Suggestion Do not let ODP editors to moderate in DMOZ section

Due to corrupt methods in DMOZ, it is very easy to influence any ODP editor who wants to continue as an editor which was made very clear awhile back by my IP address from this forum was given to ODP by a female moderator of this forum.
For this reason any modartor who is also DMOZ editor will have a conflict of interest and can also be very easily forced by senior editors in DMOZ to delete posts and give infractions as it can be seen any disagreement with jim "noble" will usually results in infraction and delete of post.

 

As far as I know, robjones used to work / works for DMOZ, but he's not in a staff (or perhaps by disguise?).

 

I'm not active in the DP dmoz section nor am I a mod at DP. Kinda reduces the chance I care.

 

How can you be sure? Isn´t better to remove the conflict of interest just to be sure? You will be surprised how many people still put a value in being ODP editor or having links in DMOZ.

 

I am glad to hear that you take action in such cases and I can only ask you to have an eye on that section since it seems some mods are too willing to please jim "noble".

 

Other then once getting an infraction for saying that bots added the topix pages in the ODP, I've not had an issue with any of the moderators here, and I'm likely one of the longest standing complainers there are here on Digital Point (in the DMOZ board).

I think the key lies in how you come across. I do not resort to name calling (anymore), and generally back up my claims here (due to getting an infraction when I don't). While many people may feel that I come across as a troll, it's really in the eye of the beholder. As it can not truly be trolling if one can back up their claims (especially with the ODP guidelines themselves).... but that's really neither here nor there.

However, I would like to see more action taken against editors that do resort to name calling and make claims they can not or will not back up (as that often does cross the line between trolling & flaming). I do report them when I don't bother to correct them, and in some cases actions are taken, but most of the time I simply have no way of knowing. I can say though, that most of the editors in the ODP section have been banned more times them me (I've never been banned that I can recall) so *shrug*

Either way, if it's a conflict of interest for an ODP editor to be a mod on a DMOZ board, then by rights, no ex-eds should be allowed either.

 

It all depends on the math. DMOZ has about 3000-4000 editors and if you divide the number of corrupt editors to this number then you are right and it can be even less than 10% but the problem is that the majority of this people cannot do anything and have just joined to add their own site and nothing else. On the other hand if you divide the number of corrupt editors to senior editors which is about 350 then you will be over 80%.
I agree with you that whole DMOZ is a petty matter but I suppose I cannot help myself to go to attack whenever I see corruption.

 

The problem with closing your eyes to the surronding is that one day you will wake up like the people in Italy and Mafia is the country bigest bank.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/01/11/mafia-italy-bank.html

 

I couldn´t find anywhere in DMOZ guideline that they say the editors have to be corrupt. Corruption is a disease that everyone should fight against, otherwise there was no point government charging people in different corruption cases while they could say it is a private company or bank has nothing to do with us.

 

Let's end these dangerous conflicts of interest
Maybe we need to forbid Christians or Muslims from moderating in p&r. Some mullah or the pope might force a mod to disclose Gworlds ip in there too, and we all know the enormous value of that information on the world market.

Also, Get anyone involved in making money on the web away from moderating WTS, that's an obvious conflict of interest. And it goes without saying that I support the commonsense suggestion to keep any Tom Cruise fans from moderating anywhere. They can't be trusted.

Huge waste of time even discussing this
That directory has always drawn an inordinate amount of conversation, and I once fell into the numbers of those that gave such conversations unwarranted attention. It's just a directory, a bit timeworn now, still a good link to have but by no means a massive factor on the web as it was so many years ago. It was started in 98 and once had a huge effect on the web. This is 2012. Isn't it time for this ridiculous debate to peter out?

Is that section even needed?
Despite having a decade of experience on the topic of dmoz i dont see any reason to invest a lotta time talking about it. I have 8 posts in there in the last year... and half because a thread was moved there. Even if all the accusations were true, aside from a handful that appear to have made talking about it their life's work, who the hell cares? Between advances in SEs and the deterioration of that specific directory under AOLs management, why is this worth discussion, much less it's own section?

The only use for that sub forum is to keep the terminally obsessed combatants from infesting sane parts of the forum. The forum database in there is a repository of redundant threads with repeated arguments and counters. Everything anyone needs to know could be placed in a single sticky note that say "Submit the site, maybe it will get added. The end." A dedicated sub forum for dmoz is a vestigial tail on the body of the forum.

Best answer: Just remove it
Send the threads to the smithsonian (maybe the CDCs mental health division) and let the guys that want to argue about it go someplace else to grind their ancient ax. We don't have a separate forum for the Hatfield-McCoy feud, this sub forum is little different, just a place bitter guys go to fire at each other and anyone that wanders between them.

 

Consider it modern day archaeology

 

LOL. Translation: "Hobby" is not paying off anymore, time to find more lucrative "hobbies".

 

Naah, lost my taste for trying to teach pigs to sing. I'm sure someone's willing to bother but I don't find you that interesting.