Shoemoney gets extorted by corrupt DMOZ editor for $5000

I've seen no evidence that the firing of CompostAnnie was looked into. I stated my claims in internal forums, and was called a troll, and told that if the Meta community thought she was a bad seed, then she was a bad seed. I then asked for a means for appeal and was again called a troll, and was told that if the meta community thought she was a bad seed, then she needed no appeal.

IMHO, that is my grounds for corruption. Their unwillingness to offer proof should be proof enough to those willing to look.

So sparrow, I hope they don't pluck your wings like they plucked the innocence of Annie.

 

It never fails, you and nebuchadrezzar as soon as see a "senior" editors back, your lips automatically glues to it.

I see you are in a bad mode which means I am succeeding to crash the DMOZ listing ("SEO" work) market for you and your friends.

Don't pay DMOZ "senior" editors over price for "SEO" work, buy cheap DMOZ links.

 

I liked Anne and she'll be missed but from where I sit 3 Meta's need to agree on the evidence and a ruling of action.

Those discussions have never been made public - ever; so it seems pointless to say that is proof of anything -- other than to say there is consistency in the system.

 

It is proof of annie's innocence, and of the corruption of Meta editors. It it was not, then they would have given her a Dashboard warning, rather then a non-existent warning on RZ or through Email, or through IM or some other place where editors can mock submitters (and by rights, other editors).

If you are going to fire someone without word or warning, it would be best to give a reason to at least that person. As it stands, I'll believe Annie before I believe the closed system.

It is strange though that when a webmaster calls "Corruption" proof must be given, but when a meta calls corruption no proof is needed for the editors that's let go...

I'll defend you when you are on the chopping block. Piss off one editor, they get two friends to agree, and ADIOS! No word, no warning...

 

I suppose you'll have to become a Meta to review that proof since nothing occurs without a discussion (corrupt or not)

Unfortunately, I'm a peon in dmoz so I guess I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge, understanding & wisdom of your first hand accounts.

 

I was a peon too...but I did have access to Annie's edits, as do you. Mind rummaging yourself to find her "favoritism" before bowing to their first hand accounts? When you are done with that, read through the threads and see where they gave her that "warning" and see if it was by official means (no dashboard warning by confession). Then see if there is a means for appeal (which there is not). It's her word against theirs, thats for sure...but do you know Annie? The most vilest of people if I ever met one

So again, when it's your turn to be ousted without a warning and no means of appeal, I'll be on your side...in fact, I'm on your side.

 

Since I was removed myself and got warning before I know how does "system" works and all I can say is that people on Stalinist show trails had better chance since they actually had opportunity to say something and see fake evidence and charges made up against them.

So-called evidence is total BS made up from partial sentences taken out of content and presented by accuser as proof, that way anyone can be removed for anything - I would love to see some real evidence based on my editing logs which are visible to anyone in DMOZ, ups nothing wrong there.

Only consistency of abuse - they can remove anyone they don't like and are not accountable to anyone for their actions.

 

No risk of that while he is following party line and listening to big brother.

 

In reality, it needs but one meta to aggressively promote his point of view and two others who don't know and don't care but don't feel it's worth jeopardizing their exalted positions to speak up. The social psychology of this sort of thing is well documented.

"They came for my neighbor and I said nothing..."

"They came for fathom's neighbor and fathom defended those who took her away..."

 

He is getting pissy, because he is part of the problem.. What you see as pissy, is actually Gwanker getting Defensive.

What, write Bob and incriminate himself?

Given the nature of the content, I would expect not.

It makes sense for him to be one, given the nature of his sites, DMOZ is probably the perfect place for him to add his own sites.

 

So you're saying that editing logs show everything... or can we agree it only shows a piece of something.

For argument sake - let's say that anne was ousted because the rest of the tribe were corrupt... what did she do gain their corrupt dislike? Obviously they let her go for something... what was the real reason... being too good of an editor?

It's all mere spectulation but you have everything on one side of the equal sign and nothing on the other.

Additionally, a volume of people spend a great deal of time discussing nothing but corruption and now you're convinced that you know which ones are corrupt and which ones aren't -- with what... a crystal ball?

You should be able to show us which corrupt editor attempted to extort Shoemoney.

 

I'm sorry for your loss but there are always two sides to every story and I doubt you have exclusivity to the truth... so I'll side on the side of caution... you have no evidence that is So-called evidence that was made up from partial sentences taken out of content and presented by accuser as proof... you have only speculations on your part as to the reason.

Based on what?

As pointed over and over again, it's a dumb website that is dead -- how then can anyone complaint about non-accountability... it's dead isn't it?

 

I call it being opened-mined -- I'm not privileged to all the evidence everyone knows exists, but no one gets to see, yet everyone knows it is BS because they don't get to see it... and every that disagrees is equally corrupt... and these are the FACTS of their claims.

 

Well, I do run an occult site

Exactly my point. The trouble is the sign is pointed at the meta community. If a burden of proof is so important to them, why then do they offer none themselves?

According to the guidelines, warnings are option, and it only takes a small handful of meta to dislike you. If that happens you are out. *shrug* I didn't write the rules, I just read them.

As for accountability. They have offered nothing to fired editors time and time again.

Actually, that is all anyone has, the only difference is that DMOZ can officially hide it's lies behind "confidentiality guidelines". And yes, I can call them lies, as they are confidential, you can't prove other wise...so to say they are truths are nothing but speculations on your part

The line was drawn years ago, it's up to you to decide which side you stand on.

DMOZ is not dead, if it was dead we'd not be having this conversation & you'd not be able to log in. So pay attention, chances are if you are typing a post in a forum dedicated to a given website, chances are that site is not dead.

Which once again raises that question of accountability...

 

Seriously, the general public are not decision-makers for ODP therefore the general public does not need evidence.

Additionally, (try this) I don't have any authority to discuss who you hire/fire nor deserve any explanation, nor can I mandate your company policies so that people unhappy with them can demand you forward evidence so the world can scruntinize your decisions... why on Earth do you believe you deserve this...?

If you ask me for this from my company, I'd send you a nice, gift-wrapped, personalized box of shit for Christmas.

I've got warnings (friendly reminders) for deleting listings... not because of competitive stance, I disagreed... and seniority has it's privileges - if I don't like that I can resign.

...and time & time again does it come out that the editor really did do something that violated the guidelines.

... because of a past career I had access to higky confidential information... if you are not entitled to it... no amount of "I'm the biggest kid on the block and will punch your lights out" will ever get a page turned for you... call it whatever you wish - thems the rules.

Accountable to whom...? AOL IMHO is the only answer, and I supect AOL has access to all the evidence (BS or otherwise) -- Maybe you chould solicit them for insights.

 

Skrenta who is one of the founders of DMOZ and has access to meta forum and more thinks that there is a rotten core of Metas and corruption, don't you think he should know?

 

OMG, lol... that's just what the kids in Hitler's Youth used to say! And, yes, I am adding that comparison, because the comparison fits. I don't really expect every shread of evidence to be given to the masses, but how about to editors...how about to the editors that get fired?

You've gotten more then many editors...

Were you there longer then Annie? Regardless though, now that you've gotten warnings, all it would take is for a meta to decide they don't like you and WHAM you are out. (read the rules)

And time and time again some one is let go without word or warning that seemingly has NEVER done anything wrong.

Are you saying that the kid that is punching peoples lights out is not given the proof of his crimes before he is terminated? If you get fired from DMOZ today, you will not be offered proof!

Accountable to it's editing staff who have given thousands of hours to the directory yet get shat on time and time again.

 

annie already stated the reason she was removed for - cancer - in sick paranoid minds of meta editors they don't wait for editor to do something wrong they simply remove him/her as precaution when they think there is even slightest risk.

Warning I got was based on partial sentences cut out of early posts I've made on this forum (read my discussions with brizzie most of so-called evidence is based on those)! If that is what metas are claiming to be gathering of evidence they should all resign immediately since they are total disgrace.

Meta oligarchy has completely destroyed any trace of community at DMOZ probably following their motto "We shall defend DMOZ from everyone event if its kills it".

 

Congratulations on making probably stupidest post on this forum ever! You'll get your promotion from metas for sure now.

So what you are saying is that ODP - Open Directory Project is NOT global community of volunteer editors but privatively owned company run by meta editors???

Thank you, that explains everything... no point in discussing DMOZ anymore it is just another paid directory as gworld claims it is.

 

If broken, you can't fixed it from where you are at by being a mud-sligging thug... you'll never generate change for the betterment by being the minority reporter pushing hearsay and innuendo.

... the silent majority are just not that stupid to believe you.