Adios amigos!
A forum to discuss general USCF issues (Open to USCF members only.)

Moderator: Moderators

Post a reply

17 posts . Page 1 of 2 . 1, 2
a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by ChessPromotion on Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:13 am #70022

AndyApplebaum wrote:I would (/do) appreciate it if Mr. Truong and Mrs.
Polgar would post here as well; I think it's crucial to have a way to have a
message board such as this where you should be able to talk to *all*
important figures in the USCF. (aka, I think EVERYONE on the board should
have their presence felt here)


Andy, both Susan and I were very active here at one point until some people
decided to drop in. She was trying to help because she truly believes in
interacting with chess players of all levels. She has done this long before
this forum. All she requested is for people to be respectful and civil.
Thanks to a few, there goes that. She only asked to have her handle removed
after receiving multiple legal threats. Her attorneys advised her to do so
and I cannot disagree with them. She still posts on about a dozen chess
forums and blogs.

As for me, I tried to hang on to this place as long as I could. I was hoping
and praying that after the election, some people would grow up and put the
best interest of the USCF first. I was wrong. Therefore, this will be my
last post on the USCF forum until proper moderation is taking place and the
AUG is revised and fully respected. It is also unacceptable for anyone to
abuse the moderators and FOC members.

Thank you (and Tim, Rodney, Polly, Louis and DrCheck too) for helping the
USCF out. Also special thanks to Terry V. and Wayne P. I wish everyone the
best.

Best regards,
PT

Now let's see how long before this post will be torn apart by the
musketeers.
It is time for united board working together for the common good of US Chess
and the USCF.
ChessPromotion

Posts: 668
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:43 am
Location: Lubbock, TX
USCFId: 12123950
a.. Private message
b.. Website
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by samsloan on Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:06 am #70027

ChessPromotion wrote:As for me, I tried to hang on to this place as long
as I could. I was hoping and praying that after the election, some people
would grow up and put the best interest of the USCF first. I was wrong.
Therefore, this will be my last post on the USCF forum until proper
moderation is taking place and the AUG is revised and fully respected. It is
also unacceptable for anyone to abuse the moderators and FOC members.

Thank you (and Tim, Rodney, Polly, Louis and DrCheck too) for helping the
USCF out. Also special thanks to Terry V. and Wayne P. I wish everyone the
best.

Best regards,
PT

Now let's see how long before this post will be torn apart by the
musketeers.


It will not take long. Notice that he thanked all but one of the members of
the FOC.

The one member of the Forum Oversight Committee that he did not thank was
David Quinn ("Artichoke").

I wonder why he did not thank him.

Sam Sloan
samsloan

Posts: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: Bronx, New York
USCFId: 11115292
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. YIM
d.. AIM
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by martinak on Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:03 am #70040

thunderchicken wrote:This is still a private organization. It's pretty sad
that there has to be FOC and moderators on here to keep people in line. If
they're causing trouble, ban 'em. If they're a threat to the USCF, ban 'em!
This shouldn't be a democracy and adding on government to something about a
board game.

"Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up
for me."
- Tom Martinak
martinak

Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:40 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
USCFId: 10140447
a.. Private message
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Joe Lux on Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:25 am #70067

I am very sorry that two EB members have decided not to post on the official
USCF forum. I can appreciate the challenges they faced during the campaign.
I also wished that after the election, critics would accept the voice of the
electorate. Any questions to any of the elected members should be made for
actions while sitting on the board, period.

That is not to say that it would be reasonable to drastically change our
forum's standards to see all EB members posting on the forum again, no
matter how desireable that outcome would be. I would not change the forum to
meet the demands of any two members. Let's hope that the art of the
compromise can be developed to bring these two eb members back to the forum.

All the best, Joe Lux
Joe Lux

Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:51 pm
Location: Jersey City, NJ
USCFId: 10101433
a.. Private message
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by nolan on Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:30 am #70069

There's probably no such thing as an optimal campaign strategy (except maybe
in retrospect the one that wins), but nearly 50% of those who voted in 2006
also voted in 2007, which sounds like a reasonable target audience to me.

On the other hand, of the 12,189 voting members in 2007 who were not voting
members in 2006, only 741 voted or just over 6%.
nolan

Posts: 6347
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:39 pm
USCFId: 10339324
a.. Private message
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Harry Payne on Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:04 am #70083

As one of those that asked questions of Mr. Troung, and Ms. Polgar, during
the election,(never considering myself a mouseketeer, or any other type
"keteer" for that matter.) I have wondered as to some of the answers, not
forthcoming. But as the election is over, I have curtailed comments
considerably. Two issues raised did catch my attention. Why was David Quinn
not mentioned? And what is to be gained by two members of the E.B. leaving
the forum? There was a comment also that caught my attention, "Freedom of
speech does not apply in private organizations " I dare say, the framers of
the constitution would be surprized to hear such a comment, as would all the
men and women that have fought, and many dying to preserve the most
fundamental, and precious right we have. The leaving of Ms. Polgar, and Mr.
Troung from these forums, are a loss to all, but objectively more so to
them. A bad answer or reason is better than no answer. There is none that
have not made mistakes, and many times, where is no mistake, or error, the
lack of an answer, or explanation, leaves the appearance of error, or
mistake. I agree with Joe Lux (wish he had been elected) The issues and
topics most important at this time, to all members ,should focus on what the
E.B. is accomplishing now. What plans are being drawn to expand the USCF, or
benefit the membership as a whole. What promotions are in the works to place
a positive appearance ,to the public at large ,to generate an interest in
Chess , the players, tournaments, or our organization. Just ponderings on my
part, no offense intended to anyone or group.
" Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he
also reap."
When young we sow our wild oats, as we get older we pray for crop failure.
In love of the game. Harry Payne
Harry Payne

Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Marlow, Oklahoma
USCFId: 12705633
a.. Private message
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:43 am #70090

The way the forums are moderated, there is no win. If someone does not like
someone, they can post attack after attack, and lie, but the defender can't
call the accuser of the outright lie.

No wonder the EB / ED don't often post here. Paul probably posted here more
than the rest, I have not seen most of the other EB post here. Logically--
how can you blame any leader for staying away?
Gregory Alexander
http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1176
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:27 pm
Location: Seattle, Wa
USCFId: 13474581
a.. Private message
b.. Website
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by AndyApplebaum on Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:46 am #70091

gregory wrote:The way the forums are moderated, there is no win. If
someone does not like someone, they can post attack after attack, and lie,
but the defender can't call the accuser of the outright lie.

No wonder the EB / ED don't often post here. Paul probably posted here
more than the rest, I have not seen most of the other EB post here.
Logically-- how can you blame them for staying away?


After the election it appeared that Mr. Truong indeed was here but would not
address those who were attacking him -- I personally like this strategy, and
have even incorporated it into my actions on other boards.

I urge you to re-consider, Mr. Truong, and at least frequent the boards
every now and then, with that small bit of hope that someone new comes here
and asks a question that does deserve EB attention

AndyApplebaum
Moderator

Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Chicago/Iowa
USCFId: 12770176
a.. Private message
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by samsloan on Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:54 am #70095

ChessPromotion wrote:Andy, both Susan and I were very active here at one
point until some people decided to drop in. She was trying to help because
she truly believes in interacting with chess players of all levels. She has
done this long before this forum. All she requested is for people to be
respectful and civil. Thanks to a few, there goes that. She only asked to
have her handle removed after receiving multiple legal threats. Her
attorneys advised her to do so and I cannot disagree with them. She still
posts on about a dozen chess forums and blogs.

Paul Truong states above that Susan dropped out of the forum because some of
the other posters were not respectful and civil.

However, this is not entirely what happened. Susan quit the USCF Forums on
February 28, 2006, one and a half years ago, complaining that one of the
posters had been insulting.

This happened under thread topic "Polgar Letter to the Board" which she had
started. She had only been posting for ten days before that.

I have just re-read all the letters leading up to her quitting the forum and
I can find none of them that any normal reader would consider to be even
mildly objectionable, much less insulting.

Sam Sloan
samsloan

Posts: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: Bronx, New York
USCFId: 11115292
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. YIM
d.. AIM
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:57 am #70096

Ahhh, well spoken from the man who put a link to #### on this forum board...
Gregory Alexander
http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1176
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:27 pm
Location: Seattle, Wa
USCFId: 13474581
a.. Private message
b.. Website
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Harry Payne on Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:21 am #70100

gregory wrote:The way the forums are moderated, there is no win. If
someone does not like someone, they can post attack after attack, and lie,
but the defender can't call the accuser of the outright lie.

No wonder the EB / ED don't often post here. Paul probably posted here
more than the rest, I have not seen most of the other EB post here.
Logically-- how can you blame any leader for staying away?


Blame, I consider not, however ,unfortunate is my thought. I feel it
unfortunate that members of the EB elect not to particapate in the forum. In
every kitchen there is a little heat, if heat is a problem, one should not
consider the job of a Chef as an option
" Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he
also reap."
When young we sow our wild oats, as we get older we pray for crop failure.
In love of the game. Harry Payne
Harry Payne

Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Marlow, Oklahoma
USCFId: 12705633
a.. Private message
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by snits on Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:37 am #70103

AndyApplebaum wrote:
gregory wrote:The way the forums are moderated, there is no win. If
someone does not like someone, they can post attack after attack, and lie,
but the defender can't call the accuser of the outright lie.

No wonder the EB / ED don't often post here. Paul probably posted here
more than the rest, I have not seen most of the other EB post here.
Logically-- how can you blame them for staying away?


After the election it appeared that Mr. Truong indeed was here but would
not address those who were attacking him -- I personally like this strategy,
and have even incorporated it into my actions on other boards.

I urge you to re-consider, Mr. Truong, and at least frequent the boards
every now and then, with that small bit of hope that someone new comes here
and asks a question that does deserve EB attention


Why not request the rest of the EB to frequent the boards as well? Sam is
the only EB member that posted here is great frequency.
snits

Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:09 pm
Location: Chandler, AZ
USCFId: 12652674
a.. Private message
b.. Website
c.. MSNM/WLM
d.. YIM
e.. AIM
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by wzim on Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:57 am #70106

snits wrote:....Why not request the rest of the EB to frequent the boards
as well? Sam is the only EB member that posted here is great frequency.



I went and looked up some of the post numbers of current board members.
Randy Bauer has 687
Chess Promotion (Paul T) has 668
ChessOffice (Bill G) has 562
Joel Channing (503)

So 4 of the 7of the current board members have been active in the past.

But it has to be a time consuming task keeping up with the forums. Perhaps
it would be better if the Board elected a spokesperson to represent them at
the forums. Or they could take turns etc. But basically this would make the
board available for feedback from the public etc.
wzim

Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:37 am
Location: Peoria, Il
USCFId: 11315844
a.. Private message
b.. Website
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by tanstaafl on Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:03 pm #70108

samsloan wrote:
ChessPromotion wrote:Andy, both Susan and I were very active here at one
point until some people decided to drop in. She was trying to help because
she truly believes in interacting with chess players of all levels. She has
done this long before this forum. All she requested is for people to be
respectful and civil. Thanks to a few, there goes that. She only asked to
have her handle removed after receiving multiple legal threats. Her
attorneys advised her to do so and I cannot disagree with them. She still
posts on about a dozen chess forums and blogs.

Paul Truong states above that Susan dropped out of the forum because some
of the other posters were not respectful and civil.

However, this is not entirely what happened. Susan quit the USCF Forums on
February 28, 2006, one and a half years ago, complaining that one of the
posters had been insulting.

This happened under thread topic "Polgar Letter to the Board" which she
had started. She had only been posting for ten days before that.

I have just re-read all the letters leading up to her quitting the forum
and I can find none of them that any normal reader would consider to be even
mildly objectionable, much less insulting.

Sam Sloan

As Mike Nolan pointed out in another thread, this is a false statement. In
fact, it's nowhere near the truth -- being off by over a year (during which
she made over 70 posts).
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

tanstaafl
Moderator

Posts: 2628
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:27 pm
USCFId: 11246770
a.. Private message
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Edit post
c.. Report this post
by Brian Lafferty on Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:18 pm #70109

Joe Lux wrote:I am very sorry that two EB members have decided not to post
on the official USCF forum. I can appreciate the challenges they faced
during the campaign. I also wished that after the election, critics would
accept the voice of the electorate. Any questions to any of the elected
members should be made for actions while sitting on the board, period.

That is not to say that it would be reasonable to drastically change our
forum's standards to see all EB members posting on the forum again, no
matter how desireable that outcome would be. I would not change the forum to
meet the demands of any two members. Let's hope that the art of the
compromise can be developed to bring these two eb members back to the forum.

All the best, Joe Lux


Joe, a couple of points if I may.

The election is over and those who spoke, a very small percentage of the
electorate, did indeed elect new EB members.

Because the election is over does not mean that the actions and statements
of EB members are not subject to review, analysis and criticism or requests
for supporting information.

Ms. Polgar has not returned post-election to the forum of the organization
that she chairs . The claim by her husband linking he decision not to return
to lawyers' letters presumably sent to her as a direct and proximate result
of her own actions is disingenuous at best. Recall if you will that Ms.
Polgar withdrew from this forum after being sanctioned by the FOC for an
attack on me.

Mr. Truong was asked by several posters here and on his own new discussion
forum to explain his assertion that he offered his assistance to the
organization to facilitate increased web traffic to our forums. He claimed
that his offer was rejected. When asked for the details, he hides behind a
claim of confidentiality that does not exist. Unless a matter involves
personnel or the specifics of an actual consultation with USCF counsel, the
members are entitled to know everything that goes on in their organization.
I submit to you that his kind of representation making and refusal to be
forthcoming with information is a trait Mr. Truong has exhibited often in
the past, particularly during the recent EB campaign.

Both Mr. Truong and his wife take exception to being asked to explain
themselves. No one here has asked anything other than for information. Their
actions have at times been criticized, by others and me. Neither of them has
been personally attacked by anyone.

So, let's call it as it is. We have two recently elected board members who,
IMO, have no desire to be accountable to or transparent with the membership
as a whole. This flies in the face of the members statutory right to know
the affairs of their membership organization. Mr. and Mrs. Truong can run to
the censored world of their blogs and forum, but in the internet age it's
impossible to hide from members who want to know and discuss their policies
and actions. Openness and transparency on their part would be so much easier
for everyone.
Last edited by Brian Lafferty on Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in
total.
Tous pour un et un pour tous! -- Les Trois Mousquetaires
Brian Lafferty

Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:16 pm
USCFId: 13592564
a.. Private message
Top