| |
Main
Date: 02 Feb 2009 04:19:19
From: samsloan
Subject: Ruling by Forum Oversight Committee upholding Sanction against Sloan
|
Re: Sanction Notice - Level 3 - samsloan
Sent at: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:03 am
From: lblair
To: samsloan
Mr. Sloan,
In regards to post #95622, words were stated which were deemed
objectionable and in violation of the AUG by the Moderators. The
specific problem stems from the line =93If you have an Executive
Director who is utterly worthless, or who does not tell the board what
he is doing or who often lies about what he has done, then you have a
situation where the ED cannot be trusted=94. Following shortly after
this are statements about the current financial situation of the USCF
Office, along with the opinion that =93As long as this situation
continues, the board cannot have a hands-off attitude and cannot
simply trust the ED....=94 While opinions, especially dissenting ones,
are important for growth and discourse, the introductory statements
against an individual, the current ED, are not allowed under the AUG.
In your formal appeal (PM=97Sent at: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:50 pm) you argue
emphatically that the first section is hypothetical, and is not linked
to any single person or ED. Regardless of this, a personal attack
against one of any number of individuals does not render it any less
of a personal attack. Additionally, it is the opinion of this
committee that the structure of the original post as written does
provide enough inclination (via its link of conclusions: if is
=91utterly worthless=92, one =91who often lies=92=97then cannot be trusted;=
=91as
long as this continues=92 =97=91simply cannot trust the ED=92) that the
majority of readers would perceive the accusation of being a liar as
meant to apply to the current ED. This would be unacceptable practice
in the Forums, and could be sanctioned.
Therefore, by a vote of 3-2, the appeal of this sanction
(viewtopic.php?p=3D95685#p95685) has been denied.
Sincerely,
The FOC
viewtopic.php?p=3D72051#72051
viewtopic.php?p=3D72920#72920
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 06:56:19
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ruling by Forum Oversight Committee upholding Sanction against
|
[quote="Terry_Vibbert"][quote="samsloan"][quote="ueschessmom"]I don't
profess to know what, if any, legal ramifications there are but I
would tend to think that the rules of the forum should not bend
because of one's status as a candidate. If you violate the rules, the
consequences should be the same regardless. Otherwise, every election
season, you could round up a bunch of your chess buddies to sign a
petition and then violate the rules with impunity. Maybe I'm missing
something?[/quote]
What you are missing is that the AUG is so vague as to what is a
violation and what is not that nobody can know whether they are
violating it or not.
For example, one is not allowed to make a disparaging comment. What is
a "disparaging comment"?
One is not allowed to say that a statement is false without providing
"substantial proof". What is "substantial proof"?
I was sanctioned for saying that Joel Channing resigned from the board
after the board refused to pay $13,000 for "Internet Insuance" to
protect his assets. What was wrong with me saying that, when everyone
on the board heard him say that?
The list goes on and on.
And I will probably be sanctioned for writing this.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
Sam, I have looked at all the posts where you mention the word
"insurance" that have been pulled in the review area. I can find no
supporting evidence for your claim. You have many posts that never
made it out of the MQ so I can understand your getting this
incorrect. Nowhere in the announcement area is there a post that fits
your description that supports this claim. It must have been just one
of the many that were not allowed out of the MQ. In short, I can
understand how you might conclude that this post was sanctioned, but
you are simply in error.
Terry Vibbert [/quote]
You are correct in that my posting about Joel Channing's demand for
"Internet Insurance" and about his statement that he was resigning
from the board unless this insurance was provided was pulled by the
moderators and never allowed to appear.
There have also been dozens of posts by me that you, Terry Vibbert,
have pulled without even notification to me that they were not allowed
to appear. Here is one such posting about USCF President Bill
Goichberg. It came in response to a posting by Grayson, who wrote that
Bill Goichberg is "generally decent and reasonable" and "I find his
posts and written comments to be thoughtful and on point".
Kindly explain why a posting critical of the USCF President is not
allowed to appear here [on the USCF Issues Forum] and why only posts
favorable to the president can be posted:
"Unfortunately, you have only seen the public Bill Goichberg, the Bill
Goichberg most of us see.
"I sat for one year on the board with Bill Goichberg and I was able to
observe many false statements being made by Mr. Goichberg.
"For example, the USCF bylaws require that the transcripts of all
board meetings be posted on the USCF website.
"Since Bill Goichberg has been USCF President for the last four years,
not one transcript has been posted.
"In addition, the tape recording of board meetings is supposed to be
posted. Only a few of them have been posted.
"Were the transcripts and tapes to be posted, I would be able to show
you many, many untrue statements that Mr. Goichberg has made.
"Sam Sloan"
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 06:05:29
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ruling by Forum Oversight Committee upholding Sanction against
|
[quote="ueschessmom"]I don't profess to know what, if any, legal
ramifications there are but I would tend to think that the rules of
the forum should not bend because of one's status as a candidate. If
you violate the rules, the consequences should be the same
regardless. Otherwise, every election season, you could round up a
bunch of your chess buddies to sign a petition and then violate the
rules with impunity. Maybe I'm missing something?
Upper East Side Chess Mom [/quote]
What you are missing is that the AUG is so vague as to what is a
violation and what is not that nobody can know whether they are
violating it or not.
For example, one is not allowed to make a disparaging comment. What is
a "disparaging comment"?
One is not allowed to say that a statement is false without providing
"substantial proof". What is "substantial proof"?
I was sanctioned for saying that Joel Channing resigned from the board
after the board refused to pay $13,000 for "Internet Insuance" to
protect his assets. What was wrong with me saying that, when everyone
on the board heard him say that?
The list goes on and on.
And I will probably be sanctioned for writing this.
Sam Sloan
|
|
