News coverage

[klr]

Ah! One is a re-direct to the other I think. Originally there were two separate documents - "Forum Rules" and "Forum Users' Agreement". It was long felt that the two document should be merged into one, and once this was done, the links to the one that were deleted were updated to redirect. Something like that anyway.

That makes sense. But it would still be nice to see the 'old' T&C before it was revised in Jan. 2010. It might be shown that there is a marked difference that could give credence to your theory.

No, I don't think so. The point about insulting anyone off-forum is that it just wasn't mentioned in the rules at all. It was implicitly allowed. That's always been the case I think.

[Alan B]

Ah! One is a re-direct to the other I think. Originally there were two separate documents - "Forum Rules" and "Forum Users' Agreement". It was long felt that the two document should be merged into one, and once this was done, the links to the one that were deleted were updated to redirect. Something like that anyway.

That makes sense. But it would still be nice to see the 'old' T&C before it was revised in Jan. 2010. It might be shown that there is a marked difference that could give credence to your theory.

No, I don't think so. The point about insulting anyone off-forum is that it just wasn't mentioned in the rules at all. It was implicitly allowed. That's always been the case I think.

Pardon? I was talking about the RDF T&C and your explanation of the two URLs.

[Chris Wilkins]

The rules at rationalskepticism are an exact replication of the rules at RDF, except that the copyright and material rights rules have been removed.

Incidentally, we're not looking to replicate RDF, we're looking to make it something that RDF is not, namely the free exchange of ideas and, most importantly, open!

Yeh. I get that.

May I suggest you state in your T&Cs that the copyright stays with the author / poster of said articles?

As a writer myself there is no way I would just hand over my copyright to someone without some sort of recompense (then again, I guess that's what I did with this story when I gave it to the Times, who gave it to Guardian, who gave it to the Telegraph, who gave it to ..... )

[klr]

Ah! One is a re-direct to the other I think. Originally there were two separate documents - "Forum Rules" and "Forum Users' Agreement". It was long felt that the two document should be merged into one, and once this was done, the links to the one that were deleted were updated to redirect. Something like that anyway.

That makes sense. But it would still be nice to see the 'old' T&C before it was revised in Jan. 2010. It might be shown that there is a marked difference that could give credence to your theory.

No, I don't think so. The point about insulting anyone off-forum is that it just wasn't mentioned in the rules at all. It was implicitly allowed. That's always been the case I think.

Pardon? I was talking about the RDF T&C and your explanation of the two URLs.

Sorry, crossed lines. It's Friday evening and we've all had a tough week. My mind is getting frazzled.

[Chris Wilkins]

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.

Umm, I would say it happened all the time at RDF towards people like Ham and Ray Comfort. Just not perhaps to the true unhinged degree you might find at other places.

Just trying to keep it all truthful here .

Aha. Very honest of you.

[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.

I think I might need to clarify this: Where a creationist or other public figure who drew peoples' ire was not a member of the forum, they were "fair game". But anyone who was a member of the forum was entitled to the same protection as anyone under the rules, and the staff (both during and after my time) were always been quite strong on this, even though at times it made us unpopular with some of the more vocal atheists/rationalists. There was a poster called afdave (real name: Dave Hawkins) who had something of a reputation for bogging down various on-line fora with convoluted creationist arguments, which he would spin out over extended discussions. And so it was at RD.net. One discussion about "flood geology" - using geology to prove that biblical flood actually took place - ran to over 8,000 posts. Yet as long as afdave didn't insult anyone, he was largely free to do what he wished. In fact, a number of opposing posters were sanctioned for attacking him.

Okay. That's cool. Obviously at phryngula posters are not sanctioned. The post there where they come up with hundreds of insults about Ken Ham is frankly childish and silly. Don't they have better things to do?

[Alan B]

Sorry, crossed lines. It's Friday evening and we've all had a tough week. My mind is getting frazzled.

Oke-doke. Have a good weekend.

[tytalus]

On the subject of attacking non-forum members, not long before the demise of the forum I participated in a discussion on Darwin as a racist, which as it happens was also permitted (just like bashing Ken Ham).

As for having something better to do, sheesh. Of course it's childish and silly. I doubt anyone would claim anything more of it. Like posting pictures and videos of squid in incriminating situations, or ladies with, um, dynamic bosoms.

[Chris Wilkins]

On the subject of attacking non-forum members, not long before the demise of the forum I participated in a discussion on Darwin as a racist, which as it happens was also permitted (just like bashing Ken Ham).

As for having something better to do, sheesh. Of course it's childish and silly. I doubt anyone would claim anything more of it. Like posting pictures and videos of squid in incriminating situations, or ladies with, um, dynamic bosoms.

Well, I have to admit, the picture of the girlie with dynamic bosoms was pretty good. So maybe I am guilty too. It's just yelling abuse at someone is not very civil or nice.

Whereas looking at the girlie with the dynamic bosoms is not hurting anyone, in fact quite the opposite, abusing someone does have negative affects.

As I said before, this sort of thing is bad in the eye of public opinion. And there are a lot of comments in the newspaper blogs along the lines that they did not like the RD Forum precisely because of this.

Tis up to people to decide, of course. But then you can't complain when people say something like; "Good on Richard. He is doing the right thing shutting his forum down and getting rid of all those foul mouths."

Tis the nature of the beast.

[xrayzed]

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.

"Mean and spiteful" sums the admins apparent attitude towards the mods and users.

Here's my take on the situation. I apologise for it being a bit rambling. I'm still trying to find a simple, coherent way to sum up a complicated situation.

I fully accept the Prof Dawkins has every right to structure the site however he wishes. It appears he wants it to be more serious, science-ordered, and mainstream in tone. Good luck to him.

I don't think the changes are going to work as well as he expects they will.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that he has elements on his site that are already like this, notably the front pages. Apparently they only attract about 1/10th as much traffic as the forum does - or did.

Somewhat naively they seem to think if they shut the forum down most of us will meekly migrate to the front pages. This won't happen for at least two reasons:

1) In my opinion the RDF front pages aren't particularly good. I rarely go there because there are other science sites that to a much better job for me, such as scienceblogs.com and newscientist.com. Given the relative weakness compared to the forums traffic-wise it seems I'm not alone.

Maybe it will get better. In any case the main problem with the expected migration is this one:

2) It completely fails to understand why we were there.

It's not because we go wherever Dawkins leads. I admire his science writing and activism for rational thinking, but I'm not a follower of his, and would be surprised to find anybody who was. We were there because the forum met a need for a large number of people, particularly non-believers.

Unlike the religious we don't have churches or temples we can go to to share stories about escaping religion, learn about science, discuss the absurdities of superstitious beliefs, or sometimes just chat with like-minded people who share many values and a world view build on rationality and evidence-based thinking. The forum offered a community.

An "online community" is not merely a metaphor for "people who visit a web site", anymore than a community in the physical world, say people jammed into a crowded train, form a community.

The advantage of RDF was that, due to the profile of Prof Dawkins, the forum attracted a larger and more diverse membership than any other similar site.

But it seems neither Josh Timonsen nor Prof Dawkins understand this. They have been dismissive of the forum and show no regard for what it has provided. They are fully entitled to do so.

But if they remove the reason I am there, why would they expect me to stay?

And yet, oddly, they seem to think they have some rights over my membership, as evidenced by Josh and Andrew's email sent to the mods when announcing the closure:

Please do not attempt to inflame the users, start any petitions, or “relocate” groups of users to a separate forum.

So one the one hand they shut down the part of the site that is of interest to me and many others, and then attempt to place barriers in the way of anyone who might try to help us find an alternative that would meet the same needs. Thanks for thinking of me.

To cap it off, they do it by deleting accounts and rickrolling. I can't think of a better way to describe this than "mean and spiteful".

So they blow us off, try to punish anyone who helping members find a new community, try to censor the entire affair (on the Internet? and these guys consider themselves experts?) , attack anybody who disagrees with their handling of the situation - and then think we'll stick around?

There's a smiley at rationalia.com that sums up my response to this:

I doubt I will ever return. I'm not bitter, merely disappointed and a bit saddened at losing touch with the many thoughtful - and occasionally maddening - posters at the RDF forums.

[Paul Almond]

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.

Chris, I suggest you have a look here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... &start=120.

[hackenslash]

Two things:

The first is that an explanation of Rule # 3 is required here, because many of the comments concerning the tone of the forum were in precisely that vein, and there's a good reason for wanting to see this kind of thinking eradicated:

Goldenmane’s Third Rule of Public Discourse

One of the views shared by many who have posted on the RD.net forums over the years was formulated by the user Calilasseia thusly: ‘Bad ideas exist to be destroyed.’ Indeed, this is the central thread that links this collection of writings, disparate as they may otherwise be.

Many of the essays included in this collection also share another similarity: the use of what may be considered, by some, profanity. Also know as swearing, cursing, and foul or bad language.

The often liberal use of expletives in some of these tracts may appear gratuitous and immature, even offensive. The reader is advised to bear in mind the aforementioned notion: bad ideas exist to be destroyed, in this case formulated as what has become known as Goldenmane’s Third Rule of Public Discourse, commonly referred to as Rule #3: swear a lot.

Rule #3 was formulated initially as a joke, the point being that it serves as a way of distinguishing between those conversational opponents who were capable of addressing an argument intellectually, rationally, and logically, and those who were governed entirely by emotion. The key here is to realise that those governed by emotion would be those who would be offended (and loudly) by the use of words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, arsehole, and sundry others. Such people would tend to leave a debate or conversation in high dudgeon, complaining loudly about the language their interlocutors were using. So much the better. There is little worth in continuing a discussion with someone who bases their entire position on emotion, and it’s all to the good if they can be induced to chuck the shits and storm out, since it starkly highlights the intellectual vacuity of their entire approach.

What started as a jest (as all good jests do) rapidly developed more profound ramifications. For example: the words used to refer to swearing (including, tellingly, “swearing”) reveal an unholy (or perhaps overly holy) reliance upon certain magical notions. ‘Cursing’, ‘swearing’, ‘using God’s name in vain’ and the like all rest upon the rather quaint and somewhat silly notion that words have magical power. Whilst words do have power (the power to communicate ideas being primary), there’s no evidence whatsofuckingever to suggest that incantations can make shit magically happen.

The idea that certain combinations of sounds (always culturally determined) can have inherent magically ‘bad’ properties is, to be blunt, bullshit. Most such words from around the world’s different cultures are related to one of two things: fucking and shitting. Why these two essential processes for a complex sexually-reliant species that needs to eat should become the ‘bad’ words I’m not going to debate here. Suffice it to say that from a rational modern perspective, it’s a little bizarre. But I’ll work with it. It’s my fucking medium, after all.

Bad ideas exist to be destroyed. The notion that words can inherently be bad is a bad idea. It springs from primitive beliefs about words being magical. Similarly, the intellectual coward’s retreat from debate under the banner of ‘my opponent swears’ is rooted in the same notion. It also provides them with an easy escape route, and in this sense it is offered up as a service: allowing them to exit with the personal sense that they have retained the moral high ground, even if they have been unable to support their own arguments.

What renders the whole notion of ‘bad language’ truly ludicrous is that words are just effectively arbitrary collections of sounds (or letters, if written down). Start with ‘c’. Add a ‘t’: ‘ct’. Add a ‘u’: ‘cut’ Wow, we now have a word that we recognise. There’s nothing bad about the word, just as there’s nothing bad about the letters it is made from. Now add an ‘n’: cnut.

That should, properly, be rendered Cnut, it being a proper noun. Chap is famous for arguing with the sea, or something. The sea, of course, ignored him, because words aren’t actually magical. Changing Cnut around a little makes him a cunt. Where’s the fucking magic?

In writing this, I have been reminded to add a little explanation of Rules 1 and 2. An explanation was requested and posted some time ago. Here it is, and I hope the reader gains some understanding:

Sweet juicy Mohammed on Satan's glistening prong, you want comedy and explanations on demand?

I can give you the explanation, but I can't guarantee the comedy. I've got stage fright, and as everyone knows stage fright causes the balls to shrink and try to hide in the body, and as everyone also knows the balls are where the comedy glands reside, which is why (as Hitchens so rightly pointed out) women aren't funny. Unless they have balls. Evidence of this, in case anyone was wondering, is there to be seen. Just look at the scrotum. Take a long, hard (or flaccid, depending on your proclivities) look, and tell me that the scrotum isn't fucking funny. You'll be lying if you say it isn't. The scrotum is like the world's most honest packaging. It says, "Here be comedy. There is literally and categorically nothing as funny as this.

It's an evolutionary thing. Dick Dawkins even touched on it (well, there's really no other way to put it, is there? No quote mines, please, I won't have it said that Dick touches his, or any other, scrotum any more than strictly necessary) in The Greatest Show on Earth, where he points to the completely ridiculous path the vas deferens takes. It's fucking bizarre and surreal. Any designer who came up with that and was still responsible for the entirety of everything is a joker on a colossal scale. It's the only possible answer that isn't pants-shittingly terrifying. And as it is, it's minor-incident-of-bowel-incontinence scary. You wonder why God is referred to as He? It can only be because the fucker's a sadistic practical joker, with testicles the size of... well, how do you measure such balls?

The other option is that He doesn't exist, of course, but some well-known people have, historically, bet against that.

Anyway, enough (as the sage said) of that guff: Rule #3. The strict name of said rule is Goldenmane's 3rd Rule of Public Discourse, and stackhishash has quoted the short form verbatim: Swear a lot. The reasons are, I hope, obvious, and need no further explanation. Rules #1 and #2 are both the same as, and yet separate from, Rule #3. Simply put, Rule #1 dictates the rules (whilst being identical to Rule #3) and Rule #2 fucks about in the background somehow making globules of retarded effluent seem to mean something that gives Rule #3 its efficacy.

To put it another way, Rules 1,2 and 3 are the same goddamn rule, but invoking Rule #3 is all that is needed to have a cock-suckingly good life, and if you fucking well understand Rule #3, you'll stop asking for explanations. Fuck.

In short, fuck.

Secondly, and you're not going to like this, Chris, but the spidey-sense is tingling here, for various reasons that I will not disclose at this time. I am skeptical of your stated motives for being here. Forgive me, but that's how skepticism works. If you are who you say you are, I apologise. Do you have any links to articles you've published before? Any bylines?

[virphen]

Secondly, and you're not going to like this, Chris, but the spidey-sense is tingling here, for various reasons that I will not disclose at this time. I am skeptical of your stated motives for being here. Forgive me, but that's how skepticism works. If you are who you say you are, I apologise. Do you have any links to articles you've published before? Any bylines?

DanDare mentioned Chris before (although not by name) as Chris did say in his OP. Dan's a good guy.

I think your spider sense has come up with a non-arachnid this time slack.

[hackenslash]

No worries. There were a few triggers, is all. I'm happy to take Dan's word for it.

[CJ]

On the subject of attacking non-forum members, not long before the demise of the forum I participated in a discussion on Darwin as a racist, which as it happens was also permitted (just like bashing Ken Ham).

As for having something better to do, sheesh. Of course it's childish and silly. I doubt anyone would claim anything more of it. Like posting pictures and videos of squid in incriminating situations, or ladies with, um, dynamic bosoms.

Well, I have to admit, the picture of the girlie with dynamic bosoms was pretty good. So maybe I am guilty too. It's just yelling abuse at someone is not very civil or nice.

Whereas looking at the girlie with the dynamic bosoms is not hurting anyone, in fact quite the opposite, abusing someone does have negative affects.

As I said before, this sort of thing is bad in the eye of public opinion. And there are a lot of comments in the newspaper blogs along the lines that they did not like the RD Forum precisely because of this.

Tis up to people to decide, of course. But then you can't complain when people say something like; "Good on Richard. He is doing the right thing shutting his forum down and getting rid of all those foul mouths."

Tis the nature of the beast.

Except of course Richard didn't have to shut the forum down to get rid of any foul language or ad hom attacks on non-members. All he had to do was change the rules.

Use of abusive Language added Feb 2010

Please note that the tone of discussions and respect for fellow members are damaged by what is termed foul language. Such language is no longer permitted on the forum. The moderation team can provide a list of currently prohibited language if required, however as a guideline consider polite pre-watershed TV language as the norm. Please note this rule has not been in place since the inception of the forum so posts prior to Feb 2010 may contain foul language.

Use of the forum to personally attack or abuse non-members. added Feb 2010

The foundation will not support personal attacks and abuses of public figures or any non-member. One may criticise a persons ideas but not attack the person. One basic guideline would be "His ideas are idiotic!" would be acceptable while "He is an idiot!" would be unacceptable. Please note this rule has not been in place since the inception of the forum so posts prior to Feb 2010 may contain personal attacks on non-members.

If Richard wanted the forum to behave in a different way he should have made a better job of defining what he wanted in the first place. He does not have to destroy what is there to get what he wants either, he simply lacks the creativity of mind and understanding of basic business principles of change management. He desperately needs a Forum Manager to interpret his requirements into instructions for the IT function in a way that does not alienate the membership.

In addition if Richard wanted the forum to change the best possible way to get it to change would of been a post to the forum members themselves. He had access to thousands of intelligent free thinking dedicated individuals FOR FREE! The more I think about this the more it pisses me off to think of a resource like the forum being mishandled by a bunch of keen amateurs.