Apology from Richard Dawkins (Yes Really).

[klr]

Times Online covers the apology:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... truce.html

[HrothgirOD]

Times Online covers the apology:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... truce.html

Replete with the same factual errors as before.

[A Monkey Shaved]

Hopefully it is all water under the bridge and we can let bygones be bygones

[xrayzed]

1) I'm glad RD has apologised. This will remove much of the heat from the past week, and will avoid de-railing the Atheist Convention in Melbourne next week with an issue that is relatively peripheral.

2) Josh should apologise, but I don't expect that to happen, since he apparently is content to hide behind RD's apologies. I have my private views on Josh and his motivations, but they are purely speculative.

3) Apart from the way the change was announced and the subsequent mismanagement, the new site sounds dull. It may be great for RD and the foundation, and I wish them success. I will not be particpating because my reason for being there is gone.

[lordpasternack]

I personally call bollocks, one way or another, on Richard's statement about there having been content on the forum that was "potentially damaging to the foundation".

I asked for further information myself:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge2#464887

...I'd be keen to know which material was potentially damaging to the reputation of the site - and how a simple change in either forum settings, rules or moderation could not have addressed that matter more than sufficiently? And to what degree was it deemed potentially damaging and by whom? Does this amount to more than mild paranoia and needless fretting?

There was some rather graphic sexual material on the site way back when, and it was dealt with in this manner (and similarly initially implemented appallingly... you'd think that people - yourself perhaps - might have learnt something or other) - and things went relatively smoothly thereafter - but of course for the fact that the initial rules set down left a lot to be desired, and neither yourself nor Josh had any further time for it, but I digress...

I don't find that a satisfactory explanation for the total overhaul of the forum format, with changes in moderation on top.

Are you sure it isn't more to do with Josh personally finding forums "sloppy and lazy" - as a widely reported extract from his Twitter account claims? Are you sure it isn't just a stylistic preference of his - to create something practically identical to the front page, but with user-written 'articles', and more heavy-handed moderation of comments being proposed than exists on the front-page?

(And I'll observe, while I'm here that the front page potentially has far worse published on it, as far as your reputation may go - though you seem more loathe to drop bombs on that community with changes you've even tentatively suggested before.)

My emphasis added.

Topsy asked a similar question, from her standpoint:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge2#464910

@ Richard

Just noticing this comment by you

"However, it also contained some threads that were potentially harmful to the website’s (and therefore the Foundation’s) reputation."

Which threads? The forum staff continually removed every single thread that was damaging to the website's (and therefore the Foundation's) reputation. If there were any we missed in our 24/7 moderation of the forum, why didn't somebody alert us? We'd have removed them. I really don't understand that sentence - could you please elaborate either here or via email. Thanks

My emphasis again.

If the issue was significant enough to be the main motive for overhauling the forum - it should have been significant enough to have addressed with forum staff quite some time ago. I'm not sure who Richard is trying to convince more out of himself and everyone else - but I'm pretty certain that he's grasping at straws for the most convenient post-hoc rationalisation for why he let Josh persuade him beforehand that this was indeed what he wanted. Or perhaps that's specific the marketing line that Josh fed him in order to push his Grand DesignsTM through, and Richard spent less than 2 minutes actually applying any thought to the proposal before agreeing that it was a superb idea.

As others have already pointed out - it's a 180 degree change of tune from when Richard said, back in October:

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 9#p1429959

I acknowledge that it is also a place where people make friends. It is a community, and that is a valuable part of it. Many of our forum threads have an atmosphere of friends going out for a drink and chatting. I think that is valuable, and I don't think we should insist on sticking to serious topics. That would be a good way to stifle the sense of community, and that would be a real shame...

My emphasis again.

I find myself agreeing that Josh must indeed be quite talented - as a marketeer at least. Or perhaps Richard just has these momentary blips in his critical faculties for those whom he perceives at the time as emitting sunbeams from their back passages - which lead him to declaring opposite opinions to that which he declared just over a year ago, with no clear reason for the change, and then fabricating some tenuous stuff about how it was with a view to protecting the rep of RDF. (All said while I maintain that I believe neither he nor Josh hardly had a clue what was going on in most of the forum sections in the first place.)

Now as I stated in a subsequent comment on the front page - Richard can indeed fulfill his every whim and fancy on his site as he pleases, and he can take advice from whoever he wants, given that it's his site. But one thing I do stake claim to, is my enshrined right to be able to say it if I have a sneaking suspicion that he's talking bollocks, in some way or another.

This is a discrete opinion - on Richard's statement about his own particular motive for the change only. The change may turn out to be a good one (though I do have me doots there, too) - and that's a separate matter from thinking that Richard has seemingly in my view just wandered rather unscrupulously into it, and invented tenuous post-hoc rationalisations that don't appear to withstand even the gentlest of questioning.

[pErvinalia]

I personally call bollocks, one way or another, on Richard's statement about there having been content on the forum that was "potentially damaging to the foundation".

I asked for further information myself:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge2#464887

...I'd be keen to know which material was potentially damaging to the reputation of the site - and how a simple change in either forum settings, rules or moderation could not have addressed that matter more than sufficiently? And to what degree was it deemed potentially damaging and by whom? Does this amount to more than mild paranoia and needless fretting?

There was some rather graphic sexual material on the site way back when, and it was dealt with in this manner (and similarly initially implemented appallingly... you'd think that people - yourself perhaps - might have learnt something or other) - and things went relatively smoothly thereafter - but of course for the fact that the initial rules set down left a lot to be desired, and neither yourself nor Josh had any further time for it, but I digress...

I don't find that a satisfactory explanation for the total overhaul of the forum format, with changes in moderation on top.

Are you sure it isn't more to do with Josh personally finding forums "sloppy and lazy" - as a widely reported extract from his Twitter account claims? Are you sure it isn't just a stylistic preference of his - to create something practically identical to the front page, but with user-written 'articles', and more heavy-handed moderation of comments being proposed than exists on the front-page?

(And I'll observe, while I'm here that the front page potentially has far worse published on it, as far as your reputation may go - though you seem more loathe to drop bombs on that community with changes you've even tentatively suggested before.)

My emphasis added.

Topsy asked a similar question, from her standpoint:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge2#464910

@ Richard

Just noticing this comment by you

"However, it also contained some threads that were potentially harmful to the website’s (and therefore the Foundation’s) reputation."

Which threads? The forum staff continually removed every single thread that was damaging to the website's (and therefore the Foundation's) reputation. If there were any we missed in our 24/7 moderation of the forum, why didn't somebody alert us? We'd have removed them. I really don't understand that sentence - could you please elaborate either here or via email. Thanks

My emphasis again.

If the issue was significant enough to be the main motive for overhauling the forum - it should have been significant enough to have addressed with forum staff quite some time ago. I'm not sure who Richard is trying to convince more out of himself and everyone else - but I'm pretty certain that he's grasping at straws for the most convenient post-hoc rationalisation for why he let Josh persuade him beforehand that this was indeed what he wanted. Or perhaps that's specific the marketing line that Josh fed him in order to push his Grand DesignsTM through, and Richard spent less than 2 minutes actually applying any thought to the proposal before agreeing that it was a superb idea.

As others have already pointed out - it's a 180 degree change of tune from when Richard said, back in October:

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 9#p1429959

I acknowledge that it is also a place where people make friends. It is a community, and that is a valuable part of it. Many of our forum threads have an atmosphere of friends going out for a drink and chatting. I think that is valuable, and I don't think we should insist on sticking to serious topics. That would be a good way to stifle the sense of community, and that would be a real shame...

My emphasis again.

I find myself agreeing that Josh must indeed be quite talented - as a marketeer at least. Or perhaps Richard just has these momentary blips in his critical faculties for those whom he perceives at the time as emitting sunbeams from their back passages - which lead him to declaring opposite opinions to that which he declared just over a year ago, with no clear reason for the change, and then fabricating some tenuous stuff about how it was with a view to protecting the rep of RDF. (All said while I maintain that I believe neither he nor Josh hardly had a clue what was going on in most of the forum sections in the first place.)

Now as I stated in a subsequent comment on the front page - Richard can indeed fulfill his every whim and fancy on his site as he pleases, and he can take advice from whoever he wants, given that it's his site. But one thing I do stake claim to, is my enshrined right to be able to say it if I have a sneaking suspicion that he's talking bollocks, in some way or another.

This is a discrete opinion - on Richard's statement about his own particular motive for the change only. The change may turn out to be a good one (though I do have me doots there, too) - and that's a separate matter from thinking that Richard has seemingly in my view just wandered rather unscrupulously into it, and invented tenuous post-hoc rationalisations that don't appear to withstand even the gentlest of questioning.

I agree. While it was brave to issue a public apology like that, one which is certainly welcome, there are a lot of suspect comments in it. This leads me to believe that it probably wasn't too genuine, and was more an exercise in mitigating bad press. I'm pretty much done with RDF. I don't see any reason to trust these people ever again. Although, I might pop in to the new front page forum every now and then to make some contentious comments just for the fun of it.

[AshtonBlack]

My current theory is that this is all business/money related, rather than anything else.
If the next site has advertising (apart from "own store"), then my theory would hold water.

[A4Autistic]

Times Online covers the apology:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... truce.html

Replete with the same factual errors as before.

Indeed, and the facts are right before their eyes, on their own website.

How they are trusted to be accurate about anything that requires even a tiny bit of journalistic investigation is mind-boggling!

[Coito ergo sum]

My current theory is that this is all business/money related, rather than anything else.

Of course it is. Any thought to the contrary is naive.

They are doing what they think will better increase the financial position of the Foundation. And, why not? That's what they're there for. They are not there to set up a forum for us. The forum is a tool.

[kiki5711]

I'd not expect him to publically break the little lad on the wheel. However, the somewhat effusive praise was a little over the top.
And as I've said, I've fired people for that level of unprofessionalism and incompetence, don't care how close they are.

Not if you loved the lad and dedicated your latest book to him!

I'd have fired my mother. but then, I'm no fan of having my commercial rep damaged.

he he me too!

However now that RD has hired

Todd Stiefel lives in Raleigh, NC with his wife, Diana, and their two young children. He graduated cum laude from Duke University. He worked 12 years for Stiefel Laboratories, holding positions in marketing, sales operations and strategy. He was the Chief Strategy Officer, the Enterprise Leadership Team chairman and member of the executive committee of the Board. He was responsible for 250 people including the finance, strategy, risk, facilities, administration and program management functions. He co-led the teams that sold equity to Blackstone and Stiefel Laboratories to GlaxoSmithKline. Todd is a secular humanist, an atheist and full-time freethought activist. He is the Founder and President of the Stiefel Freethought Foundation. His mission is to gain respect for freethinkers and ensure the complete separation of church and state. Todd envisions a world where government favors liberty over dogma and freethinkers are overt, united and influential. He serves on the development committee of Secular Coalition for America and American Atheists and advisory board of Secular Coalition for America, Secular Student Alliance and Atheist Nexus. He also serves on the National Advisory Council (NAC) of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

and for no pennies either, the foundation will be focused on MARKETING. As in raising money. Not helping the community to interact as normal human beings but science robots.

I have A friend that worked FOR a foundation in NYC, he set up all their programs etc.. but they squandered the money they raised, and my friend could not take it any more and after he spoke out about their mishandling the money, he got fired. They would do such things as giving themselves raises, take trips and many luxurious thing provided by the foundation money for (apparently the foundation sake).

Sounds much like politicians.

[anthonzi]

However now that RD has hired

Todd Stiefel lives in Raleigh, NC with his wife, Diana, and their two young children. He graduated cum laude from Duke University. He worked 12 years for Stiefel Laboratories, holding positions in marketing, sales operations and strategy. He was the Chief Strategy Officer, the Enterprise Leadership Team chairman and member of the executive committee of the Board. He was responsible for 250 people including the finance, strategy, risk, facilities, administration and program management functions. He co-led the teams that sold equity to Blackstone and Stiefel Laboratories to GlaxoSmithKline. Todd is a secular humanist, an atheist and full-time freethought activist. He is the Founder and President of the Stiefel Freethought Foundation. His mission is to gain respect for freethinkers and ensure the complete separation of church and state. Todd envisions a world where government favors liberty over dogma and freethinkers are overt, united and influential. He serves on the development committee of Secular Coalition for America and American Atheists and advisory board of Secular Coalition for America, Secular Student Alliance and Atheist Nexus. He also serves on the National Advisory Council (NAC) of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

and for no pennies either, the foundation will be focused on MARKETING. As in raising money. Not helping the community to interact as normal human beings but science robots.

I would like a link to the original bio, please.

[Coito ergo sum]

Times Online covers the apology:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... truce.html

Replete with the same factual errors as before.

Indeed, and the facts are right before their eyes, on their own website.

How they are trusted to be accurate about anything that requires even a tiny bit of journalistic investigation is mind-boggling!

They, including Dr. Dawkins, do not really care about whether someone insulted someone else, or whether people feel unjustly dealt with because they were disrespected and not given "proper notice" and a "proper explanation" of all the goings on.

Dawkins' apology was for one main reason: to quiet this whole thing down and keep the public relations uproar down. He probably received a lot of threats about people not buying his books, not supporting his foundation anymore, etc., and he probably got some inside comments from people he actually talks to face to face (like other prominent atheists and scientists) who likely said, "Richard, you should do something to put a lid on this. The townsfolk have their torches and pitchforks out..."

So, read his "apology" again. Recall that it comes on the heels of his first response which talked about something seriously wrong with the internet community because people reacted so outrageously to "something so trivial."

Realize, that what Dawkins' view on this is is that a grown-up would not react to the situation in the way people did EVEN IF there were untruths and injustices committed. Why? Because the injustice and untruths would be about "something so trivial."

The apology is just to calm and soothe the savage beast. So, he told you all how much he cares, and how he did not react well either. He's saying - you did not react well, so I did not react well, we all did not react well, but, I really like you and so let's put all this behind us.

Did he change anything substantive? No. Did he say that he had heard you, and that your concerns would be taken into account? No. He said that it's all a big misunderstanding and that all the people who reacted out of proportion to the "trivial" thing just didn't understand that the forum is going to be just as free as before - just more focused on science.

Think about it? Even though he apologized - did anything SUBSTANTIVE change? All he did was say you had 30 days to go back and get your information, which is what they were going to do in the first place anyway.

Frankly, in my opinion, the revamping of the forum is a trivial matter, and that those who flew off the handle were overreacting. Dawkins made an incorrect public relations move when he picked a fight, basically, with thousands of people who post all day long on the internet, but he made a reasonable recovery when he collectively rubbed the shoulders and said "there there" to those thousands of people. But, I doubt very much that he, in just the past few days, has realized that the matter is no longer "something so trivial."

[kiki5711]

However now that RD has hired

Todd Stiefel lives in Raleigh, NC with his wife, Diana, and their two young children. He graduated cum laude from Duke University. He worked 12 years for Stiefel Laboratories, holding positions in marketing, sales operations and strategy. He was the Chief Strategy Officer, the Enterprise Leadership Team chairman and member of the executive committee of the Board. He was responsible for 250 people including the finance, strategy, risk, facilities, administration and program management functions. He co-led the teams that sold equity to Blackstone and Stiefel Laboratories to GlaxoSmithKline. Todd is a secular humanist, an atheist and full-time freethought activist. He is the Founder and President of the Stiefel Freethought Foundation. His mission is to gain respect for freethinkers and ensure the complete separation of church and state. Todd envisions a world where government favors liberty over dogma and freethinkers are overt, united and influential. He serves on the development committee of Secular Coalition for America and American Atheists and advisory board of Secular Coalition for America, Secular Student Alliance and Atheist Nexus. He also serves on the National Advisory Council (NAC) of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

and for no pennies either, the foundation will be focused on MARKETING. As in raising money. Not helping the community to interact as normal human beings but science robots.

I would like a link to the original bio, please.

I don't have his original bio. This is from what Richard posted on his front page. And if you think Todd was going to leave his job to work for Richard for free, hmmmmmmmm I don't think so!!

Todd Stiefel Joins RDFRS as Trustee
by Richard Dawkins

[Mysturji]

That took cohones, and apology accepted, of course.
But as I posted over there, Richard was IMHO only guilty of trusting his friend.
When Josh apologises for his gross mishandling of the announcement, his disregard for other people (staff and members) and his over-reaction to the initial protests, then we can apologise for calling him a twat, and THAT will be the end of it.

[klr]

That took cohones, and apology accepted, of course.
But as I posted over there, Richard was IMHO only guilty of trusting his friend.
When Josh apologises for his gross mishandling of the announcement, his disregard for other people (staff and members) and his over-reaction to the initial protests, then we can apologise for calling him a twat, and THAT will be the end of it.

Apologise, explain, detail what lessons were learned, and how things will change in future as a result. Doesn't require that he throw himself to the lions or anything like that. But as long as people cannot have confidence in "the system" over there - and that means the people holding the reins of power - then the site is never likely to recover to anything near what it was.