Decision in Ethics Complaint Against Robert Tanner
Sam Sloan
Manchester, NH 03103
November 24, 2006
U.S. Chess Federation
Attn. Pat Knight
P.O. Box 3967
Crossville, TN 38557
Dear Pat:
The USCF Ethics Committee has considered the complaint by Sam
Sloan against Robert Tanner. By a vote of 6-3, the Committee finds
that Tanner's actions constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics and
recommends that he receive a reprimand.
While the Committee saw no evidence that any fictional games were
submitted for rating, the majority has concluded that the events in
question were deliberately designed to manipulate Tanner's rating,
using methods that were "inconsistent with the principles of fair
play, good sportsmanship, honesty and respect for the rights of
others" as specified in Section 6 of the Code of Ethics.
By a vote of 9-0, the Committee agrees that this letter fairly
represents its position.
Sincerely,
Hal Terrie
2006-07 Chair, USCF Ethics Committee
Chess Freak
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:456b78f8...@ca.news.verio.net...
samsloan
Tanner and his response.
It will take me a few hours to do this because my computer hard drive
went bad, so I lost the original which was stored on my computer.
However, I kept one hard copy, I believe, which I shall now retype and
post.
I have kept these documents secret because of the highly sensitive
nature of the affair, but now that the proceedings are over and the
ethics committee has made its report, I feel that the documents upon
which the Ethics Committee based its findings should be made public.
When you see my complaint and his response, you will see that the case
against Mr. Tanner is far stronger than anybody has heretofore
imagined.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Djiatlich, Andre Peroit, and Leopold Rodl. Also, the addresses he
provided for them was his own home address.
There is no requirement that scoresheets of the games played be
preserved or submitted.
These are among the many facts that I learned and have still not
revealed while I was making my investigations which led to my ethics
complaint.
Sam Sloan
mar...@stkittsnevischess.org
ethics committee to do anything to us, as we are not part of the United
States of America, and we also refuse to strip naked for a FIDE drug
test. Both organizations (USCF and FIDE) have gone totally crazy! Only
money will bring sanity to this chaos. We have created a "drug test
free zone" 900 miles SSW of Miama, Florida.
If you are bold enough to call yourself a MASTER of Chess on Saint
Kitts, nobody will get you in trouble.
Life memberships for sale, 500 dollars!
President
Charleston Chess Association, Inc.
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Permanent Delegate of Saint Christopher and Nevis to FIDE
David Kane
> Manchester, NH 03103
>
> November 24, 2006
>
>
> U.S. Chess Federation
> Attn. Pat Knight
> P.O. Box 3967
> Crossville, TN 38557
>
>
> Dear Pat:
>
> The USCF Ethics Committee has considered the complaint by Sam
> Sloan against Robert Tanner. By a vote of 6-3, the Committee finds
> that Tanner's actions constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics and
> recommends that he receive a reprimand.
So 3 of 9 members on the committee *didn't* think that egregious
rating manipulation warrranted even a wrist slap?
Duncan Oxley
"David Kane" <david...@comcast.net> wrote
>>
>> The USCF Ethics Committee has considered the complaint by Sam
>> Sloan against Robert Tanner. By a vote of 6-3, the Committee finds
>> that Tanner's actions constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics and
>> recommends that he receive a reprimand.
>
> So 3 of 9 members on the committee *didn't* think that egregious
> rating manipulation warrranted even a wrist slap?
>
David,
I thought possibly the three voted for a (or wanted) *harsher* punishment?
--Duncan
Don Dooley
*harsher* punishment?
>
Or they well knew what was going on, as it was no mystery to the
knowledgeable USCF administrator, and it has probably happened in the past.
So they felt that Tanner was being singled out by Sloan for a common
cheating technique.
Wick
I missed the part where you explained why cheating became ethical
because it was common.
Wick
parrt...@cs.com
It gets richer and richer. More on our FIDE
"team" member, Robert Tanner, and of course, the
character still sits on the Executive Board, as an
honored contributor to the Federation's backward advance.
Sam Sloan reports that Mr. Tanner has admitted
that he paid the membership dues for Milan Djiatlich,
Andre Peroit, and Leopold Rodl. Also, the addresses he
provided for them was his own home address.
Not only are those in the closed group that
provided Mr. Tanner with so many hundreds of rating
points part of the, ah, same club or whatnot, they are
apparently living in Mr. Tanner's home and having
their dues defrayed by him.
One begins to figure that our FIDE "team"
member's Djiatlich Coffeemaker was one opponent; his
Peroit mineral water another; and his Rodl watch a
third. Against such opponents, you score well and predictably.
We confidently predict that the board members will
continue to regard Mr. Tanner as representing the kind
of honest conduct to which they themselves aspire.
They can prove me wrong by passing a motion
demanding Mr. Tanner's prompt resignation as an EB
member, as an official in FIDE and as a certified
tournament director.
But they won't.
For Mr. Tanner is their reflection severally.
Louis Blair
7 [the board members] can prove me wrong by passing a
7 motion demanding Mr. Tanner's prompt resignation as an
7 EB member, as an official in FIDE and as a certified
7 tournament director.
_
Does the EB have the authority to "demand ... resignation
as an EB member"?
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Larry Parr wrote (29 Nov 2006 04:59:01 -0800):
>[the board members] can prove me wrong by passing a
>motion demanding Mr. Tanner's prompt resignation as an
> EB member, as an official in FIDE and as a certified
> tournament director.
>>Does the EB have the authority to "demand ... resignation
>>as an EB member"?
"Demand" is easy. "Enforce"? Well, that's something else.
Mike Nolan
>Does the EB have the authority to "demand ... resignation
>as an EB member"?
Only in the sense of making a political statement, not as a matter of law.
--
Mike Nolan
parrt...@cs.com
<I would be curious where Larry Parr got his accurate information
on the 6-3 Ethics Committee vote.> -- Joe Lux
Robert Tanner's response amounts to this: he
claims to have met a couple of young guys and played
chess under the stars with them. You know: paid
their dues, let them live with him possibly and the
like. As for the others on his little list of opponents,
did they exist? Do these two young guys exist?
Mr. Tanner would have done about 7,389 times
better to have made no response at all and let Mike
Nolan and the other scavengers carry his water
buckets. If he had just kept his big trap shut, he
could have relied on the usual claque. Now, one
suspects that even a Nolan will not find a wavy grove
to slither out an argument in his defense.
The cool and, yes, utterly stupid arrogance of
the Tanner response strikes one forcibly. Will the
man really be able to sit through public meetings with
a masked smile draped across his map for the remainder
of his term?
Based on the sheer shamelessness of the response
to Sam Sloan's devastating complaint, the answer
may be yes.
THE BOARD CAN DEMAND, NOT COMPEL
<Does the EB have the authority to "demand ...resignation?> -- Louis
Blair
Another suggestively senescent question by the nutty professor.
A majority of the Board may "demand" almost anything, including one
supposes, the impeachment of George Bush.
Still, a demand counts for something.
Sam Sloan is to be congratulated for nailing a
cheating louse to the Caissic cross. His complaint
was a model of exposition; the Tanner response was an
enormous mistake. It made any defense by the usual
claque impossible.
politi...@gmail.com
cheating louse to the Caissic cross. His complaint
was a model of exposition; the Tanner response was an
enormous mistake. It made any defense by the usual
claque impossible. >>
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2923758601441815246&q=Sam+Sloan+for+Governor
relevant passage #1 at 1'00"
"...I also won the world championship of Chinese chess in Beijing,
China, in 1988..."
Should the World Xiangqi Federation's Ethics Committee reprimand Sloan
for this, um, incorrect statement?
relevant passage #2 at 4'38"
"I'm a chess player. I'm a rated chess expert; I used to be a rated
chess master. I'm 61 years old now, my rating's gone down, I can't
hold a master rating anymore [...]"
For once I'll concur with Parr. Sloan--who, like Tanner, claimed a
title that he had never earned--certainly meets the minimum standards
for USCF Board membership. As a convicted felon, he arguably exceeds
these minimum standards.
Back to the usual claque....
Mike Murray
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>relevant passage #2 at 4'38"
>"I'm a chess player. I'm a rated chess expert; I used to be a rated
>chess master. I'm 61 years old now, my rating's gone down, I can't
>hold a master rating anymore [...]"
>For once I'll concur with Parr. Sloan--who, like Tanner, claimed a
>title that he had never earned--certainly meets the minimum standards
>for USCF Board membership. As a convicted felon, he arguably exceeds
>these minimum standards.
An analogy: falsely boasting in a local tavern that you caught a fish
*this* big, versus slipping in a hatchery-raised big one in the
fishing derby.
politi...@gmail.com
Fast-acting claque!
Local tavern? However quixotically, I believe he was seeking the same
political office as Mr. Spitzer, and that a link to this video is
prominently featured on http://www.samsloan.com/
samsloan
> On 29 Nov 2006 22:40:15 -0800, "politi...@gmail.com"
> <politi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >relevant passage #2 at 4'38"
>
> >"I'm a chess player. I'm a rated chess expert; I used to be a rated
> >chess master. I'm 61 years old now, my rating's gone down, I can't
> >hold a master rating anymore [...]"
>
> >For once I'll concur with Parr. Sloan--who, like Tanner, claimed a
> >title that he had never earned--certainly meets the minimum standards
> >for USCF Board membership. As a convicted felon, he arguably exceeds
> >these minimum standards.
Your analogy holds to some extent because my statements were made to a
convention of the Libertarian Party and nobody present other than
myself was a rated tournament chess player or a member of the
USCF.These people present would not know nor care what is the
difference between a master, a grandmaster, an expert or an A-player.
So Bill Brock quibbling over the fact that I called myself an expert
(which I was for more than 40 years) whereas my rating for the time
being has fallen below 2000 is nonsense.
I could of course do what Mr. Tanner did and jack my own rating up to
2300, and that would make it true.
I would not even have to invent fictitious people. I could do what
other board members have done in years past (none would dare do it now
with me on the board) which is simply to order the office to give me a
higher floor.
(Incidentally, I made a motion at the meeting in Stamford on November
17-18, 2006 to abolish all these bogus floors for present and former
employees and present and former board members. Predictably, my motion
failed by 1-5. Mr. Tanner, who I believe would have voted FOR my
motion, had left the meeting to catch a flight.)
As to the statement that I won who was considered to be the World
Championship of Chinese Chess for non-Chinese, that is absolutely true.
I was the top foreigner at the Seven Stars Cup Tournament in Beijing
China in 1988. At that time, the title of "World Champion" did not
exist. Therefore, they gave me the title of "First Foreigner of Chinese
Chess".
This was not a trivial accomplishment. I defeated 2-0 the future
European Champion of Chinese Chess (who is Chinese incidentally). If
you look at the website of the World Xiangqi Federation (Xiangqi means
Chinese chess) you will see that I hold the FM title, the only American
and one of only three Westerners in the world to hold that title. Chess
Grandmaster Robert Hubner of Germany holds the lower NT title. There
are only three titles awarded, the IGM, the FM and the NT titles. There
are no non-Chinese who hold the IGM title, so I hold the highest title
of any non-Chinese.
In 1990, they decided to hold the first official World Championship of
Chinese Chess. I finished only second this time because I missed my
flight and arrived late. The man who won (whom I had defeated in a
previous competition) was an Indian living in Singapore, so he was
considered non-Chinese.
Incidentally, since then the Vietnamese have started to compete. (Prior
to that time, Vietnam was a closed country and they could not get out.)
They insist that they are non-Chinese. They are vastly stronger than us
Europeans and Americans. They are 2700 players while the best of us
really non-Chinese are only about 2250. We have no chance against them,
so I believe that the organizers have abolished the title of World
Champion of Chinese Chess for non-Chinese.
Sam Sloan
Mike Murray
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Fast-acting claque!
Awwwwk. When you clucked, the claque clicked.
politi...@gmail.com
<< [M]y statements were made to a convention of the Libertarian Party
and nobody present other than myself was a rated tournament chess
player or a member of the USCF. These people present would not know nor
care what is the difference between a master, a grandmaster, an expert
or an A-player. >>
Sloan republishes these statements by a prominent link to the Google
Video of his remarks; it is currently the first link in the main
section of the samsloan.com homepage. Sloan, like Tanner, is a USCF
board member claiming a USCF title that he never earned.
Unlike Tanner, Sloan has not retracted his false statements. For when
Sloan tries to explain away his lies, he lies. It is indeed customary
to refer to former experts as experts; I have no issue with that.
However, with respect to Western chess, Sloan claims that he "used to
be a rated chess master." The general public may not take "master" as
a term of art, but "rated ... master" (used twice) implies to the
general public that some organization (such as the organization of
which Sloan is a board member) has validated this (nonexistent)
achievement.
samsloan
> Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> << [M]y statements were made to a convention of the Libertarian Party
> and nobody present other than myself was a rated tournament chess
> player or a member of the USCF. These people present would not know nor
> care what is the difference between a master, a grandmaster, an expert
> or an A-player. >>
>
> Sloan republishes these statements by a prominent link to the Google
> Video of his remarks; it is currently the first link in the main
> section of the samsloan.com homepage. Sloan, like Tanner, is a USCF
> board member claiming a USCF title that he never earned.
>
> Unlike Tanner, Sloan has not retracted his false statements.
When did Mr. Tanner retract his statements?
I am not aware of any such retraction.
Sam Sloan
politi...@gmail.com
>
> I am not aware of any such retraction.
>
> Sam Sloan
Tanner has admitted that he should not have applied to the Life Master
title.
You have no compunction about claiming USCF titles you have not earned.
Vince Hart
On November 29, parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>
> We confidently predict that the board members will
> continue to regard Mr. Tanner as representing the kind
> of honest conduct to which they themselves aspire.
>
> They can prove me wrong by passing a motion
> demanding Mr. Tanner's prompt resignation as an EB
> member, as an official in FIDE and as a certified
> tournament director.
>
> But they won't.
>
> For Mr. Tanner is their reflection severally.
>
>
Both Bill Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello called for Tanner's
resignation on November 27.
Sam Sloan
Parr is never wrong. You are. Parr is my friend. My goal is to get Parr
to be the Chess Life editor again.
Sam Sloan
parrt...@cs.com
<Both Bill Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello called for Tanner's
resignation on November 27.> -- Vince Hart
There is a pathetic quality to Mr. Hart's advocacy.
I may yet be proved wrong by the Board which, as I wrote,
I hope to be so proved.
But the call by President Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello for
Robert Tanner's resignation is not a Board resolution
voted on by the majority. I am still correct in what I wrote.
Sam deals fairly adequately with the egregious
Bill Brock's attempt to defend Robert Tanner's blatant
and delicious dishonesty by changing the subject to
Sam Sloan.
Still, the fallacy in Mr. Brock's attempt to
equate Sam Sloan's claim to have reached a master's
rate with Robert Tanner's serial efforts to use his
accreditation as a USCF tournament director to raise
his rating by several hundred points is evident enough.
Even were Sam's claim dishonest and wrong, which
has not been demonstrated, it would not amount to a
National tournament director corrupting the tournament
directing process by repeatedly plotting through devious
measures to advance his own rating. Mr. Tanner's cheating
was not done in haste or in heat. It was serial, it was
prolonged and it was devious. By any normal
reckoning it speaks to the man's personal character.
It speaks to whether he may be trusted to remain
accredited as a USCF tournament director or as a
member of our FIDE "team."
Sam Sloan
I agree with Larry Parr. I'm the most honest chap in chess. I've never
lied before in my life. Vote for me and I'll go after everyone else in
my next term. My goal is to get rid of Shahade, Polgar and Lucas.
Sam Sloan
Randy Bauer
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> WHERE'S THE BOARD MOTION?
>
> <Both Bill Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello called for Tanner's
> resignation on November 27.> -- Vince Hart
>
> There is a pathetic quality to Mr. Hart's advocacy.
What is pathetic about the fact that Vince reported the truth? Oh, ok,
I forgot who was writing -- I understand now.
>
> I may yet be proved wrong by the Board which, as I wrote,
> I hope to be so proved.
>
> But the call by President Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello for
> Robert Tanner's resignation is not a Board resolution
> voted on by the majority. I am still correct in what I wrote.
Resolutions are a dime a dozen. I've written dozens of them. Actions
are what count.
The bottom line is the Executive Board cannot remove Tanner and public
pronouncements that he should resign are a strong statement by those
individuals. Besides Beatriz and Bill, I believe that Joel has also
made such a statement.
I bet that should Tanner, after pressure from the other members of the
Board, actually resign, that Parr will harrumph and complaikn about the
excessive time it took to accomplish this.
Anyone want to take me up on it?
Randy Bauer
Vince Hart
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> WHERE'S THE BOARD MOTION?
>
> <Both Bill Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello called for Tanner's
> resignation on November 27.> -- Vince Hart
>
> There is a pathetic quality to Mr. Hart's advocacy.
>
> I may yet be proved wrong by the Board which, as I wrote,
> I hope to be so proved.
>
> But the call by President Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello for
> Robert Tanner's resignation is not a Board resolution
> voted on by the majority. I am still correct in what I wrote.
>
No Larry, you are proved wrong because you "confidently predict[ed]
that the board members will continue to regard Mr. Tanner as
representing the kind of honest conduct to which they themselves
aspire" and that prediction was in fact false even before you made it.
I agree, however, that a resolution also would have proved you wrong.
politi...@gmail.com
> [...]
>
> Sam deals fairly adequately with the egregious
> Bill Brock's attempt to defend Robert Tanner's blatant
> and delicious dishonesty by changing the subject to
> Sam Sloan.
>
> Still, the fallacy in Mr. Brock's attempt to
> equate Sam Sloan's claim to have reached a master's
> rate with Robert Tanner's serial efforts to use his
> accreditation as a USCF tournament director to raise
> his rating by several hundred points is evident enough.
Unironically for a moment: I agree that it would be best for Mr. Tanner
(whom I've never met, AFAIK) to resign from the Board and from all USCF
positions immediately.
As I am no longer a USCF member, however, my opinion is irrelevant.
parrt...@cs.com
<Resolutions are a dime a dozen. I've written dozens of them. Actions
are what count.> -- Randy Bauer
How Randy Bauer and Vinnie Hart must hate Sam
Sloan for nailing one of their own, Robert Tanner, to
the cross of his own well-plotted, serial and
multi-year misdeeds. Mr. Tanner acted not in haste,
not from choler, not from anger. He cheated and
cheated and cheated, abused and abused and abused a
trust and a sanction as a USCF TD -- coolly and greedily.
Yes?
Federationists Bauer and Vinnie hope that it will
all go away and try to change the subject away from
Mr. Tanner's wonderfully tricky greed.
I wrote that the Executive Board would not take
action against Robert Tanner because he is they and
they are he.
In response we have a couple of creatures stating
that, well, the EB cannot force a resignation and
private statements from two or possibly three of its
members shows my statement or prediction to be untrue.
Nonsense.
For this Board to fail to pass a motion that becomes part
of the PERMANENT and PUBLIC record noting the years'-long
abuse and cheating of one of its members and to call for his
resignation is to sully every member of the Board.
Indeed, the Board appears far more interested in
censuring Sam Sloan rather than THANKING him for
exposing one of their own as a serial abuser of status
and privilege within the USCF.
If the members of this Board have any sense of
decency, they will table a motion to APPLAUD Sam Sloan
for his careful and utterly devastating account of Mr.
Tanner's doings.
Certainly, every USCF member owes Sam a vote of
thanks. He caught a cheat and a ratings crook.
samsloan
You seem to be aware that the board has just censured me instead.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
Joel Channing wants to kick my ass. Her knows I'm a lover and white
collar criminal and not a fighter. Don Schultz wants to hire the Jewish
Mafia to take care of me. I'll expose them all! I'm going down in flame
but I'll be remembered as the biggest dick in chess.
Sam Sloan
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1164956803....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> BIRDS OF A FEATHER
<...>
>
> I wrote that the Executive Board would not take
> action against Robert Tanner because he is they and
> they are he.
Although, When Don Shultz wrote me here he indicated several things, among
which [as I understood him] was the factor of the ethics committee reported
to the Delegates, not the board.
I did not receive any response to my questions of what powers anyone had,
nor any timeline, nor indeed, what is secret procedure. Can anyone address
these questions from either the bye-laws or from precedent?
> In response we have a couple of creatures stating
> that, well, the EB cannot force a resignation and
> private statements from two or possibly three of its
> members shows my statement or prediction to be untrue.
I think they are correct in the first part, that these calls for resignation
are individual ones, and not as a board resolution. Since the members elect
the board, there would appear to be a need for impeachment instead of
board-enforcement. I understood your comment to be that the board will not
corporately vote to remove Mr. Tanner, which until today, is a true
statement.
What I do not understand is if removal from the board is a technical measure
that must be conducted by the delegates, rather than the board. Who knows
the answer to that one?
> Nonsense.
>
> For this Board to fail to pass a motion that becomes part
> of the PERMANENT and PUBLIC record noting the years'-long
> abuse and cheating of one of its members and to call for his
> resignation is to sully every member of the Board.
Of course it would, with the except that I mention above that it is not
their business, but rather the business of the delegates.
> Indeed, the Board appears far more interested in
> censuring Sam Sloan rather than THANKING him for
> exposing one of their own as a serial abuser of status
> and privilege within the USCF.
>
> If the members of this Board have any sense of
> decency, they will table a motion to APPLAUD Sam Sloan
> for his careful and utterly devastating account of Mr.
> Tanner's doings.
>
> Certainly, every USCF member owes Sam a vote of
> thanks. He caught a cheat and a ratings crook.
To depersonalise this issue somewhat, can anyone provide straightforward
answers to these questions:
1) What can the ethics committee determine, if anything, about the result of
their findings?
2) To whom do they report their findings, and if any, recommendations?
3) Is there a time-line within which anyone is required to act?
4) What degree of secrecy can be commanded by USCF to
(a) its own findings
(b) its own process
5) In the issue of board-censure of Sam Sloan,
(a) is this itself unethical? In a public non-profit, can various forms
of graft be claimed to be 'secret'
(b) if USCF board members utter publicly or privately, on either Tanner
or Sloan, are these ever more than 'personal opinion', and to what degree is
this ethical?
6) What happens next, if
(a) Mr. Tanner ignores calls for his resignation?
(b) If Mr. Tanner resigns
Phil Innes
Randy Bauer
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> BIRDS OF A FEATHER
>
> <Resolutions are a dime a dozen. I've written dozens of them. Actions
> are what count.> -- Randy Bauer
>
> How Randy Bauer and Vinnie Hart must hate Sam
> Sloan for nailing one of their own, Robert Tanner, to
> the cross of his own well-plotted, serial and
> multi-year misdeeds. Mr. Tanner acted not in haste,
> not from choler, not from anger. He cheated and
> cheated and cheated, abused and abused and abused a
> trust and a sanction as a USCF TD -- coolly and greedily.
Exactly how would you conclude that Robert Tanner is "one of their
own?" Because we're both USCF members? Both have served on the
Executive Board? Something else?
In fact, I've met Robert a grand total of one time, don't believe we've
ever had a conversation, and ran on opposing slates the last election.
Great deduction, Larry -- I'd suggest you not quit your day job for a
career in sleuthing.
In fact, on November 19th, this is what I wrote about the matter
(before the facts of the Ethics Committee decision were made public:
"If the charges are shown to be true, there should be real penalties
applied. I do not believe that I could support anybody in a position of
authority in the USCF who has been shown to have engaged in such
conduct. It is simply unacceptable. It is wrong, it is a lie, and that
person cannot be trusted to put the interests of the USCF above their
own."
I also believe that Robert should resign from his positions of
authority within the USCF.
>
> Federationists Bauer and Vinnie hope that it will
> all go away and try to change the subject away from
> Mr. Tanner's wonderfully tricky greed.
See above. I'm absolutely confident that Vince Hart feels the same
way.
Randy Bauer
Mike Murray
>You seem to be aware that the board has just censured me instead.
>Sam Sloan
For going public ?
chessdon
> To depersonalise this issue somewhat, can anyone provide straightforward
> answers to these questions:
>
> 1) What can the ethics committee determine, if anything, about the result of
> their findings?
they made a recommendation. It is final unless the accused appeals to
the Board or in the case of the accused being a member of the Board,
the delegates.
> 2) To whom do they report their findings, and if any, recommendations?
the accuser, the accusee and the EB
> 3) Is there a time-line within which anyone is required to act?
An appeal must be done within 30 days
> 4) What degree of secrecy can be commanded by USCF to
> (a) its own findings
whatever they wish for themselves but the accuser is free to make
public the findings.
> (b) its own process
> 5) In the issue of board-censure of Sam Sloan,
> (a) is this itself unethical? In a public non-profit, can various forms
> of graft be claimed to be 'secret'
I don't know,
> (b) if USCF board members utter publicly or privately, on either Tanner
> or Sloan, are these ever more than 'personal opinion', and to what degree is
> this ethical?
I think the different approaches on this by all board members were
proper
> 6) What happens next, if
> (a) Mr. Tanner ignores calls for his resignation?
Let's wait and see before we speculate
> (b) If Mr. Tanner resigns
We have to determine whether to expand the coming election from 3 EB
spots to 4 or not.
Let me say that I think the Ethics committee recommendation of a
reprimand insufficient. I think they completely mishandled the whole
tanner matter. They leaked information of a final vote then sat on it
for a long time while BBs went at it ad nauseum. Their reimand was
definitely insufficient.
Robert Tanner made a terrible mistake and is paying a high price. I
would have preferred to see a harsh penalty but one for which somebody
like Robert who has done so much to promote chess could absorb. I feel
great sadness for him and hope to see him somehow redeem himself in the
years ahead. Knowing him , i think if anybody can recover from this
setback it is he.
Mike Nolan
>What I do not understand is if removal from the board is a technical measure
>that must be conducted by the delegates, rather than the board. Who knows
>the answer to that one?
Under Illinois law, the only body who can remove an Executive Board member
from the Executive Board is the group that put him there in the first
place, ie the roughly 40,000 voting members, through a recall. The
Executive Board does not have the authority to initiate a recall, but
as of last August the Delegates do have that authority. One of the
ways a recall can be initiated is by petition of the Delegates.
Once initiated, the recall would result in sending ballots to the voting
members, probably by putting them in Chess Life.
--
Mike Nolan
Vince Hart
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> BIRDS OF A FEATHER
>
> <Resolutions are a dime a dozen. I've written dozens of them. Actions
> are what count.> -- Randy Bauer
>
> How Randy Bauer and Vinnie Hart must hate Sam
> Sloan for nailing one of their own, Robert Tanner, to
> the cross of his own well-plotted, serial and
> multi-year misdeeds. Mr. Tanner acted not in haste,
> not from choler, not from anger. He cheated and
> cheated and cheated, abused and abused and abused a
> trust and a sanction as a USCF TD -- coolly and greedily.
>
> Yes?
More drivel from Larry! I have never said anything in support of Mr.
Tanner. In fact, I was unequivocal in stating that I thought that his
tournament record evidenced improper conduct.
>
> Federationists Bauer and Vinnie hope that it will
> all go away and try to change the subject away from
> Mr. Tanner's wonderfully tricky greed.
>
What nonsense! On the contrary, I pointed out that Goichberg and
Marinello had called for Tanner's resignation. On what planet does
that constitute changing the subject?
> I wrote that the Executive Board would not take
> action against Robert Tanner because he is they and
> they are he.
You also wrote that the Executive Board would continue to embrace
Tanner. You were proved wrong.
Sam Sloan
Larry never lies. I never lie either. You're the one who's lying.
Sam Sloan
Kenneth Sloan
>
> 1) What can the ethics committee determine, if anything, about the result of
> their findings?
The Ethics Committee determines if the Code of Ethics (or the Board Code
of Conduct) has been violated, and recommends various levels of sanctions.
> 2) To whom do they report their findings, and if any, recommendations?
To the Office, and to the participants in the case.
> 3) Is there a time-line within which anyone is required to act?
Before the decision, there is a standard time line for gathering of
statements.
After the decision, no.
> 4) What degree of secrecy can be commanded by USCF to
> (a) its own findings
> (b) its own process
Only Ethical concerns enforce secrecy.
> 5) In the issue of board-censure of Sam Sloan,
> (a) is this itself unethical?
Sorry - that's a matter for the Ethics Committee to determine - if, of
course, anyone files a complaint. As a matter of settled policy,
members of the Ethics Committee do not speculate on hypothetical situations.
> In a public non-profit, can various forms
> of graft be claimed to be 'secret'
Anything can be claimed.
> (b) if USCF board members utter publicly or privately, on either Tanner
> or Sloan, are these ever more than 'personal opinion', and to what degree is
> this ethical?
See above.
> 6) What happens next, if
> (a) Mr. Tanner ignores calls for his resignation?
He will continue to serve on the EB.
> (b) If Mr. Tanner resigns
He will cease to serve on the EB.
--
Kenneth Sloan Kennet...@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
Kenneth Sloan
>> 2) To whom do they report their findings, and if any, recommendations?
>
> the accuser, the accusee and the EB
No. The Ethics Committee does not report to the EB. A decision letter
is sent to the Office, with copies to the participants.
chessdon
There were six questions. I had one I-don't -know and as Ken points
out, one wrong. That is 4 out of six or 66.67% - probably better than
expectations.
Rob
Can a recall petition be initiated anytime or only at a delegates
meeting? What are the proceedures for doing this? WHat is the
percentage of delegates required to sign a recall petition?
Would the USCF then incur the expense of sending out ballots again at
the cost of many tens of thousands of dollars? If that is the case and
the delegates knew it to be so ,I don't think the economic cost is
justifiable.
Hal Terrie
[snip]
>Let me say that I think the Ethics committee recommendation of a
>reprimand insufficient. I think they completely mishandled the whole
>tanner matter.
You are entitled to your opinion. I cannot cannot discuss with
you the specifics of a case but let me just say that it would be a
mistake for you to conclude that we did not have good reasons for what
we did.
I also think it is most unfortunate that a member of the
Executive Board would make such a comment in public. Since you have, I
will respond the same way.
>They leaked information of a final vote
It is true that there was a leak from the Committee. This was
most unfortunate and I have taken steps to discourage any such thing
from happening in the future.
> then sat on it
>for a long time while BBs went at it ad nauseum.
We did not "sit on" the decision. Let me explain a few facts
of life to you, Don. The Committee is composed entirely of volunteers,
all of whom have work and family obligations which must sometimes take
precedence over Committee work. Since we began our new term in
September, there have frequently been occasions where work obligations
have caused us to hold up our deliberations until everyone could
participate.
As far as the Tanner case goes, there were some special
cirumstances. As I am sure you have been informed, on Nov. 1st (after
the decision vote but before the letter was written), I had a death in
my family. That caused a substantial delay. Then, a Committee member
was out of town on business for several days (with no e-mail access)
and our office contact was off work for the entire week of
Thanksgiving.
Speaking for all of us, I'm sure we're all just SO sorry our
private lives interfered with your precious ethics case.
-- Hal Terrie (2006-07 Ethics Committee Chair)
Sam Sloan
Then resign if it's too much for you. Your guy leaked the info to me 3
times and now you want to blame me for spreading the juice?
Sam Sloan
David Kane
"Hal Terrie" <halNOSP...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b3c1n2tceunjs7nim...@4ax.com...
> On 1 Dec 2006 06:40:37 -0800, "chessdon" <ches...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>Let me say that I think the Ethics committee recommendation of a
>>reprimand insufficient. I think they completely mishandled the whole
>>tanner matter.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion. I cannot cannot discuss with
> you the specifics of a case but let me just say that it would be a
> mistake for you to conclude that we did not have good reasons for what
> we did.
What prevented you from putting some of your
reasoning in your ruling?
Hal Terrie
We did put some of our reasoning in the ruling.
-- Hal Terrie
chessdon
DS: An Ethics case involving the reputation of a USCF member is
precious . I'm sorry about your dad, that is hard - My father died in
1984 in an accident. The pain of his death is still with me. However,
you should have recused yourself. No person on the committee is
indispensible even the chair. The leak of your final vote was not
simply days, it was weeks.before your committed reported.
Waiting for someone to return from a business trip is inexcusable. You
have nine people on your committee. The ethical thing to do, once the
leak occurred was to proceed post haste for full disclosure and you as
chair and the guy on the business trip would have to trust that the
other seven could handle the job without your participation.
MY PRECIOUS ETHICS CASE!? Every Ethic matter should be considered
precious and handled swiftly and fair. Based on this characterization
of yours belittling the matter by calling it MY PRECIOUS CASE, you
should resign from the Ethics Committee. You have shown by your own
words the root casue of the problem
You tell me I should keep quiet about this. I am a delegate and you are
a delegate's committee. I have every right to voice my criticism. You
and your committee are not immune from criticism.
You conduct your votes in secret. My experience has been that ethic
committee votes of other organizations are not secret. I will see what
I can do to have the delegates require OUR Ethics Committee to conform
to that level of openness.
Your committee has some of the finest ethical people in our
organization on it. You can do better . . . much much better.
Don Schultz
David Kane
Not enough for people to conclude that you
had good reasons for what you did, which is
the point.
Louis Blair
7 ... We confidently predict that the board members will
7 continue to regard Mr. Tanner as representing the kind
7 of honest conduct to which they themselves aspire.
7
7 They can prove me wrong by passing a motion
7 demanding Mr. Tanner's prompt resignation as an EB
7 member, as an official in FIDE and as a certified
7 tournament director.
7
7 But they won't. ...
_
Vince Hart wrote (30 Nov 2006 09:44:04 -0800):
7 Both Bill Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello called for
7 Tanner's resignation on November 27.
_
Larry Parr wrote (30 Nov 2006 17:33:33 -0800):
7 ... I may yet be proved wrong by the Board which, as I
7 wrote, I hope to be so proved.
7
7 But the call by President Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello
7 for Robert Tanner's resignation is not a Board resolution
7 voted on by the majority. I am still correct in what I wrote.
7 ...
_
Vince Hart wrote (30 Nov 2006 19:03:37 -0800):
7 No Larry, you are proved wrong because you "confidently
7 predict[ed] that the board members will continue to regard
7 Mr. Tanner as representing the kind of honest conduct to
7 which they themselves aspire" and that prediction was in
7 fact false even before you made it. ...
_
Larry Parr wrote (30 Nov 2006 23:06:43 -0800):
7 BIRDS OF A FEATHER
7 ...
7 How Randy Bauer and Vinnie Hart must hate Sam Sloan for
7 nailing one of their own, Robert Tanner, to the cross of his own
7 well-plotted, serial and multi-year misdeeds. ...
7 ...
7 Federationists Bauer and Vinnie hope that it will all go away
7 and try to change the subject away from Mr. Tanner's
7 wonderfully tricky greed.
7
7 I wrote that the Executive Board would not take action against
7 Robert Tanner because he is they and they are he.
7
7 In response we have a couple of creatures stating that, well,
7 the EB cannot force a resignation and private statements from
7 two or possibly three of its members shows my statement or
7 prediction to be untrue.
7
7 Nonsense. ...
_
Vince Hart wrote (1 Dec 2006 08:48:26 -0800):
7 More drivel from Larry! I have never said anything in support
7 of Mr. Tanner. In fact, I was unequivocal in stating that I
7 thought that his tournament record evidenced improper
7 conduct.
7 ...
7 ... I pointed out that Goichberg and Marinello had called for
7 Tanner's resignation. On what planet does that constitute
7 changing the subject?
7 ...
7 [In addition to writing that the Executive Board would not
7 take action against Robert Tanner, Larry Parr] wrote that the
7 Executive Board would continue to embrace Tanner. [He
7 was] proved wrong.
_
Does Larry Parr want to claim that the comments below were
written with the "hope that it will all go away"?
_
"I definitely do not believe that a 'statute of limitations'
should apply here. If the charges are shown to be
true, there should be real penalties applied. I do not
believe that I could support anybody in a position of
authority in the USCF who has been shown to have
engaged in such conduct. It is simply unacceptable.
It is wrong, it is a lie, and that person cannot be
trusted to put the interests of the USCF above their
own." - Randy Bauer (Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:31 pm)
_
"... I find the MSA data quite suspicious as well.
...
Even if the insiders are real people, it is hard for
me to come up with an innocent explanation for
the results." - Vince Hart (Wed Nov 22, 2006
10:05 am)
_
"... In a addition to being a national officer, Mr.
Tanner also certified the validity of many of the
anomalous tournaments as TD. I think that
obligates him to address legitimate questions
about those events. ..." - Vince Hart (Fri
Nov 24, 2006 8:15 pm)
_
"The only facts I know are the records of the tournaments
and it is my opinion that what I see in the MSA is not
consistent with fair and unbiased events. ..." - Vince
Hart (Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:23 am)
_
"... [Hal Bogner] is pointing out that there is a small circle
of players who compete in nearly all the games during
the period where Tanner's rating increases by about 100
points. That is an extremely unusual situation, don't you
agree?" - Randy Bauer (Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:08 pm)
_
(On Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:35 pm, Sam Sloan posted "Decision
in Ethics Complaint Against Robert Tanner", quoting a letter
by Hal Terrie, 2006-07 Chair, USCF Ethics Committee.)
Mike Nolan
>Can a recall petition be initiated anytime or only at a delegates
>meeting? What are the proceedures for doing this? WHat is the
>percentage of delegates required to sign a recall petition?
I suggest you read the text of the motion in the minutes of the 2006
Delegates Meeting, available on the USCF website in ENQ #2 for 2006
(look under Publications.)
>Would the USCF then incur the expense of sending out ballots again at
>the cost of many tens of thousands of dollars? If that is the case and
>the delegates knew it to be so ,I don't think the economic cost is
>justifiable.
Yes, the USCF would incur the cost, but if the ballots were distributed in
Chess Life the cost would be much smaller. (I cannot give you an exact
figure because we're still looking into that in conjunction with the
planning for the 2007 EB Election.)
--
Mike Nolan
parrt...@cs.com
>Robert Tanner made a terrible mistake and is paying
a high price. I would have preferred to see a harsh penalty but one
for which somebody like Robert who has done so much to promote chess
could absorb. I feel great sadness for him and hope to see him somehow
redeem himself in the years ahead. Knowing him , i think if anybody can
recover from this setback it is he.> -- Don Schultz
Don Schultz speaks of Robert Tanner redeeming
himself. He is the first to speak some sense among
those in power.
Redemption begins with Mr. Tanner WITHDRAWING
his dishonest defense that he presented to the Ethics
Committee. He admits to the whole tawdry episode,
spells out what he did, etc.
Then he resigns from the board and from FIDE,
though it is true he fits right in there. He HIMSELF
asks to have his TD credentials suspended for a period
that the committee in question deems adequate.
Eventually, Mr. Tanner gets his TD credentials
back and starts doing chess work again. He has
admitted his offense, paid the price and at that point
-- but ONLY AT THAT POINT -- we move on. He gets his
second chance.
Otherwise, there is no reason to believe he is
contrite in the least.
samsloan
Tanner should resign. He's a dishonest TD. Larry Parr is always right.
Sam Sloan
Hal Terrie
[snip]
>Waiting for someone to return from a business trip is inexcusable. You
>have nine people on your committee. The ethical thing to do, once the
>leak occurred was to proceed post haste for full disclosure and you as
>chair and the guy on the business trip would have to trust that the
>other seven could handle the job without your participation.
Sorry but I disagree. The people on the Committee represent a
wide variety of backgrounds and viewpoints. We want every member to
participate because we can never be sure when someone may have a
valuable insight that may help the others form a final opinion. I did
not think it necessary to change this procedure just because of the
leak.
>MY PRECIOUS ETHICS CASE!? Every Ethic matter should be considered
>precious and handled swiftly and fair. Based on this characterization
>of yours belittling the matter by calling it MY PRECIOUS CASE, you
>should resign from the Ethics Committee. You have shown by your own
>words the root casue of the problem
I will not comment on this personal attack. Needless to say, I
will not resign from the Committee.
>You tell me I should keep quiet about this. I am a delegate and you are
>a delegate's committee. I have every right to voice my criticism. You
>and your committee are not immune from criticism.
>
>You conduct your votes in secret. My experience has been that ethic
>committee votes of other organizations are not secret. I will see what
>I can do to have the delegates require OUR Ethics Committee to conform
>to that level of openness.
I have long been on the record as supporting a policy of
reporting not only the vote counts but the names of the voters as
well. The last time this issue was visited by the Committee (some
years ago) I argued for it as strongly as I could but my position did
not prevail. The make-up of the Committee was rather different then;
maybe I will raise the issue again and see what happens.
I would have no objection to the Delegates requiring that the
names of voters be revealed.
-- Hal Terrie
parrt...@cs.com
THE PUNISHMENT LEVEL
In my account of how Robert Tanner can put his
cheating (not merely a "mistake") behind him, I
neglected to discuss a key punishment criterion.
If it is true that Mr. Tanner supports his family via
chess and that a TD accreditation is crucial, then
these factors are important when considering the
period of time that he has his TD credentials yanked.
That there must be punishment is not the issue. The
issue is the period of time that Mr. Tanner cannot
direct rated USCF tournaments. My view is that
someone who has cheated and who is not supporting
himself through chess ought to face a longer period of
suspension because the amount of punishment he is
suffering is inherently less than that endured by a
chess person who is supporting his family through the game.
If, say, a suspension of two years might be
about right for the casual TD who is proved a cheat,
then a corresponding period of punishment for Mr.
Tanner might be six months.
Kenneth Sloan
I didn't say you got the others right - only that *this* one was wrong.
politi...@gmail.com
(not "acted unprofessionally" or "exercised poor judgment") in the
Tanner matter. Mr. Terrie's alleged unethical conduct occurred in the
month after the death of Mr. Terrie's father.
If Don Schultz needs to identify someone who acts unethically, he does
have a mirror.
I would ask that those who have access to the USCF forum to repost
Schultz's comments there, so Schultz can explain these comments--or
withdraw them--in an appropriate venue.
politi...@gmail.com
murder, what's the appropriate interval to wait before Dato' allows
himself to enter into negotiations with KIrsan for the composition of
the next FIDE board?
Chess One
Ethics committee recommend a 'reprimand', and if board members such as
yourself, B. Marinello, and President Goichberg, already called for
something more, then presumably the accused cannot stand trial a second time
for the same offense, and the affair is over?
Sorry not to include you message in my column, but I already filed it. And
there is other news about chess politics this week which might cheer us up,
perhaps not anyone at USCF or FIDE, together with a deep interview on what
is happening in chess in the USA conducted with someone adept at pursuing
it.
Cordially, Phil Innes
"chessdon" <ches...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1164984037.4...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
WPraeder
> WHERE'S THE BOARD MOTION?
>
> <Both Bill Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello called for Tanner's
> resignation on November 27.> -- Vince Hart
>
> There is a pathetic quality to Mr. Hart's advocacy.
>
> I may yet be proved wrong by the Board which, as I wrote,
> I hope to be so proved.
>
> Robert Tanner's resignation is not a Board resolution
>
> Bill Brock's attempt to defend Robert Tanner's blatant
> and delicious dishonesty by changing the subject to
> Sam Sloan.
>
> Still, the fallacy in Mr. Brock's attempt to
> equate Sam Sloan's claim to have reached a master's
> rate with Robert Tanner's serial efforts to use his
> accreditation as a USCF tournament director to raise
> his rating by several hundred points is evident enough.
>
> Even were Sam's claim dishonest and wrong, which
> has not been demonstrated, it would not amount to a
> National tournament director corrupting the tournament
> directing process by repeatedly plotting through devious
> measures to advance his own rating. Mr. Tanner's cheating
> was not done in haste or in heat. It was serial, it was
> prolonged and it was devious. By any normal
> reckoning it speaks to the man's personal character.
> It speaks to whether he may be trusted to remain
> accredited as a USCF tournament director or as a
> member of our FIDE "team."
>
>
> Vince Hart wrote:
> > On November 29, parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> > >
> > > We confidently predict that the board members will
> > >
> > >
> > > But they won't.
> > >
> > > For Mr. Tanner is their reflection severally.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Both Bill Goichberg and Beatriz Marinello called for Tanner's
> > resignation on November 27.
Larry,
Even if demanding a resignation is not in order we should at least
expect a motion to censure - formally expressing the Executive
Board's displeasure concerning the conduct of a fellow officer.
I suspect any actual sanctions will need to follow proper due process
through the Board of Delegates.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://parli.com/newsletter/news3-99.htm
Chess One
of Don Shultz
"Kenneth Sloan" <Kennet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekprb6$5as$3...@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu...
> Chess One wrote:
>
>>
>> 1) What can the ethics committee determine, if anything, about the result
>> of their findings?
>
> The Ethics Committee determines if the Code of Ethics (or the Board Code
> of Conduct) has been violated, and recommends various levels of sanctions.
>
>> 2) To whom do they report their findings, and if any, recommendations?
>
> To the Office, and to the participants in the case.
>
>> 3) Is there a time-line within which anyone is required to act?
>
> Before the decision, there is a standard time line for gathering of
> statements.
>
> After the decision, no.
>
>> 4) What degree of secrecy can be commanded by USCF to
>> (a) its own findings
>> (b) its own process
>
> Only Ethical concerns enforce secrecy.
I do not understand that response. Unless there is some specific which
requires secrecy [and what can that be?] is USCF obliged to answer both (a)
and (b) if requested?
>> 5) In the issue of board-censure of Sam Sloan,
>> (a) is this itself unethical?
>
> Sorry - that's a matter for the Ethics Committee to determine - if, of
> course, anyone files a complaint. As a matter of settled policy, members
> of the Ethics Committee do not speculate on hypothetical situations.
A tautology.
>> In a public non-profit, can various forms of graft
>> be claimed to be 'secret'
>
> Anything can be claimed.
I take that answer [by a USCF committe member] to mean that graft can be
maintained in secret as a matter of USCF policy.
>> (b) if USCF board members utter publicly or privately, on either
>> Tanner or Sloan, are these ever more than 'personal opinion', and to what
>> degree is this ethical?
>
> See above.
Which states nothing whatever. Not all answers can be of the 'yes' or no'
kind, but this one can.
>> 6) What happens next, if
>> (a) Mr. Tanner ignores calls for his resignation?
>
> He will continue to serve on the EB.
So I understand.
>> (b) If Mr. Tanner resigns
>
> He will cease to serve on the EB.
Trite. What happens to board composition is the sense of the question.
If writers make declarations here, and I see many have already done so while
holding USCF positions of one sort or another, can they please identify
themselves?
As a technical matter, Delegate Eric Johnson seems to have encouraged Tanner
to apply for his masterhood, at least Tanner says this:-
"Shortly after dropping into the 2100s (about 1996 or 1997) I was approached
by Eric Johnson who said I had 299 games at 2200 and would I like to be
given the OLM title as there was precedent in a few cases where players were
close. I declined largely due to my political visibility. I should have
remembered that."
I believe that Eric Johnson was employed by USCF at the time, and therefore
USCF seems to be somewhat, but officially, culpable in encouraging Mr.
Tanner's claim.
Since Johnson at USCF would have the records for these 299 games - which
would indicate a range of opponents, and indeed approached him as if he were
due something, then will the USCF now look at their own part in this Ethics
scandal, and if indeed it were occassioned by a USCF employee?
Eric Johnson, I note, while being fired from USCF, is still a USCF delegate.
Phil Innes
chessdon
Chess One wrote:
> Dear Don, thank you for your responses, the short of it seems to be that the
> Ethics committee recommend a 'reprimand', and if board members such as
> yourself, B. Marinello, and President Goichberg, already called for
> something more, then presumably the accused cannot stand trial a second time
> for the same offense, and the affair is over?
>
>
No, The Ethics committee recommends reprimand. Nothing is final yet.
The recommendation begins fact unless tanner, the accuser or the EB
appeal to the delegates within 30 days. The This could change the
recommend penalty tsay censure or resign from the Board nothing or
something else. The delegates would then decide. No double jeopardy. If
Tannner were not on the EB either he or the accuser could appeal to the
EB within 30 days and the EB could change the Ethics recommendation.
Don Schultz
Louis Blair
"If the person being sanctioned is a member of the USCF
Executive Board, the Ethics Committee may recommend
to the Executive Board no sanctions other than censure
or reprimand, but may also recommend to the Board of
Delegates other actions."
Louis Blair
a recall, 2 Dec 2006 01:41:48 GMT):
7 I suggest you read the text of the motion in the minutes of
7 the 2006 Delegates Meeting, available on the USCF website
7 in ENQ #2 for 2006 (look under Publications.) ...
_
See page 10 at:
_
http://www.uschess.org/enq/enq_2006_2.pdf
Equi...@aol.com
speed up ethics decisions or complain that they are too slow,
particularly when you are only talking a matter of weeks.
Ethics is a tricky subject, the available evidence is often incomplete
and ambiguous, and reaching a fair decision often involves the
consideration of many fine and debatable points that require sober
reflection. Speeding up the process is a recipe for mistakes.
On a different note, I am of two minds about the allegations against
Mr. Tanner. On the one hand, my blood runs cold at the idea of someone
cheating their way to a master rating. It is an insult to every player
who achieved a master rating the hard way, and to everyone who is tried
to achieve one the hard way, failed, and lived with that fact. There
should be zero tolerance for this kind of thing, and I am glad to see
Board Members (and former Board Members) publicly expressing their
dismay.
On the other hand, an organization like the USCF that apparently has
handed out rating floors and other things as political/personal favors
in the past is not necessarily in the best position to condemn a
ratings cheat, if that is what Mr. Tanner is. (And I express no
opinion on that particular issue.) Expressions like "Let him who is
without sin among ye cast the first stone," and "Judge not lest you be
judged" spring to mind, and I'm not even religious.
In the end, it is possible that the USCF as an organization has
tolerated so many various forms of favoritism, self-dealing and other
ethically dubious practices over the years, that it no longer is
capable of occupying a moral high ground. Given this fact, and if the
charges against Tanner are true, maybe he is just a symbol, a poster
child, of a morally bankrupt organization? I hope that this is not
true, but the mere fact that Sam Sloan is the one that first brought
this matter to light doesn't speak much for the organization.
Just my opinion.
- Geof Strayer
Chess One
> Hal Terrie wrote:
> You tell me I should keep quiet about this. I am a delegate and you are
> a delegate's committee. I have every right to voice my criticism. You
> and your committee are not immune from criticism.
>
> You conduct your votes in secret. My experience has been that ethic
> committee votes of other organizations are not secret. I will see what
> I can do to have the delegates require OUR Ethics Committee to conform
> to that level of openness.
Yes, especially in public organisations and non-profits, the idea of secrecy
combined with ethics is uncomfortable, and unless some special circumstances
are present, oxymoronic, and achieves the opposite of what any investigation
seeks to establish, which is not just the performance of justice being done,
but justice being seen to be done.
ATTENTION NOT PUNISHMENT
But I note something disturbing in all this writing - a balance in people's
writing indicating a willingness to scape-goat Mr. Tanner, rather than
attend to anything ethical! Of those writers who raised the issue to public
attention in the first place, and I cite Larry Parr specifically, these
people put the least emphasis on punishment, and in Larry Parr's case, the
least punishement.
This attitude, I think, is psychologically astute - otherwise we scapegoat
Tanner as if to dismiss all cheating from the scene by dismissing him, and
miss a rather larger flaw! I note in Tanner's own representation he included
the following paragraph:-
"Shortly after dropping into the 2100s (about 1996 or 1997) I was approached
by Eric Johnson who said I had 299 games at 2200 and would I like to be
given the OLM title as there was precedent in a few cases where players were
close. I declined largely due to my political visibility. I should have
remembered that."
WHO DUN IT?
And it seems to me as if we are willing to prosecute Tanner, and just as
equitably judge him too, and even sit on his jury - then suggest sentences,
BUT, in fixing on our scapegoat we neglect to notice who approved his status
in the first place.
Someone was paid to do it - that is, they were USCF employees. And USCF has
a responsibility for auditing ratings - am I the only person to observe that
'playing down' 299 games against a very small pool of players is patently
not in the spirit nor the letter of the rating system. But at least one USCF
employee, someone paid to monitor the rating system, failed to notice this
staringly obvious fact.
Whether it was Eric Johnson, or some other person doesn't matter. What
matters is that while we are laying Tanner out to dry, the same
organisational factor goes unaddressed, and the same thing can happen
tomorrow, especially if conducted in dark committee rooms [even if virtual
rooms] by even more secret processes, for which no-one is ever to blame or
admits responsibility, since no-one is ever identified, and no-thing ever
gets fixed.
AFTER THE CARNIVAL IS OVER
If this is some sense of Don Shultz's glasnöst proposition, then shall we
welcome a USCF which emerges from its own cold-war bunkered festung, like
one of those survivors of WW2 found on a Pacific island, and who needs to be
told that the war is over now - has been over for 10 years!
And we found the enemy, and it was us. It was ourselves fighting our own
phantoms and dim-shadows - but see! The sun rises every day, and light and
air causes everything to grow and prosper.
Phil Innes.
Mike Murray
wrote:
> What
>matters is that while we are laying Tanner out to dry, the same
>organisational factor goes unaddressed, and the same thing can happen
>tomorrow,
And I'd be willing to bet the same thing, essentially, has happened
*yesterday*, probably multiple times.
Vince Hart
Chess One wrote:
>
> But I note something disturbing in all this writing - a balance in people's
> writing indicating a willingness to scape-goat Mr. Tanner, rather than
> attend to anything ethical! Of those writers who raised the issue to public
> attention in the first place, and I cite Larry Parr specifically, these
> people put the least emphasis on punishment, and in Larry Parr's case, the
> least punishement.
How is Tanner a scapegoat? Didn't he submit the questionable events
for rating in order to boost his own rating to a level he could not
achieve in unbiased events?
>
> This attitude, I think, is psychologically astute - otherwise we scapegoat
> Tanner as if to dismiss all cheating from the scene by dismissing him, and
> miss a rather larger flaw! I note in Tanner's own representation he included
> the following paragraph:-
>
> "Shortly after dropping into the 2100s (about 1996 or 1997) I was approached
> by Eric Johnson who said I had 299 games at 2200 and would I like to be
> given the OLM title as there was precedent in a few cases where players were
> close. I declined largely due to my political visibility. I should have
> remembered that."
>
> WHO DUN IT?
>
> And it seems to me as if we are willing to prosecute Tanner, and just as
> equitably judge him too, and even sit on his jury - then suggest sentences,
> BUT, in fixing on our scapegoat we neglect to notice who approved his status
> in the first place.
>
> Someone was paid to do it - that is, they were USCF employees. And USCF has
> a responsibility for auditing ratings - am I the only person to observe that
> 'playing down' 299 games against a very small pool of players is patently
> not in the spirit nor the letter of the rating system.
Of course you are not the only one Phil. That is why a complaint was
filed. That is why the Ethics Committee ruled that a ethics violation
has occurred. That is why many people have called for Tanner's
resignation, Why would you be so silly as to conclude that you are the
only one?
By the way, Tanner did not play 299 games against a very small group of
players. The majority of the games he played were outside the group in
question.
> But at least one USCF
> employee, someone paid to monitor the rating system, failed to notice this
> staringly obvious fact.
What basis do you have for this claim? Do you know that the employee
had actual knowledge of Tanner's opponents? Do you know that the
employee had actual knowledge that a particular segment of Tanner's
opponents had only played within a closed group? Do you know that the
employee had knowledge of the ratings impact of the games within this
particular group. Do you have any basis to believe that the employee
knew anything other than the fact that Tanner had maintained the
required rating for 299 games?
>
> Whether it was Eric Johnson, or some other person doesn't matter. What
> matters is that while we are laying Tanner out to dry, the same
> organisational factor goes unaddressed, and the same thing can happen
> tomorrow, especially if conducted in dark committee rooms [even if virtual
> rooms] by even more secret processes, for which no-one is ever to blame or
> admits responsibility, since no-one is ever identified, and no-thing ever
> gets fixed.
Actually, it is highly unlikely that anyone could get away with the
same thing Tanner did as the MSA makes everyone's tournament history
available for scrutiny.
Duncan Oxley
--Duncan
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
The Historian
Duncan Oxley wrote:
> Why does a non-uscf member have such a strong interest in this?
>
> --Duncan
Because he's an insane hysteric.
Vince Hart
I went three whole months without responding to any of his silliness.
The Historian
Good for you. The Innes Pledge lives!
parrt...@cs.com
>I went three whole months without responding to any
of his silliness.> -- Vince Hart
>Good for you. The Innes Pledge lives! > -- Neil Brennen (aka The Historian)
The hysterical Vister and that wild man The
Historian are trying to explain that they are now
responding again to Phil Innes.
Lovin' it.
Vinster went three whole months, so he says, but could not hold
out.
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1165210540.1...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> LOVIN' IT
>
>>I went three whole months without responding to any
> of his silliness.> -- Vince Hart
>
>>Good for you. The Innes Pledge lives! > -- Neil Brennen (aka The
>>Historian)
>
> The hysterical Vister and that wild man The
> Historian are trying to explain that they are now
> responding again to Phil Innes.
>
> Lovin' it.
>
> Vinster went three whole months, so he says, but could not hold
> out.
I wonder how long they can go without adding anything to any chess topic,
anything which is on-topic, informative or interesting, leaving decent legal
honest and truthful for Sunday - but something worth airing in public: 3
months, 3 years, 3 decades?
Unfortunately Mr. Oxley has decided that there is a need to join up to
report on anything, though without apparent irony he so often reports on
Ludina. Does one have to be dead to report the dead?
---
In terms of the Tanner scandal, I thank Don Shultz for at least trying to
determine what USCF's processes are, though it remains to be seen if there
is any need to pay up to learn if paying up has any effect at all. Another
blase irony.
Paying-up to become heard, is a-la-mode, Larry - since the CJA now employ
the same procedure with ethics complaints - no pay no ethics!
In other writing I asked an employee of USCF at the time why he suggested to
Tanner that from his 299 games 'at 2200' which he never personally
scrutinised, not who the opponents were, nor their ratings, nor that many of
them had the same address [!] but encouraged a claim for life master. He in
turn asked me if he were to doubt USCF's ratings department?
They were all paid a salary for something, I replied, and if it wasn't for
scrutiny, what was it?
Your chess bucks at work ;)
Phil Innes
Vince Hart
What could be more amusing than Silly Philly using words like "truth"
and "scrutiny" given the rumors and misinterpretations that get
reported as facts in his column.
Chess One
"Vince Hart" <Vin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165250637.0...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> What could be more amusing than Silly Philly using words like "truth"
> and "scrutiny" given the rumors and misinterpretations that get
> reported as facts in his column.
If you can't write about chess, bugger off! Who is interested in your shit,
other than Brennan? And /he's/ not interested in chess as is amply
demonstrated.
PI.
Vince Hart
I was trying to answer the question that you asked Phil.
Curious George
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:q5Zch.3066$bW2.658@trndny04...
Ah, Innes is back to his favorite subject, buggery.
C. George
parrt...@cs.com
Robert Tanner evidently hopes to weather the
storm of his dishonesty. He will keep quiet and try
to hang on in the evident hope that his friends on the
goard won't hold him to the same standard that they
would a dissident.
Mr. Tanner has every reason to imagine that his
strategy will be successful unless the heat continues.
The Vinster and The Historian simultaneously
engaged Phil Innes while explaining how the Innes
Pledge lives. Talk about changing the subject!
To unparaphrase Queen Victoria, we ARE amused.
Don Dooley
> storm of his dishonesty. He will keep quiet and try to hang on in the
evident hope that his friends on the goard won't hold him to the same
standard>>
If someone could locate the kids that he was "hosting," then maybe the
complete tale of the USCF butt-bandit will unfold!
Was he picking up these kids at the local bus-stop? Did they have any
previous Chess involvement? Have they ever again been involved in Chess
after the notorious butt-pirate tossed them out? Were they forced to
exchange sex and ratings points in for room and board?
Did they all sleep together in the same sleeping bags or did they have
individual bags? Did they go skinny-dipping together? Were there any
circle-jerks involved over campfire and marshmallows? How many of these
young men got their hides Tanned during this ratings-point conspiracy?
Chess Freak
"Don Dooley" <dond...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:S65dh.230$SV1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
geor...@yahoo.com
Don Dooley
>
Why are you so interested in why I am so interested? Do you like to get your
Chess Freak on with young men? Are you the next Tanner? Were you one of
Tanner's Boys?
Chess One
"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:6l86n2tau0vo3aqrh...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 14:39:00 GMT, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> What
>>matters is that while we are laying Tanner out to dry, the same
>>organisational factor goes unaddressed, and the same thing can happen
>>tomorrow,
>
> And I'd be willing to bet the same thing, essentially, has happened
> *yesterday*, probably multiple times.
In another newsgroup I asked WHO DUN IT?
And I asked the guy who Tanner cited as suggesting the LM title to him, who
in turn said 'the ratings department' - and shouldn't we trust them?
The fact is that these folks were paid to do something more than take home a
paycheck - but its hard to discover any individual responsible for due
diligence in administering ratings, or even the name of someone at USCF
whose job is/was to audit the ratings department.
No one did it.
I read real pain and disgust in the first letter I saw published by Hal
Bogner, as if to say, that it calls honary titles and life masters into
question, not only their chessic achievement, but to question what is then
transacted by them.
At one time I asked why the leading tournament director in the USA didn't
have a rating. No one answered it.
But apparently no one was responsible for this ratings gaffe. No one had a
word in editor Lucas' ear either. No one thinks this is other than an
isolated case, and no one wants to act on investigating how extensive it is,
since that would mean that some one would have to take responsibility and
act on it.
Phil Innes
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>>
>> But I note something disturbing in all this writing - a balance in
>> people's
>> writing indicating a willingness to scape-goat Mr. Tanner, rather than
>> attend to anything ethical! Of those writers who raised the issue to
>> public
>> attention in the first place, and I cite Larry Parr specifically, these
>> people put the least emphasis on punishment, and in Larry Parr's case,
>> the
>> least punishement.
>
> How is Tanner a scapegoat? Didn't he submit the questionable events
> for rating in order to boost his own rating to a level he could not
> achieve in unbiased events?
a) yes he did, but he was encouraged to do so, and if you read his comments
on that specific invitation, you will also read that he was told this was
/normal/
b) my emphasis is on the systemic abuse perpetuated on the US rating system
by friends and cronies of the political class in chess - not on the
punishment we should mete out to Tanner because we've caught him, and care
to look no further
c) if Tanner is guilty then someone[s] at USCF must ALSO be guilty for not
only processing hundreds of his games in order to rate them without noticing
anything, but THEN offering him an LM title!
d) The emphasis on punishment of one person is an attempted exorcism of the
whole subject, but is obviously not a sincere interest in auditing the
ratings system - since who has looked at (c) above, and who will?
e) That would be sincere interest in the subject. Tanner is simply declared
morally bankrupt, and our society allows bankrupted people another chance.
What you continue to do below is restrict your enthusiasm for this subject
to Tanner, and you appear to have no active curiosity to how it all
happened!
f) You seem rather fixed on Tanner's error, to the extent that you seem not
to notice that I am asking about "a responsibility for auditing ratings".
Am I the only person 'silly' enough to note that?
> By the way, Tanner did not play 299 games against a very small group of
> players. The majority of the games he played were outside the group in
> question.
>
>
>> But at least one USCF
>> employee, someone paid to monitor the rating system, failed to notice
>> this
>> staringly obvious fact.
>
> What basis do you have for this claim? Do you know that the employee
> had actual knowledge of Tanner's opponents? Do you know that the
> employee had actual knowledge that a particular segment of Tanner's
> opponents had only played within a closed group? Do you know that the
> employee had knowledge of the ratings impact of the games within this
> particular group. Do you have any basis to believe that the employee
> knew anything other than the fact that Tanner had maintained the
> required rating for 299 games?
g) The basis for the 'claim' of failing to notice - is what we are
discussing right now! Its what the ethics committee made their resolution
upon - does Vince Hart want to know the specific names of individuals who
administered this? Why?
h) Does Vince Hart think the ratings section has no audit function at all?
And there is nothing to be fixed since it is just machine-like processing of
whatever is submitted, without any oversight?
>>
>> Whether it was Eric Johnson, or some other person doesn't matter. What
>> matters is that while we are laying Tanner out to dry, the same
>> organisational factor goes unaddressed, and the same thing can happen
>> tomorrow, especially if conducted in dark committee rooms [even if
>> virtual
>> rooms] by even more secret processes, for which no-one is ever to blame
>> or
>> admits responsibility, since no-one is ever identified, and no-thing ever
>> gets fixed.
>
> Actually, it is highly unlikely that anyone could get away with the
> same thing Tanner did as the MSA makes everyone's tournament history
> available for scrutiny.
i) In politcal land very much which is unlikely still comes to pass - and
maybe its changed over the past year or two, but the highest ranked TD in
the US never had a rating, which is against the rules. Tanner got away with
this for years because although there can be scrutiny, there are no
scrutineers - we are assured by considerable diversion of conversational
interest, and a concommitant missing critique by the Ethics Committee
itself, that the last people to be required to do anything is the USCF
ratings department.
Phil Innes
Vince Hart
Chess One wrote:
> "Vince Hart" <Vin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165175137.7...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> But I note something disturbing in all this writing - a balance in
> >> people's
> >> writing indicating a willingness to scape-goat Mr. Tanner, rather than
> >> attend to anything ethical! Of those writers who raised the issue to
> >> public
> >> attention in the first place, and I cite Larry Parr specifically, these
> >> people put the least emphasis on punishment, and in Larry Parr's case,
> >> the
> >> least punishement.
> >
> > How is Tanner a scapegoat? Didn't he submit the questionable events
> > for rating in order to boost his own rating to a level he could not
> > achieve in unbiased events?
>
> a) yes he did, but he was encouraged to do so, and if you read his comments
> on that specific invitation, you will also read that he was told this was
> /normal/
Wrong wrong wrong. The tournaments were submitted in 1992, four to
five years before Eric Johnson asked Tanner whether he wanted the Life
Master title. Tanner never suggested that anyone else had any hand in
submitting the tournaments. He was told that there was "precedent" for
getting the Life Master title with 299. In any case, Tanner declined
the title so there is really no way to know what level of scrutiny was
applied at that time.
>
> b) my emphasis is on the systemic abuse perpetuated on the US rating system
> by friends and cronies of the political class in chess - not on the
> punishment we should mete out to Tanner because we've caught him, and care
> to look no further
The extent to which others have abused the system is certainly a cause
for concern, however, no facts have been presented at this time.
>
> c) if Tanner is guilty then someone[s] at USCF must ALSO be guilty for not
> only processing hundreds of his games in order to rate them without noticing
> anything, but THEN offering him an LM title!
The games were submitted in 1992. He got the LM title in 2005. I
doubt that the person who processed the games in 1992 was the same
person who "investigated and adjusted" his rating in 2005.
I would agree that the person in 2005 was careless. I am not convinced
that the manipulation was glaringly obvious, but I think there were
enough red flags that he should have delved a little deeper. I am
guessing he just assumed that he could trust anything that had been in
the records without being questioned for more than a decade. I doubt
that he deliberately ignored the red flags since he would know that his
decision could be second-guessed (as it was) by anyone who took the
time to examine Tanner's history.
As far as the failure to catch the manipulation in 1992 goes, the
question seems moot to me as the MSA makes it highly unlikely that a
similar scheme could succeed today. In any case, it was not hundreds
of games.
>
> d) The emphasis on punishment of one person is an attempted exorcism of the
> whole subject, but is obviously not a sincere interest in auditing the
> ratings system - since who has looked at (c) above, and who will?
Your (c) is based on factual misstatements.
>
> e) That would be sincere interest in the subject. Tanner is simply declared
> morally bankrupt, and our society allows bankrupted people another chance.
> What you continue to do below is restrict your enthusiasm for this subject
> to Tanner, and you appear to have no active curiosity to how it all
> happened!
Since you don't understand what happened Phil, your are unable to ask
intelligent questions about how it happened.
Vince Hart
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> WE ARE AMUSED
>
> Robert Tanner evidently hopes to weather the
> storm of his dishonesty. He will keep quiet and try
> to hang on in the evident hope that his friends on the
> goard won't hold him to the same standard that they
> would a dissident.
>
> Mr. Tanner has every reason to imagine that his
> strategy will be successful unless the heat continues.
>
> The Vinster and The Historian simultaneously
> engaged Phil Innes while explaining how the Innes
> Pledge lives. Talk about changing the subject!
>
> To unparaphrase Queen Victoria, we ARE amused.
>
>
>
I wonder whether Larry thinks I am changing the subject again.
Chess Freak
fantasizing about other men's sex lives.
"Don Dooley" <dond...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i28dh.195$6s5...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Vince Hart" <Vin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1165175137.7...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Chess One wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> But I note something disturbing in all this writing - a balance in
>> >> people's
>> >> writing indicating a willingness to scape-goat Mr. Tanner, rather than
>> >> attend to anything ethical! Of those writers who raised the issue to
>> >> public
>> >> attention in the first place, and I cite Larry Parr specifically,
>> >> these
>> >> people put the least emphasis on punishment, and in Larry Parr's case,
>> >> the
>> >> least punishement.
>> >
>> > How is Tanner a scapegoat? Didn't he submit the questionable events
>> > for rating in order to boost his own rating to a level he could not
>> > achieve in unbiased events?
>>
>> a) yes he did, but he was encouraged to do so, and if you read his
>> comments
>> on that specific invitation, you will also read that he was told this was
>> /normal/
>
>
> Wrong wrong wrong.
There was 'precedent' says Tanner, and for an unnamed number of people
previously, but a plural amount of people. While you contest 'normal', I am
saying Tanner represents the fact that it was presented to him as not
abnormal!
> The tournaments were submitted in 1992, four to
> five years before Eric Johnson asked Tanner whether he wanted the Life
> Master title. Tanner never suggested that anyone else had any hand in
> submitting the tournaments. He was told that there was "precedent" for
> getting the Life Master title with 299. In any case, Tanner declined
> the title so there is really no way to know what level of scrutiny was
> applied at that time.
Scrutiny by whom? It wasn't by Johnson, who wrote that he trusted the rating
department. In other words, we know there is a way to determine if Johnson
who encouraged Tanner applied any scrutiny. He did not.
But your statement is not true - if Johnson said 299 games at 2200, then
Johnson is referring to what the ratings department had recorded. And there
is a way of determining 'what level of scrutiny was applied at the time' -
none!
>> b) my emphasis is on the systemic abuse perpetuated on the US rating
>> system
>> by friends and cronies of the political class in chess - not on the
>> punishment we should mete out to Tanner because we've caught him, and
>> care
>> to look no further
>
> The extent to which others have abused the system is certainly a cause
> for concern, however, no facts have been presented at this time.
Presented to whom? To God in prayer? What are these passive metaphysical
statements? I am pointedly <--nb
saying this is neglect and incompetence, by people paid to pay attention.
You are speaking as though people who are not paid to pay attention should
provide greater vigilance to those who are, and even though 299 games at
2200 have passed under your nose and that of the USCF rating department,
this is no cause to look further.
>> c) if Tanner is guilty then someone[s] at USCF must ALSO be guilty for
>> not
>> only processing hundreds of his games in order to rate them without
>> noticing
>> anything, but THEN offering him an LM title!
>
> The games were submitted in 1992. He got the LM title in 2005. I
> doubt that the person who processed the games in 1992 was the same
> person who "investigated and adjusted" his rating in 2005.
>
> I would agree that the person in 2005 was careless. I am not convinced
> that the manipulation was glaringly obvious, but I think there were
> enough red flags that he should have delved a little deeper. I am
> guessing he just assumed that he could trust anything that had been in
> the records without being questioned for more than a decade. I doubt
> that he deliberately ignored the red flags since he would know that his
> decision could be second-guessed (as it was) by anyone who took the
> time to examine Tanner's history.
Careless, not obvious, not deliberate sloth, since it would be found out.
And if so for Tanner, for who else?
You could pass over 100 games from a 1300 player, but 299 games for an 2200
player? Especially since the person is due a Lifetime Master award - still
no curiosity? I think you make my point for me.
> As far as the failure to catch the manipulation in 1992 goes, the
> question seems moot to me as the MSA makes it highly unlikely that a
> similar scheme could succeed today. In any case, it was not hundreds
> of games.
Unless something is examined the rule of history is that it seemd doomed to
appeat again and again. Today's cheating trend tends to be the other way
round, and people deplete their claimed rating in order to sandbag money.
The question I ask is simply: to what extent even Master-players were
excluded from even cursory examination? I haven't read anything to assure me
of anything at all.
>> d) The emphasis on punishment of one person is an attempted exorcism of
>> the
>> whole subject, but is obviously not a sincere interest in auditing the
>> ratings system - since who has looked at (c) above, and who will?
>
> Your (c) is based on factual misstatements.
Is it? Make a factual statement then - instead of denying it. You just wrote
that EVEN in 2005 'the person' was CARELESS.
Let us agree that that is true [who has looked] but I haven't heard of
anyone intending an audit of the rating system, and that is also true.
>> e) That would be sincere interest in the subject. Tanner is simply
>> declared
>> morally bankrupt, and our society allows bankrupted people another
>> chance.
>> What you continue to do below is restrict your enthusiasm for this
>> subject
>> to Tanner, and you appear to have no active curiosity to how it all
>> happened!
>
> Since you don't understand what happened Phil, your are unable to ask
> intelligent questions about how it happened.
I am addressing YOUR comments. I wrote that YOU pay no attention to the
'careless' rating system and merely assert 'factual misstatements' without
the slightest attempt to provide facts yourself - and again you prove my
point that you are not going to look at the rating system!
A bomb went off Vinny, and it was 'not nothing'.
How systematic these abuses were are UNKNOWN, and they will stay that way
until someone looks.
Phil Innes
Vince Hart
Chess One wrote:
Much crap.
Here is a fact: You said that someone at the USCF invited Tanner to
submit the manipulative games for rating. You were wrong.
Here is another fact: You referred to "299 games against a closed pool
of players." There were not that many. Most of the games were in
perfectly legitimate tournaments.
Here is another fact: You said "the same thing can happen tomorrow."
The tournament record is all online now and it would be almost
impossible for such manipulation to escape scrutiny.
Here is another fact: Every time I point out one of your errors, you
rant about something else.
The implications of the Tanner case for the integrity of the rating
system is a subject worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, you don't
seem to understand the facts of the Tanner case which makes discussing
it with you pointless.
Louis Blair
7 ...
7 Robert Tanner evidently hopes to weather the storm of
7 his dishonesty. He will keep quiet and try to hang on
7 in the evident hope that his friends on the goard won't
7 hold him to the same standard that they would a
7 dissident.
7
7 Mr. Tanner has every reason to imagine that his
7 strategy will be successful unless the heat continues.
7 ...
_
"... I am strongly believe that Robert Tanner should
resign as a member of the USCF Executive Board,
Zonal President and FIDE Commissions. ..."
- Beatriz Marinello (Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:15 pm)
_
_
"I have also recommended that Robert resign the
above posts. ..." - Bill Goichberg (Mon Nov 27, 2006
9:11 pm)
_
_
"... As to what to do about Mr. Tanner, one thing we
cannot do is remove him from the board. He was
elected by the members to a four year term that
expires in 2009. He is entitled to serve in that
position and I would not even think of trying to
remove him.
_
He can however be removed from his positions as
USA Zone President and as a member of the FIDE
Qualification Commission, FIDE Rules Commission
and FIDE Ethics Commission. I hope that he
voluntarily resigns those positions to save the USCF
and himself the embarassment of removing him from
those positions.
_
He can and should be removed from his positions as
liaison to various USCF Committees, including the
Rules Committee.
_
I doubt that he will be hired to direct any more national
scholastic tournaments. It will be up to Tim Just to
start proceedings to revoke his TD certification. ..."
- Sam Sloan (Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:35 am)
_
_
"I've told the Board that I think Robert should resign."
- Joel Channing (Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:44 am)
_
_
"... Robert;s friends understood [the severity of what
Robert did] and gave him good advice which I have no
doubt will result in his resignation and removal from
USCF governance. ..." - Don Schultz (Fri Dec 01, 2006
8:52 pm)
_
_
"In light of the recent findings of the USCF Ethics
Committee regarding games I played in the early
1990s I feel that it is in the best interest of both
USCF and the chess community that I resign my
position as a member of the USCF Executive
Board as well as FIDE Zonal President and all
FIDE Committees and Commissions. ..."
- Robert B. Tanner (Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:35 pm)
Don Dooley
> fantasizing about other men's sex lives.
>
stalking men. You frequently post numerous attacks on Sam Sloan whenever he
posts too. Accept your homosexuality. You can follow Tanner's example and
set up chess tournaments in your bedroom. Stick to adult homeless people
though.
Don Dooley
Committee regarding games I played in the early 1990s I feel that it is in
the best interest of both
> USCF and the chess community that I resign my position as a member of
the USCF Executive Board as well as FIDE Zonal President and all FIDE
Committees and Commissions. ..." - Robert B. Tanner (Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:35
pm)
>
Where do I apply to take over his job?
parrt...@cs.com
Uh, Larry? Vince Hart has never taken the Innes
Pledge. I believe his only comment on it was in a
post dated 30 August 2006, in which he said
"I have not formally taken the pledge ..."
It continues to amaze me how Parr and Innes continue
to fabricate "quotes" out of thin air, knowing full well that
anyone can check their claims in seconds via Google
search. Is there a name for this compulsion to lie in a
situation where the lie is so easily disproved? It's like a
kleptomaniac who steals knowing full well that the security
guard is watching.> -- Taylor Kingston
NMnot Taylor Kingston returns. The gent who
praised himself under false names accuses this writer
of lying. We have Vinster Hart claiming that he had
gone three months without responding to Phil Innes,
and we drew the logical conclusion: Mr. Hart evidently
figures he has done something re the Innes Pledge.
Our NMnot, who is 1800-rated and claimed
straightforwardly to be 2300+ FIDE says that the
Vinster never took the pledge. He needs to discuss
the matter with his confrere who was bragging about
observing it EVEN AS HE WAS VIOLATING IT.
And so it goes.
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Dec 4, 8:48 pm, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
> >
> > The Vinster and The Historian simultaneously
> > engaged Phil Innes while explaining how the Innes
> > Pledge lives. Talk about changing the subject!
>
> Uh, Larry? Vince Hart has never taken the Innes Pledge. I believe his
> only comment on it was in a post dated 30 August 2006, in which he said
> "I have not formally taken the pledge ..."
> It continues to amaze me how Parr and Innes continue to fabricate
> "quotes" out of thin air, knowing full well that anyone can check their
> claims in seconds via Google search. Is there a name for this
> compulsion to lie in a situation where the lie is so easily disproved?
> It's like a kleptomaniac who steals knowing full well that the security
> guard is watching.
politi...@gmail.com
Samsara literally means "wandering-on." Many people think of it as the
Buddhist name for the place where we currently live - the place we
leave when we go to nibbana. But in the early Buddhist texts, it's the
answer, not to the question, "Where are we?" but to the question, "What
are we doing?" Instead of a place, it's a process: the tendency to keep
creating worlds and then moving into them. As one world falls apart,
you create another one and go there. At the same time, you bump into
other people who are creating their own worlds, too.
The play and creativity in the process can sometimes be enjoyable. In
fact, it would be perfectly innocuous if it didn't entail so much
suffering. The worlds we create keep caving in and killing us. Moving
into a new world requires effort: not only the pains and risks of
taking birth, but also the hard knocks - mental and physical - that
come from going through childhood into adulthood, over and over again.
The Buddha once asked his monks, "Which do you think is greater: the
water in the oceans or the tears you've shed while wandering on?" His
answer: the tears. Think of that the next time you gaze at the ocean or
play in its waves.
In addition to creating suffering for ourselves, the worlds we create
feed off the worlds of others, just as theirs feed off ours. In some
cases the feeding may be mutually enjoyable and beneficial, but even
then the arrangement has to come to an end. More typically, it causes
harm to at least one side of the relationship, often to both. When you
think of all the suffering that goes into keeping just one person
clothed, fed, sheltered, and healthy - the suffering both for those
who have to pay for these requisites, as well as those who have to
labor or die in their production - you see how exploitative even the
most rudimentary process of world-building can be.
This is why the Buddha tried to find the way to stop samsara-ing. Once
he had found it, he encouraged others to follow it, too. Because
samsara-ing is something that each of us does, each of us has to stop
it him or her self alone. If samsara were a place, it might seem
selfish for one person to look for an escape, leaving others behind.
But when you realize that it's a process, there's nothing selfish about
stopping it at all. It's like giving up an addiction or an abusive
habit. When you learn the skills needed to stop creating your own
worlds of suffering, you can share those skills with others so that
they can stop creating theirs. At the same time, you'll never have to
feed off the worlds of others, so to that extent you're lightening
their load as well.
It's true that the Buddha likened the practice for stopping samsara to
the act of going from one place to another: from this side of a river
to the further shore. But the passages where he makes this comparison
often end with a paradox: the further shore has no "here," no "there,"
no "in between." From that perspective, it's obvious that samsara's
parameters of space and time were not the pre-existing context in which
we wandered. They were the result of our wandering.
For someone addicted to world-building, the lack of familiar parameters
sounds unsettling. But if you're tired of creating incessant,
unnecessary suffering, you might want to give it a try. After all, you
could always resume building if the lack of "here" or "there" turned
out to be dull. But of those who have learned how to break the habit,
no one has ever felt tempted to samsara again.
politi...@gmail.com
Toughie....
politi...@gmail.com
politi...@gmail.com
> How to escape the cycle of groaning?
Anticipated by Mark Danielewski (says Google).
Selbstplonk.
All is vanity....
Vince Hart
Big wheel keeps on turning.
Proud Mary keeps on burning.
Trolling...trolling...trolling down the river.