How does buying sites that are already listed, effects the time DMOZ needs to list other sites? Is there anybody here that is so stupid that won't see through this BS? On the other hand it seems there is no shortage to time for DMOZ editors when they have the time to list cherryboys, 200 times. I think sidjf has already mentioned that he wants to take away the pedophile listings but he can't and since he is editall then it is natural to draw the conclusion that people who want the pedophile sites must be admin or staff. Are you telling us that AOL staff have "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" on pedophilia and that is the reason DMOZ helps to organize underground pedophile groups? Does any of editors care to tell us which admins or staff support pedophilia?
Calling names and making silly accusations, such as editors all being rapists and pedophiles, is not productive to this discussion. And it doesn't matter which "side" it is coming from. I have to say though, after the things some of the DP people have said here, it's quite funny to see the "shock" at Deobfuscator's comments. You guys are upset that he made it personal?? What about calling some of us (repeatedly I might add) rapists and pedophiles? I'm not justifying this behaviour on either side, but come on guys, be realistic.
Actually, they have a "NEGATIVE VIEW" on censorship. Personally though, censorship or not, I still think that the pro-pedophilia chatroom/forums need to go.
You still haven't answered the question, is it AOL staff and Admins who have "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" of pedophilia and is this the reason you can not delete it? Who are the peole with "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" that have so much power in DMOZ?
I have also agreed to 1/2 of this. Humans will ALWAYS see things that a bot doesn't, just ask Google they'll be the first to admit it. Setting aside some of the disturbing issues that surfaced in this thread, I have always taken comfort in the 'human element' of DMOZ. But AC is right here, we are NOT bashing DMOZ, rather helping your cause, IMHO. Perhaps there is some GOOD info here, if we see this thread as an opportunity to resolve instead of a swordfight. I personally think that this category in DMOZ needs to be supervised more closely, and that's all I'm saying. To digress... 1) We should NOT entirely remove adult 2) Humans should still be the primary approval authority 3) Perhaps more that one to further combat some of the accusations of this and other threads 4) A bot to constantly sniff around this category for unacceptable KW/ Keyphrases IMO and you can take it for what it's worth.
Excellent post, not giving a helping hand to poor pedophiles to organize and molest children is censorship. In the mean time we should not list the webmaster bastards who have a real estate agency website or Amazon store. How dare those spammer webmasters to compare themselves with poor innocent pedophiles who are practicing their freedom of speech by talking to children?
I'm a little disappointed BTW Brizzie isn't an editor anymore for a couple of months. When serious *cough* is shown (like in this thread) it is investigated. But you must remember that some of the people in this thread are very well known for their anti-DMOZ behaviour. Ever heard of the story "the boy who cried wolf".
Homer, They got rid of him when he started to talk too much about this last year. The poor guy was so delusional about DMOZ that he still could not understand why or believe it even after he had to leave. I think brizzie is cured from his delusions since many pages back in this thread, I suppose my shock therapy helped.
I did what? I haven't red repped anyone - except spendlessly in a different thread. So now what - we've got idiots repping people and signing other posters names?
Dmoz "got rid of" brizzie? He "had to leave"? Oddly, I don't remember it that way at all. Get your facts straight gworld.
He just didn't get very much love and felt unwelcome. That is the reason I always call him bro and give him love and hug.
Let me help you understand this point - if a site expires or points to a holding place or plain disappears, there is an automatic delisting (aka robozilla), this doesn't involve much editor work typically. However, when sites are hijacked or purchased and changed or any other action that makes them not what they were originally, in order to discover it - either someone has to manually go through the listings or someone will call attention to it from outside using either the Update Listing link or the QC thread at resource zone. Which takes less editor time? Using a robot to delist or using an editor/editall to delist?
Sorry to offend you, but the politics I was completely unaware of. So when I see personal attacks I see it as non-productive BS. I can now see there is some case history here but again see no need to take it to personal levels. After seeing this I thought *sh*t* what about my sites? Then realized I had nothing to worry about as all my DMOZ submissions but 1 have been denied . Man oh man where do you get all this inside poop . The reason I mentioned the 3 is they are all stand-up people that tell it like it is, that makes for productive dialogue. I am aware Brizzie is an (x) editor, his views are very similar to sidjf and volcano's. But maybe I'm getting a little too personal here
Maybe you need a second layer of tinfoil on your tinfoil hat. As I said, you assume that every ODP editor and member of staff agrees with every one of 5.2 million listings. Or is there another reason you're pissed at the ODP, Gworld? Oh yes... your ODP listings. It's just a shame I can't share with other members of DP the exact reasons why you're not listed. I suspect that if they knew, it might change their attitude towards you.
Obviously DMOZ is not doing very good job about this either like everything else because after almost 1 year, I still haven't noticed any problem. If delisting is such easy task that a editor or editall can do, I wonder what powers are protecting the pedophiles link that sidjf who is editall, still can not do it after so many days?
What, your fantasy construct of the grand order of AOL/ODP/Time Warner Kiddy Fiddlers who are somehow trying to corrupt the nation's children into sexual servitude. Do you have to mention that in EVERY post you make? Gworld, how can we trust you when in post #555 you admitted that you attempted to buy your way into the ODP? I can tell you that you WEREN'T banned from the ODP because of any argument that you had with Alucard. You were banned for much more serious reasons.
You go away for a few days and gworld rewrites your personal history I thought I'd explained elsewhere I retired of my own volition and I gave my reasons to fellow editors at the time. Since leaving I've had nothing but requests to return from those felllow editors, even from some I've been on the opposite side to of virtually every issue that ever came up. There is a difference between the marques of major car manufacturers and multiple galleries of porn images with the minimum number of images to get a listing, then start the next gallery with another minimum number of images and qualify for another. There is an internal thread concerning why a major corporation might get a listing for sites for different business units whereas a small company spreading their content over several domains would not - I can't look it up and give you the reference but if you search for the thread you'll find it. There are two places offhand I can think of where multiple listings of sites from the same owner are listed side by side in the same category - Universities and Colleges, and Adult Galleries. There may be others. Also lookup internal threads on deeplinking (multiple related URLs are more or less the same). Of course I am aware that certain things, including this issue were being discussed in December since I did start the discussion as you point out. But my impression was that it was being resisted and that no change was likely due to need for consensus, therefore I saw no point in delaying my departure. If you are saying that there are prospects of real as opposed to minor cosmetic change then maybe I was premature in leaving. It is the nature of threads such as this that there will be plenty of red herrings but the most important aspects of this thread were true unfortunately - DMOZ list(ed) sites for child rapists to chat and network. What sidjf and pagode have said is undoubtedly true - at no time ever have editors ever been given instructions not to post anywhere on any issue - it isn't the way and would be bound to provoke resignations just so someone could post here. Yes but only if they knew DMOZ had an Adult section - it isn't linked on the main page. Plus there is a way to prevent the pages appearing if a parent has taken the trouble to find out how but there is nothing prominent on the main Adult page to tell them that and how to do it. Basically I had a few issues with protecting kids, including underage editors, from Adult that I felt were not being taken seriously in December. If that feeling was inaccurate then I am impressed. True My problem with this is that stating a belief and advocating a behaviour that might encourage others to clarify their thoughts and give them justification for putting leanings into action are just too close and at any time a site might cross a line. And someone has to set where that line is, and review sites to make sure they don't cross the line. Apart from the errors of judgement that might result and the risk of a site getting through, should a site overstep the bounds and an editor reviews it in many countries that would make the editor a criminal. And editors should never be put in that position. That is fairly unique - I can go and read a holocaust denial site even if expressing that view is illegal in some countries. I will not be prosecuted just for reading the views. It is far better to not list the sites than take the risk of listing an illegal site or put an editor in danger of being investigated and prosecuted. I have never seen an internal poll on any issue but it would probably be far more efficient, and give far better representation of opinion if it were a much more widely used tool. But DMOZ is not a democracy - meritocracy or benevolent dictatorship or consensual body depending on the issue. Adult/Computers/Internet/Chats_and_Forums/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Affirmative_Views/ is still there. Has it been decided to remove it? Bearing in mind the advice given by the FBI to one of the posters here it would not seem wise for anyone to visit the sites and re-review them. Apart from it being a matter of principle anyway. Another question which is relevant to many potential editors and the parents of existing underage editors - is the editor responsible for listing the sites there still an editor? As with any issue that provokes strong reactions, whether it is internal or external, there will be those red herrings again. But I cannot think of anything more important on the Internet than dealing decisively with pedophile activity. That is what this thread boils down to when you look beyond the paranoid conspiracy theories. On the important issues it is the least ridiculous thread I have seen anywhere inside or outside. But that is not properly documented in the guidelines, nor do many editors agree that the way Adult categorises is acceptable. In part because as you say they do look anomalous. For anomalous read corrupt. As I have repeatedly said in this thread - poorly written and maintained guidelines. Which is correctible. If we are talking about sites where child rapists network then I would say that is a line DMOZ, as a responsible organisation, should not overstep, regardless of legalities, which vary from country to country anyway. And that view is backed up by a quote given earlier from a very senior source. But also a fair smattering of (a) posters new to DMOZ issues, (b) existing editors like pagode, and (c) a former editor (me), none of which are ODP bashers. Though you could categorise me as an Adult branch basher, not because I object to it in concept but for reasons you already mentioned - the appearance of anomoly, and failing to implement simple things that would easily protect kids, including underage editors.
Love and hug to you, bro. Happy to see you, we were missing you. How is this any different than what I posted? How is this any different than what I posted? How is this any different than what I posted? How is this any different than what I posted? How is this any different than what I posted? How is this any different than what I posted? Doesn't matter, I am glad that we agree, love and hug again, bro.