(WPraeder) wrote in message ...

Whether a person is a USCF member or not has no bearing on whether their
comments are relevant, insightful, or even truthful. I don't always agree with
what Bruce has to say or his speculation but in my view this "membership
argument" smacks of trying to suppress debate.

It would be better to address the strengths and weaknesses of peoples position
rather than referring to their circumstances. Others are entitled to their
views which may be alternately considered perspectives from past or potential
USCF members.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

I agree.

Bruce has tirelessly attempted to warn about the dangers USCF faced
for years now. Few have listened.

I'm amazed he keeps trying.

Now, with the wolf at the door, Bruce gets bashed for warning everyone
when it was still in the woods.

That's pretty ironic.

kdn

In article , Paul Rubin says...

Kevin L. Bachler writes:
It's not a matter of me liking the posts. It's a matter of why are
you here commenting on USCF and telling us how it should be run when
you aren't even a member?

The vast majority of US chessplayers are not USCF members.

And the vast majority of US Bowlers don't belong to ABC.

If the USCF
wants to stop losing members, maybe it should start figuring out how to
bring bring the non-members in.

We know some things already. We need to DO them.

That means listening to what the
non-members and ex-members have to say.

Not when it comes to nothing more than dire speculation.

Kevin L. Bachler

In article , Spam Scone says...

(LeModernCaveman) wrote in message
...
Right now, I'm not sure why we'd want you as a member.

Who are you claiming to speak for, Sir?

For me.

You're a "we" who offers memberships?

You're new here, so I'll let you know how it works.

1. The Kevin gets an idea - usually bad, such as zero coupon bonds

The bond idea has been done and worked. Guess that makes it bad, right?

for
USCF, or copyrighting chess ratings,

Information use is often protected. Guess that makes it bad, right.

or accepting money for teaching
his own kid chess,

Here Neil simply tells a lie, and one that he knows damn well is a lie.

or telling CPAs how to do their job,

Actually, not what happened. We did disagree over some points, and I finally
agreed with Stan. I did not agree with Stan that the actuarial method violates
the matching principle, since FASB has clearly stated that it doesn't.

or requiring
dress codes at USCF tournaments,

Many events have dress codes and work better as a result.

or making players pay an additional
fee for using a clock not made by USCF,

Not an idea I've ever suggested.

or, as here, deciding who can
or can not criticize USCF.

No one said anything about who can criticize USCF. I did say that non-members
should not make suggestions as to how I can spend my dues money.

BTW, have you never made a similar comment about non-US citizens criticizing the
US? Perhaps I am mistaken and recalling incorrectly.


2. When it is pointed out how stupid and/or unworkable The Kevin's
ideas are,

Even when they've been done and worked, or even when experts say something to
the contrary of how "stupid" and idea is (hint, just because an "expert" like
Neil claimes something, don't necessarily believe it.)

there is an ever-lengthing series of defensive posts from
The Kevin with incredibly lame and convoluted thinking, such as his
description of an economic philosophy of "value transfers" that allows
USCF to copyright a chess rating despite the lack of a legal
precedent.

Are you saying that organizations don't protect their information?


3. When these defensive posts by The Kevin are found wanting,

By someone like Neil, who then spends a great deal of time criticizing the
person instead of discussing the idea -- oh, BTW -- as he has done here.

SNIP

Kevin L. Bachler

In article , LeModernCaveman
says...
SNIP


My point was that if someone says it's "okay" if I don't rejoin USCF, I'm
inclined to agree with them.

And sometimes that's ok. We don't need everyone to be a member.

SNIP

I was just annoyed at the tone of the post I responded to.

And I, and others, have been annoyed at the tone of several of your posts. If
suddenly, you wish people to treat you with a spirit of cooperation, then
perhaps posting things like whether you can declare yourself US Champion is not
the best way to go about it?

Kevin L. Bachler

In article , Paul Rubin says...

Kevin L. Bachler writes:

Rubin is someone who constantly crows that dues are too high.

There's a reason for that. The reason is the dues ARE too high.

I disagree. There are many forms of recreation more expensive than USCF
membership.

More importantly, I think USCF service and communication are low. The reasons
for dues are not clearly articulated. There is no philanthropic aspect or
communication in terms of dues.

SNIP

He also tends to think that we should go to used computer stores,
get Altair computers, run CPM software on them and save USCF lots of
money in the process.

That is silly. USCF should make good use of the computers it already
has, learn how to use modern free software effectively, and resist the
compulsion to constantly upgrade to the newest and most expensive
systems, since there's no need for that. Trying to port its software
to vintage CP/M systems would be ridiculous.

And your approach is therefore, that USCF should continue to use systems that
are drastically out of date.

Shelf software is currently designed for machines with roughly a 3 year
life-cycle. USCF's systems are what, 7 years old? Ancient by modern standards.

Many professional businesses use the 1/3;1/3;1/3 approach to hardware, which
makes a great deal of sense. USCF needs to service a nationwide community in
what is likely the most technologically advanced country on the planet. Arguing
that it should use antiquated technology just so you can have $10 dues is
absurd.

BTW: at $10 a year for all members, total revenue would be a less than $1
million, probably including rating fees. It's hard to imagine USCF or any other
reasonable org surving on that amount and actually doing any of the things a
chess federation should do.

Kevin L. Bachler

In article , Joechess145
says...
SNIP

In Bruce's defense, he lives in area that does not seem to exist when one looks
at the TLA section of Chess Life. I don't want that to happen to the region in
which I live.

I agree. USCF has done a poor job in this area.


I have a hard time selling $49 to first time members. At my last event, I had
an unrated event that was advertised in the local paper in conjunction with a
USCF rated event. A couple of the unrated people saw what the rated players
were doing and asked about participating. When I told them what it would cost,
the teenager joined for $25 (or whatever it was). When the adult found out it
was going to be $49 and not twentysomething dollars, he decided it was too
steep.

Tell me more about the conversation.

SNIP

Kevin L. Bachler

In article , WPraeder says...
SNIP

Kevin,

Whether a person is a USCF member or not has no bearing on whether their
comments are relevant, insightful, or even truthful.

Wayne, did I argue anywhere that the comments were not relevant, not insightful,
or not truthful?

I don't always agree with
what Bruce has to say or his speculation but in my view this "membership
argument" smacks of trying to suppress debate.

LOL. Not at all. Sheesh, you've read enough of my stuff to know better. I'd
be happy to discuss the merits of the argument with a member.


It would be better to address the strengths and weaknesses of peoples position
rather than referring to their circumstances.

Sometimes the views are so ridiculous that it isn't worth spending the time.
The point is that Bruce is acting highly inconsistently. His approach is "we"
but Bruce is not part of "we" anymore. If he wishes to become part of "we" that
would be fine. If he wishes to say "I as a non-member" I think that's fine.
But that isn't the guise. I suspect he has not done so maliciously, just out of
habit -- he is used to thinking of himself as a member. But he isn't.

Others are entitled to their
views which may be alternately considered perspectives from past or potential
USCF members.

They ARE entitled to their views. I believe it is inappropriate for non-members
to keep strongly foisting extreme views upon members.


Regards,
Wayne Praeder





Kevin L. Bachler

In article , Kevin D. Nyberg
says...

(WPraeder) wrote in message
...

Whether a person is a USCF member or not has no bearing on whether their
comments are relevant, insightful, or even truthful. I don't always agree with
what Bruce has to say or his speculation but in my view this "membership
argument" smacks of trying to suppress debate.

It would be better to address the strengths and weaknesses of peoples position
rather than referring to their circumstances. Others are entitled to their
views which may be alternately considered perspectives from past or potential
USCF members.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

I agree.

Bruce has tirelessly attempted to warn about the dangers USCF faced
for years now. Few have listened.

That's because Bruce has often warned about things that are not true.


I'm amazed he keeps trying.

Now, with the wolf at the door, Bruce gets bashed for warning everyone
when it was still in the woods.

Bruce was neither bashed, nor was he "bashed" for that reason.

That's pretty ironic.


I think you've missed the point if you think there is irony involved.

kdn

Kevin L. Bachler

Wayne,

My point is this:

Which member would you rather have. The dues paying member who is willing to
chip in and to help turn things around, or the non-dues-paying "member" who is
very willing to stand on the sidelines and criticize?

Kevin

Kevin L. Bachler

I have a hard time selling $49 to first time members.

When I was an organizer, new members always bought the 6 month introductory $25
membership. They wanted to try it first.

My thought always was that was not enough time to figure out if you liked
playing organized chess.

SBD