Announcement about RDF

[95Theses]

Hi 95, recognize me???? So glad to see you here.
They killed our game :pissed:

Hiya Bea!

I'm just catching up on this.

What an utter cunt that little toe rag Josh is.

What did he think was going to happen after treating the mods like that.

My estimations of Richard have gone swiftly downhill if he had anything to do with this.

95

Hi 95, recognize me???? So glad to see you here.

[Sisifo]

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.

I see exactly what they are doing there. They are managing the content of the forum now to focus on the foundation's goals. I can understand it, but still disagree vehemently with the way they are going about it. I also take slight offense to the implication that users do not provide 'quality content.' People don't use discussion forums as an archive or scientific journal. Perhaps RD wants to focus his website in that direction, but the way they've gone about it is completely wrong and abuses the site's established user base.

It is going to be a perfect place to read your opinion, as no other voices will be allowed.
It's clumsy. There was no impediment to have a SuperBlog section as they want AND a free forum. As I said before, it has been the worst poject management I have ever seen.

[Thinking Aloud]

If there is no moderation I have an evil little part of me that would like to re-instate the notorious "fisting" thread. Maybe re-post a few LP gems on the finer arts of cock-sucking.

Feel free to do so. I, for one, surely won't do anything about it and the rest of the staff won't either.

I guess the only thing to be wary of is if anyone is trying to archive some of the quality stuff from there: a descent into anarchy might lead to the forum disappearing far more quickly than 30 days.

[Flora]

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.

I see exactly what they are doing there. They are managing the content of the forum now to focus on the foundation's goals. I can understand it, but still disagree vehemently with the way they are going about it. I also take slight offense to the implication that users do not provide 'quality content.' People don't use discussion forums as an archive or scientific journal. Perhaps RD wants to focus his website in that direction, but the way they've gone about it is completely wrong and abuses the site's established user base.

The forum already focuses on the Foundation's goals in the core areas of Dawkins, Science & Reason. We had 2000+ posts per day in those core areas whereas the front page only gets a tenth of that. The other posts on the forum weren't all unrelated either eg the welcome forum is a joy to read as people tell their tales of escaping various religions or religious environments. The new discussion area may provide some of that but why replace something so worthwhile and successful at meeting RDFRS goals?

[eXcommunicate]

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.

I see exactly what they are doing there. They are managing the content of the forum now to focus on the foundation's goals. I can understand it, but still disagree vehemently with the way they are going about it. I also take slight offense to the implication that users do not provide 'quality content.' People don't use discussion forums as an archive or scientific journal. Perhaps RD wants to focus his website in that direction, but the way they've gone about it is completely wrong and abuses the site's established user base.

It is going to be a perfect place to read your opinion, as no other voices will be allowed.
It's clumsy. There was no impediment to have a SuperBlog section as they want AND a free forum. As I said before, it has been the worst poject management I have ever seen.

Right, essentially they want to move towards a "SuperBlog" type format. That is fine. But why can't that and a freewheeling discussion forum co-exist? I really don't bloody get it. Why piss off your entire established user base like that?

[JimC]

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.

I see exactly what they are doing there. They are managing the content of the forum now to focus on the foundation's goals. I can understand it, but still disagree vehemently with the way they are going about it. I also take slight offense to the implication that users do not provide 'quality content.' People don't use discussion forums as an archive or scientific journal. Perhaps RD wants to focus his website in that direction, but the way they've gone about it is completely wrong and abuses the site's established user base.

It is going to be a perfect place to read your opinion, as no other voices will be allowed.
It's clumsy. There was no impediment to have a SuperBlog section as they want AND a free forum. As I said before, it has been the worst poject management I have ever seen.

Right, essentially they want to move towards a "SuperBlog" type format. That is fine. But why can't that and a freewheeling discussion forum co-exist? I really don't bloody get it. Why piss off your entire established user base like that?

You said it in an earlier post. Freewheeling forum = loss of control, anaethema to corporate types that want the RD brand to be unsullied by real people...

[Darkchilde]

Josh deleted Mazille's account entirely. Not only as a user and moderator but also his contributions to the forum. What a total fuckwit!

[MedGen]

Josh deleted Mazille's account entirely. Not only as a user and moderator but also his contributions to the forum. What a total fuckwit!

[Sisifo]

Right, essentially they want to move towards a "SuperBlog" type format. That is fine. But why can't that and a freewheeling discussion forum co-exist? I really don't bloody get it. Why piss off your entire established user base like that?

I believe in the Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. As I have read from you all, in the last year or so, they have been imposing their will without retribution. Most likely, they just thought people will swallow it, as they have before.

In the Spanish embassies we have the name "Mercedes backseat syndrome", for the average Joes who lose the sense of reality when treated as superior or special, as it happens to many greenfeet in this profession. Josh and RD have been enjoying too long of:

[Robert_S]

Poor Richard, the theists will be laughing their asses off in a few hours.

I admire Dawkins' books and lectures, but if he is doing this to protect Brand Dawkins, then I will lose a ton of respect for him as a person.

[ficklefiend]

He made some post about people threatening to unfollow him on twitter being a rubbish threat, so I unfollowed him anyway. If you're making posts about it you've got to have a little insecurity there.

I feel like I contributed to the locking of the forum, which makes me feel a bit bad. Still, better than just sitting and taking it, but we could have had 30 more days forum time.

[Mazille]

Josh deleted Mazille's account entirely. Not only as a user and moderator but also his contributions to the forum. What a total fuckwit!

The funny thing is: I didn't even know that until now.

[Mr.Samsa]

I think an award should be made to Mr Samsa for a very apt final post on the forum (not counting the fact that all the last activity was in a thread that has since been deleted:

Uncool.

And like that... he's gone.

If I had known my post would be the last remaining post I may have elaborated somewhat, but I'm certainly glad it was appropriate.

[SpeedOfSound]

Poor Richard, the theists will be laughing their asses off in a few hours.

I admire Dawkins' books and lectures, but if he is doing this to protect Brand Dawkins, then I will lose a ton of respect for him as a person.

That is the impression i am taking away. I will actually toss his books into the garbage. From this time on I have no use for him. And I mean Dawkins. This was not done without his approval. We were being bad little atheists and not living up to the arrogant standard set forth in recent years by RD. I can't imagine why else they would want to replace the forum with censorship and then delete threads that criticized them. The ultimate was to make the playground toddler move yanking the forum without warning because people said mean things about them.

Oh well. His hero status with me was pretty much washed away by this time anyway. I truly hope everyone gets on the net and tells it how they feel about this Nazi bullshit. The PR price that RD pays should be no small bill.

[JimC]

Poor Richard, the theists will be laughing their asses off in a few hours.

I admire Dawkins' books and lectures, but if he is doing this to protect Brand Dawkins, then I will lose a ton of respect for him as a person.

That is the impression i am taking away. I will actually toss his books into the garbage. From this time on I have no use for him. And I mean Dawkins. This was not done without his approval. We were being bad little atheists and not living up to the arrogant standard set forth in recent years by RD. I can't imagine why else they would want to replace the forum with censorship and then delete threads that criticized them. The ultimate was to make the playground toddler move yanking the forum without warning because people said mean things about them.

Oh well. His hero status with me was pretty much washed away by this time anyway. I truly hope everyone gets on the net and tells it how they feel about this Nazi bullshit. The PR price that RD pays should be no small bill.

As I've said before, Rd has certainly lost some ground in my estimation because of his lack of understanding of forum life, and a tendency to let others do his dirty work...

However, people have many sides to their natures. I will still highly value his books on evolution, and the contribution he made to making atheism an energetic, take-no-prisoners movement.