stuff or your private website or products
c) No personal ad hominem attacks on other members by name.

Topics are fair game, its attacking another person for taking a
position that you disagree with that is not acceptable.

From the BINFOS for August 28, 2007. Note that Randy Bauer and Jim
Berry seem to be the only two sensible people on the board:

I abstain.

RB

OK, the motion has passed 6-0 with one abstention.

Bill Goichberg

Chessoffice@xxxxxxx wrote:

In a message dated 8/28/2007 2:10:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight
Time, randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx writes:

Well, if the ball starts rolling, I'll be the first to
applaud - unless it is a Sisyphus exercise, of course. For the time
being, I'll pass on strict construction.

RB

Is that a no vote or an abstention?

Bill Goichberg


JABerryCG@xxxxxxx wrote:

Actually RB according to Joel this motion is important
because it gives Bill and Susan something to agree upon and start the
ball rolling for a better USCF.
If it takes a mundane motion to jump-start this train,
then I vote yes to strict enforcement of the Issues Forum guidelines
by the FOC and ED.
Susan-congrats on progress with Eric Moskow!!!
We have 67 pre-entries for 10-SS Labor Day FIDE tnmt
in Stillwater (USCF chess city of 2007)
Got final financials yesterday-thx.
Jim Berry

On Sep 1, 11:56 am, samsloan wrote:
From the BINFOS for August 28, 2007. Note that Randy Bauer and Jim

Berry seem to be the only two sensible people on the board:

I abstain.

RB

OK, the motion has passed 6-0 with one abstention.

Bill Goichberg

Chessoffice@xxxxxxx wrote:

In a message dated 8/28/2007 2:10:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight

Time, randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx writes:

Well, if the ball starts rolling, I'll be the first to
applaud - unless it is a Sisyphus exercise, of course. For the time
being, I'll pass on strict construction.

RB

Is that a no vote or an abstention?

Bill Goichberg

JABerryCG@xxxxxxx wrote:

Actually RB according to Joel this motion is important
because it gives Bill and Susan something to agree upon and start the
ball rolling for a better USCF.
If it takes a mundane motion to jump-start this train,
then I vote yes to strict enforcement of the Issues Forum guidelines
by the FOC and ED.
Susan-congrats on progress with Eric Moskow!!!
We have 67 pre-entries for 10-SS Labor Day FIDE tnmt
in Stillwater (USCF chess city of 2007)
Got final financials yesterday-thx.
Jim Berry

Why not just shut the puppy down cancel the idiotic internet liability
insurance policy and use the $11,000/Year for worthwhile program?

On Sep 1, 11:56 am, samsloan wrote:
From the BINFOS for August 28, 2007. Note that Randy Bauer and Jim

Berry seem to be the only two sensible people on the board:

I abstain.

RB

OK, the motion has passed 6-0 with one abstention.

Bill Goichberg

Chessoffice@xxxxxxx wrote:

In a message dated 8/28/2007 2:10:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight

Time, randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx writes:

Well, if the ball starts rolling, I'll be the first to
applaud - unless it is a Sisyphus exercise, of course. For the time
being, I'll pass on strict construction.

RB

Is that a no vote or an abstention?

Bill Goichberg

JABerryCG@xxxxxxx wrote:

Actually RB according to Joel this motion is important
because it gives Bill and Susan something to agree upon and start the
ball rolling for a better USCF.
If it takes a mundane motion to jump-start this train,
then I vote yes to strict enforcement of the Issues Forum guidelines
by the FOC and ED.
Susan-congrats on progress with Eric Moskow!!!
We have 67 pre-entries for 10-SS Labor Day FIDE tnmt
in Stillwater (USCF chess city of 2007)
Got final financials yesterday-thx.
Jim Berry

USCF is the only organization I know who could take something that
could make money and turn it into a 5-6 figure annual financial
loser.

On Sep 1, 12:56 pm, samsloan wrote:
From the BINFOS for August 28, 2007. Note that Randy Bauer and Jim

Berry seem to be the only two sensible people on the board:

I abstain.

RB

OK, the motion has passed 6-0 with one abstention.

Bill Goichberg

Chessoffice@xxxxxxx wrote:

In a message dated 8/28/2007 2:10:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight

Time, randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx writes:

Well, if the ball starts rolling, I'll be the first to
applaud - unless it is a Sisyphus exercise, of course. For the time
being, I'll pass on strict construction.

RB

Is that a no vote or an abstention?

Bill Goichberg

JABerryCG@xxxxxxx wrote:

Actually RB according to Joel this motion is important
because it gives Bill and Susan something to agree upon and start the
ball rolling for a better USCF.
If it takes a mundane motion to jump-start this train,
then I vote yes to strict enforcement of the Issues Forum guidelines
by the FOC and ED.
Susan-congrats on progress with Eric Moskow!!!
We have 67 pre-entries for 10-SS Labor Day FIDE tnmt
in Stillwater (USCF chess city of 2007)
Got final financials yesterday-thx.
Jim Berry

jim , the audacity, congrats on dealing with me. She is dealing with
me inspite of youy, goichberg and the other negative self dealing
people at the uscf. Susan, should not be congratulated, I am not a
project, what are you talking about. In fact had you had the courtesy
of calling me when the us championship was planned we might just of
been friends, now, do not mention my name on a website ever again.
eric moskow. ps if I choose to post thats my business, your a
fiduciary what are you thinking.???? mr board member.