RD.net to be re-revamped!

[klr]

They need to dump Richard Dawkins, a complete liability.

[klr]

I've just browsed some of the feedback, and surprise, surprise ... any good forum package would handily address most of them.

[Robert_S]

I've just browsed some of the feedback, and surprise, surprise ... any good forum package would handily address most of them.

But then it wouldn't be a real website.

[klr]

I've just browsed some of the feedback, and surprise, surprise ... any good forum package would handily address most of them.

But then it wouldn't be a real website.

Oh yes ... now, who was it who said that again?

Think there's any chance that RD will listen to reason this time - or let competent people do it for him?

[Rob]

Even if a forum was created there... would you go back?

[irretating]

RDF mark III? I wonder if powers-that-be at RDF mark II are as excited about the changes..

[Cunt]

I'll look again, depending. I think hiring the old mod/admin team, with a bit of back pay, would be an interesting start.
(Including OBC, CJ, FedUpWithFaith et al)

[Robert_S]

If it were a forum type thing, I might. But I wouldn't get too involved really.

[surreptitious57]

Do not like the layout of their current comment section from a purely
aesthetic perspective. As it just appears, to these eyes anyway, loose and
asymmetrical. It would be much better if it was like the ones on here or Rat Skep
but these are relatively trifling matters. Nonetheless how a site looks should have some
some relevance even though the modus operandi is the important thing at the end of the day
They should be allowed to have another go but if it all goes tits up like last time, then would be time
to call it a day. I can see why some think Richard is the major disability but he is hardly going to remove
himself from his own site now. Hopefully he will have learnt from the past and not repeat the same mistakes
again, or indeed, even any mistakes at all. However a serious face job on the site needs to be done never the less

[surreptitious57]

RDF mark III ? I wonder if powers-that-be at RDF mark II are as excited about the changes

Deep Purple mark II were infinitely superior to Deep Purple mark I

[surreptitious57]

Even if a forum was created there... would you go back

Depends who was there but yes if only out of curiosity

[Rum]

Even if a forum was created there... would you go back?

Its hard to imagine anything as remotely free-wheeling as the bits many of us where posting to being allowed to develop again. Personally I have an open mind. If it looks like there's a decent forum there I would dip in from time to time. Its a wait and see I fancy.

[JimC]

And LP, you are just the vamp they need...

[Exi5tentialist]

RD.net is on my list of banned forums, i.e. I've banned them from my portfolio of visited websites and I do not visit them, so I don't really give a monkeys what Richard Dawkins does with his childish website. Others I've banned are AtheistForums.org, Think Atheist, Happy Atheist Forums and the London Atheists Meetup Group. My reason for banning all these Forums are around moderators using their powers inappropriately to manipulate the scope of discussions artificially.

[charlou]

RD.net is on my list of banned forums, i.e. I've banned them from my portfolio of visited websites and I do not visit them, so I don't really give a monkeys what Richard Dawkins does with his childish website. Others I've banned are AtheistForums.org, Think Atheist, Happy Atheist Forums and the London Atheists Meetup Group. My reason for banning all these Forums are around moderators using their powers inappropriately to manipulate the scope of discussions artificially.

I like this.

I recall the RDF moderator (and sycophant) line that members were "privileged" to be allowed to post there.

GTFO with that arrogant shite. Forums are privileged to get whatever content people send their way, and sink or float based on what they allow. Keep in mind that shit floats ... which leads me to ... (Australians will get the floating shit cultural reference)