|
Main
Date: 06 Dec 2008 07:00:55
From: samsloan
Subject: The Problem with Tim Sawmiller as Moderator of the USCF Issues Forum
|
The Problem with Tim Sawmiller as Moderator of the USCF Issues Forum Bill Goichberg says that we must be tolerant of the antics of Tim Sawmiller as moderator, because nobody else wants the job. This issue has come up again, because it took 24 hours before my news that the USCF has been sued again, this time by Hanon Russell, was allowed by Mr. Sawmiller to be posted to the USCF Issues Forum. By the time my posting was allowed to appear, the members of the forum had learned about the new lawsuit from other posters. Although Goichberg claims that only Sawmiller and Vaughn are willing to be moderators, the evidence shows that the real reason that Sawmiller and Vaughn want to be moderators is so that they can censor me. There are others who are willing to serve as moderators. It is just that those others are not hostile to Sloan. At least two moderators have resigned citing overbearing directives from the higher- ups telling them whom to moderate (namely me). One moderator who quit for that reason is Mike Aigner, who had been and continues to be moderator on the Internet Chess Club for the last several years. Mr. Aigner has not been invited back to be moderator of the USCF Issues Forum, after he resigned complaining of interference from above. The problem with having Tim Sawmiller as moderator is that he was appointed as moderator AFTER he had posted that Sam Sloan should be banned from posting. Similarly, Herbert Rodney Vaughn a/k/a Tanstaasfl was appointed as moderator after he was allowed to use the USCF Office Facilities in Crossville, Tennessee for a week so that he could compile his ridiculous 400 page Ethics Complaint in color against Sam Sloan. Here is an example: I posted the following on the USCF Issues Forum in response to an attack on me by Joel Channing: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/da289ced9a3da169 There is nothing wrong with this posting. Yet, within minutes it was deleted by the, at that time, secret moderators. Fortunately, I had also posted it to rec.games.chess.politics which is the reason you can still read it. This resulted in a debate in which both Sawmiller and Vaughn said that I should be banned from posting: http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=31695#p31695 This happened on February 27, 2007, while the USCF Election Campaign was going. Almost immediately thereafter, both Sawmiller and Vaughn were appointed as moderators and predictably they suspended me from posting. Since I was both on the board and running for re-election at that time, the USCF voters who were on the USCF Issues Forum were prohibited from reading my views, thereby contributing to my election defeat. Here is what one poster wrote about the actions of Vaughn and Sawmiller of removing from the forums almost everything I posted while allowing other posters to attack me: http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=69230#p69230 "Rodney is entitled to his opinion on all these matters. Other people, including Sam Sloan, are entitled to their opinions. What seems extremely dubious to me is for Rodney to insist that his view represents the indisputable facts and that any other view is so absolutely false and scurrilous that it must be suppressed as an unsubstantiated personal attack, using his powers as a moderator." Looking through the postings during the election campaign period, one finds innumerable vicious personal attacks on me by Vaughn and Sawmiller. These were the two persons most hostile to my election campaign. It is evident that the Executive Director, Bill Hall, and the President, Bill Goichberg, wanted to stop Sam Sloan from being re- elected to the board and for that reason rewarded Vaughn and Sawmiller for attacking me by appointing them as moderators to the USCF Issues Forum, thereby giving them the power to decide which political views the membership would be allowed or not allowed to read. Sam Sloan
|
|
|
Date: 08 Dec 2008 09:06:44
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Problem with Tim Sawmiller as Moderator of the USCF Issues
|
[quote="fpawn"]I actually recall much of the spring and summer of 2007 as being a time when very few posts were actually pulled. Two of the four original Moderators spent much time waiting for legal guidance from "above" that never came. The other two served only a shorter time, although one earned a reputation for being far more active. I estimate that I pulled less than 20 threads over the course of the 20 weeks that I served. The real reason Mr. Sloan lost the election is because he lost a certain blitz match by 2:0. The Damiano and From gambits are both unsound! Of course, if he had actually beaten me, then I would have had to endorse him and the election would have been almost over. Michael Aigner[/quote] Exactly the point. Mike Aigner only pulled 20 postings during the entire time he was moderator. However, more than one thousand postings were pulled by other moderators during the election period. This was the reason why the higher-ups were deeply dis-satisfied with your performance: You failed to censor the undesirables, including me, anybody who supported me and anybody who even agreed with me on some minor point. That is why you have not been invited back, in spite of your letter stating that you would be willing to come back when the interference stops. Now, about that From's Gambit in Stillwater: I admit that is was very stupid of me to play From's Gambit against anyone with a moniker like fpawn. For the benefit of Harry Payne, From's Gambit involves a move by the f- pawn. On the other hand, you chickened out by not playing into my f-pawn Killer Damiano's Defense, which goes 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ Ke7 5. Qxe5+ Kf7 6. Bc4+ d5 7. Bxd5 Kg6 and now Black has an easy win due to being a knight ahead. So, you were scared to play into it and instead moved your f-pawn. Next time I play you, I will try to play better, especially since I now know that the entire USCF election will be at stake. Sam
|
|
Date: 06 Dec 2008 15:47:13
From:
Subject: Re: The Problem with Tim Sawmiller as Moderator of the USCF Issues
|
samsloan wrote: > Looking through the postings during the election campaign period, one > finds innumerable vicious personal attacks on me by Vaughn and > Sawmiller. These were the two persons most hostile to my election > campaign. I take umbrage at that. I think I was at least as hostile to your election campaign as those two. > > It is evident that the Executive Director, Bill Hall, and the > President, Bill Goichberg, wanted to stop Sam Sloan from being re- > elected to the board and for that reason rewarded Vaughn and Sawmiller > for attacking me by appointing them as moderators to the USCF Issues > Forum, thereby giving them the power to decide which political views > the membership would be allowed or not allowed to read. > > Sam Sloan And that would be why they appointed your supporter (I'm not sure you had more than one), David Quinn, to the FOC? I hate to break this to you, Sam, but the world doesn't revolve around you. You're really not that important.
|
|
Date: 06 Dec 2008 07:10:55
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: The Problem with Tim Sawmiller as Moderator of the USCF Issues
|
He should stick to running that stupid mental sawmill.
|
|