Directory Blacklist

One person's interpretation of "theft" may not be how the law interprets the same action.

While I am certainly not playing the role of apologist for unethical webmasters, I would have serious concerns about potentially slandering a commercial enterprise.

I just don't see the reasoning behind it. Altruism? If so, you are taking on some potential risk in the name of helping your fellow webmaster...

 

Well, I'm not a lawyer but I used to be a paralegal and I do own a current copy of Black's Law Dictionary,which has been cited as legal authority in many Supreme Court cases so I could look up the legal definition of theft for you since this publication is not available online unless you pay for Westlaw's services. Hang on I'll go grab it and post it for you in a few minutes.

Also, it's only slander if it's not true. I'll look that one up for you too.

 

You could undo a reputation that has cost you a lot to build, it would be a shame to see that happen, i think one of the worst things anyone can do, not just in business, but in anything really, is to start seeing yourself as an authority to the point where in your own mind your the God of your industry.

Its not an attack but rather some common sense thinking, you must ask yourself why you would spend time compiling a list that could be spent elsewhere when people who already dont play by the rules are not going to give a damn.

If they dont answer you to begin with then thy sure wont in the future, they move onto the next scam, laughing amd raking in the cash, they dont care that they left behind disappointed people, their too busy makng money.

I think by doing what you consider is right, may open you up to being hacked big time and heavens knows what other problems it may cause.

Other directory owners dont need to have baby sitters, from time to time were all going to get burned, it will just happen, no matter how careful we are, not just directory owners either.

 

I second this. They should be added to the list. They have recently ripped us off, by not standing behind their money back guarantee. I can provide email proof if you would like.

I think this list is a good thing, and if anyone is going to handle it, I think onlinedude has the credibility and integrity to ensure that the list is handled in a fair and objective manner.

Morty

 

About time some thing like this was started

 

Ok, as promised, here's how the "law" interprets the same action according to Black's Law Dictionary:


Theft. A popular name for larceny. The act of stealing. The taking of property without the owner's consent. People v. Sims, 29 Ill.App.3d 815, 331 N.E.2d 178, 179. The fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, or from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use of benefit of the person taking.

It is also said that theft is a wider term than larceny and that it includes swindling and embezzlement and that generally, one who obtains possession of property by lawful means and thereafter appropriates the property to the taker's own use is guilty of a "theft". Kidwell v. Paul Revere Fire Ins. Co. 294 Ky. 833, 172 S.W.2d 639, 640; People v. Pillsbury, 59 Cal.App.2d 107, 138 P.2d 320, 322.

Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of his property: (a) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; or (b) Obtaining by deception control over property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) Obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.

See also Auto theft; Embezzlement; Extortion; Intimidation; Larceny; Robbery; Steal; Shoplifting.

Theft by deception. Under Model Penal Code § 223.3 a person is guilty of theft by deception if he purposely obtains property of another by deception.

Theft by false pretext. Obtaining property by means of false pretext with intent to deprive owner of value of property without his consent and to appropriate it to own use, followed by such appropriation. Hoovel v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R 545, 69 S.W.2d 104, 106.

Theft of Services. Obtaining services from another by deception, threat, coercion, stealth, mechanical tampering, or use of false token or device.


Seems pretty clear to me....

 

What a great way to expose the crap that been allowed to enter our community which constantly disrupts the flow of traffic to others whom are deadicated and hard working... Great work!

My Hall of Shame will be coming soon as well on the Biz-Giant Network site and will list many if not all whom choose this type of behavior...

thx
malcolm

 

I appreciate this move...Really...
There was a need of this list.
I wished there wasn't such directories out there, but since such directories exist, so should be the list. "Blacklist", "Hall of Shames", they work out for sure.

Got few for consideration:
www. linkdirectory. com. ar/ (Original: http://www.linkdirectory.com/)
Earlier both had same template and were exact clones

Similar was the case with
www. allydirectory. com. ar/ (Original http://www.allydirectory.com/)

Both owned by same guy

And also www. seowebdirectory. net/
After repeated mails, PM's and what not, the guy still uses nofollow for the sponsor despite aware of fact.

 

Looks like your list will have a few more candidates soon, Jeff http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=349269

 

Same thing happened to me. Ridiculous. I want my $250 back.

 

Did they put you through the wire transfer stuff?

We are disputing the charge through the credit card, so hopefully we will get some justice. You may want to try that route.

Morty

 

Can you send me a PM with what has gone on with you. I'd like to find out the details so I can get my money back as well.

 

PM on its way.

 

So what else can we do to help Jeff with this? List the directories in our directories but linking to a thread exposing them instead of their directory link?

 

Just send Jeff a list of all the directories you run so he can add them to the list.

 

Cute comment, Minnie. Find a hobby so you can stop following me around. Oh wait ... this is your hobby.

 

I will suggest this to vilesilencer as well as directorycritic so that these type of people cant
screw over any others and harm the good directory owners that work hard to
protect thier image and constantly work on their sites...

There is simply no more room on the web for individuals of this Kind...

Please Note:

All these individuals (accused) should be given fair warning before suggesting someone as many times unforeseeable complications can happen....
while i do not defend thier actions sometimes in life things can happen were its out of someones control.

thx
malcolm

 

Despite the fact that we all hate Scammers and such directory owners, I think you have a strong point here. Appreciated and Agreed!

 

That might be a good approach, since those websites have good exposure. But in a sense they both operate as some kind of whitelist in themselves: the Vilesilencer list is actively maintained according to certain criteria, and shady practices are likely to get directories delisted anyway. And Directory Critic is a voting system as well, although it has the weakness that you can't use it to vote on any directory that doesn't list you. So you can't use it to register your dissatisfaction if you buy a featured link that never gets added, for instance.

 

Good point Obelia - we do we do try to cull any directory that is engaged in shady practices, but we also endeavour to give everyone a fair go. Unfortunately, because of the massive movement within the lists ongoing it can be difficult to catch everyone who is behaving unethically. Again, I have to say that it is imperative that everyone who is "accused" gets a right of reply - and a chance to explain/correct anything that they might be accused of doing.

Beat ya

I can't speak for Damien, but he will more than likely be interested in participating.

Probably the key to the entire idea. As long as it is done transparently, out in the open, with a clear right of reply available and the opportunity to correct any mistake, then it should work. What I'd hate to see happen though (as I've noticed in other threads) is someone initiates an attack based on perhaps a bad experience, and then a whole host of people join in, without there being a real chance for the accused person to reply. Some people just join in for no other reason than to boost their post count.