This is just a
collection of personal observations and opinions not perfectly in sequence
whose intent is to capture the feelings of the time and in no way accuses or
implies that anyone did anything improper.
Prior to the reported events that occurred in
the article on Lawsuits,
Chess Politics, and Susan Polgar, the following personal perspective story
unfolded:
In late August 2007 the
USCF was in the process of updating their website. Of particular interest was
their moving to a newer version of the forum software. As FOC members we had
the opportunity to be early testers of the new forum software and to provide
feedback. That is where I came in contact with Hal Bogner and Brian Mottershead
in their capacities of developer and administrator. During this time it became
apparent that Gregory Alexander was greatly interested in all the technical
details of the upgrade while board members Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were
advocating shutting down the USCF issues forum which provided the primary
reason for FOC existence.
Early in September when
the new website was in final testing to go live Susan Polgar announced the
rollout of chessdiscussion.com which appeared to be a replacement for the USCF
forums. Immediately as the new USCF forum software went live Gregory Alexander
began activity on the new USCF forum disparaging the work of Brian Mottershead
and Hal Bogner. Concurrently it appeared Paul Truong reinforced the disparaging
effort. My first conclusion was it appeared that Alexander, Truong, and Polgar
wanted the USCF forums shut down for some reason and were conducting a
coordinated political campaign towards this end. But why? My first thought was
so chessdiscussion.com could become the de facto forum for USCF members
providing Polgar and Truong with a captive audience for their views and wares.
It could also be viewed by some as a money saver for the USCF. As Gregory
Alexander was the webmaster of this new venture his role so far was understood.
The campaign however was
so vociferous and done in a take no prisoners style that the why of this all
did not make sense. It was then I learned that Mottershead was on the trail of
the fake Sam Sloan who had been misusing posts on the USCF forums. As a long
time observer of USCF politics, the increasing intensity of the onslaught was
then understandable to me. It appeared a pitched battle was engaged and now
escalating. It could be argued either way but it I found out about the search
for the fake Sam Sloan before I heard about the letters from Truong and Polgar
arguing to remove Mottershead as well as Bogner from the project.
As an FOC insider I was
bound to informal confidentiality regarding the inner workings of the USCF as I
observed them. Having access to the FOC archives I could see previous events
where FOC members appeared to have stumbled. I took the role to the extent that
to avoid any appearance of COI I did not post to the USCF forum during my
tenure on the FOC. By September 18, 2007 I had resigned my FOC position and was
no longer formally on the USCF inside and thus not constrained by those duties.
On September 25 I noticed a new
Usenet posting that appeared to defame both Mottershead and Bogner. I gave
Bogner a call to see what he thought of the matter. Hal was not aware of the
posting and asked if it was OK to do a three way call with Mottershead. I said
yes. Before we had a chance to confirm the posting Mottershead said let me
guess what IP address the Usenet post originated from. He got it exactly
including the user agent strings, and then went to explain how the USCF ID
chesspromotion had been also been logging in using that IP address from Mexico
City. At the same time the complaints from Alexander, Truong, and Polgar had
reached a fevered pitch and it looked as though they would prevail in their
efforts to remove Mottershead and Bogner. It should be noted for those who
might be curious that there was absolutely no discussion of making any of this
information public.
Then came the forum revelation
that chesspromotion possibly could be the fake Sam Sloan. The alarm escalated
immediately as many of the FSS Usenet postings were deleted that very morning.
In a subsequent conversation I was told that Mottershead was asked to put
together a report concerning what he had found and present it to the Executive
Board for possible forwarding to the Ethics Committee. I later took the
opportunity to speak with Bill Hall regarding this endeavor discussing strategy
on how this may best be staged as it involved an entrenched board member. He
wanted to understand my previous experience with such matters. He seemed
concerned that he had also come under political scrutiny for not immediately
dismissing those involved with the discoveries.
Early in October I heard
that the full report was in play not only with members of the EB as well as
staff but with many other USCF officials and Polgar
supporters. It appeared most on the inside had seen copies of the now named Mottershead report but the contents of which were still
secret and the revelations now under increasing proactive criticism by
Alexander, Truong, and Polgar through spreading fear,
uncertainty and doubt. The best defense is a good offense strategy was
effective and the
crescendo again rose to make the report go away and remove Mottershead
and Bogner before they could do further disclosure
regarding the inner workings of the Federation.
At the same time all
this was going on everything then changed first thing in the morning on October 8th.
Note when the Mottershead report was sent to the Executive Board on
October 5 2007, it appeared Truong, and Polgar formally complained that Mottershead
had violated their privacy
in conflict with the USCF Privacy Policy. The reaction of the Board to that was
to require Mottershead to step aside from his duties as a volunteer forum
administrator. Even though opinions vary on this the immediate effect on
October 8, 2007 of the Mottershead report, combined
with an apparent reaction to the New York Times report on the lawsuit that had
been filed, was to sanction Brian Mottershead for his
behaviour.
The Executive
Board passed a motion which contained “Recent events have led to charges and
counter-charges about false postings on chess websites that may involve USCF
members and improper activity by independent contractors working for the USCF.
At this time, it must be stressed that none of these claims can be
independently substantiated, and the USCF does not support them. The USCF
apologizes for any unintended resulting actions. The USCF takes seriously its
need to protect the privacy of its members and is actively investigating the
charges of violation of its privacy policies and actions of its members.”
The
saga
as we know it began….