Announcement about RDF Part 2.

[Robert_S]

I don't think he groks online communities at all. He certainly has little experience with them. I remember him saying he had seen goatse and didn't know what it was. That is like a pedestrian who has never been or seen anyone get splashed by a car running over through a puddle. It speaks of inexperience on a grand scale.

I don't buy that at all, sorry. The online world isn't that different than the real world. What he's done is to piss off a smallish group of people (the mods) that acted as his support staff and in doing so anger a lot of the people that they work with. We all did Dawkins' work to one extent or another, that was apparent by what was posted on the forum. My experience is that a lot of that filtered off of the Dawkins site and onto both the internet and into people's real lives. Even those of us who were openly atheist long before we joined the site or read The God Delusion were likely to point others towards both and hold Dawkins up as an example. Many also contributed to his foundation.

Now?

Well, I'm not going to stop reading his books. Sorry, there's good information in them. I used to buy them new though, and now I'll buy them used. No more of my cash for Dick Dawkins. I also won't be loaning them to friends or recommending them to others. I certainly can't hold Dawkins up as a positive example after what has happened. He's damaged his brand with many of his core supporters, and there's a price to pay for that. It is extremely unfortunate that price is going to harm what I consider a worthy cause...the promotion of both atheism and science...but he's tarnished now.

I wish I didn't think you are probably correct.

[Peter Brown]

So if the RDF was not trying to run a Social network, perhaps they might have considered not having Richard Dawkins say publicly on said forum that they were, and setting up a social network?

He changed his mind.

I know how the others here feel, had the same shit dumped on me by others who owned the rights to a community and pulled the plug one night. In my own opinion I think so far the grievances that deserved a hearing have been made public. Far as I’m concerned it is an open and shut case, they were the victims, and I lost a rather nice web site that they used to manage.

Now I just hope they regain the faith and will to carry on here or elsewhere and regain some of the enjoyment again. As like they said the RDF was a community of people, not one person.

[HughMcB]

LakLak... You're fucking famous!

Look at the end of this post!

Posted by: David Marjanović Author Profile Page | February 24, 2010 8:43 PM

I've never posted on the RD(F) forums, never donated to the RDF (no income, you see), never even read the forums except for 2 or 3 pages (not threads – pages), so none of this touches me personally.

And I don't want to defend the way over-the-top insults*, let alone any threats.

But having read Peter Harrison's post, this entire thread, and Dawkins's reaction, I cannot escape the conclusions that:

* Dawkins comes across like a conservative Austrian politician who lets off a little snark about "the Internet generation" (and then goes on to lose the next election a few years later, though that was only one of the reasons) because he simply has no clue about what the Internet is and what happens there... Dawkins seems to have no clue what is posted at his very own forum;
* Timonen deletes accounts (even of moderators) with every single of the 5,000 to over 10,000 posts ever posted from each one of them, rickrolls the search engine, prevents people from talking to each other and (thus) from going elsewhere, and messes with the admin log for teh evulz. There is simply no reason other than "I find it fun" why the discontinuation of a forum could possibly lead to such actions. Timonen should have been fired long ago, should seek therapy if any exists, and (till cured) should not ever again be given a position where he can do anything to people or information other than staring at them from a safe distance.

What have I overlooked?

* Though... the one Dawkins cites is a work of art. I'd almost feel flattered to have that one directed at me.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... nt-2300777

[Mr.Samsa]

I posted on PZ Myers' blog - it's the same stuff everyone else has already said in the comments there, and worded much more poorly, but I had to say something because the stoopid of PZ's post burned.

PZ: Why are you discussing the changes in the new forum structure as if that's what got everybody angry? If it were the case that RDF announced a change in format, and Josh got all that abuse, then I would absolutely support your post.

But 85,000 people who gathered around a community based on rationalism do not descend into vitriol because "they are frightened of change" (as Josh suggested we may).

Instead, your discussion about how it is Richard's right to change the forum structure is like saying that the townspeople should not become so angry when the owner of the local library wants to turn it into a Starbucks.

Yes, of course you're right, but nobody really cares about the new structure. The fact is that the owner of the library is chucking all the books out back and burning them, and having anyone arrested for trying to salvage some of them.

People were upset when they heard the new changes - that is understandable, people had grown attached to the old forum. They started up a thread to discuss and console one another. There were a few angry remarks made there but mostly at the moderators, not Josh or Richard. Then when one moderator pointed out that they were not informed of the changes, this moderator was instantly deleted and had all his posts removed. Then the thread where everyone was discussing how upset they were, and where they could possibly go to next, was deleted - that is when people became angry.

Fortunately for Josh, he had the power to turn off the whole forum. Some angry people went to the front page to ask for an explanation as to why people were not allowed to discuss how upset they are about the new changes - these users were deleted and all of their posts were removed.

By this stage, about an hour after the initial message from Josh, he had deleted about 4 users and over 30,000 posts - without warning.

The forum came back in read only form, and we were advised to take whatever we could from our posts (without the use of a functional search engine) and we were warned not to post it on another forum as the material belongs to RDF. Then the Private Messaging function was reduced to about 1 message every few hours, so nobody could contact their friends to discuss where to go to next. Josh also removed signatures from people's posts so they couldn't direct people to where they were gathering.

Then a fun little quirk appeared when people tried to archive what was left of the forum - they were being redirected to the Rick Astley video clip that had been embedded throughout the entire forum so they couldn't save any of their posts from the forum, instead they had mistakenly downloaded numerous videos of "Never gonna give you up". What a hilarious prankster Josh is.

In summary, your blog post is absolutely redundant. Nobody cares about the new changes that Richard has the full entitled rights to make. The problem came when Josh started deleting users and posts at a whim, the same guy who knows nothing about the forum or the culture within it (his last action on the forum was about 7-8 months ago when he turned off the search function, his action before that was when he last made an announcement that caused a significant proportion of members leave and form a new community).

Nobody cares about the new structure. People are angry about the wanton destruction of information and the child-like actions of the admin who carried it out.

Mike O.
(Mr.Samsa - Ex-moderator of RDF)

[hackenslash]

May as well repeat my post to Pharyngula here as well:

I have been a member of the forum for a little over a year. My 12,000 or so posts represent a great deal of repetition, but also constitute a document of my journey from somebody mildly interested in science to a hardcore didact. I am generally known as the sweary one (the other one), and for being absolutely merciless in the pursuit of truth and rationality.

When this débâcle began, I entered the discussion thread counselling calm, and it largely was, apart from a bit of reactionary emotion, largely due to the fait accompli nature of the changes which, incidentally, have at no point been made clear as yet. All that has been presented is a nebulous statement that it will not be forum, but something different. All of this is one thing, but as soon as concerns were raised, instead of actually discussing these changes and what they would mean for the members, the admin proceeded to delete the thread and to delete the accounts of two of the most prolific members of the forum. In the case of some of these, this represents a wealth of knowledge and educational material, and the presentation of important breaking news in the frontiers of science. The comparison of this exercise to the burning of books is apposite, and constitutes for me the real casualty in all of this. Over 40,000 posts by my estimate, now consigned to oblivion, another Alexandria in the making, and this is only the start, if attempts to save the content are unsuccessful. We have our fingers crossed, and clever people are working on the problem.

I still counsel calm, and I have been a little dismayed at the level of vitriol displayed by some of my comrades. I do, however, pragmatic as I am, recognise that much of that stemmed from very real grievance at the way this situation was handled. However; the response from Richard has also dismayed me somewhat. In effect, he has taken the comments of a few and tarred every member with the same brush. Some of us are still clinging to rationality, hard though that actually is at the moment. Many of us are sporting hard-won battle scars in the defence of reason, and in the furtherance of the goals of the foundation. While the forum in its current form may not fit the vision of the foundation, or of Richard, no indication has yet been given what that vision might be, or whether our visions or efforts lie in the same direction. No useful communication has been entered into in this regard, even with the moderating staff, after repeated assurances that they would be kept in the loop. Not to mention that when concerns about the future of the forum were raised in the recent past, the members were assured that the forum cntent would be retained, and that improvements were 'on the way'. All of this seems now to amount to no more than blowing smoke, with a liberal dose of flannel. Nonetheless, I and several others, injured as we are at the treatment handed down by Josh, especially to the moderating staff, who took a huge amount of flak and heloed to build along with the regular members, one of the premier resources on the net for education in critical thinking and the dissemination of valid science.

All of this could have been avoided with better communication and the ability to efficiently deal with what was always going to be a difficult situation.

Most of my efforts since the closure of the forum have been geared toward retaining contact with the regular members, most of whom simply came to the forum to find that they were locked out. All attempts to leave any information about where we might be found were silenced.

Again, I regret the comments of some of my fellow forum members, and I do ultimately recognise that the vision for the future of the foundation rests with Richard, but the reactionary way this has been handled, particularly in the treatment of the staff, has left a sour taste in many mouths, especially given the input of those people in the furtherance of the aims fo the foundation.

A good night's work has been done in the cause of unreason in this fiasco, and the creationists are crowing with glee.

hackenslash

[hackenslash]

SOmebody just posted this to me on Peter's blog, after an elucidation of Rule # 3 (which contained no expletives, I might add):

hackenslash:

You sound like the liberal idiots that have invaded most college campuses. You know, the ones that decide for the rest of us who can be heard and who can’t. They shout down those with a different point of view, they throw pies, etc. They justify these acts of aggression and censorship by likening the views of their targets to those that “cry fire in a crowded theatre.” That they feel qualified to decide for the rest of us what is and is not “fire” (in regards to free speech) is a clear case of hubris and arrogance. These people probably think they are champions of free speech when, in fact, they are only champions of *their* speech.

You probably think of yourself as objective, clear-headed, and rational. Based on your ridiculous defense of copious swearing, I merely consider you incapable of exercising the self-control necessary to express disagreement in a civil, respectful manner. I can hear what you’re thinking now: those that dare to disagree with any of *your* passionately held positions don’t *deserve* civility or respect — but that only proves my point regarding the hubris and arrogance of those on the net like you. It’s your ilk that make sites such as RD.NET, Panda’s Thumb, etc. the ridiculous pits of vitriol they have become. Anyone with an open mind about issues will think twice before throwing their lot in with the likes of you.

[hackenslash]

I thought it best not to muck about too much, as it's Peter's blog. If he presses me, though, it may be a different matter.

[Twoflower]

New thread here http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=9222 Pluto2