Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The lost art of compromise


Recently Brian Lafferty, of all people, made a sensible comment on the USCF Forums. He wrote, "The best negotiated settlement leaves each side feeling that they did not get what they wanted, but got what they could live with." He continued, "I haven't seen anything other than posturing from Polgar and Truong." That's quite true. Of course, he neglected to add that same was true of the other side. What was that business about motes and beams?

Is a negotiated settlement possible? Yes. Is it likely? Not unless some very narrow minds get changed. Here's a modest proposal.

1) Everyone agrees to drop all lawsuits against the USCF or any sitting Board members. If the various parties want to sue anyone else, they won't get much respect from me, but it won't be the USCF's problem. Frivolous litigation is one of the hazards of modern city life, along with muggers, crack dealers and bureaucrats.

2) The "Ins" accept that Polgar and Truong are going to serve out their terms. They were duly elected, and there is no special clause in OMOV requiring that one side always gets to win.

3) The "Ins" agree to remove the logjam on the USCF Forum which has shielded Sam Sloan and Brian Lafferty from the one-year suspensions they long ago earned. It's time to stop coddling useful idiots.

4) The "Outs" (Polgar and Truong) accept that the USCF is not going to stop people from criticizing them. If you can't take it, stay out of politics. They also accept that the majority rules. If they want to win votes, they'll have to persuade people to vote with them or elect people who agree with them.

5) Polgar apologizes to to Kronenberger Burgoyne. Of course this will be galling, but suing the attorney was an incredibly stupid move for which Polgar must pay the price. And without this, Kronenberger, whose interests are not identical to those of the USCF, has no incentive not to litigate her into the ground.

5) Polgar and Gregory Alexander accept that they must take their chances with the criminal investigation of their alleged e-mail hacking. If they're innocent, they have nothing to worry about.

6) Both sides accept that their opponents do not have a monopoly on arrogance or self-righteousness.

2 comments:

James said...

Interesting article, thanks for the read.

Is there a criminal case though? I thought that the only actions in court are civil in nature.

JJ

John Hillery said...

No criminal charges have been filed yet, but I am reliably informed that the Feds are taking an interest in the e-mail hacking charges. That's a Federal crime which can carry serious jail time (see http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/computer-hacking/). Whether anything will come of it is another matter, of course. -- jh