Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 30th 08, 01:35 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 Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"

Quote:
Originally Posted by chessoffice
During the past few years, I have supported
reducing staff more than has the average board member, and we have had
some reductions and may have more, but I see no basis for the idea
than we can get rid of more than half of our staff and still provide
acceptable service. When you have over 80,000 members, including and
professional players, plus many affiliates and TDs, they continually
have questions and problems.

Bill Goichberg
I am not saying that you should get rid of half of the staff. All you
have to do is cut staff by three or four people and you will save more
than you will "save" by your Draconian cuts in the magazines.

The first thing you need to cut is your highly paid "web content
providers". Nobody reads them and they bring in no new members. By the
way, Joel Benjamin just posted another one of his lame "Ask GM Joel"
answers. Somebody asked him why the Caro-Kann Defense is in decline. I
would expect some grandmasterly analysis. After all, why do you have a
GM writing this column if he cannot provide some analysis? Instead, GM
Joel just made a one-paragraph generalized statement. Although the
only thing I know about the Caro-Kann Defense is the first two moves,
I could have written just as good an answer as "Ask GM Joel" wrote.
At least I would have spent five minutes pulling down some ChessBase
statistics to support my points. Five minutes is probably more than GM
Joel spent to write his answer. I would have charged the USCF only $5
and would have written a better and more useful answer than "GM Joel"
wrote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chessoffice
I was not a supporter of the move to Crossville
and would have preferred a major metro area. However, we do not have
a half-empty building, and of 23 full time employees, 18 work at the
Crossville office.

Bill Goichberg
Finally, we get an answer. While I was on the board I repeatedly asked
our distinguished executive director how many employees the USCF had.
I never got an answer. By the way, is 23 the actual number you got
from the office or did you just copy that number from me, as that is
the number I often use?

Now that you have opened up about how many employees the USCF has,
kindly explain why we had exactly the same number of employees in
September 2003, after Beatriz Marinello infamously fired 17 staff
members on August 20, 2003 (the same day that the USCF laptop computer
went missing). Now, you are claiming to have made staff cuts. Since
the staff today has exactly the same number as it did in 2003, where
have the cuts been? However, in 2003 the USCF was still operating the
books and equipment business and still employed clerk-typists to enter
all the ratings and membership information by hand.

In 2003 the USCF still had $6 million in revenues. Now it has $3.2
million. Do not you think that some staff cuts are in order? Why do
you insist on turning Chess Life into an online Internet publication,
when virtually every other commentator, outside of your fellow board
members, has expressed opposition to your "New Plan".

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old June 30th 08, 02:32 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 Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Mottershead
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant Perks
If it wasn't for the
twinkle-toes accounting for FY 2007, the microscopic surplus would
have been a greater surplus. The adjustment that was posted lowered
the surplus for the year by about $20,000.

Grant Perks
How do you figure this? The preliminary report showed a loss. After
you and the auditors tossed some pixie dust, there was a small
surplus.

Brian Mottershead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant Perks
The loss for FY 2008 would have likely have been
another small surplus if it wasn't for the expenses related to the
actions of "volunteers".

Grant Perks
This is a swipe at me. What I did was to report that the USCF had on
its Executive Board a person who had been impersonating another USCF
Executive Board member and anonymously attacking the USCF, its
members, offices, employees, and volunteers, on the Internet. Using
language that was obscene, vulgar, racist, and misogynist. The person
in question had not stopped this activity when he was elected to the
Board, either. Two experts on Internet forensics supported my
conclusions, not to mention many others who privately advised the USCF
that I was right. When exposed, that person did not resign, but dug in
his heels and simply denied all the evidence, without producing any
exculpatory evidence whatsoever. He also threatened lawsuits, causing
the Executive Board to hire a lawyer and hide.

And now, you are blaming the USCF financial problems not on that
person's offenses and his defiance when exposed, but on the person who
exposed him. For crying out loud.

Brian Mottershead
Grant Perks blames Mottershead rather than Truong for the USCFs legal
problems.

It is now obvious that Goichberg knew all along who the FSS was. It is
true that the Mottershead Report brought on the first of possibly many
lawsuits. (There are reports that many are waiting in the wings to see
how the first two lawsuits turn out before filing their own.)
However, if Mottershead had not made his report, the FSS would have
continued posting his defamatory attacks every day on the USCF. In
fact, the distaff half of the FSS attacks the USCF every day now but
at least does not use a pseudonym.

Is that better?

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old June 30th 08, 04:36 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 Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant Perks
It wasn't just a swipe at you, but the bulk of
those additional expenses do relate to your volunteer activity.

Upon discovery of the same issues a non-volunteer would likely have
consulted with the office for the recommended course of action. These
issues could then have been discussed with legal counsel in advance of
any public disclosure of the findings.

Grant Perks
Grant Perks is claiming here that the two lawsuits currently pending
were caused by the volunteer activity of Brian Mottershead.

I agree that if a paid employee had discovered the identity of the
FSS, he would have first informed Bill Goichberg before going public.

However, Brian Mottershead did exactly that. He informed Bill
Goichberg of his findings on September 20, 2007.

Only after one week had passed and Goichberg had done nothing and was
obviously going to do nothing, did Brian Mottershead make his findings
public.

So, what Grant Perks is really contenting here is that a paid employee
would have kept this matter secret indefinitely, as indeed Mike Nolan
did.

I fail to see how the USCF would have been better off keeping the
identity of the Fake Sam Sloan secret. I do not really understand why
Grant Perks keeps claiming that this entire matter should have been
kept confidential.

Sam Sloan
  #4   Report Post  
Old June 30th 08, 09:29 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 Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACP
Maybe I'm one of those volunteers who is shooting USCF
in the foot by your account as well Ron.

Let's evaluate what the President's response was when he was informed
of the FSS issue by Mr. Mottershead - to take it to the Ethics
Committee. Well, the Ethics Committee received a complaint and did
nothing with it. That's right. Nothing.

I don't believe there is another organization which can take what was
presented and ignore it as a serious matter as this one originally
did. It would be the same reaction to the way the retirement plan
matter has been handled for the past ten years.

As far as the question as to why a USCF employee didn't do the same
research as Mr. Mottershead, what IS the answer to that question? It
was a USCF election after all and it was a person who was running for
USCF office and obviously, it was feasible to do so. Had the same
attacks appeared pertaining to other current members of the board at
that time, perhaps the answer would be different.

Donna Alarie
All excellent points.

If instead of a Fake Sam Sloan there had been a Fake Joel Channing or
a Fake Bill Goichberg, things would have started happening. The FBI,
the CIA, the KGB and all the local sheriffs officers would have been
contacted. An intensive investigation would have been done on all
Internet posters.

However, because the target of the Fake Sam Sloan was a political
outsider, me, he was allowed to flourish and continue his attacks.

Note that the Fake Sam Sloan never mentioned the names of Paul Truong,
Susan Polgar or Joel Channing. Joel Channing even wrote that he found
the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan to be "amusing". That provided a
strong clue as to who the Fake Sam Sloan was.

Sam Sloan
  #5   Report Post  
Old June 30th 08, 10:05 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: Oct 2004
Posts: 668
Default Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"


"samsloan" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DACP
Maybe I'm one of those volunteers who is shooting USCF
in the foot by your account as well Ron.

Let's evaluate what the President's response was when he was informed
of the FSS issue by Mr. Mottershead - to take it to the Ethics
Committee. Well, the Ethics Committee received a complaint and did
nothing with it. That's right. Nothing.

I don't believe there is another organization which can take what was
presented and ignore it as a serious matter as this one originally
did. It would be the same reaction to the way the retirement plan
matter has been handled for the past ten years.

As far as the question as to why a USCF employee didn't do the same
research as Mr. Mottershead, what IS the answer to that question? It
was a USCF election after all and it was a person who was running for
USCF office and obviously, it was feasible to do so. Had the same
attacks appeared pertaining to other current members of the board at
that time, perhaps the answer would be different.

Donna Alarie

All excellent points.

If instead of a Fake Sam Sloan there had been a Fake Joel Channing or
a Fake Bill Goichberg, things would have started happening. The FBI,
the CIA, the KGB and all the local sheriffs officers would have been
contacted. An intensive investigation would have been done on all
Internet posters.


You are missing one important aspect of the situation and this is the
aspect that will cause your suit to be thrown out: The venue of the
impersonation, namely this totally irrelevant newsgroup.

Of the 9 or 10 people who read this newsgroup nobody was fooled by
the FSS and probably nobody cares whether you or somebody else
wrote a particular post. Nobody here, with the possible exception of
Parr, when it suits his purpose, takes you the least bit seriously.
No impersonator can damage your reputation: You have no reputation
that can be ruined, certainly not since you exposed yourself on your
obscene website.



However, because the target of the Fake Sam Sloan was a political
outsider, me, he was allowed to flourish and continue his attacks.

Note that the Fake Sam Sloan never mentioned the names of Paul Truong,
Susan Polgar or Joel Channing. Joel Channing even wrote that he found
the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan to be "amusing". That provided a
strong clue as to who the Fake Sam Sloan was.

Sam Sloan




  #6   Report Post  
Old July 1st 08, 04:07 AM 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 Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"

Since you are not a member of the USCF, I fail to understand how you
believe that the USCF owed a duty to you to uncover the identity of
the Fake Sam Sloan. Please explain.

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old July 1st 08, 07:44 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2004
Posts: 668
Default Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"



That the entire board should have been working to uncover the imposter
before anything like this, or the discussions which resulted.


So you think that the USCF has the duty to follow
a whole bunch of crazy newsgroups; and whenever the nuts who post there
write under false names, the USCF has to launch an investigation immediately
to determine whether a board member or an employee of the USCF
might be behind the impersonation.

Did I understand this correctly?

And you actually believe that a judge will be able to follow this subtle
argument?

How much do you think the USCF should budget for its newsgroup
surveillance division?


Assuming you got the mail someone signed for that was sent to you with the
complaint, you'll notice a claim for gross negligence that covers all the
stuff I believe the board got tied down with while my rights were being
laughed at. Negligence doesn't require a conspiracy; it's alternative to
the RICO claim. The tremendous infighting and resulting conduct is hardly
what I'd consider central to the USCF's mission, at least not at the level
to which the board of that day took it.

My other position is that if the FSS was such a horrible thing, the RSS
could have filed a Doe lawsuit and put it out of business very quickly. I
was attacking it through Google and the search engines, but after that was
settled, I've shifted my focus.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone privileged enough to sit on the USCF board
should be exceptionally mindful to avoid the type of behavior on all sides
(regardless of the court's final world) that played out on the internet
from 2005-2007 etc.



  #8   Report Post  
Old July 1st 08, 05:12 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: Oct 2004
Posts: 668
Default Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"


[...]

You are writing here to Jürgen R. who is not now nor has ever been a
member of the USCF.


You have a serious form of prevarication disease. You cannot possibly
know whether I have ever been a member, but that doesn't keep you
from making claims. The fact is that I was a member for many years in the
80's
and 90's. My name is actually still on the rating list.

How does your claim that the "USCF has a legal
duty to protect [you] from retaliation from its members" stop Jürgen
R., who is nothing more than an Internet gadfly, from making
wisecracks about you?


Obviously I am a willing tool of Bill Goichberg and that other Bill, the
lush that is the ED. They tell me exactly what to do.

[...]
However, the
claims you are presenting here are just ridiculous.


Very true - and possibly even more ridiculous than the claims Sloan
is making, but not by much.

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
Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems" samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 7 July 1st 08 05:12 PM
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 March 19th 07 09:09 PM
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 1 March 19th 07 09:09 PM
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 March 19th 07 07:25 PM
Goichberg's List samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 March 19th 07 07:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:07 PM.

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