Toward a New Foundation

[lordpasternack]

I'm sceptical but curious to find out how serious any dive in traffic at RD.net as a result of this change will be. Even there, Richard himself has quite enough money to keep it all, including the Foundation, trundling along on his own steam. Also, even if we were to raise money - what would you suggest we do with it? The community is still fairly small - we might make a few thousand quid or so over some sort of time period or other. But then what would you intend to actually do with the money?

We already do have a non-profit bank account under the title The Rationalia Association, which our main admin (Pappa) manages, and currently uses solely for paying for the forum - so the idea of setting up an association is not that far from the current situation - and we could potentially do something there. I still think we'd remain small fry for quite some time though. It's nice to hold some nebulous pie-in-the-sky ambition at the outset - but when it gets down to fleshing an actual plan out, you have to be more realistic and pragmatic.

We could possibly start a small association to serve this community, like a local charity club or something. It could work, and we could band together to help it be as successful as possible - but there will be a limit to that somewhere, when we lack rich benefactors (to my knowledge), and a certain amount of fame and public presence (as an entity, or due to any individual here).

Beyond that, I'd be more for affiliating with The Reason Project. Even while it has one distinct manager, Harris has gone to lengths to hold it at arms length and make it a community sort of thing.

Just sharing my opinion...

[ED209]

My loyalty is 100% given to this site now, end of story for me.

Hey Pensioner, nice one

[Shaker]

My loyalty is 100% given to this site now, end of story for me.

This just happens to be exactly what I think too.

[DanDare]

I don't think we can just make a new forum somewhere and see what comes next. We need a goal in mind that will enthuse the refugees and guide our development. Funds we raise need to first pay for the hosting, secondly pay for marketing to bring new people and build the new community. With that we also start finding out who can help build the larger fund base for doing the work of legal defence of secularism, promoting better science education, helping to develop the skills of reason etc etc.

[lordpasternack]

I don't think we can just make a new forum somewhere and see what comes next.

This forum is a year old, and is actually a grandchild of RD.net - having been the product of a mass exodus from RD.net back in October 2008, and then another subsequent exodus from that first breakaway forum. The veterans here are actually rather war-weary, and are generally equanimous about the idea of having the forum for the forum's sake. It serves the ongoing community and will continue to do so, so long as that community continues to exist and continues to support the forum's ongoing existence. There is a lovely, palpable feeling of intimacy around these parts (with some couples who came together via our various forum homes, and some spates of casual flings amongst some other members ) - and many of us value that.

We need a goal in mind that will enthuse the refugees and guide our development.

Who is 'we', and why do we necessarily need that?

We have had this discussion before, quite a few times. It'd be nice to get more of your perspective on it.

Funds we raise need to first pay for the hosting, secondly pay for marketing to bring new people and build the new community. With that we also start finding out who can help build the larger fund base for doing the work of legal defence of secularism, promoting better science education, helping to develop the skills of reason etc etc.

Nice ambition - but it still depends entirely what the majority of the community want. This site functions first and foremost as a community. That is its main agenda and priority.

[Precambrian Rabbi]

Apologies if I misunderstood but it certainly came across that way - as much from others responses than from your own posts, I will concede.

By all means start your own site. I wish you luck and, if it's any good, I will support it. However, I get the distinct impression that the understanding of most in the thread was that Rationalia was to be the basis for this vision - there have been comments in the thread to that end.

I'm afraid I was guilty of misunderstanding and thoughtlessly reinforcing that idea. Stupid and presumptuous of me. Apologies.

It's been a long 48 hours.

As to what the OP was really suggesting, an entirely new foundation, it would be interesting to hear more but I'm not sure how much long term scope there would be for an "RDF for people pissed off with RDF". Apart from hosting a community forum, how would it differ from what they will now be offering? Could it compete with the existing RDF brand to promote science and reason in terms of quality of content, fund raising ability, political clout etc.? In the bigger picture, grievances aside, would we want it to?

[Pensioner]

I don't think we can just make a new forum somewhere and see what comes next.

This forum is a year old, and is actually a grandchild of RD.net - having been the product of a mass exodus from RD.net back in October 2008, and then another subsequent exodus from that first breakaway forum. The veterans here are actually rather war-weary, and are generally equanimous about the idea of having the forum for the forum's sake. It serves the ongoing community and will continue to do so, so long as that community continues to exist and continues to support the forum's ongoing existence. There is a lovely, palpable feeling of intimacy around these parts (with some couples who came together via our various forum homes, and some spates of casual flings amongst some other members ) - and many of us value that.

We need a goal in mind that will enthuse the refugees and guide our development.

Who is 'we', and why do we necessarily need that?

We have had this discussion before, quite a few times. It'd be nice to get more of your perspective on it.

Funds we raise need to first pay for the hosting, secondly pay for marketing to bring new people and build the new community. With that we also start finding out who can help build the larger fund base for doing the work of legal defence of secularism, promoting better science education, helping to develop the skills of reason etc etc.

Nice ambition - but it still depends entirely what the majority of the community want. This site functions first and foremost as a community. That is its main agenda and priority.

Well said LP I agree with you 100%. I feel like a guest in a mate’s house in this forum and it would be ill mannered of me to try and rearrange the furniture.

[lordpasternack]

Apart from hosting a community forum, how would it differ from what they will now be offering?

It wouldn't come wrapped in the PR of a single individual, and as such changes wouldn't necessarily be made to any other aspect of the site in order to protect that individual's PR - as did happen on RD.net, whether you were aware of it or not. Nor would it be tied particularly to the perceived agenda of that particular person, nor come across to some as a self-ingratiating exercise of a self-involved individual. Nor make appeals to fame and authority with a foundation whose aim in a small part would presumably be to discourage such. I genuinely think that The Reason Project satisfactorily fulfills that role, but there can be no satisfying everyone.

I personally came to the conclusion of withholding support from RDFRS before any of the recent events for some of the above reasons (and probably more that I stated at the time), and chose The Reason Project as an alternative.

Could it compete with the existing RDF brand to promote science and reason in terms of quality of content, fund raising ability, political clout etc.? In the bigger picture, grievances aside, would we want it to?

It would theoretically convolve with RDFRS in many endeavours, and would at least serve the purpose of providing a channel for those who would rather give to a charity that more wholly does things 'their' way. In much the same way as there are a number of different homeless charities, or anti-poverty charities. And for some, yes, it would be taken as a way of continuing to support the furthering of reason and science in a way that doesn't continue to give money to support the careers of individuals they don't wish to support. It's a bit of a dilemma if you are into wanting a general goal to be pushing a social movement. There is strength in numbers - but the bigger the organisation, the more likely there are to be conflicts of conscience, bickering and disagreements as to how things should be done.

[lordpasternack]

Well said LP I agree with you 100%. I feel like a guest in a mate’s house in this forum and it would be ill mannered of me to try and rearrange the furniture.

Well, they can by all means suggest rearranging the furniture, or become enterprising and move on again to another forum (perhaps one of their own), where things more wholly suit their tastes. Just as most of us here have done in the past.

[Cunt]

DanDare, what can you and I agree on?

If you want to start a group of some kind to promote reason and science, I am interested. Me and my hundred bucks need more information, though. What would our association (you and I, at the moment) be aiming for? How would the money be used to further our goals?

How do we convince Precambrian Rabbi (and the others who should follow) to join our cause?

I have a hundred bucks here...how do you and I turn that into an association? (or whatever you have in mind)

Please remember that once you and I agree, we have to find a way to get others to agree, so try to keep it as simple as possible.

I am able to get a forum up and running. I would even venture to say that we could advertise it here (would have to check the rules, of course). I need to know a lot more though...

[DanDare]

I have posted a blog on Atheist Nexus. Its about the difference between the old forum and why it was good and the mismatch with what has been proposed, and asks where to from here.

[DanDare]

DanDare, what can you and I agree on?

If you want to start a group of some kind to promote reason and science, I am interested. Me and my hundred bucks need more information, though. What would our association (you and I, at the moment) be aiming for? How would the money be used to further our goals?

How do we convince Precambrian Rabbi (and the others who should follow) to join our cause?

I have a hundred bucks here...how do you and I turn that into an association? (or whatever you have in mind)

Please remember that once you and I agree, we have to find a way to get others to agree, so try to keep it as simple as possible.

I am able to get a forum up and running. I would even venture to say that we could advertise it here (would have to check the rules, of course). I need to know a lot more though...

Excellent challenge Cunt. Please read lordpasternak's post above and take into account the need to disentangle community from figurehead as we think about this.

And to others who have misunderstood, I again iterate that I am not talking about remodeling Rationalia, I am trying to lead the remnants of humanity from the cylon attack to a new colony elsewhere.

I do not want to solidify conclusions to early, this needs to be a discussion. The reason I linked to the RDFRS mission statement earlier as that I believe that is a good starting point for a mission statement. The purpose of such a mission statement is to prevent us from simply settling on a cafe style forum somewhere, but to rebuild a site with the best of the value the old site provided. Some discussion of what those values where would be appropriate.

P.Z.Myers likened it to a cafe, with conversations as ephemeral as his blog posts. I think that is incorrect. Much of the deeper content of the forum became a long lasting library resource and was gathered together in sticky collections. It in fact represented years of rational input, worked over and strengthened by many contributors. It sounds like it should have been a wiki but somehow I think the forum conversational mechanism worked better than a wiki could.

The function of attracting people, and welcoming them, who were seeking better understanding of science and reason was important. Also taking in those seeking contact away from religiously oppressive home situations, again a life line style of operation.

To me these things alone were of value to the RDFRS mission and they will not be reproduced in the new context.

I know I haven't answered what to do with your hundred dollars, which I will match to make $200. I will be ready to do so after some more input on this discussion from other people.

[eXcommunicate]

Alright, I'll assist in the making of a new foundation, but first I must be guaranteed a salaried position.

But in all seriousness, ideas are a dime a dozen, I am sad to say. I've had so many ideas for good websites and good causes it would make your head spin. It's not like I don't have the energy for follow through; it's all about assembling a team of individuals, each with the same goal, and taking those first few crucial steps together with a clear vision. Some things just grow organically, but usually if you want to make a big impact it takes planning, (varied) talent, guts, perseverance, intestinal fortitude, hard work, PR, giving the reach around to the right people, money, and a lot of luck. I've been a part of a few online endeavors and really it is all about assembling that first group of people and what talents and dedication they can bring to the table.

[truthinScience]

Bookmarking. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

[DanDare]

Ok, spent a day just doing work and letting this all sit at the back of the mind.

I think its important to separate the foundation, with its mission statement and trustees, from the Richard Dawkins promotional web site. I feel that we want to support the former but don't have to be part of the latter. That suggests being a site for developing science and rational thinking skills, and for offering harbour for those seeking a community away from their IRL ones.

Over at one of the christian forums they have an area called "Hell" where the rules are less strict and its a free for all. There's some value in that concept.

The new site could also be a way station, directing people to the other sites (RDF, Pharyngula, Rationalia etc etc) with a properly design reference page or pages.

Resources built up in the forum (like the debates, science articles, catalogues of debunking articles and so on) should be captured and glossaried in some useful, knowledge navigation way.

Regarding funds. Its interesting that thought on the internet is polarised between two ways of relating to filthy lucre. The first is commercial, the thing is just a business and is built around only what earns an income. The opposite is free and collaborative, that way the content is not warped or damaged by commercial interests and everyone can participate. The latter disregards the need to cover operating costs, to assist volunteers in making time free for what they do, to do even the most rudimentary guerrilla marketing to reach out and bring people together. Donations work a bit for particular projects but don't help to keep a stable background supply of funding.