Application of 2257 to the ODP

So that is 50% not supporting a change, 50% willing to discuss. Out of 6 in less than a day. Hardly no support for a change unless you have redefined "no support". I notice you ignored the 3 points "what's not to support"; since you are obviously an opponent of change I'd be interested to know what's not to support and why?

#1 - Define "Child Pornography" for DMOZ purposes. What is not to support?

#2 - Make a clear statement in a guideline, placed in a prominent position that says editors must not list sites containing images of models under 18. What is not to support?

#3 - Provide practical guidelines to editors on how to verify sites do not contain models under 18. What is not to support?

Things appear to be moving - that is the strong impression I am getting on 3 out of 4 of my "ifs". Don't knock it. The past does not have to determine the future but I can see how it might knock the wind out of your sails. I am sure whatever movement is made there will always be room for improvement though, all depends on where your tolerance threshhold lies.

 

Repeating the question doesn't make me any more likely to answer it.

 

Stop it, I can't laugh anymore. You are killing me. After 6 year, we have finally come to the point, that may be we can discuss that one day, some day, there will be some change in the guideline.

Things certainly appear to be moving. Who knows? May be by the year 2100, we can have a guideline that clearly states that porn sites with models under 18 should not be listed and then we will really be moving fast.

I have already started to count the days, it is only 94 years left.

 

In case it ever revives sid, answers on those - child pornography is not defined in guidelines so could mean anything from 14 up depending on where the editor comes from. Age declarations are useful in two respects - where they don't exist at all, where they exist and are not explicit about all models being 18 or over. In both instances caution should dictate exclusion. Existence of a declaration only means it passes that test and then you are onto validating the claim somehow.

 

Why not? I singularly fail to see anything controversial or anti-DMOZ in those three points which are simply collating information already contained in various parts of DMOZ, formalising them into guidelines, and adding helpful advice to editors assessing these types of site. It is editors like you ishfish who give trolls like gworld every appearance of credibility in his ridiculous claims. Hope you are proud of that. Grossly misleading readers as regards "no support" for change, a la gworld is also not something I would expect of an editor. Hope you are proud of that too.

 

Makes me think of this old Mike Batt earworm >The Winds Of Change are blowing hard in our direction, We can't go back and we can't stand still<, I am not that optimistic though about where these changes will lead to.
I wonder very much if your optimism is justified. Haven't seen anybody else trying to give a balanced answer to gworld's question, yet.

 

ishfish, don't you understand that telling the truth is an unforgivable sin? You should pretend that there is a support and everybody is "discussing" it even if you don't support it and you know it is not going to happen.

brizzie, why don't you ask the other editors who are so good, about what happened with the thread that started after discussion in DP about limiting under aged editors access to adult section? I didn't quote that thread, did I? Are you going to blame me for the fact that nothing happened after so long because I am mentioning it now?

 

BTW gworld, are you catholic?

 

I believe that God was invented by man and not the other way around.

 

Well Annie and sid (an Adult editor) have said that in their opinion there seemed to be a willingness for a debate and Annie's summary seems a positive start to me, had it gone on once editors realised they were liable to be identified here alongside their views. Who do I believe? Annie and sid, or you and ishfish? I'll take the first pairing thanks, others can make up their own minds.

No, I'm not blaming you. I was leading that thread and decided to do a bunk halfway through. I blame myself, I let the momentum drop.

[Added] And by the way I am not blaming you wanting to summarise for killing an internal thread, editors aren't generally bothered by paraphrasing. It was your mentioning of names that did it in and you knew it would. Didn't you?

 

Just to recap what I've actually said in this thread, and not what brizzie has insinuated that I've said.

 

ishfish is admitting to a position that is not popular and will not win any brownie point for him in DP. On the other side, Annie and sid assessment is a variation of DMOZ general BS, that just give us time and everything will be fine. We are discussing important stuff in internal forum that change the world while in reality hardly anything is happening. This will win them good points both here and in DMOZ. You tell me who has the motivation for not telling the truth?

I am referring to the discussion after you left or are you referring to your posting in DP? It seems you just have too much confidence in your ability to write pretty compositions. Most people don't care, they are interested in what is beneficial for them and having a strong light on adult section, definitely is not good for business.

 

I think it must have been tempting for gworld as he might have gotten the impression that the discussion was considered old hat at least by some of the participants.

 

Well even ishfish's own count gave a 50-50 result. Since you and ishfish are apparently together on this I presume you accept it was 50-50, just that both of you were spinning it to read no support. In any debate of this sort I would expect some objections before the debate gets going and negative points are answered.

Nothing to do with DP. I started that thread and led it. It was my issue and I abandoned it by leaving - my fault if it then died off. If my pretty compositions had been that good then it would have kept going. Obviously I didn't make the case strong enough. My fault again.

 

Points! LOL! We don't do points.

 

This is so wrong that it's funny. I am definitely one of the "good guys" on this one, and am in no way associated with gworld. We just happened to agree on something. (An occurance I hope never happens again. No offence gworld, but I do disagree with almost everything you post.)

 

Not really, those who were for strong modification, in reality was saying the same thing as those who said that no change was needed. They were not just as honest to come out and say it and instead wanted to criticize it so much that it sinks under it's own weight. Kill it but have a clean hand at the same time. We want to implement it but there is so much wrong with it that it is not possible, not our fault.

It was discussed again not long ago after it was mentioned by me in DP that an underage editor have been a Meta with editing rights in adult. Nothing happened again. What a surprise.

But as you say, it seems "Things appear to be moving" . , it is just so funny, I can't stop laughing every time I think about your post.

No problem. I assure you that the feeling is mutual.

 

Gworld I don't recall it being discussed at that time, I believe you are mistaken. Could you please give me a link?

 

Sorry, how else can that be read ishfish? You are saying there isn't any support for the change. You then went on to score it 50-50 later. Then refused to answer the three points, from which it is reasonable IMO to conclude you are opposed to them - I am interested, genuinely, in why that is.

Defining child porn - that will help won't it? Stop people making errors because their country has different laws. Putting the 18 or over policy in guidelines where people can see it - that will help won't it. Giving people advice on how to assess these sites - that has got to help won't it? Yet you ignore them and refuse to say why - presumably you disagree. OK fine, you are entitled to believe that they won't help, even to refuse to say why even if it is unconstructive. But saying there isn't any support for change is apparently not true.

 

Ishfish - you had a dig at me when I said that DMOZ had changed guidelines to ban pro-pedophile chat rooms. There were no guideline changes you said. Which is technically correct because the change was made in a cat description. On that basis, and it was that comment that I have kept at the back of my mind, there is no guideline prohibiting the listing of sites containing models aged 14 to 18. The guideline refers to child pornography and illegality and in some countries legal means 14. Only a cat description says 18 or over. Therefore a guideline to say 18 or over has to be more effective at preventing sites with models under that age being listed. If you are one of the good guys then we shouldn't be arguing about this but working together to define something that you consider is effective - be constructive instead of dismissive please.

And as you say, you and gworld were together on something, so it was fair comment Still doesn't stack up with Annie or sid's version but c'est la vie.