“…just being in the right doesn’t always make for a good legal case…”
Very good point. Hey Xixtas – What are your current thoughts on DMOZ? Where it’s been, where it is, and where it’s going?

I can also confirm that Jeremy Schoemaker is well aware that his blog is banned from dmoz and has been told exactly why on more than one occasion. I can confirm that editors are begging AOL to sue Schoemaker. I don’t know what AOL legal will decide, but I can tell you from experience that just being in the right doesn’t always make for a good legal case.

ROFL. We found something on which we agree completely.

As you are a blogger I trust you don’t mind me tossing that quote to Dmoz staff. It’s precisely the point I’ve been making internally, I’d like ‘em to know it’s obvious to folks outside our little world.

Thanks again, and best of luck. – RJ

I’m sorry that you felt that you had to add your URL, because obviously as the owner of this site, I knew what your site was per your e-mail addy, and like you said in the previous comment you left, it is not a blog so I can see why you didn’t feel like you needed to add it.

Per your other comments, I’m glad you’ve stuck around and come back a time or two to comment. Certainly, yours have been more interesting than most who have come to DMOZ’s defense.

But yeah, if I ever made the insinuation that you were “parot-ing” somebody else’s thoughts I apologize. I think in the end with all this the fact remains that (apparently) non-editors can’t see/verify the edit logs, so no one can see if what you are saying is true.

You seem like a pretty level headed guy and again were nice enough to drop some interesting thoughts on the matter so at the very least I think readers on here should appreciate that.

The liable thing is very interesting, because if it’s true, I don’t know why DMOZ wouldn’t go after Shoemoney. But then again, maybe no one inside DMOZ really cares about DMOZ anymore so no one cares enough to fight this. *shrugs* Personally, I don’t really know.

But thanks again for coming back and chatting a bit more! – It was much appreciated.

As I have on various occasions had to explain the same answers over and over to those that suspect every editor is there to benefit their own site, I don’t edit my own, and the description on mine was not written by me, it was written by a meta that as I recall was not one of my bigger fans. I have a tendency to speak freely and upset a lot of the hierarchy inside. ***

Bush: My thoughts are my own, and I don’t elect to parrot anyone. While I may not agree with you I will always try to present my side clearly and in my own words.

Having access to the edit notes gives me a bit of an unfair advantage when it comes to the Shoemoney story, but yes, he’s telling a whopper here. I am not in a position to tell the guys that own the directory how to run it, so insisting we share edit logs openly need not be directed at me. I don’t write the rules, but I do have to follow them. If I start my own directory I can do it my way.

My take on the correct response is that staff should deal with Shoe head-on. The internal tracking gives lie to his claim, and while they have failed miserably in the past to stand up to claims like this in the past, IMO this one is big and bold enough to take to a defamation suit.

Shoe’s disclaimer is the sort of exculpatory clause courts consider invalid pretty much daily. A restaurant can put up a sign that says “We are not responsible for items left unattended… watch your hat and coat”. That might discourage suits if someone’s hat disappears, but it won’t slow prosecution if the restaurant owner actually steals it. Disclaimers cannot exempt someone from all legal recourse. It might be a fun thought, but libel is still illegal.

Shoe is perfectly able to bob and weave on his own podcast with the best. If staff follows my recommendation, Shoe will have a much greater challenge in court, and he’ll discover that he might just have done something worse than initiating a flamefest.

Regards- RJ

@Bush: Hahaha you aren’t kidding. This topic is has blown up!

@Alex – Thanks for posting the exact same comment twice in the span of a couple of days. You’re really adding credibility to your argument that way.

@Eric-The-Bun – I saw this comment pretty much word for word on another site. Hm…I’m starting to see a trend here.

@Rob – Thanks for finding my site! And hey, why do you think this is a link bait scam? If this was say John Chow, I’d be more likely to believe you, plus Shoemoney seems to still be asking for DMOZ editors to come on his show. I mean, if this is such a black and white issue, (he got banned and because of a server issue he was back), why is it that no editors are stepping up to the bat and speaking on his podcast?

Again Rob, I appreciate your comment but if DMOZ really wants to deal with this issue, I think they would be best served if they handled it openly, professionally and with full disclosure. A forum such as Shoemoney’s podcast would be great (imho) because like he says, it’s live so he would have no more control over it than the guest.

And just to repeat myself again, I think the podcast PR would serve DMOZ much better than editors/fanboys posting the same comment on multiple blogs or posting the same comment on the same one in a couple days of each other.