Site not being added to DMOZ

That is exactly what they are there for. A guideline that is not enforceable and enforcement that is not controllable, is not worth the paper that it is written on. It could as well be a toilet paper.

 

I was an editor of approximately 6 months. I dared to be blunt to an administrator. It's my nature to be blunt. It was not received well by that administrator. That's understandable. ROFL! But the reply was much harsher than it should have been from any senior editor who should be setting proper examples of communication in spite of my bluntness. That being said, brizzie is right in saying that generally speaking it is different. I didn't mean to imply that it is the standard, but it does happen much too often, IMO.

 

At least your experience with DMOZ has thought you not to be too blunt and support both side of an argument at the same time.

The problem is that this should not happen at all and should be dealt with at once. In my opinion even one time that is not dealt with properly, is too often.

 

A number from the point of view of investigating with a modicum of unofficial feedback. Which is infinitely more than you equipped only with paranoid conspiracy theories. I have got to know a number of metas personally over the years and it is inconceivable that each and every one of them is both lying and covering up a huge scandal. Some of them are so anally retentive about the purity of DMOZ guidelines they haven't farted since 1999.

Tell you what - you find a meta, serving, removed, resigned, who will testify that the removal guidelines are a sham and I'll apologise to you in public.

I really really regret allowing you to draw me into your beat the troll contest gworld, even temporarily. You win. For the moment. In the long term, of course, I win by living my life without it being ruled by cynical paranoia and lunatic conspiracy theories. Good night, God Bless.

 

Thanks for agreeing with me gworld, you're learning.

 

That is what you don't get, any system that says trust me, I know this person or that person and everything is working fine is just sham and scandal.

The simple question is that if your friends are such a good and nice people then why do they have this need for secrecy? Why do to they fight any type of accountability and control, if they have nothing to hide?
Why not have an open and honest procedure that can be controlled by members, so no one can accuse them of anything?

People do not endure all the critic and fight for secrecy, if they didn't feel it is necessary in order to hide what they do.

 

I take it that was following the Big Stink of 1998?

 

This thread is incredible. Why do you people waste your time this way? Just reading it takes way too long!

I'm not going to breach privacy and make public announcements about the reasons various former editors were removed (suffice it to say that there always are reasons -- usually a long list of reasons that the removed editor should be aware of, although they may not want to admit them to their friends). I am going to comment though, on what dogbows said:

Although senior editors sometimes have been known to do that sort of thing, being as darn nice as you are, it was hard to believe you had gotten that treatment. I had no clue what you might have happened in your case.
Later you indicated that you were slapped around by an admin, and that it happened in a forum, so I narrowed my search a little...

I have poked around in the dmoz forums, your edit record, etc., and I still can't figure out what you are talking about. I did not see evidence that you were slapped around or treated arbitrarily. As vigorous public floggings go, this one must have been very subtle. I had an inkling that I might be the admin who you thought treated you so harshly, but I looked through the threads in which we interacted, and found nothing I said to you that I would consider "worse" than a "gently discouraging word".

I can only conclude that either (1) you were taken off to a secret torture chamber that I don't know about or (2) your perception of the experience was vastly different from the perception of the senior editor who "slapped you around." Either way, instead of stewing in private and then quitting, you should have complained (probably best done by e-mail to a non-involved admin editor).

 

Please don't put yourself out on our acount, orlady.

The rest of your post added pretty much nothing of value anyway. From what you say, we can only conclude that editors like dogbows who claim they were treated badly are lying, that editors who don't know why they were fired are lying, that RZ ratpacking doesn't exist, and that nobody but you knows the truth and unfortunately you are bound by DMOZ secrecy so you can't enlighten us.

Don't think we don't appreciate your contributions.

 

I think dogbows was mistaken that it was an administrator. Unless it wasn't in the forums. I didn't see anything instances of bullying at all by anyone towards dogbows.

 

Oh, yes. And yours too, of course, ishfish. Now off you go... RZ awaits.

 

It never occured to you that it may be dogbows may be the one that is confused about what someone said to her?

 

Having read some of your posts at RZ, "ishfish", let's just say I find dogbows more credible.

 

I don't believe that dogbows is lying -- she knows her own feelings and she obviously felt like she was being slapped down. I just happen to think that her perception of the situation is not supported by the facts.

As a psychologist who counsels people in real life, minstrel should know plenty about the phenomenon of people misinterpreting what is said to them, or possibly perceiving an intent very different from what the speaker thought he or she was conveying.

 

Indeed. I'm also pretty good by now at seeing behind the facade.

 

This reminds me of a case when the social workers send a small kid to a foster home that the man had criminal record and the child got killed in that house. When the news came out and newspapers wanted to write about the failure of government agency, they would try to stop the investigation by stating that they can not comment on the case because of the privacy rights of the child, even when the child natural parents gave permission to government to release the information.
Strangely enough the same people who got the child killed by their lack of supervision, were so worried about the privacy rights of a dead child in order to protect their own ass.

I think your story sounds very similar. Instead of hiding behind the so called privacy and hinting that everyone is guilty of something, why don't you give the people the choice if they want their case to be public or private? If they want it public and you have nothing to hide then why not?

Is it because DMOZ policies and procedures does not tolerate a public scrutiny and all your talk about privacy is just a smoke screen?

 

Thank you, orlady, but I was not in my area of editing at the time thus being told to go back where I belonged. I was new and not everyone knew at that time just how lovable I am. ROFL! My motives for being there were misinterpreted. And I was not very good at being clear. Remember, I was new!

It was in the internal forum. Probably in the fall of 2004, and it was a very short thread. Less than 2 pages I think. A meta started the thread. It did not pertain to Regional. It was an administrator and it was in retaliation to something I said. We are humans, personalities clash. Again, I understood, but it was not a proper response IMO!

It was not a vigorous flogging. It was one post by one administrator.

Orlady, this is just too funny for words. I will be bluntly honest. There were times I didn't agree with you. There were times that you made no sense at all to me. I even changed one or two of your edits that I felt was just a little sloppy. Sorry, just my opinion. I never ever felt that you were the all-knowing one that some do just because you have edited since the creation of dirt. But I can just as honestly say that not once did I ever see you post anything, anywhere that I considered to be harsh or rude to another editor.

I didn't stew in private, As a matter of fact, I didn't stew at all. I focused on the issue, ignored the personality, and got things back on track. I did eventually go back where I belonged. I did not quit! My resignation was at least a year later. I am sure that as a newbie I perceived it to be harsher than it was intended. That is the whole point! Senior editors need to be more selective about how [not necessarily what] they say to newbies. I've seen other editors, even the meta that started that thread resign over less than what was said to me. The meta did return within 24 hours. It was a totally different time and thread. It was another administrator's post that was the result of the resignation. The administrator made a public apology, all was forgiven, and life in the ODP survived.

 

You have a really weird mind if it links a policy of not telling removed editors why with a foster child being killed in care gworld. I guarantee no editor has been killed as a result of not knowing why they have been removed. I further guarantee that with a bit of thought the vast majority of removals can be worked out without need to refer to meta notes.

The guilty would always want to know how they got caught so as not to repeat the mistake next time. If you are going to combat abuse and corruption which is what you claim you want to do then keeping your detection techniques secret is a good idea. I would also hazard a guess that AOL lawyers wouldn't like details of removals released in case (a) they were released to the wrong person, and (b) someone decided to sue for defamation of character. If you want things changed then per usual, start an internal thread, make your proposal, and gather a consensus of editors to demand change. Making sniping remarks here won't change it. The system as it is is open to scrutiny by over a 100 different meta editors, admins, and AOL staff. Metas squabble as much as any other class of editor - this isn't remotely a conspiracy.

 

As usual in your desire to defend DMOZ, you totally missed the point. It was not about the similarity of their wrong doing, it was about the similarity of using or better said abusing the word "privacy" to hide their actions and protect themselves from any public scrutiny.

I am glad that people in DMOZ are not in charge of anything important in the society.
Let's expand your thoughts to real life, are you suggesting that we should close the courts, have no trials or any public records of criminal investigation because criminals can learn from evidence presented in the court?
Why not just arrest people and send them to prison without proof or trial, you are in law enforcement and you can always post that you know the cops and they are good guys and they will never send an innocent man to prison.

Your other excuses don't make sense either. All the editor communications are done through email, if they send an email and get a confirmation response that the person wants his information public then how can it be wrong?
If someone wants to sue anyone for defamation character, they can do it but how can they win a case if what Meta's are implying is true? This will be only a danger if your friends have made a pack of lies to get rid of someone and you have previously said that they will not do that.

In case you have missed the point again, I will summarize it for you.

Open and clear procedures that are enforced by public scrutiny are always good and improves an organization. Lack of procedures, secrecy and no accountability to members in organization are the foundations of corruption, abuse and eventual failure of an organization.

 

If you're talking about pedophiles and child pornography again, then yes please, I'd like that very much.

For anything else, never mind... forget I was even here.