Richard Dawkins' forum run by prefects with swagger sticks?

[eXcommunicate]

Sometimes I have found the moderation there to be extremely light and then other times rather trivial. For instance, I got the same level of warning from verbally raping another forummer (the guy was a complete dick and sociopath and I couldn't hold back my anger any longer) as for calling someone a "goofball." Yes, I called someone a goofball and I was warned for making an ad hom, because the guy i called a goofball was obviously abusing the "report" feature. I mean who reports another forummer for calling you a "goofball"?

[Trolldor]

goofball.

[Trolldor]

So, what can be done?

Without sounding flippant, we could just invite any renegados here.

To be honest? I think that there are still a lot of unresolved issues. None of us are really there anymore, and the fact that the issues we raised are being raised further again by newer members suggests that a reasonable discussion needs to take place.


The "staff decided" therefore "topic locked" - that is a ridiculously insane problem. it wouldn't be hard to get a full-time tech/support mod to deal with these threads solely and relay staff notions (who they're from).

The difference between here and there is that I can disagree with everyone on the staff about one particular issue, and acknowledge that the staff want 'so-and-so' decision, and still have my view be known publically. I am obliged to recognise that it is a majority staff decision and enforce it as such, but I am not expected to be a mouth piece who must not challenge the staff's decision.

[Lozzer]

I still visit RDFF allot, I've even introduced a mate of mine to it. To be fair, you really do have to be a bit of a Weiner to get a warning. I've only had one, and that was for telling someone to fuck off. Its a good forum. Don't bitch people.

[Trolldor]

If the mods don't like you it's pretty easy.

[Hermit]

If the mods don't like you it's pretty easy.

True, but it's not just that. The thumbscrews are being tightened all the time in two ways:

Firstly, the rules become stricter. A few months ago, for instance, the distance between a first formal warning and a final, permanent ban has been shortened to five warnings in a twelve month period.

Secondly, the interpretation of rules regarding trolling, off-topic posts, etc, has become much less tolerant, and the vague coverall "guidelines" are invoked at will. (I cited an extreme example a few posts above) Here's another illustration: Doug has become a member of RDF in January 2007. He clocked up almost 6705 posts until he was banned a few days ago. This was his last post:

I just noticed that this has been moved by the administrators to "Debunking Woo".
That is the end of the line for me.
Pity, another interesting discussion short circuited by the administrators bias.

The response:

MOD NOTE

Since returning from a month's suspension, Doug has not improved his posting behaviour and therefore he is receiving his 5th active warning (out of a total of 9 formal warnings altogether). This results in a permanent ban.

END MOD NOTE

Doug's style has never changed since he started posting. In the end he was the same irritating sod that he was two and a half years earlier. The only difference between then and now is that moderators dish out formal warnings whenever they feel like it, and the threshhold at which they feel like it is dropping all the time.

[Trolldor]

Doug should have been banned long ago, there are countless other posts which are nothing but trolling....


But for that post? How fucking absurd.

[Hermit]

Doug should have been banned long ago, there are countless other posts which are nothing but trolling....

Doug was not a troll. All he ever did (apart from a few slip-ups) was to promote his eminently unpopular and misguided "philosophy" in a thoroughly irritating way, which was to try and steer participants of a discussion towards his points of view by using "the Socratic method".

But for that post? How fucking absurd.

It may have been a response to the several posts Doug made since he resumed after his four-week suspension, but, yes, just as absurd. Darkchilde's undefined accusation of apparently unacceptable "posting behaviour" (no reference to rules given) that resulted in the ban, is yet another instance of moderators' and administrators' mounting capriciousness. In that regard, Gallstone is at least more honest when, in regard to Seth's well argued remonstrance, she simply quoted the rule that allows bannings "at will": "Richarddawkins.net retains the right to deny access to anyone who we believe has violated any of these terms or any other term of this agreement, whether an actual violation has occurred or not. Note: the "Right to Free Speech" does not apply to private forums or richarddawkins.net. Your right to post on richarddawkins.net is a privilege granted by richarddawkins.net and can be revoked at will." (My emphasis)

[Trolldor]

My right to post?
Until they draw up a constitution they don't have right to hand out 'rights'.

[Hermit]

My right to post?
Until they draw up a constitution they don't have right to hand out 'rights'.

This is the forum's constitution, and it says therein that the people running it can do whatever they fucking want. There are two options to change those rules. You can convince the head of the RDFRS, presumably Richard Dawkins and/or a board of directors, of the errors of their ways, or you can take RDFRS over yourself, somehow. The former will turn him into a benign dictator. The latter will turn you into a benign dictator. As long as the foundation is privately owned, it will never ultimately become a democracy.

[Trolldor]

A decree is not a constitution.
Everything they've written translates to 'we own you'.

[Hermit]

A decree is not a constitution.

Agreed.

Everything they've written translates to 'we own you'.

Agreed.

[Lozzer]

A decree is not a constitution.

Agreed.

Everything they've written translates to 'we own you'.

Agreed.

Why should you care? It's the internets, you're life isn't gambled with merely because someone gives you a virtual warning. It has no bearing in the real world whatsoever. Its the same with Tfoot on youtube, so fucking what? A few videos are pulled, this does not entail the world becoming a totalitarian state.

[charlou]

A decree is not a constitution.

Agreed.

Everything they've written translates to 'we own you'.

Agreed.

Why should you care? It's the internets, you're life isn't gambled with merely because someone gives you a virtual warning. It has no bearing in the real world whatsoever. Its the same with Tfoot on youtube, so fucking what? A few videos are pulled, this does not entail the world becoming a totalitarian state.

There are a number of totalitarian states in the world already ... it's never beyond the realms of possibility.

If you think allowing any influential site (like youtube, rdnet, etc) to dictate discourse is harmless you are very naive.

[Lozzer]

A decree is not a constitution.

Agreed.

Everything they've written translates to 'we own you'.

Agreed.

Why should you care? It's the internets, you're life isn't gambled with merely because someone gives you a virtual warning. It has no bearing in the real world whatsoever. Its the same with Tfoot on youtube, so fucking what? A few videos are pulled, this does not entail the world becoming a totalitarian state.

There are a number of totalitarian states in the world already ... it's never beyond the realms of possibility.

If you think allowing any influential site (like youtube, rdnet, etc) to dictate discourse is harmless you are very naive.

Just because an apple may fall from a tree, doesn't mean you have to jump to the conclusion the skies going to fall.

Again, who cares? Some people really do need to channel there angst where there's a genuine concern. And for fucks sake, get up and get outside.