Apology from Richard Dawkins (Yes Really).

[anthonzi]

Dawkins knows that a screw-up was made, and he (as the boss) is ultimately responsible for that, even if it was simply by not sufficiently supervising/monitoring/controlling an employee. He has decided that Josh Timonen is going to continue working for him, so it makes sense to express support for him, otherwise Timonen would probably be undermined to the point that his position could become untenable. After his behaviour to the RDF Mods and members, I wouldn't much care about this, but Dawkins obviously values Timonen enough to want him to be able to continue.

This should not excuse Timonen from feeling guilty.

[charlou]

Dawkins knows that a screw-up was made, and he (as the boss) is ultimately responsible for that, even if it was simply by not sufficiently supervising/monitoring/controlling an employee. He has decided that Josh Timonen is going to continue working for him, so it makes sense to express support for him, otherwise Timonen would probably be undermined to the point that his position could become untenable. After his behaviour to the RDF Mods and members, I wouldn't much care about this, but Dawkins obviously values Timonen enough to want him to be able to continue.

This should not excuse Timonen from feeling guilty.

Yep, I'd be fucked if I'd sit back and let someone else take the rap for any errors I make.

[orpheus]

Dawkins knows that a screw-up was made, and he (as the boss) is ultimately responsible for that, even if it was simply by not sufficiently supervising/monitoring/controlling an employee. He has decided that Josh Timonen is going to continue working for him, so it makes sense to express support for him, otherwise Timonen would probably be undermined to the point that his position could become untenable. After his behaviour to the RDF Mods and members, I wouldn't much care about this, but Dawkins obviously values Timonen enough to want him to be able to continue.

This should not excuse Timonen from feeling guilty.

Yep, I'd be fucked if I'd sit back and let someone else take the rap for any errors I make.

+1

[jd]

Of course Timonen should feel guilty - he is the person who was left holding the baby and he dropped it.

Once Dawkins has decided to continue employing him (for whatever reasons), I just think Dawkins is obliged to support him. He cannot say "Josh screwed up"; he either has to say "I screwed up" or or "we screwed up" - "we" might be more rational, but "I" takes the attention away from Timonen better.

I do think Dawkins should pressure Timonen, behind the scenes, to make his own apology, especially to the moderators.

[anthonzi]

If Josh had apologized to the public early on, people might think he's less of a twat. I fail to see the benifit of hiding him behind the Old Man, other than to avoid taking responsibility.

[mozg]

Well, I think that was a non-apology if I ever heard one. The whole thing seems to say to me, 'I'm sorry that you made me do this.' and leave me with the impression that Richard is saying the exact bare minimum necessary to get people to not carry through with their stated intentions to not buy his products or his books or support his foundation after the unprofessional and insulting behavior by his employee.

I'm not accepting the apology.

[Ayaan]

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."

No one has questioned the fact that Dawkins can do what he like with his site. The issue is with how the change was handled (not a complete list) - including things like Josh and Andrew lying to the forum staff about the way the change was going to happen, not addressing member questions about the change, deleting the thread that members was asking questions and commenting on the change in, turning off signatures and PMs when people started saying they were moving to another forum and using those means to let others know where they were, disabling the forum, deleting users and their entire posting histories for saying things they didn't like or for trying to ask questions about the change on the front page, etc......That is what people were upset about.

[Hermit]

Well, I think that was a non-apology if I ever heard one. The whole thing seems to say to me, 'I'm sorry that you made me do this.'

You're referring to this bit?

In a classic case of a vicious circle, some of the responses to our announcement also caused considerable hurt and distress to us, and in the atmosphere of heightened emotion that followed, some of our subsequent actions went too far.

I see it as a fair attempt at making an apology.

Ignoring the fact that Professor Emeritus Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Richard Dawkins (don't mention the lack of a knighthood) decided to close the forum because after three years it has metamorphosed from

What does disappoint me (to put it mildly) is this: In October 2008, Dawkins wrote "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." What, I wonder, made Professor Emeritus Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Richard Dawkins (don't mention the lack of a knighthood) change his mind so drastically that he now sees it as "potentially harmful to the website’s (and therefore the Foundation’s) reputation"? It couldn't possibly be seen to also be detrimental to the chances of getting on the queen's honours list, could it?

Dawkins destroyed a huge, valuable community because of "some threads that were potentially harmful to the website’s (and therefore the Foundation’s) reputation"? That - as Topsy (known as Flora here) tried to explain - is unbelievable, only she said so in a very much more diplomatic style.

The apology does not affect me at all. The way the forum was shut, the duplicity involved and the excesses, are all unfortunate and regrettable. It is the fact that a decision was taken in the first place to kill the forum that is infuriating, particularly in the light of the motives that led to that decision.

[Cunt]

I don't really care that he apologized (or whatever that was) because he was not the offending party and has little real influence over the forum.

My problem was with 'admin', who wouldn't address the search issues, did not respond to simple requests and acted like he didn't want me on his forum (though he certainly didn't aim it at me).

If Richard bought me a drink and rubbed my feet it wouldn't change anything. Reinstating the mods and admins and all the lost posts would be a start, but I really think it wouldn't work either.

I just tried to be 'Cunt' on another forum, and when the administration asked me to change my name, I tried to open discussion (through PM) about it. Next I heard, my username was changed and I decided to leave because, to me, 'Pudendum' is too obscure a reference to what 'Cunt' means. That and I have had enough of heavy-handed moderation/administration. Might be a bit gun-shy. What I am getting at is that I think this place is awesome. Good fucking job, people.

[Hermit]

I don't really care that he apologized (or whatever that was) because he was not the offending party and has little real influence over the forum.

What? I think the decision to chop the veterans' section earlier and the entire forum recently was entirely Dawkins'. He just left the implementation of those decisions to his underlings who then royally (smirk) executed his orders in the worst possible way.

[FedUpWithFaith]

I don't really care that he apologized (or whatever that was) because he was not the offending party and has little real influence over the forum.

What? I think the decision to chop the veterans' section earlier and the entire forum recently was entirely Dawkins'. He just left the implementation of those decisions to his underlings who then royally (smirk) executed his orders in the worst possible way.

Agreed Seraph. Anyway, if you don't want to take responsibility for something don't have your name on it - even if you are an absentee landlord.

[FedUpWithFaith]

I just tried to be 'Cunt' on another forum, and when the administration asked me to change my name, I tried to open discussion (through PM) about it. Next I heard, my username was changed and I decided to leave because, to me, 'Pudendum' is too obscure a reference to what 'Cunt' means. That and I have had enough of heavy-handed moderation/administration. Might be a bit gun-shy. What I am getting at is that I think this place is awesome. Good fucking job, people.

No matter what username you use, you'll always be the cunt to all of us.

[Blondie]

What a fucking cunt.

[Cunt]

I just tried to be 'Cunt' on another forum, and when the administration asked me to change my name, I tried to open discussion (through PM) about it. Next I heard, my username was changed and I decided to leave because, to me, 'Pudendum' is too obscure a reference to what 'Cunt' means. That and I have had enough of heavy-handed moderation/administration. Might be a bit gun-shy. What I am getting at is that I think this place is awesome. Good fucking job, people.

No matter what username you use, you'll always be the cunt to all of us.

Fuck, thanks, man. I actually have a tear in my eye.

What I mean by his not having much real influence over the forum might have been phrased badly, but if he participated there regularly, he would have KNOWN what was going on sooner, not to mention he would have understood the community better.

He has to ask others to gather this stuff - I get that, but it means that his information is filtered by someone with possibly different motives than him.

In short, nothing in his apology makes me think it's going to be worth posting there. If I do, I will retain full control over my own posts. I did it after the last big snafu for awhile (and some of the folks didn't like it lol) and would do it again. IF that is, I found reason to post there.

[klr]

An evil excellent suggestion from RichardPrins over at RatSkept:

Subject: Ensuring an accurate record

I would humbly suggest you all rate the Apology article as excellent. That way it will show up here.