24-02-2013, 08:24 PM
Craig Pritchett Wrote:Two points:
1. In removing the unmentionable blog-site reference in the seprate thread on Licensing Players, the moderator (I expect inadvertently) in effect censored the (wholly unobjectionable) letter from the Western European FIDE president, which was supported by a large number of international federations, that called on the FIDE presidential Board to drop the action. I wasn't pleased at that, not least because I wasn't consulted. It would have been easy to have, say cut and paste the letter into the thread even if the link to the unmentionable blog were removed. In effect a perfectly valid thread and debate were themselves (even if inadvertently) censored.
Feel free to send me a link in a PM to the letter and I'll edit your original post in the other topic by adding it.
But, with respect, consulting people before removing content they have posted that we deem inappropriate is not a practicable idea. And to a large degree you were notified that I didn't think the link suitable by your responses in this topic (and Andy B's one) to my responses; and furthermore by my request that the original source of the link be highlighted (which clearly implied that I'd be removing it).
The link in question had already had fairly significant exposure in terms of the lifespan of the topic in question, and therefore it's unlikely that its content was not seen by almost anyone reading the topic whom would have desired to read it. So I don't think that I inadvertently censored it. I also highly doubt that the only source of the letter was on the website you posted a link to.
Finally, that the website contains some content which is suitable is pretty irrelevant. Good content doesn't in any way balance out content that we think is not suitable. For instance, a film which is otherwise extremely child-safe but contains a single scene which is wholly inappropriate for a child would still be branded an "18".