I have been very disappointed with the conducts and behavior of some of the current board members. Instead of putting the best interest of the US Chess and the USCF, some people would do “whatever” it takes to win this election.
What do you think of the current state of the USCF? How would you rate the performance of this board? What grade would you give this board for their handling of the USCF forums?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
u c there cowards n only want wht best for them not for uscf in general instead of xplaining there actions they critisize u thety dont want change cause change doesnt benefit them they shoud stand up du the rite thing n stop actin like children tht they r there phonies hipicrits n they need to act like responsible adults so i say this susan hang in there dont give up u kno wht u did for children n chess they cant answer for there actions goodluck u will prevail
I believe that the current USCF board is not, and is also unwilling to put chess first!
I think it is their prestige and personal financial conciderations that they are more interested in. Not chess, and not the federation!
And most of all, the members!
I am a Life member of USCF.
It has recently been reported on the Forums by a moderator, that Mr. Goichberg has ordered the moderaters to loosen up on moderation during the election season. It just happens that one of the Candidates, that Mr. Goichberg does not favor has campaigned on cleaning up the USCF and maintaining moderation in the Forums.
It seems that this is completely a conflict of interst and that Mr. Goichberg should resign his post on the USCF EB. Such an abuse of power should not be tolerated by the membership of the USCF. This is the kind of dirty politics that we should all find inexcusable.
From Mr. MN on the USCF forums
I, as a moderator, was specifically told by several Executive Board members including Bill Goichberg to loosen up on the moderation of these Forums.
Michael Aigner
Many countless volunteer hours were consumed writing the acceptable use guidelines. This process took quite awhile, and it was approved by the ED and EB. This was the moderators and the FOC Bible. Yet, right during the very midst of a contentious USCF election season, Bill G suddenly starts talking to FOC members one on one and asks them personally to be more permissive. Not once, let me repeat, not once did Bill come and talk to the group directly. Instead he chose to talk to some select members via phone, and private emails asking them to essentially abandon the AUG. These individuals on the FOC then started changing their votes; and basically let everything go if it could be considered political speech. Note– according to Ron, Bill talked to Ron personally, and others as well, but he never communicated his intentions to the group collectively. If a leader all of a sudden abandons the firm line in which was carefully set with his volunteers, and then asks for changes, yet only discusses his intentions with a select few– there is bound to be extra scrutiny.
Just my experienced moderators take,
_________________
Gregory Alexander
I’ve not been happy with my role as Moderator. It is so different from my experience as ICC admin for two reasons. First, ICC’s rules and policies have been established over years while on the Forums, we have been thrown into the perfect storm of an election. Rules have been fluid to the point that the current policies approved by the Executive Board directly contradict some of the instructions I was given by Bill Hall and Mike Nolan when I began this position. Second, ICC has a strong ownership to back the work of the administrators (i.e. if someone complains about an admin), very unlike the USCF whose Executive Director and Executive Board view these Forums as being too hot to handle.
Many of you know that two of my extended emails and several requests for a face-to-face meeting have been ignored by Bill Hall. Certainly there was opportunity for us to meet in Sacramento, Stillwater and Las Vegas. It is a real problem when a Forum member threatens you with legal action unless you do or do not perform a specified moderation. On ICC, it is the job of the ownership to deal with these members. In the USCF, it is expected that each person consult their own private attorney at their own cost.
I was very disappointed with how the Executive Director handled the appeal of a sanction, leaving the Forums in limbo for over a week–a situation that the Moderators and FOC have never recovered from. What happened during that week was far worse than the incident which caused the sanction, but the Executive Director slammed the Moderators by wiping the slate clean. I am also disappointed with the fact that to date certain people still have not come clean with how private content was released to the public. The fact that at least one person involved in this matter has an anti-ICC agenda concerns me, as an ICC administrator.
I promised myself to stick around as Moderator through the delegates meeting. Unfortunately, due to some personal issues, I doubt that I can afford the time and cost of a trip to New Jersey.
Michael Aigner
Moderator4
For the record and the ‘sake of transparency’; I sent this letter to the EB and ED earlier this morning. A few sentences have been edited or deleted for confidentiality.
Dear USCF,
I hereby resign from the moderator position in the USCF Forums. While I did my very best to achieve what was expected of me as a moderator, I no longer feel that I can perform my job diligently. First of all, since the departure of the former FOC Chair, the FOC has changed tremendously. What was once their primary mission to help moderate by having three members needed to pull any post; the FOC has not voted to pull a single post in the last month. However, they will act with astonishing speed to revive posts that have been pulled by the moderators for the sake of ‘allowing political speech’. Thus, posts that infer Susan Polgar as screaming for clients in a brothel have been restored, as well as other viscous postings.
Whenever the FOC votes to restore a post, a message is sent to the forum participants that a new, more permissive line is drawn. It is no wonder that the civility in the forums have declined enormously. The FOC has also voted to sanction me for stating why I pulled a post after they restored it (the motion failed after 24 hours). The FOC is not in a supporting role, and their constant retreat from the AUG has made it very difficult to draw the line and to moderate. It is my contention that people’s reputations are being harmed by this activity, and if we can’t moderate; it hurts us all as an organization.
There is also the issue of the lack of involvement with the ED that is negatively affecting the moderation of the forums. Many of the FOC members have stated that they have had personal conversations with the ED, and the ED has stated that the moderation should be more permissive. I have no problem with this– the goals of the ED should be communicated with the moderators and the FOC. However, it should be done directly and communication should be with the entire team instead of communicating the desires to a select few members. There is quite a bit of confusion that exists with the FOC and moderators regarding how to moderate.
I have tried to put forth a great amount of energy to assist the USCF when I was asked to moderate; but in my opinion; the structure is not set up to succeed and I can no longer carry out this role.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Alexander
The USCF issues forum is a joke and an embarrassment. One of the most frequent posters bragged this morning that when Hal Bogner and Brian Mottershead finish their updates to the website (I thought Bogner mentioned June 20th as the expected date . . . ), the forum will be much more easy to access but I think that’s a mistake. I think that the more members who see the pathetic state of the USCF issues forum, the more members will run for the exits holding their noses and decide to take up bridge instead! It’s become the fiefdom of a few loudmouth know-it-alls who have done next to nothing for chess. It’s an embarrassment and frankly, Goichberg and his fellow USCF board members should be ashamed that it was allowed to happen on their watch. If there is justice in the world, their decision to cave in to lawyer/bully pressure from a certain lawyer from Massachusetts who seems to have a lot of time on his hands (i.e not exactly a thriving law practice or, according to the MSA, a thriving chess career), will come back to haunt them.
This is NOT the first time that Bill Goichberg has abused his authority and power for personal and financial gains. This is why it is a major conflict of interest. He used insider’s info in the past to outbid his opponents for big financial gains. He used his power as President to get confidential info and used them against his political opponents. He sent out post cards and email with lies and personal attacks against his political opponents. He has done a lot of good things for chess (mainly to benefit his pockets) but he also did a lot of things to harm this federation.
I also have to give Schultz and other board members a D or F for joining Goichberg in this disgusting political tactic. They’re elected to serve the USCF members, not Goichberg personal or financial interests.
This board is unethical and corrupt. I’m most disappointed in Schultz and Channing for going along with this pattern. I lost a lot of faith in Channing, especially. He’s becoming one of them. I fully supported him as a fellow Floridian. I’m not so sure about his competence anymore.
This happened because they allowed women and foreigners to run for the board. Look at Alburt, Dlugy and now Polgar, Korenman and Truong. They’re all foreigners and they shouldn’t be allowed to lead an American organization. I’m very angry at this. The delegates must change this rule immediately. We must protect the USCF from all enemies.
That’s new info for me; I didn’t know Brian Mottershead was associated with Bogner. Now all of his comments make sense. Mottershead in my opinion is one of the most negative posters on the forum.
I voted for Goichberg last election knowing his excellent job of organizing events. Now I realize that he has many conflicts of interest with the CCA. Not saying the Susan won’t have any, but I think Goichberg has some very serious ones. I wouldn’t vote for him again and would hope he just concentrates on CCA.
I don’t blame Bogner, Lafferty, Payne, Brenan, Suarez and others. I blame Goichberg (President), Schultz (VP) and this board for lack of leadership and ethics. They created this forums. Rules were made. They changed the rules because they’re losing the election. They lied, attacked, insulted and conducted themselves horribly. I hope they’ll all resign but it won’t happen. They’ll hang on to their power as long as they can because it means big bucks or other personal gains for them.
They act like a bunch of obnoxious brats in the USCF forums. This is an embarrassment to the USCF and US Chess. 1st grader would behave better than Lafferty, Brenan, Sloan, Payne and Suarez. What a bunch of ….
I’m of the personal belief that the USCF needs to get out of the forum business. We’ve outsourced sales, so why not do the same with forums. Just say: “Here are a few forums where people discuss USCF and other chess issues.1… 2… 3…”. The forum is nothing but a liability, and while in general I adore forums, USCF needs to get out of this side of the equation.
Sidenote: when will we approach a time when we realize the best players and organizers are not necessarily the best policy makers? If you want true change, get some non-players involved. You may be surprised what they have to say.
My opinion only, and certainly not Susan’s.
Dan W
Out of curiosity, will Susan or other ticket members be present to view the vote counting?
Brennan Price is a different person than Brenan N who many people are not happy with.
Anyway. here is what Brennan Price has to say on the Forums.
[quote=”brennanprice”] …… makes the organization look really bad. This can be alleviated by moderation, but moderation inherently conflicts with the organization’s responsibilities in the election: announce the election, determine candidate eligibility, print candidate statements that are timely submitted in the designated format, distribute, collect, and count the ballots. Impartiality requires that it do no less and, more importantly, no more.
Candidates should campaign ,,, , say what they feel comfortable saying, and be held to account for it. But they should say what they want to say in their own media on their own dime, and they should be held to account at the ballot box, not here.[/quote]
Basically my understanding is that he is saying the USCF should not be providing a place for all this dirty politics to take place.
here is a copy of a personal message I received from a moderator #3.
I agree with most of what you say.
Well, we will be ramping up the moderation as soon as the deadline to vote passes.
Then we will expect members here to start behaving like adults.
This confirms to me that the moderators were told to back off on moderation during the campaign and will then start to act more appropriate once the election is over. This is dirty politics at its worse. I believe Goichberg is behind this entire smear campaign against Susan. He has his little puppets doing the dirty work. Meantime he is behind the scenes making sure the nasty puppets are giving full ability to do the most horrible postings.
Just take a look at how many times these people edited their posts. I saw one was 7 times and almost all posts were edited. I suspect the moderators were telling them to make edit something.
But those who tried to defend Susan were meantime having no ability to edit a post. they were all immediately deleted. no defence allowed. dirty posts are free to edit some of the worst grievences.
Any court would invalidate this election and force a new election in which the participants were not allowed to do what has occurred on the uscf forums.
Goichberg Hall and Hough were the ones we are told on the forums who pushed for this policy of non moderation during the election. All 3 of them show their true colors and should resign immediately.
I feel bad Susan. I am positive that they stole good votes from you. And they could care less. That was their object from the beginning and every day to steal votes from you. They consider this election successful on their part. It worked according to their plan. Goichberg, Hall and Hough. Remember those names. Hold them accountable for their actions.
It does not happen from no body. there is someone there doing the dirty work. So we have to accept that and find out who they are. Goichberg, Hall and Hough remember those names.
here is my quote from Ron Suarez on the Forums. Ron opposes Susan vigorously. He is no friend of Susan either. But here he admits.
[quote=”Ron Suarez”]
There was a request by the “powers that be”, specifically the EB Liaison group consisting of Bill Goichberg, Bill Hall and Randy Hough, to allow more latitude in postings due to the political situation.
[/quote]
This clearly shows the corruption of the Goichberg / Schultz administration. They wheel and deal behind closed doors and use people like Sloan to attack their opponents while pretending to be angels. Give me a break. Do they really think that we’re all that stupid?
The reason why they heavily attack Susan and Paul is because they know that Susan and Paul can’t be bought.
It’s a very sad time for the USCF. I expected better from Schultz.
Everyone can see Goichberg for who he is now. And everyone can also see Schultz for who he is. The worst part is they can’t see or admit what they’ve done wrong. You can’t be running a multimillion dollar CCA and a non-profit USCF while using confidential info for personal and financial gains. That’s unethical and illegal.
You can’t be a President, endorse your own candidates, and ask volunteers to ignore written rules to destroy your political opponents because you don’t think that you can win the election.
So what will happen 2 or 4 years from now? How far would he be willing to go to destroy the USCF for personal and financial gains?
If what Ron Suarez posted was true (that Goichberg, Hall and Hough told the moderators to back off during election season), there is a serious problem. I think someone could very easily do a statistical analysis and show that after that date, the number of anti-Polgar posts (from the same 4 or 5 malcontents) soared in comparison with posts critical of any other candidate. If Goichberg had remained neutral in the campaign, that’s one thing. But he did not. He chose to come out and endorse certain candidates and criticize others, including GM Polgar. So that, in conjunction with his instruction to the moderators to allow the likes of Brenan Nierman to post the most insulting anti-Polgar garbage all day long, creates at least the appearance of impropriety if not a conflict of interest. Goichberg has a clear political agenda (evidenced by his direct mail and e-mail campaign and website) and he is also in a position to slant the discourse on the USCF issues forum in favor of certain candidates (e.g. Joe Lux) and against others (e.g. Susan Polgar, Paul Truong). Some people claim that Goichberg acted out of concern that a disgruntled voter (i.e. Brian “Blowhard” Lafferty) would file a lawsuit challenging the election due to overzealous moderation on the USCF issues forum but actually I doubt that ever was a real issue. This demonstrated conflict of interest of Goichberg’s may well be a real issue.
I have been so disgusted with USCF that I have not renewed my membership and do not plan to do so unless there is major change. Susan, you have my full support.
-Justin Daniel
Susan, I support you and the people you think highly of. A few months ago I thought with your name recognition and accomplishments (in organizing events for kids with scholarships, etc), you would win in a landslide. Now, with if the current vote total is true, I’m very worried, and hope you have to deal with a majority board that is hostile to you if you get elected. I’m still pulling for you!!!
I’ll have to give it to Goichberg, Bogner, Sloan and their allies that they are playing smart politics taken from the Bush page: say something long enough and frequently enough, and people will believe it. Iraq war anyone???
just read my post, I correct: hope you DON’T have to deal with a hostile board…
The moderators are not ‘Bill’s puppets’. I have deep respect for the other two moderators as well as most of the FOC members that I served with. The permissive attitude is not the fault of team of moderators, but the FOC. The FOC had an immense amount of change when the last Chair, and a few other FOC members resigned. According to other FOC members, Bill G personally asked several FOC members and at least one moderator to allow a more permissive attitude to exist in the forums for the sake of promoting ‘political speech’. Quite often, when a moderator pulled a post that was against the AUG, the FOC would vote to restore it. Furthermore, the FOC has not voted to pull a post in the last month now even though this was designed to be one of the main responsibilities of the FOC- they were supposed to act as a secondary firewall and give support to the moderators to pull posts. This activity and lack of support tied the moderator’s hands and allowed for more breaches of the AUG. That said, other than one member; I also personally believe that all of the members of the FOC approached their duties diligently, even though some of them were convinced by Bill, or their FOC peers, to abandon the AUG.
Call me naive; but I personally do not believe that there is evidence to prove that the current ED did this to harm anyone intentionally. However, making the decision to change the moderation process while in the very middle of voting of a contentious election season did change the tone of the forum and it allowed some personal attacks, and some slander, to occur. For a few weeks, it is a fact that at least a dozen members piled on attack after attack against Susan Polgar and Paul Troung that would not have been allowed if we were to continue to moderate from the AUG. Many of these attacks were slanderous in nature and there was very little factual evidence to back them up (it should be noted that I believe that some slander is allowed here as well). In my opinion this was a bad decision as opens the door to criticisms that is was done for political gain; it was much better to stick to the system that we had. Prior to the decision; some may have believed that we were moderating a bit heavy; however, if it is done consistently, the forum membership would adjust their postings to conform to the AUG. No matter whom you are; you should be able to make you points with civility. If you can’t do so, then you probably should not join a group community in the first place.
Whether it was intentionally made, or not, did this decision by the ED affect the outcome of the election? We will have to wait and see.
Sincerely,
Gregory Alexander
Well Gregory I read what you say but I come to a different conclusion. Rather than your suggestion to keep moderating the political discussion, I agree more with Brennan Price that the USCF should not provide a Forum for Political Discussion.
For example the state of Illinois holds elections between Republicans and Democrats and others but it does not provide a Forum for malicious discussion and slander of the candidates. NONE of the 50 states provide such a forum.
Brennnan is correct. The State of Illinois and the USCF should be providing an unbiased opportunity for the election to take place. Register the candidates, count the votes and determine the winner. Make sure everything is run fairly and honestly.
There will always be a conflict of interest if the USCF is allowed to moderate a political discussion in the middle of an election.
And let me add one other point to your posting. Before things were loosened up by Goichberg the Forum discussion was still unacceptable. It never was a good clean unbiased forum.
I agree with another poster who said there are other web sites where chess is discussed. The same with republican democratic elections, there are all kinds of web sites where people discuss politics.
Lastly Gregory your postings did not show uniform support for people to stop what they were saying about Susan and Paul. Many times you seemed to join in with negative comments about Susan and Paul. So I see it as unfair that you pose as a supporter of fair impartial political discussion. It is my opinion that your posts show you are prejudiced against Susan and Paul and all too often supported those who were slanderous.
To Susan,
I seem to remember your posting that the powers that be said to join them or they would create trouble. I forget exactly what you said in those early days. But it looks like they did as they threatened. Terrible.
The USCF Issues Forum is a poisonous atmosphere for political debate. Some posters there have non-ideal tones when making points.
Guys like Lafferty, Bogner, Payne, Brenan, Suarez are a bunch of obnoxious bullies. Don’t let them bother you. Let them cry and whine all they want. I would never do business with any of them and I would definitely wouldn’t recommend anyone to have anything to do with them.
Not only Payne, Lafferty and Brenan are obnoxious, they’re useless. They’ve done nothing to help chess. All they do is attack and insult people. Kids that I teach in 4th grade behave better than them.
I’ve had some dealings with Hal Bogner in the past. All I can say is I would never do business with this man ever again. He’s as unethical as you can get. This is why I would never sign up for chessmagnetschool.com. I don’t trust him with my money or private information.
Dingbat
Susan
The USCF continues to spiral downward and out of control. The Forums only highlight some of the deep seated problems that will be very difficult to fix.
I wish I had taken up a different hobby. Unless something is done quickly my advice to everyone is going to become to abandon chess as soon as possible. You are the last hope left for chess Susan.
My enthusiasm for chess is going down the drain very quickly when I read the forums on uscf.
“It is my opinion that your posts show you are prejudiced against Susan and Paul and all too often supported those who were slanderous.”
Sigh…
Why is it everyone accuses me of supporting the ‘other side’? If I had a penny for every accusation that my actions are based upon my political affilations– I would be rich.
For the record: I admire Susan’s work and I believe that she can become an extremely effective asset for the USCF. IMO, she already is one of the very best embassadors in US Chess.
I completely agree with Dingbat. I also had bad experience with Hal Bogner in the past. I also heard many horrific stories about him from a number of ICC people. I question his ethics and honesty. The USCF paid him a lot of money to fix the website and instead of doing his job, he’s too busy playing politics.
Hmmm…was it really Bill Goichberg on the phone and behind the emails or did a hacker spoof his nic and impersonate his voice (both relatively simple things for a preteen or teenager to accomplish).
We may never know…
Hmm…if the current board members are voted out, they needn’t worry or act badly about it.
There is always tomorrow and the next election is not all that far away…
I loath posters that would use the USCF message board as a political forum.
I have seen this done time and time again in the Yahoo stock market message boards, too. A few people with an immense amount of free time (in prison?) turn these stock market message forums into their own political advocacy soap-boxes. And so they post non stop, many times per day attacking Republicans or Democrats or Western culture in general, on and on and on, until they drive most of the investment oriented posters away. They use many different IDs and pose facetious attacks against their own position using alternate IDs, trying to make themselves seem wise , belittle their opponents, as well as bolster their claims.
I believe in the First Amendment of the Constitution, the right to freedom of speech, but in a club devoted to chess, enough is enough.