Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On the USCF Issues Forum, Reasonable Limits Should be Placed on
attacks by Particular Posters on Particular Candidates I am strongly opposed on censorship, especially during election seasons. I have been a victim of censorship myself as during the 2007 election campaign I was not allowed to post in self defense whereas my opponents were given unlimited rights to attack me as often as they wanted without me being allowed to respond. In the current election campaign we have a different kind of problem. I need not name any names as everybody will know exactly whom I am talking about. There is one particular poster who attacks a certain particular candidate 10, 20 or 30 times a day. This particular poster is new to chess, joined the USCF recently and has never won a rated game of chess in his entire life. What compels him to spend his days attacking this particular candidate is unknown to me. What concerns me is that the average voter when looking at these threads will see a particular candidate being attacked 10, 20 or 30 times a day and will reasonably conclude that this particular candidate must truly be a bad person, not realizing that it is just one or two people attacking this candidate over and over again. Also, a person's knowledge and experience in chess should be considered as a factor. There was a poster who went by the user name of "Old Timer". He really was an old timer, having been active in tournament chess in the 1960s. Needless to say he supported me as most of the real old timers do and as a result he was blocked from posting. However, a person who claims to be an old timer but who in reality is a newcomer to chess should have some reasonable limits places on his posting. Therefore, I propose that a limit should be placed that no single poster shall be allowed more than ten posts per day in which the name of a particular candidate is used. Also, euphemisms should be counted. For example, during a previous election campaign, one candidate became known as "the name that one dare not speak". All the regulars here knew what that name was but outsiders probably did not know and perhaps as a result that candidate was elected with destructive results. So, I am asking not that this particular objectionable poster be shut down but that he not be allowed to post more than ten times a day in his attacks of a particular candidate. Sam Sloan |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Here is a response by one of the Guilty Moderators, Ron Suarez:
New postby Ron Suarez on Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:24 am #257243 Sam, it has been said before and you really appear to want to make it true that you don't report the facts accurately. In more simple words, you're wrong in a number of things you say. samsloan wrote:Reasonable Limits Should be Placed on attacks by Particular Posters on Particular Candidates I am strongly opposed on censorship, especially during election seasons. I have been a victim of censorship myself as during the election campaign I was not allowed to post in self defense whereas my opponents were given unlimited rights to attack me as often as they wanted without me being allowed to respond. Well, that's flat out wrong. You were allowed to post in self defense as long as you obeyed the AUG, you know, the rules of the forum about not attacking, denigrating others and not telling falsehoods. Others were not allowed to attack anyone, including you. If they simply presented the facts, I can understand you seeing that as an attack as you apparently have based much on non-factual things. samsloan wrote:In the current election campaign we have a different kind of problem. I need not name any names as everybody will know exactly whom I am talking about. There is one particular poster who attacks a certain particular candidate 10, 20 or 30 times a day. This particular poster is new to chess, joined the USCF recently and has never won a rated game of chess in his entire life. Well, performance in rated Chess has nothing to do with expressing opinions on this discussion forum. Also, there are some that have little rated Chess experience but a lot of experience in other Chess things, making them qualified to make statements. Also, all members have the right to post on this forum, as long as they are of the minimum age or older. samsloan wrote:What compels him to spend his days attacking this particular candidate is unknown to me. What concerns me is that the average voter when looking at these threads will see a particular candidate being attacked 10, 20 or 30 times a day and will reasonably conclude that this particular candidate must truly be a bad person, not realizing that it is just one or two people attacking this candidate over and over again. Well, it certainly is allowable for someone to respond to posts on the forum they disagree with. And that has been done in the recent situation you describe. Awhile back we did try to limit the number of posts a person could do on the forum. That ceiling also included the amount of material in a post to decide when the limit was reached. That really didn't work, or at least it was stopped because it didn't provide the "relief" that was sought. samsloan wrote:Also, a persons knowledge and experience in chess should be considered as a factor. There was a poster who went by the user name of "Old Timer". He really was an old timer, having been active in tournament chess in the 1960s. Needless to say he supported me as most of the real old timers do and as a result he was blocked from posting. However, a person who claims to be an old timer but who in reality is a newcomer to chess should have some reasonable limits places on his posting. So, someone who is really good at Chess has spent his time looking at the board and not necessarily looking at others for their integrity and astuteness. Therefore, a strong Chess player could be wrong about who they should support. Also, where do you draw the line? How much Chess experience is enough? Does that person need to have a minimum win record to be allowed to post? Good luck with that. samsloan wrote:Therefore, I propose that a limit should be placed that no single poster shall be allowed more than ten posts per day in which the name of a particular candidate is used. Also, euphemisms should be counted. For example, during a previous election campaign, one candidate became known as "the name that one dare not speak". All the regulars here knew what that name was but outsiders probably did not know and perhaps as a result that candidate was elected with destructive results. So, I am asking not that this particular objectionable poster be shut down but that he not be allowed to post more than ten times a day in his attacks of a particular candidate. Yeah, let's now make the moderators look at every post and keep track of what names are mentioned and when they are not. I suppose we will need some type of notepad or spreadsheet to keep track of this. Sorry Sam, that's way too much work for no real reward. I suggest that you post in reply to this person that you find offensive and refute what he has written, making sure you present facts and don't attack or denigrate anyone. Ron Suarez ID# 12483626 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
The reason you, Ron Suarez, were made a moderator of this group was
because of your attacks on me. Indeed, all but one moderator appointed during that period was known for his attacks on me. For example, believe-it-or-not, Harry Payne was appointed as a moderator. A few were converted later on. For example, Louis Blair was vehemently anti-Sloan when appointed. Later he realized his mistake and changed his mind, and became pro-Sam. The response from above was to deprive him of all his power by appointing a super-moderator above him, Allen Priest. Gregory Alexander, the only person ever to be convicted of a federal crime pertaining to postings to this forum, was also appointed as a moderator during this period. I was barred from posting to this forum altogether for almost the entire election period in 2007. Yet, I knew far more about Miss P and Mr T than anybody else here, especially since I had traveled with her extensively in the 1980s. By blocking me from informing the voters what I knew about them, you helped them get elected and me defeated with the resulting disaster. Sam Sloan |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 6ÔÂ3ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç9ʱ10·Ö, samsloan wrote:
On the USCF Issues Forum, Reasonable Limits Should be Placed on attacks by Particular Posters on Particular Candidates I am strongly opposed on censorship, especially during election seasons. I have been a victim of censorship myself as during the 2007 election campaign I was not allowed to post in self defense whereas my opponents were given unlimited rights to attack me as often as they wanted without me being allowed to respond. In the current election campaign we have a different kind of problem. I need not name any names as everybody will know exactly whom I am talking about. There is one particular poster who attacks a certain particular candidate 10, 20 or 30 times a day. This particular poster is new to chess, joined the USCF recently and has never won a rated game of chess in his entire life. What compels him to spend his days attacking this particular candidate is unknown to me. What concerns me is that the average voter when looking at these threads will see a particular candidate being attacked 10, 20 or 30 times a day and will reasonably conclude that this particular candidate must truly be a bad person, not realizing that it is just one or two people attacking this candidate over and over again. Also, a person's knowledge and experience in chess should be considered as a factor. There was a poster who went by the user name of "Old Timer". He really was an old timer, having been active in tournament chess in the 1960s. Needless to say he supported me as most of the real old timers do and as a result he was blocked from posting. However, a person who claims to be an old timer but who in reality is a newcomer to chess should have some reasonable limits places on his posting. Therefore, I propose that a limit should be placed that no single poster shall be allowed more than ten posts per day in which the name of a particular candidate is used. Also, euphemisms should be counted. For example, during a previous election campaign, one candidate became known as "the name that one dare not speak". All the regulars here knew what that name was but outsiders probably did not know and perhaps as a result that candidate was elected with destructive results. So, I am asking not that this particular objectionable poster be shut down but that he not be allowed to post more than ten times a day in his attacks of a particular candidate. Sam Sloan Quote:
chess. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have never won a rated chess game in your life. The only USCF event you have ever attended as far as I can tell is the 2007 US Championship and Executive Board Meeting in Stillwater, Oklahoma. You certainly were not at the 2012 FIDE Congress in Istanbul Turkey nor at the 2010 FIDE Congress in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia. I was at those events and I am not aware of anything Beatriz did to "actively work against the USCF's official position". Sam Sloan |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) | |||
USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) | |||
USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA | alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) | |||
The End Draws Near | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) | |||
The End Draws Near | alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) |