Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 4th 04, 02:33 PM
Angelo DePalma
 
Posts: n/a
Default Obligations to LMs -- a primer in morality


I'm surprised at you, Kevin.

There's nothing at all complicated about this. Over the years about 10,000
members accepted USCF's offer of life membership in return for a rather
large one-time payment. USCF entered those agreements with their eyes open,
I assume after consulting with financial experts. USCF has spent -- you say
"mis-spent" but that's irrelevant -- that money. It doesn't matter what the
money was spent or mis-spent on. Whether they took the money into their left
pocket and spent it from there on marketing or publishing CL, or moved it to
their right pocket so they could use it to light cigars with $100 bills
doesn't matter.

As a USCF member I benefitted from spending that money to the same extent as
I benefitted from all other expenditures. Again, it doesn't matter if the
money was used appropriately or wasted. There really isn't any way to say
"this dollar bill with this serial number goes here" and "that dollar bill
.... goes there." The dollar bills are interchangeable. How they were spent
is not the fault of the LMs.

If you want to get mad at the people who wasted the money, fine. If you want
to stop offering life memberships that's fine (although it's kind of sad
that, like *real* politicians, these guys can't be trusted with money
either). If you don't like LM political influence that's fine too, but an
entirely separate issue. However you can't run away from your obligation by
reneging on a freely-entered good-faith agreement between your organization
and a group of its members.

The saddest commentary on USCF member morals I can think of would be if the
"majority" decided to steal hundreds of thousands -- millions perhaps --
from a minority who believed they were entering an honest, mutually
beneficial arrangement with the federation. So that's democracy eh? As the
Birchers used to say, "Two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner."

How would you feel if USCF took your three-year renewal check and decided,
the next day, that it would stop sending you Chess Life? Or if it announced
after taking your $135 or whatever that all three-year memberships will be
reduced to one-year memberships? Would you be annoyed, or would you bravely
assert that the "three year member lobby" was indeed unduly influential and
deserved to be knocked down a notch?

Please address the last two paragraphs.

Angelo

"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in message
...
In article , Angelo DePalma says...


You're kidding, right? I don't owe the 80,000 anything.


I disagree. Many of these are recurring members just as devoted to chess.

Why
would you feel that you owe them any less? Many life members (I know

quite a
few) paid for LM because they thought it was a better deal -- not out of

any
special sense to USCF.

Even though I had
nothing to do with this theoretical screwing, I do owe LMs because their

$$
has been paying for continuing operations from which I've benefitted.


Actually, this statement isn't true. Most of their dollars were mis-spent

long
ago. Some of them paid amounts that were insufficient to begin with.

Some
allowed (and even encouraged) the mis-spending to occur.

Life members were historically the most politically powerful group in

USCF.
They are, today, THE ONLY group that has not been meaningfully impacted by

the
financial crisis at USCF. Costs due to bad management has impacted all

groups
EXCEPT them.

Is this right, given their political clout. Shouldn't they have done a

better
job of minding the store?

It's
called morality, solidarity, fraternite', egalite', etcetera-ite'.



It's called sacrificing many for a few. It's called way oversimplifying a

more
complex issue.


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in message
...
In article , Angelo DePalma says...


Seriously, even I would consider quitting if the LMs got screwed.

adp

Interesting. What about the matter of honor to the 80,000+ members who

are not
life members?


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in message
...
In article , Angelo DePalma

says...


As a matter of honor USCF politicos should respect the letter and

spirit
of
their agreements with life members, even to the point of killing

the
federation.

You did mean this as a joke, right?

Kevin L. Bachler

Kevin L. Bachler




Kevin L. Bachler



  #2   Report Post  
Old March 4th 04, 03:38 PM
Kevin L. Bachler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Obligations to LMs -- a primer in morality

In article , Angelo DePalma says...


I'm surprised at you, Kevin.

There's nothing at all complicated about this.


Yes, there is.

Over the years about 10,000
members accepted USCF's offer of life membership in return for a rather
large one-time payment.


Not in all cases. Early life memberships were almost certainly underpriced.
Error #1 of the "uncomplicated" issue.

USCF entered those agreements with their eyes open,
I assume after consulting with financial experts.


The people who were delegates of USCF tended to be hmmm LIFE MEMBERS. Other
members did not have a vote. USCF WAS the life members. USCF is not some
separate entity. It is what composes it, and the power was with LM's.

Error #2 of the "uncomplicated" issue.


USCF has spent -- you say
"mis-spent" but that's irrelevant -- that money.


It is not irrelevant. The model as constructed by financial experts would have
assumed fiscal responsibility. Reasonable rates of return, reasonable growth
rates, reasonable CPI, reasonable mortality.

MIS-SPENDING means the actions were UNREASONABLE. And to spread the cost of
these misactions among all members EXCEPT life members, WHEN LIFE MEMBERS WERE
THE PRIMARY VOTING GROUP is UNREASONABLE morality.

Again, USCF is an aggregation of its members. Why should LM's be treated
unfairly better than other members?


It doesn't matter what the
money was spent or mis-spent on.


Yes, it does. See above.

Whether they took the money into their left
pocket and spent it from there on marketing or publishing CL, or moved it to
their right pocket so they could use it to light cigars with $100 bills
doesn't matter.


Yes it does, because of the underlying assumptions in pricing.


As a USCF member I benefitted from spending that money to the same extent as
I benefitted from all other expenditures. Again, it doesn't matter if the
money was used appropriately or wasted.


And again, it does, because it isn't the level of planning that was implicitly
agreed to by all. There are assumptions in determining the cost.

Your response above stops a ply short of a full analysis. It's like you feel
you stand positionally better, only to see that your opponent has mate in one on
the next move.

There really isn't any way to say
"this dollar bill with this serial number goes here" and "that dollar bill
... goes there." The dollar bills are interchangeable. How they were spent
is not the fault of the LMs.


Since LM's were the primary voting group, this is very arguable. Furthermore,
we don't even need to make the point that they were at fault, it is simply clear
that they were NO LESS AT FAULT than other members, and so should bear NO LESS
OF THE BURDEN.

Yet today, they bear NONE of the burden.


If you want to get mad at the people who wasted the money, fine.


Yep.

If you want
to stop offering life memberships that's fine (although it's kind of sad
that, like *real* politicians, these guys can't be trusted with money
either)


Yep.

If you don't like LM political influence that's fine too, but an
entirely separate issue.


Not when they can vote on their own dues, it's not. It's dangerously close to
self-dealing.

However you can't run away from your obligation by
reneging on a freely-entered good-faith agreement between your organization
and a group of its members.


You can when there is an argument that it was self dealing, and you can when all
memberships should share equally in solving the issue.


The saddest commentary on USCF member morals I can think of would be if the
"majority" decided to steal hundreds of thousands -- millions perhaps --
from a minority who believed they were entering an honest, mutually
beneficial arrangement with the federation. So that's democracy eh? As the
Birchers used to say, "Two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner."


It's democracy when they are the only group not bearing in the cost??


How would you feel if USCF took your three-year renewal check and decided,
the next day, that it would stop sending you Chess Life?


Less than pleased. I expect the life members to be less than pleased. The
emotional reaction doesn't determine whether something is right or wrong.

If you run USCF into the ground in order to live up to the deal with the LM's (a
deal that is already broken)what have you done for the LM's?

Or if it announced
after taking your $135 or whatever that all three-year memberships will be
reduced to one-year memberships? Would you be annoyed, or would you bravely
assert that the "three year member lobby" was indeed unduly influential and
deserved to be knocked down a notch?


Of course I would be annoyed. That doesn't make it right.

Life members should share the financial burden of bad management just like all
other members. At least $9 annual of the current membership dues is
attributable to this. Why not charge them $9 annually, or the MA NPV of $9?


Please address the last two paragraphs.


I did. I think your thought process needs to see a bigger picture.


Angelo


Kevin L. Bachler

  #3   Report Post  
Old March 4th 04, 04:43 PM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Obligations to LMs -- a primer in morality

A bankruptcy could wipe out the life membership in one fell swoop.

--
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library

http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers


"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

I'm surprised at you, Kevin.

There's nothing at all complicated about this. Over the years about 10,000
members accepted USCF's offer of life membership in return for a rather
large one-time payment. USCF entered those agreements with their eyes

open,
I assume after consulting with financial experts. USCF has spent -- you

say
"mis-spent" but that's irrelevant -- that money. It doesn't matter what

the
money was spent or mis-spent on. Whether they took the money into their

left
pocket and spent it from there on marketing or publishing CL, or moved it

to
their right pocket so they could use it to light cigars with $100 bills
doesn't matter.

As a USCF member I benefitted from spending that money to the same extent

as
I benefitted from all other expenditures. Again, it doesn't matter if the
money was used appropriately or wasted. There really isn't any way to say
"this dollar bill with this serial number goes here" and "that dollar bill
... goes there." The dollar bills are interchangeable. How they were spent
is not the fault of the LMs.

If you want to get mad at the people who wasted the money, fine. If you

want
to stop offering life memberships that's fine (although it's kind of sad
that, like *real* politicians, these guys can't be trusted with money
either). If you don't like LM political influence that's fine too, but an
entirely separate issue. However you can't run away from your obligation

by
reneging on a freely-entered good-faith agreement between your

organization
and a group of its members.

The saddest commentary on USCF member morals I can think of would be if

the
"majority" decided to steal hundreds of thousands -- millions perhaps --
from a minority who believed they were entering an honest, mutually
beneficial arrangement with the federation. So that's democracy eh? As the
Birchers used to say, "Two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner."

How would you feel if USCF took your three-year renewal check and decided,
the next day, that it would stop sending you Chess Life? Or if it

announced
after taking your $135 or whatever that all three-year memberships will be
reduced to one-year memberships? Would you be annoyed, or would you

bravely
assert that the "three year member lobby" was indeed unduly influential

and
deserved to be knocked down a notch?

Please address the last two paragraphs.

Angelo

"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in message
...
In article , Angelo DePalma says...


You're kidding, right? I don't owe the 80,000 anything.


I disagree. Many of these are recurring members just as devoted to

chess.
Why
would you feel that you owe them any less? Many life members (I know

quite a
few) paid for LM because they thought it was a better deal -- not out of

any
special sense to USCF.

Even though I had
nothing to do with this theoretical screwing, I do owe LMs because

their
$$
has been paying for continuing operations from which I've benefitted.


Actually, this statement isn't true. Most of their dollars were

mis-spent
long
ago. Some of them paid amounts that were insufficient to begin with.

Some
allowed (and even encouraged) the mis-spending to occur.

Life members were historically the most politically powerful group in

USCF.
They are, today, THE ONLY group that has not been meaningfully impacted

by
the
financial crisis at USCF. Costs due to bad management has impacted all

groups
EXCEPT them.

Is this right, given their political clout. Shouldn't they have done a

better
job of minding the store?

It's
called morality, solidarity, fraternite', egalite', etcetera-ite'.



It's called sacrificing many for a few. It's called way oversimplifying

a
more
complex issue.


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in message
...
In article , Angelo DePalma

says...


Seriously, even I would consider quitting if the LMs got screwed.

adp

Interesting. What about the matter of honor to the 80,000+ members

who
are not
life members?


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in

message
...
In article , Angelo DePalma

says...


As a matter of honor USCF politicos should respect the letter and
spirit
of
their agreements with life members, even to the point of killing

the
federation.

You did mean this as a joke, right?

Kevin L. Bachler

Kevin L. Bachler




Kevin L. Bachler





  #4   Report Post  
Old March 4th 04, 04:48 PM
sandirhodes
 
Posts: n/a
Default Obligations to LMs -- a primer in morality


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote:
Life members should share the financial burden of bad management just like all
other members. At least $9 annual of the current membership dues is
attributable to this. Why not charge them $9 annually, or the MA NPV of $9?


I can see it now. For 10x the life member surcharge, plus a fee, you too can be a super-life member.

Life members are members for life. Period. Oh wait -- integrity in the USCF??


  #5   Report Post  
Old March 4th 04, 05:13 PM
Kevin L. Bachler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Obligations to LMs -- a primer in morality

In article [email protected], sandirhodes says...


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote:
Life members should share the financial burden of bad management just like all
other members. At least $9 annual of the current membership dues is
attributable to this. Why not charge them $9 annually, or the MA NPV of $9?


I can see it now. For 10x the life member surcharge, plus a fee, you too can be
a super-life member.

Life members are members for life. Period. Oh wait -- integrity in the USCF??


Sorry, life members are not members for life, period. If the org goes down,
their membership goes down with everyone else's -- only they have even more to
lose.

There's integrity. Then there's stupidity.

More importantly, how about fairness? Why is this the only group that isn't
bearing any burden of mismanagement, especially when they were the group most
capable of doing something about it?

Kevin L. Bachler



  #6   Report Post  
Old March 4th 04, 06:03 PM
Angelo DePalma
 
Posts: n/a
Default Obligations to LMs -- a primer in morality


Whether LMs were overpriced or underpriced is irrelevant. A deal is a deal.

The difference between what LMs lose and what non-LMs lose by USCF going
under is huge. My $49 "deal" is I'll be a member for a year. Their deal is
they would be members for life. If USCF goes under I lose a prorated portion
of $49; they lose hundreds.

I doubt that all 10,000 LMs are board members. The fact that I didn't take a
life membership (is it too late? Hahaahahaha) and they did morally neutral.
According to you LMs "knew" something and are now trying to stick us on
account of it.


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote

MIS-SPENDING means the actions were UNREASONABLE. And to spread the cost

of
these misactions among all members EXCEPT life members, WHEN LIFE MEMBERS

WERE
THE PRIMARY VOTING GROUP is UNREASONABLE morality.


Kevin, the statement "most voting members were LMs," which was true, is not
equivalent to "LMs were the primary voting group," which is false. John is a
man does not equal "All men are John."


And again, it does, because it isn't the level of planning that was

implicitly
agreed to by all. There are assumptions in determining the cost.


Have you been speaking with RGCP conspiracy theorists? What you're saying is
that LMs took over USCF, and then made decisions which they knew were awful
because they knew they'd be insulated from the effects.

If you really believe that, how can you remain a member?

we don't even need to make the point that they were at fault, it is simply

clear
that they were NO LESS AT FAULT than other members, and so should bear NO

LESS OF THE BURDEN.

Not when they can vote on their own dues, it's not. It's dangerously

close to
self-dealing.


Again, just because all voting members were LMs doesn't mean all LMs voted.

Less than pleased. I expect the life members to be less than pleased.

The
emotional reaction doesn't determine whether something is right or wrong.


It's not an emotional reaction, it's fraud.


If you run USCF into the ground in order to live up to the deal with the

LM's (a
deal that is already broken)what have you done for the LM's?



after taking your $135 or whatever that all three-year memberships will

be
reduced to one-year memberships? Would you be annoyed, or would you

bravely
assert that the "three year member lobby" was indeed unduly influential

and
deserved to be knocked down a notch?


Of course I would be annoyed. That doesn't make it right.

Life members should share the financial burden of bad management just like

all
other members. At least $9 annual of the current membership dues is
attributable to this. Why not charge them $9 annually, or the MA NPV of

$9?

Why not simply go where the money is and raise scholastic and junior dues
$5. That should more than take care of the problem.



  #7   Report Post  
Old March 4th 04, 06:26 PM
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Obligations to LMs -- a primer in morality

Kevin L. Bachler writes:

More importantly, how about fairness? Why is this the only group that isn't
bearing any burden of mismanagement, especially when they were the group most
capable of doing something about it?


You say they bear no burden. You're wrong in two respects:

1. They paid more for their life memberships than did any dues paying
member at that time. I agree that life memberships were somewhat
underpriced until a few years ago. but that doesn't change the fact
that I paid TWICE the adult dues rate for 10 years.

2. Someone who purchases a one-year membership has just one year's worth
of services 'at risk' in the event of a reorganization. The Life
Members have many years of future service 'at risk'.
--
Mike Nolan
  #8   Report Post  
Old March 4th 04, 07:15 PM
Kevin L. Bachler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Obligations to LMs -- a primer in morality

In article , Mike Nolan says...

Kevin L. Bachler writes:

More importantly, how about fairness? Why is this the only group that isn't
bearing any burden of mismanagement, especially when they were the group most
capable of doing something about it?


You say they bear no burden. You're wrong in two respects:

1. They paid more for their life memberships than did any dues paying
member at that time. I agree that life memberships were somewhat
underpriced until a few years ago. but that doesn't change the fact
that I paid TWICE the adult dues rate for 10 years.


Sorry Mike, I disagree. They may have paid more in terms of cash flow, but not
in terms of value. The present value of what a life member pays is
theoretically equal to the present value of what a regular member pays under
specific mortality assumptions and discount rate. (If it isn't, it is almost
certainly mispriced.)

Reasonable assumptions are used to calculate this. When unreasonable events
occur, the regular member suffers, the life member does not.

Now, if we want to include a probability factor to allow for the odds that our
guess are bad, and include that in our future pricing, that's fine. But I'd be
highly surprised if such a factor has been included up till now, based on the
costs that one can easily back into (by estimation.)


2. Someone who purchases a one-year membership has just one year's worth
of services 'at risk' in the event of a reorganization. The Life
Members have many years of future service 'at risk'.


Realistically, what is the burden here?

The life members have paid for the burden of reasonable management. They have
not paid for the burden of mismanagement. This may create a bind for them.
Either pay for their share of the burden, or accept the risk that it may cause
insolvency and cause them to lose everything.

The money in the pot isn't their money anymore. Is is worth it to them to keep
USCF afloat or not?

--
Mike Nolan


Kevin L. Bachler

  #9   Report Post  
Old March 4th 04, 07:21 PM
Kevin L. Bachler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Obligations to LMs -- a primer in morality

In article , Angelo DePalma says...


Whether LMs were overpriced or underpriced is irrelevant. A deal is a deal.


It's not irrelevant when they were the primary voters. That's called
self-dealing. It's bad.

The difference between what LMs lose and what non-LMs lose by USCF going
under is huge. My $49 "deal" is I'll be a member for a year. Their deal is
they would be members for life. If USCF goes under I lose a prorated portion
of $49; they lose hundreds.


Seems to me this is an argument for why LM's should throw in more money.


I doubt that all 10,000 LMs are board members.


Didn't argue that they were.

The fact that I didn't take a
life membership (is it too late? Hahaahahaha) and they did morally neutral.


I have no idea what you intended to say with the prior sentence.

According to you LMs "knew" something and are now trying to stick us on
account of it.


No, according to me LM's have AT LEAST as much responsibility as any other
members, therefore they shouldn't have less of the financial burden.

SNIP


Kevin, the statement "most voting members were LMs," which was true, is not
equivalent to "LMs were the primary voting group," which is false.


Sorry, I see the two statements above as both true.

John is a
man does not equal "All men are John."


I don't see these statements as analagous. I did not say ALL LM's were the
primary voting group.


And again, it does, because it isn't the level of planning that was

implicitly
agreed to by all. There are assumptions in determining the cost.


Have you been speaking with RGCP conspiracy theorists? What you're saying is
that LMs took over USCF, and then made decisions which they knew were awful
because they knew they'd be insulated from the effects.


It doesn't take a conspiracy to act in self interest. People do that naturally.


If you really believe that, how can you remain a member?


Because I care about having a US governing body of chess.


we don't even need to make the point that they were at fault, it is simply

clear
that they were NO LESS AT FAULT than other members, and so should bear NO

LESS OF THE BURDEN.

Not when they can vote on their own dues, it's not. It's dangerously

close to
self-dealing.


Again, just because all voting members were LMs doesn't mean all LMs voted.


Where did I say all LM's voted. Stop adding words.


Less than pleased. I expect the life members to be less than pleased.

The
emotional reaction doesn't determine whether something is right or wrong.


It's not an emotional reaction, it's fraud.


If you run USCF into the ground in order to live up to the deal with the

LM's (a
deal that is already broken)what have you done for the LM's?



after taking your $135 or whatever that all three-year memberships will

be
reduced to one-year memberships? Would you be annoyed, or would you

bravely
assert that the "three year member lobby" was indeed unduly influential

and
deserved to be knocked down a notch?


Of course I would be annoyed. That doesn't make it right.

Life members should share the financial burden of bad management just like

all
other members. At least $9 annual of the current membership dues is
attributable to this. Why not charge them $9 annually, or the MA NPV of

$9?

Why not simply go where the money is and raise scholastic and junior dues
$5. That should more than take care of the problem.


Maybe because we already have? Maybe because they had nothing to do with the
burden and that seems even more morally suspect? Maybe because their is already
some price sensitivity showing? Maybe because this policy decision doesn't make
sense?

Kevin L. Bachler

  #10   Report Post  
Old March 4th 04, 08:33 PM
sandirhodes
 
Posts: n/a
Default Obligations to LMs -- a primer in morality


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote
sandirhodes says...
"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote:
Life members should share the financial burden of bad management just like all
other members. At least $9 annual of the current membership dues is
attributable to this. Why not charge them $9 annually, or the MA NPV of $9?


I can see it now. For 10x the life member surcharge, plus a fee, you too can be
a super-life member.
Life members are members for life. Period. Oh wait -- integrity in the USCF??


Sorry, life members are not members for life, period.


OK, Life Members are Life Members for the life of the Organization, or until they die (sometimes longer, LOL!). Period.

If the org goes down,
their membership goes down with everyone else's -- only they have even more to
lose.


If the Organization dies, then it dies. Life Memberships as well. You may find a high percentage of life members not caring
anymore.


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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 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