Announcement about RDF Part 2.

[Calilasseia]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... sucked.php

PZ defends Richard defending Josh.

They are trying to make it look as if Josh acted entirely reasonably and was given horrendous abuse as a result. Put 'em right, boys and girls.

Just dealt with Paula Kirby's sycophancy over there.

[Valden]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... sucked.php

PZ defends Richard defending Josh.

They are trying to make it look as if Josh acted entirely reasonably and was given horrendous abuse as a result. Put 'em right, boys and girls.

Just dealt with Paula Kirby's sycophancy over there.

Read. PZ has replied as well.

I don't know much about PZ, but so far, I don't like him very much.

PZ-

You either recognize that the administrators are equally valid contributors (and even more important in controlling the service), or you don't really deserve to have been in that environment in the first place.

Josh is NOT a valid contributor, he almost never posted on the fucking forum. He doesn't understand the basics of forum life.

[Reverend Blair]

Well, since Richard has obviously read at least parts of this thread, maybe he can read and respond to this:

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

Except that writing the letter is not all that Josh did. He also actively sought to keep active members...not just moderators or volunteer staff...from contacting one another. As a regular member, I have only been able to send about one private message per day. As a regular member I was prevented from using my signature or avatar to let people know where I went.

Josh also tried to keep the volunteer board staff from communicating with regular members and absolutely freaked out when they published the letter that he sent to them. They did this because the impression most of us were immediately left with was that the board staff were in on the board closing.

Perhaps most egregiously, Josh was the face of the extreme dishonesty inherent in telling people that the forums would continue, then shutting them down so abruptly. It now looks like you, Professor Dawkins, deserve to take the blame for no small part of that dishonesty.

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.

No, there is a promise of a discussion are where only pre-approved threads can be started. It carries the stench of elitism, Professor Dawkins. Worse yet, it severely limits the ability of those of us who are not part of your little elite community to expand our knowledge. I'm not a scientist. I'm not one of the intellectual elite. I'm not an idiot either though, and the forum was a place (and it was clearly stated that it would be gone after thirty days) where I could learn about concepts of science and reason in an informal, non-complicated atmosphere. I could even ask questions with a reasonable expectation of somebody answering them.

You've chosen to yank that resource away from people like me, bringing your dedication to spreading knowledge into serious question.

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.

Sorry, no. Most of us on the forum were only peripherally aware of Josh, if we were aware of him at all. He didn't show up in the forums often. Some of us wondered why he seemed incapable of fixing what were minor technical glitches at other forums we've belonged too, but other than that, we rarely considered him at all. What we really know of him was from his inexplicable exhibition of incompetence and pettiness while he was destroying the community that we had built. Was that responded to with some pettiness of our own? Yes, human nature is like that.

Josh may have worked hard for you, I really don't know. Nor do I care.

I'm a writer by trade though, and when a new editor shows up someplace the first thing a writer does is consider that editor's reputation. If your site was a magazine that I had been a regular contributor to, Professor Dawkins, I'd be running the other way right now. Editors and writers often have uneasy relationships, but writers with self-respect will rarely deal with an editor who has shown himself to be a petty tyrant.

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.

I'm a writer, as I mentioned. The articles you are requesting would require payment of at least 25 cents per word (USD), plus expenses, because of the research that would be required. Now, I recognize that in the scientific world articles are not generally charged for, but that just confirms my suspicions that you want an elite group speaking to each other in isolation, and have given up on your stated mission of educating the masses.

Surely there has to be something wrong with people who, under a cloak of anonymity, 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?

Surely there has to be something wrong with a man who builds a community who respects him, then goes off to Australia and leaves a couple of underlings to do his dirty work. Remember that the over the top language was in response to how things were being handled as much as the decision to close the forum.

Just as importantly though, you could have allowed the forums to live on. It would have been possible to simply hand them off to the forum members or a few interested staff, but you chose not to do that. Instead you made the decision to kill the forums, exclude a huge portion of the community, and alienate many who had come to respect you.

I've kept my language fairly temperate, at least for me, and I don't think I've been hysterical at all. Nor have I witnessed hysteria in the vast majority of my fellow members. The rest of our reaction, you of all people should know, are traits left to us by evolution. Yes, people are averse to change. Yes, people will use vicious language, although I find things here have been quite restrained...you should visit a construction site or a bar some time. You know...come on down from that ivory tower of yours.

I usually despise that characterization of academics, by the way. I find that it is usually used to convince people that it's cool to be ignorant and stupid. Given what I've seen over the last three days though, Professor Dawkins, you are more than willing to allow ignorance and stupidity to thrive if it suits your own narrow purposes.

You are now protesting that we protested against you treating us like serfs in your own little fiefdom.

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.

You'll be getting my apology right after I get yours, Richard. I'd also appreciate a real explanation for your decisions.



PS: If anybody has a way to ensure that Dawkins gets this, I'd appreciate it.

[Fallible]

Professor Dawkins, if you happen to venture this far into the site (it appears that you may have visited here), I hope you will take just a tiny moment to register the disappointment and disgust many of us feel.

Until now I have reserved my ire for the inept individuals who lied to your UNPAID moderation team (the ones who did the actual hard work which kept that clunking behemoth going - your pets couldn't even be bothered to provide a search function which worked, rendering the permission given by them to retrieve any useful information less than worthless), deleted members and their entire post history apparently in a fit of pique and removed any dissenting comments however mild. I haven't said much yet - others are so much more eloquent, and besides, you deserved the benefit of the doubt.

However, having read your message which is hopelessly one-sided and an almost reptilian display of schadenfreude, I have to tell you that I'll never buy a thing you write again. You will never receive another penny of my money. I'm sure this won't trouble you one iota - I am only one (pretty skint) person after all - no doubt I am 'hysterical' for saying such a thing. Please feel free to think of me in this way; it will not cause me any sadness at all, since your opinions on such things appear to be hopelessly out of touch with reality.

The fact that you could not pause, however briefly, during your rant to thank all those admirable individuals who gave of their time WITHOUT financial reward to keep that place going says all that needs to be said. I think it's a clear indication of just how much they were valued by you. But by us, the members who contributed to your coffers by donating money and buying your books and merchandise, who formed friendships and found comfort in the community they helped to flourish, they're nothing short of diamonds.

Please - continue to use the fact that a few individuals felt compelled to berate you in the strongest terms possible as an excuse to claim that there is 'something wrong' with all of us if it amuses you. A thread was started for members to discuss this change, and to vent their spleen, but it was pretty restrained. No one even said anything which broke any of the forum rules. It certainly wasn't a hotbed of hysteria. Nevertheless, it was entirely deleted. No one was allowed to level any criticism whatsoever at this cack-handed move. I'd rather not be a member of a place where at any moment the facade of reasoned discourse can be swept away at a moment's notice and the participants (even the mild-mannered ones) branded as hysterical for disagreeing. I won't be joining you in the Promised Land, and nor will scores of others.

This is a sorry state of affairs.

[my_wan]

RD has spoken ... supporting Josh all the way:

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 7&t=110356

It's more evident than ever that he doesn't understand either the home he used to host, nor the reason so many felt betrayed and angry.

Plus, the thread is locked, despite the fact that the entire forum is read-only now, which means that locking the thread is entirely superfluous. Illustrative of the mindset, I would say.

So when RD said:

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.

Apparently he was talking about himself. He spent the opening on the vitriol directed at him, yet he took a worldwide leadership role as an atheist and this is supposed to be his response to vitriol? Who's doing the overreacting here? Absurd...

Even if we accept this, it is after all his site to do with as he sees fit, why the lies and accusations from Josh, imposing restriction that prevent 'his flock' from regrouping elsewhere, etc.? He could have stated up front what was up and let people do as they wish. Instead we were treated like property that wasn't allowed either the truth or the freedom to go elsewhere to learn the truth.

[I'm With Stupid]

Well, now everybody knows that Richard Dawkins is indeed holding Josh Timonen's leash.

There's no going back.

There's only whatever the future will bring.

No more funding for the organisation that pays Josh's wages from anyone outraged by his behaviour for a start. There are plenty of other important charitable organisations out there.

[Weaver]

I note that RD made no mention of the number of times he posted requests for information or research assistance for his various projects, nor the number of people who spent serious time helping him.

Apparently the "great unwashed" are only valuable in the moment ... promised back-page acknowledgments aside.

[Flash]

RD has spoken ... supporting Josh all the way:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 7&t=110356

"… 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. …"

Well, fixing the bloody search function was already beyond that person's talent.

[orpheus]

Now, I recognize that in the scientific world articles are not generally charged for, but that just confirms my suspicions that you want an elite group speaking to each other in isolation, and have given up on your stated mission of educating the masses.

(bolding mine)

First, excellent letter, Rev. I hope Richard does see it.

Second, I think we should emphasize that "educating the masses" is not RD's only stated goal. Time and time again, in various places, he said he wants atheists to be able to recognize and support one another. He has said that that's one of the main goals of the book, the foundation, the website, the forum, and above all the "Out" campaign. The forum furthered progress towards that goal - maybe more than anything else.

It would be good if we could find quotes from Richard saying how important this aspect of his mission is.

[CJ]

Just posted this at PZ http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... nt-2299773

Hi I’m CJ one of the members who had all their posts (13,889) at RDF deleted by Josh Timonen. I had been there for 3 years. Now the ONLY thing that really gets me is the wanton destruction of a historical document the like of which will never be seen again. How will future historians see this act by Josh and Richard? I think they’ll hold their heads in their hands and cry at the loss. There is NO record like this of the reaction to the publication of one book, The God Delusion, in the history of mankind. Nothing like it exists in the past because the Internet was not mature. Nothing like it will exist in the future as the nature of reading is changing out of all recognition. The forum is a unique resource that needs to be preserved not destroyed and it’s being destroyed, bit by bit, by Josh Timonen. The last backup before this debacle needs to be preserved for future generations. Please, please, please make Richard see sense on this point if you do nothing else. Richard won’t listen to the people who have dedicated thousands of hours fighting his cause on his forum, so I hope with all my heart that he will listen to you and not destroy a unique historical document. 2.4 million posts gone as if they had never existed. Heart rending stories of theists finding their way out from the tyranny of religion, gone. Creationist arguments picked apart and destroyed, gone. If this forum is lost it will be one of the greatest acts on intellectual vandalism the world may ever see. And all they need to do is send a backup to a museum that will host it in a read only form for future generations to read. I will pay Richard 1p for the last backup (it’s going in the bin anyway so why should he care how much is paid for it) before the debacle and I will do my level best to get it hosted in a read only form somewhere. Regards Chris

[Ilovelucy]

I posted a reply to PZ's attempt at comparing Josh to an overworked barista:

With all due respect PZ, I need to correct the barista analogy. The hard working baristas (unsalaried) were the moderators, I was one of them, who dealt with the clientel ( the 85,000 forum members). Josh was the coffee house manager who stayed in his office and ignored our attempts at communicating with him.
After being told that we would have an input into the new site, we were largely ignored ( especially when we told him that things would kick off with the users). Then, we got a message saying our services were no longer required. Rather than a thank you, the message ended with a threat telling us not to complain, make petitions or try contacting Richard.
We voiced our dissent on the forum (nothing bad by the way) and the thread got deleted. Moderators that tried voicing dissent on the front page got their accounts, and entire posting histories, deleted.
I am also disturbed to find that the post by Richard insinuates that we were behind the nasty comments about Josh. Those comments came from the Rationalia forum made by members that were not forum moderators.
Anyone who wants to find out what really went down should read this blog by ex admin Peter Harrison.
http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.co ... open-soon/
It accurately relays how things happened and how they appeared to the team of moderators.

[gilthanass]

The more I hear from Dawkins and PZ, the more I realize that, frankly, they're quite old (not an insult) and probably actually don't understand the concept of web 2.0 (or really the application of the internet at all). They grew up in a world of limited production with (almost) unlimited consumption. That is to say, the news came to you in your house, over the radio (or television, or newspaper) and you didn't get to respond to it, you just... took it. People that grew up like that often see the internet as an extension of the same paradigm, not as a paradigm shift. They are the business leaders who put up a website that is nothing more than a newspaper ad. They still view mass communication as "few to many" rather than what it truly has become "many to many". Because of this, as far as they are concerned, the forum they had was really not useful in its own right. It was nothing but a toy, not a true mechanism of social change. The community in the forum was, to them, "virtual". Nothing displays that better than PZ's statement: "The community is not going away and is not harmed by a change in one outlet for its expression, and if it is, then it's not much of a community, now is it?". Through this, we can see that PZ doesn't view the forum community as a real community, rather, it's a virtual community made up of people FROM a real community. So, from his point of view, getting rid of (or just changing) that virtual community has no real effect.

The problem is, they are both wrong. Each community on the internet has its own flavor, its own character, its own personality. It would be like destroying a habitat, or shutting down a city. Sure, the people in the city will go somewhere else, but the character of that city will be destroyed in the process. Like it or not, internet fora have become solid communities in their own right, some people just can't see how taking that away without warning (and without the ability to keep the connections we have built up) is wrong. Sure, it's his site, and his prerogative, but perhaps if he had understood the true issues at stake here, he might have thought harder about his decision.

Now, moving past that problem, I am forced to look at how this will impact the RDF itself.

1) Web Content. The problem with their stated goal, is that they don't understand that brilliant articles and posts don't happen in isolation. They happen in the midst of conflict and community. It's only when you build the right type of community that you can get the content and discussion you might want. For this reason, they might have been better served by a tiered system. That is to say, a forum that was set up as it is today, where you need to be familiar with forums, and a member, to find your way around, and a level above that, with a system of tags, more accessible to the public, etc. The forum would act as a feeder, where great posts and articles written in the appropriate context could be nominated for inclusion into the upper (more visible) tier. This way you ensure the highest quality of content, while also protecting yourself to public scorn.

2) Goals. If the RDF has the goals of a united atheist community, as well as proliferation of good science, they will taking a giant step backwards here. The forum was a place where atheists could meet, be welcomed into a community, and effect real social change. It was a place we could talk about plans for advertisements, for groups, and support each other "coming out" to the world. It was a place that gave us the strength to admit to our atheism in our real lives, with the goal of inspiring others each of us contacts to do the same. It was a way to drive the world towards a truly post-theistic state. I'm not saying it was the be all and end all of these goals, but it certainly helped. Taking that away will do nothing but make that harder.

3) Finances. As a good business man, I know everything comes down to finances. Now, I know the RDF is a non-profit dedicated to certain goals, but that doesn't mean finances are removed from it. I can certainly appreciate their position on this front. I mean, the forum took up a good chunk of money on servers and salaries (for tech support, etc), so I can see why they might want to rid themselves of a pain in the ass if it's also costing them money. My question is, did they do the math correctly? I mean, the forum didn't only encourage cash donations to the RDF itself (by funneling users onto the site), but it also sold books (personally, I was an atheist looking for a forum, found RD.net, and only then read about his books and bought some). The people who felt connected to the site (and therefor to the man himself) because it offered them a community to turn to in their time of need were also salesmen for product. They would go to friends and family and suggest his books to read, because of the positive association. I don't know how much potential revenue was lost in this decision, nor do I think we will ever know, but I would like to think it was more than the cost of upkeep for the servers.

Essentially, I think Richard was scared of the internet culture invading his personal space, and instead of embracing the future, and change (as he so callously asked us to do) he panicked and hit the power button. It's a shame, and I hope someday he realizes his mistake, though honestly, I don't think it's very likely.

[Peter Brown]

Well, now Richards’s position is made clear and the direction in which he wishes to travel all one can say is time to move on and post messages on this site instead. Perhaps the longer term members might like the newcomers, or perhaps not, life is full of ups and downs.

[Matt H]

Well, at least we know it's over now.

I think I'll stick around here and see what happens. The whole Richard Dawkins thing is over for me now. Richard got me 'out and proud', so to speak, and now it is time for me to move on. To be an atheist is to have no leader, I suppose.

[Valden]

Right so I've decided to reply to PZ's blog.

Hello, I am one of the members that was completely deleted off the RD.net forum.

I had been part of the forum for a little over two years, racking up more then 5.5k posts during that time. Though I spent most of my time in the Politics and Current Events section, I would often go into the Science sections of the forum, seeking to expand my mind with knowledge that other members, such as Cali, were so kind enough to share.

I also had a great many memories there. From laughs, to sympathy. When I first joined, I was a Deist. And it was because of the people on that forum, that have shown me that my beliefs were nothing more then a security blanket.

When everything went out of control and Josh turned the forum off (before it went into read-mode) I made three protest comments (None of which were at all bad) on the front page. In one of those comments, I asked to be banned, as I no longer wanted anything to do with the entire website itself.

But instead of just being banned, I was deleted. All my posts were gone. My memories, thrown down a cliff as if they were nothing. It was as if I had never been a member there in the first place.
I had received only two warnings my entire time there. I was a fairly well behaved member. Such treatment was completely out of line, and not needed.

Before I was deleted, I was still thinking about just merely lurking around the new forum and posting here and there. But now, I don't want anything to do with the place due to the treatment of not only myself, but several other members who were also deleted, the staff, and members.

PZ, you ask why Josh is being treated as a monster. Wouldn't you consider someone who burns a book to be the same as a monster? Deleting our entire history on that forum is in my eyes, the same as burning books.

This is not about how the new forum will function. It's about how all of us were treated like dirt. Josh is NOT a valid contributor, he almost never posted on the forum. He doesn't understand the basics of forum life. If he bothered to put more time into being part of the forum community, then perhaps this all could have been avoided.

But instead, he ignored the warnings of the staff, people who were actually part of the forum community and spent months, to years of their time keeping it together. Josh does not understand that, and apparently, neither do you or Richard Dawkins.

Josh is a liar, and I can not help but think Richard is being shown one side of the picture, which is Josh's. He has attempted to shift the blame entirely on those of us who were deleted, and make it look like he had done nothing wrong.

I am not impressed.