Read the last sentence of the policy again. "without critical reason". What you outlined there, in my opinion, would be. What wouldn't be would be something like "I just submitted my patch last week but someone on some forum somewhere called me an idiot and so now I'm quitting the scene and I want you to remove all my work because I don't want that idiot who called me an idiot to have access to my work because he's an idiot"
I certainly see what you're saying, but "without critical reason" is purely subjective. There's nothing stopping the site from saying a perfectly valid reason isn't good enough just because they don't want to remove the file (not saying this would happen -- but I believe this is part of the point InVerse is trying to make).
I'm still a fan of a submitter-controlled removal system I suggested earlier. But rather than remove the whole database page, just remove the file, leaving other parts in tact. Perhaps if a file is removed, have the reason for its removal listed on the page so that people can see just how much of a goon the author is being XD
In all seriousness, though. InVerse's concerns are starting to concern me. The people who would have issues with this policy are most likely going to be heavy contributors of quality content. On the other hand, the people that throw a drama tantrum and fade from "the scene" are usually people the community won't really be hurting without. So you're alienating a handful of quality contributors in order to embrace a truckload of mediocre hacks. Up until now this site has always taken a "quality before quantity" approach with its policies -- which is why hacks have to be of some significance or else they get rejected. It seems strange that a policy which indirectly accomplishes the exact opposite is now in effect.
We want to discourage deleting of files. We think everything released to the internet should be archieved. Of course the "everything" part is what will alienate a lot of people again. So many propably that it becomes a problem again. We most likely won't have completely free deletion capabilities in any case. We have to draw the line somewhere else I think. But where? We're certainly for every input you guys give us.
As admirable as the goal of being a full, unabridged archive is, it's impractical and impossible for a site like this. By design, the users are in control of the content, so they should at least be partially responsible for removing content as well.
Existing internet archives (like archive.org) don't even take this approach. Even they respond to author's request for removal (which sucks when you're trying to look for that specific site, granted).
I don't know... I guess I can see why the policy has been instituted, and I don't personally have any problem with it because I share your ideals. It still seems like a backwards step for the site.
What about the fans? Its not our faults that internal politics got an author pissed off and then we are suffering for it.
Without the authors, there are no fans. As cruel as it seems, this relationship is a one-way street. If we don't embrace the authors, we lose the files, and by chain reaction lose some fans. Conversely if we lose some fans, we probably won't lose any authors, and thus will gain files, and thus gain/replace fans we may have lost.
It's all about the authors, IMO. I'm not saying the casual userbase of the site isn't important. I'm just saying the contributors are much more important. (Of course I might be biased a bit since I consider myself more of a contributor