Application of 2257 to the ODP

Flipping lie - point blank lie - straight out lie - anyother term you want to apply to it. You know, for a fact, that I have never edited in Adult. The only people who have attempted to "stone me to death" are you and minstrel.

 

Exactly which part of what gworld said here is a "flipping lie - point blank lie - straight out lie", lmocr?

I'm not trying to stone you to death, lmocr. I'm sure if you wish you can get stoned all on your own. I'm merely trying to counter some of the BS you seem to take such relish in spouting in these forums.

 

Join the orlady in comprehension class, I suppose you must be one of the very very very few in the world who can not understand what that posting meant.

Any intelligent person will understand that people will not be ashamed or embarrassed by others knowing that they are doing something which is good and decent.

Did I say intelligent? I suppose I answered myself, it rules you out.

 

You were advocating change? I was under the impression that the problem was you were resisting change.

Generally, people worry about hiding things they aren't proud of, not things they are proud of. If you're doing good work in there, why are you so frightened about the prospect of people knowing that?

 

Good question but wrong answer. There is no support for the change because the people who do not want the change are benefiting from the present situation.

There is even a better question, how can there be any change while people who are discussing it will benefit from not changing it?

Move this subject to the non-adult section of internal forum, mention the fact that child porn sites were listed in DMOZ and then we can see how much support for the change exists.

 

It's a simple. lies of omission are being cleverly used to change what we say. For example, as requested by minstrel:

Gworld's original summary
I said: Only partly true, gworld is a master at ommiting key parts of a discussion in an effort to change its meaning. I don't deny any of what gworld posted, but even more telling are the parts he didn't post. The omitted parts completely change the meaning.
Minstrel replied: It's all well and good for you to insinuate that he left other parts of the discussion out. However, no one in this discussion, including you, has claimed that he misrepresented that discussion here.
I offered to go check
Minstrel said: Works for me.

So, here you go. To make this easier, Gworld's original version is in red, what he left out I've paraphrased in blue. My comments are black.

Don't worry about it, XXXXX already posted this in internal forum. *XXXXX also made strong arguements in favor of it.*

*XXX who also posts at dp made a long post with recommendations to make it better, more enforceable but with fewer words.* (Not mentioned in gworld's version.)

XXX pointed out that this suggestion comes from gworld and brizzie that don't like adults. brizzie want to remove adult and gworld has porn sites that can not get listed and therefore want to destroy the whole adult to get an even play field. *left out of his second post "Whether it came from DP or not is not important." Yes he mentioned the ex-editor would like to see adult completely removed, but he also said it doesn't matter, that he doesn't doubt the ex-editor's credibility for even a second. Gworld's credibility was in fact questioned.* (comment: It's known that I share the ex-editor's opinion of adult. I would like to see it removed too, but it hasn't hurt my credibility in dmoz and it hasn't hurt ex-editor's)

*XXXXX asked a question about enforcement of current guidelines.* (Not mentioned in gworld's version.)

*Another editor made a dismissive comment.* (Not mentioned in gworld's version.)

*XXX agreed that there would be value in discussing this* (Not mentioned in gworld's version.)

*Still another edtior voiced approval of the suggestions and recommended they be added to the Adult documentation.* (Not mentioned in gworld's version.)

XXXXXX added that DMOZ already has a policy that child porn should not be listed and that is enough *No he didn't, another editor did, as noted above in the part about 'the dismissive comment'* and another editor mentioned that you can not trust what ever declaration they have on their site, *no, XXXXXX said this regarding editors being given the ability to make the call when a model looks too young and we don't trust the declaration*therefore nothing should be done and this discussion in unnecessary. *XXXXXX didn't say anything like this, it appears to be gworlds personal comment that ran into the paragraph.*

Gworld posted his summary, complete with editor names and the discussion was killed after only 8 posts by 5 editors in less than a day... not even enough time for most interested editors to see it, I certainly didn't see it before it was killed...

Gworld's comments based on only his opinion, not on anything in the thread:
Some how nobody mentioned that if DMOZ guide lines are working so good then why the child porn web sites were listed in DMOZ.

The truth is that any kind of verification or legal requirement will make the owners of the sites responsible to manage such age verification documents and since most sites listed in DMOZ are only affiliate marketing sites, that will be too much trouble for affiliates/editors to manage and that is the reason they will fight any such requirements.

As long as DMOZ functions as marketing arm of porn affiliates, everybody must accept that in practicality anything can get listed. The reason I didn't get a chance to see the thread and comment on it was because I spent that day tagging and cleaning affiliates out of adult. Oh, the irony.


Added: I forgot to give the link to gworld's original summary.

Edited to X out any editor names, refer to gworld's original post if you need to know

 

Ishfish - as I said earlier to sid, there is no big deal here.

There are 3 parts.

#1 - Define "Child Pornography" for DMOZ purposes. It is in a cat description but not in a guidelines. 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. It supplements and clarifies an existing generic guideline not to list illegal sites which is ambiguous since sites containing models aged 14 are legal in some countries. What is not to support?

#3 - Provide practical guidelines to editors on how to verify sites do not contain models under 18. This actually does help prevent the listing of child porn sites and we got to the stage of some raw suggestions here before this latest sideshow kicked off. I didn't say this would be easy, I said it would be difficult. You have to try though. What is not to support?

Oh and Annie's summary (thank you Annie) indicates people willing to explore the issue, not that there was no support for change. So why did you say there was no support? You mean *you* don't support a change? So why not say that instead of misleading as gworld does?

Interesting. I have said that. But why?

a) Because numerous attempts at reform had led to nothing but the status quo continuing. In my opinion Adult branch was making up its own guidelines as it went along, sometimes in direct contravention of directory guidelines.

b) Anyone criticising Adult had their words twisted, were demeaned and accused of ignorance of the Adult web industry (so leave it to webmasters and purveyors of the content), were accused of being prudes and moral crusaders, etc. A strong sense of its our branch, keep out.

c) Nothing whatsoever, not even a written policy, to even explicitely say editors under 18 were not permitted to edit in Adult, automatic granting of Adult editing privileges to editors under 18, no warnings to parents of potential editors that there was an Adult branch and how to protect their kids, no warnings to editors with moral objections to working in a directory with this kind of material listed, i.e. very close to deception.

d) The ability of people like gworld to find sites that shouldn't be listed, i.e. poor quality control reflecting on the rest of the directory.

If the attitude to reform has changed. If reform is taking place to bring Adult into line with other branches. If people are willing to talk seriously about being honest about Adult's existence and to find a way to protect younger editors, and if quality control is being sorted out, then... if all these things are now on the table then whilst I am unlikely ever to be a fan then I have no problem ignoring it. I was happy to work with editors like sid on clarifying guidelines so any changes could truly be considered consensus between Adult supporters and detractors.

 

Ask Annie how many posts have been in that thread. I think the answer will tell you how many people are "willing to explore the issue".

 

Welcome to brizzie's wonderful world of dreams where reality cease to exist and every wish and if becomes the reality.

 

Very well said, brizzie.

Those are a LOT of ifs. Hence, the rampant pessimism/cynicism about the will within the DMOZ hierarchy to actually fix the problem.

 

There were 8 posts by 5 editors, but I think gworld's early posting here killed it before it we were allowed to find out where it would go. After all, we had less than a day.

 

Since I do not want to break any of DMOZ secrecy rules and get everybody upset, would you like to tell us what happened with the thread that was suppose to stop the underage editors from editing in adult? That is quite old and everybody had a chance to discuss, any result?
How about many other discussions that has been going on since last decade about this subject, any result?

 

From my reading of the thread there were 3 editors that didn't support the change, two editors that thought it needed substantial changes, and the editor that started the thread. (6 editors btw)

 

DMOZ (as opposed to Annie) had a hell of a lot longer than a day to clean up that mess.

Exactly.

Let's not even try the spin that gworld (or me, if you're lmocr) is the one preventing DMOZ from fixing this issue. That is just not going to fly anywhere except possibly the DMOZ inner sanctum where suspension of reality seems to be part of the initiation rites.

 

Thank you. So the editor who started the thread was in agreement with herself.

I do not agree with you and I do not like your opinions but I must say that when it comes to stand for what you actually say, you are more honest than the rest.

 

Thank you Annie, for showing gworld (once again) for the liar and troll that he really is. He really did a number on that thread - that was his most selective use of quoting I have seen to date.

Gworld has shown time and again that he has one goal in mind - to do anything he can to hurt the ODP and harrass editors. The fact that some people seem to still think that anything he says should be believed to have any credibility at all blows my mind. He has been proven to be a liar so many times that it's hardly even worth the effort to point out the lies anymore. It surprises me that even minstrel will back gworld up anymore.

Anyways, back on topic. As I pointed out in the thread at dmoz (and as brizzie has mentioned as well), the suggestion here contains things that will be impossible to impliment and some things that will never be included in an ODP guideline. But, as I also said (but gworld conveniently left out while spinning his web of lies) is that "I think the guidelines about child pornography could be a bit clearer", and that "I can see the value of clarifying in the guideline that child pornography means "models under the age of 18". Many editors are not from the US and the age of consent might be different in their country. It should be clear what we mean."

The only real debate that happened was that someone stated (rightfully so) that we already have a guideline that says we don't list child pornography and two other people questioned whether we should require an age declarion as they don't really prove anything one way or the other anyways.

No one, IMO, denied that it would be beneficial to clarify the guideline to make sure that it was understood what was considered to be child pornography.

Saddly though, gworld was successfull in stopping any improvements in the ODP. Once again proving that his goals here have nothing to do with protecting children (as a decent human being would do) but only to damage the ODP at any cost so that he can satisfy his personal vendetta.

And this is the person that minstrel supports no matter what.

I've always thought that minstrel actually cared about stopping children from being hurt and abused. But his mindless support of gworld and his constant attacks on the people that are actually trying to promote changes are starting to change my opinion of him.

Does no one else wonder why two people (gworld and minstrel) that are always shouting about how the ODP needs to change, consistantly attack any person that actually tries to make a change? The only logical conclusion is that they just like to make a lot of noise, but don't really care what the noise is about...

 

You missed the part where he said two others agreed that substantial changes were needed. That makes three. Not counting those of us who would have posted if you hadn't twisted what was said and attributed the misquotes to identifiable editors.

I think it shows a willingness to have discussion. It also shows that you are good at killing the discussion when you want to. I don't get it.

 

Minstrel - you are missing the point I was trying to make. If DMOZ is doing wrong then campaign and expose the project to your heart's content. I have never knowingly defended DMOZ here on an issue I thought they were wrong on. At the end of the day though, pressure or no pressure, with or without objective assessment of external views, only editors can define and implement a change via internal forums. To do that they must be allowed to hold discussions in internal forum. The guidelines allow for paraphrasing so there is no prohibition on any editor summarising internal discussion for external consumption and this has never inhibited free discussion. What can, does, will inhibit discussion (that is the only way to actually achieve positive change), is when protection of editors' personal privacy is violated. They clam up and that is end of story. You can criticise, pressure, expose, embarrass, ridicule, whatever, from now until the end of the world, but if editors don't debate internally it is all wasted breath and nothing will happen, the fortress walls will be shored up and that's that. That is the effect of gworld's naming of names and he knew what would happen. You do not need to name individuals and attribute views to them to get your negative publicity which is easily achievable by not attributing the views to any individual.

If gworld continues on his current strategy then any discussion that does take place will move into private senior editor forums where there is no possibility of leaks and threads won't even be summarised for other editors let alone external consumption. The fortress mentality is strengthened at the same time meaning any pressure that could be exerted will diminish rapidly. All this is counter-productive to his claimed objectives. No point in shouting at a brick wall. To keep editors engaged and discussing there are lines that can't be crossed and one of those is not naming names in internal debates.

 

We should not take Sid's precious time with this nonsense discussions, he has to go back to DMOZ and list many porn sites, to really really show how much he cares about people who are in porn.

 

LOL, that is too funny. Can you tell us what mechanism is used for implementing change via internal forum? I mean all of a sudden all editors agree that there should be a change, even those who benefit from this situation or will it be a vote by editors after discussion period?

I am sorry, may be I am confused, are you talking about reality or the reality in dream land of if ?