DMOZ issue

Like any other, an honest organization or an association deserves a good Public Relations. That's where I stand.

 

I just find this so humorous ... speculation as pure fact!

 

We are living in a competitive world.

Got the point and I think you had your moment of humour.
I do not appreciate this humour being employed at the cost of others, though.

 

fair enough

 

Then for all the more reason.

 

And I was hoping that when you posted OK,OK,OK and with help my green rep., you understood, that many times perception is as important as the facts.

 

So I take you are referencing a thread I started about affiliations in a private area and as it have no value here the 'perception' is... nothing is private.

 

You still didn't understand the point. When there is an environment of paranoia without any correct procedures and rules, the organization becomes a world of shadows that makes it impossible to differentiate between rumors and facts or perception and reality.

Who does benefit of such situation, those who have nothing to hide or those who like to be in the shadows? Only with establishing openness, procedures and rules, there will be an instrument that can separate perception from facts and reality, and make it possible to act accordingly.

 

I get 'every' point - an organization based on the fundamental rule of "open" - as in available for all without compensation, with the guidance of time tested rules, morals, the highest of standards and trust.

Everytime a singular entity places their own visions ahead of the organizations it taints the organization "itself" in the eyes of the general public.

I get it... but if everyone must set that example - so must you [if you are an editor] or using someones login, or someone is feeding you [which I highly doubt the latter to be true].

I truly can't believe someone is following "my posts" as being overly useful here or valuable to you and your quest.

 

An organization without a vision is nothing. Who does provide this vision for an organization? It's members. Everything about an organization is decided by the ideas and visions which are dominant in that organization. A group of man who are armed to defend their country and obey the uniform military code of justice and different conversion and treaties regarding the conduct of war are called soldiers while the same group of man if they engage in torture and killing of civilians are called war criminals.

DMOZ without any vision is just a group of computers and hardware but depending on what type of visions it adopts, it can be a constructive or destructive force on the Internet.

 

Well... since the general topic of this thread is "editor trust in use of the system"... I like to hear your views on how you breach that vision, and its members. I trust every editor until they breach that trust. YOU DID [whether an editor or not is irrelevant now].

You either breached your direct trust to the organization or that of the editor that provides access... which further implicates them.

Do you serve to the betterment of DMOZ or are your simply manipulating the system because you can for your own self-serving interests?

You can't hide behind "non-involvement" - you are acting in the capacity of an editor by advocating that you have direct assess to editor privileged areas.

So please help me to understand how you are contributing to the morals and ideals of DMOZ?

 

You are still talking about organization, organization is nothing without the ideas. What organization people should be loyal to? The organization that was made on a noble idea and people volunteered for, or the organization that is used by corrupt individuals with different money making scams and listing of pedophiles web sites?

How many people have been forced to quit DMOZ or their account has been canceled while in the whole time the situation has got worse and worse? If you were in an organization that has been taken over by corruption and doesn't have any resemblance to what it suppose to be, what would you do? fight, stay around and kiss ass or silently disappear?

 

1. We are not posting in the porn thread - I said what I said in that thread... others viewed I was 'trolling' [for lack of better words] I have no further comment.

2. Corruption is not an isolated topic that only serves the "interest" you wish it to serve. It involves everything from the many "honest topics here" which involve "individuals" and not the whole organization and it also involves your specific corruption.

So let's discuss this openly. IMHO you are corrupt and using DMOZ to self-service your "personal objectives". You didn't do that just once [the first time in REP to me - which I let go as it was still private to me only] and then publicly commented on "MY PRIVATE" comments.

I can only assume the reason - the show me "personally" that you can do as you wish.

You can't "fix" corruption by being "corrupt yourself". You are only foolish if you believe that... I believe you are the problem - not the solution.

 

Since REP comments are not privileged info:

That info is only available in the internal DMOZ forum. [and I suppose META's or access to my editor requests]

 

If you truly cannot comprehend how exposing the violation of trust by DMOZ Adult editors and others is indeed a service to DMOZ, you are part of the problem. If you think exposing the listing of pro-pedophilia and pro-sexual assault sites by DMOZ Adult editors is self-serving, you are absolutely part of the problem.

Don't be confused by the rhetoric of those who have their own reasons for remaining quiet or trying to retain such sites in the name of "free speech". There can only be two sides on an issue like this. You must be either part of the solution or part of the problem.

Which side will YOU choose, fathom?

 

I didn't say any such thing, did I.

I did not review 'any websites' nor did I review the category, I am a father, I believe I am a moral person, enough people are involved in that discussion and my lack of specific knowledge [and not willing to base my opinions on someone elses position] - I have no comment. But if I do have a comment I will go to that thread and post.

This isn't that issue in this thread.

Initially the thread started with an offense that was rectified [abuse of the system].

Then it went on to one that has varying views [which I disagree with] of another potential abuse of the system.

And gworld openly noted that he abuses the system and in defense it is suggested [I believe - that he and now you] that this is about "free speech" and not about abuse of the system and I am talking in rhetoric. [course I'm not really sure about your position]

That's BS!

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and squacks like a duck ... it's a dog?

Abuse is abuse... and when you suggest it isn't you are worse than that which you say you are advocating against.

 

BTW minstrel please discuss "this issue".

I re-read your post - and believe you were only discussing the other one.

Which is IMHO a bait and switch.

I wish to know how public discloser of "private 'privileged' comments" [mine specifically] isn't abuse of the DMOZ rules that all editors agree to.

 

I must've started a war here.

This was not my initial intention. I just wanted to point out some dudes that abused of their DMOZ positions.

 

Let's look at my "personal objectives" and what I have been suggesting the whole time and you can please explain and show me what is my objectives and personal gain:

1- I have suggested that DMOZ should adopt procedures that makes corruption, next to impossible instead of relaying on "goodness" of people.
What is my personal gain from that?

2- I have suggested that DMOZ should work with people involved in the Internet business and treat people fairly, have an open communication line and show such an openness in the whole process that no one question DMOZ integrity. What is my personal objectives and gains from that?

3- I have suggested that DMOZ should have open discussions inside the organization about policies and the direction of organization, it is not CIA or NSA after all. What is my personal objectives and gain from that?

4- I have suggested that as many editors as possible should be informed about discussions and encouraged to participate and in such cases of extra importance for direction of organization, it should be an open and democratic vote or process. What is my personal objectives and gain from that?

5- I have suggested that "norms" such as deep links in adult should be stopped since it encourages corruption. What is my personal objectives and gain from that?

6- I have suggested that correct procedures for submissions will put stop to such abuse as mentioned in this thread or other editors abuse. What is my personal objectives and gain from that?

7- I have suggested the pedophile and other illegal web sites should be removed. What is my personal objectives and gain from that?

Unfortunately after so long time, trying to fix something that it seems to be not fixable, I am reaching a point to give up any hope regarding DMOZ.

 

And that was the right thing to do.