What is not reasonable is you coming in as a new moderator and on the
first day turning everything upside down by ruling that URLs to
websites cannot be posted. This forum has been in existence for about
three years and has had many moderators, but before this nobody had
ever suggested such a rule.

Now, when postings by a widely divergent number of posters who do not
have a history of agreeing with each other on other subjects object
that our postings had been pulled, you accuse us all of being
"impolite".

Meanwhile, all the other present and former moderators disagree with
your actions. There is a major revolution going on now.

It so happens that at least one member of the FOC has gone away on
vacation for a week or two and for that reason your actions cannot be
overruled and the posts restored.

Sam Sloan

There you go. Now which of these were inconsiderate when taken with
the PM that prompted each (which I have not published).

Steve TN

Most of them.

Tim Sawmiller

You refused to wait for the consensus of the FOC, in face of opposite
opinions from your fellow moderators and opposition from just about
everyone with an opinion on this topic, and instead began
inappropriate censorship of on topic discussion.

Steve TN

If moderators wait for a consensus on every issue, then what is the
point of having them?

Tim Sawmiller

However, a decent person will change their actions when confronted
with overwhelming evidence that they should. You haven't, and
further, you have imposed your will despite being shown that your
interpretation has no basis.

Steve TN

So now you are calling me "indecent"? I certainly hope not.

As for having a basis for these actions, I offer this: Within the
last week, a post by Mr. S. Sloan was pulled (not by me) because it
contained a URL to a page that had details only about a chess book.
(I think the reason being that it was now available in paperback).
That was a chess related item, and Mr. Sloan did not recommend buying
it. He just announced it's availability. How is that any different?
I took that as a precedent, along with a close reading of the AUG.
Agree or disagree, there is a basis for that interpretation.

Edit: I see you managed to slip in those pesky URLs again, by quoting
my PMs to you. Would you mind X'ing those out please?

2nd Edit: Point taken.

Tim Sawmiller

What you really did was tell me to remove a link to Susan Polgar's
website because Susan Polgar has commercial ads for her chess books.

As you probably know, I am not in any way financially involved with
Susan Polgar.

Saying that I cannot cite anything posted on her website is absurd and
ridiculous.

Sam Sloan

To paraphrase Winnie Churchill: "In politics truth is so precious
that
she should always be attended by a bodygard of lies

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/join

Link to the Sloan vanity page


http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide_chess/join

Link to REAL Chess Discussion Group

On Sep 14, 10:39 am, Rob wrote:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/join

Link to the Sloan vanity page

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide_chess/join

Link to REAL Chess Discussion Group

Rob,

What's the point of repeating "Mohamed Sloan" over and over?

I suppose you think this is some kind of insult.

Larry T.

On Sep 14, 10:50 am, Larry Tapper wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:39 am, Rob wrote:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/join

Link to the Sloan vanity page

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide_chess/join

Link to REAL Chess Discussion Group

Rob,

What's the point of repeating "Mohamed Sloan" over and over?

I suppose you think this is some kind of insult.

Larry T.

That is his REAL legal name. I strive to be accurate. :-)

On Sep 14, 10:50 am, Larry Tapper wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:39 am, Rob wrote:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/join

Link to the Sloan vanity page

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide_chess/join

Link to REAL Chess Discussion Group

Rob,

What's the point of repeating "Mohamed Sloan" over and over?

I suppose you think this is some kind of insult.

I think he wants to underline the 'fact' that Sam Sloan's legal name
is not Sam Sloan. Mr. Mitchell is the only person aware of this
'fact', and the only person who seems to care about it.

I disagree. For example, I wrote that Susan Polgar has only won the
Woman's World Championship one time. She did not win it four times.

That posting was pulled by tanstaafl, Moderator6, because, he said,
that I had failed to "prove" this statement.

When I wrote that "everybody knows" that Susan Polgar won the Woman's
World Championship one time and this is common knowledge that all
chess players have, he wrote back that statements like "everybody
knows" are not acceptable and I must provide "substantial proof".

I note that my statement that Susan Polgar won the Woman's World
Championship one time has not been restored by the FOC of which you
are a member. Kindly explain why you have not restored this statement.

Sam Sloan

When a USCF official claims to have won the Woman's World Championship
four times when, in reality, they only won it once, is not that
unethical?

It certainly makes the USCF look awfully silly when you cannot even
count to one, much less four.

Sam Sloan

Herbert Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl a/k/a Moderator6 is clearly
overreaching his powers. Here, he has used the banned word several
times by calling people liars. Also, I understand that it is NOT TRUE
that the FOC directed him to remove my posts. Rather, Moderator6
removed my posts of his own accord.

Also, Moderator6 seems to be the only person in the whole world
besides Susan Polgar who thinks that Susan Polgar won the Woman's
World Championship four times. He uses his powers as moderator to
impose his views on the entire membership.

I think it is time to remove Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl from being a
moderator. He is clearly unable to perform his duties impartially.

Sam Sloan