Apology from Richard Dawkins (Yes Really).

[HrothgirOD]

I'd not expect him to publically break the little lad on the wheel. However, the somewhat effusive praise was a little over the top.
And as I've said, I've fired people for that level of unprofessionalism and incompetence, don't care how close they are.

You know, all the praise from RD over the past few years may have gone to his head a tiny little bit. It might have impaired his sense of judgement somewhat.

Looking at the fact he counldn't set up a high volume phpDB message board, and the overall site content look and feel, I think RD is easily pleased.

[klr]

7 – His new and improved forum will be subject to the whims of Josh. Cross him and you’ll be immediately suspended, your entire posting history will be destroyed and you’ll be banned forever. Josh will not, under any conditions whatsoever, accept any criticisms. You’ll tow his party line or you’ll be ostracized from the community.

8 – It will not be a ‘free thinking oasis’ it’ll be an oasis of what Josh deems to be acceptable. You will not have the freedom to speak your mind, you’ll have to learn ‘Josh Speak’ otherwise your time on the new forum will be brief and your departure swift!

I think this remains to be seen. As far as I can tell, the moderators were pretty much given free reign on the original board, and Josh's involvement, as far as the actual content of the board, was essentially one of benign neglect. For him to wield a heavier hand in controlling the content of the new board would require a drastic change in approach.

This is what remains to me one of the more puzzling aspects of this whole affair: The decision to can the entire volunteer moderating staff. If the board has been up 2 1/2 years and has generated 85,000 topics over that time, that amounts to over 90 topics a day that, under the proposed new format, will have to be read and approved by the new moderator(s) before being posted. That seems an insurmountable task for a single person, especially if that person is also performing other technical and content related duties on the website. So I hardly see how this could function as Josh's personal empire. Clearly more help will be required, and I fail to see why the RDF would not avail themselves of the readily available and willing staff who had already acquited themselves so admirably in the task. Does Richard et al really believe the old board was functioning so poorly that a complete break with the past is required?

Nonetheless, personally, I'm encouraged enough by Richard's apology to give the new board a try and see how it works before passing judgment.

The new discussion area will be modelled closely on the current front page by the sounds of things. That only gets a fraction of the business that the forum used to get, and I believe the disparity was gradually widening over the past few months or more. Flora (Topsy, ex-forum admin) has published the basic figures.

It's not the approval of topics I'm worried about under the new system. A couple of people should suffice there. It's the posts that are the issue in terms of quality control and moderation. If RD is really so concerned about civil debate on the internet, then it looks very much as if he's backed the wrong horse.

[klr]

I'd not expect him to publically break the little lad on the wheel. However, the somewhat effusive praise was a little over the top.
And as I've said, I've fired people for that level of unprofessionalism and incompetence, don't care how close they are.

You know, all the praise from RD over the past few years may have gone to his head a tiny little bit. It might have impaired his sense of judgement somewhat.

Looking at the fact he counldn't set up a high volume phpDB message board, and the overall site content look and feel, I think RD is easily pleased.

I'm agnostic on the look and feel of the FP, but yes, the "easily pleased" is on the money. Josh would have to be one of the greatest programming wizards on the planet if he were to really justify RD's praise of him.

[Crazyfrog]

There’s no doubt Dawkins had to implement some sort of damage limitation exercise and whether he spoke from the heart with his apology, or whether it was just more spin, I don’t know for certain.

What I do know is that, without batting an eyelid, he was initially prepared to sacrifice the reputation of his mods and the whole forum community for the sake of PR points. He didn’t bother to check facts (it wasn’t even worth a few calls, and I don’t care how busy he was) and language used was the typical dawkinesque usually reserved for those considered pondlife. Even if mad, it really was completely inexcusable to make a very public outburst like that.

In my eyes he did it once and could do it again, although next time I’m sure there will be better control over spin. Cynical? Yes, once bitten twice shy.

Regarding Josh, Dawkins described him as “one of the most talented people I have ever met” which rules out any chance of serious disciplinary action behind the scenes. If it ever got nasty and ended in court I’m sure that statement would cost him a lot of money.

[klr]

There’s no doubt Dawkins had to implement some sort of damage limitation exercise and whether he spoke from the heart with his apology, or whether it was just more spin, I don’t know for certain.

What I do know is that, without batting an eyelid, he was initially prepared to sacrifice the reputation of his mods and the whole forum community for the sake of PR points. He didn’t bother to check facts (it wasn’t even worth a few calls, and I don’t care how busy he was) and language used was the typical dawkinesque usually reserved for those considered pondlife. Even if mad, it really was completely inexcusable to make a very public outburst like that.

In my eyes he did it once and could do it again, although next time I’m sure there will be better control over spin. Cynical? Yes, once bitten twice shy.

Regarding Josh, Dawkins described him as “one of the most talented people I have ever met” which rules out any chance of serious disciplinary action behind the scenes. If it ever got nasty and ended in court I’m sure that statement would cost him a lot of money.

If someone of RD's standing were to say the same thing about (say) me, I'd frankly feel a bit uncomfortable. I'd be moved to set them straight on a few things ASAP. It's unhealthy in any sort of relationship for one person to have such an unrealistic view of the other.

[macdoc]

talented...

I suspect it's more of non-techie RD in awe of the backroom geek with no common sense on either side...

[klr]

talented...

I suspect it's more of non-techie RD in awe of the backroom geek with no common sense on either side...

RD did some programming back in the 1980's for the "biomorphs" featured in the Blind Watchmaker. It seems that this did not give him a sufficient appreciation for what goes on in IT. Worse, maybe it's a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous things ...". He might think he knows more than he actually does about IT in general. That might make him even more in awe. I mean, let's face it: Software development has moved on a lot in the last quarter of a century. From his POV, much of what goes on nowadays must be like magic.

[Surendra Darathy]

The difference between an IT administrator and a professional CS who knows something about computer architecture, compilers, and instruction sets is basically the difference between a physician and a biochemist.

It's not that one of them knows something and the other doesn't. As a scientist, RD should know the difference.

One sort masters a knowledge base, and the other sort masters a knowledge base and then some.

[klr]

The difference between an IT administrator and a professional CS who knows something about computer architecture, compilers, and instruction sets is basically the difference between a physician and a biochemist.

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

I prefer to look at it another way. IT people often have to be multi-talented these days, even at the cost of being the proverbial Jack-of-all-Trades, and master of none (or maybe one). But maybe Jack-of-some-Trades might be more apt. There are just far too many areas of possible expertise in IT for one person to cover them all, or even a fraction of them. And TBH, different areas of IT can require different aptitudes for someone to excel in them.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have reservations as well, and wonder if any further investigation of Josh and Co. will be done or if they will be held accountable, but it was good of him to write this.

I don't expect there will be any further investigation.

There definitely will not be any further "investigation" I am sure. This is a trivial matter to Dawkins, and this message of his, while appropriate and I am sure honest, is really just the path of least resistance and most benefit. He wants the uproar over with.

[Shrunk]

The new discussion area will be modelled closely on the current front page by the sounds of things. That only gets a fraction of the business that the forum used to get, and I believe the disparity was gradually widening over the past few months or more. Flora (Topsy, ex-forum admin) has published the basic figures.

It's not the approval of topics I'm worried about under the new system. A couple of people should suffice there. It's the posts that are the issue in terms of quality control and moderation. If RD is really so concerned about civil debate on the internet, then it looks very much as if he's backed the wrong horse.

The description of the new format has been sufficiently vague that it's difficult to say at this point what it will comprise. My assumption has been that main goal of the change has been to limit or eliminate altogether the off-topic discussions i.e, those other than science, religion and politics. While I feel this would be to the detriment of the board, I can see RD's point of view. If he is setting this up as an educational resource eligible for tax-deductible charitable donations, it may be harder to maintain that status if the content of the board is largely people talking about their favourite music or food, or the physical attractiveness of various celebrities. Personally, I enjoyed those discussions, given the degree of erudition and written eloquence possessed by the average member of this board. But I can also see where the RDF could feel supporting such discussion fails to fall within its mandate. I'm just speculating here, of course.

[epepke]

Not the word "talented." This is not the sort of adjective one uses to describe the experienced, mature, and wise.

As for the apology, it won't and can't be expected to fix everything. Not everything can be fixed anyway. It was appropriate at this time to staunch the wound at least.

[klr]

The new discussion area will be modelled closely on the current front page by the sounds of things. That only gets a fraction of the business that the forum used to get, and I believe the disparity was gradually widening over the past few months or more. Flora (Topsy, ex-forum admin) has published the basic figures.

It's not the approval of topics I'm worried about under the new system. A couple of people should suffice there. It's the posts that are the issue in terms of quality control and moderation. If RD is really so concerned about civil debate on the internet, then it looks very much as if he's backed the wrong horse.

The description of the new format has been sufficiently vague that it's difficult to say at this point what it will comprise. My assumption has been that main goal of the change has been to limit or eliminate altogether the off-topic discussions i.e, those other than science, religion and politics. While I feel this would be to the detriment of the board, I can see RD's point of view. If he is setting this up as an educational resource eligible for tax-deductible charitable donations, it may be harder to maintain that status if the content of the board is largely people talking about their favourite music or food, or the physical attractiveness of various celebrities. Personally, I enjoyed those discussions, given the degree of erudition and written eloquence possessed by the average member of this board. But I can also see where the RDF could feel supporting such discussion fails to fall within its mandate. I'm just speculating here, of course.

If that is indeed the reason (or one of the main reasons), then why didn't he just come out and say so at the beginning? And why shut down the entire forum? Why not just the "offending" bit(s)? Sure, lots of people would have left, but lots would have stayed.

No, I think he'd just grown tired of the forum. He wants a much smaller discussion area - much smaller. He's likely to get more (or indeed less) than he bargained for.

[Boadacia!]

I prefer to look at it another way. IT people often have to be multi-talented these days, even at the cost of being the proverbial Jack-of-all-Trades, and master of none (or maybe one). But maybe Jack-of-some-Trades might be more apt. There are just far too many areas of possible expertise in IT for one person to cover them all, or even a fraction of them. And TBH, different areas of IT can require different aptitudes for someone to excel in them.

Yes, precisely, we've all met the machine code genius, and scriptwriting geek, but s/he might be useless at the every day IT needed to socialise, or I've even known some that can write code for brilliant web pages but can't get MSN messenger to work! So, it's horses for courses.

[macdoc]

Pure speculation of course but the problem with the search engine has been going on for quite a while and that smacks of database problems......was Josh over his head????

Better to nuke and start over instead of owning up to the inability to adress the problems

It's not like these technical issues were new and strikes me they were using pretty old versions of software it appeared.

it's 2010 for fucks sake...RD leaves on tour... incompetent tech covers tracks with nuclear strike freezing the problem for good.
??