gworld, just stop bashing sidjf, as you are reading his postings, his standpoint should be clear by now.
I am not bashing sidjf, I know that he wants those sites removed but to claim that they can not find anything illegal in those forums is just ridiculous.
sidjf - "Argue!" gworld - "Counter-argue!" sidjf - "More of same!" gworld - "Disagree!" etc Let's just go back to agreeing that the sites need to be removed and agree to disagree on the reason.
vulcano - I repsect gworld's opinion, and he has every right to see these sites how he wants to. I just happen to disagree with him. He isn't bashing me (IMO).
Incorrect. I never said any of it is legal, I only said I can't find anything that I know is not legal. I freely admit my ignorance of the topic.
Which makes me recall this old saying - If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns and it's variation - If guns are outlawed, outlaws will use crossbows At least if those sites are not promoted via a listing at ODP, it would be a great step forward in order to make them use crossbows.
I am sorry if it sounded that I meant you but I mean DMOZ editors in general. I have presented many legal arguments about why these sites are illegal but some how editors decide none of these laws are applicable even if they are not lawyers and decide instead everything is legal. If we have a difference of opinion about legality of these sites, isn't better to err on the side that protects the children instead of the side helping child molesters? What do you think?
The policy goes, when in doubt, don't list. Once again, gworld, I think we all will benifit giving eachother a break, you, compostannie, sidjf, brizzie, minstrel, pagode, imocr and all the others. The 72 hours I mentioned earlier are running. What do you think?
Why the policy is not respected and these sites are listed? Are you aware that only forums will be moved to test and the rest of "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" shit will still be there? What is going to stop these sites to have links from "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" to forums?
gworld, I am the last person to ask you to give up on your questions. As we stand on the same side there, you have to show a little patience and you can't target and attack anyone who makes some valid point also. Already 2.30 am, off to get some sleep, lots of work in the morning...
The "when in doubt, don't list policy" only applies if the site isn't listed already. So we can't use that policy to delist sites.
Without going in a circle, it only demonstrates to be more sensitive and carefull especially in Adult, when considering to list any site there. The policy "When in doubt don't list", can also be seen as a Lackmus-Test for existing listings, don't you think so?
Yes, you have posted many legal arguements, but you haven't applied any of them. Show us, specifically, what posts on the forums break the laws you posted. If you can't, then the laws are meaningless. As I understand it, pedophilia as a topic (all of it) is being discussed and a policy created. And especially the chats/forums category. Save your judegement until a policy/decision is made. It might turn out that everything will be just how you/we want it. Then again, it might not - feel free to judge the shit out of it at that point.
Umm... no it doesn't. A site that is listed has the same criteria for staying listed when reviewed as a site that has not ever been listed before. In other words, a site is listable or it isn't listable, it does not depend on whether it is already listed. Having seen several of these "policy" decisions before, I can say with about 80% certainty that I won't be liking the outcome.
Even if I do that, it still can be argued that it is not the "majority" of content and usually "moderators" of such forums remove such posting and if it is not removed, it is because the poor "moderator" has missed it, right? only 80%, you are too kind.
You seem remarkably well informed gworld concerning all the discussions taking place within Dmoz ??? In fact I'm daring to ask if you have have actual access to the internal forums ? Not that you'd say probably, but I do wonder sometimes from some of your posts. I've made my views quite clear on the subject.. and I am still wondering what to do, but am at odds with the whole legal thing. When personally, I think sometimes common sense dictates and 'stuff the guidlelines' frankly. We shall see hopefully soon if common sense and basic human decency prevail, if not, I'm resigning. As it is some of the arguements to keep these sites and cats listed have had me gobsmacked. They all seem so entrenched in 'free speech' or 'sematics' and 'well in the past we did this', quoting 'legalities', 'studies done' and 'setting precedents'. It's all here, all of it, either internally and in forums such as this one. I feel heartbroken at some of the personal experiences some have mentioned in discussions here and internally. And feel sick at the thought that any of these sites could in 'essence' be talking about any of my children as their 'young friends'. For me that is enough...regardlessof ANY of the above. And I think for most of us, this is what it really boils down to : 1) What the guidlelines say as far as listing these sites, or, 2) the children these sites may affect now, in the past and in the future. I choose to go with the latter as the more important, personally. I'm just sorry that some see the former as the be all and end all.
lol, but it is possible... Not by me it wouldn't. If there is illegal content on any of the forums listed, show it to us, and show us why it is illegal. Please.
I like your attitude. Guidelines should not be a hinder to do the decent thing or stop the corruption.