| Kevin Bachler 2005-01-29, 5:46 pm |
| "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107016532.086642.313240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Kevin Bachler wrote:
> fraud
> the
> would
> been
> situation, a
> down
> get
> to
>
> I have asked you many questions about this matter Kevin and I have
> communicated with you extensively. I have avoided those issues where
> you claimed to be bound to secrecy.
Actually, you haven't. You simply avoided sitting down and discussing them,
instead using this as a reason to attack people publicly.
quote:
> I have relied on e-mail
> communication in order to avoid learning anything about which you
> asserted an obligation to maintain confidentiality.
BS. When I told you that there were things that were inappropriate for
email you threw a fit.
quote:
>The questions I
> am raising here are only those questions that you were willing to
> discuss by e-mail.
BS again.
quote:
>
> I believe that every USCF member has a legitimate interest in the
> integrity of the ratings system.
They've also elected officials and hired staff to manage that interest, and
have developed bylaws and a code of ethics to enforce it. What gave you the
right to circumvent all of that?
quote:
> I believe that every ICA member has a
> legitimate interest in the integrity of its events and programs.
They've also elected officials to manage that interest, and have developed
bylaws to enforce it. What gave you the right to circumvent all of that?
quote:
> I
> understand that public discussion of these matters causes you
> discomfort Kevin,
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER PEOPLE, VINCE? Do you think that I don't want to
discuss this publicly only because of me? Seriously, you HAVE TO know
better, right?
quote:
> but I think that it is vitally important air these
> kinds of questions.
Once again, what VINCE thinks overrides all of the systems in place. And
you accused me of being an egomanic??
quote:
> I believe that the possibility of exposure is as
> likely to induce ethical behavior from other members in the future as
> is the threat of a formal ethics complaint.
Exposure of what? Of people who each did their job, but perhaps in a way
that you, the VINCE, disagreed with?
Nothing you've done will have that impact Vince. If your behavior is
allowed to stand, what this behavior will do is encourage chess
politicians/personalities to slander each other in a way previously not even
dreamed about. What you've done here is set the WORST PRECEDENT POSSIBLE
for resolving differences! Talk to people to resolve differences? Naw,
just slam'em on the Internet.
quote:
> It has not been my intent to mislead with respect to your term as
> President of the ICA.
Even though you repeated it several times even after the error was pointed
out?
quote:
>You were not President in 1999 when the bogus
> tournaments were submitted. You were not ICA President when your son
> accepted an invitation to the 2000 US Masters, an invitation that most
> likely would not have been extended your son's rating not been
> inflated by the bogus tournaments. You were not ICA President when
> your son accepted an invitation to the 2000 Denker qualifier.
quote:
> You became ICA President in January of 2001. You were president when
> your son participated in the 2001 Denker qualifier.
> It is this tournament where an uniflated rating might have made your son
> the
> lowest rated player in the field raising the possibility that a more
> deserving player was denied a spot. It is with respect to this event
> that I believe you had an obligation as ICA President to inform the
> rest of the board and the ICA Denker committee of the existence of this
> possibility so those bodies could decide the fairness of inviting your
> son.
The ICA is not, and never was, the arbiter of USCF ratings. The USCF is.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the number 1 player on the state
championship team should not have qualified for the Illinois Denker
Qualifier Invitational when the #2, #3 and # 4 players on the same team all
did? You REALLY aren't trying to make that argument, are you?
quote:
> I believe that any USCF member has a legitimate interest in knowing why
> corrections were not made to your rating and your title after you
> reported these bogus tournaments in 1999.
Again, you jump to incorrect conclusions.
quote:
>You have said that you
> discussed these matters with officials at the USCF and that they
> examined the effects of the bogus tournaments and that they decided
> which ratings should be corrected and which ratings should be left to
> self-correct. You have said that they decided that your son's rating
> should be allowed to self-correct.
Funny how stuff discussed confidentially keeps finding its way to the
Internet, right Vince?
quote:
> Did they also say that your Life
> Master title and 2200 floor should be allowed to self correct?
This was corrected as soon as the impact was apparent. I don't recall who
suggested it first, but I completely agreed with it. It was absolutely the
right thing to do.
quote:
> I am also wondering whether you shared your opinions about the wisdom
> of letting a scholastic player's rating self-correct after it has
> been inflated by illegitimate events. Did you share any of the
> opinions you had previously or contemporaneously expressed about Stan
> Vaughan's activities in Nevada? Here is what you said about that
> topic on September 8, 1999:
>
> "Ratings are a major factor in the determination of invitations to
> special events, chess scholarships, etc. Therefore, this becomes a
> major factor in what is rights (sic), since it can (and does) affect a
> number of other children and their coaches."
>
> "It's also the business of USCF, which governs the rating system, and
> of other players and parents, and coaches. Their rights must be
> protected as well. USCF has an obligation to its members to ensure the
> integrity of the rating system."
>
> "If Candice's rating was significantly above her strength as a result
> of these games, then her rating was manipulated, whether or not it was
> intentional."
>
> "And in the meantime, what should we tell students who work hard but
> don't receive a tournament invitation because we've allowed this type
> of situation to go unchecked. Shall we say "Sorry, but over time her
> rating will get corrected?"
>
> Tell me Kevin, did you share any of these opinions with USCF officials
> when your rating and your son's rating were at issue? If so, what
> was the response of those officials?
>
The answer is yes, I expressed my feelings on the issue originally, with
respect to several players (why you keep focusing on only the one related to
me is another interesting issue) and based on past results the feeling was
that the self-correction already seemed evident.
|