Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post, WB Reporter. I am 100% in favor of writeups of games being as detailed as possible, and I certainly don't have any problems with box scores and descriptions like "Player X pitched 6 excellent shutout innings" or "Player Y went 3 for 4 with 4 RBIs," or even "Player Z struck out with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 7th." I agree that game highlights, scores, etc., are important posts, and they will inevitably include stats that are good for one team (usually the winner) and bad for the other.
What I do not like is messages about players, mostly done by anonymous posters, that either build up expectations of specific players beyond realistic expectations (or beyond reality itself), or postings that are in any way negative about expectations for a specific, named player. If you peruse the many postings on this site, you'll notice that there are some writers that consciously avoid naming names, and others that seem to love to write about this player and that player in practically every post. The "namers" are usually well-intentioned, but I'm not so sure that it's in the best interest of these kids to have their name bandied about on a website by multiple unnamed or anonymous posters. And I think you'll agree that the (relatively few) negative postings with specific names mentioned are certainly a big problem.
The difference here is that a game writeup talks about something that actually happened, whether it is "good" or "bad" for any specific player or team (and hopefully is factual, if you are depending on it to get your information). A posting about someone's expectations, or about something that hasn't happened, may cast a specific kid in an unfair light.
I am NOT for censorship, never was and never will be, and resent your inference that I am. That word is a hot-button topic and evokes reactions "from the gut" in many people, and your use of that word should be considered more carefully in the future. I think that if we are trying to place a label on what I was suggesting, it would be "exercising self-restraint." That would be a much better description than "censorship." The censorship that does happen on the site is rare and well-applied, as can be seen on this very thread.
And, BTW, strikeouts are a good thing, obviously for the pitcher and defense, and sometimes even for the player that Ks, if the hitter learns from the experience and comes back next time up to have a better at-bat. I'm not worried about a player's "feelings and psyches" if the posting is, as you say, about "facts and information." It's the postings that mention names and are NOT about facts and information that posters should probably be more careful about -- and this was the intent of my message.
I apologize about the long post, but felt that I needed to clear the air about what I said and about the response it generated.