On the USCF Issues Forum, Reasonable Limits Should be Placed on attacks by Particular Posters on Particular Candidates

[samsloan]

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

[samsloan]

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

[samsloan]

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

[samsloan]

Post by samsloan
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="Harry Payne"]I can testify, all of this is, in fact accurate.
And she did actively work against the USCF's official position. I
considered voting for Beatriz, but then did some thinking back, and
decided perhaps not.[/quote]

How can you testify that anything is accurate? You know nothing about
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