Perfect explanation of a multi-billion dollar organization... and I'm sure if Google actually thought it would be better to own it... they'd buy it.
Soooo.... let me get this right. And editor can call submitters morons or worse so long as it's not on DMOZ itself? So RZ is fair game? Kinda makes ya wonder why they seemed to have counted an unproved warning against Compostannie outside of a dashboard warning system... Yes, yes, I picked the domain name and site name... but it was you that opted to have them listed next to children's sites. So blame me all you'd like, just keep in mind, I never listed such filth, and as filth was listed, it should be allowed, as its clearly NOT against the guidelines.
I am not sure why you are getting so high and mighty on this one Julian. As an adult webmaster you know that sometimes rude words are used in adult directories. Here are some examples from a directory that has your contact information plastered over the whois record Old F*cker Big C*ck Sex GrannyF*cking Gay F*ck Studs and so on The ODP has a system where only certain words such as the ones you mention will bring adult sites into a search from outside of the adult part of the directory. So at least those sorts of sites are only found by those who are actually looking for them. I think that if it were put to the editors I believe that the majority would prefer that there was no adult part of the directory, and that may be the way things may involve over time especially given AOLs involvement.
Sorry, but, ummm, you are wrong. Those types of words are scattered throughout the entire directory. In fact, one of the game review descriptions has the word sh!t in it. I'm pretty sure that while it's not in the kids area, the majority of people seeing it are kids. And you can stumble across such things by browsing the directory. They are just easier to find with the search. I find it strange the adult sections are still there if the "majority" are wanting it out. Must be that paid for links minority that is keeping it in...and if that's not the case I'd like to know what is. Though honestly, how can you point the finger at anyone for owning an adult site while you defend a directory that lists them? You are standing up against the filth you see in gworld, but do you have posts in the inner forums of DMOZ saying how filthy such sites are?
Well Q, the ODP is not a democracy and I don't think that the volunteer editors including metas and admins would have the ability to remove the adult branch. I shall ignore your "Must be that paid for links minority" comment as it the normal dribble that we have come to expect of you. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way) I am not here to defend anything, you keep saying that just stop would ya.. And for that matter I am not standing up against filth you can stop that too. However there is a slippery slope to consider here. OK we get rid of adult sites, they are more trouble than they are worth, and AOL is family orientated and it does not fit their philosophy. Then the right minded folk at the ODP and AOL who were pretty keen on getting rid of adult sites turn their attention to say occult sites. I was looking at a Christian website the other day and apparently even Harry Potter is really bad. Imagine what moral filth your sites are to some. The damage that your sites are doing to the souls of our children is unforgivable much worse than porn in many ways. I don’t believe in this shite by the way I am just attempting to illustrate the dangers of moral judgment.
robjones is not privy to any other information that would nopt be available to every editor, the real reasons for removal are with the Meta community and as far as I have seen, they have offered no comment. From what we as non-metas have seen, the editor behaved innappropriately, at the least, I would believe that is the tip of the iceberg and, as I have said before, have no reason to have a problem with this removal. I do also believe that the adult section has a limited span on DMOZ. Many editors are unhappy with its presence and I think many could leave if it continues to be present. But there is a slippery slope on moral judgements.
Oh yes, turn this against me and my sites now. I can see your preferred method of debate is by skipping the real issues to make more room for personal attacks (meant in the nicest manor or not). Some things in the occult ARE horrible, but then, would you like links to the horrible things the christian church has done? Blah... If there is nothing wrong with the Adult categories, why are they labeled "adult" and hidden from normal view? It's clear there is something amiss and that by most standards it's not all that "family" (cept maybe the incest categories ) so place any spin on it you'd like, the fact that it remains says a lot about those that are supporting it. Sooo.... you are only here to throw the same accusations around that all these ex-editors are doing to DMOZ? yeah, you are helpful.
And saying things publicly that is not publicly available is not against the confidentiality guidelines? I hope someone is bumping that thread that was discussing the lack of dashboard warnings... This editor shows signs of being a friend of a friend of a webmaster and he is let go without word or warning, and then the reasons for his removal are made public by an editor that is still an editor. Two rules were broken by two editors, yet only one is punished? one would think that there would be a certainly level of fairness going on. I look forward to them all creating memberships here on DP to help point out the rest of the flaws within the system as it stands now ~ in hopes that they can finally make DMOZ something special.
Oh Q you are so easy to wind up. Settle down. Take a deep breath. I was trying to make the point that everyone has different opinions on what is offensive. Actually I had a real good read of your forum site the other day and there is some real interesting stuff in there. I find most Christian forums very narrow minded and plain boring in comparison, perhaps they should be banned for lack of unique content. Because some people find them offensive. Just like using rude words. Most of us let rip with a few anglo saxon expletives from time to time. But we are careful not to do it in inappropriate situations.
Dmoz is last years news to me or shall I say last 4 years news. I had submitted over 4 to it and have not got one in whereas there are many personal pages listed where some of them are very poorly designed. I just don't bother with them any more and don't even use them at all.
Obviously I have addressed your concerns since you're wandering off topic in support of facts elsewhere... debating RZ developments doesn't have much to do with this thread... and from what I've seen at RZ from certain submitters suggests you're on a fishing trip. Unfortunately I wasn't around for any of this drama. Surely then I can't comment other than saying - you know more than I. Fishing doesn't have anything to do with this either -- but that seems to be your motive. In any case you can blame me for the filth you suggest is there if you wish - I've got big shoulders and can carry the burden... I've never looked so I'll trust your instincts on what you have been looking at.
I agree here... and why I don't really care that my domains never get listed... there are so many better links to get out there.
Yes, and thank you for addressing my concerns. I now understand that there is no affiliation with RZ and DMOZ and that editors there can treat submitters anyway they choose. As a drama, it was very sad. You should look up the specifics of it. You don't understand my motives then. I do not blame you for the filth itself. Just for not standing up against it. I will feel sorry for you if you ever get ousted from the project without word or warning. I am honestly here to help you, whether you can see that or accept it. If anyone visits RZ it should be clear that submitters are not given all that much respect, and in many cases are trolled and flamed by editors. If that is against the guidelines of DMOZ and nothing is being done about it, then how can other actions outside of DMOZ be held as proof of any wrong doing? At least on RZ accounts are verified as editors before they are given such a title... It's strange that a "warning" can be issued at RZ and it count, but other rules can be neglected...
I see you are back to your old trick defending the "free speech" right of pedophiles. Didn't you already lose this argument in internal forum? It is funny that your group claims that DMOZ has no obligation to list any web site and it is their right to refuse listing web site that in anyway doesn't reach DMOZ "standards" but when it comes to affiliate adult sites about Fu*ck and Pus*y then it will be a horrible crime not to list it and we will be on the slippery slope of crushing the free speech and people's right to get listed. Do you honestly believe that anybody is so stupid not to see your real motives for defending such sites?
What do you mean you weren't around? You were a DMOZ editor at the time that Annie was railroaded. Several DMOZ editors took a stand, a moral stand. Most, like you, did not, preferring to protect their precious standings in the DMOZ inner sanctum. "When they came for my neighbor, I said nothing"... I think you know the rest of that story.
Mate, you don't know me and yet you suggest because I enjoy editing that gives you certain rights to question what I stand for. I feel sorry for you that you have to make every hour of every day about the same... you're so addicted to it that you can never get enough... how sad your life must be to be so trapped into a single never ending thought. Why would that happen? Because I'm corrupt? Because everyone else is corrupt? Because I'm not corrupt and those that can't be corrupted get ousted? What's your pick... considering you don't know a thing about me your honesty seems tainted. BTW if true and I ever "get ousted" - I do it for personal enjoyment - I'm sure I can find something in life that will replace the deep hole left by my sudden editorship death... I won't need to spin neverending tales about the corruption that brought me down. It's clear that morons can arrive at RZ and are understood as morons in advance because they troll and flame and when the same is returned - they cry wolf... "see how they treat submitters with no respect"... surely this isn't you but I'm sure we can put our heads together and come up with a long list of trolls and flame submitting experts... seriously sometimes tit for tat is the correct answer. It's equally strange that a person with your intelligence can't fathom why some people don't get the time of day... while others get preferred treatment. Must be something to do with corruption and how corrupt free you all are.
Indeed! It is clear that the webmaster is not wanted at the forum put there to be the go between for submitters and editor. I was actually treated OK for the better part while at RZ, they do not treat every webmaster as a troll, but from what I have seen they do assume that many are morons before they even post and then treat them as such once they post. As such, it's no wonder that so many people feel that the staff there, and hence DMOZ in general are nothing but a bunch of corrupt buffoons that won't submit quality sites. RZ has given no indication they are anything but that assumption. It's sad that an apparently official forum is not under the same rule set as the rest of the directory.