Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

Main

Date: 05 May 2008 07:19:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

[quote="tsawmiller"][quote="tanstaafl"]From another thread:
[quote="tsawmiller"][quote="Moderator2"][quote="tanstaafl"]Isn't it
about time Mr. Sloan started receiving harsher penalties than having
an occasional post deleted????[/quote]

[b]Yes. [/b]
[/quote]

The moderator should not be posting opinions in the role of moderator.
[/quote]IMHO, it is quite proper for a moderator to post an opinion
ABOUT forum moderation. If the moderators don't make such statements
then we don't have a chance to disagree (or agree, in this case, just
speaking for myself) with how he's making his decisions.[/quote]
This was not an opinion about forum moderation.
It was an opinion about a specific person.
That is improper for a moderator to post.[/quote]

Here is an example of the improprieties of Forum Moderation.

This was posted in February 2007 at a time when I was both a member of
the board and a candidate for re-election.

One forum moderator, Tanstaafl, who we now know to be Herbert Rodney
Vaughn, and who filed a 400 page ethics complaint against me in color
(at USCF Expense) advocates that I should be permanently banned from
posting to the USCF Issues Forum.

tsawmiller agrees here and in other places that I should be banned
from posting.

Remember that I was elected to the board, elected by the USCF
Membership.

Later, Bill Hall appointed Tanstaafl and tsawmiller as Forum
Moderators. They were not yet moderators at the time of these
postings.

It is obvious that they were appointed as moderators as a reward for
advocating that I be banned from posting because Bill Hall along with
Joel Channing wanted me banned.

Note that even though I have filed a federal lawsuit over this, Vaughn
and Sawmiller continue to be moderators. The fact that Bill Hall keeps
Vaughn and Sawmiller as forum moderators even though for the last 7
months the USCF has been under a federal lawsuit for this is enough
reason alone to fire Bill Hall.

Sam Sloan

Date: 06 May 2008 06:00:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On May 5, 5:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
> They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.

My exact point was that Democracy was not allowed to work because
during the election period this group rec.games.chess.politics was so
filled with postings by the Fake Sam Sloan that is was difficult to
get through this junk and find anything else. On the text based Google
version of this group, there is space for 30 threads. Typically, all
30 threads would be topped with articles by the Fake Sam Sloan. It
would say Sam Sloan Sam Sloan Sam Sloan all the way down to the bottom
of the author's column.

To get to read something else, most serious voters went over to the
USCF Issues Forum. That Forum was controlled by moderators who were
fanatical Polgaristas and Polgarites who had been appointed by USCF
President Bill Goichberg and USCF Executive Director Bill Hall to get
Polgar elected. Nothing negative about Polgar or Truong was allowed to
be said on the USCF Issues Forum.

In view of the developments since the election, the situation has
changed. The only supporter of Polgar and Truong left on the USCF
Issues Forum as far as I know is Mark Nibbelin. Gregory Alexander who
was the most rabid supporter of Polgar and Truong has been suspended
due to his attacks on other posters.

Almost all of the people who previously supported Polgar and Truong no
longer support them.

If the election were held today, Truong would definitely not be
elected. He would not get much more than two votes. Polgar might get
elected due to her star status but even this is by no means certain.

This is not by any means to say that I would be elected. I would
probably not be elected. However, I will run if there is another
election anyway. The reality is that these constant attacks have not
helped my reputation.

There is also some doubt that Goichberg would be elected if he had to
run again. Certainly his performance on the USCF Board and as USCF
President has been poor.

Perhaps some new person, somebody we do not know about now, would run
and be elected.

Sam Sloan

Date: 06 May 2008 05:08:42
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On May 6, 6:50 am, [email protected] wrote:

> Stick to cycling. That end of your anatomy seems more intellectually
> competent.

I wish both Judge Lafferty and Mr. Hillery would learn to trim posts.
Even a lawyer should be able to handle that task.

Date: 06 May 2008 04:50:34
From:
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

Brian Lafferty wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Brian Lafferty wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> samsloan wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is nothin=
g
> >>>> wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary
> >>>> not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
> >>>> rules. You just make this stuff up.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Eric,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obviously=

> >>>> know nothing about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
> >>>> thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and=

> >>>> Truong was deleted.
> >>>>
> >>>> We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of the=
m
> >>>> were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more
> >>>> active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
> >>>> protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
> >>>> unknown.
> >>>>
> >>>> Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
> >>>> complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
> >>>> Sawmiller were appointed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or FO=
C
> >>>> that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by the
> >>>> moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
> >>>> Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the
> >>>> light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notable=

> >>>> examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
> >>>> Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.
> >>>>
> >>>> This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
> >>>> Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators
> >>>> often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
> >>>> situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle
> >>>> tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
> >>>> moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over the=

> >>>> moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
> >>>> FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
> >>>> accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-ups=
.
> >>>> So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
> >>>> away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
> >>>> the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.
> >>>>
> >>>> All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
> >>>> there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, al=
l
> >>>> of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily enoug=
h
> >>>> to swing the election.
> >>>>
> >>>> Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politicall=
y
> >>>> independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
> >>>> Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and
> >>>> Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I believe=

> >>>> that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying
> >>>> the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
> >>>> about this.
> >>>>
> >>>> In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
> >>>> including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be said
> >>>> that this was a fairly conducted election.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sam Sloan
> >>>
> >>> Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A: See
> >>> above.
> >>>
> >>> Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
> >>> They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.
> >> Well, John, if you say so it must be true. I'm still waiting for the
> >> citation supporting your first amendment interpretation regarding
> >> harassment. When can I expect you to provide it? Thanks!
> >
> > Brian, if you are honestly asking for a citation of Volokh's comments
> > on this (I find it hard to assume good faith on your part, but with a
> > Herculean effort I suppose I can manage it), here it is. Of course he
> > could be wrong. But I rather suspect he knows more about the subject
> > than I ... or you. (Sorry, bolding in the original won't transfer.
> > Original is here: http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1136873535.shtml
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> >
> > [Eugene Volokh, January 10, 2006 at 3:07pm] 58 Trackbacks / Possibly
> > More Trackbacks
> > Annoying Anonymous Speech Online:
> >
> > People are troubled by a just-enacted statute that extends part of
> > telephone harassment law to the Internet. I think they're right to be
> > troubled by it, and here's why.
> >
> > First, the statute, with deletions marked by strikeouts and insertions
> > marked by underlines:
> >
> > 47 U.S.C. =EF=BF=BD 223(a)(1)(C): Whoever ... in interstate or forei=
gn
> > communications ... makes a telephone call or utilizes a
> > telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or
> > communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent
> > to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number
> > or who receives the communications....
> >
> > (h)(1) The use of the term =EF=BF=BDtelecommunications device=EF=BF=
=BD in this
> > section --
> > (A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station
> > licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency
> > provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
> > (B) does not include an interactive computer service [=3D any
> > information service, system, or access software provider that provides
> > or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server,
> > including specifically a service or system that provides access to the
> > Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or
> > educational institutions].; and
> > (C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes
> > any device or software that can be used to originate
> > telecommunications or other types of communications that are
> > transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet ....
> >
> > What does this practically mean?
> >
> > 1. This potentially criminalizes any anonymous speech on a Web site
> > that's intended to annoy at least some readers, even if it's also
> > intended to inform other readers. This is true whether the poster is
> > berating a government official, a religious figure, a company that he
> > thinks provides bad service, an academic who he thinks is doing or
> > saying something misguided, a sports figure who he thinks is
> > misbehaving, or what have you; so long as he's trying to annoy any
> > recipient (whether the target, if the poster thinks the target is
> > reading the blog, or the target's partisans or fans).
> >
> > 2. How is this different from traditional telephone harassment law?
> > The trouble is that the change extends traditional telephone
> > harassment law from a basically one-to-one medium (phone calls) to
> > include a one-to-many medium (Web sites).
> >
> > This is a big change. One-to-one speech that's intended to annoy the
> > one recipient is rarely of very much First Amendment value; people are
> > just rarely persuaded or enlightened by speech that's intended to
> > annoy them. It has some value (see item 3 below), but to the extent
> > that it's in some measure deterred, the loss to public debate isn't
> > that great =EF=BF=BD speakers are still free to speak to others besides =
the
> > person they're trying to annoy.
> >
> > But one-to-many speech that is intended to annoy one or a few readers,
> > but intended and likely to enlighten or persuade many other readers,
> > is potentially much more valuable. Juan might think that the target of
> > the speech deserves to be berated for his misconduct, and that the
> > target's supporters deserve to be berated for siding with the target;
> > but Juan might also want the rest of the public to hear about the
> > target's misbehavior, and to be persuaded to think less of the target,
> > or to act differently themselves.
> >
> > Though the desire to annoy may sometimes be petty (and I'm using Juan
> > just because Juan is our one anonymous coblogger here, not because
> > Juan generally tries to annoy people!), it shouldn't strip the speech
> > of constitutional protection. "[I]n the world of debate about public
> > affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable
> > are protected by the First Amendment.... [E]ven when a speaker or
> > writer is motivated by hatred or ill will his expression was protected
> > by the First Amendment ...." And the same is true, I think, in
> > discussion of consumer matters, of religion, of sports, and of other
> > things, not just public affairs.
> >
> > 3. Orin suggests that this isn't a problem, because even traditional
> > telephone harassment law has already been limited to exclude "speech
> > [that] is protected by the First Amendment." Orin cites United States
> > v. Popa, a case that set aside as unconstitutional a conviction of Ion
> > Popa, who made several racist calls to the U.S. Attorney for the
> > District of Columbia (the chief federal prosecutor in the District).
> > The trouble, though, is that it's far from clear just what speech Popa
> > protects.
> >
> > A. One possible interpretation of Popa is that it bars telephone
> > harassment prosecution when the "speech is protected by the First
> > Amendment." At some level, that's almost tautological =EF=BF=BD of cours=
e when
> > the speech is protected by the First Amendment, the First Amendment
> > prohibits prosecution for that speech. But it also returns us to the
> > underlying question: When is speech that's intended to annoy the
> > recipient protected by the First Amendment? If someone calls not a
> > prosecutor but a law professor and leaves an anonymous deliberately
> > annoying racist message, is that protected? What if he calls a law
> > student with such a message? What if he posts an anonymous blog post
> > that says this? The poster would have little guidance about what he
> > may or may not say.
> >
> > Of course, when prosecuted, the speaker can say "my speech is
> > protected by the First Amendment." But given that the statute draws no
> > distinction between what constitutes protected annoying anonymous
> > speech and what constitutes unprotected annoying anonymous speech, the
> > speaker doesn't know what he may safely say, and the prosecutor
> > doesn't have much guidance about what he should prosecute. It's as if
> > Congress enacted a whole bunch of speech restrictions but tacked on an
> > "except if the First Amendment prohibits this" to them. The result
> > would be speech restrictions that are technically not overbroad (since
> > by their terms they don't bar First-Amendment-protected speech), but
> > that are practically too vague, since they provide little guidance to
> > people about what they may say.
> >
> > B. Another possible view is that the telephone harassment statute bars
> > any prosecution for speech unless the speech falls within the
> > traditional First Amendment exceptions, such as threats, obscenity
> > (which means hard-core pornography), false statements of fact,
> > fighting words, and the like. These exceptions are at least tolerably
> > well-defined, and all of us already generally have to avoid speech
> > that falls within these exceptions (since the federal and state
> > governments have taken advantage of most of these exceptions to in
> > fact outlaw or at least make tortious speech that fits in the
> > exceptions).
> >
> > But if that's the interpretation of Popa, then most garden-variety
> > telephone harassment, of the sort that most people assume is fully
> > prosecutable, would be unpunishable. Calling someone anonymously
> > simply to insult them wouldn't be covered (such insults don't fit
> > within the "fighting words" exception, since the anonymity and
> > distance of the speaker makes it unlikely that the speech will start a
> > fight). Likewise for calling someone to make an indecent suggestion,
> > except when the suggestion is an actual threat of violence or is so
> > sexually explicit as to be obscene (which is a pretty high threshold
> > to meet). The very premise of telephone harassment law, as it's
> > generally understood, is that some such speech =EF=BF=BD while protected=
in
> > many media =EF=BF=BD is unprotected when said with the intent to annoy (=
and
> > perhaps said to a particular person). Harassment law thus rests on the
> > theory that there should be a new First Amendment exception recognized
> > for "telephone harassment" that goes beyond just threats, fighting
> > words, and the like. So the "speech is protected unless it's threats,
> > fighting words, obscenity, incitement, or false statements of fact"
> > theory is thus almost certainly not what Congress has had in mind, and
> > is unlikely to be adopted by the courts.
> >
> > C. Popa can easily be read, I think, as holding that speech that's
> > "intend[ed] in part to communicate a political message" is protected
> > from punishment by the statute. But it's far from clear that this
> > would protect speech on a Web site that's intended to communicate a
> > message about some company's allegedly mistreatment of its consumers,
> > that's intended to criticize the performance of a sports figure,
> > that's intended to express an annoying view about theology, or
> > whatever else. What's more, it's often not easy to tell exactly what's
> > a "political" message and what's not. The court in Popa held that
> > racist insults of a high-level official are political. What about
> > speech that criticizes law professors (whether racist speech, speech
> > that casts aspersions on their intellect or teaching ability, or what
> > have you)? What about speech that criticizes a particular student in
> > racist terms, but implicitly conveys a message about school
> > admissions? (Not that I would endorse such speech, of course; I just
> > think that (a) it ought to be constitutionally protected, when posted
> > on a Web site, even if it's intended to annoy, and (b) there's likely
> > to be controversy about whether it's political.)
> >
> > D. Finally, Popa can also be read as holding that speech is protected
> > from the statute when the speaker "intend[ed] to engage in public or
> > political discourse." "Public discourse" is broader than just
> > "political message," and would certainly include religion and probably
> > consumer matters involving large businesses and the like. But it too
> > is a pretty vague term. Is publicly distributed personal criticism of
> > a particular professional's skills, for instance, a lawyer's or a
> > professor's, "public discourse"? There's no well-established First
> > Amendment test for this, and the Court's use of the related term
> > "public concern" has proven to be unpredictable and, I think, often
> > misguided (see Part V.B of this article, starting with PDF page 46).
> >
> > So on balance I think the extension of the telephone harassment
> > statute to the Web is a mistake. The statute already has problems, and
> > the extension risks substantially exacerbating those problems, by
> > potentially covering one-to-many annoying Web speech as well as the
> > somewhat less valuable one-to-one annoying telephone calls.
>
> LOL. Mr. V. conflates annoyance to harassment. Wrong. Sounds good in a
> forum such as the one he posted to for general consumption by aging,
> budding legal beagles such as you. Annoying behavior does not
> necessarily rise to harassment, civil or criminal. There's a reason the
> statute uses the word harassment, not annoyance.
>
> Now, provide a citation to a scholarly work by Mr. V. in which he makes
> this argument.

You're really getting desperate, Brian. I know you find it painful to
have to back down (though you should be used to it by now). But since
you are so ready yourself to argue credentialism, don't you think a
UCLA law professor specializing in the 1st Amendment probably knows
more about the subject than a two-bit former lawyer from New York? If
you want to try to make new case law on this, go ahead. I note that
your threat to get a U.S. Attorney to file charges against Truong has
proved as exiguous as I expected.

Stick to cycling. That end of your anatomy seems more intellectually
competent.

Date: 06 May 2008 12:40:21
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

[email protected] wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So on balance I think the extension of the telephone harassment
>>> statute to the Web is a mistake. The statute already has problems, and
>>> the extension risks substantially exacerbating those problems, by
>>> potentially covering one-to-many annoying Web speech as well as the
>>> somewhat less valuable one-to-one annoying telephone calls.
>> LOL. Mr. V. conflates annoyance to harassment. Wrong. Sounds good in a
>> forum such as the one he posted to for general consumption by aging,
>> budding legal beagles such as you. Annoying behavior does not
>> necessarily rise to harassment, civil or criminal. There's a reason the
>> statute uses the word harassment, not annoyance.
>>
>> Now, provide a citation to a scholarly work by Mr. V. in which he makes
>> this argument.
>
>
> You're really getting desperate, Brian. I know you find it painful to
> have to back down (though you should be used to it by now). But since
> you are so ready yourself to argue credentialism, don't you think a
> UCLA law professor specializing in the 1st Amendment probably knows
> more about the subject than a two-bit former lawyer from New York? If
> you want to try to make new case law on this, go ahead. I note that
> your threat to get a U.S. Attorney to file charges against Truong has
> proved as exiguous as I expected.
>
> Stick to cycling. That end of your anatomy seems more intellectually
> competent.

ROTFL! John, do you understand the difference between annoying actions
(such as speech) and criminal harassment? They are quite different. I
suspect that Mr. V. understands this. I've looked a several of his
published law review articles and do not see where, in any of those
articles which are effectively peer reviewed, he equates annoyance
speech with actions that are criminally harassing. Perhaps he has made
that argument, with citations to case law and or other statutes, but I
haven't seen it. Do you have a citation for that?

BTW, this is not about credentialism(sic). This is about supporting
one's legal argument. If we were to merely rely on credentialism(sic),
you'd be nothing more than the aging poser that you are, absent a law
degree.

Date: 05 May 2008 21:37:22
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Eric Schiller
<[email protected] > wrote:

What is best about the Trusted Users at Kos is that it is not
selected by politicians. There is an automated system that is very
hard to hack. The system keeps track of how your posts are received
and your activity, and awards TU when you have enough positive =93mojo=94.
You lose mojo when others recommend your comment be hidden. But it is
about the comment, not the poster. You must not recommend hiding just
because you dislike the author. That is the responsibility of TUs. TU
status comes and goes. I usually have it but if I don=92t do a good
diary regularly I lose it for a bit, then regain it.

So, if someone with TU status regularly recommended hiding your
comments, they would lose TU status automatically.

It is an amazingly good system, built in response to user
comments. I don=92t get any sense of =93community=94 at USCF forums.
=93Kosmopolitans=94 (Or =93Kossacks=94) take it seriously and when things ar=
e
wrong, diarists weigh in.

Kos has about 200,000 members and a huge daily readership. It is
among the top 4000 websites in the world.

Eric

Thank you again. We have an applicable situation. John Hillery of Los
Angeles attacks every single thing that I write. He has been doing
this for about the past five years. He is doing this again today on
this thread.

His case is a little different than that of people like Herbert Vaughn
and Gregory Alexander. Hillery does not attack me because he favors
another candidate. He does not like Polgar and Truong very much
either, although he does not attack them openly very often.

There should be some mechanism to slow down or control someone who
always just attacks something because of who wrote it rather than what
it says.

Sounds like you have actually been reading the Forum although you
never post there.

The immediate issue is that Bill Hall virtually waved a red flag in
front of a bull or put up a target sign saying "sue me" when he
allowed Herbert Rodney Vaughn to camp out in the USCF's office in
Crossville Tennessee for a week putting together a 400 page Ethics
Complaint with color copies against me and then made this same person
a moderator of the USCF Issues Forum knowing that his entire purpose
in wanting to be a moderator was to remove my postings.

Bill Hall obviously has extremely poor judgment in doing all this plus
the board has extremely poor judgment in keeping Bill Hall as
executive director, especially when the fiscal year is about to end on
May 30 and the USCF will have experienced another loss of about
$300,000.

Sam Sloan

Date: 05 May 2008 21:35:17
From:
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

Brian Lafferty wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > samsloan wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is nothing
> >> wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary
> >> not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
> >> rules. You just make this stuff up.
> >>
> >>
> >> Eric,
> >>
> >>
> >> I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obviously
> >> know nothing about it.
> >>
> >> During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
> >> thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and
> >> Truong was deleted.
> >>
> >> We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of them
> >> were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more
> >> active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
> >> protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
> >> unknown.
> >>
> >> Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
> >> complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
> >> Sawmiller were appointed.
> >>
> >> Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or FOC
> >> that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by the
> >> moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
> >> Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the
> >> light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notable
> >> examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
> >> Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.
> >>
> >> This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
> >> Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators
> >> often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
> >> situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle
> >> tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
> >> moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over the
> >> moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
> >> FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
> >> accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-ups.
> >> So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
> >> away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
> >> the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.
> >>
> >> All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
> >> there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, all
> >> of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily enough
> >> to swing the election.
> >>
> >> Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politically
> >> independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
> >> Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and
> >> Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I believe
> >> that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying
> >> the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
> >> about this.
> >>
> >> In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
> >> including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be said
> >> that this was a fairly conducted election.
> >>
> >> Sam Sloan
> >
> >
> > Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A: See
> > above.
> >
> > Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
> > They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.
>
> Well, John, if you say so it must be true. I'm still waiting for the
> citation supporting your first amendment interpretation regarding
> harassment. When can I expect you to provide it? Thanks!

Brian, if you are honestly asking for a citation of Volokh's comments
on this (I find it hard to assume good faith on your part, but with a
Herculean effort I suppose I can manage it), here it is. Of course he
could be wrong. But I rather suspect he knows more about the subject
than I ... or you. (Sorry, bolding in the original won't transfer.
Original is here: http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1136873535.shtml

______________________________________________________________

[Eugene Volokh, January 10, 2006 at 3:07pm] 58 Trackbacks / Possibly
More Trackbacks
Annoying Anonymous Speech Online:

People are troubled by a just-enacted statute that extends part of
telephone harassment law to the Internet. I think they're right to be
troubled by it, and here's why.

First, the statute, with deletions marked by strikeouts and insertions
marked by underlines:

47 U.S.C. =A7 223(a)(1)(C): Whoever ... in interstate or foreign
communications ... makes a telephone call or utilizes a
telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or
communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent
to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number
or who receives the communications....

(h)(1) The use of the term =93telecommunications device=94 in this
section --
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station
licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency
provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service [=3D any
information service, system, or access software provider that provides
or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server,
including specifically a service or system that provides access to the
Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or
educational institutions].; and
(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes
any device or software that can be used to originate
telecommunications or other types of communications that are
transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet ....

What does this practically mean?

1. This potentially criminalizes any anonymous speech on a Web site
that's intended to annoy at least some readers, even if it's also
intended to inform other readers. This is true whether the poster is
berating a government official, a religious figure, a company that he
thinks provides bad service, an academic who he thinks is doing or
saying something misguided, a sports figure who he thinks is
misbehaving, or what have you; so long as he's trying to annoy any
recipient (whether the target, if the poster thinks the target is
reading the blog, or the target's partisans or fans).

2. How is this different from traditional telephone harassment law?
The trouble is that the change extends traditional telephone
harassment law from a basically one-to-one medium (phone calls) to
include a one-to-many medium (Web sites).

This is a big change. One-to-one speech that's intended to annoy the
one recipient is rarely of very much First Amendment value; people are
just rarely persuaded or enlightened by speech that's intended to
annoy them. It has some value (see item 3 below), but to the extent
that it's in some measure deterred, the loss to public debate isn't
that great =97 speakers are still free to speak to others besides the
person they're trying to annoy.

But one-to-many speech that is intended to annoy one or a few readers,
but intended and likely to enlighten or persuade many other readers,
is potentially much more valuable. Juan might think that the target of
the speech deserves to be berated for his misconduct, and that the
target's supporters deserve to be berated for siding with the target;
but Juan might also want the rest of the public to hear about the
target's misbehavior, and to be persuaded to think less of the target,
or to act differently themselves.

Though the desire to annoy may sometimes be petty (and I'm using Juan
just because Juan is our one anonymous coblogger here, not because
Juan generally tries to annoy people!), it shouldn't strip the speech
of constitutional protection. "[I]n the world of debate about public
affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable
are protected by the First Amendment.... [E]ven when a speaker or
writer is motivated by hatred or ill will his expression was protected
by the First Amendment ...." And the same is true, I think, in
discussion of consumer matters, of religion, of sports, and of other
things, not just public affairs.

3. Orin suggests that this isn't a problem, because even traditional
telephone harassment law has already been limited to exclude "speech
[that] is protected by the First Amendment." Orin cites United States
v. Popa, a case that set aside as unconstitutional a conviction of Ion
Popa, who made several racist calls to the U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia (the chief federal prosecutor in the District).
The trouble, though, is that it's far from clear just what speech Popa
protects.

A. One possible interpretation of Popa is that it bars telephone
harassment prosecution when the "speech is protected by the First
Amendment." At some level, that's almost tautological =97 of course when
the speech is protected by the First Amendment, the First Amendment
prohibits prosecution for that speech. But it also returns us to the
underlying question: When is speech that's intended to annoy the
recipient protected by the First Amendment? If someone calls not a
prosecutor but a law professor and leaves an anonymous deliberately
annoying racist message, is that protected? What if he calls a law
student with such a message? What if he posts an anonymous blog post
that says this? The poster would have little guidance about what he
may or may not say.

Of course, when prosecuted, the speaker can say "my speech is
protected by the First Amendment." But given that the statute draws no
distinction between what constitutes protected annoying anonymous
speech and what constitutes unprotected annoying anonymous speech, the
speaker doesn't know what he may safely say, and the prosecutor
doesn't have much guidance about what he should prosecute. It's as if
Congress enacted a whole bunch of speech restrictions but tacked on an
"except if the First Amendment prohibits this" to them. The result
would be speech restrictions that are technically not overbroad (since
by their terms they don't bar First-Amendment-protected speech), but
that are practically too vague, since they provide little guidance to
people about what they may say.

B. Another possible view is that the telephone harassment statute bars
any prosecution for speech unless the speech falls within the
traditional First Amendment exceptions, such as threats, obscenity
(which means hard-core pornography), false statements of fact,
fighting words, and the like. These exceptions are at least tolerably
well-defined, and all of us already generally have to avoid speech
that falls within these exceptions (since the federal and state
governments have taken advantage of most of these exceptions to in
fact outlaw or at least make tortious speech that fits in the
exceptions).

But if that's the interpretation of Popa, then most garden-variety
telephone harassment, of the sort that most people assume is fully
prosecutable, would be unpunishable. Calling someone anonymously
simply to insult them wouldn't be covered (such insults don't fit
within the "fighting words" exception, since the anonymity and
distance of the speaker makes it unlikely that the speech will start a
fight). Likewise for calling someone to make an indecent suggestion,
except when the suggestion is an actual threat of violence or is so
sexually explicit as to be obscene (which is a pretty high threshold
to meet). The very premise of telephone harassment law, as it's
generally understood, is that some such speech =97 while protected in
many media =97 is unprotected when said with the intent to annoy (and
perhaps said to a particular person). Harassment law thus rests on the
theory that there should be a new First Amendment exception recognized
for "telephone harassment" that goes beyond just threats, fighting
words, and the like. So the "speech is protected unless it's threats,
fighting words, obscenity, incitement, or false statements of fact"
theory is thus almost certainly not what Congress has had in mind, and
is unlikely to be adopted by the courts.

C. Popa can easily be read, I think, as holding that speech that's
"intend[ed] in part to communicate a political message" is protected
from punishment by the statute. But it's far from clear that this
would protect speech on a Web site that's intended to communicate a
message about some company's allegedly mistreatment of its consumers,
that's intended to criticize the performance of a sports figure,
that's intended to express an annoying view about theology, or
whatever else. What's more, it's often not easy to tell exactly what's
a "political" message and what's not. The court in Popa held that
racist insults of a high-level official are political. What about
speech that criticizes law professors (whether racist speech, speech
that casts aspersions on their intellect or teaching ability, or what
have you)? What about speech that criticizes a particular student in
racist terms, but implicitly conveys a message about school
admissions? (Not that I would endorse such speech, of course; I just
think that (a) it ought to be constitutionally protected, when posted
on a Web site, even if it's intended to annoy, and (b) there's likely
to be controversy about whether it's political.)

D. Finally, Popa can also be read as holding that speech is protected
from the statute when the speaker "intend[ed] to engage in public or
political discourse." "Public discourse" is broader than just
"political message," and would certainly include religion and probably
consumer matters involving large businesses and the like. But it too
is a pretty vague term. Is publicly distributed personal criticism of
a particular professional's skills, for instance, a lawyer's or a
professor's, "public discourse"? There's no well-established First
Amendment test for this, and the Court's use of the related term
"public concern" has proven to be unpredictable and, I think, often
misguided (see Part V.B of this article, starting with PDF page 46).

So on balance I think the extension of the telephone harassment
statute to the Web is a mistake. The statute already has problems, and
the extension risks substantially exacerbating those problems, by
potentially covering one-to-many annoying Web speech as well as the
somewhat less valuable one-to-one annoying telephone calls.

Date: 06 May 2008 11:17:30
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is nothing
>>>> wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary
>>>> not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
>>>> rules. You just make this stuff up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eric,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obviously
>>>> know nothing about it.
>>>>
>>>> During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
>>>> thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and
>>>> Truong was deleted.
>>>>
>>>> We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of them
>>>> were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more
>>>> active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
>>>> protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
>>>> unknown.
>>>>
>>>> Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
>>>> complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
>>>> Sawmiller were appointed.
>>>>
>>>> Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or FOC
>>>> that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by the
>>>> moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
>>>> Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the
>>>> light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notable
>>>> examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
>>>> Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.
>>>>
>>>> This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
>>>> Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators
>>>> often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
>>>> situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle
>>>> tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
>>>> moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over the
>>>> moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
>>>> FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
>>>> accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-ups.
>>>> So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
>>>> away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
>>>> the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.
>>>>
>>>> All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
>>>> there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, all
>>>> of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily enough
>>>> to swing the election.
>>>>
>>>> Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politically
>>>> independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
>>>> Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and
>>>> Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I believe
>>>> that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying
>>>> the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
>>>> about this.
>>>>
>>>> In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
>>>> including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be said
>>>> that this was a fairly conducted election.
>>>>
>>>> Sam Sloan
>>>
>>> Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A: See
>>> above.
>>>
>>> Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
>>> They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.
>> Well, John, if you say so it must be true. I'm still waiting for the
>> citation supporting your first amendment interpretation regarding
>> harassment. When can I expect you to provide it? Thanks!
>
> Brian, if you are honestly asking for a citation of Volokh's comments
> on this (I find it hard to assume good faith on your part, but with a
> Herculean effort I suppose I can manage it), here it is. Of course he
> could be wrong. But I rather suspect he knows more about the subject
> than I ... or you. (Sorry, bolding in the original won't transfer.
> Original is here: http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1136873535.shtml
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> [Eugene Volokh, January 10, 2006 at 3:07pm] 58 Trackbacks / Possibly
> More Trackbacks
> Annoying Anonymous Speech Online:
>
> People are troubled by a just-enacted statute that extends part of
> telephone harassment law to the Internet. I think they're right to be
> troubled by it, and here's why.
>
> First, the statute, with deletions marked by strikeouts and insertions
> marked by underlines:
>
> 47 U.S.C. � 223(a)(1)(C): Whoever ... in interstate or foreign
> communications ... makes a telephone call or utilizes a
> telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or
> communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent
> to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number
> or who receives the communications....
>
> (h)(1) The use of the term �telecommunications device� in this
> section --
> (A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station
> licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency
> provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
> (B) does not include an interactive computer service [= any
> information service, system, or access software provider that provides
> or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server,
> including specifically a service or system that provides access to the
> Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or
> educational institutions].; and
> (C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes
> any device or software that can be used to originate
> telecommunications or other types of communications that are
> transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet ....
>
> What does this practically mean?
>
> 1. This potentially criminalizes any anonymous speech on a Web site
> that's intended to annoy at least some readers, even if it's also
> intended to inform other readers. This is true whether the poster is
> berating a government official, a religious figure, a company that he
> thinks provides bad service, an academic who he thinks is doing or
> saying something misguided, a sports figure who he thinks is
> misbehaving, or what have you; so long as he's trying to annoy any
> recipient (whether the target, if the poster thinks the target is
> reading the blog, or the target's partisans or fans).
>
> 2. How is this different from traditional telephone harassment law?
> The trouble is that the change extends traditional telephone
> harassment law from a basically one-to-one medium (phone calls) to
> include a one-to-many medium (Web sites).
>
> This is a big change. One-to-one speech that's intended to annoy the
> one recipient is rarely of very much First Amendment value; people are
> just rarely persuaded or enlightened by speech that's intended to
> annoy them. It has some value (see item 3 below), but to the extent
> that it's in some measure deterred, the loss to public debate isn't
> that great � speakers are still free to speak to others besides the
> person they're trying to annoy.
>
> But one-to-many speech that is intended to annoy one or a few readers,
> but intended and likely to enlighten or persuade many other readers,
> is potentially much more valuable. Juan might think that the target of
> the speech deserves to be berated for his misconduct, and that the
> target's supporters deserve to be berated for siding with the target;
> but Juan might also want the rest of the public to hear about the
> target's misbehavior, and to be persuaded to think less of the target,
> or to act differently themselves.
>
> Though the desire to annoy may sometimes be petty (and I'm using Juan
> just because Juan is our one anonymous coblogger here, not because
> Juan generally tries to annoy people!), it shouldn't strip the speech
> of constitutional protection. "[I]n the world of debate about public
> affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable
> are protected by the First Amendment.... [E]ven when a speaker or
> writer is motivated by hatred or ill will his expression was protected
> by the First Amendment ...." And the same is true, I think, in
> discussion of consumer matters, of religion, of sports, and of other
> things, not just public affairs.
>
> 3. Orin suggests that this isn't a problem, because even traditional
> telephone harassment law has already been limited to exclude "speech
> [that] is protected by the First Amendment." Orin cites United States
> v. Popa, a case that set aside as unconstitutional a conviction of Ion
> Popa, who made several racist calls to the U.S. Attorney for the
> District of Columbia (the chief federal prosecutor in the District).
> The trouble, though, is that it's far from clear just what speech Popa
> protects.
>
> A. One possible interpretation of Popa is that it bars telephone
> harassment prosecution when the "speech is protected by the First
> Amendment." At some level, that's almost tautological � of course when
> the speech is protected by the First Amendment, the First Amendment
> prohibits prosecution for that speech. But it also returns us to the
> underlying question: When is speech that's intended to annoy the
> recipient protected by the First Amendment? If someone calls not a
> prosecutor but a law professor and leaves an anonymous deliberately
> annoying racist message, is that protected? What if he calls a law
> student with such a message? What if he posts an anonymous blog post
> that says this? The poster would have little guidance about what he
> may or may not say.
>
> Of course, when prosecuted, the speaker can say "my speech is
> protected by the First Amendment." But given that the statute draws no
> distinction between what constitutes protected annoying anonymous
> speech and what constitutes unprotected annoying anonymous speech, the
> speaker doesn't know what he may safely say, and the prosecutor
> doesn't have much guidance about what he should prosecute. It's as if
> Congress enacted a whole bunch of speech restrictions but tacked on an
> "except if the First Amendment prohibits this" to them. The result
> would be speech restrictions that are technically not overbroad (since
> by their terms they don't bar First-Amendment-protected speech), but
> that are practically too vague, since they provide little guidance to
> people about what they may say.
>
> B. Another possible view is that the telephone harassment statute bars
> any prosecution for speech unless the speech falls within the
> traditional First Amendment exceptions, such as threats, obscenity
> (which means hard-core pornography), false statements of fact,
> fighting words, and the like. These exceptions are at least tolerably
> well-defined, and all of us already generally have to avoid speech
> that falls within these exceptions (since the federal and state
> governments have taken advantage of most of these exceptions to in
> fact outlaw or at least make tortious speech that fits in the
> exceptions).
>
> But if that's the interpretation of Popa, then most garden-variety
> telephone harassment, of the sort that most people assume is fully
> prosecutable, would be unpunishable. Calling someone anonymously
> simply to insult them wouldn't be covered (such insults don't fit
> within the "fighting words" exception, since the anonymity and
> distance of the speaker makes it unlikely that the speech will start a
> fight). Likewise for calling someone to make an indecent suggestion,
> except when the suggestion is an actual threat of violence or is so
> sexually explicit as to be obscene (which is a pretty high threshold
> to meet). The very premise of telephone harassment law, as it's
> generally understood, is that some such speech � while protected in
> many media � is unprotected when said with the intent to annoy (and
> perhaps said to a particular person). Harassment law thus rests on the
> theory that there should be a new First Amendment exception recognized
> for "telephone harassment" that goes beyond just threats, fighting
> words, and the like. So the "speech is protected unless it's threats,
> fighting words, obscenity, incitement, or false statements of fact"
> theory is thus almost certainly not what Congress has had in mind, and
> is unlikely to be adopted by the courts.
>
> C. Popa can easily be read, I think, as holding that speech that's
> "intend[ed] in part to communicate a political message" is protected
> from punishment by the statute. But it's far from clear that this
> would protect speech on a Web site that's intended to communicate a
> message about some company's allegedly mistreatment of its consumers,
> that's intended to criticize the performance of a sports figure,
> that's intended to express an annoying view about theology, or
> whatever else. What's more, it's often not easy to tell exactly what's
> a "political" message and what's not. The court in Popa held that
> racist insults of a high-level official are political. What about
> speech that criticizes law professors (whether racist speech, speech
> that casts aspersions on their intellect or teaching ability, or what
> have you)? What about speech that criticizes a particular student in
> racist terms, but implicitly conveys a message about school
> admissions? (Not that I would endorse such speech, of course; I just
> think that (a) it ought to be constitutionally protected, when posted
> on a Web site, even if it's intended to annoy, and (b) there's likely
> to be controversy about whether it's political.)
>
> D. Finally, Popa can also be read as holding that speech is protected
> from the statute when the speaker "intend[ed] to engage in public or
> political discourse." "Public discourse" is broader than just
> "political message," and would certainly include religion and probably
> consumer matters involving large businesses and the like. But it too
> is a pretty vague term. Is publicly distributed personal criticism of
> a particular professional's skills, for instance, a lawyer's or a
> professor's, "public discourse"? There's no well-established First
> Amendment test for this, and the Court's use of the related term
> "public concern" has proven to be unpredictable and, I think, often
> misguided (see Part V.B of this article, starting with PDF page 46).
>
> So on balance I think the extension of the telephone harassment
> statute to the Web is a mistake. The statute already has problems, and
> the extension risks substantially exacerbating those problems, by
> potentially covering one-to-many annoying Web speech as well as the
> somewhat less valuable one-to-one annoying telephone calls.

LOL. Mr. V. conflates annoyance to harassment. Wrong. Sounds good in a
forum such as the one he posted to for general consumption by aging,
budding legal beagles such as you. Annoying behavior does not
necessarily rise to harassment, civil or criminal. There's a reason the
statute uses the word harassment, not annoyance.

Now, provide a citation to a scholarly work by Mr. V. in which he makes
this argument.

Date: 05 May 2008 21:05:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On May 5, 10:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Brian Lafferty wrote:
> > > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > samsloan wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
> > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >> You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is noth=
ing
> > > >> wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary=

> > > >> not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
> > > >> rules. You just make this stuff up.
>
> > > >> Eric,
>
> > > >> I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obvious=
ly
> > > >> know nothing about it.
>
> > > >> During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
> > > >> thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar a=
nd
> > > >> Truong was deleted.
>
> > > >> We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of t=
hem
> > > >> were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more=

> > > >> active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
> > > >> protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
> > > >> unknown.
>
> > > >> Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
> > > >> complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
> > > >> Sawmiller were appointed.
>
> > > >> Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or =
FOC
> > > >> that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by th=
e
> > > >> moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
> > > >> Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the=

> > > >> light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notab=
le
> > > >> examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Loui=
s
> > > >> Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.
>
> > > >> This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
> > > >> Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators=

> > > >> often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
> > > >> situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle=

> > > >> tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
> > > >> moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over t=
he
> > > >> moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
> > > >> FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had no=
t
> > > >> accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-u=
ps.
> > > >> So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
> > > >> away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only wit=
h
> > > >> the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.
>
> > > >> All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Althoug=
h
> > > >> there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, =
all
> > > >> of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily eno=
ugh
> > > >> to swing the election.
>
> > > >> Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politica=
lly
> > > >> independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
> > > >> Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and=

> > > >> Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I belie=
ve
> > > >> that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying=

> > > >> the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
> > > >> about this.
>
> > > >> In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
> > > >> including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be sai=
d
> > > >> that this was a fairly conducted election.
>
> > > >> Sam Sloan
>
> > > > Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A: Se=
e
> > > > above.
>
> > > > Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
> > > > They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.
>
> > > Well, John, if you say so it must be true. I'm still waiting for the
> > > citation supporting your first amendment interpretation regarding
> > > harassment. When can I expect you to provide it? Thanks!
>
> > As soon as you bring an action under your theory regarding 47 USC 222.
> > Since you seem to be all mouth and no mettle, I don't expect to have
> > to exert myself any time soon.
>
> > BTW, which of my statements are you challenging? That democracy works?
> > Or that the Sloon was decisively rejected by the voters? If it's the
> > latter, you have an impaired reality test, and need a psychiatrist
> > rather than a lawyer.
>
> Sorry, should have been 223. Or perhaps I just wanted a chance to
> express my disdain for Brian and his pet Sloon a second time.

Interesting. Perhaps I could have brought suit under 47 USC =A7 223 (d)
which provides:

(d) Sending or displaying offensive material to persons under 18
Whoever=97
(1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly=97
(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person
or persons under 18 years of age, or
(B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner
available to a person under 18 years of age,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication that is obscene or child pornography, regardless of
whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the
communication; or
(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such
person=92s control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph
(1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,
shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years,
or both.

Date: 05 May 2008 20:46:19
From:
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

[email protected] wrote:
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > samsloan wrote:
> > >> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is nothing
> > >> wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary
> > >> not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
> > >> rules. You just make this stuff up.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Eric,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obviously
> > >> know nothing about it.
> > >>
> > >> During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
> > >> thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and
> > >> Truong was deleted.
> > >>
> > >> We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of them
> > >> were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more
> > >> active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
> > >> protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
> > >> unknown.
> > >>
> > >> Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
> > >> complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
> > >> Sawmiller were appointed.
> > >>
> > >> Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or FOC
> > >> that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by the
> > >> moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
> > >> Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the
> > >> light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notable
> > >> examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
> > >> Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.
> > >>
> > >> This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
> > >> Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators
> > >> often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
> > >> situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle
> > >> tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
> > >> moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over the
> > >> moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
> > >> FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
> > >> accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-ups.
> > >> So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
> > >> away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
> > >> the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.
> > >>
> > >> All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
> > >> there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, all
> > >> of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily enough
> > >> to swing the election.
> > >>
> > >> Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politically
> > >> independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
> > >> Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and
> > >> Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I believe
> > >> that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying
> > >> the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
> > >> about this.
> > >>
> > >> In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
> > >> including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be said
> > >> that this was a fairly conducted election.
> > >>
> > >> Sam Sloan
> > >
> > >
> > > Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A: See
> > > above.
> > >
> > > Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
> > > They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.
> >
> > Well, John, if you say so it must be true. I'm still waiting for the
> > citation supporting your first amendment interpretation regarding
> > harassment. When can I expect you to provide it? Thanks!
>
>
> As soon as you bring an action under your theory regarding 47 USC 222.
> Since you seem to be all mouth and no mettle, I don't expect to have
> to exert myself any time soon.
>
> BTW, which of my statements are you challenging? That democracy works?
> Or that the Sloon was decisively rejected by the voters? If it's the
> latter, you have an impaired reality test, and need a psychiatrist
> rather than a lawyer.

Sorry, should have been 223. Or perhaps I just wanted a chance to
express my disdain for Brian and his pet Sloon a second time.

Date: 05 May 2008 20:43:34
From:
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

Date: 06 May 2008 11:09:12
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

Date: 05 May 2008 17:46:30
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:47 PM, <[email protected] > wrote:

John Donaldson, Susan Polgar, and others have asked you to remove
us from your spam list. We are not interested in your sick and
deranged fantasies. If this is a serious organization, you would have
been banned long ago.

I find it quite comical that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong state that
they do not want to receive my postings when they on a daily basis
attack their fellow board members from their own protected Chess
Discussion group where responses to their attacks are not allowed and
they also attack their fellow board members from http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com
where again they control the responses.

There is a simple solution to your problem. All you have to do is
resign from the board and as soon as it is certified that you have
resigned and that it is not another April Fools Joke and you cannot
take back your resignations, I will stop sending you emails.

Regarding John Donaldson, as he is the USA Zone President, a position
to which I nominated him, I am surprised that he has not taken a more
active interest in the plight of the regular USCF Members. If he
cannot stand the heat, I think that he should consider resigning too.

Sam Sloan

Date: 05 May 2008 17:15:55
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Eric Schiller
<[email protected] > wrote:

If the USCF insists on forums, they should be like DailyKos, where
nothing is deleted. If people with high status (mojo) vote to hide a
comment, it becomes non-public, but is still accessible to =93Trusted
Users=94 (a status I generally have), and can be unhidden if enough TUs
vote for it. On the other hand, everyone can vote for postings, and
the most popular go on the recommended list. To insure good posts
don=92t get buried, there is a daily Diary rescue, where a committee
selects worthy posts and puts links on the front page.

The DailyKos system works very well, and handles trolls
effectively. Only posts are hidden, no one is censored except for
violating clearly stated rules. You should look at DailyKos to see how
it is done right, and make appropriate suggestions to the USCF.

Eric,

You have made a serious and interesting suggestion here. There are
thousands of postings that have been pulled or hidden from the USCF
Issues Forum. Only three people are allowed to see them: Vaughn,
Sawmiller and Vibbert. Even the FOC members are not allowed to review
them any more, nor can the board, or at least I could not when I was
on the board.

This is obviously wrong when Vaughn and Sawmiller are outrageously
biased and Vibbert is hardly neutral.

Your suggestion is to create a group of "Trusted Users" who could vote
to restore a hidden post. Assuming that this committee of Trusted
Users is reasonably large and representative and not filled with
persons like Vaughn and Sawmiller whose agendas are well known, this
would result in most of the several thousand postings that have been
hidden to be revealed and would allow the general membership to find
out what has really been going on behind the scenes.

It would also send a clear message to all moderators and board members
that their dirty deeds will not remain hidden forever and will
eventually come out. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, as they say.

Accordingly, I am forwarding your suggestion to the board. Do not hold
your breath waiting for them to enact it however.

Sam Sloan

Date: 05 May 2008 15:31:11
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Eric Schiller
<[email protected] > wrote:

No, I don't use the forum, never will. By I am a regular blogger
at one of the major blogs, DailyKos. You claim there is some rule
about whether moderators can post about abusive posters. I have never
seen such a rule at any blog. So you just made it up. Show me this
"rule".

As usual, even in your legal filings, you assume rules that don't
exist. You make them, up based on how you think the world should be.

Show me this rule!

Eric

Dear Eric,

The Rules most often cited by Vaughn and Sawmiller to delete a posting
or suspend or ban a member are the following:

"Do not make personal attacks or defamatory or disparaging comments
about any person, group or company. Do not flame or troll."

"Do not post suggestions, without specifically identified substantial
proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or criminal act."

"If you refer to someone by name, use their actual name, not a made up
or sarcastic name."

These rules might on the surface seem reasonable but as applied by the
extremely biased moderators gives them the power to delete anything
they want to delete and to suspend anybody they want to suspend.

For example, I started the thread about Grandmaster Benko being
cheated out of $70,000 by Citibank and an obvious scammer named
Wolfgang Roddewig in Brazil. That thread was deleted by Vaughn saying
that I am not allowed to make negative remarks about Wolfgang Roddewig
even though he is not a USCF member, or an American or a chess player.

Nobody is allowed to post that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong stole the
USCFs laptop computer on August 20, 2003 even though they admit that
they took the computer on that date. They claim to have been
authorized to take it "by the board" but when USCF President Beatriz
Marinello at the time said that the board had most definitely not
authorized Polgar and Truong to take that laptop computer, they have
made vague statements about some other unidentified prior board having
authorized this.

The rule about no nicknames came about when Forum posters learned that
they were not allowed to use the word Polgar without uttering words of
high praise in connection with that name. Since they were not allowed
to use the word "Polgar", they started to call her by various
nicknames including "Some.Poor.Soul", "The Name that One Dare Not
Speak", "Chairman Susan" and various others. Of course, the word
Trollgar was banned too.

This is by no means a comprehensive list. Basically, being opposed to
the election of Polgar and Truong or even disagreeing with them on one
minor point got you suspended from posting.

Sam Sloan

Date: 05 May 2008 15:20:14
From:
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

samsloan wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is nothing
> wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary
> not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
> rules. You just make this stuff up.
>
>
> Eric,
>
>
> I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obviously
> know nothing about it.
>
> During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
> thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and
> Truong was deleted.
>
> We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of them
> were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more
> active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
> protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
> unknown.
>
> Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
> complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
> Sawmiller were appointed.
>
> Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or FOC
> that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by the
> moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
> Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the
> light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notable
> examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
> Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.
>
> This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
> Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators
> often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
> situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle
> tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
> moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over the
> moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
> FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
> accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-ups.
> So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
> away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
> the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.
>
> All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
> there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, all
> of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily enough
> to swing the election.
>
> Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politically
> independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
> Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and
> Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I believe
> that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying
> the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
> about this.
>
> In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
> including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be said
> that this was a fairly conducted election.
>
> Sam Sloan

Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A: See
above.

Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.

Date: 05 May 2008 22:24:18
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

[email protected] wrote:
>
> samsloan wrote:
>> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is nothing
>> wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary
>> not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
>> rules. You just make this stuff up.
>>
>>
>> Eric,
>>
>>
>> I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obviously
>> know nothing about it.
>>
>> During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
>> thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and
>> Truong was deleted.
>>
>> We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of them
>> were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more
>> active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
>> protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
>> unknown.
>>
>> Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
>> complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
>> Sawmiller were appointed.
>>
>> Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or FOC
>> that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by the
>> moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
>> Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the
>> light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notable
>> examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
>> Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.
>>
>> This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
>> Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators
>> often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
>> situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle
>> tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
>> moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over the
>> moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
>> FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
>> accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-ups.
>> So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
>> away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
>> the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.
>>
>> All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
>> there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, all
>> of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily enough
>> to swing the election.
>>
>> Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politically
>> independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
>> Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and
>> Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I believe
>> that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying
>> the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
>> about this.
>>
>> In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
>> including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be said
>> that this was a fairly conducted election.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A: See
> above.
>
> Sam, the voters had ample opportunity to see you and hear you bray.
> They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.

Well, John, if you say so it must be true. I'm still waiting for the
citation supporting your first amendment interpretation regarding
harassment. When can I expect you to provide it? Thanks!

Date: 05 May 2008 14:13:46
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
<[email protected] > wrote:

You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is nothing
wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is customary
not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
rules. You just make this stuff up.

Eric,

I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you obviously
know nothing about it.

During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and
Truong was deleted.

We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of them
were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become more
active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
unknown.

Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
Sawmiller were appointed.

Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee or FOC
that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by the
moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw the
light and stopped supporting Polgar and stopped attacking me. Notable
examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.

This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as moderators
often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new middle
tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over the
moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the higher-ups.
So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.

All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues Forum, all
of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily enough
to swing the election.

Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and politically
independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar and
Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I believe
that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without paying
the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
about this.

In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF Insiders
including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be said
that this was a fairly conducted election.

Sam Sloan

Date: 05 May 2008 11:59:18
From: Bob Campbell
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Note that even though I have filed a federal lawsuit over this, Vaughn
> and Sawmiller continue to be moderators. The fact that Bill Hall keeps
> Vaughn and Sawmiller as forum moderators even though for the last 7
> months the USCF has been under a federal lawsuit for this is enough
> reason alone to fire Bill Hall.

You filed a federal lawsuit because you don't like the moderators of a
usenet newsgroup?

<blink >

That should be fun to watch getting thrown out of court!

Why don't you take your whiny, "everyone is against me, I'm being
persecuted" act somewhere else, OK?

Date: 05 May 2008 17:16:30
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

On Mon, 5 May 2008 11:59:18 -0400, "Bob Campbell" <[email protected] > wrote:

>"samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Note that even though I have filed a federal lawsuit over this, Vaughn
>> and Sawmiller continue to be moderators. The fact that Bill Hall keeps
>> Vaughn and Sawmiller as forum moderators even though for the last 7
>> months the USCF has been under a federal lawsuit for this is enough
>> reason alone to fire Bill Hall.
>
>You filed a federal lawsuit because you don't like the moderators of a
>usenet newsgroup?
>
><blink>
>
>That should be fun to watch getting thrown out of court!
>
>Why don't you take your whiny, "everyone is against me, I'm being
>persecuted" act somewhere else, OK?
>

This does not concern a Usenet newsgroup. I am complaining about an
internal forum of the USCF Membership, known as the USCF Issues Forum.

I was elected to the USCF Executive Board in July 2006 and took office
on August 14, 2006 for a one year term.

I was strongly opposed by the USCF insiders, including especially Bill
Goichberg and Joel Channing.

In order to stop me from being re-elected, Goichberg sent out 17,000
postcards to USCF Members stating, "The Most Important thing about
this election is to Stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected".

Goichberg had every legal right to mail those 17, 000 postcards.

What he did not have the legal right to do was appoint anti-Sam Sloan
moderators to the USCF Issues Forum. I was subjected to every
imaginable attack on the USCF Issues Forum, including being called a
child molester.

On the other hand, nothing negative was allowed to be posted on the
USCF Issues Forum about my election opponents, particularly Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong. Nobody was even allowed to ask them
embarrassing questions. For example, nobody was allowed to question
Paul Truong's job history or work background. Nobody was allowed to
ask them whether they were married to each other or not. Turns out
that they were married to each other but were keeping this fact a
secret during the election campaign. I still have not seen this
mentioned in Chess Life.

Anybody who posted remarks in any way favorable to me had their
postings pulled and found themselves suspended from posting.

Anybody who was in my favor was suspended. Anybody against me could
attack me as much as they wanted. All this because Bill Hall and Bill
Goichberg appointed pro-Polgar and anti-Sam Sloan moderators.

However, that is only one relatively small part of my lawsuit. The
bigger issue is that it has been proven that Paul Truong, one of my
election opponents, impersonated me and stole my identity by posting
at least 2464 "Fake Sam Sloan" postings which contained obscene and
pornographic remarks supposedly signed by me and other chess
personalities. These Fake Sam Sloan postings were all posted here at
rec.games.chess.politics , not on the USCF Issues Forum. However,
because of the use among other things of identical IP addresses, it
has been proven from the IP address that Paul Truong posted from on
the USCF Issues Forum and the IP Address of the Fake Sam Sloan here
that these were the same persons and that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam
Sloan.

Furthermore, I can prove that Bill Goichberg and Joel Channing knew
that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. Thus, by helping Paul Truong
and his wife Susan Polgar be elected, they were perpetrating an
election fraud on the USCF Membership.

Sounds like you are not familiar with this federal lawsuit. You should
read up on it, as there are more than one thousand postings about it
here.

My point about the above posting today is that Herbert Rodney Vaughn
and Tim Sawmiller were appointed moderators by Bill Hall and Goichberg
after they had both stated that I should be banned from posting to the
USCF Issues Forum, even though I was a member of the board, and they
are still to this day moderators of the USCF Issues Forum. All of the
other outrageously anti-Sam Sloan moderators appointed during that
period by Hall and Goichberg, including especially Gregory Alexander,
who is the website manager and moderator of the Polgar-Truong
Discussion Group, have since quit. In spite of my lawsuit, which has
been sub-judice since October, 2007, Vaughn, who is a named defendant,
is still a moderator of the USCF Issues Forum and is still voting to
have me banned. (The ban has been passed but has not been put into
effect yet.) By leaving Vaughn and Sawmiller as moderators, Hall is
increasing every day the polential liability of the USCF and for that
alone (not counting the other things such as the $300,000 the USCF is
losing so far this year) Hall should be fired.

Sam Sloan

Date: 07 May 2008 04:53:25
From: Shieldfire
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

Sam Sloan wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 11:59:18 -0400, "Bob Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Note that even though I have filed a federal lawsuit over this, Vaughn
>>> and Sawmiller continue to be moderators. The fact that Bill Hall keeps
>>> Vaughn and Sawmiller as forum moderators even though for the last 7
>>> months the USCF has been under a federal lawsuit for this is enough
>>> reason alone to fire Bill Hall.
>> You filed a federal lawsuit because you don't like the moderators of a
>> usenet newsgroup?
>>
>> <blink>
>>
>> That should be fun to watch getting thrown out of court!
>>
>> Why don't you take your whiny, "everyone is against me, I'm being
>> persecuted" act somewhere else, OK?
>>
>
>
> This does not concern a Usenet newsgroup. I am complaining about an
> internal forum of the USCF Membership, known as the USCF Issues Forum.

So WTF is it doing in rec.games.chess.computer?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Date: 05 May 2008 16:33:07
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators

Bob Campbell wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Note that even though I have filed a federal lawsuit over this, Vaughn
>> and Sawmiller continue to be moderators. The fact that Bill Hall keeps
>> Vaughn and Sawmiller as forum moderators even though for the last 7
>> months the USCF has been under a federal lawsuit for this is enough
>> reason alone to fire Bill Hall.
>
> You filed a federal lawsuit because you don't like the moderators of a
> usenet newsgroup?
>
> <blink>
>
> That should be fun to watch getting thrown out of court!
>
> Why don't you take your whiny, "everyone is against me, I'm being
> persecuted" act somewhere else, OK?

There are no moderators of this usenet group. Read the complaint and
you'll understand the point being presented. Whether his argument flies
or not is still to be determined.