Locking Threads....

[Geoff Chandler]

...and preventing further discussion is worse than the subject matter.

I'm sure we would all have kept it all above board and clean.

Now we will have to restrict it to PM's or are those too subject to Big Brother.
My Dad fought in a world war for freedom of speech.
(OK he ended up being on the losing side but that is another story.) =)

Kevin gives a link to Chess Scotland from his site.
Maybe this is what Andy meant (but never got the chance to explain.)

I agree with you Andy, some bits are unchess like, He gives an email address.
Perhaps we can ask him to post a polite warning on his site that some of the contents may offend.

[Mike Scott]

Bizarre to say the least. I can not see how having a reasoned debate about a blog hosted elsewhere is a problem. If any parent came to CS website and followed the discussion and then searched out the blog they could hardly blame CS if they were then offended.

I do not understand what standards you are applying. It's okay to express an opinion that someone is "(a) thoroughly obnoxious and offensive little man" yet not to discuss the merits of a chess blog?

[andyburnett]

I'm not sure why the thread was locked - perhaps because it had a direct link to the blog in question?

Kevin gives a link to Chess Scotland from his site.
Maybe this is what Andy meant (but never got the chance to explain.)

I agree with you Andy, some bits are unchess like, He gives an email address.
Perhaps we can ask him to post a polite warning on his site that some of the contents may offend

.

The problem I have is that our CS website links directly to the blog, which I think is wrong. As an example, one of my students is a 15-year old girl from the US. She is always asking about which sites are good for chess content. I can't tell her to just follow the CS links (which is what I do myself for chess news/articles/etc) because she could easily end up looking at some very offensive stuff. As I said before, the internet is full of this, but we don't have to use CS to help people find it!

I have no intention of e-mailing him, asking him to post a polite warning Geoff! If he doesn't realise that a photo of his 'favourite porn lady of the day' or whatever isn't suitable for a chess website, then he is obviously a sad and/or deluded individual. Perhaps you could e-mail him asking him why he posts these things at all?

I know you are a chess lover, and are willing to forgive people lots of things as long as the chess wins through (Fischer's anti-semitic views and Alekhine's 'alleged' Nazi collaboration spring to mind), but I'm of a different view. Imagine a website dedicated to Fischer, which, in addition to his games, had clips of his anti-semitic rants from the Phillipines, as 'My favourite thought for the Day' for example? Would you be happy for the CS site to promote it/advertise it/link to it?
I'm not a prude, or any kind of conservative, I just believe that there is a time and a place for everything - and this blog isn't something we should be promoting through the website.

I don't see why we can't have a reasoned debate (I will try not to call anyone "(a) thoroughly obnoxious and offensive little man" - how about 'sad and deluded'? ) - if it gets out of hand THEN perhaps Andrew should step in and moderate as he sees fit?!

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Andy.

I'm sure any discussion between us or anyone would not sink to a low insulting level.

Two reasons.
You are bigger than me and know where I live.

I have found it is the forum members are the best mods.
If one lad goes over the top then rest of the lads pull him back in
and as the thread goes on all is forgiven as both sides calm down.

Threads that are locked or are pulled then the two parties simmer and it spills
over into another thread that has nothing to do with the original thread.

On the whole we seem to agree that one or two (or three) of the articles are very dodgy.
In My Corner days if I I would have done a Kevin Spraggett spoof.
RHP give me a free rein but I never gone even close to edge that I sometimes trod
with The Corner.

So where were we?

Fischer.
He was suffering from a nervous breakdown, mentally ill, possibly a re-action to the medicine
he was on.
No remorse, I don't think he ever apologised for his outburst.
But there again if he saw the video of it he would most likely not recognise himself and
claim it had been doctored.
I'm no medical man but he was clearly unwell, giving his life to chess took it's toll.

Alekhine.
An opportunist who simply backed the wrong side when at the time it looked like
the right side. Chess had got him out a condemned cell in WWI so Chess (what else could he do)
would make him survive WWII.

He denied writing the articles, then said they were written for him with his name added
then said he did write them because he was told to. etc.etc.
He became a nazi tool, very possibly unaware what was going on in the camps,
many Germans had no idea what was happening.
Nowhere in his articles does he state anything about eliminating the Jewish race,
he just prattled on about how the Jews controlled Chess and other nonsense.

Some claim he knew Chess players thoughout the world would see these articles so
deliberatly mis-spelt names of the players giving a hint he was writing under duress.
I'm not up for that, (it's too clever and risky given the supposed circumstances.)

[robin moore]

Folks,

I think we have to consider all our members and future members here. I am pretty sure that bad language and links to perhaps funny but adult sites are not welcomed by the vast majority.
We can all add and contribute to entertaining and at times controversial topics but we need to show respect to all members, particularly younger ones.

Robin.

[Mike Scott]

Hi Robin,
So if there is a link or language that is not appropriate then delete it: why lock the thread?

I think that it would be good practice that an explanation is given when 'Big Brother' intervenes. If only so we can avoid offending him again in future.

[Andrew McHarg]

Hi Robin,
So if there is a link or language that is not appropriate then delete it: why lock the thread?

I think that it would be good practice that an explanation is given when 'Big Brother' intervenes. If only so we can avoid offending him again in future.

Didn't see how any further comments could add to it. Andy suggested that such a link on the website was inappropriate, and I agreed with him. The links were therefore removed, and to prevent further attention in a subject I'd rather avoid on the website, the best solution was to lock. It's not about whether it offends me or not. Frankly, I couldn't care less what the guy posts when he writes about Chess, so long as it's not illegal. Feel free to discuss here, but please avoid using the name of the blog or linking to it for the above reasons. Search engines are very good at finding such, and we do not want them to associate our website with such content (obviously).

Hope this clarifies.

[robin moore]

Hi Mike,

I am sure you know, as I do, some lovely families from Maybole, Macrahanish and Inverness for example that would find a CS noticeboard topic containing "naughty" language leading to a website containing adult material offensive.
If Andrew M or other moderators feel material is posted that could be considered as offensive they have a duty to remove it.
I don't want a "big brother" approach to controversial topics on the noticeboard, indeed I very much welcome difficult topics being discussed.
However, we need to try our best to be respectful to all members.
I think the moderators have been fair on this topic.

Robin.

[Mike Scott]

Hi Andy Mc.
Apologies - I did not intend to imply that you personally had been offended by the blog, rather I meant that if you take such a serious step as locking a thread you should give a reason so that we understand what standard or rule has been broken, so that either we can argue against it or comply in future.

to prevent further attention in a subject I'd rather avoid on the website

Can you perhaps clarify what subjects are and are not acceptable to you on the website?

I do not understand why it would be okay for me to issue personal insults here but not to discuss the merits of a blog (or other content on the website).

[Andrew McHarg]

Hi Andy Mc.
Apologies - I did not intend to imply that you personally had been offended by the blog, rather I meant that if you take such a serious step as locking a thread you should give a reason so that we understand what standard or rule has been broken, so that either we can argue against it or comply in future.

to prevent further attention in a subject I'd rather avoid on the website

Can you perhaps clarify what subjects are and are not acceptable to you on the website?

I do not understand why it would be okay for me to issue personal insults here but not to discuss the merits of a blog (or other content on the website).

This rule is pretty clear I think: "Do not link to sites that contain any form of pornography or illegal content."

Which can be found in the rules we outlined last August: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=413">viewtopic.php?f=4&t=413</a><!-- l -->

Hope it's helpful.