News coverage

[Alan B]

RDF Term & Conditions (January 2010)
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... =8&t=64014

Under 'Responsibility': Each user is responsible for their own posts...

Under 'Monitoring & Disclosure': RDF reserves the right to delete any posts without obligation.

Under 'Proprietary Rights': ...we all need to protect the rights of those who post their creations with us.
By posting to RDF you are saying that you are the owner of the material...

Under 'Circumventing Denied Service': RDF retains the right to deny access to anyone for whatever reason.

Under 'Use of Materials': RDF will not give up their rights or anyone else's rights to material on RDF.
The posted materials on RDF are the property of RDF.

Under 'Materials Submitted': All materials that are posted on RDF and other public posting areas become RDF's property.
Posting material on RDF gives expressed waiver for any/all rights... to posted materials.
(My italics)
I find some of this draconian and contradictory. E.g. protecting rights of the poster...RDF will not give up anyone else's rights...the posted materials are RDF's property...poster's rights are waived when material is posted.

And what are 'other public posting areas'?

[ficklefiend]

Yay, my quote made it into the Tetlegraphs online article!

Another former fan said: “It may sound ridiculous to those not involved with online communities, but I feel hurt and displaced. It was like coming home to find the locks have been changed. My respect for Richard’s work is still intact but my respect for him as a person is in tatters.

Sorry, I'm quite pleased!

It's an excellent quote. My favourite bit of the article.

[Chris Wilkins]

RDF Term & Conditions (January 2010)
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... =8&t=64014

Under 'Responsibility': Each user is responsible for their own posts...

Under 'Monitoring & Disclosure': RDF reserves the right to delete any posts without obligation.

Under 'Proprietary Rights': ...we all need to protect the rights of those who post their creations with us.
By posting to RDF you are saying that you are the owner of the material...

Under 'Circumventing Denied Service': RDF retains the right to deny access to anyone for whatever reason.

Under 'Use of Materials': RDF will not give up their rights or anyone else's rights to material on RDF.
The posted materials on RDF are the property of RDF.

Under 'Materials Submitted': All materials that are posted on RDF and other public posting areas become RDF's property.
Posting material on RDF gives expressed waiver for any/all rights... to posted materials.
(My italics)
I find some of this draconian and contradictory. E.g. protecting rights of the poster...RDF will not give up anyone else's rights...the posted materials are RDF's property...poster's rights are waived when material is posted.

And what are 'other public posting areas'?

Actually, I find that amazing. It sorts of blurs the facts. It lets you think that you own stuff that you post, but if it then becomes RDF's property, in essence it means they own the copyright. Which also means they can delete it if they like. Which, and now I am speculating, they feel entirely within their rights to trash it if they so desire.

I sincerly hope that on www.rationalskepticism.org, the site attempting to replicate the RDF, this is not the case.

It also makes for an interesting thought. If RDF owned the copyright, then re-building the content on another forum is, in fact, a breech of RDF's copyright. I wonder if they will sue.

[95Theses]

Now that would be a spectacular PR fail wouldn't it.

[klr]

RDF Term & Conditions (January 2010)
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... =8&t=64014

Under 'Responsibility': Each user is responsible for their own posts...

Under 'Monitoring & Disclosure': RDF reserves the right to delete any posts without obligation.

Under 'Proprietary Rights': ...we all need to protect the rights of those who post their creations with us.
By posting to RDF you are saying that you are the owner of the material...

Under 'Circumventing Denied Service': RDF retains the right to deny access to anyone for whatever reason.

Under 'Use of Materials': RDF will not give up their rights or anyone else's rights to material on RDF.
The posted materials on RDF are the property of RDF.

Under 'Materials Submitted': All materials that are posted on RDF and other public posting areas become RDF's property.
Posting material on RDF gives expressed waiver for any/all rights... to posted materials.
(My italics)
I find some of this draconian and contradictory. E.g. protecting rights of the poster...RDF will not give up anyone else's rights...the posted materials are RDF's property...poster's rights are waived when material is posted.

And what are 'other public posting areas'?

Actually, I find that amazing. It sorts of blurs the facts. It lets you think that you own stuff that you post, but if it then becomes RDF's property, in essence it means they own the copyright. Which also means they can delete it if they like. Which, and now I am speculating, they feel entirely within their rights to trash it if they so desire.

I sincerly hope that on http://www.rationalskepticism.org, the site attempting to replicate the RDF, this is not the case.

It also makes for an interesting thought. If RDF owned the copyright, then re-building the content on another forum is, in fact, a breech of RDF's copyright. I wonder if they will sue.

Something tells me that in this case, they would think very, very, carefully before making any moves to do so. I suspect by now the last thing that RD.net would wish to do is risk generating more publicity.

EDIT:

Now that would be a spectacular PR fail wouldn't it.

Succinctly put ..

With very few exceptions, the quoted rules were not seen as too much of an issue. Of course, that was probably based in part on the implicit assumption that forum content - especially that related to serious matters - was in no danger of disappearing at short notice. If you posted something of worth, then it was going to remain accessible for the foreseeable future.

"Other posting areas" might be a reference to the "Front Page" articles that users can posts comments on. But this is actually part of RD.net proper, and thus under the ambit of the RDF already. I must admit that clause does seem a bit confusing, but since when were legal disclaimers meant to be clear and unambiguous?

[sepermeru]

The most important fact, which can be verified, is that the quotes Dawkins mentioned were never posted on his site.

An attack is when you order me to leave your house and I stay there and insult you. What he did was more like throwing people out of his house, secretly following them home, eavesdropping on their conversations and declaring that he's been attacked if they say something nasty about him. The story is being presented as "Dawkins announces changes, people insult him on his forum, he shuts it down", but that simply never happened, which is not a matter of opinion. Neither he nor Josh were ever insulted in that way on his own forum, not by the quotes he presented or any others. The timestamps on the other, non-Dawkins-website the quotes did come from also demonstrate that they were made after the purge, not before, so obviously they could not have been the cause for it.

I can't stress enough how important this factual, verifiable point is. Much of this is a matter of opinion, but a few minutes of research can clearly prove that Dawkins' only possible claim is that anyone saying anything bad about him anywhere on the internet is an unacceptable attack, even if he has to go out of his way to find the comments in order to feel attacked. The story "the forum was shut down because these awful comments were posted on it" is just factually incorrect.

[WhostolemyID]

I think that one major reason why intemperate language was used was as a result of the website being locked; not that this (alone) caused it, but it forced those people sounding off to do so "in the street, having been chucked out of their local", so to speak. PZ Myers' Blog was not, for many, home territory.

The rule that Forum Members should not verbally abuse one another seemed, in the main, to be obeyed on RD.net. Attack what they said or did; fine, but attack the person directly, and one of the moderators would rapidly step in, and suggest the language was toned down. They did so most effectively, in my opinion. So, had the forum stayed open, with Mods in place, I suspect that there would have been the beginnings of personal abuse thrown at the individual(s) concerned. BUT, if the moderating team were in place, I suspect (though obviously cannot prove) a few of the Mods would have stepped rapidly in along the lines of :

i). Please note that personal abuse against other Forum Members is not allowed (... all parties were Forum Members... ). STOP!
ii). Personal abuse is not helping our cause.
iii). Lets all work together to try and find the most satisfactory outcome....

It'd be likely that the first few who sounded off wouldn't have been totally nuclear, and it's equally likely that, by tempering the first few, others would vent their spleen in a less personal way. It wouldn't have just been the Mods; others would offer calm opinion, and if those most affected weren't going ballistic, others wouldn't have done so either. (I'm thinking of the Cali-type posters who have invested so much time... If some of the major contributors gave a verbal suggesting something would work out in the end, the remainder would have kept their powder dry, yet not fired off).

I suspect that somebody'd have pointed out that this fine website would welcome us (are we?? I am house-trained!), as would other sites. It wouldn't have taken long for much of what has been done to be done (a thread collecting the missing Diaspora, new website, download of the old website, a quiet migration, and a few mutterings.... Dawkins would have his exciting new site, the Forum Members would have moved on quietly ... )

However, by completely blocking any response - including reducing the personal messaging system (and even signatures) to chaos, the Admin prevented any outlet and simultaneously removed any control over people's emotions. Steam built up - with no release, and it was vented. Such things happen.

They happen differently on the internet than they do face-to-face. It's different on the telephone, and writing with pen and ink produced yet a another style of response - but no less pointed an insult. With pen and ink one sits and ponders... hones ones words... might even reach for a book of quotations (or there was a fine book by Matthew Parris of political insults...) Write a draft copy... Write it out.... It took time. On the phone, one may put ones hand over the mouthpiece and say what you really think of the Telesales person bothering you; you may make the "wanker" sign.

The internet, however, produces phrases such as Dawkins quoted and, whoever wrote some of them, some were beautifully crafted.

Had the forum remained open I suspect such an eloquent insult would never have appeared in the ether. Dawkins wouldn't have been outraged, and there wouldn't be the division there now is.

[Mazille]

I think that one major reason why intemperate language was used was as a result of the website being locked; not that this (alone) caused it, but it forced those people sounding off to do so "in the street, having been chucked out of their local", so to speak. PZ Myers' Blog was not, for many, home territory.

The rule that Forum Members should not verbally abuse one another seemed, in the main, to be obeyed on RD.net. Attack what they said or did; fine, but attack the person directly, and one of the moderators would rapidly step in, and suggest the language was toned down. They did so most effectively, in my opinion. So, had the forum stayed open, with Mods in place, I suspect that there would have been the beginnings of personal abuse thrown at the individual(s) concerned. BUT, if the moderating team were in place, I suspect (though obviously cannot prove) a few of the Mods would have stepped rapidly in along the lines of :

i). Please note that personal abuse against other Forum Members is not allowed (... all parties were Forum Members... ). STOP!
ii). Personal abuse is not helping our cause.
iii). Lets all work together to try and find the most satisfactory outcome....

It'd be likely that the first few who sounded off wouldn't have been totally nuclear, and it's equally likely that, by tempering the first few, others would vent their spleen in a less personal way. It wouldn't have just been the Mods; others would offer calm opinion, and if those most affected weren't going ballistic, others wouldn't have done so either. (I'm thinking of the Cali-type posters who have invested so much time... If some of the major contributors gave a verbal suggesting something would work out in the end, the remainder would have kept their powder dry, yet not fired off).

I suspect that somebody'd have pointed out that this fine website would welcome us (are we?? I am house-trained!), as would other sites. It wouldn't have taken long for much of what has been done to be done (a thread collecting the missing Diaspora, new website, download of the old website, a quiet migration, and a few mutterings.... Dawkins would have his exciting new site, the Forum Members would have moved on quietly ... )

However, by completely blocking any response - including reducing the personal messaging system (and even signatures) to chaos, the Admin prevented any outlet and simultaneously removed any control over people's emotions. Steam built up - with no release, and it was vented. Such things happen.

They happen differently on the internet than they do face-to-face. It's different on the telephone, and writing with pen and ink produced yet a another style of response - but no less pointed an insult. With pen and ink one sits and ponders... hones ones words... might even reach for a book of quotations (or there was a fine book by Matthew Parris of political insults...) Write a draft copy... Write it out.... It took time. On the phone, one may put ones hand over the mouthpiece and say what you really think of the Telesales person bothering you; you may make the "wanker" sign.

The internet, however, produces phrases such as Dawkins quoted and, whoever wrote some of them, some were beautifully crafted.

Had the forum remained open I suspect such an eloquent insult would never have appeared in the ether. Dawkins wouldn't have been outraged, and there wouldn't be the division there now is.

[sepermeru]

The argument that being insulted anywhere on the internet means you are justified in, for just one example, redirecting anyone's attempt to archive the site (after saying it was okay to do so) to joke video links is mystifying to me. People have been insulting Richard Dawkins on the internet for many years. Clearly he has no problem whatsoever with being insulted on the internet, so what's different about this? Well, this time it's coming from people who used to like him, that's the only difference. Which means his real complaint is that people who were his fans didn't stay his fans forever.

Does anyone really think that's a legitimate reason for him to simultaneously claim he supports Josh's actions, which include the ridiculous rickrolling, but also wants the archive available? Both those statements can't be true. If, as he claims, he supports everything Josh did, then he thinks telling people to go ahead and archive and then making it so they only get a joke video instead is perfectly reasonable behavior.

[Alan B]

RDF Term & Conditions (January 2010)
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... =8&t=64014

Under 'Responsibility': Each user is responsible for their own posts...

Under 'Monitoring & Disclosure': RDF reserves the right to delete any posts without obligation.

Under 'Proprietary Rights': ...we all need to protect the rights of those who post their creations with us.
By posting to RDF you are saying that you are the owner of the material...

Under 'Circumventing Denied Service': RDF retains the right to deny access to anyone for whatever reason.

Under 'Use of Materials': RDF will not give up their rights or anyone else's rights to material on RDF.
The posted materials on RDF are the property of RDF.

Under 'Materials Submitted': All materials that are posted on RDF and other public posting areas become RDF's property.
Posting material on RDF gives expressed waiver for any/all rights... to posted materials.
(My italics)
I find some of this draconian and contradictory. E.g. protecting rights of the poster...RDF will not give up anyone else's rights...the posted materials are RDF's property...poster's rights are waived when material is posted.

And what are 'other public posting areas'?

Actually, I find that amazing. It sorts of blurs the facts. It lets you think that you own stuff that you post, but if it then becomes RDF's property, in essence it means they own the copyright. Which also means they can delete it if they like. Which, and now I am speculating, they feel entirely within their rights to trash it if they so desire.

I sincerly hope that on http://www.rationalskepticism.org, the site attempting to replicate the RDF, this is not the case.

It also makes for an interesting thought. If RDF owned the copyright, then re-building the content on another forum is, in fact, a breech of RDF's copyright. I wonder if they will sue.

Something tells me that in this case, they would think very, very, carefully before making any moves to do so. I suspect by now the last thing that RD.net would wish to do is risk generating more publicity.

EDIT:

Now that would be a spectacular PR fail wouldn't it.

Succinctly put ..

With very few exceptions, the quoted rules were not seen as too much of an issue. Of course, that was probably based in part on the implicit assumption that forum content - especially that related to serious matters - was in no danger of disappearing at short notice. If you posted something of worth, then it was going to remain accessible for the foreseeable future.

"Other posting areas" might be a reference to the "Front Page" articles that users can posts comments on. But this is actually part of RD.net proper, and thus under the ambit of the RDF already. I must admit that clause does seem a bit confusing, but since when were legal disclaimers meant to be clear and unambiguous?

I was going to reply to your post on another thread concerning your theory about premeditated dismantling of RDF and quoting this T&C extract. Note the date: January 2010. This morning I looked at the T&C and Hackenslash's name was appended next to the date and they were called 'Revised T&C'. Hack is now no longer there and it is not 'revised'. Is there a copy somewhere of the previous T&C?. Perhaps Hack can shed some light?
As it stands the Revised T&C gives carte blanch to do anything they like.

[klr]

...
I was going to reply to your post on another thread concerning your theory about premeditated dismantling of RDF and quoting this T&C extract. Note the date: January 2010. This morning I looked at the T&C and Hackenslash's name was appended next to the date and they were called 'Revised T&C'. Hack is now no longer there and it is not 'revised'. Is there a copy somewhere of the previous T&C?. Perhaps Hack can shed some light?
As it stands the Revised T&C gives carte blanch to do anything they like.

Blimey. Is this a reference to the RD.net T&C?

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?t=19909

[Conny]

The most important fact, which can be verified, is that the quotes Dawkins mentioned were never posted on his site.

An attack is when you order me to leave your house and I stay there and insult you. What he did was more like throwing people out of his house, secretly following them home, eavesdropping on their conversations and declaring that he's been attacked if they say something nasty about him. The story is being presented as "Dawkins announces changes, people insult him on his forum, he shuts it down", but that simply never happened, which is not a matter of opinion. Neither he nor Josh were ever insulted in that way on his own forum, not by the quotes he presented or any others. The timestamps on the other, non-Dawkins-website the quotes did come from also demonstrate that they were made after the purge, not before, so obviously they could not have been the cause for it.

I can't stress enough how important this factual, verifiable point is. Much of this is a matter of opinion, but a few minutes of research can clearly prove that Dawkins' only possible claim is that anyone saying anything bad about him anywhere on the internet is an unacceptable attack, even if he has to go out of his way to find the comments in order to feel attacked. The story "the forum was shut down because these awful comments were posted on it" is just factually incorrect.

very sharp observation!

[Chris Wilkins]

The argument that being insulted anywhere on the internet means you are justified in, for just one example, redirecting anyone's attempt to archive the site (after saying it was okay to do so) to joke video links is mystifying to me. People have been insulting Richard Dawkins on the internet for many years. Clearly he has no problem whatsoever with being insulted on the internet, so what's different about this? Well, this time it's coming from people who used to like him, that's the only difference. Which means his real complaint is that people who were his fans didn't stay his fans forever.

Does anyone really think that's a legitimate reason for him to simultaneously claim he supports Josh's actions, which include the ridiculous rickrolling, but also wants the archive available? Both those statements can't be true. If, as he claims, he supports everything Josh did, then he thinks telling people to go ahead and archive and then making it so they only get a joke video instead is perfectly reasonable behavior.

I have heard about this "archiving link to joke video" thing. Can you please explain this in detail?

I assume this means when you hit an archive link you would go to a video on youtube, yes? If so, that is just plain mean and spiteful.

[95Theses]

The argument that being insulted anywhere on the internet means you are justified in, for just one example, redirecting anyone's attempt to archive the site (after saying it was okay to do so) to joke video links is mystifying to me. People have been insulting Richard Dawkins on the internet for many years. Clearly he has no problem whatsoever with being insulted on the internet, so what's different about this? Well, this time it's coming from people who used to like him, that's the only difference. Which means his real complaint is that people who were his fans didn't stay his fans forever.

Does anyone really think that's a legitimate reason for him to simultaneously claim he supports Josh's actions, which include the ridiculous rickrolling, but also wants the archive available? Both those statements can't be true. If, as he claims, he supports everything Josh did, then he thinks telling people to go ahead and archive and then making it so they only get a joke video instead is perfectly reasonable behavior.

I have heard about this "archiving link to joke video" thing. Can you please explain this in detail?

I assume this means when you hit an archive link you would go to a video on youtube, yes? If so, that is just plain mean and spiteful.

What it means is that some members were trying to use a program to back up all the posts from the forum for further reference, but in their infinite hilarity, the Admins in fact re-directed them to a Rick-roll.

Then they got upset because people called them nasty names on another forum. Boo fucking Hoo.

Screen shots exist if you ask around.

[Chris Wilkins]

Just one to say one too. In my earlier posts I was questioning about people being abusive, saying this was not a cool thing to do.

I totally understand the rants and swearing here after the shut down of the site (although some of them might have been a bit on the unhinged side ).

What I was referring to was, before the incident, abuse towards people that didn't agree with your point of view. For example, Ken Ham. However, it has been made thoroughly clear to me that this did not happen on RDF, but rather on other sites, such as Phryngula (you have to think about how to spell that). Which does change the meaning somewhat.