| |
Main
Date: 26 Oct 2007 14:18:59
From: samsloan
Subject: Reasons why Sam Sloan was censured by the USCF Executive Board
|
[quote="sdo1"]Perhaps a bit more comparison needs to be made. When
"we" saw that further anti-SS acts would only hurt the USCF, we
stopped. SS remained on the EB through his term and continued with
the harmful distractions that caused him to be censored by the EB,
etc...
Steve Owens[/quote]
Glad you brought that up.
What did the Executive Board censure me for? To find out, look at the
document on my website and scroll down to page 7 Appendix B at:
http://www.samsloan.com/board-censures-sloan.pdf
There you will see that I was censured for writing three letters to
the other board members dealing mainly with issues involving the US
Championship. First, I berated them for one month accidentally on-
purpose sending all my emails to a non-existent email address,
claiming that they had all made a mistake and did not know my actual
address. Then, I strongly objected to the plans to hold the US
Championship online over the Internet rather than with face-to-face
over the board chess matches. Turns out that FIDE does not recognize
games played online and had the US Championship been held that way it
would have been deemed invalid for purposes of GM norms or for the
purpose of qualifying to the World Championship Cycle.
Even though my email was 100% correct, I was censured for supposed
violations of 1(c), 2(e), 3, 3(b) & 3(d) of the Standards of Conduct
of the Executive Board.
See if you can find anything objectionable in my letter to the other
board members.
The second letter for which they censured me was my objections to a
motion by Don Schultz to abolish the tournament for the US
Championship and instead to hold a match between the champion and a
challenger. That motion already had three votes and needed only one
more to pass and if it had passed there would have been no US
Championship at all. My letter was deemed to be a violation of
Sections 1, 1(c), 3 & 3(b).
The third letter requested an investigation into why the records fail
to show payment by three candidates of candidate filing fees. Not only
has that investigation never been done and Bill Hall has never even
responded, but we have a new issue in that it seems that Polgar and
Truong did not pay the $250 required filing fees to run this year. In
fact, they stated on this forum that they only spent $50 to run for
this election, so that seems to be an admission that they did not pay
the $250. Again, there has been no response from Bill Hall on this
issue.
So, kindly explain on what basis the other board members censured me
for writing those three letters.
Incidentally, the motion to censure me carried by 3-2-1. Channing,
Goichberg and Hough voted for, Schultz and inello voted against and
I had to abstain.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 02:28:31
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Reasons why Sam Sloan was censured by the USCF Executive Board
|
[quote="rfeditor"]In the Sloan matter, there was a broad consensus
among both Board members and USCF members in general that censure was
appropriate. Is that really the case here? Isn't it up to you to
convince people of this, rather than simply asserting it to be the
case?
To what specifically are you referring in your last paragraph? I'd
like to see some citations.[/quote]
John Hillery is dead wrong as usual.
There was not broad consensus. Two board members, Don Schultz and
Beatriz inello, were strongly opposed to the Channing motion to
censure me. The motion passed by 3-2-1 with me abstaining. Had I voted
against it would not have passed.
Also, Bill Goichberg suspended Roberts Rules of Order to get it
passed. Schultz had made a motion in accordance with Roberts Rules to
substitute his motion. Since the Schultz motion would have passed,
Goichberg made a crazy ruling that the two motions were independent of
each other but a board member could only vote for the Goichberg motion
or the Schultz motion but and vote for one was deemed a vote against
the other.
Also, I was censured just for writing emails to the other board
members, not to the public, criticizing the Goichberg plan to hold the
US Championship online over the Internet and the Schultz proposal to
abolish the US Championship tournament and have it held as a match
between the champion and a challenger. Both proposals would have
received tremendous opposition had they been passed by the board and
gotten out to the chess players. It was only because of my opposition
that those two ridiculous ideas never passed the board and never came
to fruition.
There were nearly one hundred emails back and forth between board
members over the Goichberg/Channing motion to censure me. None of
those emails were by me. I stayed out of the debate. Thus, there was
hardly a broad consensus to censure me.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2007 01:28:09
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Reasons why Sam Sloan was censured by the USCF Executive Board
|
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"]
Not quite. Don Schultz gave a list of about six reasons for not voting
to censure me, plus he made a substitute motion which under Roberts
Rules required for his motion be considered as an amendment before the
main motion could be voted upon.[/quote]
I will concede that I did not entirely understand Don's explanation,
which is why I did not attempt to sumize it in my earlier post.
[quote]Bill Goichberg ignored Roberts Rules and instead used his made-
up-on-the-spot Goichberg rules.[/quote]
Perhaps it would have helped if you had [i]read[/i] RRO. Any member of
a body may appeal a ruling of the chair. Did you? Did you refrain
because you knew you would lose?
John Hillery[/quote]
I did not participate in the discussion at all. There were about one
hundred emails exchanged back and forth between board members over
this issue and the debate continued for several days. Meanwhile, the
board paid no attention to the issues which the board should properly
be considering, such as how to promote or advance chess in America.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2007 00:59:41
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Reasons why Sam Sloan was censured by the USCF Executive Board
|
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="artichoke"][quote="rfeditor"]...
3) From Sam Sloan's e-mail of 10/12/06:
[quote]Frankly, I think that you guys are really stupid.[/quote][/
quote]
Do we elect wimps to the EB, or adults?
Good grief, if a bunch of EB members don't like a statement like that
and find a way to "prosecute" it under the SOC, there's something
wrong with them, the SOC, or both.[/quote]
I actually agree with that (as did Don Schultz, as best I can tell --
his reason for abstaining seemed to be that the EB should have better
uses for its time.) Unfortunately, the EBSOC was written on the
assumption that Board members could be, well, shamed into behaving
properly. Didn't work this time.
John Hillery[/quote]
Not quite. Don Schultz gave a list of about six reasons for not voting
to censure me, plus he made a substitute motion which under Roberts
Rules required for his motion be considered as an amendment before the
main motion could be voted upon.
Bill Goichberg ignored Roberts Rules and instead used his made-up-on-
the-spot Goichberg rules.
One of the objections by Schultz was "Censuring a fellow USCF board
member is a big deal. As far as I know it has never happened before."
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 17:49:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Reasons why Sam Sloan was censured by the USCF Executive Board
|
On Oct 26, 6:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > Incidentally, the motion to censure me carried by 3-2-1. Channing,
> > Goichberg and Hough voted for, Schultz and inello voted against and
> > I had to abstain.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Why did you have to abstain? Expalin that to me. I voted for my own
> certification when I was elected R.V.P. Yes I heard
> shit about it, but Sam, you could have voted no. Explain to me your
> legal duty to abstain, perhaps I can learn something from you.
>
> cus Roberts
It's a conflict of interest thing; you wouldn't understand.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 16:35:55
From:
Subject: Re: Reasons why Sam Sloan was censured by the USCF Executive Board
|
On Oct 26, 4:18 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote="sdo1"]Perhaps a bit more comparison needs to be made. When
> "we" saw that further anti-SS acts would only hurt the USCF, we
> stopped. SS remained on the EB through his term and continued with
> the harmful distractions that caused him to be censored by the EB,
> etc...
>
> Steve Owens[/quote]
>
> Glad you brought that up.
>
> What did the Executive Board censure me for? To find out, look at the
> document on my website and scroll down to page 7 Appendix B at:
>
> http://www.samsloan.com/board-censures-sloan.pdf
>
> There you will see that I was censured for writing three letters to
> the other board members dealing mainly with issues involving the US
> Championship. First, I berated them for one month accidentally on-
> purpose sending all my emails to a non-existent email address,
> claiming that they had all made a mistake and did not know my actual
> address. Then, I strongly objected to the plans to hold the US
> Championship online over the Internet rather than with face-to-face
> over the board chess matches. Turns out that FIDE does not recognize
> games played online and had the US Championship been held that way it
> would have been deemed invalid for purposes of GM norms or for the
> purpose of qualifying to the World Championship Cycle.
>
> Even though my email was 100% correct, I was censured for supposed
> violations of 1(c), 2(e), 3, 3(b) & 3(d) of the Standards of Conduct
> of the Executive Board.
>
> See if you can find anything objectionable in my letter to the other
> board members.
>
> The second letter for which they censured me was my objections to a
> motion by Don Schultz to abolish the tournament for the US
> Championship and instead to hold a match between the champion and a
> challenger. That motion already had three votes and needed only one
> more to pass and if it had passed there would have been no US
> Championship at all. My letter was deemed to be a violation of
> Sections 1, 1(c), 3 & 3(b).
>
> The third letter requested an investigation into why the records fail
> to show payment by three candidates of candidate filing fees. Not only
> has that investigation never been done and Bill Hall has never even
> responded, but we have a new issue in that it seems that Polgar and
> Truong did not pay the $250 required filing fees to run this year. In
> fact, they stated on this forum that they only spent $50 to run for
> this election, so that seems to be an admission that they did not pay
> the $250. Again, there has been no response from Bill Hall on this
> issue.
>
> So, kindly explain on what basis the other board members censured me
> for writing those three letters.
>
> Incidentally, the motion to censure me carried by 3-2-1. Channing,
> Goichberg and Hough voted for, Schultz and inello voted against and
> I had to abstain.
>
> Sam Sloan
Why did you have to abstain? Expalin that to me. I voted for my own
certification when I was elected R.V.P. Yes I heard
shit about it, but Sam, you could have voted no. Explain to me your
legal duty to abstain, perhaps I can learn something from you.
cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 17:04:49
From: GeekBoy
Subject: Re: Reasons why Sam Sloan was censured by the USCF Executive Board
|
Look how the fucking troll is on here, it is not too hard to SEE
******************* PLONK ****************************
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [quote="sdo1"]Perhaps a bit more comparison needs to be made. When
> "we" saw that further anti-SS acts would only hurt the USCF, we
> stopped. SS remained on the EB through his term and continued with
> the harmful distractions that caused him to be censored by the EB,
> etc...
>
> Steve Owens[/quote]
>
> Glad you brought that up.
>
> What did the Executive Board censure me for? To find out, look at the
> document on my website and scroll down to page 7 Appendix B at:
>
> http://www.samsloan.com/board-censures-sloan.pdf
>
> There you will see that I was censured for writing three letters to
> the other board members dealing mainly with issues involving the US
> Championship. First, I berated them for one month accidentally on-
> purpose sending all my emails to a non-existent email address,
> claiming that they had all made a mistake and did not know my actual
> address. Then, I strongly objected to the plans to hold the US
> Championship online over the Internet rather than with face-to-face
> over the board chess matches. Turns out that FIDE does not recognize
> games played online and had the US Championship been held that way it
> would have been deemed invalid for purposes of GM norms or for the
> purpose of qualifying to the World Championship Cycle.
>
> Even though my email was 100% correct, I was censured for supposed
> violations of 1(c), 2(e), 3, 3(b) & 3(d) of the Standards of Conduct
> of the Executive Board.
>
> See if you can find anything objectionable in my letter to the other
> board members.
>
> The second letter for which they censured me was my objections to a
> motion by Don Schultz to abolish the tournament for the US
> Championship and instead to hold a match between the champion and a
> challenger. That motion already had three votes and needed only one
> more to pass and if it had passed there would have been no US
> Championship at all. My letter was deemed to be a violation of
> Sections 1, 1(c), 3 & 3(b).
>
> The third letter requested an investigation into why the records fail
> to show payment by three candidates of candidate filing fees. Not only
> has that investigation never been done and Bill Hall has never even
> responded, but we have a new issue in that it seems that Polgar and
> Truong did not pay the $250 required filing fees to run this year. In
> fact, they stated on this forum that they only spent $50 to run for
> this election, so that seems to be an admission that they did not pay
> the $250. Again, there has been no response from Bill Hall on this
> issue.
>
> So, kindly explain on what basis the other board members censured me
> for writing those three letters.
>
> Incidentally, the motion to censure me carried by 3-2-1. Channing,
> Goichberg and Hough voted for, Schultz and inello voted against and
> I had to abstain.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 14:59:57
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Reasons why Sam Sloan was censured by the USCF Executive Board
|
[quote="rfeditor"]3) From Sam Sloan's e-mail of 10/12/06:
[quote]Frankly, I think that you guys are really stupid.[/quote][/
quote]
The proposal to cancel the US Championship tournament altogether
without even notifying the players and without asking for their input
and to hold a match for the championship with no money and no sponsors
to pay for it and with no meaningful discussion by the board or the
delegates was a stupid idea and I stand by that statement.
Look at what Joel Benjamin wrote in "New in Chess" when his only
complaint was that the prize fund was too small. Imagine what he would
have written if the board had received just one more vote and
cancelled the US Championship tournament altogether.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 17:37:15
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Reasons why Sam Sloan was censured by the USCF Executive Board
|
> Even though my email was 100% correct, I was censured for supposed
> violations of 1(c), 2(e), 3, 3(b) & 3(d) of the Standards of Conduct
> of the Executive Board.
Tsk.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 14:25:45
From:
Subject: Re: Reasons why Sam Sloan was censured by the USCF Executive Board
|
On Oct 26, 4:18 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote="sdo1"]Perhaps a bit more comparison needs to be made. When
> "we" saw that further anti-SS acts would only hurt the USCF, we
> stopped. SS remained on the EB through his term and continued with
> the harmful distractions that caused him to be censored by the EB,
> etc...
>
> Steve Owens[/quote]
>
> Glad you brought that up.
>
> What did the Executive Board censure me for? To find out, look at the
> document on my website and scroll down to page 7 Appendix B at:
>
> http://www.samsloan.com/board-censures-sloan.pdf
>
> There you will see that I was censured for writing three letters to
> the other board members dealing mainly with issues involving the US
> Championship. First, I berated them for one month accidentally on-
> purpose sending all my emails to a non-existent email address,
> claiming that they had all made a mistake and did not know my actual
> address. Then, I strongly objected to the plans to hold the US
> Championship online over the Internet rather than with face-to-face
> over the board chess matches. Turns out that FIDE does not recognize
> games played online and had the US Championship been held that way it
> would have been deemed invalid for purposes of GM norms or for the
> purpose of qualifying to the World Championship Cycle.
>
> Even though my email was 100% correct, I was censured for supposed
> violations of 1(c), 2(e), 3, 3(b) & 3(d) of the Standards of Conduct
> of the Executive Board.
>
> See if you can find anything objectionable in my letter to the other
> board members.
>
> The second letter for which they censured me was my objections to a
> motion by Don Schultz to abolish the tournament for the US
> Championship and instead to hold a match between the champion and a
> challenger. That motion already had three votes and needed only one
> more to pass and if it had passed there would have been no US
> Championship at all. My letter was deemed to be a violation of
> Sections 1, 1(c), 3 & 3(b).
>
> The third letter requested an investigation into why the records fail
> to show payment by three candidates of candidate filing fees. Not only
> has that investigation never been done and Bill Hall has never even
> responded, but we have a new issue in that it seems that Polgar and
> Truong did not pay the $250 required filing fees to run this year. In
> fact, they stated on this forum that they only spent $50 to run for
> this election, so that seems to be an admission that they did not pay
> the $250. Again, there has been no response from Bill Hall on this
> issue.
>
> So, kindly explain on what basis the other board members censured me
> for writing those three letters.
>
> Incidentally, the motion to censure me carried by 3-2-1. Channing,
> Goichberg and Hough voted for, Schultz and inello voted against and
> I had to abstain.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam
You were censured twice becasue they do not want you on the executive
board. It doesn't matter what you
did. Had you done nothing, you still would have been censured.
cus Roberts
|
|
