DMOZ Scandal of the YEAR

where is results for



http://forums.digitalpoint.com

 

When the facts aren't allowed to be broadcast, it all boils down to credibility.

When an editor claims to have been unjustly dismissed, who to believe? You have no data to make up your own mind. Your only compass is credibility.

(1) Do you believe the meta-link-approvers that has advanced the ranks of the ODP through hours of mindless dedication, or the miscreant about whom they imply such gross misconduct that a warning was a dangerous luxury?

(2) Do you believe the metas that falsely claim, to give an easily verifiable example, thinking themselves safe from scrutiny in a "secret" forum, that I was dismissed for cooling my own site 3 times, and mowing down my competition?

(3) Do you believe the metas that need to use over half a dozen duplicate accounts to give more weight to their pro-ODP arguments over here at DigitalPoint?

(4) Do you believe the condescending and rude metas of Resource-Zone?

(5) Do you believe anyone that would come to the conclusion that Annie did anything so bad as to warrant having the door shut in her face?

(6) How much credibility do these metas really deserve? Do they have enough credibility that you'd just blindly take their word for it?

(7) Is it possible that these people are not beyond some scheming to protect themselves, for example, against pending and potentially embarassing mediation requests?

(8) Would they sacrifice an editor to protect the directory against the exposure of some deal they have to deeplink a particular website, erm, say, Rubylane, but not the others that work on the exact same model, such as goantiques, tias, etc?

(9) Is it also possible that friendly relations with the webmasters at large are so violently frowned upon to be worthy of canning an editor of 6 years?

 

It is the fourth one on that search, and it is found here:

http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Promotion/Chats_and_Forums/

It has absoulutely nothing to do with this thread! Enough!

 

Here:

dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Promotion/Chats_and_Forums/
dmoz.org/Computers/Data_Formats/Style_Sheets/CSS/FAQs,_Help,_and_Tutorials/
dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Domain_Names/Resources/

 

Number 4 on the list at the URL Dogbows gave you.

And you don't need large type and bright colors to make your point.

And what has any of this to do with the removal of Annie as editor?

Added:

LOL! Three answers within a minute. Clear enough for you, Freewebspace?

 

I was wondering artisands is have you been banging your head lately ? How would we blame ourselves since WE DID NOT FIRE ANNIE

@trueblue the silent DP TROLL
Sure find me but I'll let you know this that I can find you. You have no idea why I live in Maryland. But have retired of the game to give you a very short insight.

 

Go back and find the quotes saying that official channels do not need to be used. With that, then yes, there can be back and forth communication between meta and editor.

I mean, you can't say it DIDN'T happen, any more then a non-meta can say that a dashboard warning was issued to ANYONE. I mean, under the confidentiality guidelines, the above conversation may have taken place.

 

They don't seem to put the directory ahead to their own personal selves, or their own personal hatreds, or any perceived threat that some of their dirty deals be exposed.

My website has stained glass patterns, for panels, and for lamps. Since there are few patterns for lamps that are available (they just aren't popular, I found out the hard way), I included the words "lamp patterns" in my own description. Kctipton, who likes to keep an eye on such things, removed this with a note that I was "keyword stuffing" - when in fact my own description was pretty average for the category. He also added incorrectly that I was the author of "most" of the patterns when I was the author of "all" of them. Being who hes, he was at once snarky and tactless. I voluntarily trimmed the description to be the shortest of the lot, but at least it was accurate. Those stupid descriptions don't even matter, no one reads them, and Google has long stopped using them.

Knowing that I was being harassed by a meta, I filed a mediation request. It was acknowledged, a mediator was appointed, but never followed up for months, despite my repeated gentle prodding.

I was religiously filling out the "declaration of affiliations" - but this was just to make it easy, as it turned out, for the nut to have me under a microscope and turn was quite obviously an honest mistake into something sinister.

And I am certain that some of the support he got for my dismissal came from metas that worried about my persistence with the Rubylane deeplink affair. I thought it was WRONG to deeplink Rubylane. They decided it was to be done, and they refused to explain it other than "we say so, so do it and shut up" - to paraphrase.

That's why I don't believe metas, and I'll believe Annie until the day I die.

 

"I wish Annie only the best, and although I think she was in part a victim of some very unethical people" Yep! Those she worked side by side with and considered her friends for years in ODP!

 

This is fascinating. Lissa has it correct - she's just looking in the wrong direction.

It's called "projection".

 

When they themselves act like that no wonder they think everyone is corrupt.

They probably count DP as back and forth communication.

As it said With friends like that who needs enemies.

 

Source: shadow575.blogspot.com

Very refreshing.

Maybe once she is fully rejuvenated, Shadow575 will read her own June 4 blog "Those Evil Meta Editors" with fresh eyes, as if she were an outsider watching her own life. Perhaps she will be struck by how her own denials about metas being full of themselves are so often followed by her very own false modesty and self-aggrandizement. I will not quote this blog, as it's not my purpose to embarass Shadow575, who is, when all is said and done, probably a good egg.

After all, she did also write:

It's always good when someone decides to focus on something other than the ODP - almost anything else is more important. Welcome back, Shadow. Godspeed.

 

And this is the ass that Annie was fighting with me for, because when he was active under one of his accounts in DP, I pointed out what a nonsense and BS he was posting.

She was telling us that Jim "noble" was a good guy and I shouldn't be hard on him, he certainly paid her back for her friendship and support. What a JERK.

 

I know Jim. He cant resist DP and he reads daily. How about some more TEA.

Can we talk now again about Dirsensei Web Directory ? Sorry I forgot you can't.

 

Don't you mean thousands and not dozens?

 

The blame for the situation, i.e. discontent with a removal and other editors resigning as a result, lies with the ODP methods of operation, its secrecy, lack of transparency, lack of accountability to its own editors. DP would not be a forum for criticism, much of it misguided, some of it legitimate, if the ODP were truly "open" in its operation. RZ and its intolerance of public debate and criticism carries a responsibility too. ODP and RZ created DP as it is now.

A fair judicial process in every civilised society includes the right of the accused to have the evidence put to them and to respond. It generally includes open and transparent proceedings so that justice can be seen to be done to the guilty. A fair system means treatment that is equal for all. Yet ODP proceedings are held in secret, the accused cannot answer the charges, and the perpetrators of the worst cases of abuse I have seen are sitting pretty with top level editing rights intact. However often the ODP removal process gets it right and removes a truly corrupt and abusive editor, and I am sure most are correct decisions from what I observed, the secrecy means that it is fundamentally flawed and cannot be considered fair.

When admins and metas are fully accountable to the community and proceedings are open to proper scrutiny with opposing viewpoints tolerated, only then will ODP have a fair system. Until then places like DP will thrive and influence.

I guess I could be included in that one. It prompted me to look into the situation with the Adult branch with the same (one)eye I had used to smell out one or two other corrupt editors elsewhere. There may be a lot of crap here and a lot of vitriol too. But there are also some truths hidden amongst it. I was stunned at the tolerance of abuse and corruption in the Adult branch. That isn't the fault of DP but the fault of the ODP.

The ODP has no-one to blame but itself for its ills and traumas. Until it starts to look inwards, critically, it will continue its slow and steady decline. It's fate is, and always has been, in its own amateur and mismanaged hands.

 

.....And I am just starting the the party and still more to come.

They may call me abuser or anything they like for all I care but I will show all what ROTTEN, HEARTLESS SOB's, SCUMBAGS and STINKY that place is with those people.

*Pumping Fist in the Air*

 

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and only including the ones she has admitted to.

 

It is the only way to function in ODP, with (one)eye closed to corruption. I supposed after you started to visit this forum and opening your both eyes, you had to make a choice to either close it again or leave ODP and you made the right choice.

 

This forum really corrupts good DMOZ editors.