LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 27th 09, 11:38 PM posted to,,,alt.chess
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Management Question for the Candidates

Originally Posted by Brian Mottershead
Actually, Tom, I do think that the USCF
should rate all serious chess games in the United States for a nominal
rating fee and should not require that the players be USCF members.
However, I recognize that the financial situation prevents us from
doing that immediately, so I propose that we aim initially to achieve
that for the youngest players. Part of the reason that I think this
is that I don't believe that "community benefit" is restricted to the
US Chess Trust. US Chess Trust is a 501(c)(3), but USCF is a 501(c)
(4). (I'd like to see that USCF be a 501(c)(3)). I think there is
a greater "community benefit" to drawing young people into chess than
supporting the chess-playing of the general adult population.
(There are, of course, categories of adults of which the same could be
said, such as prisoners, people in military service, seniors, among
others. But that is another discussion.)

However, I do like the concept of your "non-discriminatory" membership
dues schedule. I would suggest a "tournament membership" that would
provide ratings of tournament games for, say, $5 per year (plus a
rating fee per game). (If CXR can do it, so can we.) I suspect that
while you and I might differ on details, we are singing from the same

Brian Mottershead
I think you had better forget about running for election. If the
members find out what you are advocating, reducing the dues to $5 per
year, turning Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids into ezines, turning
the entire USCF into a website, eliminating most if not all of the
need for staff in Crossville, and so on, nobody will vote for you.

Have you considered that your proposal not only kills all benefits for
Life Members, who bought a membership thinking that it guaranteed a
magazine for life, but it also kills off the USCF affiliate
structure. The USCF has about one thousand affiliates. (I would like
for Mike Nolan to provide the exact number.) These affiliates are
mostly chess clubs, chess tournament organizers, and chess coaches.
These people are the life blood of the USCF because they bring in most
of the new members. Eliminate them and you eliminate the USCF. Many of
these affilates make their living from chess and you are cutting them
out completely.

We had a frequent poster on the Internet who advocated the exact same
thing that Brian Mottershead is advocating. His name was Paul Rubin.
Do you happen to know him? Is it just a coincidence that you and he
are proposing the same things? Are you him?

Sam Sloan
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
Management Question for the Candidates samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 18 February 11th 09 11:41 AM
Gregory Alexander's Latest "Confidential Information" Smear Brian Lafferty (Chess Politics) 28 February 15th 08 03:57 AM
Famous 20 Questions Christmas Quiz Chess One (Chess General) 124 January 11th 07 02:58 AM
Candidate's Statement for the June Chess Life (500 words exactly) Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 35 April 18th 05 07:08 PM
Proposed Candidate's Statement for June Chess Life - Please Comment Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 49 April 17th 05 06:03 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:56 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