Re: the hottest topics involve children in chess

3 posts by The Historian, aka Neil Brennan, a native imbecile, who, in 5
years on usenet hasn't made a single contribution to content. How rarely  I
agree with Sam Sloan!

If its McCarthism vs Net-duh!-nazi, I'd vote for Sam every time!
Fortunately, these are not the only choices. It is also interesting to me to
register who cares for children in chess, and who don't, and who shows up to
register their vote ;))))

Real contributrions to this subject will be entertained, and Nazi sh.t 
ignored as worthless garbage.

Phil Innes

Isn't that what's called "the null set", Dr. Sloan?

Chess One wrote: > ... I challenge anyone actually interested in what I
wrote

Why would you limit the field so drastically?

Well Johnny, I find you are tolerably vague yourself, despite so many words,
you still avoid direct conversation, which really means you ain't at liberty
to conduct an interrogation of other people. I didn't give you permission to
endless state your opinion of others - I invited you to some specifics, and
you skip 'em!

You twice skip the question of standards-for-all. but that's okay, this is
election season, though you disqualify yourself from further interest on my
part, thereby.

We usenet-folk have seen it all before, when someone has to be very bad for
others who have to be seen as very good.

In the meantime, I challenge anyone actually interested in what I wrote to
note the high interest in subjects to do with children, and utter taboo on
anything to do with themselves: and if there is anyone out there who works
in the social sciences you will know what this means.

Phil Innes

I am leaving everything here...   Dude, you were using references in an
argument, moving THIS thread off topic by referring to unpublished stuff
in the future, as far as I can tell.

I can't respond to anything else, because I cannot understand your
references, so I cut to the chase.

And this is your response?  Wow.

I know that you often make sensible arguments.   But underlying all of
this, if a thread is about someones specific acts, it is totally
reasonable to talk about those specific acts, even if it is election season.

It is also totally reasonable, if there are greater issues, to start
ANOTHER thread to talk about the greater issues, if the thread were to
be changed too much.

And oddly again, you make it very difficult to have a conversation with
you, because you keep hijaaking threads to talk about other things, in
this case you have made a quote and CHANGED THE THREAD, and then
complained that I am not FOLLOWING THE THREAD, and claim that your odd
time frame is a Yogi Bearism?!?!?!?

OH MY GOD.

This is like talking with Yogi Berea.

"Hey Yogi, what time is it?"

"You mean, now?"

What Johnny cut was my 2nd inquiry why only Polgar's relations or contracts
should be investigated [during the election lead-up]. He really doesn't like
to answer that one, or even admit it is unanswered ;)

USCF have the power to institute standards pertinent to all contracts and
partnerships.

Instead, we have this urgency about a Polgar issue, some burning desire,
because... ? <shrug>

Whereas USCF's procedures for all partnering are like a sieve, and highly
idiosyncratic, not even clearly defined to responsibility. The usual
nonsense is to dump on the Ex Dir, and you read board comments along the
rogue-director lines which go like this:-

   "The board did not give permission!"

I have now challenged two of those - the first one was with Shultz and
Marinello, asking; "was any permission necessary from the board, and did the
Ex Dir act outside his powers?" -- to which there came an admission that the
answers were "no" and "no". Recently Sam Sloan wrote the same stuff, but on
being challenged he, of course, didn't notice the challenge.

Shultz wrote that he and Marinello would attend to the issue, they didn't.

---
Almost all USCF matters come down to this: No action results which build the
institutional culture, since this would take away the largesse of the
Politicians to go mess with every damned thing, then dump on the Ex Dir or
maybe a partnership with others.

This level of messing is habitual that questions of standards applicable to
everyone are almost literally unthinkable - or at least, I see no evidence
of such thinking in public.

Instead we see more personality politics inflicted in McCarthy-like
campaigns by people who -no small point- I have grave difficulty in thinking
would pass a high-school background check, and I emphasise that

   ***the hottest topics involve children in chess***

Phil Innes

Of course not.  Everybody knows he's referring to an alternate
Universe.  Sheesh.

I went to the site, checked out Alekhine's Parrot, still did not find
what you were quoting about.   Then it occurred to me, I hope I am not
right.

Are you referring to the FUTURE?   You seriously not quoting the future
are you?

I really hope I am wrong and simply cannot find what you are referring
to, because quoting the future, well, you know.  Sheesh.

Check out Alekhine's Parrot Sunday night, or Monday morning

yeah

last week featured 400 words by Susan Polgar in the column, so I think its
on-topic - and I followed that with a women-in chess commentary

Yes - I understood you, but not why 'especially in this case'. If there is a
standard then it relates to all cases.

Well, I do understand you contest something here which, as I understand you,
only relates to Polgar. I [still] don't know why you think so.

My own efforts were about some context to view the issue from, rather than
any special spin at election time.

Phil Innes

If you are going to quote items that are elsewhere, you need a much
better link than just "Chessville."  I did spend literally 10 minutes on
 the site trying to find your references, and I came up bupkiss.

I tried searching, and unbelievably considering the compatibility
decisions that have been made with the site, search doesn't work with
Mac Safari.

So I scrambled through every menu/link thingies I could find.  That Big
chessboard at the front is the main navigation, right?

Or, possibly, you could instead of placing the link, share the content
in context.   You had been doing a lot of complaining about the thread
going off topic, but I am pretty sure that you won here.  I am not sure
why you were trying to take it off context.

The way I saw the thread was, since I view it here on the Usenet, that
there was an issue raised that was raised by Sam Sloan etc, etc....

In this Rob made some asinine remark about lack of transparency was ok,
because there is no "rule" against it, and later says He does it all the
time.  Therefor it must be ok.

My addition to this thread was, no lack of transparency is not ok.  And
that I found it repugnant, and I was sure others would feel the same
way.  Especially, in the specifics of this case.

And then you go and say the above...    Which is very cordial, and
content free, and looks like it is designed to take the thread elsewhere.

As to whatever the other thread was you are referring to, it was not a
thread I was responding to, nor have I read it or responded to it.

Dear Johnny,

Of current board candidates, I asked this direct question to one of them in
an interview; I phrased it; what degree confidentiality, what degree
transparency at USCF? It was a chessville interview with Randy Bauer.

Again, fair comment.

Another question I put to candidate-Bauer followed on from a complaint from
a national master who was an avid correspondence player - he had called for
an Ombudsman to resolve the ratings delay [which took either 6 or 9 months
to resolve, according to varying sources], and he pointed out that active cc
players spend about $100 a year, so when would they get the rating service
they paid for at USCF?

I think candidate-Bauer didn't like that idea very much since I made the
question of any Ombudsman's resolution binding on USCF, if recommendations
were practical and do-able ones, from the staff's point of view. [Ombudsman
is not a 'watchdog', but a disinterested party outside the system who
resolves conflicts].

This week at Chessville I have listed a dozen things normal to any business
or non-profit which are absolutely normal - which are ALL absent at USCF,
and reintroduced this idea we are discussing of an Ombudsman.
[Ombudsperson?]

I think it would be easier to look at say, the Polgar Foundation, through
the lens or filter of existing standards, rather than excite the subject
just for that entity.

What prompted this thread is in effect, a new set of proposed standards
which are not currently in place - and how much better it would be if
current board members would attend to putting such practices in place at
USCF, than making some pretence that they are afraid of new people's
standards of behavior, when the truth is, they have formalized none of their
own!

Cordially, Phil Innes

Actually Phil, I have very little problem with self-dealing.    Self
dealing is often the most straightforward way to get something done, and
aligning of interests is often reasonable.  It is often really hard or
expensive to do it any other way.

The problem is transparency.   All self-dealers should stand up to the
fact, and be examined.  Often it will be just fine, and the results
would be good.  Transparency will make it more difficult to act
malevolently, which is the part that is bad.

Preventing self-dealing means that the watchdogs are too lazy, or the
players too evil to act in the right way.  Simply having sunshine rules
is simple enough, then the membership can decide.

A fair point.

Yet the President of USCF runs the largest competition to its own
tournaments, the CCA. This is by no means placed into any blind-trust of
management issues, and the President can even recommend his own employee to
the board, Mr. Lux, without even disclosing his relationship to him or to
his own business.

I'm with you, if you are saying that business relationships with non-profits
should have some oversight - but you should know that this is a MASSIVE joke
at present, since it would be the first time this was ever encountered at
USCF as anything actually considered as a policy measure

What measures do you, Johnny, think should be in place to defeat any
potential self-dealing by board members?

Cordially, Phil Innes

You do not see why board membership should be undisclosed from one board
to another where they have contractual relationships?   Really? Wow.

Ok, I do not share your view of the world.  And I don't think many
others will either.

I was referring to the Susan Polgar FOundation.
I do not know, but I suspect the he may have been asked to serve as a
non compensated director in her foundations board after he was ED of
the USCF. UNless his contract strictly forbids him from serving on the
board of a not for profit, I don't see any problem. It's just another
Sloan smoke and mirror trick!
Rob

Except they are there to specifically align interest, show support, and
or provide marketing.

It doesn't matter if they *do* anything.

The problem here is in it's undisclosed nature, and the fact that money
was changing hands.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with mutual interest.
Especially about something like promoting chess.

The problem comes from lack of transparency, and the more the interests
are intertwined, the more important transparency is.

Directorships in many non-profit foundations are mearly honoary. hey
have no pay and the boards simple rubber stamp things. I would say
Niro probably had very little actual activity in the foundations daily
running.

Nothing wrong at all. Just sour grapes now.

How many of the other women have someone of Paul Truong's skill
promoting them?
Again, you assertation is flawed.

Lies generally die a quick death these days except when they are
promoted by you Sam.

LOL. Don't you wish? She is a serious canidate because she has an
interest beyond the short term petty politics you so enjoy.

Susan and Paul, Randy and Mr Korenman are what is needed. Visionaries
and honest administrators.
Rob

[quote="DACP"]Pertaining to the SPF - Niro conflict of interest...

The significant part of the issue is that USCF received a legal
opinion pertaining to a contract that Mr. Niro signed with Ms. Polgar
or one of her organizations pertaining to the Olympiad.  When that
opinion was requested, the Executive Board did not know that Mr. Niro
was a director for the SPF.  That was only recently discovered.  Would
the legal opinion have been different had the attorney known of the
potential conflict of interest?  Would the attorney have asked a
different set of questions?  It's a little late in the game to play
Monday Morning quarterback to get those answers.  The cost to obtain
them could very well be more than the settlement that was made.

However, there were several transactions during 2003 which were quite
favorable to Ms. Polgar.  I dare say that the USCF was quite
instrumental in helping to publicize her and helping her to create the
image that is now the one the public sees today.  If anything, that is
probably the issue that creates such a problem for several of us with
knowledge from that time frame.  In 2003, USCF bent over backwards to
help promote Ms. Polgar.  In 2007, Ms. Polgar attacks some of the very
same people who were around four years ago helping to provide her with
that promotion.  There is just something inherently wrong there.

Donna[/quote]

Everybody seems to have overlooked this quote by Donna.

The fact is that the USCF has been heavily promoting Polgar not only
during 2003, but right up to the present day. Her name is mentioned in
a favorable way in every issue of Chess Life. One would not imagine
that Polgar has played very little and done very little since 1996
other than promote herself. Polgar has played in only four major or
significant rated chess events since 1996. All of the publicity she
gets in Chess Life are promotions of her self. Meanwhile, there is no
mention of our top women chess players who actually PLAY chess and do
not just pose for pictures taken by her husband. How many have noticed
that Irina Krush has gained rating points in each of her last seven
tournaments and that Irina Krush defeated US Champion Shabalov in her
last outing? Krush has almost caught up to the inactive Polgar and may
pass her soon.

This is also not to mention the fact that Polgar picked up a lot of
her rating points by playing matches against grandmasters on the
Internet where she won every game, but then she was accused of
cheating in those Internet chess matches. These facts too are being
suppressed.

In short, Susan Polgar is a serious candidate for election only
because the USCF shamelessly promoted her by helping her to create the
image that is now the one the public sees today, and now Ms. Polgar
attacks the very same people, including myself, who were helping to
provide her with that promotion.

Sam Sloan