Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 23rd 10, 09:29 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Strange Results in the USCF Election

The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive
Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was
allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates.

The results were as follows:

Mike Nietman 1517
Gary Walters 1472
Sam Sloan 693

The results of the voting were very strange and even suspicious. The
way the numbers add up it appears that there were two kinds of voters:

1. Those who voted bullet voted for me and for nobody else.
2. Those who voted for Walters and Nietman and did not vote for me.

The question is: How did this happen? Walters is unknown and new in
the world of chess whereas Nietman is fairly well known and has been
around for a long time. Walters did not campaign at all except for
posting to the forums. Nietman at least campaigned some. Why would
Walters get almost as many votes as Nietman?

The heavy hand of Bill Goichberg seems present here. Goichberg is
known to have controlled or influenced the election process in almost
every USCF election except for the one in which I was elected. Yet,
this year Goichberg did not send out his traditional 17,000 postcards
telling his minions whom to vote for. How did Goichberg get the word
out instructing his followers how to mark their ballots?

Is it possible that Goichberg sent out a bulk mailing telling voters
to vote for Walters and Nietman that we do not know about? Perhaps it
was not a general mailing but only went to those whom he knew would
follow his orders.

Why was Goichberg so confident that Walters and Nietman would be
elected that he appeared to be sitting out the campaign this year?
Strange behavior. It almost seems that Goichberg knew well in advance
how the vote count would turn out.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old July 23rd 10, 09:51 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 311
Default Strange Results in the USCF Election

On 23 July, 09:29, samsloan wrote:
The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive
Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was
allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates.

The results were as follows:

Mike Nietman 1517
Gary Walters 1472
Sam Sloan 693

The results of the voting were very strange and even suspicious.


They're not suspicious, you deranged ****wit. People know that
you're a deranged ****wit, only ignorami would vote for you.

So you came last.

The
way the numbers add up it appears that there were two kinds of voters:

1. Those who voted bullet voted for me and for nobody else.
2. Those who voted for Walters and Nietman and did not vote for me.


Nope. Being allowed to vote twice, but not being compelled so to do,
produces results like those *without* the necessity for deranged
explanations such as yours.

People know that you're a deranged piece of ****.

So you lost.

The question is: How did this happen?


People know that you're a deranged piece of ****.

So you lost.

Walters is unknown and new in
the world of chess whereas Nietman is fairly well known and has been
around for a long time. Walters did not campaign at all except for
posting to the forums. Nietman at least campaigned some. Why would
Walters get almost as many votes as Nietman?


The alternative was voting for you.

People know that you're a deranged piece of ****.

So you lost.

The heavy hand of Bill Goichberg seems present here.


Unlikely. More likely is:

People know that you're a deranged piece of ****.

So you lost.


Goichberg is
known to have controlled or influenced the election process in almost
every USCF election except for the one in which I was elected. Yet,
this year Goichberg did not send out his traditional 17,000 postcards
telling his minions whom to vote for. How did Goichberg get the word
out instructing his followers how to mark their ballots?


It's just possible that he didn't.

People know that you're a deranged piece of ****.

So you lost.

Is it possible that Goichberg sent out a bulk mailing telling voters
to vote for Walters and Nietman that we do not know about?


Certainly it's *possible*. It's not at all likely though.

People know that you're a deranged piece of ****.

So you lost.


Perhaps it
was not a general mailing but only went to those whom he knew would
follow his orders.


Perhaps it was. Seems unlikely though. More likely is:

People know that you're a deranged piece of ****.

So you lost.

Why was Goichberg so confident that Walters and Nietman would be
elected that he appeared to be sitting out the campaign this year?


Only Mr. Goichberg can answer this. What is clear is that:

People know that you're a deranged piece of ****.

So you lost.


Strange behavior. It almost seems that Goichberg knew well in advance
how the vote count would turn out.


Seems unlikely. Much more lilely is:

People know that you're a deranged piece of ****.

So you lost.


Sam Sloan


Mark Houlsby
  #3   Report Post  
Old July 23rd 10, 11:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Strange Results in the USCF Election

On Jul 23, 4:29*am, samsloan wrote:
The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive
Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was
allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates.

The results were as follows:

Mike Nietman 1517
Gary Walters 1472
Sam Sloan 693

The results of the voting were very strange and even suspicious. The
way the numbers add up it appears that there were two kinds of voters:

1. Those who voted bullet voted for me and for nobody else.
2. Those who voted for Walters and Nietman and did not vote for me.

The question is: How did this happen? Walters is unknown and new in
the world of chess whereas Nietman is fairly well known and has been
around for a long time. Walters did not campaign at all except for
posting to the forums. Nietman at least campaigned some. Why would
Walters get almost as many votes as Nietman?


Anti-incumbent voting? After years of Truong/Polgar/Schultz/Sloan and
the like, perhaps people have become tired of chess politicians
feeding at and on the USCF.

  #4   Report Post  
Old July 23rd 10, 02:38 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 80
Default Strange Results in the USCF Election

On Jul 23, 4:29*am, samsloan wrote:
The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive
Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was
allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates.

The results were as follows:

Mike Nietman 1517
Gary Walters 1472
Sam Sloan 693

The results of the voting were very strange and even suspicious. The
way the numbers add up it appears that there were two kinds of voters:

1. Those who voted bullet voted for me and for nobody else.
2. Those who voted for Walters and Nietman and did not vote for me.


It is not obvious to me that the numbers add up that way. If there
were 3682 votes cast and 2035 ballots, then 1647 voters, 4 out of 5,
exercised their option of voting for two candidates. At least that
part seems unremarkable. Why conclude that the 1 in 5 voters who only
marked one candidate all voted for Sam Sloan? I cannot at the moment
see a reason to believe that, but if there is such a reason could not
that reason alone account for the total result better than, say, a
surreptitious campaign by Bill Goichberg?

The question is: How did this happen? Walters is unknown and new in
the world of chess whereas Nietman is fairly well known and has been
around for a long time. Walters did not campaign at all except for
posting to the forums. Nietman at least campaigned some. Why would
Walters get almost as many votes as Nietman?


Maybe people were voting for a new face. That doesn't seem terribly
surprising to me, but then again I'm from the state that nominated
Alvin Greene for the U.S. Senate.

Why was Goichberg so confident that Walters and Nietman would be
elected that he appeared to be sitting out the campaign this year?
Strange behavior. It almost seems that Goichberg knew well in advance
how the vote count would turn out.


Perhaps it was a post-fiasco lack of confidence by Goichberg that his
endorsement would still carry weight.

  #5   Report Post  
Old July 23rd 10, 03:05 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 383
Default Strange Results in the USCF Election

On 7/23/2010 4:29 AM, samsloan wrote:
The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive
Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was
allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates.

The results were as follows:

Mike Nietman 1517
Gary Walters 1472
Sam Sloan 693

The results of the voting were very strange and even suspicious. The
way the numbers add up it appears that there were two kinds of voters:

1. Those who voted bullet voted for me and for nobody else.
2. Those who voted for Walters and Nietman and did not vote for me.

The question is: How did this happen? Walters is unknown and new in
the world of chess whereas Nietman is fairly well known and has been
around for a long time. Walters did not campaign at all except for
posting to the forums. Nietman at least campaigned some. Why would
Walters get almost as many votes as Nietman?

The heavy hand of Bill Goichberg seems present here. Goichberg is
known to have controlled or influenced the election process in almost
every USCF election except for the one in which I was elected. Yet,
this year Goichberg did not send out his traditional 17,000 postcards
telling his minions whom to vote for. How did Goichberg get the word
out instructing his followers how to mark their ballots?

Is it possible that Goichberg sent out a bulk mailing telling voters
to vote for Walters and Nietman that we do not know about? Perhaps it
was not a general mailing but only went to those whom he knew would
follow his orders.

Why was Goichberg so confident that Walters and Nietman would be
elected that he appeared to be sitting out the campaign this year?
Strange behavior. It almost seems that Goichberg knew well in advance
how the vote count would turn out.

Sam Sloan

Sam it's a combination of both 1 & 2. As to Walters, he is known from
the forum and from his Chess Life Statements. The reality is that by
suing the USCF you ****ed off vast numbers of the membership. Your
expiration date in USCF politics is now past. Welcome to the masses.

BTW, I think your campaign picture alone lost you a least 1,000 votes.


  #6   Report Post  
Old July 23rd 10, 06:46 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Strange Results in the USCF Election

On Jul 23, 10:05*am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:

Sam it's a combination of both 1 & 2. *As to Walters, he is known from
the forum and from his Chess Life Statements. *The reality is that by
suing the USCF you ****ed off vast numbers of the membership. *Your
expiration date in USCF politics is now past. Welcome to the masses.

BTW, I think your campaign picture alone lost you a least 1,000 votes.-


An awful picture... his neck made him look like a turkey. I voted for
the other two just as a vote against Sam.
  #7   Report Post  
Old July 23rd 10, 07:14 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2010
Posts: 37
Default Strange Results in the USCF Election


"samsloan" wrote in message
...
The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive
Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was
allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates.

The results were as follows:

Mike Nietman 1517
Gary Walters 1472
Sam Sloan 693

The down side to you posting all of your off topic spam, and all of your
personal lawsuits on the group is that a lot of people object to that. Then
when you have to ask those same people for their votes, you don't get them.
Can you not see that? Let me go very slow so you don't miss anything

**** people off = lose election

This is not your personal space to sell your books
This is not your personal space to post about your trips to places most
people have never heard about and could care less
This is not your personal space to post off topic lawsuits that so not
concern members of this group
This is not your personal space to post about the libterian party of NY

THIS IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL SPACE

Just because you CAN post these things, does not mean you SHOULD


  #8   Report Post  
Old July 23rd 10, 07:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 80
Default Strange Results in the USCF Election

On Jul 23, 2:14*pm, "Teddybear" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

... The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive
Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was
allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates.


The results were as follows:


Mike Nietman 1517
Gary Walters 1472
Sam Sloan 693


The down side to you posting all of your off topic spam, and all of your
personal lawsuits on the group is that a lot of people object to that. *Then
when you have to ask those same people for their votes, you don't get them.
Can you not see that? *Let me go very slow so you don't miss anything

**** people off = lose election

This is not your personal space to sell your books
This is not your personal space to post about your trips to places most
people have never heard about and could care less
This is not your personal space to post off topic lawsuits that so not
concern members of this group
This is not your personal space to post about the libterian party of NY

THIS IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL SPACE

Just because you CAN post these things, does not mean you SHOULD


It's not his personal space, but since he is a longtime USCF political
figure, it seems reasonable to me for him to post here on assorted
topics. That his eclectic postings caused him to lose the recent
election is debatable. How many in this rather small group even voted?
But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are
generally much livelier than those of his critics.

  #9   Report Post  
Old July 23rd 10, 10:24 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Default Strange Results in the USCF Election

On Jul 23, 11:37*am, DannyPurvis wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:14*pm, "Teddybear" wrote:



"samsloan" wrote in message


.... The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive
Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was
allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates.


The results were as follows:


Mike Nietman 1517
Gary Walters 1472
Sam Sloan 693


The down side to you posting all of your off topic spam, and all of your
personal lawsuits on the group is that a lot of people object to that. *Then
when you have to ask those same people for their votes, you don't get them.
Can you not see that? *Let me go very slow so you don't miss anything


**** people off = lose election


This is not your personal space to sell your books
This is not your personal space to post about your trips to places most
people have never heard about and could care less
This is not your personal space to post off topic lawsuits that so not
concern members of this group
This is not your personal space to post about the libterian party of NY


THIS IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL SPACE


Just because you CAN post these things, does not mean you SHOULD


It's not his personal space, but since he is a longtime USCF political
figure, it seems reasonable to me for him to post here on assorted
topics. That his eclectic postings caused him to lose the recent
election is debatable. How many in this rather small group even voted?
But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are
generally much livelier than those of his critics.


I voted and not for Sam.

Russell Miller now Vancouver WA
  #10   Report Post  
Old July 23rd 10, 10:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Strange Results in the USCF Election

On Jul 23, 2:14*pm, "Teddybear" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

... The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive
Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was
allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates.


The results were as follows:


Mike Nietman 1517
Gary Walters 1472
Sam Sloan 693


The down side to you posting all of your off topic spam, and all of your
personal lawsuits on the group is that a lot of people object to that. *Then
when you have to ask those same people for their votes, you don't get them.
Can you not see that? *Let me go very slow so you don't miss anything

**** people off = lose election

This is not your personal space to sell your books
This is not your personal space to post about your trips to places most
people have never heard about and could care less
This is not your personal space to post off topic lawsuits that so not
concern members of this group
This is not your personal space to post about the libterian party of NY

THIS IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL SPACE

Just because you CAN post these things, does not mean you SHOULD


Heck, it's not just what you've listed, but all the stuff Sam has
posted about his sex life, racial prejudices, family problems and
other things best kept to himself. He hasn't just ticked people off,
he has disgusted them. Frankly, I'm amazed he got anything close to
693 votes. I guess it validates Lincoln's dictum that "you can fool
some of the people all of the time."
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The End Draws Near Mr.Vidmar[_2_] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 March 25th 09 01:10 AM
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 9 February 29th 08 03:55 PM
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 8 February 29th 08 03:55 PM
USCF Pension and Finance Problems and Slow Response From Board OdessaChess[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 September 24th 07 11:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017