Richard Dawkins' forum run by prefects with swagger sticks?

[Hermit]

*Discussion split from Who still posts on TAF or RDF? (must be logged in to view) - Charlou *

I still post at Dawkins' forum even though the moderation style has always been somewhat draconian, and is getting progressively more so. In the past few months I have been handed two formal warnings there. Each of them were eventually withdrawn, but the generally oppressive atmosphere is not conducive to a pleasant experience when one needs to habituate one's self to be continually mindful that merely flippant remarks will be interpreted by moderators as a serious infraction of some rule or another, and handled accordingly. In regard to the front page Richard Dawkins commented "I'd like to think that we don't need moderation at all. If, in practice, it were ever to turn out that, despite our best efforts, we do need it, the model moderator, for my money, would be a diplomat with a feminine side, not a Head Prefect with a swagger stick." I wonder if he is aware that he got precisely that, plus matching milk monitors, in the forum part of his site. The reason I continue to participate at the RDF is that despite the moderators' too frequently jackbooted approach, it still contains interesting discussions and useful links.

And so, on to TAF. It never appealed to me right from the start. The owner had already proven his capricious style of handling situations when he was an administrator at RDF, and he certainly wasted no time demonstrating that he was not about to change it when he laid into Even Adam. Also, the very nature of the forum did not suit me. The forum's raison d'être was to provide an outlet for those who could no longer speak of personal matters or simply be outrageous for the sake of it at the RDF. TAF was almost completely devoid of RDF's mainstay: serious discussion. That's not a very balanced forum. Besides: I wasn't particularly eneamoured of the "what does shit taste like" and "felching" type threads. My guess is that if that kind of thread had not been created by the members who seemed to feel motivated to win an undeclared outgrossing competition, The RDF's Private Veteran's section and one of the "Off Topic" section would never have been amputated and the mini schism that resulted in the founding of TAF would not have happened. Why was I there in the first place? My partner was a very active participant. When she moved on, I had no problem at all ignoring its existence.

[lordpasternack]

In regard to the front page Richard Dawkins commented "I'd like to think that we don't need moderation at all. If, in practice, it were ever to turn out that, despite our best efforts, we do need it, the model moderator, for my money, would be a diplomat with a feminine side, not a Head Prefect with a swagger stick." I wonder if he is aware that he got precisely that, plus matching milk monitors, in the forum part of his site. The reason I continue to participate at the RDF is that despite the moderators' too frequently jackbooted approach, it still contains interesting discussions and useful links.

Gagh. Today I made the following comment in this thread on RDF:

Mr. Gerbz - I seem to recall someone talking to me about Dutch politics, and they described it as being bascially a morass of tussling parties of all political persuasions - due to the system of proportional representation in place there.

What I would ask, out of curiosity, is, if your government is indeed infested with religious wingnuts - then why is prostitution legal in some parts, not to mention cannabis, not to mention fucking (whether straight or gay) in the Vondelpark? - All liberties that I can but dream of bestowed on Britons. (I'm not all that interested in prostitution, for the record - I'm just quite libertarian.)

The post was binned. Can anyone think why?

I've had some bother with this in the past, and I can often tell which member of staff did it based on the post moved. I can practically always tell if it was Topsy. A telltale sign is that the post in question was either utterly absent in, or had a pityful example of some indiscretion - but had surpassed some personal Flippancy/Audacity Index, and she's seen you do that before, and you need to learn to toe the line more.

I fired a PM off:

I made a post about Dutch politics in a thread where they had already veered into discussing the etymology of Dutch words, and Geert Wilders. I don't understand why my post was binned.

It is genuinely ridiculous. Honestly.

I just wish that Richard would do something to make his moderators more accountable. His forum deserves much fucking better - to be frank. In fact, why does he even choose to hold his front page and forum by completely different standards anyway, one wonders?

Gah. I just had to let out that small piece of frustration corroborating Seraph's sentiments.

Better now.

[charlou]

In regard to the front page Richard Dawkins commented "I'd like to think that we don't need moderation at all. If, in practice, it were ever to turn out that, despite our best efforts, we do need it, the model moderator, for my money, would be a diplomat with a feminine side, not a Head Prefect with a swagger stick." I wonder if he is aware that he got precisely that, plus matching milk monitors, in the forum part of his site. The reason I continue to participate at the RDF is that despite the moderators' too frequently jackbooted approach, it still contains interesting discussions and useful links.

Gagh. Today I made the following comment in this thread on RDF:

Mr. Gerbz - I seem to recall someone talking to me about Dutch politics, and they described it as being bascially a morass of tussling parties of all political persuasions - due to the system of proportional representation in place there.

What I would ask, out of curiosity, is, if your government is indeed infested with religious wingnuts - then why is prostitution legal in some parts, not to mention cannabis, not to mention fucking (whether straight or gay) in the Vondelpark? - All liberties that I can but dream of bestowed on Britons. (I'm not all that interested in prostitution, for the record - I'm just quite libertarian.)

The post was binned. Can anyone think why?

What. The. Fuck?

And yours isn't the only example, either, lordp. Other people are getting suspended for weeks for similar incidences of stepping outside the censorial bounds dictated by the RDnet staff. It's about time Richard Dawkins took them to task for swaggering about with sticks and treating the membership like errant children. Again: What. The. Fuck?


So, what can be done? I mean, this is a serious problem that has been going on for months and seems to be getting worse. Is it possible to gather the support of enough members to approach Richard via email petition, or to make enough noise, just as the outraged frontpagers did, to have him make changes to bring the staff respect for forum members in line with that which the front page members enjoy?

FFS, Richard's an advocate of skepticism, and clear and critical thought, yet he allows this ludicrous level of censorship to go on in his forum? Fucking, Gah!!! all right!

[lordpasternack]

I should note that my post was eventually split off into another discussion in P&CA - but only after a bit of discussion to and fro: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtop ... 17&t=82957

Still, I don't see why it was removed and split off from an already derailed thread in the first place, because it contained a reference to fucking, or whatever.

As per moderation tactics there and having something done - well it's been a small frustration that has revisited me a few times over these past months. It continues because:

• The forum is so popular that individual members are to some extent disposable
• The forum remains popular by virtue of Richard Dawkins' name, such that the moderators will never really feel anyone voting with their feet
• The current set-up is such that Richard Prins is about as high as it goes with respect to being accountable to anyone: OBC remarked on this while he was in operation, and I have little reason to suspect much has changed
• The above is due to the fact that Richard Dawkins himself spends very little time browsing or getting involved in the running of the forum, has delegated practically everything, and has allowed the system to be such that the moderation of the forum is hardly overseen by anyone
• And last but not least, everyone who's had a problem with moderation in the past has quickly been identified as a "malcontent", and likely been banned. Some may have tried to contact Dawkins in wistful optimism, but they have never clubbed together to make it clear that they were anything more than they disperse troublemakers that Prins et al dismissed them as to Josh and Dawkins

Could something be done? We'd need a fair handful of aggrieved quixotic bastards and a few battering rams, methinks! :twisted:

I was actually considering opening a "Malcontents' Thread" in the Tech Support area of RD.net, to garner some input from the general membership with regards to the moderation there (I've heard a few disperse complaints). If you're wondering about my choice of words there - "malcontent" was a term an admin there used in correspondence with me to describe members who'd complained about this or that.

If anyone is really serious, I could always print off and compile letters from you and send them to friend of Richard's in Oxford (namely Desmond Morris) to be forwarded to him.

[Meekychuppet]

I will never forget being banned, because it was a beautiful moment. What is disappointing is what the moderators turned in to. They are like online traffic wardens. IT seems almost farcical to contemplate, but the place very quickly turned in to 1984, and I can only assume that somebody new got involved who had an axe to grind.

When people are being as ludicrously unreasonable as they are at RDF you can guarantee that it is down to the fact that they are beating off over the power they have finally got their hands on. Often, but not always, it is years of frustration being vented because they haven't really done anything else of note and they are simply projecting their rage. You cannot help such people.

[Trolldor]

Har har.
I'm not so sure, they seem to target members more so than rule breaches - and I never noticed it before because I've always been on the bad side of the law there.

[Pappa]

So, what can be done?

Without sounding flippant, we could just invite any renegados here.

[AshtonBlack]

[palpatine]Yesssss.... recruit them, they are already on their way to the Dark Side.[/palpatine]

[Hermit]

...you can guarantee that it is down to the fact that they are beating off over the power they have finally got their hands on.

I was about to argue the point with you, but then I stumbled across this "contribution" regarding a warning given to a member.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/vie ... hp?t=19909

Right to Access
Richarddawkins.net retains the right to deny access to anyone who we believe has violated any of these terms or any other term of this agreement, whether an actual violation has occurred or not. Note: the "Right to Free Speech" does not apply to private forums or richarddawkins.net. Your right to post on richarddawkins.net is a privilege granted by richarddawkins.net and can be revoked at will.

Legal Disclosure
Use of richarddawkins.net acknowledges your awareness of this User's Agreement .

That seems to be the sum-total of gallstones' reply to the victim's comprehensive and level-headed account of the situation.

A few posts later apparatchik Topsy chimed in in her inimitable style, outlining how the Центральный комитет's logic was unanswerable once again.

[charlou]

So, what can be done?

Without sounding flippant, we could just invite any renegados here.

I'd say so, yes, and at the same time I'd like to think we can discuss ways in which the situation at RDnet might be addressed so that it continues to be a valuable resource to the largest possible membership, respectful and inclusive rather than dictatorial and divisive.

[CJ]

[Ace]

Other people are getting suspended for weeks for similar incidences of stepping outside the censorial bounds dictated by the RDnet staff.

That was one of the main reasons why I left. It's corruption of power.
I never plan to return.

Before the big split I already had worries. I noticed how up tight the staff are about the rules and how trigger happy they are to ban people.
The split was just another reason to walk away, but it wasn't the main reason.
I have absalutly no intention of ever returning to RDF.

[MedGen]

[charlou]

Hey.

[lordpasternack]

Of course, we don't mean you, darling...