From the issues forum:
Unfair sanctions from a tilted FOC
A forum to discuss general USCF issues (Open to USCF members only.)

Moderator: Moderators

Post a reply

15 posts . Page 1 of 1
a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:11 pm #85468

Good afternoon,

I believe that I have stated this before, but will re-cap it. I have been a
very active BBS and forum participant in the last 20 years, have moderated
forums and BBS systems, including the USCF Forums, and have never been
sanctioned in my life, until now.

I have two sanctions placed upon me in a month. The first one, I got
sanctioned for using a very typical statement in response to accusations
that are thrown out in question form, and the last sanction was by posting
surprise that David thinks that the posts of the FSS were 'sick' since he
has shown a general ambivalence to the real Sloan postings on the net
(personally speaking; I think that both users have made postings on the web
that are of poor form).

Whatever you think about the posts that may have been made, I was made aware
that David Quinn, whom I responded to, voted to sanction me for the post.
This is quite unfair. He should have recused himself from the vote. Also, I
was sanctioned for some article regarding 'spamming' the forum in the post,
yet, one of the members of the FOC is constantly having the last word and he
often quotes himself without adding further comment. IMO, many of his posts
are worse than mine; yet he is on the FOC team.

My posts are not nearly as bad as many of the postings here; yet, due to the
makeup of the new FOC, there is an unfair tilt to the forum moderation.
Attacks are fine if the postings are against certain individuals whom the
FOC does not like. However, if one dares to respond to the oft accusations
in kind, he or she will be immediately sanctioned. If this continues, this
forum will be no better than the usenet groups which is a shame.

I won't spend much time elaborating on this topic, but wanted to make this
post.

Happy New Years,

Gregory
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 Brian Mottershead on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:40 pm #85471

gregory wrote:Good afternoon,

I believe that I have stated this before, but will re-cap it. I have been
a very active BBS and forum participant in the last 20 years, have moderated
forums and BBS systems, including the USCF Forums, and have never been
sanctioned in my life, until now.

I have two sanctions placed upon me in a month. The first one, I got
sanctioned for using a very typical statement in response to accusations
that are thrown out in question form, and the last sanction was by posting
surprise that David thinks that the posts of the FSS were 'sick' since he
has shown a general ambivalence to the real Sloan postings on the net
(personally speaking; I think that both users have made postings on the web
that are of poor form).

Whatever you think about the posts that may have been made, I was made
aware that David Quinn, whom I responded to, voted to sanction me for the
post. This is quite unfair. He should have recused himself from the vote.
Also, I was sanctioned for some article regarding 'spamming' the forum in
the post, yet, one of the members of the FOC is constantly having the last
word and he often quotes himself without adding further comment. IMO, many
of his posts are worse than mine; yet he is on the FOC team.

My posts are not nearly as bad as many of the postings here; yet, due to
the makeup of the new FOC, there is an unfair tilt to the forum moderation.
Attacks are fine if the postings are against certain individuals whom the
FOC does not like. However, if one dares to respond to the oft accusations
in kind, he or she will be immediately sanctioned. If this continues, this
forum will be no better than the usenet groups which is a shame.

I won't spend much time elaborating on this topic, but wanted to make this
post.

Happy New Years,

Gregory


David Quinn (artichoke) is a member of the Forum Oversight Committee. The
way the behind-the-curtain people currently work is that sanctions are voted
by the Moderation Committee. This consists of tanstaafl, tsawmiller, and
Terry_Vibbert. Harry Payne and martinak are alternates. For a second
offense, only a majority vote of the Moderation Committee is needed; that
is, two votes. You can appeal the sanction to the FOC, which may then vote
to overturn it. The FOC is the same group as before. So if you were
sanctioned, the only role Quinn had was not to vote to overturn the
Moderator's sanction (or to vote against overturning), assuming you
appealed, of course.
Brian Mottershead

Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:08 am
USCFId: 12496481
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:00 pm #85473

Maybe I am reading the PM wrong; but I was informed by the FOC Chair that
David voted for my 2nd level sanction.

Having just two votes to place a 2nd level sanction is a poor process. This
is especially true if one of the two FOC votes is a member who posted
something that you replied to. Is there a written procedure to appeal? Is
there a written procedure that the general membership can see?
Last edited by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 xplor on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:08 pm #85474

A little disappointed in your coverage of the Pan American Intercollegiate
Chess Tournament, Gregory.
xplor
xplor

Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:16 pm
USCFId: 12471532
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:10 pm #85475

I am too!

I was out of town for a few weeks on vacation until today and did not have
ready internet access, I will update it soon.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 xplor on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:13 pm #85476

27. The decision of the FOC to impose sanctions may be appealed to the ED,
who may decrease or increase the sanctions imposed. The ED's decision may be
appealed to the EB in accordance with USCF procedures for disciplinary
actions. Board members and candidates for the Board should appeal directly
to the Executive Board. Sanctions will be implemented after a 48 hour
waiting period in order to provide an opportunity to appeal. Copies of the
notice of appeal should be copied to the ED, the FOC Chairperson, and the
President.
xplor
xplor

Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:16 pm
USCFId: 12471532
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:16 pm #85477

Where is this procedure at Xplor? I wish that the procedures were given
instead of the generic PM that just indicated that I was placed on level 2
sanction.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 tsawmiller on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:31 pm #85479

Please refer to the last post in Forum Rules / Acceptable Usage Guidelines
(AUG), made by me, where I reproduced the Executive Board's announcement of
the new AUG rules. These are the rules that the Moderation Committee is
operating under. The makeup of the MC is as Mr. Mottershead has outlined
above.

I believe the FOC consists of
Tom Langland
Polly Wright
Louis Blair
David Quinn

tsawmiller
Moderator

Posts: 1259
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:05 pm
USCFId: 10288410
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:31 pm #85480

On a related note: I just received the following from Brian Lafferty with
permission to post.


Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to indict,
prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they have been
charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the moderator's
committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the FOC to approve
the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before an
independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you you
can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo court.
Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 hmb on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:46 pm #85482

gregory wrote:On a related note: I just received the following from Brian
Lafferty with permission to post.


Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to
indict, prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they
have been charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the
moderator's committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the
FOC to approve the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before
an independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you you
can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo court.
Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.

Gregory - Your issues and Brian Lafferty's seem to be quite valid.

I just received a notice of sanction today, and here is my reply to Dr.
Vibbert regarding it:


hmb wrote:Excuse me, Dr. Vibbert, but as this comes as a complete surprise
to me, could you kindly explain what is it that I wrote that is at odds with
the AUG, and if it is not obvious, please explain in what way it is so?

I demand that the sanction be stayed pending appeal, which I understand is
my right.

I request an explanation of the appeals process, and all evidence against
me, and transcripts of the moderation committee hearing or deliberations.

I've heard that your committee's decisions come out of the blue, with no
explanation, and now I am experiencing it. I intend to require that your
processes are valid and are followed properly.

Sincerely,

Hal Bogner

Terry_Vibbert wrote:
LEVEL ONE SANCTION

By a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed, the Moderation Committee is
imposing a level one sanction on user HMB (Hal Bogner) 10062225 as a result
of the post:
on Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:38 pm #84353, Forensic Analysis

The Moderation Committee considers this action to be appropriate
because this post violates the AUG rule:
Do not post suggestions, without specifically identified substantial
proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or criminal act.

Accordingly, user HMB (Hal Bogner) 10062225 has been suspended from
posting to the USCF Forums for a period of 24 hours.


Will the sysadmin please impose the sanction?

I have notified both Mike Nolan and Bill Hall, and expect that proper
processes will indeed be followed. We shall see.

By the way, I do hope that Brian's reference to "the accursed" above was
just a Freudian slip.
Hal Bogner

http://www.ChessMagnetSchool.com
hmb

Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Half Moon Bay, California
USCFId: 10062225
a.. Private message
b.. Website
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:47 pm #85483

tsawmiller wrote:Please refer to the last post in Forum Rules / Acceptable
Usage Guidelines (AUG), made by me, where I reproduced the Executive Board's
announcement of the new AUG rules. These are the rules that the Moderation
Committee is operating under. The makeup of the MC is as Mr. Mottershead has
outlined above.

I believe the FOC consists of
Tom Langland
Polly Wright
Louis Blair
David Quinn



Did David take part in the vote to sanction me, or did he properly recuse
himself?

Hal, I did not make much of a fuss after the first level sanction; it was
kind of an oddity and I sarcastically thought 'hey, I guess there is a first
time for everything!'-- but a level 2 sanction for responding and quoting
David Quinn's own words? I have a problem with that.

I also have a problem with being at the 2nd level when I have responded to
many direct attacks against me. I guess it is OK for others to attack, but
it is sanctionable when I respond in kind. Beware when you respond to a
person sitting on the FOC team; you may be immediately sanctioned.

Blah.

With sincerity; Happy New Year Hal.

Gregory
Last edited by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 tsawmiller on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:50 pm #85485

gregory wrote:On a related note: I just received the following from Brian
Lafferty with permission to post.


Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to
indict, prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they
have been charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the
moderator's committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the
FOC to approve the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before
an independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you you
can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo court.
Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.

There are several innaccuracies here. Posters are informed when a post is
pulled for an AUG violation. There is no requirement for FOC approval of
sanctions. The FOC does consider appeal of sanctions. I do not believe the
FOC has made rulings on any appeals since the new AUG went into effect.

tsawmiller
Moderator

Posts: 1259
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:05 pm
USCFId: 10288410
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by tanstaafl on Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:18 pm #85487

Wow, it sounds nice doesn't it? Independent judges. Fair trials.

I certainly agree with it in theory. Show me discussion forums that have
that level of red-tape to impose a sanction, and I'll show you a discussion
forum that doesn't seem to work.

What we're imposing is an administrative sanction. It's not similar to a
criminal trial. It's more like having your license pulled when you get
stopped for a dui -- they don't have to wait for a TRIAL to take your DL,
they can do it immediately (pending your trial's outcome -- you may or may
not get it back). Of course, the sanction is MUCH less severe on the
forums -- the worst we've imposed on somebody so far is making the worst
offenders submit their posts for approval BEFORE they appear. That way,
these violators don't get to KEEP breaking the rules.

I think the sanctions have ALL been fair (even the ones I voted against) and
handled appropriately and within the current rules.
Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and
slander of every kind.

tanstaafl
Moderator

Posts: 3287
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:27 pm
USCFId: 11246770
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Harry Payne on Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:19 pm #85488

gregory wrote:On a related note: I just received the following from Brian
Lafferty with permission to post.


Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to
indict, prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they
have been charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the
moderator's committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the
FOC to approve the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before
an independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you you
can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo court.
Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.


As far as I know the FOC does not approve sanctions, they hear appeals on
sanctions, and can vote to overturn them or not. The moderators have
absolute power to pull posts, the MOC, votes on the posts if there is a
sanctionable offense. The MOC was created as another buffer between, the
posts being pulled and sanctions being made. I have exersized my position on
two occasions to this point, neither have been in relationship to you
Gregory. Although I did agure in your favor on one occasion when a post was
pulled. This had no official grounds other than my voicing my opinon. I have
also voiced my opinon on your continuing charge of bias, on Mr. Martinak,
and myself. But seeing as how I have seen no bias exhibited to date, I find
your charges without foundation. Because of your continued charge of my
bais, I have already stated I would recuse, myself from any ruling
concerning you. Now I hope that satisfys you, if not I suggest you carry it
to a higher plain, but you need to be sure of your charges ahead of time.
Now as far as Mr. Lafferty, I did fill in for a moderator who recuse
himself, and voted in favor of a sanction, based on the post itself in
relation to a violation of the AUGs. Although I was in agreement with the
text of the post for the most part, it did in parts violate the AUGs.
I have no problem with backing up my votes as alternate, nor stating when or
how I voted. I am quite able to remain unbiased, and fair in my decisions.
Contrary to your opinon.
My suggestion to all concerned, is to be aware of the AUGs, and avoid
violating them, as there is little leeway been given by the ED, and EB.
Any farther input I can give, you can feel free to PM, or e-mail me at any
time. Or PM me and I will give you my Phone # and you may call me.
Rich men write the laws, that poor men must defend. But the highest laws of
any land, are written on the hearts of Honest Men.
In love of the game. Harry Payne
Harry Payne

Posts: 2268
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 Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:32 pm #85492

tanstaafl wrote:Wow, it sounds nice doesn't it? Independent judges. Fair
trials.

I certainly agree with it in theory. Show me discussion forums that have
that level of red-tape to impose a sanction, and I'll show you a discussion
forum that doesn't seem to work.

What we're imposing is an administrative sanction. It's not similar to a
criminal trial. It's more like having your license pulled when you get
stopped for a dui -- they don't have to wait for a TRIAL to take your DL,
they can do it immediately (pending your trial's outcome -- you may or may
not get it back). Of course, the sanction is MUCH less severe on the
forums -- the worst we've imposed on somebody so far is making the worst
offenders submit their posts for approval BEFORE they appear. That way,
these violators don't get to KEEP breaking the rules.

I think the sanctions have ALL been fair (even the ones I voted against)
and handled appropriately and within the current rules.


Hi Rodney,

Did you see the posts that I was sanctioned for? According to the sanctions
that have been meted out, I am now one of the worst posters here.

Do you think it fair that David participated in a vote to sanction me based
on my reply to him? I quoted his own words, and he voted to place a level 2
sanction upon me. I have read far worse posts, many of them by members on
the FOC. I hardly think that David was impartial. If you allow for one FOC
member to write something, and then allow that FOC member to sanction a
normal member for qouting his own post-- then there is something indeed
wrong with the process.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com








---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

The following is my response to Sawmiller which is in the Moderator Q and
may not see the light of day:

The AUG provides:

"Moderation Actions

Any moderator may remove material, issue a warning, and/or request the
editing of material.

The Moderation Committee, appointed by the Executive Director, consists of
three persons. At least two are current moderators, and the third a current
or past moderator or another person with relevant experience. There is also
one alternate, a current or past moderator or someone with relevant
experience.

The Moderation Committee may restore a post. In voting on restoral, the
moderator who removed the post, if on the committee, shall be replaced by
the alternate.

The Moderation Committee may issue sanctions. A committee member who is
unavailable shall be replaced by the alternate.

Sanctions may be appealed to the Forum Oversight Committee. Moderation
Committee decisions regarding the removal of posts are not appealable."



A post may indeed be pulled and notice of the pulling given. However, there
is no required notice that a poster is being considered for a sanction
relating to a pulled post. There is no right to be notified that a
sanctionable offense has been charged, no right to be heard prior to a
sanction being imposed, no right to see a transcript of any charges and
discussion of charges. Indeed, once a post has been pulled, the poster is in
the dark unless and until a notice of sanction is suddenly received as in my
case and that of Mr. Bogner.

There is no clear procedure for the imposition or staying of sanctions while
an appeal to the FOC is pending. As an example, I have appealed the MOC
decision to place me ion the MQ as a double jeopardy violation, havening
already been placed in the MQ in November for the same offenses I now find
myself in the MQ for. I have had no word on the status of my appeal to the
FOC.

IMO, the MOC, its "procedures," and the fiaure to provide an open,
transparent procedure for dealing with alleged AUG violations is an affront
to the fairness with which all Americans expect to be dealt with.



"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
...
From the issues forum:
Unfair sanctions from a tilted FOC
A forum to discuss general USCF issues (Open to USCF members only.)

Moderator: Moderators

Post a reply

15 posts . Page 1 of 1
a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:11 pm #85468

Good afternoon,

I believe that I have stated this before, but will re-cap it. I have been
a very active BBS and forum participant in the last 20 years, have
moderated forums and BBS systems, including the USCF Forums, and have
never been sanctioned in my life, until now.

I have two sanctions placed upon me in a month. The first one, I got
sanctioned for using a very typical statement in response to accusations
that are thrown out in question form, and the last sanction was by posting
surprise that David thinks that the posts of the FSS were 'sick' since he
has shown a general ambivalence to the real Sloan postings on the net
(personally speaking; I think that both users have made postings on the
web that are of poor form).

Whatever you think about the posts that may have been made, I was made
aware that David Quinn, whom I responded to, voted to sanction me for the
post. This is quite unfair. He should have recused himself from the vote.
Also, I was sanctioned for some article regarding 'spamming' the forum in
the post, yet, one of the members of the FOC is constantly having the last
word and he often quotes himself without adding further comment. IMO, many
of his posts are worse than mine; yet he is on the FOC team.

My posts are not nearly as bad as many of the postings here; yet, due to
the makeup of the new FOC, there is an unfair tilt to the forum
moderation. Attacks are fine if the postings are against certain
individuals whom the FOC does not like. However, if one dares to respond
to the oft accusations in kind, he or she will be immediately sanctioned.
If this continues, this forum will be no better than the usenet groups
which is a shame.

I won't spend much time elaborating on this topic, but wanted to make this
post.

Happy New Years,

Gregory
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 Brian Mottershead on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:40 pm #85471

gregory wrote:Good afternoon,

I believe that I have stated this before, but will re-cap it. I have been
a very active BBS and forum participant in the last 20 years, have
moderated forums and BBS systems, including the USCF Forums, and have
never been sanctioned in my life, until now.

I have two sanctions placed upon me in a month. The first one, I got
sanctioned for using a very typical statement in response to accusations
that are thrown out in question form, and the last sanction was by posting
surprise that David thinks that the posts of the FSS were 'sick' since he
has shown a general ambivalence to the real Sloan postings on the net
(personally speaking; I think that both users have made postings on the
web that are of poor form).

Whatever you think about the posts that may have been made, I was made
aware that David Quinn, whom I responded to, voted to sanction me for the
post. This is quite unfair. He should have recused himself from the vote.
Also, I was sanctioned for some article regarding 'spamming' the forum in
the post, yet, one of the members of the FOC is constantly having the last
word and he often quotes himself without adding further comment. IMO, many
of his posts are worse than mine; yet he is on the FOC team.

My posts are not nearly as bad as many of the postings here; yet, due to
the makeup of the new FOC, there is an unfair tilt to the forum
moderation. Attacks are fine if the postings are against certain
individuals whom the FOC does not like. However, if one dares to respond
to the oft accusations in kind, he or she will be immediately sanctioned.
If this continues, this forum will be no better than the usenet groups
which is a shame.

I won't spend much time elaborating on this topic, but wanted to make
this post.

Happy New Years,

Gregory


David Quinn (artichoke) is a member of the Forum Oversight Committee. The
way the behind-the-curtain people currently work is that sanctions are
voted by the Moderation Committee. This consists of tanstaafl, tsawmiller,
and Terry_Vibbert. Harry Payne and martinak are alternates. For a second
offense, only a majority vote of the Moderation Committee is needed; that
is, two votes. You can appeal the sanction to the FOC, which may then vote
to overturn it. The FOC is the same group as before. So if you were
sanctioned, the only role Quinn had was not to vote to overturn the
Moderator's sanction (or to vote against overturning), assuming you
appealed, of course.
Brian Mottershead

Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:08 am
USCFId: 12496481
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:00 pm #85473

Maybe I am reading the PM wrong; but I was informed by the FOC Chair that
David voted for my 2nd level sanction.

Having just two votes to place a 2nd level sanction is a poor process.
This is especially true if one of the two FOC votes is a member who posted
something that you replied to. Is there a written procedure to appeal? Is
there a written procedure that the general membership can see?
Last edited by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:14 pm, edited 2 times in
total.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 xplor on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:08 pm #85474

A little disappointed in your coverage of the Pan American Intercollegiate
Chess Tournament, Gregory.
xplor
xplor

Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:16 pm
USCFId: 12471532
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:10 pm #85475

I am too!

I was out of town for a few weeks on vacation until today and did not have
ready internet access, I will update it soon.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 xplor on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:13 pm #85476

27. The decision of the FOC to impose sanctions may be appealed to the ED,
who may decrease or increase the sanctions imposed. The ED's decision may
be appealed to the EB in accordance with USCF procedures for disciplinary
actions. Board members and candidates for the Board should appeal directly
to the Executive Board. Sanctions will be implemented after a 48 hour
waiting period in order to provide an opportunity to appeal. Copies of the
notice of appeal should be copied to the ED, the FOC Chairperson, and the
President.
xplor
xplor

Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:16 pm
USCFId: 12471532
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:16 pm #85477

Where is this procedure at Xplor? I wish that the procedures were given
instead of the generic PM that just indicated that I was placed on level 2
sanction.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 tsawmiller on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:31 pm #85479

Please refer to the last post in Forum Rules / Acceptable Usage Guidelines
(AUG), made by me, where I reproduced the Executive Board's announcement
of the new AUG rules. These are the rules that the Moderation Committee is
operating under. The makeup of the MC is as Mr. Mottershead has outlined
above.

I believe the FOC consists of
Tom Langland
Polly Wright
Louis Blair
David Quinn

tsawmiller
Moderator

Posts: 1259
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:05 pm
USCFId: 10288410
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:31 pm #85480

On a related note: I just received the following from Brian Lafferty with
permission to post.


Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to indict,
prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they have
been charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the
moderator's committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the
FOC to approve the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before an
independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you you
can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo
court. Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 hmb on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:46 pm #85482

gregory wrote:On a related note: I just received the following from Brian
Lafferty with permission to post.


Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to
indict, prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they
have been charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the
moderator's committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the
FOC to approve the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before
an independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you
you can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo
court. Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.

Gregory - Your issues and Brian Lafferty's seem to be quite valid.

I just received a notice of sanction today, and here is my reply to Dr.
Vibbert regarding it:


hmb wrote:Excuse me, Dr. Vibbert, but as this comes as a complete
surprise to me, could you kindly explain what is it that I wrote that is
at odds with the AUG, and if it is not obvious, please explain in what way
it is so?

I demand that the sanction be stayed pending appeal, which I understand
is my right.

I request an explanation of the appeals process, and all evidence against
me, and transcripts of the moderation committee hearing or deliberations.

I've heard that your committee's decisions come out of the blue, with no
explanation, and now I am experiencing it. I intend to require that your
processes are valid and are followed properly.

Sincerely,

Hal Bogner

Terry_Vibbert wrote:
LEVEL ONE SANCTION

By a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed, the Moderation Committee is
imposing a level one sanction on user HMB (Hal Bogner) 10062225 as a
result of the post:
on Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:38 pm #84353, Forensic Analysis

The Moderation Committee considers this action to be appropriate
because this post violates the AUG rule:
Do not post suggestions, without specifically identified substantial
proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or criminal act.

Accordingly, user HMB (Hal Bogner) 10062225 has been suspended from
posting to the USCF Forums for a period of 24 hours.


Will the sysadmin please impose the sanction?

I have notified both Mike Nolan and Bill Hall, and expect that proper
processes will indeed be followed. We shall see.

By the way, I do hope that Brian's reference to "the accursed" above was
just a Freudian slip.
Hal Bogner

http://www.ChessMagnetSchool.com
hmb

Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Half Moon Bay, California
USCFId: 10062225
a.. Private message
b.. Website
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:47 pm #85483

tsawmiller wrote:Please refer to the last post in Forum Rules /
Acceptable Usage Guidelines (AUG), made by me, where I reproduced the
Executive Board's announcement of the new AUG rules. These are the rules
that the Moderation Committee is operating under. The makeup of the MC is
as Mr. Mottershead has outlined above.

I believe the FOC consists of
Tom Langland
Polly Wright
Louis Blair
David Quinn



Did David take part in the vote to sanction me, or did he properly recuse
himself?

Hal, I did not make much of a fuss after the first level sanction; it was
kind of an oddity and I sarcastically thought 'hey, I guess there is a
first time for everything!'-- but a level 2 sanction for responding and
quoting David Quinn's own words? I have a problem with that.

I also have a problem with being at the 2nd level when I have responded to
many direct attacks against me. I guess it is OK for others to attack, but
it is sanctionable when I respond in kind. Beware when you respond to a
person sitting on the FOC team; you may be immediately sanctioned.

Blah.

With sincerity; Happy New Year Hal.

Gregory
Last edited by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:56 pm, edited 3 times in
total.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 tsawmiller on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:50 pm #85485

gregory wrote:On a related note: I just received the following from Brian
Lafferty with permission to post.


Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to
indict, prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they
have been charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the
moderator's committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the
FOC to approve the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before
an independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you
you can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo
court. Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.

There are several innaccuracies here. Posters are informed when a post is
pulled for an AUG violation. There is no requirement for FOC approval of
sanctions. The FOC does consider appeal of sanctions. I do not believe the
FOC has made rulings on any appeals since the new AUG went into effect.

tsawmiller
Moderator

Posts: 1259
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:05 pm
USCFId: 10288410
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by tanstaafl on Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:18 pm #85487

Wow, it sounds nice doesn't it? Independent judges. Fair trials.

I certainly agree with it in theory. Show me discussion forums that have
that level of red-tape to impose a sanction, and I'll show you a
discussion forum that doesn't seem to work.

What we're imposing is an administrative sanction. It's not similar to a
criminal trial. It's more like having your license pulled when you get
stopped for a dui -- they don't have to wait for a TRIAL to take your DL,
they can do it immediately (pending your trial's outcome -- you may or may
not get it back). Of course, the sanction is MUCH less severe on the
forums -- the worst we've imposed on somebody so far is making the worst
offenders submit their posts for approval BEFORE they appear. That way,
these violators don't get to KEEP breaking the rules.

I think the sanctions have ALL been fair (even the ones I voted against)
and handled appropriately and within the current rules.
Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy,
and slander of every kind.

tanstaafl
Moderator

Posts: 3287
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:27 pm
USCFId: 11246770
a.. Private message
Top

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


a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Harry Payne on Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:19 pm #85488

gregory wrote:On a related note: I just received the following from Brian
Lafferty with permission to post.


Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to
indict, prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they
have been charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the
moderator's committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the
FOC to approve the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before
an independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you
you can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo
court. Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.


As far as I know the FOC does not approve sanctions, they hear appeals on
sanctions, and can vote to overturn them or not. The moderators have
absolute power to pull posts, the MOC, votes on the posts if there is a
sanctionable offense. The MOC was created as another buffer between, the
posts being pulled and sanctions being made. I have exersized my position
on two occasions to this point, neither have been in relationship to you
Gregory. Although I did agure in your favor on one occasion when a post
was pulled. This had no official grounds other than my voicing my opinon.
I have also voiced my opinon on your continuing charge of bias, on Mr.
Martinak, and myself. But seeing as how I have seen no bias exhibited to
date, I find your charges without foundation. Because of your continued
charge of my bais, I have already stated I would recuse, myself from any
ruling concerning you. Now I hope that satisfys you, if not I suggest you
carry it to a higher plain, but you need to be sure of your charges ahead
of time.
Now as far as Mr. Lafferty, I did fill in for a moderator who recuse
himself, and voted in favor of a sanction, based on the post itself in
relation to a violation of the AUGs. Although I was in agreement with the
text of the post for the most part, it did in parts violate the AUGs.
I have no problem with backing up my votes as alternate, nor stating when
or how I voted. I am quite able to remain unbiased, and fair in my
decisions. Contrary to your opinon.
My suggestion to all concerned, is to be aware of the AUGs, and avoid
violating them, as there is little leeway been given by the ED, and EB.
Any farther input I can give, you can feel free to PM, or e-mail me at any
time. Or PM me and I will give you my Phone # and you may call me.
Rich men write the laws, that poor men must defend. But the highest laws
of any land, are written on the hearts of Honest Men.
In love of the game. Harry Payne
Harry Payne

Posts: 2268
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 Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:32 pm #85492

tanstaafl wrote:Wow, it sounds nice doesn't it? Independent judges. Fair
trials.

I certainly agree with it in theory. Show me discussion forums that have
that level of red-tape to impose a sanction, and I'll show you a
discussion forum that doesn't seem to work.

What we're imposing is an administrative sanction. It's not similar to a
criminal trial. It's more like having your license pulled when you get
stopped for a dui -- they don't have to wait for a TRIAL to take your DL,
they can do it immediately (pending your trial's outcome -- you may or may
not get it back). Of course, the sanction is MUCH less severe on the
forums -- the worst we've imposed on somebody so far is making the worst
offenders submit their posts for approval BEFORE they appear. That way,
these violators don't get to KEEP breaking the rules.

I think the sanctions have ALL been fair (even the ones I voted against)
and handled appropriately and within the current rules.


Hi Rodney,

Did you see the posts that I was sanctioned for? According to the
sanctions that have been meted out, I am now one of the worst posters
here.

Do you think it fair that David participated in a vote to sanction me
based on my reply to him? I quoted his own words, and he voted to place a
level 2 sanction upon me. I have read far worse posts, many of them by
members on the FOC. I hardly think that David was impartial. If you allow
for one FOC member to write something, and then allow that FOC member to
sanction a normal member for qouting his own post-- then there is
something indeed wrong with the process.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com




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



---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News
Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to
100,000+ newsgroups

On Jan 2, 4:49 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
The following is my response to Sawmiller which is in the Moderator Q and
may not see the light of day:

The AUG provides:

"Moderation Actions

Any moderator may remove material, issue a warning, and/or request the
editing of material.

The Moderation Committee, appointed by the Executive Director, consists of
three persons. At least two are current moderators, and the third a current
or past moderator or another person with relevant experience. There is also
one alternate, a current or past moderator or someone with relevant
experience.

The Moderation Committee may restore a post. In voting on restoral, the
moderator who removed the post, if on the committee, shall be replaced by
the alternate.

The Moderation Committee may issue sanctions. A committee member who is
unavailable shall be replaced by the alternate.

Sanctions may be appealed to the Forum Oversight Committee. Moderation
Committee decisions regarding the removal of posts are not appealable."

A post may indeed be pulled and notice of the pulling given. However, there
is no required notice that a poster is being considered for a sanction
relating to a pulled post. There is no right to be notified that a
sanctionable offense has been charged, no right to be heard prior to a
sanction being imposed, no right to see a transcript of any charges and
discussion of charges. Indeed, once a post has been pulled, the poster is in
the dark unless and until a notice of sanction is suddenly received as in my
case and that of Mr. Bogner.

There is no clear procedure for the imposition or staying of sanctions while
an appeal to the FOC is pending. As an example, I have appealed the MOC
decision to place me ion the MQ as a double jeopardy violation, havening
already been placed in the MQ in November for the same offenses I now find
myself in the MQ for. I have had no word on the status of my appeal to the
FOC.

IMO, the MOC, its "procedures," and the fiaure to provide an open,
transparent procedure for dealing with alleged AUG violations is an affront
to the fairness with which all Americans expect to be dealt with.

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message

...





From the issues forum:
Unfair sanctions from a tilted FOC
A forum to discuss general USCF issues (Open to USCF members only.)

Moderator: Moderators

Post a reply

15 posts . Page 1 of 1
a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:11 pm #85468

Good afternoon,

I believe that I have stated this before, but will re-cap it. I have been
a very active BBS and forum participant in the last 20 years, have
moderated forums and BBS systems, including the USCF Forums, and have
never been sanctioned in my life, until now.

I have two sanctions placed upon me in a month. The first one, I got
sanctioned for using a very typical statement in response to accusations
that are thrown out in question form, and the last sanction was by posting
surprise that David thinks that the posts of the FSS were 'sick' since he
has shown a general ambivalence to the real Sloan postings on the net
(personally speaking; I think that both users have made postings on the
web that are of poor form).

Whatever you think about the posts that may have been made, I was made
aware that David Quinn, whom I responded to, voted to sanction me for the
post. This is quite unfair. He should have recused himself from the vote.
Also, I was sanctioned for some article regarding 'spamming' the forum in
the post, yet, one of the members of the FOC is constantly having the last
word and he often quotes himself without adding further comment. IMO, many
of his posts are worse than mine; yet he is on the FOC team.

My posts are not nearly as bad as many of the postings here; yet, due to
the makeup of the new FOC, there is an unfair tilt to the forum
moderation. Attacks are fine if the postings are against certain
individuals whom the FOC does not like. However, if one dares to respond
to the oft accusations in kind, he or she will be immediately sanctioned.
If this continues, this forum will be no better than the usenet groups
which is a shame.

I won't spend much time elaborating on this topic, but wanted to make this
post.

Happy New Years,

Gregory
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 Brian Mottershead on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:40 pm #85471

gregory wrote:Good afternoon,

I believe that I have stated this before, but will re-cap it. I have been
a very active BBS and forum participant in the last 20 years, have
moderated forums and BBS systems, including the USCF Forums, and have
never been sanctioned in my life, until now.

I have two sanctions placed upon me in a month. The first one, I got
sanctioned for using a very typical statement in response to accusations
that are thrown out in question form, and the last sanction was by posting
surprise that David thinks that the posts of the FSS were 'sick' since he
has shown a general ambivalence to the real Sloan postings on the net
(personally speaking; I think that both users have made postings on the
web that are of poor form).

Whatever you think about the posts that may have been made, I was made
aware that David Quinn, whom I responded to, voted to sanction me for the
post. This is quite unfair. He should have recused himself from the vote.
Also, I was sanctioned for some article regarding 'spamming' the forum in
the post, yet, one of the members of the FOC is constantly having the last
word and he often quotes himself without adding further comment. IMO, many
of his posts are worse than mine; yet he is on the FOC team.

My posts are not nearly as bad as many of the postings here; yet, due to
the makeup of the new FOC, there is an unfair tilt to the forum
moderation. Attacks are fine if the postings are against certain
individuals whom the FOC does not like. However, if one dares to respond
to the oft accusations in kind, he or she will be immediately sanctioned.
If this continues, this forum will be no better than the usenet groups
which is a shame.

I won't spend much time elaborating on this topic, but wanted to make
this post.

Happy New Years,

Gregory

David Quinn (artichoke) is a member of the Forum Oversight Committee. The
way the behind-the-curtain people currently work is that sanctions are
voted by the Moderation Committee. This consists of tanstaafl, tsawmiller,
and Terry_Vibbert. Harry Payne and martinak are alternates. For a second
offense, only a majority vote of the Moderation Committee is needed; that
is, two votes. You can appeal the sanction to the FOC, which may then vote
to overturn it. The FOC is the same group as before. So if you were
sanctioned, the only role Quinn had was not to vote to overturn the
Moderator's sanction (or to vote against overturning), assuming you
appealed, of course.
Brian Mottershead

Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:08 am
USCFId: 12496481
a.. Private message
Top

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

a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:00 pm #85473

Maybe I am reading the PM wrong; but I was informed by the FOC Chair that
David voted for my 2nd level sanction.

Having just two votes to place a 2nd level sanction is a poor process.
This is especially true if one of the two FOC votes is a member who posted
something that you replied to. Is there a written procedure to appeal? Is
there a written procedure that the general membership can see?
Last edited by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:14 pm, edited 2 times in
total.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 xplor on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:08 pm #85474

A little disappointed in your coverage of the Pan American Intercollegiate
Chess Tournament, Gregory.
xplor
xplor

Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:16 pm
USCFId: 12471532
a.. Private message
Top

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

a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:10 pm #85475

I am too!

I was out of town for a few weeks on vacation until today and did not have
ready internet access, I will update it soon.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 xplor on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:13 pm #85476

27. The decision of the FOC to impose sanctions may be appealed to the ED,
who may decrease or increase the sanctions imposed. The ED's decision may
be appealed to the EB in accordance with USCF procedures for disciplinary
actions. Board members and candidates for the Board should appeal directly
to the Executive Board. Sanctions will be implemented after a 48 hour
waiting period in order to provide an opportunity to appeal. Copies of the
notice of appeal should be copied to the ED, the FOC Chairperson, and the
President.
xplor
xplor

Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:16 pm
USCFId: 12471532
a.. Private message
Top

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

a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:16 pm #85477

Where is this procedure at Xplor? I wish that the procedures were given
instead of the generic PM that just indicated that I was placed on level 2
sanction.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 tsawmiller on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:31 pm #85479

Please refer to the last post in Forum Rules / Acceptable Usage Guidelines
(AUG), made by me, where I reproduced the Executive Board's announcement
of the new AUG rules. These are the rules that the Moderation Committee is
operating under. The makeup of the MC is as Mr. Mottershead has outlined
above.

I believe the FOC consists of
Tom Langland
Polly Wright
Louis Blair
David Quinn

tsawmiller
Moderator

Posts: 1259
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:05 pm
USCFId: 10288410
a.. Private message
Top

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

a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:31 pm #85480

On a related note: I just received the following from Brian Lafferty with
permission to post.

Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to indict,
prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they have
been charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the
moderator's committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the
FOC to approve the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before an
independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you you
can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo
court. Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 hmb on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:46 pm #85482

gregory wrote:On a related note: I just received the following from Brian
Lafferty with permission to post.

Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to
indict, prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they
have been charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the
moderator's committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the
FOC to approve the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before
an independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you
you can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo
court. Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.

Gregory - Your issues and Brian Lafferty's seem to be quite valid.

I just received a notice of sanction today, and here is my reply to Dr.
Vibbert regarding it:

hmb wrote:Excuse me, Dr. Vibbert, but as this comes as a complete
surprise to me, could you kindly explain what is it that I wrote that is
at odds with the AUG, and if it is not obvious, please explain in what way
it is so?

I demand that the sanction be stayed pending appeal, which I understand
is my right.

I request an explanation of the appeals process, and all evidence against
me, and transcripts of the moderation committee hearing or deliberations.

I've heard that your committee's decisions come out of the blue, with no
explanation, and now I am experiencing it. I intend to require that your
processes are valid and are followed properly.

Sincerely,

Hal Bogner

Terry_Vibbert wrote:
LEVEL ONE SANCTION

By a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed, the Moderation Committee is
imposing a level one sanction on user HMB (Hal Bogner) 10062225 as a
result of the post:
on Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:38 pm #84353, Forensic Analysis

The Moderation Committee considers this action to be appropriate
because this post violates the AUG rule:
Do not post suggestions, without specifically identified substantial
proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or criminal act.

Accordingly, user HMB (Hal Bogner) 10062225 has been suspended from
posting to the USCF Forums for a period of 24 hours.

Will the sysadmin please impose the sanction?

I have notified both Mike Nolan and Bill Hall, and expect that proper
processes will indeed be followed. We shall see.

By the way, I do hope that Brian's reference to "the accursed" above was
just a Freudian slip.
Hal Bogner

http://www.ChessMagnetSchool.com
hmb

Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Half Moon Bay, California
USCFId: 10062225
a.. Private message
b.. Website
Top

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

a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:47 pm #85483

tsawmiller wrote:Please refer to the last post in Forum Rules /
Acceptable Usage Guidelines (AUG), made by me, where I reproduced the
Executive Board's announcement of the new AUG rules. These are the rules
that the Moderation Committee is operating under. The makeup of the MC is
as Mr. Mottershead has outlined above.

I believe the FOC consists of
Tom Langland
Polly Wright
Louis Blair
David Quinn

Did David take part in the vote to sanction me, or did he properly recuse
himself?

Hal, I did not make much of a fuss after the first level sanction; it was
kind of an oddity and I sarcastically thought 'hey, I guess there is a
first time for everything!'-- but a level 2 sanction for responding and
quoting David Quinn's own words? I have a problem with that.

I also have a problem with being at the 2nd level when I have responded to
many direct attacks against me. I guess it is OK for others to attack, but
it is sanctionable when I respond in kind. Beware when you respond to a
person sitting on the FOC team; you may be immediately sanctioned.

Blah.

With sincerity; Happy New Year Hal.

Gregory
Last edited by gregory on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:56 pm, edited 3 times in
total.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
gregory

Posts: 1760
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 tsawmiller on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:50 pm #85485

gregory wrote:On a related note: I just received the following from Brian
Lafferty with permission to post.

Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to
indict, prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they
have been charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the
moderator's committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the
FOC to approve the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before
an independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you
you can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo
court. Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.

There are several innaccuracies here. Posters are informed when a post is
pulled for an AUG violation. There is no requirement for FOC approval of
sanctions. The FOC does consider appeal of sanctions. I do not believe the
FOC has made rulings on any appeals since the new AUG went into effect.

tsawmiller
Moderator

Posts: 1259
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:05 pm
USCFId: 10288410
a.. Private message
Top

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

a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by tanstaafl on Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:18 pm #85487

Wow, it sounds nice doesn't it? Independent judges. Fair trials.

I certainly agree with it in theory. Show me discussion forums that have
that level of red-tape to impose a sanction, and I'll show you a
discussion forum that doesn't seem to work.

What we're imposing is an administrative sanction. It's not similar to a
criminal trial. It's more like having your license pulled when you get
stopped for a dui -- they don't have to wait for a TRIAL to take your DL,
they can do it immediately (pending your trial's outcome -- you may or may
not get it back). Of course, the sanction is MUCH less severe on the
forums -- the worst we've imposed on somebody so far is making the worst
offenders submit their posts for approval BEFORE they appear. That way,
these violators don't get to KEEP breaking the rules.

I think the sanctions have ALL been fair (even the ones I voted against)
and handled appropriately and within the current rules.
Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy,
and slander of every kind.

tanstaafl
Moderator

Posts: 3287
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:27 pm
USCFId: 11246770
a.. Private message
Top

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

a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Harry Payne on Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:19 pm #85488

gregory wrote:On a related note: I just received the following from Brian
Lafferty with permission to post.

Brian L wrote:The system is totally unfair. The moderators get to
indict, prosecute and sentence without the accursed even knowing tat they
have been charged with an AUG violation. I also have been told that the
moderator's committee is imposing sanctions without first waiting for the
FOC to approve the sanction as required.

There is no real right to be informed of charges or answer them before
an independent judge. On appeal to the FOC there is no process where you
you can see the moderator's response to the appeal. It's a total kangaroo
court. Feel free to post my comments if you like--or dare.
So many chess sets; so little time.

As far as I know the FOC does not approve sanctions, they hear appeals on
sanctions, and can vote to overturn them or not. The moderators have
absolute power to pull posts, the MOC, votes on the posts if there is a
sanctionable offense. The MOC was created as another buffer between, the
posts being pulled and sanctions being made. I have exersized my position
on two occasions to this point, neither have been in relationship to you
Gregory. Although I did agure in your favor on one occasion when a post
was pulled. This had no official grounds other than my voicing my opinon.
I have also voiced my opinon on your continuing charge of bias, on Mr.
Martinak, and myself. But seeing as how I have seen no bias exhibited to
date, I find your charges without foundation. Because of your continued
charge of my bais, I have already stated I would recuse, myself from any
ruling concerning you. Now I hope that satisfys you, if not I suggest you
carry it to a higher plain, but you need to be sure of your charges ahead
of time.
Now as far as Mr. Lafferty, I did fill in for a moderator who recuse
himself, and voted in favor of a sanction, based on the post itself in
relation to a violation of the AUGs. Although I was in agreement with the
text of the post for the most part, it did in parts violate the AUGs.
I have no problem with backing up my votes as alternate, nor stating when
or how I voted. I am quite able to remain unbiased, and fair in my
decisions. Contrary to your opinon.
My suggestion to all concerned, is to be aware of the AUGs, and avoid
violating them, as there is little leeway been given by the ED, and EB.
Any farther input I can give, you can feel free to PM, or e-mail me at any
time. Or PM me and I will give you my Phone # and you may call me.
Rich men write the laws, that poor men must defend. But the highest laws
of any land, are written on the hearts of Honest Men.
In love of the game. Harry Payne
Harry Payne

Posts: 2268
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 Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:32 pm #85492

tanstaafl wrote:Wow, it sounds nice doesn't it? Independent judges. Fair
trials.

I certainly agree with it in theory. Show me discussion forums that have
that level of red-tape to impose a sanction, and I'll show you a
discussion forum that doesn't seem to work.

What we're imposing is an administrative sanction. It's not similar to a
criminal trial. It's more like having your license pulled when you get
stopped for a dui -- they don't have to wait for a TRIAL to take your DL,
they can do it immediately (pending your trial's outcome -- you may or may
not get it back). Of course, the sanction is MUCH less severe on the
forums -- the worst we've imposed on somebody so far is making the worst
offenders submit their posts for approval BEFORE they appear. That way,
these violators don't get to KEEP breaking the rules.

I think the sanctions have ALL been fair (even the ones I voted against)
and handled appropriately and within the current rules.

Hi Rodney,

Did you see the posts that I was sanctioned for? According to the
sanctions that have been meted out, I am now one of the worst posters
here.

Do you think it fair that David participated in a vote to sanction me
based on my reply to him? I quoted his own words, and he voted to place a
level 2 sanction upon me. I have read far worse posts, many of them by
members on the FOC. I hardly think that David was impartial. If you allow
for one FOC member to write something, and then allow that FOC member to
sanction a normal member for qouting his own post-- then there is
something indeed wrong with the process.
Gregory Alexander

http://www.collegechess.org
http://www.chessdiscussion.com

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





---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News
Provider ----
http://www.pronews.comoffers corporate packages that have access to
100,000+ newsgroups- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Judge Lafferty:

I need a chess lawyer. I know that non attorneys can practice before
the IRS, but why not the USCF?
In the IRS, you have CPA's that can practice, enrolled agents, why not
a "chess lawyer"?

I have been banished. I do not know how long, and I got no warning. I
do not know if I have a right
To appeal, but the USCF guarantee a final appeal right to the
Delegates, and I have no appeal
Rights....

Can you be my "chess lawyer?" I enjoy sovereign immunity for official
posts, in theory, related
To FIDE, but they have my 1,000 dollars and don't seem to care.
I am also a former director (delegate) and officer of this company,
and I co-sponsored an item of continuing interest with former USCF
President Harold Winston.
I even filed a resolution to drug test the employees in 1993 to
protest the future drug tests, and nobody listened, but I was right,
and everyone has to pee in a cup now, except the employees, who should
have to pee in a cup, because the players have to pee.

If I had just gotten a warning.... I just got thrown out of the forums
without any due process. I don't want to sue; I want to APPEAL, with
my "due process" rights.
Can you help?

Marcus Roberts
USCF Life Member 12421655