Opinion: Dissent and the USCF Issues Forum

Opinion: Dissent and the USCF Issues Forum Part One
http://chessusa.blogspot.com/2007/10...ues-forum.html

Part One: The Basics of the Issue

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government
without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not
hesitate a moment to prefer the latter"


"The people are nearly all united; their quondam leaders,
infuriated with the sense of their impotence, will soon be seen or
heard only in the newspapers, which serve as chimnies to carry off
noxious vapors and smoke, and all is now tranquil, firm and well, as
it should be."

--Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America



Dissent is a time honored tradition in American society. American
patriots dissented when they fired the "shot heard round the world" at
Concord, Massachusetts. Supporting this action were dissenting words
from Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and the definitive and most
fundamental American political speech instrument, our Declaration of
Independence. Dissent is what we are about. Americans do not hesitate
to state their objection to what they view as erroneous action or
policy on the part of their leaders. Our history is replete with
instances where Americans have vigorously, and violently when
necessary, affirmed their right to dissent. We view ourselves as a
society of equals, with no one person being superior to another with
regard to individual circumstance. We place our leaders in positions
of authority and honor the offices they hold, but we are not above
removing them when they enact policies contrary to the societal good.
Most Americans hold the "three boxes" philosophy in high regard. That
philosophy states that citizens have three boxes that guarantee their
liberty: The Ballot Box, the Soap Box, and the Ammo Box. The last is
used very infrequently, but King George III found that we can and will
use it.

The most common means by which Americans express ardent dissent is
with the written word. Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense and The
American Crisis. Samuel Adams wrote prolifically and his works were
published in newspapers, on pamphlets, and used as opinion instruments
by American delegates to King George III's parliament. His written and
spoken words were very influential in the events leading up to the
Boston Tea Party. The political written word remains the most
important means by which societal factions of every stripe seek to
influence the direction of the United States. Americans see their
right to opine as applicable to all facets of their life. American
chess players have long exercised this right in the matters of the
organization that is the governing body of chess in America and that
represents Americans in the World Chess Federation (FIDE).

The United States Chess Federation (USCF), entering the new
millennium, decided that a more intimate representative governance
structure was desired. Before 2003, the USCF had elected national
governance via delegate vote. Those delegates had been chosen as
representation from USCF affiliated state governance bodies. These
delegates were primarily people intimately involved with chess on the
local level with knowledge about what they needed to make chess work
in their communities but also with political axes to grind on the
national level. In an effort to remove the baser political motivations
from national governance the USCF changed the governance structure to
"One Man One Vote" (OMOV) beginning with the 2003 elections. OMOV
provided for the ability of each USCF member age sixteen and over a
vote in the Executive Board and Delegate elections.

In late 2003 - early 2004 (the earliest recorded post I could find is
Post #19 on January 8, 2004) the USCF opened up the USCF Forums. With
Post #6328 Mike Nolan launched the USCF Issues Forum for public
discourse of issues, political and otherwise, important to USCF
membership. Since then the Issues Forum has become the most popular in
terms of posts of the various USCF Forums, far outpacing all the
others combined. The Issues Forum has become the "newspaper" for those
among the USCF membership who seek to participate in USCF governance
as regular members, political figures both holding office and seeking
election to office, and various others interested in USCF issues and
governance.

Until early 2007 moderation of the Issues Forum was the sole
responsibility of Mike Nolan, a prominent figure on USCF committees
and the contractor responsible for the smooth running of various
technical aspects of the USCF computers and network. After various
controversies, Nolan recused himself from moderation duties on the
Issues Forum, an event provoked by the Executive Board overturning
sanctions Nolan placed on two Board members for violating the Accepted
Use Guidelines (AUG). A new moderation regime was instituted that set
up a Forum Oversight Committee (FOC) with separate Moderators. This
regime formed the FOC as a legislative, judicial, and prosecutorial
body of up to eight members that would amend the AUG and the
Disciplinary Procedures and provide oversight of moderator activities.
This regime operated from March 2007 to September 2007 when it was
announced that a more conventional moderation model would be put in
place. The regime was marked by high turnover of FOC members and
moderators, a turnover prompted by inconsistent USCF governance input
and a lack of USCF management direction. Exacerbating this were
continuous attacks by disaffected radical elements seeking to disrupt
discourse and the flow of information about which these elements
disagreed.

The new moderation model is still being put in place and has been
marked by several blunders by both the Executive Board and moderators
left to their own devices as well as a change in forum software.
Mistakes by USCF governance and Forum moderation include an ill
advised motion by the Executive Board calling for "strict enforcement"
of the AUG, an egregious effort to censor chess related URLs by one
moderator, and the stifling of discussion regarding actions of
Executive Board members.

Posted by Steve in TN at 5:59 AM

http://chessusa.blogspot.com/2007/10...-forum_02.html

Part Two: Dissent Must Be Heard

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government
without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not
hesitate a moment to prefer the latter"


"The people are nearly all united; their quondam leaders,
infuriated with the sense of their impotence, will soon be seen or
heard only in the newspapers, which serve as chimnies to carry off
noxious vapors and smoke, and all is now tranquil, firm and well, as
it should be."

--Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America



In Part One we referred to the Issues Forum as the "newspaper" of the
USCF community. More accurately, the Issues Forum is only a portion of
the USCF newspaper, with both the print and web editions of Chess Life
as well as the USCF web site forming other parts. The Issues and other
forums comprise the areas of the USCF community that allow general
membership the opportunity to interact with USCF governance and
management. The Forums promote a sense of community and affinity among
the membership with the ability to interact with other members as well
as those who set policy.

Another important service the Issues Forum should provide is the
facility for dissenting members to voice their opinions and
complaints. It is here that members may express approval or
disapproval of governance and management policies. It is here that
governance and management may here dissent to their policies. It is
here that governance and management may explain the goal of their
policies and the rationale behind them. It is also here that
governance and management may find impetus to re-evaluate their
policies and announce changes to be more in tune with the
organizational mission.

Why is this ability to express dissent on the Issues Forum relevant?
Because, as explained in Part One, the USCF has chosen a
representative mode of governance. Going hand in hand with that mode
of governance is the ability of the general membership, those who have
suffrage, to address governance and seek to have policy explained by
those in governance and to impact the administration of policy.
Legitimate dissent and the expression of disagreement with the
policies and actions of those in power must be allowed in the Issues
Forum if the USCF is serious about realizing the full potential of a
representative governance structure. Only with an informed electorate
may there be legitimate governance. An uniformed electorate will only
put in place governance haphazardly and with no legitimate mandate to
set policy.

Legitimate expression of dissent also allows membership to air their
grievances, to express their dissatisfaction, and releases pent up
frustration that, without release, will fester and eventually erupt to
the detriment of the organization. Dissent that is not representative
of the membership, that is ill considered and ought to be rejected,
will be isolated and eventually excluded through the process of dialog
as in Jefferson's quote above, as noxious vapors and smoke are removed
from a domicile through the chimney.

In closing, I'll repeat what I wrote in a recent post on the Forums:

It is with the same sense of right and wrong that I stand against
what
has become a grievous injury to the necessary ability of the
general membership to address the issues of this organization and
those who represent the membership. If it is not said here, it will be
said elsewhere, to the detriment of the organization. Legitimate
discussion regarding the actions of those in elected USCF governance
must not be quelled. Since the edict from the Executive Board, it has
been.

Legitimate dissent must be heard, it must be allowed to be
expressed in this forum, and I find troubling the fact that those in
power fail to see their duty in this regard. This is a representative
organization, made so by the delegates, and proclaimed to be the
course for our organization by those in power. If the good leaders of
the USCF do not wish this to be so, then they must remove OMOV from
the governance structure. Dissent from general members would then
be irrelevant, and rightly quashed by governance. Until that time,
however, this is a representative organization, and as such the
ability of the general membership must be preserved against the
illegitimate removal of our voice.

Posted by Steve in TN at 6:55 AM

--
Steve Owens in Tennessee | sdo1.blogspot.com | chessusa.blogspot.com
"Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than yourself."
---Thomas Jefferson

On Oct 2, 7:38 am, p944dc wrote:
Opinion: Dissent and the USCF Issues Forum Part Onehttp://chessusa.blogspot.com/2007/10/opinion-dissent-and-uscf-issues-...

Part One: The Basics of the Issue

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government
without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not
hesitate a moment to prefer the latter"

"The people are nearly all united; their quondam leaders,
infuriated with the sense of their impotence, will soon be seen or
heard only in the newspapers, which serve as chimnies to carry off
noxious vapors and smoke, and all is now tranquil, firm and well, as
it should be."

--Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America

Dissent is a time honored tradition in American society. American
patriots dissented when they fired the "shot heard round the world" at
Concord, Massachusetts. Supporting this action were dissenting words
from Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and the definitive and most
fundamental American political speech instrument, our Declaration of
Independence. Dissent is what we are about. Americans do not hesitate
to state their objection to what they view as erroneous action or
policy on the part of their leaders. Our history is replete with
instances where Americans have vigorously, and violently when
necessary, affirmed their right to dissent. We view ourselves as a
society of equals, with no one person being superior to another with
regard to individual circumstance. We place our leaders in positions
of authority and honor the offices they hold, but we are not above
removing them when they enact policies contrary to the societal good.
Most Americans hold the "three boxes" philosophy in high regard. That
philosophy states that citizens have three boxes that guarantee their
liberty: The Ballot Box, the Soap Box, and the Ammo Box. The last is
used very infrequently, but King George III found that we can and will
use it.

The most common means by which Americans express ardent dissent is
with the written word. Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense and The
American Crisis. Samuel Adams wrote prolifically and his works were
published in newspapers, on pamphlets, and used as opinion instruments
by American delegates to King George III's parliament. His written and
spoken words were very influential in the events leading up to the
Boston Tea Party. The political written word remains the most
important means by which societal factions of every stripe seek to
influence the direction of the United States. Americans see their
right to opine as applicable to all facets of their life. American
chess players have long exercised this right in the matters of the
organization that is the governing body of chess in America and that
represents Americans in the World Chess Federation (FIDE).

The United States Chess Federation (USCF), entering the new
millennium, decided that a more intimate representative governance
structure was desired. Before 2003, the USCF had elected national
governance via delegate vote. Those delegates had been chosen as
representation from USCF affiliated state governance bodies. These
delegates were primarily people intimately involved with chess on the
local level with knowledge about what they needed to make chess work
in their communities but also with political axes to grind on the
national level. In an effort to remove the baser political motivations
from national governance the USCF changed the governance structure to
"One Man One Vote" (OMOV) beginning with the 2003 elections. OMOV
provided for the ability of each USCF member age sixteen and over a
vote in the Executive Board and Delegate elections.

In late 2003 - early 2004 (the earliest recorded post I could find is
Post #19 on January 8, 2004) the USCF opened up the USCF Forums. With
Post #6328 Mike Nolan launched the USCF Issues Forum for public
discourse of issues, political and otherwise, important to USCF
membership. Since then the Issues Forum has become the most popular in
terms of posts of the various USCF Forums, far outpacing all the
others combined. The Issues Forum has become the "newspaper" for those
among the USCF membership who seek to participate in USCF governance
as regular members, political figures both holding office and seeking
election to office, and various others interested in USCF issues and
governance.

Until early 2007 moderation of the Issues Forum was the sole
responsibility of Mike Nolan, a prominent figure on USCF committees
and the contractor responsible for the smooth running of various
technical aspects of the USCF computers and network. After various
controversies, Nolan recused himself from moderation duties on the
Issues Forum, an event provoked by the Executive Board overturning
sanctions Nolan placed on two Board members for violating the Accepted
Use Guidelines (AUG). A new moderation regime was instituted that set
up a Forum Oversight Committee (FOC) with separate Moderators. This
regime formed the FOC as a legislative, judicial, and prosecutorial
body of up to eight members that would amend the AUG and the
Disciplinary Procedures and provide oversight of moderator activities.
This regime operated from March 2007 to September 2007 when it was
announced that a more conventional moderation model would be put in
place. The regime was marked by high turnover of FOC members and
moderators, a turnover prompted by inconsistent USCF governance input
and a lack of USCF management direction. Exacerbating this were
continuous attacks by disaffected radical elements seeking to disrupt
discourse and the flow of information about which these elements
disagreed.

The new moderation model is still being put in place and has been
marked by several blunders by both the Executive Board and moderators
left to their own devices as well as a change in forum software.
Mistakes by USCF governance and Forum moderation include an ill
advised motion by the Executive Board calling for "strict enforcement"
of the AUG, an egregious effort to censor chess related URLs by one
moderator, and the stifling of discussion regarding actions of
Executive Board members.

Posted by Steve in TN at 5:59 AM

http://chessusa.blogspot.com/2007/10...d-uscf-issues-...

Part Two: Dissent Must Be Heard

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government
without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not
hesitate a moment to prefer the latter"

"The people are nearly all united; their quondam leaders,
infuriated with the sense of their impotence, will soon be seen or
heard only in the newspapers, which serve as chimnies to carry off
noxious vapors and smoke, and all is now tranquil, firm and well, as
it should be."

--Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America

In Part One we referred to the Issues Forum as the "newspaper" of the
USCF community. More accurately, the Issues Forum is only a portion of
the USCF newspaper, with both the print and web editions of Chess Life
as well as the USCF web site forming other parts. The Issues and other
forums comprise the areas of the USCF community that allow general
membership the opportunity to interact with USCF governance and
management. The Forums promote a sense of community and affinity among
the membership with the ability to interact with other members as well
as those who set policy.

Another important service the Issues Forum should provide is the
facility for dissenting members to voice their opinions and
complaints. It is here that members may express approval or
disapproval of governance and management policies. It is here that
governance and management may here dissent to their policies. It is
here that governance and management may explain the goal of their
policies and the rationale behind them. It is also here that
governance and management may find impetus to re-evaluate their
policies and announce changes to be more in tune with the
organizational mission.

Why is this ability to express dissent on the Issues Forum relevant?
Because, as explained in Part One, the USCF has chosen a
representative mode of governance. Going hand in hand with that mode
of governance is the ability of the general membership, those who have
suffrage, to address governance and seek to have policy explained by
those in governance and to impact the administration of policy.
Legitimate dissent and the expression of disagreement with the
policies and actions of those in power must be allowed in the Issues
Forum if the USCF is serious about realizing the full potential of a
representative governance structure. Only with an informed electorate
may there be legitimate governance. An uniformed electorate will only
put in place governance haphazardly and with no legitimate mandate to
set policy.

Legitimate expression of dissent also allows membership to air their
grievances, to express their dissatisfaction, and releases pent up
frustration that, without release, will fester and eventually erupt to
the detriment of the organization. Dissent that is not representative
of the membership, that is ill considered and ought to be rejected,
will be isolated and eventually excluded through the process of dialog
as in Jefferson's quote above, as noxious vapors and smoke are removed
from a domicile through the chimney.

In closing, I'll repeat what I wrote in a recent post on the Forums:

It is with the same sense of right and wrong that I stand against
what
has become a grievous injury to the necessary ability of the
general membership to address the issues of this organization and
those who represent the membership. If it is not said here, it will be
said elsewhere, to the detriment of the organization. Legitimate
discussion regarding the actions of those in elected USCF governance
must not be quelled. Since the edict from the Executive Board, it has
been.

Legitimate dissent must be heard, it must be allowed to be
expressed in this forum, and I find troubling the fact that those in
power fail to see their duty in this regard. This is a representative
organization, made so by the delegates, and proclaimed to be the
course for our organization by those in power. If the good leaders of
the USCF do not wish this to be so, then they must remove OMOV from
the governance structure. Dissent from general members would then
be irrelevant, and rightly quashed by governance. Until that time,
however, this is a representative organization, and as such the
ability of the general membership must be preserved against the
illegitimate removal of our voice.

Posted by Steve in TN at 6:55 AM

--
Steve Owens in Tennessee | sdo1.blogspot.com | chessusa.blogspot.com
"Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than yourself."
---Thomas Jefferson

The real problem I see as a real businessman (a self made millionare,
a former USCF officer, and a suspected terrroist
by former Chess Life Editor Glen Peterson) is that when you try to
DISSENT, the clique in power in both Chess City, Russia
and Tennessee call you a terrorist.Page 46 of the July Issue of Chess
Life (the article on the jailed chessplayer in 1908) was an attempt
to throw me in jail. It is easier to call people "terrorists" with
IED's going to blow up a chess tournament than simply allow dissent.

The people who make money over chess lack the maturity to tolerate
dissent. They frequently dismiss criticsim as "just a hobby" where to
Susan
Polgar and Bill Goichberg, this is real money.

Never before have this group had to deal with somebody richer and
smarter (in business) than them.

Destroy the corproate entity. We have no need for a chess govenrment.
Overthrow the USCF.

Marcus Roberts