English Chess Forum player of the year: The Poll

[Michael Flatt]

I thought it more than a little ironic that Carl, despite many vociferous (and justified) comments about censorship in the other place, has seen fit, apparently after a complaint from a forumite, to remove the two YouTube Hitler parodies with neither prior consultation nor subsequent notification.

I'm curious to know what the nature of the complaint was, particularly when they were only links to material on other websites, not something that was hosted here.

No doubt the subtitles are humorous. I don't understand the German soundtrack nor the original context of the clip. The Second World War may seem simply a historic event to to some, but to others resurrecting the image of the main protagonist is sufficient in itself to cause offence.

I can understand Carl's unease at featuring such a parody on his site.

[Mike Truran]

So where does the line get drawn? People seem very happy to give the ECF forum a good kicking for perceived censorship. Why should different rules apply here?

BTW It's not just the censorship, although I think that's bad enough. It's also the way it was done with no prior consultation and no subsequent explanation that I take issue with.

[Michael Flatt]

So where does the line get drawn? People seem very happy to give the ECF forum a good kicking for perceived censorship. Why should different rules apply here?

BTW It's not just the censorship, although I think that's bad enough. It's also the way it was done with no prior consultation and no subsequent explanation that I take issue with.

In actual fact, that is the role of the moderator - he is the final arbiter of what is or isn't offensive.

It is effectively the same role as editor of a newspaper.

[Mike Truran]

That actually addresses neither of my points.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Double standards?

Why would different standards for Carl's forum and the ECF forum be a surprise?

A privately run forum is something entirely different than a forum from a formal organization with elected officials talking to their members/customers.

[Mike Truran]

I didn't say "different standards". I said "double standards".

[Jonathan Bryant]

Double standards?

Why would different standards for Carl's forum and the ECF forum be a surprise?

A privately run forum is something entirely different than a forum from a formal organization with elected officials talking to their members/customers.

Indeed. The obvious point is that the ECF is a representative body. If you don’t like what they do (be it with regard to a forum or anything else) your only choices are to put up with it or never play a serious game of chess anywhere in the world.

Carl’s forum is voluntary. If you don’t like it/how he moderates it you can walk away. It has no further impact on you at all.

FWIW it’s not obvious to me what the nature of the complaint was but my guess it was rooted in a failure to distinguish between Downfall parodies - a standard meme to the extent that the video under discussion felt terribly old fashioned if anything - and real live actually NAZIs.

Without knowing the exact nature of the complaint received it’s impossible to say whether Carl was "wrong" or not. Ultimately, though, it’s up to him.

[Mike Truran]

My earlier post refers.

Anyway, I've made the points (and will just add the further point that the moderators' silence on the matter is surprising).

But there's no point carrying on banging my head against a brick wall.

[Mike Truran]

PS This from a PM I've just received:

Maybe a video with Hitler reacting to the links being removed could be a future project for someone

[Jonathan Bryant]

PS This from a PM I've just received:

Maybe a video with Hitler reacting to the links being removed could be a future project for someone

well that’s quite funny.


btw1: I’ve just noticed your earlier post refers to "two" parody videos. I only saw one. Obviously there might be something in the second video that make my first post redundant

btw2: I hit return for my previous post a little prematurely. There was a little something about the video that I saw that I could see might lead to an objection. That said, there was an rather obvious response to that objection. As you say, not much point going further with that one as there’s no sign of the video(s) returning.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Making Downfall parodies about previous Downfall parodies is, of course, a traditional response in these sorts of situations.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Firstly just to pick up on Michael Flatt's point and for the benefit of those who don't understand the context, the clip is from a highly regarded German film called Downfall which attempts to recreate the final days of the Third Reich. That scene is where Hitler is told by his generals that the war is lost, he dismisses all but a few key officers and goes into a lengthy rant. It's since become a common internet parody to replace the subtitles so that it could be Hitler ranting about anything (for example there's one variation from a pro Yorkshire perspective where his generals book him a night out in Blackpool, Lancashire rather than in Bridlington, God's Own County).

Returning to the main point in hand, I don't know if anybody has pointed out that the only people from the supposedly controversial ECF list not to make the cut here were Eggleston, Jones, McShane and Sadler which if it makes a case for anything suggests a case for limiting the number of grandmasters that can be nominated. I stand by my view that this whole `controversy` has left a nasty taste in my mouth - I am aware of what I was called in a comment on the S&B blog - I'm all for diversity but the attacks on the ECF list did send the message that those nominated were somehow undeserving, however I was taking umbrage on behalf of the two juniors, the student and the amateur who I suppose were the more diverse end of the list.

If there's something we should take away from all this is that we should highlight and celebrate success more often, not when it is awards season. But that's just my view.

[Mike Truran]

Jonathan, you can find the second offending parody on the 4NCL website in a news item dated 18 April 2013 (in the 2012/2013 news archive in the Previous Years section). I'd better not post the link, as it will probably be censored again.

I believe it was done by Sean Hewitt in response to the ECF membership scheme. It's one of the funniest chess-related things I've seen in a long time.

[Michael Flatt]

btw1: I’ve just noticed your earlier post refers to "two" parody videos. I only saw one. Obviously there might be something in the second video that make my first post redundant

btw2: I hit return for my previous post a little prematurely. There was a little something about the video that I saw that I could see might lead to an objection. That said, there was an rather obvious response to that objection. As you say, not much point going further with that one as there’s no sign of the video(s) returning.

As an independant observer, one might interpret the second video, in particular, as part a continuing and prolonged campaign of harassment and denigration against one or more individuals whose names were featured.

The referenced individuals included a contributor to this forum and a former official of the ECF, amongst others.

PS
Thank you to Andrew Zigmond for explaining the origin of the clip.

[Mike Truran]

One might indeed (if one were particularly thin-skinned and lacking any sense of humour). But I'm pretty sure that that's not why the complainant complained.

PS I don't (and never had) thirty votes. But I for one didn't see that as a "continuing and prolonged campaign of harassment and denigration" against me. I just found it rather amusing.