Dawkins doesn't remember RD.Net Forum Crisis

[NineBerry]

See

at minute 53

[pErvinalia]

"Fucking douchebag" is a GOOD argument! Jeez..

[Hermit]

To be fair,

It was not Dawkins, but his IT guru who was referred to as "‘slack-jawed turd-in-the-mouth mug" or "a suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk", which for the sake of full disclosure was take from ANOTHER website AFTER that person had deleted several of the mods from the forum, leading to the deletion of every single one of their posts, and AFTER the forum was put into lockdown mode.

(Link)

[Svartalf]

Well, here's a model of taking one's responsibilities...

In Japan that guy would have been expected to commit suicide, or at least retire from public life a dozen times over.

[cronus]

In North Korea he'd know the true meaning of atheism via hard, very hard, labour.

[JimC]

In North Korea he'd know the true meaning of atheism via hard, very hard, labour.

Dawkins as "Dear Leader"?

[NineBerry]

To be fair,

It was not Dawkins, but his IT guru who was referred to as "‘slack-jawed turd-in-the-mouth mug" or "a suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk", which for the sake of full disclosure was take from ANOTHER website AFTER that person had deleted several of the mods from the forum, leading to the deletion of every single one of their posts, and AFTER the forum was put into lockdown mode.

(Link)

Sure, but he wrote the text "Outrage!" that the host in the video was quoting from.

[Hermit]

To be fair,

It was not Dawkins, but his IT guru who was referred to as "‘slack-jawed turd-in-the-mouth mug" or "a suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk", which for the sake of full disclosure was take from ANOTHER website AFTER that person had deleted several of the mods from the forum, leading to the deletion of every single one of their posts, and AFTER the forum was put into lockdown mode.

(Link)

Sure, but he wrote the text "Outrage!" that the host in the video was quoting from.

Good point. I just tried to chase the original text up now, and discovered that the relevant post has been deleted. So much for only censoring insults on the grounds that they do not contribute to a discussion.

Now you see it...

[DaveDodo007]

To be fair,

It was not Dawkins, but his IT guru who was referred to as "‘slack-jawed turd-in-the-mouth mug" or "a suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk", which for the sake of full disclosure was take from ANOTHER website AFTER that person had deleted several of the mods from the forum, leading to the deletion of every single one of their posts, and AFTER the forum was put into lockdown mode.

(Link)

Sure, but he wrote the text "Outrage!" that the host in the video was quoting from.

Good point. I just tried to chase the original text up now, and discovered that the relevant post has been deleted. So much for only censoring insults on the grounds that they do not contribute to a discussion.

Now you see it...

Is that poor Cali being disappeared.

[NineBerry]

Good point. I just tried to chase the original text up now, and discovered that the relevant post has been deleted.

The whole forum has been deleted.

This is the infamous "Outrage!" post by RD:

A Message from Richard Dawkins about the website updates

Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” a “suppurating rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s twat.” Or suppose that somebody on the same website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.”

What do you have to do to earn vitriol like that? Eat a baby? Gas a trainload of harmless and defenceless people? Rape an altar boy? Tip an old lady out of her wheel chair and kick her in the teeth before running off with her handbag?

None of the above. What you have to do is write a letter like this:

Dear forum members,

We wanted you all to know at the earliest opportunity about our new website currently in development. RichardDawkins.net will have a new look and feel, improved security, and much more. Visits to the site have really grown over the past 3 1/2 years, and this update gives us an opportunity to address several issues. Over the years we've become one of the world's leading resources for breaking rational and scientific news from all over the net and creating original content. We are focusing on quality content distribution, and will be bringing more original articles, video and other content as we grow.

The new RichardDawkins.net will have a fully-integrated discussion section. This will be a new feature for the site, similar to the current forum, but not identical. We feel the new system will be much cleaner and easier to use, and hopefully this will encourage participation from a wider variety of users.

We will leave the current forum up for 30 days, giving regular users an opportunity to locally archive any content they value. When the new website goes live, you are welcome to submit these posts as new discussions. The forum will then be taken down from the web. You will not loose your username on the new system.

The new discussion area will not be a new forum. It will be different. We will be using a system of tags to categorize items, instead of sub-forums. Discussions can have multiple tags, such as "Education", "Children", and "Critical Thinking". Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed. The approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site. This is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly. We hope this discussion area will reflect the foundation's goals and values.

We know that this is a big decision. We know some of you will be against this change. We ask that you respect our decision and help make this transition as smooth as possible.

We're confident that these changes will improve the site experience and we look forward to seeing what you do with the new system.

Many thanks again.

You will notice that the forum has in fact been closed to comments (not taken down) sooner than the 30 days alluded to in the letter. This is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in. Note that there is no suggestion of abolishing the principle of a forum in which commenters can start their own threads. Just an editorial re-organization, which will include a change such that the choice of new threads will be subject to editorial control. Editorial control, mark you, by the person who, more than any other individual, has earned the right to the editor’s chair by founding the site in the first place, then maintaining its high standard by hard work and sheer talent. The aim of the letter is to describe an exciting new revamping of our site, one in which quality will take precedence over quantity, where original articles on reason and science, on atheism and scepticism, will be commissioned, where frivolous gossip will be reduced. The new plan may succeed or it may fail, but I think it is worth trying. And even if it fails, it most certainly will not deserve the splenetic hysteria that the mere suggestion of it has received.

Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?

Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode.

If you are one of those who have dealt out such ludicrously hyperbolic animosity, you know who should receive your private apology. And if you are one of those who are as disgusted by it as I am, you know where to send your warm letter of support.

Richard

[laklak]

Damn, I completely forgot to send that letter of apology. Think it's too late?

[Hermit]

Good point. I just tried to chase the original text up now, and discovered that the relevant post has been deleted.

The whole forum has been deleted.

This is the infamous "Outrage!" post by RD: [snip]

Ah, yes, of course. Thanks for digging the complete post up again.

Also, thanks to you I have everything of the old forum that remained visible to the public after it was locked up on my local disk. Unfortunately I have not yet found a satisfactory method for finding particular posts.

[Drewish]

I don't blame Dawkins. I mean forums tend to be huge for the people who are part of them, and not matter a grain of salt to anyone else. Tis the sad truth of it.

[Svartalf]

I do blame him, that's no way to treat the community of supporters he created.

[Clinton Huxley]

Ah, the Golden Age of something or other.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk