The USCF Board At Work

The Executive Board has been discussing the USCF Issues Forum for the past
several days.

Joel Channing moved:

We instruct the ED to instruct the moderators to strictly enforce the USCF
Issues Forum guidelines, prohibit criticism of sponsors and allow only
polite criticism of sponsorship deals.

After further discussion, Bill Goichberg moved the following substitute
motion:

The Executive Board calls for strict enforcement of the USCF Issues Forum
guidelines.

The substitute motion passed 6-0 with Bauer abstaining.

Bill Goichberg





If I expressed what I felt about this proposal I'd probably violate the
guidelines.





Regardless of whatever hopes or expectations the various Executive Board
members might have, the administration of these forums is going through an
evolution that can be guided, but not ramrodded.

The complexity of the multiple layers of control and policy making has
perhaps caused this evolution to take longer and to be more painful than if
experienced individuals simply undertook to do the job directly, but the
forums are steadily moving in the direction of better policies and simpler
procedures, as well as (by a sometimes excruciating process of elimination)
toward a capable staff of volunteers.

There is still further to go. If the simple solution of cloning Duncan Oxley
(moderator 3) was available, we'd be just about there already, but it's not
that easy. A number of very committed, very well-meaning, and very capable
people have found that due to circumstances beyond their control, they were
unable to do what Duncan and people like him are able to do for the rest of
us.

In the mean time, the signal to noise ratio here has generally improved, and
real issues are being discussed, to the obvious benefit of the organization.

The EB ought to realize that sponsors - like everything else - will be just
as fair game here as they are in American society at large. Just look at the
current litigation that Yahoo! is embroiled in over their cooperation with
the Chinese government, and you can see that one of the great things about
being American is being able to raise serious societal issues no matter how
inconvenient to commerce. Just one generation ago, this debate might have
centered over, say, sending US players to then-apartheid South Africa. If,
for example, USCF was being courted by a company that members have serious
misgivings about, then should we really NOT be allowed to be critical?

It's too easy to say "we can't do business if our members are allowed to
criticise us." But by that logic, how is it possible that the US is able to
have allies - after all, look at the virulent criticism of our government by
our own citizens on a wide range of issues. Or perhaps the real reason we
have allies as a nation is simply thanks due to our strong military?
(Hmmm...maybe USCF simply needs its own army.)

We should, though, be able to engage in robust civil discourse. And over
time, we'll keep improving. The new forum software may have a few features
to help along the way, too. But these things will take time and patience.
_________________
Hal Bogner
hal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ChessMagnetSchool.com





Generally, I am happy to see this. But, if this is to be done, I believe two
additional steps should be taken:

1. The AUGs have had addendums and clarifying statements posted. Instead, it
is time to restate the AUGs to incorporate these statements.

2. Generally, the AUGs are primarily lists of do's and don'ts. They don't
include a general principle of what is acceptable. I therefore believe that
the following should also be incorporated into the AUG's:

lso, is it clear that after some period of time (TBD) that a post is
considered OK? That is, if FOC/Moderators don't challenge it within a period
of time, or a complaint isn't filed within a period of time, that a post is
simply accepted permanently? We shouldn't have to be concerned that posts,
which are essentially permanent, might be challenged and lead to penalties
at some future point in time.
_________________
Caveman chess is chess without finesse.

Kevin Bachler



How is this different than what we have now? If there are any posts that
members of the EB think should have been treated differently, did they
exercise their options (available to them just like all other members) of
filing a complaint or mentioning it to a moderator? We're trying to enforce
the AUG, but if we're failing in some way then couldn't they be more
specific?

It's nice to know that the EB is doing so much for the membership -- maybe
they should pass a motion that tournament directors are expected to strictly
enforce the rules of chess? How about a motion that tournament reports are
to be used to update ratings?

Unless they give more detailed guidance than this, what exactly do they
expect? Is this just an excuse so that they can later say "we told you to
enforce the rules so now that we have to shut down the forums, it's not our
fault"?

Might I respectfully suggest that this isn't exactly the level of leadership
we should be able to expect from the EB?
_________________



There's not a single provision of the AUG that is unambiguous. Not a single
one. Therefore I don't really know what "strict" means. This isn't just
(dare I say it) sophistry. I really won't know how to decide many cases in
the context of this new guidance, but I'll do my best and I'm sure my
colleagues will as well.

I guess the EB is asking for a less permissive interpretation of the AUG. I
would ask everyone: think about the content of what you want to say, and say
it in the simplest way possible. I've seen so many otherwise acceptable
posts removed because of a single totally unnecessary word.

Having had some experience now on a USCF committee, I have seen compromise
in action, and I understand that ambiguity is often the way to get something
passed. Furthermore, this is hardly an issue that lends itself to clarity,
another thing that has become all too clear to me, as we attempt to maintain
not a consistent "line", but a consistent multidimensional surface bounding
what we consider acceptable. That boundary will get pulled in a bit now, I
suppose, but there's almost always a way to make your point within the
rules. I firmly believe that.



Joel Channing apparently has lost his ability to understand and work with
this forum.

One year ago, Joel was a poster here and had no problem communicating his
like and dislike of others. He also posted things about the finance
committee that he was the leader.

In January of this year when Donna Alarie, Sam Sloan, myself and others
questioned and challenged the financial operations and reporting. Joel
labeled Donna as a negative, sensationalist, not a team player,... He
accused me of attacking needlessly or being overly critical of the financial
situation and operations. Even though we discussed our concerns and
viewpoints with detailed discussions, Joel simply labeled us as generalist
naysayers and the like. Unfortunately for him, his situation was not tenable
and he found himself in a losing battle of a debate on a few fronts. This is
when he effectively quit posting here saying the forum should be shut down.

Seeing that he lost that argument as well, Joel now attempts to strongly
control and curtail the topic of discussions on this forum. This seems
natural in that since he lost his battle to shut the place down, he now
wants to effectively mute us from discussing things he doesn't want to
confront in public regarding our organization.

Bill Goichberg appears to have attempted to assuage Joel by changing the
wording. As tanstaafl so adroitly pointed out, Bill's rewording is nothing
more than a restatement of the way things are supposed to happen anyway. I
think this could come under the term, politics.

The discussion regarding this forum and the contents of it putting off
prospective and present sponsors from supporting our group is specious at
best. If AF4C did indeed stop their support because Sam posted, for all to
see, how their domain name (or something close to it) was connected to a
pornographic depicting site. their commitment was not good anyway. That
shows at best they were leaning against supporting the USCF anyway, if not
having decided against it and used this as a handy excuse.

Realize that Sam's infamous post was pulled quite quickly. If they were
protesting because Sam was a member of the EB, well he is not now. If they
were upset because Sam had posted this on rgcp and other places on the web,
oh well. They obviously need to lighten their sensitivity to such things as
we have no control on those places.

So, our forum will go on. We will have discourse regarding issues of chess
and the administration and operation of its activities. It will be
moderated. And if certain individuals don't like it, they can simply stay
away.

As a post note, I have been accused of being hard on Joel Channing.
Understand dear folk that I do not think ill of this gentleman. I do think
that as a member of the EB, he should take more responsibility for having
our organization run correctly. His record has not been stellar. He was a
proponent of the great $10,000 + retreat that we have nothing to show for
the money spent, except the participants had a nice and enriching time. He
also was at the helm when our financial reporting was either late or
non-existent, chronically. He has shown success in his life as a private
business man. That is nice. Now, he should make the USCF a better place too.
_________________
....from the Middle,

Ron Suarez



Finally.

Moderate from the AUG... what a concept. When we stopped this practice; I
resigned.

If people are upset, I can't blame them. Change is hard and it takes time to
adjust to the new rules. Election season, or not; the rules of the game
should never have should changed. However, if applied evenly; I believe that
we are all intelligent enough to adjust as long as there are no further
changes. I just hope that the FOC and the moderators are given firm
instructions as well as the support that they will need. Forgive my sarcasm;
but I will wait and see if the last two points are heeded by the ED and EB.

I really do hope that the leadership of the USCF is able to support their
volunteers better. The turnover of the moderators and FOC members only show
what a difficult and thankless job that the leadership makes it out to be. I
hope changes are made in this area and moderating from the AUG is abided by;
and allowed.

Just my formerly frustrated take,
_________________
Gregory Alexander
www.collegechess.org



Does this motion entail that it is USCF policy to actively support the
Moderators as they deal with members who intimidate or threaten them, either
verbally or through cleverly written legal documents? These threats need not
even violate the AUGs as they may occur through communications outside of
these Forums.

If the USCF Executive Board is prepared to suspend USCF members who have
developed a history of interfering with volunteer Moderators, then I applaud
the new Board. Otherwise the motion above is merely empty rhetoric to
enforce rules that the Moderators have already been trying (with difficulty)
to enforce.

My resignation as Moderator was in part (but not entirely) a consequence of
the failure by the Executive Director and the previous Executive Board to
respond to such intimidation or threats.

Michael Aigner
formerly Moderator4
ICC administrator (2000-present)



We have responses from four current or former members of the FOC/Moderation
team that are consistently dissatisfied with the motion and the substitute
motion that passed. Add me as a fourth. I believe David, Ron, Michael, and
Rodney have hit the highlights and I fully support their statements.

I would only add that it is well past time for the Executive Board to ***
out of the moderation of this forum and for the Executive Director to
actively provide guidance and then get the heck out of the way.



I find it tragic that the EB can spend it's energy entertaining and debating
a motion such as this by Mr. Channing. A week ago, I politely invited to the
members of the EB to tell the membership what they were doing to to develop
the USCF so that the members might offer assistance in those endeavors. Not
one EB member responded. Perhaps they didn't respond because they were too
busy debating Mr. Channing's motion.

I respectfully suggest that the membership will be better served if the EB
spends more of its time developing a strategic plan for the USCF and far
less time on what are, IMO, frivolous, time wasting motions such as the one
proposed by Mr. Channing.
_________________
It would be so nice if something would make sense for a change.---Alice




.