Application of 2257 to the ODP

This doesn't make any sense at all but I suppose the purpose is to make a nice composition rather than saying anything.

I think, DMOZ is giving privacy a bad rep. and use it in the same way governments try to use it to hide mismanagement and corruption. That is not privacy, it is secrecy which is a necessary element of all kind of abuse and corruption.

By the way- I didn't use editors names, I used DP user names, it is not my fault if some use the same at both forum.

 

From http://editors.dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html#privacy:

 

Does anyone really feel a need to ask again that we stop posting on these issues here at DP and just submit reports to DMOZ so they can "handle" it?

There is only one way to get anything changed inside DMOZ and that is to embarrass the hell out of them publicly and hope some of it filters up to AOL and Google.

 

Translation: Can you please stop revealing the monumental idiocy that pervades the DMOZ inner sanctum? It's really getting embarrassing.

 

Just cut the crap, minstrel. Just knock off the adolescent rebel-without-a-clue act - you're not doing yourself, DigitalPoint, or the cause any favors by being a fool.

 

Adding plagiarism to your crimes, sid?

 

Rephrasing is allowed only if the communication as rephrased could not be attributed to a specific editor and disclosure would not violate any editor's expectation of privacy, with the understanding that a diplomatic choice of words is the re-phraser's responsibility.

I used different colors since it seems you like to make your postings look like coloring books.

Rephrasing- To phrase again, especially to state in a new, clearer, or different way.

allowed- To let do or happen;

Now try to read the above couple of times, very slowly, so you can comprehend it.

comprehend- To take in the meaning, nature, or importance of; grasp.

As I mentioned before, I did not reveal any editor name but mentioned the people who are discussing in this forum and their view without a direct quote.
The editor who is not a member in DP, simply was referred to as another editor. If some editors would like to reveal their editor name in this forum, then certainly they can not have any expectation of privacy in regard to their editor name in DMOZ.

Now can you tell us, why are not you concerned about child porn listings in DMOZ and how to stop it and instead concentrating on hiding the problems?

 

"could not be attributed to a specific editor "
Says nothing about what names are used. If from the information provided it could only be one editor then that is attribution to a specific editor.

Actually whilst I am sure it is preferred that editors don't summarise internal threads in the way gworld has done, strictly speaking that in itself isn't against the guidelines as he has pointed out. It is the attribution to specific editors that is the real problem.

What this sort of thing does is to stop real and meaningful discussion stone dead because editors will not want themselves quoted all over the Internet. You might argue what have they got to hide, they should be exposed for their views but you are a psychologist minstrel, whether someone has got something to hide or not many people are shy about publicity and possible retribution. Those most likely to be intimidated by the thought of retribution are those who support strengthening guidelines against unscrupulous Adult webmasters who inhabit a murky world that frightens many. Gworld knows the effect of what he has done because it is exactly what has happened in the past when threads have been cut and pasted onto the Internet. What he has done is stupid and totally counter-productive to the issue we are pursuing. I only hope it is not beyond repair.

 

This is true. It's the reason I was so vocal in the beginning but only read the threads now. Too much is leaking out with editors being identified and I don't want to be one of those who are misquoted.

Gworld, why doesn't it bother you that you're preventing editors like myself from participating in that type of discussion?

 

And what specific editor is that? For example I mentioned pagode view about this matter, how is that attributed to a specific editor unless pagode reveals his editor name? I hope you can understand that paraphrasing like
editor said is black, editor said is white and editor said is gray, doesn't make very much sense.

The famous retribution again. While DMOZ editors keep insisting that those listings are for the benefit of users and not porn webmasters, at the same time it seems DMOZ role in marketing porn is so important that unscrupulous adult webmasters will consider retribution to protect those listings.

Even if this was true, as you mentioned the people who can suffer are the one who fight against such listings such as I, while editors that can possibly be identified from my summary will be praised and rewarded for their defense of such listings by adult webmasters who inhabit a murky world.

 

BUT, if I dared to post it would be to fix things I feel need fixing in adult and my editor name is the same as my dp name... do you see the problem?

 

Gworld, as usual you are full of BS. You have mentioned an editor whose editing and DP names are the same and the name of someone here who has been publicly linked here to his editor name. You are aware of the effect of threads being published with names - threads dry up partly through people feeling intimidated and partly not to give the poster of the information any more ammunition. You knew full well when you did that summary what would happen.

Haven't you told me you have been threatened and been offered bribes to shut up?

What, so you are guaranteeing not to publish the editor/DP names of editors who support moves to define clear guidelines according to your version of how things should be, and all those who don't post on DP? Is that it? And your word on that is worth what exactly?

Logical conclusions.

Either you are bloody stupid.
or
You have deliberately sabotaged the internal discussion because you don't want them to come up with anything clear and unambiguous incorporated into guidelines - would ruin one of your primary routes of attack. Which is taking people like minstrel, who has agreed that guidelines need to be a lot clearer, for a fool.

 

As I mentioned, even if we accept that this retribution is a real problem, you will not have anything to fear from people in DP, your problem will be with other editors who will know your views as soon as you post in internal forum, independent of it is summarized in DP or not.

Look at in internal forum and read how adult webmasters are changing their websites to get around the so called new guideline. The changes are not public yet, so how do they know?

 

The nasty comments I keep getting with red rep tells me otherwise.

 

Aniie and brizzie, you're right. By mentioning things said by actual DMOZ editors, gworld has committed a sin beyond forgiveness.... he's like one of those awful whistle-blowers in the public service who selfishly choose to expose corruption, waste, stupidity, and crime within the government.

I think you should fire gworld. This just can't go on. People just can't go around telling the truth to the poor dumb public... everyone knows that.

Do you not find it interesting that the focus here has shifted to the fact that gworld exposed an internal debate characterized by plain dumb reistance to change rather than the content of that debate? Do you not find it interesting that no one is saying he misrepresented what was said - only the fact that he dared to say it?

 

He's already broken that, by publishing my name. Have fun changing the rules - I'm done.

 

Minstrel, I don't mind that he said the things he said. The only problem I have is that he uses names that are easily identified, I would feel more comfortable to participate in those threads if gworld would keep the names private.

Only partly true, gworld is a master at ommiting key parts of a discussion in an effort to change its meaning. I don't deny any of what gworld posted, but even more telling are the parts he didn't post. The omitted parts completely change the meaning.

For example, if I were to say 'I would never kick my dog' and it was paraphrased to say 'compostannie talked about kicking her dog' we couldn't say it was a lie... But taken out of context the meaning is totally changed. It's not really fair to anyone, not to the editors he does this to and not to the digital point members who are being fed this crap.

I have a feeling that's exactly what he wants. I have trouble believing gworld wants change, he already shut me up weeks ago. It's a real shame.

I don't believe he'll be able to prevent change, he'll only be able to stop some of the editors who have a less lenient point of view from having input.

 

So the retribution that you are afraid of is red rep.? You must see the ones that I am getting from editors.

Nobody has even tried to answer my question. Anyone likes to try?

If these listings are there to benefit the users on Internet and not an organized effort to benefit a group of adult webmasters, why should anyone care if their listing is removed? I think anyone can understand that 1 or 2 listings are not that important for anyone to engage in illegal activities in form of retribution.

Do DMOZ defenders really mean that these listings in DMOZ are so valuable for as brizzie calls it adult webmasters who inhabit a murky world that they will commit illegal acts to defend it? How did DMOZ became such an important marketing arm for porn sites?

 

No, if you bother to recall your comment that prompted my reply it will be clear to you.

Honestly gworld, some days you make sense, but other days you only play games. If you only want to play games today I have better things to do with my time. Have fun buddy, I'll come back later to see how it's going... hugs.

 

It's all well and good for you to insinuate that he left other parts of the discussion out. However, no one in this discussion, including you, has claimed that he misrepresented that discussion here.