Application of 2257 to the ODP

I strongly urge you to carefully reread this thread before you embarrass yourself any further - your agenda is very apparent.

 

Yes, I'm sure it is to most people. You obviously don't get it or choose not to get it but by now I think most of the world does.

Your agenda is also clear: DMOZ apologist supreme, aka "how can lmocr suck her way up the DMOZ ladder as quickly as possible?"...

So how about those pro-anorexia, pro-self-injury, and pro-suicide sites you're promoting, lmocr? How's that little agenda working out for you these days?

 

And what is your agenda lmocr, I mean accept trying to advance in DMOZ?

After what I have seen from you, I am sure what ever your goals are, that you are so desperate to advance in DMOZ in order to achieve those, most likely will be in contradiction to DMOZ principals.

May be you are fooling couple of people here with the old lady act but don't think that you are fooling everybody.

 

If the above statement is actually DMOZ's rule/guideline then it is clearly stated that a "site must comply with all the laws applicable in the country of hosting." in order to be considered for inclusion. Thus it is obviously the editor's responsibility to check and acertain that those laws are being observed "before" inclusion.

 

You would think so, wouldn't you, livingearth? But then you'd also think that DMOZ editors would be given a little instruction or mentoring in social responsibility and using their heads before letting then loose in categories to list pro-pedophilia, pro-anorexia, pro-self-injury, and pro-suicide websites.

 

I am way past "sick and tired" of seeing you insinuate that dmoz editors (including lmocr) are professional pornographers trying to use their dmoz editorship for personal gain. You (as a businessman who is engaged in the "adult website" trade) know full well that this allegation is a lie. I cannot imagine what dmoz (or specific editors, such as lmocr) could possibly have done to you to induce you to engage in this non-stop slanderous harassment.

 

Obviously, you've missed lmocr's equally insulting and slanderous/libelous posts at DP, orlady.

Live by the sword - die by the sword.

If you're heaving rocks at people, it's more than a little annoying to then whine when they heave a few back at you.

 

It isn't.

Hypothetical attacks on scrambled versions of someone else's statements aren't worth discussing.

 

Did they make you an Admin because your lack of capacity to comprehend made you a natural for the job?

Where did I say that lmocr was a pornographer?

I mentioned that I don't believe her old lady act and if you like, I can post what I base my opinion on. I hope one day, you will understand such difficult concepts as thinking, logical conclusions and having an opinion.

I leave making lies and accusations about who ever that complains, to your friends in DMOZ.

 

1. it's not non-stop - sometimes he sleeps for an hour or two

2. it's not slander, unless he reads what he's typing out loud while he types and it's overheard by someone else

 

You have misunderstood. What orlady says, it isn't a guideline. It was a first stab at a suggestion to put to DMOZ. An idea which has developed further with contention around assessment of "legality" on practicality grounds - DMOZ editors aren't lawyers and legality or otherwise is a decision courts make thus creating a major difficulty. What some of us have been advocating is a guideline that covers the most important part of the legal position that applies in the US and many but not all other countries that there is a reasonable consensus on - sites should not contain models under 18. Which is something DMOZ does already say if you are willing to trawl around various category descriptions and oblique references. The next step is to suggest to DMOZ ways that age might be verified.

I think imocr's summary of some already suggested suggestions preceding that comment were good ones and the points she made are exactly what editors would ask in discussing it and without answers already formulated then those suggestions will not be seriously considered. So far no-one else has added to the brainstorm.

FWIW my first suggestion would be to adopt the method most major UK retailers, including the subsidiary of Walmart, take to the sale of alcohol to 18 year olds which is to demand absolute proof if there is any doubt in the mind of the checkout operator that the prospective purchaser is under 21 or no sale (and it is enforced). How would that translate...

Where a site contains models that appear under the age of 21 you must make absolutely sure that claims that models are over 18 are verified before listing.

Another suggestion - The site must contain a clear and unambiguous statement that all models used are 18 or over. Sounds obvious but some sites based in countries with a lower age restriction advertise their sites as containing editors under 18. So this will catch some sites straight away.

Another suggestion - The site must contain verifiable details of the name and street address (not an anonymous post office box) of the owner of the site. Peddlars of child porn will almost certainly not include such details anywhere on the site. Explanation - the "trustworthiness" clause in site selection guidelines already provides cover to adopt this for Image Galleries. This will deal with US and UK pornographers quite effectively but not some European ones where the age requirements are less, e.g. Portugal at age 14. In other words a site may contain a verifiable name and address but still contain what DMOZ considers to be child pornography and is therefore unlistable.

One more - search the Internet for any reports that the site or any others associated with the site have been shown to have, or have a history of having, images of models under 18. Verifiable reports of prosecutions of the site owners or court decisions are particularly valuable.

And another - does the host have a history of hosting sites containing models under 18.

And finally - if in doubt don't list. If you come across a listed site over which you have any doubts whatsoever raise it in forum and do not assume it is OK because another editor approved it. It is better to be safe than sorry.

As orlady pointed out earlier, DMOZ guidelines are not meant to "trap" editors into removal proceedings. Most guidelines are there to assist editors to make the right decisions. Some will have the effect of rules - do not list sites with models under 18 - and deliberately breaching such a guidelines should result in removal, which is not quite the same thing as trapping.

 

Don't worry about it, lmocr already posted this in internal forum. sidjf pointed out that this suggestion comes from gworld and brizzie that don't like adults. brizzie want to remove adult and gworld has porn sites that can not get listed and therefore want to destroy the whole adult to get an even play field.

Pagode added that DMOZ already has a policy that child porn should not be listed and that is enough and another editor mentioned that you can not trust what ever declaration they have on their site, therefore nothing should be done and this discussion in unnecessary.
Some how nobody mentioned that if DMOZ guide lines are working so good then why the child porn web sites were listed in DMOZ.

The truth is that any kind of verification or legal requirement will make the owners of the sites responsible to manage such age verification documents and since most sites listed in DMOZ are only affiliate marketing sites, that will be too much trouble for affiliates/editors to manage and that is the reason they will fight any such requirements.

As long as DMOZ functions as marketing arm of porn affiliates, everybody must accept that in practicality anything can get listed.

 

Again I am not going to comment on your summaries of things I can't see or verify as accurate given your history of interpreting things to suit your own agenda. I would rather have concluded the suggestion here before asking an editor to present it internally because here it is still half-baked and incomplete. For example you can't trust declarations so how do you verify them - I only just presented some (raw) suggestions. On the positive side anything that gets editors talking about this is a good thing that might result in something constructive. And I am sure someone will mention your point about child porn sites being found hence a need to review this policy, which does currently exist but scattered and not explicit in guidelines (as someone pointed out in another thread, cat descriptions are not guidelines strictly speaking).

 

So why didn't you mention it? You said you post regularly, no one would know it's you.

 

Publishing summaries with names attached is a clear and blatent breach of communications guidelines on privacy - he didn't want to invade his own privacy by posting such a response then having to name himself here to make the report consistent.

 

Maybe because no one has found any child pornography sites listed. Two sites were found that have the possibility of containing child porn, but no evidence was found that they actually did. One was from a country that has an age of consent lower than 18 and did not have a statement claiming that the models were indeed 18. The other had pictures of Traci Lords who did most (but not all) of her work while underage. Neither of those are proof, but both are strong enough to raise a reasonable doubt which means they were removed. This is an example of the present system working properly.

 

Good point brizzie.

 

I'm not proposing any radical change in the current system or policy sid, only that it is properly documented in guidelines with supplementary guidelines to assist editors in how to follow it and to remove any possible ambiguities. Whether that is prevention or cure doesn't really matter. It needs documenting to demonstrate it is taken extremely seriously.

 

If you are going to lie, at least try to lie in a way that is not so easily discovered. Tracy lords is born in 1968, her birth date is all over the net. Her movie is from 1984 that is on that site, also an indisputable fact. This makes her 16 years old which is child porn according to US law and DMOZ own guideline.

Do you really believe that all the problems are solved and you can deny the truth because you have swept the problems under the carpet?

 

I deny we even have a carpet.