Teranslation: Typical DMOZ apologist response. There is no lack of infromation available here and elsewhere and you know it. Just look through the threads on this forum alone, sif. Then pick any other wsebmaster forum you can think of and look through threads there. If after that you still don't think you see any evidence, any fiurther discussion with you is pointless.
Source: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=731528&postcount=1 Source: http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/faq.html How is it going with adult clean up? Do you think there will be any result during this decade or at least this century?
All I was saying is that all editors make mistakes and it is important to distinguish those from genuine abuse. I am sure that injustices have been done from time to time. Having seen those sorts of allegation thrown around on the Internet I spent the first year of being an editor expecting my account to be closed next time I logged in. Never happened. Because to do that would be abuse of removal processes and that kind of abuse would result in plenty of honest metas resigning and not keeping quiet about it. That is not to say that an inconvenient retired editor would be permitted to come out of retirement - I strongly suspect not. But to avoid the accusations it might be time to consider a change to the paranoid secrecy and experiment with more open procedures.
Abuse and corruption can not survive without secrecy, so I can assure you that Admins and Metas answer to any such suggestions will be in short: NO.
I think most "honest metas" and I am sure there are some, have been well trained in the art deference and submission. Why would any of them risk putting themselves in the line of fire to protect a "lesser" editor, as I was? They wouldn't jeopardize their own status to protect someone else, and probably kowtowed to the paranoid meta elements. I mean, what reasonable meta would be crazy enough to butt heads with someone as paranoid and antisocial as, say, kctipton? No cause is worthy enough to justify that kind of stress. Exactly. The ODP owes me a colossal apology. I won't shut up until I get it, and I am never going to get it.
What ? Do you have any drinking problems lately ? I don't give a rats behind about morals if the people that I face don't have it either. You talk morals and they continue listing inappropriate sites, even harmful to children ? No, thanks but I don't defend those kind of stuff. Are you all self righteous ? Cause frankly speaking I grew up in the HOOD IN MANILA and frankly speaking I don't freaking understand a bit of any of those smokescreening, bafflegabbing and defending these DMOZ IDIOCRACY and MORALS you speak.
Why would they butt heads with him? He found out you were abusing. He may not be the best "people-person", but his abuse instincts are very good.
You see that is the problem. You are repeating the accusation as if it is fact, without presenting any evidence. Exactly what goes on here the other way around. Not only are you not presenting any evidence you specifically could not even if you wanted to because the rules forbid the revelation of evidence against the accused. Therefore the accused has no opportunity to defend themselves. Without any evidence or defence it is an allegation not a statement of fact. Stating it as fact, based on one side of the argument only, is incorrect. If there is an error in this case, or any other, then it could be deemed slanderous. There are virtually no developed countries where judicial process or employment law permits dismissal of workers without the employee having the right to defend themselves. DMOZ gets away with it only because the workers are volunteers. The only argument I have ever heard for the secrecy is so as not to give removed editors information that reveals how they got caught so they can reapply and not get caught next time. And it is a compelling argument. But it would only hold water if were it not for the likes of gworld and popotalk who prove that the determined removed editor can get back in very quickly. And yet you rejoin them whilst holding those opinions. You're missing the point. If you break the rules by cheating the system then you are a hypocrit for accusing others of being heinous criminals for allegedly doing the same.
Metas would butt heads with kctipton, or the likes of him, if they had a sense of fairness. Kctipton, or any other meta, could not have found that I was "abusing" because I was NOT abusing a mosquito's worth. I had no idea the kctipton nut was behind my dismissal. I am not surprised, though. At some point he slashed my site's description because I specified that my site had patterns for "lampshades, boxes and candleholders" or something similar. That tiny mention about having a variety of 3D projects, he called "keyword stuffing." I felt they were justified because at the time, there were no other sites offering these kinds of patterns, certainly not to the extent I did. He also had the nerve to replace this correct information by a vicious, vindictive note in the site's description that said that not all the patterns were mine, which they were. To boot, he described my site as an "image gallery" which was just completely ridiculous. He turned a perfectly accurate and fair description into a completely inaccurate joke. Here's the kicker, folks. I changed the description again, without the so-called "keyword stuffing" because I didn't care about keywords, they make no difference, but removed the reference about the patterns not being all mine, and calling it erroneously an image gallery. Because it was, in the context of the nasty note kctipton left in my site's editor logs, nothing short of a personal insult. I was so bloody honest, I was so offended by his intimations that I had written my description unfairly that I WANTED the other editors to know what the kctipton kook was up to. I wanted someone to look at it, and confirm that I was not wrong, and that I was beyond reproach. There was no doubt in my mind that I would be vindicted. I pushed the "ARBITRATION" button. Ha! An editor in England was assigned to the "case." After an intial acknowledgement, I never heard from him again, not for SIX MONTHS, despite my sending him repeated reminders. That's DMOZ arbitration for you. All I wanted is for a more reasonable editor to add to my site's editing logs that "lampshades, boxes and candleholders" was NOT keyword-stuffing, that I was not guilty of anything wrong at all. I also wanted to document kctipton's misplaced paranoia.
It is convention (rather that a rule) that forbids telling someone exactly why they they have been removed. In certain cases people are told. The employment analogy is not quite appropriate. Many internet sites that invite open participation (like forums, free hosting, chats, etc) will remove access when people violate their terms of service. They are not expected to justify their decision and certainly would be not be prepared to enter into debate about it.
Certainly. I like to watch how the culprits works. No brizzie, you are. I did not went back to KISS and MAKE-UP. How about you ? What the heck. Robin Hood did it. King Arthur did it. James Bond did it. I would be gladly called a hypocrite who joins, cheats the system and exposes malpractices rather than people who don't voice their concern, too afraid, no spine, defends malpractice, defends pedophiles, list illegal sites. Yeah I can be that.
Trying have a sensible conversation with you around it almost impossible. Do you ever have an original thought, or is you sole contibution repeating the accusations of others?
Maybe true. But I don't ignore and turn a blind eye on things that needs to be done. Have you honestly answered my question about Still in Braces yet ?
Also, ishfish, you have some nerve even suggesting that I was abusing anything. I was not. The fact that you are debasing yourself to suggest that someone who wasn't abusing, was abusing, shows that you'll say anything to discredit any ex-editor and make it appear that it's just impossible for the ODP to make a wrong decision. It is very possible, for I know they have. kctipton's so called abuse instincts are way off the mark, and ought not to be trusted. He has way bigger problems that being merely not a "people person." He did butt into the Rubylane thread - just to throw his weight around, adding nothing to the discussion. Add to that the unresolved arbitration between him and me, and you've got yourself a deranged man with an axe to grind. It's really a shame that you are have let this vindictive, paranoid, hate-carrier harass a devoted, hard-working, and honest junior editor who wanted to be nothing but totally beyond reproach. There are many reasons why the ODP is nothing but a corrupt, rotting, decaying organization. Way beyond doorway pages in Adult and pro-ana listings. The ODP is like a mental asylum that's run by the patients, and the doctors are banging their heads in padded rooms wearing straight jackets.
But it is more appropriate than terms of service attached to forums, free hosting, chats, etc. ODP volunteers perform the same work tasks as paid employees at Yahoo. ODP does not provide a service to the volunteers, the volunteers provide the service to the ODP. Perhaps someone could enlighten helleborine then.
I suspect they couldn't "enlighten" me without totally embarassing themselves. Nice try, brizzie. ;-)