10-02-2013, 11:42 PM
Quote:This rule is pretty clear I think: "Do not link to sites that contain any form of pornography or illegal content."
there endeth the first lesson 8)
Locking Threads....
|
10-02-2013, 11:42 PM
Quote:This rule is pretty clear I think: "Do not link to sites that contain any form of pornography or illegal content." there endeth the first lesson 8)
11-02-2013, 12:33 AM
"This rule is pretty clear I think:
"Do not link to sites that contain any form of pornography or illegal content." The CS site has a link to Everyman Chess which in turn has a lnk: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.everymanchess.com/links.php">http://www.everymanchess.com/links.php</a><!-- m --> To Chess Cafe which in turn has a link: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chesscafe.com/links/links.htm">http://www.chesscafe.com/links/links.htm</a><!-- m --> To the website that shall not be named written by the Chess player who must not be mentioned. (Which in turn has a link back to the CS site.) Still with me? Good. That means if you link to us from the unmentionable website we form a neat circle back to the unmnentionable website.
11-02-2013, 01:17 AM
The now non-existent link had been available for the entire lifetime of this particular web-site.
During that time not one person complained about the link, not one, and this is over a period of at least eighteen months. I also seem to recall that it was present on the previous incarnation of the site. I have read various articles there over the years, but have never encountered anything I would consider 'beyond the pale'. That is not to say that such material does not exist however. Surely it would have been enough to declare, as many sites do, that no responsibility is accepted for the content of external sites? Considering how easy it is to encounter much more offensive material, I am surprised at how prudish the site is becoming. e.g. do not try to access perhaps the first site that would come to mind if researching U.S. President's.
11-02-2013, 05:28 AM
I don't understand your point Andy. I have now complained - if I had visited the site 18 months ago (or 4 years ago or whatever) I would have complained about it then.
Are you saying we should provide direct links to sites that contain both chess and pornography? 'Today we are going to look at the Queens Gambit, but first here's a photo of a naked woman to get you in the mood'? Of course there are worse things out there - I've already stated so, everyone knows that, but why on earth should CS promote it? This isn't about YOU being offended Andy, or me for that matter. I've already explained why I think it shouldn't be there, Robin has given examples of why he thinks it shouldn't be there, the moderator has agreed. Nothing to stop you from adding it to your favourites (or hiding it under your bed or whatever) though.
11-02-2013, 08:44 AM
Quote:there endeth the first lessonThe point I was making was that it would be good practice for the modarator to give reasons for taking the actions he did. The intial reply was that it was something Andy would rather not see (his words)- all what was required was that the rules were highlighted. My feeling remains that it would have been sufficient to have removed the offending link and let the discussion continue.
11-02-2013, 12:42 PM
Mike Scott Wrote:Quote:there endeth the first lessonThe point I was making was that it would be good practice for the modarator to give reasons for taking the actions he did. The intial reply was that it was something Andy would rather not see (his words)- all what was required was that the rules were highlighted. This is my view also - the moderator/s can step in if things get out of hand, or are clearly heading that way. Part of the reason why I posted about the blog here initially (rather than simply ask Andrew or Andy that it be removed in a PM) was to allow others a say in the matter. I personally feel this particular blog and my objections to it, are so clear cut that debate about its removal was almost unnecessary (I'm actually quite stunned at Geoff and Andy McC's approach) but the general point remains valid that we should be able to debate (and argue if need be!) about such things.
11-02-2013, 01:27 PM
Fair enough Mike and Andy B - points taken onboard.
11-02-2013, 01:33 PM
Geoff Chandler Wrote:"This rule is pretty clear I think: But the rule refers to what the websites we link to contain themselves, not the content of websites they subsequently link to. If we applied six degrees of separation (or similar) to this issue then almost no websites would be able to link to anywhere. As stated, nobody is stopping people viewing that website if they want to. All we are saying is that we do not think it's appropriate to have a link to it on our website, given that minors visit our website and could quite easily bypass any forewarnings in place. Thus, the responsibility rests with us to protect all our users, including the juniours, whose parents would almost certainly be pissed off if their kids navigated to such content directly from our website.
11-02-2013, 01:43 PM
Andy McCulloch Wrote:The now non-existent link had been available for the entire lifetime of this particular web-site. Would you apply the same philosphy if a landmine was burried in some random location in your garden? It hasn't blown anyone up yet; it has been there for as long as I've been in the house - so what's the problem? Andy McCulloch Wrote:I have read various articles there over the years, but have never encountered anything I would consider 'beyond the pale'. That is not to say that such material does not exist however. Well that is somewhat subjective. But I know of very few people who would consider the Harry Potter content to be anything other than adult in nature. Worse still is that the initial images would have a clear appeal to children, thus encouraging them to read the content of the speech bubbles moreso than they might otherwise be inclined to. Andy McCulloch Wrote:Surely it would have been enough to declare, as many sites do, that no responsibility is accepted for the content of external sites? To some degree the above statement must be used, but not in this case. For instance, if a website which had a history of being exemplary in standard suddenly started publishing extremely offensive content, I'd think it unfair to blame us for having had a link to it if someone then visited it from our site. But if we know a website to contain content that we consider inappropriate for some of our users, why would we legitimise their visiting it by having a link? Andy McCulloch Wrote:Considering how easy it is to encounter much more offensive material, I am surprised at how prudish the site is becoming. e.g. do not try to access perhaps the first site that would come to mind if researching U.S. President's. Chess Scotland is the national body of Chess in our country. If we are to encourage and promote the game in Scotland - as well as acquire sponsorship - we are best demonstrating the highest of standards anyone would expect of such an organisation.
11-02-2013, 03:26 PM
There is still a link to the blog in another topic ;P
Quick better remove that too just incase someone is offended :\ |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|