Bannable Offences

O

openhyperlink

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
14
Bannable offences I have a friend looking to re-register with DMOZ, And He asked me if I may make a petition in his behalf. I briefly discussed with him the Oct 2003 posting, And Wanted to make a reply there, but did not have the necessary privleges to do so. (NEW MEMBER)

I have brought the thread into this posting instead. I think it is good to bring up previously posted information like this, especially for newcomers of this forum. I agree there is ample information and guidelines given on the rules
and regulations of "DMOZ", But do you not agree, that with an overly communicated society in which we live, be it through Television, Radio and now the Internet, that people in general, neglect to read all the fine print?

You may or may not disagree, and as Editors considered as a valued commodity to an organization like Google, I could see why you might disagree. I respect your views on ZERO TOLERANCE. "Specific" information in human editing is the fundamental key to accessing the most valuable information on the Internet.

Yet, If you are truly looking for additional skilled editors in your search database, Do you not feel it would be, To say the very least considerate,
To the accused offender to at least give a warning? I can appreciate the number of postings you must have to read and filter on a daily basis, But in looking out for DMOZ's best interest, without at least one warning, You may have had a prospective editor that could have contributed alot to Dmoz and Google.

Without at least one warning to the "NEW Members”, DMOZ could be dealing with a situation of "THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY"

I honestly feel that Internet and Advertising in General is partially to blame for our overly commnicated Society, Even more of a reason to refine internet searching. Keep up the good work.... Where does my friend go from here?

Respectfully Yours,

OPENHYPERLINK
"THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX";)
 
H

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
19,136
This may seem a strange reaction, but (1) We know a lot of people get away, and (2) that's OK, for the good of society and all the other valuable public-service projects there are, (3) generally, when a valuable contributor (or someone who seems a potentially valuable contributor) gets away, there is a (often anguished, never public) discussion about what could have been done; (4) more to the point, the volunteers often do what they can to support each other, and there are (again, non-public) discussions about what might be done. If an editor is removed, it's only after we've agreed that we've done all we're willing to do without seeing some benefit to the project; (5) sometimes more could be done, we know, but ... it's volunteers who would do it -- volunteers who must weight priorities both within the project itself, and within their own life.

We know that the community works on a basis of trust. Not character, but behavioral reputation. We know the difference: it's just that we can only work with the latter (and so people are removed or not accepted because we can't convince ourselves we can trust them, not necessarily because we have convinced ourselves they are untrustworthy. Yes, we know the difference. So we don't publicly impugn the CHARACTER of people who have been removed or rejected. First, we might be wrong. Secondly, the trust we must give editors (the complex set of skills and attitudes which we need to know they have) is not necessarily the same as the skills or attitudes someone else needs. (Certainly, "he that is faithful in little ..." -- that is, if the responsibilities are clearly understood. But some things: blatant exhibition of abuse for personal benefit, or blatant violation of community ideals,)

I'd recommend that a removed editor consider that removal permanent -- it usually is -- but look for other ways to benefit society on the internet. There are numerous possibilities....

I mention in passing that it's very seldom ex-editor's sites are banned because of the ex-editor's actions. They're usually simply removed because they weren't listable in the first place -- and listing them is often what caused the removal.

But I repeat the caveat I said earlier. Removal is an indication that the community is not prepared to learn to trust that person again. It is not an indication that nobody else should ever make the effort -- that judgment you ought to make for yourself.
 
O

openhyperlink

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
14
Odp

hutcheson said:
This may seem a strange reaction, but (1) We know a lot of people get away, and (2) that's OK, for the good of society and all the other valuable public-service projects there are, (3) generally, when a valuable contributor (or someone who seems a potentially valuable contributor) gets away, there is a (often anguished, never public) discussion about what could have been done; (4) more to the point, the volunteers often do what they can to support each other, and there are (again, non-public) discussions about what might be done. If an editor is removed, it's only after we've agreed that we've done all we're willing to do without seeing some benefit to the project; (5) sometimes more could be done, we know, but ... it's volunteers who would do it -- volunteers who must weight priorities both within the project itself, and within their own life.

We know that the community works on a basis of trust. Not character, but behavioral reputation. We know the difference: it's just that we can only work with the latter (and so people are removed or not accepted because we can't convince ourselves we can trust them, not necessarily because we have convinced ourselves they are untrustworthy. Yes, we know the difference. So we don't publicly impugn the CHARACTER of people who have been removed or rejected. First, we might be wrong. Secondly, the trust we must give editors (the complex set of skills and attitudes which we need to know they have) is not necessarily the same as the skills or attitudes someone else needs. (Certainly, "he that is faithful in little ..." -- that is, if the responsibilities are clearly understood. But some things: blatant exhibition of abuse for personal benefit, or blatant violation of community ideals,)

I'd recommend that a removed editor consider that removal permanent -- it usually is -- but look for other ways to benefit society on the internet. There are numerous possibilities....

I mention in passing that it's very seldom ex-editor's sites are banned because of the ex-editor's actions. They're usually simply removed because they weren't listable in the first place -- and listing them is often what caused the removal.

But I repeat the caveat I said earlier. Removal is an indication that the community is not prepared to learn to trust that person again. It is not an indication that nobody else should ever make the effort -- that judgment you ought to make for yourself.
Click to expand...

My House, MY Rules. :computer: Your House,Your Rules.
<"I GOT IT">
 
D

DavidHart

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
24
openhyperlink said:
My House, MY Rules. :computer: Your House,Your Rules.
<"I GOT IT">
Click to expand...

No. You don't "got it."

That simplistic approach ignores the greater responsibilities associated with stewardship. Dmoz is in the unenviable position of having to make decisions about others who will make decisions that affect many others. In turn, those decisions depict the cedibility of the entire endeavor.
 
O

openhyperlink

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
14
Not a simplistic approach:

Pronunciation: 'stü-&rd-"ship, 'styü-; 'st(y)u(-&)rd-
Function: noun
1 : the office, duties, and obligations of a steward
2 : the conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially : the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care <stewardship of our natural resources>

Seems to me like your just looking to pick a fight. Sorry if you misunderstood my
comment, But I did not mention anything about decisions that affect many others, And believe you me, my comment was anything but simplistic.

I was merly digressing: "to turn aside especially from the main subject of attention or course of argument", So believe me "I GOT IT"
 
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.
Top