Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 5th 08, 03:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsawmiller
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanstaafl
From another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsawmiller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moderator2
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanstaafl
Isn't it
about time Mr. Sloan started receiving harsher penalties than having
an occasional post deleted????
Yes.
The moderator should not be posting opinions in the role of moderator.
IMHO, it is quite proper for a moderator to post an opinion
ABOUT forum moderation. If the moderators don't make such statements
then we don't have a chance to disagree (or agree, in this case, just
speaking for myself) with how he's making his decisions.
This was not an opinion about forum moderation.
It was an opinion about a specific person.
That is improper for a moderator to post.
Here is an example of the improprieties of Forum Moderation.

This was posted in February 2007 at a time when I was both a member of
the board and a candidate for re-election.

One forum moderator, Tanstaafl, who we now know to be Herbert Rodney
Vaughn, and who filed a 400 page ethics complaint against me in color
(at USCF Expense) advocates that I should be permanently banned from
posting to the USCF Issues Forum.

tsawmiller agrees here and in other places that I should be banned
from posting.

Remember that I was elected to the board, elected by the USCF
Membership.

Later, Bill Hall appointed Tanstaafl and tsawmiller as Forum
Moderators. They were not yet moderators at the time of these
postings.

It is obvious that they were appointed as moderators as a reward for
advocating that I be banned from posting because Bill Hall along with
Joel Channing wanted me banned.

Note that even though I have filed a federal lawsuit over this, Vaughn
and Sawmiller continue to be moderators. The fact that Bill Hall keeps
Vaughn and Sawmiller as forum moderators even though for the last 7
months the USCF has been under a federal lawsuit for this is enough
reason alone to fire Bill Hall.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old May 5th 08, 04:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2008
Posts: 102
Default Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
Note that even though I have filed a federal lawsuit over this, Vaughn
and Sawmiller continue to be moderators. The fact that Bill Hall keeps
Vaughn and Sawmiller as forum moderators even though for the last 7
months the USCF has been under a federal lawsuit for this is enough
reason alone to fire Bill Hall.


You filed a federal lawsuit because you don't like the moderators of a
usenet newsgroup?

blink

That should be fun to watch getting thrown out of court!

Why don't you take your whiny, "everyone is against me, I'm being
persecuted" act somewhere else, OK?

  #3   Report Post  
Old May 5th 08, 05:33 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

Bob Campbell wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message
...
Note that even though I have filed a federal lawsuit over this, Vaughn
and Sawmiller continue to be moderators. The fact that Bill Hall keeps
Vaughn and Sawmiller as forum moderators even though for the last 7
months the USCF has been under a federal lawsuit for this is enough
reason alone to fire Bill Hall.


You filed a federal lawsuit because you don't like the moderators of a
usenet newsgroup?

blink

That should be fun to watch getting thrown out of court!

Why don't you take your whiny, "everyone is against me, I'm being
persecuted" act somewhere else, OK?


There are no moderators of this usenet group. Read the complaint and
you'll understand the point being presented. Whether his argument flies
or not is still to be determined.
  #4   Report Post  
Old May 5th 08, 06:16 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,558
Default Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On Mon, 5 May 2008 11:59:18 -0400, "Bob Campbell" wrote:

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
Note that even though I have filed a federal lawsuit over this, Vaughn
and Sawmiller continue to be moderators. The fact that Bill Hall keeps
Vaughn and Sawmiller as forum moderators even though for the last 7
months the USCF has been under a federal lawsuit for this is enough
reason alone to fire Bill Hall.


You filed a federal lawsuit because you don't like the moderators of a
usenet newsgroup?

blink

That should be fun to watch getting thrown out of court!

Why don't you take your whiny, "everyone is against me, I'm being
persecuted" act somewhere else, OK?



This does not concern a Usenet newsgroup. I am complaining about an
internal forum of the USCF Membership, known as the USCF Issues Forum.

I was elected to the USCF Executive Board in July 2006 and took office
on August 14, 2006 for a one year term.

I was strongly opposed by the USCF insiders, including especially Bill
Goichberg and Joel Channing.

In order to stop me from being re-elected, Goichberg sent out 17,000
postcards to USCF Members stating, "The Most Important thing about
this election is to Stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected".

Goichberg had every legal right to mail those 17, 000 postcards.

What he did not have the legal right to do was appoint anti-Sam Sloan
moderators to the USCF Issues Forum. I was subjected to every
imaginable attack on the USCF Issues Forum, including being called a
child molester.

On the other hand, nothing negative was allowed to be posted on the
USCF Issues Forum about my election opponents, particularly Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong. Nobody was even allowed to ask them
embarrassing questions. For example, nobody was allowed to question
Paul Truong's job history or work background. Nobody was allowed to
ask them whether they were married to each other or not. Turns out
that they were married to each other but were keeping this fact a
secret during the election campaign. I still have not seen this
mentioned in Chess Life.

Anybody who posted remarks in any way favorable to me had their
postings pulled and found themselves suspended from posting.

Anybody who was in my favor was suspended. Anybody against me could
attack me as much as they wanted. All this because Bill Hall and Bill
Goichberg appointed pro-Polgar and anti-Sam Sloan moderators.

However, that is only one relatively small part of my lawsuit. The
bigger issue is that it has been proven that Paul Truong, one of my
election opponents, impersonated me and stole my identity by posting
at least 2464 "Fake Sam Sloan" postings which contained obscene and
pornographic remarks supposedly signed by me and other chess
personalities. These Fake Sam Sloan postings were all posted here at
rec.games.chess.politics , not on the USCF Issues Forum. However,
because of the use among other things of identical IP addresses, it
has been proven from the IP address that Paul Truong posted from on
the USCF Issues Forum and the IP Address of the Fake Sam Sloan here
that these were the same persons and that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam
Sloan.

Furthermore, I can prove that Bill Goichberg and Joel Channing knew
that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. Thus, by helping Paul Truong
and his wife Susan Polgar be elected, they were perpetrating an
election fraud on the USCF Membership.

Sounds like you are not familiar with this federal lawsuit. You should
read up on it, as there are more than one thousand postings about it
here.

My point about the above posting today is that Herbert Rodney Vaughn
and Tim Sawmiller were appointed moderators by Bill Hall and Goichberg
after they had both stated that I should be banned from posting to the
USCF Issues Forum, even though I was a member of the board, and they
are still to this day moderators of the USCF Issues Forum. All of the
other outrageously anti-Sam Sloan moderators appointed during that
period by Hall and Goichberg, including especially Gregory Alexander,
who is the website manager and moderator of the Polgar-Truong
Discussion Group, have since quit. In spite of my lawsuit, which has
been sub-judice since October, 2007, Vaughn, who is a named defendant,
is still a moderator of the USCF Issues Forum and is still voting to
have me banned. (The ban has been passed but has not been put into
effect yet.) By leaving Vaughn and Sawmiller as moderators, Hall is
increasing every day the polential liability of the USCF and for that
alone (not counting the other things such as the $300,000 the USCF is
losing so far this year) Hall should be fired.

Sam Sloan


  #5   Report Post  
Old May 5th 08, 10:13 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
wrote:

You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is nothing
wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary
not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
rules. You just make this stuff up.


Eric,


I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obviously
know nothing about it.

During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and
Truong was deleted.

We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of them
were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more
active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
unknown.

Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
Sawmiller were appointed.

Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or FOC
that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by the
moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the
light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notable
examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.

This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators
often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle
tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over the
moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-ups.
So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.

All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, all
of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily enough
to swing the election.

Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politically
independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and
Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I believe
that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying
the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
about this.

In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be said
that this was a fairly conducted election.

Sam Sloan


  #6   Report Post  
Old May 5th 08, 11:20 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Improper Selection of Forum Moderators



samsloan wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
wrote:

You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is nothing
wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary
not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
rules. You just make this stuff up.


Eric,


I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obviously
know nothing about it.

During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and
Truong was deleted.

We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of them
were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more
active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
unknown.

Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
Sawmiller were appointed.

Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or FOC
that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by the
moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the
light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notable
examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.

This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators
often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle
tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over the
moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-ups.
So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.

All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, all
of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily enough
to swing the election.

Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politically
independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and
Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I believe
that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying
the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
about this.

In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be said
that this was a fairly conducted election.

Sam Sloan



Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A: See
above.

Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.
  #7   Report Post  
Old May 5th 08, 11:24 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

wrote:

samsloan wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
wrote:

You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is nothing
wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary
not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
rules. You just make this stuff up.


Eric,


I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obviously
know nothing about it.

During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and
Truong was deleted.

We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of them
were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more
active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
unknown.

Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
Sawmiller were appointed.

Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or FOC
that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by the
moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the
light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notable
examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.

This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators
often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle
tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over the
moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-ups.
So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.

All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, all
of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily enough
to swing the election.

Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politically
independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and
Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I believe
that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying
the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
about this.

In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be said
that this was a fairly conducted election.

Sam Sloan



Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A: See
above.

Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.


Well, John, if you say so it must be true. I'm still waiting for the
citation supporting your first amendment interpretation regarding
harassment. When can I expect you to provide it? Thanks!
  #8   Report Post  
Old May 5th 08, 11:31 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Eric Schiller
wrote:

No, I don't use the forum, never will. By I am a regular blogger
at one of the major blogs, DailyKos. You claim there is some rule
about whether moderators can post about abusive posters. I have never
seen such a rule at any blog. So you just made it up. Show me this
"rule".



As usual, even in your legal filings, you assume rules that don't
exist. You make them, up based on how you think the world should be.



Show me this rule!



Eric


Dear Eric,

The Rules most often cited by Vaughn and Sawmiller to delete a posting
or suspend or ban a member are the following:

"Do not make personal attacks or defamatory or disparaging comments
about any person, group or company. Do not flame or troll."

"Do not post suggestions, without specifically identified substantial
proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or criminal act."

"If you refer to someone by name, use their actual name, not a made up
or sarcastic name."

These rules might on the surface seem reasonable but as applied by the
extremely biased moderators gives them the power to delete anything
they want to delete and to suspend anybody they want to suspend.

For example, I started the thread about Grandmaster Benko being
cheated out of $70,000 by Citibank and an obvious scammer named
Wolfgang Roddewig in Brazil. That thread was deleted by Vaughn saying
that I am not allowed to make negative remarks about Wolfgang Roddewig
even though he is not a USCF member, or an American or a chess player.

Nobody is allowed to post that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong stole the
USCFs laptop computer on August 20, 2003 even though they admit that
they took the computer on that date. They claim to have been
authorized to take it "by the board" but when USCF President Beatriz
Marinello at the time said that the board had most definitely not
authorized Polgar and Truong to take that laptop computer, they have
made vague statements about some other unidentified prior board having
authorized this.

The rule about no nicknames came about when Forum posters learned that
they were not allowed to use the word Polgar without uttering words of
high praise in connection with that name. Since they were not allowed
to use the word "Polgar", they started to call her by various
nicknames including "Some.Poor.Soul", "The Name that One Dare Not
Speak", "Chairman Susan" and various others. Of course, the word
Trollgar was banned too.

This is by no means a comprehensive list. Basically, being opposed to
the election of Polgar and Truong or even disagreeing with them on one
minor point got you suspended from posting.

Sam Sloan
  #9   Report Post  
Old May 6th 08, 01:15 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Eric Schiller
wrote:


If the USCF insists on forums, they should be like DailyKos, where
nothing is deleted. If people with high status (mojo) vote to hide a
comment, it becomes non-public, but is still accessible to “Trusted
Users” (a status I generally have), and can be unhidden if enough TUs
vote for it. On the other hand, everyone can vote for postings, and
the most popular go on the recommended list. To insure good posts
don’t get buried, there is a daily Diary rescue, where a committee
selects worthy posts and puts links on the front page.



The DailyKos system works very well, and handles trolls
effectively. Only posts are hidden, no one is censored except for
violating clearly stated rules. You should look at DailyKos to see how
it is done right, and make appropriate suggestions to the USCF.



Eric,

You have made a serious and interesting suggestion here. There are
thousands of postings that have been pulled or hidden from the USCF
Issues Forum. Only three people are allowed to see them: Vaughn,
Sawmiller and Vibbert. Even the FOC members are not allowed to review
them any more, nor can the board, or at least I could not when I was
on the board.

This is obviously wrong when Vaughn and Sawmiller are outrageously
biased and Vibbert is hardly neutral.

Your suggestion is to create a group of "Trusted Users" who could vote
to restore a hidden post. Assuming that this committee of Trusted
Users is reasonably large and representative and not filled with
persons like Vaughn and Sawmiller whose agendas are well known, this
would result in most of the several thousand postings that have been
hidden to be revealed and would allow the general membership to find
out what has really been going on behind the scenes.

It would also send a clear message to all moderators and board members
that their dirty deeds will not remain hidden forever and will
eventually come out. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, as they say.

Accordingly, I am forwarding your suggestion to the board. Do not hold
your breath waiting for them to enact it however.

Sam Sloan
  #10   Report Post  
Old May 6th 08, 01:46 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:47 PM, wrote:

John Donaldson, Susan Polgar, and others have asked you to remove
us from your spam list. We are not interested in your sick and
deranged fantasies. If this is a serious organization, you would have
been banned long ago.



I find it quite comical that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong state that
they do not want to receive my postings when they on a daily basis
attack their fellow board members from their own protected Chess
Discussion group where responses to their attacks are not allowed and
they also attack their fellow board members from http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com
where again they control the responses.

There is a simple solution to your problem. All you have to do is
resign from the board and as soon as it is certified that you have
resigned and that it is not another April Fools Joke and you cannot
take back your resignations, I will stop sending you emails.

Regarding John Donaldson, as he is the USA Zone President, a position
to which I nominated him, I am surprised that he has not taken a more
active interest in the plight of the regular USCF Members. If he
cannot stand the heat, I think that he should consider resigning too.

Sam Sloan
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Improper Selection of Forum Moderators samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 21 May 7th 08 03:53 AM
The USCF"s Kangaroos (aka moderators) In Action B. Lafferty[_4_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 January 3rd 08 03:10 AM
Opinion: Dissent and the USCF Issues Forum p944dc rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 October 2nd 07 05:45 PM
Adios Amigos OdessaChess[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 September 21st 07 11:03 AM
USCF Issues Forum: "New York Times" [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 February 10th 07 06:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 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