News coverage

[klr]

Excellent Chris.

[fredbear]

this is very much appreciated. maybe they'll listen to one of their own. i said maybe!

[lordpasternack]

Fair enough - aside from recovering that thread, I've not really been paying attention to the details!

Well, I can't find a specific mod post there, even though I thought I saw one - but Topsy definitely did say words to that effect elsewhere in the forum.

[Chris Wilkins]

There is of course another possibility. The forum was created as a research tool and has now gone beyond its usefulness, Dawkins is now through the research phase and moving on to the exploitation phase and he wants to get the data out of the public eye. We may all have been taken for mugs in the most unethical way possible. The proof of this conjecture will be the publishing of a book by Dawkins at some point based, at least in part on posting in the forum.

Now that is an truly AMAZING possibility. If he was to use the info in one of his books in the future, and it could be proven it came from somewhere else, he would open up himself up to a claim of plagarism, for sure, no matter what the terms of the forum are.

That would certainly be a great follow up story.

However it would be entirely speculation, verging on conspiracy theory. I think most people affected would just like to have the facts laid out - the reasons behind the decision to modify the forum are ultimately irrelevant to the grievances of ex-members, and none of our business.

Such a scenario would have to be proven. And you could only do that by going through any future book of Dawkins and seeing if there is blatant use of material from the forum. Without such proof, yes, it would be pure speculation.

[Calilasseia]

I agree that the lock down was an inevitable result of the the combination of the poor announcement and the Mods effectively downing tools. It was an effect not a cause as such a logic reaction at that moment. What happened before caused the lock-down.

Actually, CJ, the mods did not "down tools", they simply said that they would restrict moderation to whatever was essential to maintain some decorum in the last days, and would no longer attend to tasks outside that remit. The staff (during my enforced absence) said that they would attend to the business of removing juvenile postings of obscene material, and other similar tasks, but that they would not engage in any business that required them to step outside this basic remit, since it was manifestly clear that their services were being dispensed with anyway. I think it's a bit rich to expect people who know they're getting the order of the boot to continue as if nothing had happened, don't you?

There is of course another possibility. The forum was created as a research tool and has now gone beyond its usefulness, Dawkins is now through the research phase and moving on to the exploitation phase and he wants to get the data out of the public eye. We may all have been taken for mugs in the most unethical way possible. The proof of this conjecture will be the publishing of a book by Dawkins at some point based, at least in part on posting in the forum.

If this hypothesis happens to be true, then Dawkins is engaging in fraud plain and simple. Because if there is one point that is always made forcefully during discussions on experimental methodology, it is this: whenever you bring human beings into an experimental setup as part of the experiment, there are strict ethical guidelines in place with respect to doing so. Indeed, we on the moderation team were called upon to ban someone who misused the forum for this very purpose, when the individual in question revealed that she had manufactured several characters, based upon real life histories of actual human beings, and manipulated a thread on abortion by using these sock puppets to drive debate in order to further her "research". I posted an explicit comment in that thread to the effect that the individual in question came perilously close to involving the forum in criminal prosecution, because UK law has strict provisions with respect to the preservation of anonymity of rape victims, and this individual's actions opened up the possibility that violation of those provisions could have taken place. If Dawkins is engaging in the same activity with the forum community that we were called upon to act decisively to stop, then he's entering a legal minefield I would not wish to tread in.

Such a scenario would have to be proven. And you could only do that by going through any future book of Dawkins and seeing if there is blatant use of material from the forum. Without such proof, yes, it would be pure speculation.

Well if any of my material is abused in this way, I have much of it backed up offline, complete with relevant time and date stamps. Plus, my writing style is very distinctive, as some here have already commented upon.

[Thinking Aloud]

I agree that the lock down was an inevitable result of the the combination of the poor announcement and the Mods effectively downing tools. It was an effect not a cause as such a logic reaction at that moment. What happened before caused the lock-down.

Actually, CJ, the mods did not "down tools", they simply said that they would restrict moderation to whatever was essential to maintain some decorum in the last days, and would no longer attend to tasks outside that remit. The staff (during my enforced absence) said that they would attend to the business of removing juvenile postings of obscene material, and other similar tasks, but that they would not engage in any business that required them to step outside this basic remit, since it was manifestly clear that their services were being dispensed with anyway. I think it's a bit rich to expect people who know they're getting the order of the boot to continue as if nothing had happened, don't you?

I stand corrected on my earlier post too - however I can imagine that, since I "misheard" the intention for all mods to step down there and then (as opposed to minimum maintenance), then so did JT or AC, who might be even less interested in the details of a particular post, thus assumed anarchy was about to reign... Anyway, I was just speculating.

[CJ]

I agree that the lock down was an inevitable result of the the combination of the poor announcement and the Mods effectively downing tools. It was an effect not a cause as such a logic reaction at that moment. What happened before caused the lock-down.

Actually, CJ, the mods did not "down tools", they simply said that they would restrict moderation to whatever was essential to maintain some decorum in the last days, and would no longer attend to tasks outside that remit. The staff (during my enforced absence) said that they would attend to the business of removing juvenile postings of obscene material, and other similar tasks, but that they would not engage in any business that required them to step outside this basic remit, since it was manifestly clear that their services were being dispensed with anyway. I think it's a bit rich to expect people who know they're getting the order of the boot to continue as if nothing had happened, don't you?

I most definitely do agree that the Mods would have been in an awful situation and I think their actions were justified. However once some members started posting posts outside the rules Josh had no choice to lock the forum, although he was 100% responsible for starting the chain of events that led to the forum being locked

[95Theses]

I agree that the lock down was an inevitable result of the the combination of the poor announcement and the Mods effectively downing tools. It was an effect not a cause as such a logic reaction at that moment. What happened before caused the lock-down.

Actually, CJ, the mods did not "down tools", they simply said that they would restrict moderation to whatever was essential to maintain some decorum in the last days, and would no longer attend to tasks outside that remit. The staff (during my enforced absence) said that they would attend to the business of removing juvenile postings of obscene material, and other similar tasks, but that they would not engage in any business that required them to step outside this basic remit, since it was manifestly clear that their services were being dispensed with anyway. I think it's a bit rich to expect people who know they're getting the order of the boot to continue as if nothing had happened, don't you?

I most definitely do agree that the Mods would have been in an awful situation and I think their actions were justified. However once some members started posting posts outside the rules Josh had no choice to lock the forum, although he was 100% responsible for starting the chain of events that led to the forum being locked

I didn't see any posts outside the actual rules, as opposed to the brand new one of not disclosing the truth of what was said to the staff by the Admins.

And the staff said they would not permit anything to be posted that could be of harm to either RD or the RDF, spam porn etc.

[hackenslash]

There weren't any posts outside the rules. Some people posted some things that were near the knuckle, but nothing actually in breach of the FUA.

Edit: With the exception of one thread in the tech forum that was directed at Josh. None of this was included in the discussion about the announcement, and itwas deleted soon after.

[epepke]

I can say that the "other side's" perspective, whether you disagree with it or not, is that they had to do this for technical reasons and then you all behaved badly, especially due to the language used. They also are of the opinion (now don't get mad at me. I am only the messenger) that this is a small matter which will blow over, that you have overstated your importance to RDF, and that basically if you all leave RDF will not suffer one jot as in time others will replace you. Again, please don't get mad at me.

Hey, Chris. There would be no justification for getting mad at you for trying to clarify the situation, and doing something valuable to get this out to the press besides. Clarifying the situation and figuring out what the "sides" are about is extremely important. I think it's more important than arguments on either side, the Richard Dawkins Forum, and Dawkins and all his books combined. I don't think this is fully appreciated, so I'm going to take this opportunity to say what I think about it.

So to get some concrete facts about this is from all of you; how many of there are you that feel this strongly about what has happened? Does anyone have any numbers? And, this is a difficult one to measure, how will the RDF be affected by your departure? Will it continue on its merry way without you, or will it indeed be greatly diminshed?

These are difficult questions to answer, but my perception is that the questions are too small, and the answers are, largely, unimportant. What is important is to understand the two "sides." Of course, there may be more than two, but from my perspective, two are enough.

I am on what I'll call Side A. This is the side of the plurality reaction amongst the moderators. The other side I'll call Side B. That side you have well described in your brief paragraph that you asked people not to get mad about, and I'm not mad. It's a good paragraph. To me, there is something much greater than the actual arguments, and that is the basic perception of the people involved. That, to me, is the important distinction between the sides. (Of course, that perception of mine is also a Side A and not a Side B perception, which also must be taken into account.)

To Side A, there is the perception that missives and actions by Josh Timonen grossly insulted and abused unpaid, volunteer moderators for no apparent compelling reason. Side A considers this perception important, perhaps the most or only important perception, but in any event one of high significance. To a member of Side A, this perception is primarily what any discussion or argument must be about.

To Side B, this perception of Side A is unimportant, trivial, or overshadowed by other factors, technical or not.

Side B will therefore muster arguments such as that the change was technically necessary, or that Dawkins has the right to do what he pleases with his site, or that the "new format" (which doesn't actually exist) might be better, etc. and so forth and so on. Winning arguments about these assertions is not the root of the conflict between the sides. The root of the conflict is that Side B does not acknowledge the concerns and perceptions of Side A and apparently cannot be made to do so, whilst Side A considers the arguments of Side B to be relatively trivial nitpicking. So there is a basic, mutual denigration of the very issues the other side considers important.

I am unabashedly on Side A, so everything I say should be interpreted as going through that filter. It would be easy enough to construct a hypothetical view from Side B, or someone on Side B could construct it.

Here is something that I am writing in another summary. It's only draft quality, but it is reasonably expressive:

Of all the responses to this fiasco, it is the Dawkins response is the most absurd and arrogant. It is to their credit that most defenders have not bought the Dawkins response, choosing others that may at least plausibly be claimed due to ignorance. It is one thing to bemoan the loss of civility ostensibly due to Internet anonymity. From the mouth of Dawkins, a man who hired someone to insult and abuse dozens, if not thousands, of volunteers who gave their all to support Dawkins' stated objectives, including maintaining civility on RD.net, such admonitions are unspeakably, grotesquely obscene. They resemble nothing more than the behavior of an abusive husband who, whist delivering blows to his wife, hurts his hand and expects sympathy from the wife he has been beating. Then, when the wife uses sharp words back, he claims that her uppityness justified the beating in the first place.

Dawkins should be deeply ashamed for even attempting to pull this off, doubly so for using his employee as a proxy. Assuming that the number of atheist sociopaths is small, then his only chance at recapturing a shred of his reputation, or even a sense that he is a functioning human being, would be to take charge of and responsibility for the entire situation, issue a public apology with no weasel words, and, if not fire Josh Timonen, at least defang him. I have seen claims that this all came about because atheists are only human and make mistakes. A mistake can only be rectified by admitting it.

There is, however, another possibility. This is that my assumption is incorrect, and the fact is that the number of atheist sociopaths is quite large. It is at least large enough, with the assistance and half-disguised complicity of well-meaning but ultimately gullible atheists, that every attempt at a large movement or support group by atheists will eventually come to be dominated by sociopathic values. There is ample evidence for this. The previous self-destruction of the Internet Infidels Discussion Board has many parallels. Just substitute The Other Michael for Josh Timonnen and make various other substitutions, and you have the RDF fiasco in a nutshell. American Atheists was once dominated by Madalyn Murray O'Hair and after her murder Ellen Johnson, both of whom had clear sociopathic tendencies. I have great hopes for Ed Buckner, as he is a personal friend of mine, and I think he's a great guy. Still, it seems that any non-sociopathic atheist leader faces an uphill battle against the forces of atheist sociopathy.

So perhaps this will all blow over and business will continue as usual. I do not find this heartening, because it will mean that what theist critics say about us is right. We are immoral sociopaths, the scum of the earth. This troubles me, as I do not want to perceive myself as a sociopath. I ask my friends, those who unlike me are not strident, vocal atheists, two questions: 1) whether atheists are sociopaths, and 2) whether I am a sociopath. The answers I get are "yes" and "no," respectively.

I reject, or at least I want to reject, the notion that there is something about not believing in a personal deity that makes one a sociopath. As someone with scientific training, though, I have to go with the evidence. It is that, for whatever reason, atheist organizations become dominated by sociopathic tendencies to an extent greater than amongst others in the enlightened Western world. My current working hypothesis is that, while only a small percentage of atheists are sociopaths, something about other atheists and their behavior seamlessly and quickly allows the sociopaths to get into positions of power, which they wield without much opposition until things come to a head. Perhaps this is gullibility and a willingness to trust. Perhaps atheism does hold an attraction for sociopaths simply to reject social values. Perhaps rationalization, which can appear similar to reason, covers and provides alibis for an essential inhumanity, and a robotic personality can gain status by appearing reasonable. I do not as yet understand all the factors, but I see that there is something deeply wrong, a wrongness that goes far beyond any website or personality and undercuts any rational or seemingly argument.

I have known many atheists who scoff at the idea of atheist community. All of the people I have known who were averse to touching another human were atheists. I remember Spock clutching Kirk's hand and saying something like, "This, basic human contact, is what Veeger cannot understand." Spock was a transcendent character and no mere robot; in him was played the conflict between the rational and emotional, a journey from separation to a balanced integration. I see atheist leaders speak highly of compassion; I see far fewer exhibit it. This troubles me, and I see nothing in the recent RD.net fiasco that makes me less troubled.

I am better at reason and logic than almost everyone. I find them useful tools, in their place. Yet without love, without empathy, without even a basic understanding that people are people and need to be treated well, all the logic on the planet is sterile. Reason and clear-thinking are not enough. Even a person who could apprehend human emotion on a rational level could not have fucked up to the extent that Josh Timonen did, for no apparent strategic or tactical reason. The fact that sociopathy is apparently so valuable to the New Atheists, as evinced by the fact that Timonen achieved his position in the first place, gives me pause. Perhaps theists are right. They do not offer an accurate view of reality, but they offer a moral framework. I do not think that there is anything inherent in atheism that contradicts this, but practically, it seems anathema. This troubles me. I do not want to believe it, but perhaps I must.

I don't think that any of this is even comprehensible to someone on Side B. I don't think it matters. But as Martin Luther is supposed to have said, "Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht Anders."

[Chris Wilkins]

Bugger me, but here is Richard (sort of) responding.

I haven't read it all just yet because I thought I would throw the link here asap. As soon as I hit the submit button I am going back to read the whole thingy.

AN APOLOGY BY RICHARD DAWKINS - http://www.casualravings.com/?p=116

EDIT: Well, okay, here he says he is dreadfully sorry and he should have thought about it more. And please will you all come back.

I, being a cynical journalist, have already formed an opinion. But; what do you, the forum members, feel about this? Is it genuine? Do you know feel you have been heard and all your concerns and questions have been heard?

Or do you feel it's too little,too late? And that the only thing RD is sorry for is that he got caught out?

And which of you will go back, and which of you will not?

This is, of course, a very new development in this story.

[epepke]

Bugger me, but here is Richard (sort of) responding.

I haven't read it all just yet because I thought I would throw the link here asap. As soon as I hit the submit button I am going back to read the whole thingy.

AN APOLOGY BY RICHARD DAWKINS - http://www.casualravings.com/?p=116

EDIT: Well, okay, here he says he is dreadfully sorry and he should have thought about it more. And please will you all come back.

I, being a cynical journalist, have already formed an opinion. But; what do you, the forum members, feel about this? Is it genuine? Do you know feel you have been heard and all your concerns and questions have been heard?

Or do you feel it's too little,too late? And that the only thing RD is sorry for is that he got caught out?

And which of you will go back, and which of you will not?

This is, of course, a very new development in this story.

Yes, it's new.

I think it's a great first effort. I don't think it will fix anything, in and of itself. It's more than I expected, and in some ways, less.

I think that the support for Timonen is misplaced, but I see some value politically in saying so. He can continue to support him so long as he makes his own clear statements.

Coming back; I don't think that it maters much. If it works, I'll come back. If not, I won't.

I am more interested in the damage done to atheism in general, and New Atheism in particular. Needless, senseless damage.

[klr]

Bugger me, but here is Richard (sort of) responding.

I haven't read it all just yet because I thought I would throw the link here asap. As soon as I hit the submit button I am going back to read the whole thingy.

AN APOLOGY BY RICHARD DAWKINS - http://www.casualravings.com/?p=116

EDIT: Well, okay, here he says he is dreadfully sorry and he should have thought about it more. And please will you all come back.

I, being a cynical journalist, have already formed an opinion. But; what do you, the forum members, feel about this? Is it genuine? Do you know feel you have been heard and all your concerns and questions have been heard?

Or do you feel it's too little,too late? And that the only thing RD is sorry for is that he got caught out?

And which of you will go back, and which of you will not?

This is, of course, a very new development in this story.

There is a dedicated thread here:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=9555

It would have to be a Sunday night, which is not the busiest time for the forum.

[CJ]

Bugger me, but here is Richard (sort of) responding.

I haven't read it all just yet because I thought I would throw the link here asap. As soon as I hit the submit button I am going back to read the whole thingy.

AN APOLOGY BY RICHARD DAWKINS - http://www.casualravings.com/?p=116

EDIT: Well, okay, here he says he is dreadfully sorry and he should have thought about it more. And please will you all come back.

I, being a cynical journalist, have already formed an opinion. But; what do you, the forum members, feel about this? Is it genuine? Do you know feel you have been heard and all your concerns and questions have been heard?

Or do you feel it's too little,too late? And that the only thing RD is sorry for is that he got caught out?

And which of you will go back, and which of you will not?

This is, of course, a very new development in this story.

It's adequate, what I want to see if the forum repaired with the reinstatement from the last backup of the deleted posts.

[Chris Wilkins]

It's adequate, what I want to see if the forum repaired with the reinstatement from the last backup of the deleted posts.

And that for me is where the "rubber hits the road". I shall be most interested to see that too. If this is purely some window dressing in the hope it can calm everyone, but nothing significant will change, then I shall wait to see if the negative feelings continue.

Do I think he will genuinely sort this out properly? I am skeptical