Well DMOZ propaganda agents don't help you either, CBP and editors like him that get on forums and censor posters like he did on WebProWorld with Gworld make things worse! Why do you think Gworld came here to post after CBP banned him at WPW
Let's say that it is the custom and practice. If you look at the categories, you'll see that it's structured very differently from the rest of the ODP. The ODP DOES deeplink to content throughout the directory those, and these sites are being treated as content sites. But (and this is important) these deeplinks are almost always added by a wide range of different editors, mining them for content. That's not corruption. It is, perhaps, a case of the ODP not casting its net widely enough for content.
Come on, now. Tell him how you really feel. I have noticed that what started out as a very good thread with real points and valid arguments has since turned into a real shit-slinging contest. I think it has something to do with the latest DMOZ editors that have suddenly popped up to give their thoughts.
Actually, the thread started out with a false accusation, that being a site (cherryboys) had underaged models on it. The thread progressed with various false statements about the same site and eventually someone accidently stumbled on a legitimate point in the middle of a bunch of false accusations about DMOZ and their editors. Let's not rewrite what actually happened in this thread.
I am a former editall/catmv. I started the internal discussion on Adult in December. My goodbye note was in the PC forum. That should give you enough to identify me - otherwise ask pagode or jimnoble or most other editors here via PM. I hope there are not several editors who were involved in adding sites to that category. One, who is no longer an editor, is bad enough. I think I said "for now" when I went. No way would I ever want to re-associate myself ever with an organisation that still included people who would give listing space to sites that promote child rape. Fortunately pagode isn't fanning flames (and causing more damage to DMOZ) by implying multiple editor involvement in listing the sites - I am sure he would have qualified that statement if that were the case. Thank you pagode. That is how it started and the sites were not child porn. But the title of the thread is DMOZ Supports Child Porn? and the existence of pedophile advocacy and chat room networking sites suggests the answer to the question is not a straight "no". I already blew any chance of ever being granted reinstatement by directly quoting from internal forums contrary to guidelines. So it is worth repeating. Anything dealing with sex and children needs to treated with the utmost care and caution here. Context and intent are necessary considerations. Be careful not to overgeneralize and simply these issues. While the Open Directory has a place for all topics, and makes every effort to be all inclusive, sites that overtly sexualize children in a vague or inappropriate context or manner should not be added. Call that a ruling given its source (which you can easily trace). That does not suggest to me that the official line is anti-censorship when it comes to sex and children, it is, if anything, cautious and responsible. And overrules any desire to list such sites on the grounds of them being legal/free speech/etc. Listing those sites is, IMO, in contravention of an existing ruling. Under DMOZ conventions consensus is required to have such a ruling overturned - I can't see that happening. Therefore there is no justification under existing DMOZ guidelines, as modified by rulings, protocols, conventions, or anything else for the sites remaining.
Uh... I think you just did The point about underage models wasn't the only point being made about that site now, was it?
Wow. Do you actually believe the crap you write on this forum, or has DMOZ brainwashed you into the mindless goober we see here today? You want to stick out your chest and be proud of being a DMOZ editor, then go to the Resource Zone because no one wants you here.
And why SHOULDN'T it have adult content? The ODP reflects the content of the web, it doesn't CREATE it. So, if the material is there to be categorised, then there are editors in the Adult category who will catalog it. You know, there's a LOT of porn on the web. But this a case of you crusading against porn (because else you would be targeting Google, Yahoo, MSN etc), it's a crusade against the ODP.
OK Birdie/CBP/Defraudeinator, tell us why you want these sites in DMOZ with no protections keeping kids out
Damn right. Until recently (a few days ago) I never had a problem with DMOZ, but then I've run across some of the lowest forms of human life I've ever had the misfortune to meet...DMOZ editors on this forum (with a couple exceptions). They are mean and nasty and have royally pissed me off. I will hate you all forever and will continue to pray for the complete collapse of the DMOZ empire....
Try to keep up here, troll. Go back and actually read the thread this time - all this has already been addressed, in some detail.
You hit the nail on the head. Custom and practice. Which has nothing to do with following guidelines as most of the rest of the directory does when it comes to commercial sites. And a good number of the editors who developed the custom and practice have since been removed for abusive editing. So the different structure lends itself very well to corrupt practices and the fact that it is still there although the corrupt editors have gone gives an entirely wrong impression that DMOZ only has itself to blame for. And in a good few cases the deeplinks were added by editors later removed for abusive editing. That is corruption and because many of the links they added are still there it implies the corruption is continuing. When it isn't. You sack them but let them keep the proceeds of their abuse by leaving their listings untouched.
Ahhh, no... there were various false statements made about that site. Do you really need someone to walk you through it all? I thought someone with your scary intellect could figure out how to read a thread from the first post... Guess not.
Sort of like the false statements and the fraud of editors like CBP that come on here with fake names and do not identify themselves.... Yeah DMOZ will gain credibility from these secret propaganda agents across the forum circuit and by censoring threads like CBP does on WPW
What various false statements? What hidden agenda do you have to try to defend CherryBoys? Are you the site owner or a partner, or just like to look at a yummy collection of gay boy sites?
They are part of an AVS affiliate network that also has strong connections to an affiliate content provider. It was absolutely worth investigating. In addition other sites connected to the affiliate content provider appear to have been removed, which would not have happened had gworld not done some homework and identified that. Much though it gives me much pain to have to give him credit for anything in amongst the insane ranting and trolling, the bones of the matter - affiliate content provider content being listed was spot on. Credit to DMOZ, some of the sites with the affiliate content were removed extremely fast. So it isn't right to imply there was no problem. A little bit more listening on both sides might do both sides a lot of good.