Complain to AOL about Adult

Stop playing games.

Yes. But others had reported the problems internally before this thread and nothing happened. Indeed, nothing happened until a groundswell of negative criticism began to build. THAT is when people responsible for the Adult category got worried. That the sites were listed wasn't the problem - that there was a public condemnation of the listings was a problem. And to say or even imply that the Admions acted swiftly when made aware of the problems is laughable.

 

Minstrel - I am not the one playing games here. I have seen no prior reports internally of problems with these specific sites. Nor were other editors who commented on the very lengthy thread here on them previously aware even of their existence, let alone complaints about them.

There have certainly been previous complaints about other aspects of Adult. There have been some pretty fierce debates in several of the internal forums over the years. Some have led to change. Others haven't.

No-one is claiming that the Admins acted swiftly when made aware of the problems with these specific sites. I said they didn't!

 

Word games...

So if I find another similar site in one of the Adult category, your defence will be, "No one complained about THAt site - only about a dozen other with the same type of content. So I thought THAT site was okay."

 

minstrel, you know where I stand. You may believe me, to the best of my knowledge, what Genie is saying there, is the truth.

 

<sigh> Minstrel - You know very well that I made no defence whatsoever of the listing of any site that resembles child porn. I'm against it. I want any such site removed from Dmoz. I see no justification for it. My position on the matter is crystal clear.

 

Good. Everything else is just bafflegab and smokescreen or word salad.

 

Typical minstrel response - when someone else speaks the truth and it doesn't agree with your perception of reality, it's called bafflegab or a smokescreen.

 

Speaking of bafflegab and smokescreen, here's lmocr

What exactly was "the truth" there, lmocr?

 

Oh! I thought you had read this thread, specifically Genie's posts - my mistake

 

Talking about mistakes and also in respect to this thread, I am having the impression, that "the truth" is evenly devided.

 

Minstrel, I agree that when they read the discussion here at DP that is when it all started. Dear ODP Eds you know very well who started the thread at Your Internal Forum in Adult. Or do you need to be reminded.

 

Yeah. That's what I thought. You have no idea what we're discussing and nothing to say but you feel that irresistable urge to say it anyway. Slow day at The Resourceless Zone, lmocr?

 

So what is it? Is there a clear guideline or is there a confusion/disagreement? What kind of clear guideline is it that even admins can not interpret it and need so long time to copy and paste 1 line from supreme court decision to previous guideline?
The whole DMOZ structure is just a joke, in this question admins clearly mentioned that DMOZ should be bound by US law and not as editors usually try to confuse the issues by asking what country law. Look at the 2257 issue and a meta encourages the editors not to pay any attention to US federal law in this regard. Look at the arguments of another one in child porn thread that mentions DMOZ should be concerned about adult webmasters profitability and do not stop the deep linking practice since registering many domains is expensive.
What does this shows about an organization that even it's leaders don't know what are the rules and procedures?

 

The admins - as well as most editors - don't pay much attention at all to what's discussed here. If an editor sees an issue here that concerns them (and it may not be what was actually being discussed at the time) - they usually bring it up internally.

That is what happened in this case. That category, which doesn't exist any longer, was brought up internally about 12 hours before it appeared in this forum.

The ongoing discussion here did nothing except ruffle feathers on both sides. I seriously doubt it had anything to do with the admins decision - I also doubt that the long internal regular discussion had more than a minimal impact on their decision.

One admin did answer a specific question that was asked in that thread and you (minstrel) told her to leave or don't you remember saying:

Why would any of them pay attention to anything that is said here when the reception was so warm?

 

You've spent far too much time in the Resourcelesss Zone yourself, lmocr. You no longer can tell the difference between "an answer" and bafflegab. May I suggest you follow orlady back to wherever she went and continue following the party line?

 

They didn't do it because they like people here, they did it because of the pressure. Imocr, isn't your time better spend in DMOZ forum, thanking admins for what ever they decide to do?

 

It was a European editor who posted it in the Internal Forum with a link to that thread. It all started that way.

 

I think imocr suffers from selective memory loss problem, it is a medical condition shared by some of DMOZ editors, so you can not blame her for it.

 

Thank you, popotalk.

I am (reluctantly) trying to give lmocr the benefit of the doubt by making the assumption that she is merely mistaken or confused and not deliberately attempting to deceive.

 

That's correct - brought up internally and then someone sent brizzie information on it, which is how it appeared in this forum half a day later.

The internal discussion prompted the admin discussion, and I'm positive the admins had all the fire they needed among themselves to keep their discussion going without needing any outside fire.

Why do you think that only you know the truth - is there a hidden meaning in your words that I'm just not seeing? Why don't you think it's possible that this forum - although large - doesn't have much to do with how the ODP works internally?

Most editors (at least those who acknowledge they're editors) come to this forum to try and offset the misinformation that people spread about the ODP. Like the guy that said that he hates directories like DMOZ that collect and sell email addresses to spammers. If someone who knows better doesn't challenge that statement, others are going to start believing it's correct. Occasionally, someone will post something that is, or will generate, a complaint/issue (whatever you want to call it) that needs looking into - those issues are brought up internally (in one form or fashion) and either the editor is educated as to why something is the way it is or the complaint/issue is corrected.

Go look at how that thread started - bashing gay sites that had more than one listing - but the person chose to call the name of the thread something that he thought (IMO) would bring more attention (which wasn't at all related to the initial topic). It wasn't until multiple pages later that the issue that ended up being the main point of the thread appeared - and that was after an editor brought it up internally.