Site not being added to DMOZ

Everything brizzie has said in item 19 is true. I can confirm that the reasons for removal are kept strictly confidential by the metas, they won't even give us a clue. Also, no one makes an announcement of editor removals and there's no way for an editor below meta to keep track of when editors are removed as far as I can tell. We don't even know an editor has been removed unless the editor himself tells us like dvduval has, or someone wonders where they went and checks their logs to see if they've timed out. Even then, we never know why.

That's why no one can give you an answer dvduval.

No one is removed for speaking out against policies unless they do something like make internal forum discussions public or otherwise violate guidelines. Editors speak out against policies all the time. I've done it without so much as a warning, so have many others. You seem nice enough to me and I can't see any obvious reason either. If you think they made a mistake you can appeal to an admin or staff but you'd have to be very open in your appeal. Figure out any possible misunderstanding that may have occured and discuss it with an admin. I know you can always contact orlady through this forum...

 

Ok, thanks for your answer. At this point, I am so busy with phplinkdirectory.com that I would probably only be able to devote small amounts of time to DMOZ. It is unfortunate phplinkdirectory.com is still not listed in DMOZ after nearly 3 months. I may consider an appeal at a later date. If you look at the thread on "Does DMOZ Support Child Porn?", you will see I have been acting as an ad hoc editor for quite some time. Maybe the metas at DMOZ will appreciate my work, and wish to invite me back.

 

Yes, I'm familiar with the help you've been providing. That's why I hoped you could work it out.

 

Ok, great. If you know orlady pretty well, maybe you can ask her to review this thread? Do you mind?

 

Or they can terminate someone account because that person argues about they way her site is listed and doesn't bend over when the Meta's tell her to shut up as they did in summer case. Did you forget about that? It was just couple of weeks ago that we had that discussion here.

The truth is that ODP has always supported guidelines that can be interpreted in many different ways under the disguise that editors don't need a strong guideline because it is "possible" that it can stop an editor from listing a site. This is necessary to make the abuse possible, otherwise it will be too easy to prove abuse.

On the other hand, the same ambiguous rules that make abuse possible, will be interpreted very narrowly and treated as law to remove people who for any reason angered a meta or an admin.

 

That's an excellent example, actually, precisely because it was so public. Summer Hogan's crime was to tell metas that IF they were following DMOZ policy the policy was dumb. Was she a corrupt editor? No. Was she acting in a biased or whimsical manner in her editing duties? No. Was she guilty of any wrongdoing in terms of editing? No. No one has even suggested any of those things.

What WAS said was that if she was unhappy with DMOZ policy and with the responses she was getting from Resourceless Zone editors and metas perhaps she should't be an editor at all.

Next thing you know she was fired.

Curious that, don't you think?

 

Gworld it seems you forgot summer didn't get kicked out because she disagreed with the editors.

I believe it was something like Summer said Dmoz sucks in the resource forum. So if Dmoz sucks so much it doesn't make sense for someone to stay if they didn't enjoy it.

That is like someone shouting in their manager's face this jobs sucks, or this is one sh*tting job. If I believe it is so, why in the world would I stay? You should know any manager with half a brain would fire that person.

You also know there are editors who disagree with metas in the internal forum discussions

Yea I would say this has to with it, or how she wrote it...

 

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/accounts.html#removal

• Failure to comply with the editorial guidelines
• Inability to function well within the Open Directory community
• Poor editing
• Uncivil behavior toward submitters, other editors, or ODP Staff
• Violation of ODP forum and email privacy
• Self-promotion (such as site cooling, and title or description manipulation, and adding/promoting only one's own sites)
• Discriminating against or tampering with competitors' listings for the purpose of harming a competitor
• Spamming the directory

 

1) Resource Zone has got nothing to do with ODP, even if the (here, substitute a word, I can not use morons since DMOZ editors complained to admins in this forum and want me banned if I use it and I haven't got any suggestion from admin what I can replace it with. It seems Admins and Meta's are not happy with only censoring internal forum and RZ, they want to censor the whole Internet. ) editors like to pretend it is official ODP forum to give themselves extra power. This has always been DMOZ official stand to isolate itself from possible legal action as result of what happens in there. Officially, resource zone has no more connection to ODP than this forum has.

2) According to ODP the life outside ODP should not effect what is happening inside. Are you suggesting that editors should be censored everywhere?

3) This is not a job, it is volunteer organization. If it was a real job, the employee had access to the court system and different labor organization. Even in business, you can not fire people arbitrarily or without notifying them of reason.

4) Any more excuse?

 

Anybody who read that RZ thread (correction: anyone with a brain who read that RZ thread) would haved no difficulty understanding that Summer was objecting to the policy and to the pig-headed attitudes of the editors rat-packing her in the thread. Thus, what you are actually saying here is that disagreeing with RZ editors is a valid reason for dismissal.

That's about what I expect from you: First, embedding these two bolded items among other items like "poor editing" is a clumsy smear attempt. Second, expressing frustration with DMOZ policies and anger towards RZ editors is hardly evidence of either of the bolded criteria you cite - hell, who DOESN'T hate RZ editors, except other RZ editors?

 

Anybody who read that RZ thread (correction: anyone with a brain who read that RZ thread) would have had no difficulty understanding that Summer was objecting to the policy and to the pig-headed attitudes of the editors rat-packing her in the thread. Thus, what you are actually saying here is that disagreeing with RZ editors is a valid reason for dismissal.

That's about what I expect from you: First, embedding these two bolded items among other items like "poor editing" is a clumsy smear attempt. Second, expressing frustration with DMOZ policies and anger towards RZ editors is hardly evidence of either of the bolded criteria you cite - hell, who DOESN'T hate RZ editors, except other RZ editors?

 

Alright one by one ....

But if a boss or manager find a employee acting in inappropriately in public, they might fire them. A example would be like the teacher who got fired for posing for a naked photo in a women's magazine, even though the magazine has no official connection to the school.

http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=50221

When someone works or volunteer, they represent the organization, (at least in the public's eye) I guessing you should already know this ....

Volunteer work can be considered a "job". What a "job" is to a person is only a perception

2ndly a boss can fire someone without notifying them of a reason. It is called Employment at will

I believe accountability shown you the correct url in the above post

Dude please show me where I said that?

Gworld, I believe that should be enough

No minstrel you got me wrong it not because she disagree, what I mean is HOW SHE SAID IT would be a valid reason for dismissal...

 

I think we can all agree that dvduvall's case is not at all like summer's so I don't get why you're bringing it up here. We were talking about his case and your posts don't change anything about those facts, or lack of facts.

Yes, I did forget about summer's case, I was sorry when it happened and she knows that. I don't know the reasons it happened. I didn't see any discussion of it other than in the dp forums. I wish she were still editing with us in shopping, we're swamped and I like her fun attitude.

You're correct to say that if an editor argues about the way their site is listed they don't remain an editor very long, but all editors know that. We'd better not even argue about IF our site is listed or we'll be shown the door. We can't allow the appearance of self-promotion or favoritism where our own site is concerned. It's in the guidelines.

Did the meta's actually tell her to shut up? If they did I'd like to hear it from summer because I've never heard of that happening before.

You aren't serious, are you? I'd hate to think you're applying a double standard to me now. If you are I might have to stop talking to you.

added: Oops, sorry...there have been a lot of posts while mine took forever to load.

 

Alright one by one ....

But if a boss or manager find a employee acting in inappropriately in public, they might fire them. A example would be like the teacher who got fired for posing for a naked photo in a women's magazine, even though the magazine has no official connection to the school.

http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=50221

When someone works or volunteer, they represent the organization, (at least in the public's eye) I guessing you should already know this ....

Volunteer work can be considered a "job". What a "job" is to a person is only a perception

2ndly a boss can fire someone without notifying them of a reason. It is called Employment at will

I believe accountability shown you the correct url in the above post

Dude please show me where I said that?

Gworld, I believe that should be enough

No minstrel you got me wrong it not because she disagree, what I mean is HOW SHE SAID IT would be a valid reason for dismissal...

 

The DP forum had a link to the RZ thread. What was going on there was pretty clear and pretty damn disgusting, as usual.

With all due respect, what happened in Summer's case had nothing to do with avoiding "the appearance of self-promotion or favoritism". It had absolutely everything to do with her getting pissed off with half a dozen RZ dwellers jumping all over her for daring to suggest that part of their policy made no sense.

 

If this is true then may be DMOZ should look at adult editors private activities. does porn industry, phone sex and other such activities have official approval of DMOZ, other editors and AOL?
Does this mean that being involved in porn is acceptable to all editors but speaking against a policy is unforgivable offense?

Is this official policy of DMOZ that editors are employees of the organization? If this is true then I am sure IRS and other federal agencies like to know about it unless you are just making it up to justify something that can not be justified.
The contract for employment at will has to be signed by both party to the contract, does DMOZ have any proof that such contract is signed by summer or anyone else?

Why does a volunteer organization have to resort to secrecy and undemocratic procedures if it has nothing to hide?

 

Ok, but I didn't click on it at the time, I don't like that forum.

That's my impression too. I was only replying to gworld's point that there are other reasons as well, and I agree with him. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was suggesting that Summer's case had anything to do with self-promotion or favoritism. If I had to speculate I'd guess it was the way she went about it, but I honestly don't KNOW anything.

Don't shoot me in the crossfire, I was in agreement with her. I approved her update request when I came across it in unreviewed, but I didn't realize it belonged to another editor and wasn't aware of any dispute or forum threads when I did it. In my honest opinion her request made sense and I processed the update like I would any other reasonable request. I only stumbled into that one because I'm a shopping editor. It was totally unbiased and in her favor.

Added: It just occured to me... If editors had to be afraid of disagreeing with meta editors or admins, I sure wouldn't have made this post.

 

Gworld if you want to join any organiztion you have to go by the rules, if someone doesn't like, no one is pointing gun to their head to join

As for the second part of your post about jobs, IRS, blah blah blah, didn't I say a job is a only a perception and can mean many things to people? Let's go to a dicitonay to see different definitions

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=job

job1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jb)
n.
1. A regular activity performed in exchange for payment, especially as one's trade, occupation, or profession.
2. A position in which one is employed.

3. A task that must be done: Washing the windows is not my job.
4. A specified duty or responsibility. See Synonyms at task.

Another example, it is my "job" to go to school, but I'm not getting paid for it. Some people consider certain thing jobs, and some don't

Well I think that enough, I don't like staying on long boring post too long.. just wanted to add my 2cents.....

 

I would conclude that not all editors are equally vulnerable. You have been around longer, established a wider reputation, and risen through the ranks. Were you not slapped vigorously for daring to speak out of turn when you were a relatively new editor?

It happens. And, accurate or not, it reinforces the impression that those who don't toe the party line will be dealt with harshly... unless they have backing from others in the hierarchy, of course.

 

That is the point of discussion that there is no rules and it is applied arbitrarily. It seems being involved in porn and phone sex are acceptable form of public behavior but speaking against a guideline is not. Isn't this exactly what you are claiming?

If there are clear rules the following 2 questions should be ver easy for you to answer:

1) Is being involved in porn industry, an acceptable form of behavior for an editor, according to DMOZ rules?

A) Yes
B) No

1) Is speaking against a guideline in public, an acceptable form of behavior for an editor, according to DMOZ rules?

A) Yes
B) No

The other part of your argument is as ridiculous. It is job and labor laws can be applied to it but it is not a job when employee wants to apply the same laws.