Changes to the Richard Dawkins Forum

[arildno]

Whats so important about an atheist forum? I agree with that religion and science are separate entities.

Indeed.
One concerns reality, the other is, only, much ado about nothing.

 

[Borek]

I would not call science ado about nothing

 

[zomgwtf]

Did you even read the blog post mentioned in the first post of this thread? The letter was NOT a warning; it was a reaction.

The letter was not a warning... interesting proposal you bring here to the table. Begs the question then doesn't it, what was the reaction to? You think that suddenly forum members started expressing their outrage towards Dawkins for changing the forum set-up prior to knowing that the forum set-up was going to be changed! I am sure that since the majority of the people there are skeptics they would be highly skeptical of claims that certain members FORESAW WHAT WAS COMING!

Alas, it didn't go down like that. What a shame. What a shame.

Dear forum members,

We wanted you all to know at the earliest opportunity about our new website currently in development. RichardDawkins.net will have a new look and feel, improved security, and much more. Visits to the site have really grown over the past 3 1/2 years, and this update gives us an opportunity to address several issues. Over the years we've become one of the world's leading resources for breaking rational and scientific news from all over the net and creating original content. We are focusing on quality content distribution, and will be bringing more original articles, video and other content as we grow.

The new RichardDawkins.net will have a fully-integrated discussion section. This will be a new feature for the site, similar to the current forum, but not identical. We feel the new system will be much cleaner and easier to use, and hopefully this will encourage participation from a wider variety of users.

We will leave the current forum up for 30 days, giving regular users an opportunity to locally archive any content they value. When the new website goes live, you are welcome to submit these posts as new discussions. The forum will then be taken down from the web. You will not loose your username on the new system.

The new discussion area will not be a new forum. It will be different. We will be using a system of tags to categorize items, instead of sub-forums. Discussions can have multiple tags, such as "Education", "Children", and "Critical Thinking". Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed. The approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site. This is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly. We hope this discussion area will reflect the foundation's goals and values.

We know that this is a big decision. We know some of you will be against this change. We ask that you respect our decision and help make this transition as smooth as possible.

We're confident that these changes will improve the site experience and we look forward to seeing what you do with the new system.

Many thanks again.

 

[zomgwtf]

Full moderation will kill the community. It will take way too much energy and slows the pace of a forum to a crawl.

I agree at the moment, since there isn't really a major outline of the proposed editorial process I can't say for certain. All that is stated is that only the original post for the thread will go through the process, all other posts after that do not go through the process and are moderated as would be done in a regular forum.

I don't think that it really matters if Dawkins 'creates enemies'... however few there will be because of this.

I think that this will bring the level of discussion up more. The level of moderation that needs to occur in a forum on religion is FAR greater than that of a forum on science. (my assumption) Clearly they want to try this out and see how it goes. If people don't like it well then, it seems they have a problem now don't they?

It's clear that he wants discussions to move towards a more 'quality articles' than post whatever you want whenever you want.

 

[arildno]

I would not call science ado about nothing

It is not?

What existed before the Big Bang, then?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Here is Richard's reaction.
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=110356

He's certainly right, but it clearly shows he doesn't understand the mechanics of his community. This is what happens when you give two hooligans control of your name and let them lose while you sell books. This is why Michio Kaku's forum never worked after leaving PF.

 

[arildno]

Here is Richard's reaction.
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=110356

He's certainly right, but it clearly shows he doesn't understand the mechanics of his community. This is what happens when you give two hooligans control of your name and let them lose while you sell books. This is why Michio Kaku's forum never worked after leaving PF.

I have seen how conscientious Peter Harrison has been in his role as a moderator. Many of the other moderators at RD have the same quality and stature.

When THEY say that Josh Timonen and the tech staff have obstructed the proper functioning of the forum, I believe them.

 

[pftest]

Alas, it didn't go down like that. What a shame. What a shame.

The announcement is that the forum will be removed in 30 days and there won't be a new one. Instead there will be some sort of discussion system.

Now regardless of how amazing (or not) the new discussion system will be, you can't expect all forum members to be happy with the permanent removal of all their posts. Remember, the site has as many posts as physicsforums.

The moderators seem to be also upset that they were promised to have input in the design of the new system. Instead they heard nothing until they got the 30 day notice of the complete removal of all their work.

 

[pftest]

Well, reputation is important to most people for many reasons involving practicality and principle. Why do you ask this question with such an obvious answer?

Oh i just personally think worrying about reputation is silly. But i know many people out there do care.

 

[elect_eng]

Oh i just personally think worrying about reputation is silly. But i know many people out there do care.

What if someone falsly accused you of child molestation? What if there was no evidence and you were not charged legally, but everyone believed it was true? Would you still not care about reputation? If so, you are a rare person indeed.

Perhaps there are some aspects of reputation that do not concern you at all, but I'm quite sure there are other aspects to it that are a foundation that you can not live without.

Do you really think other people worrying about a mar on their reputation is silly? Isn't there a matter of principle with regards to the truth versus lies. Or, if a bad reputaion is deserved, isn't there a practicality issue in surviving in a world that shuns you?

I could make a statement that "worrying about eating is silly". I might say this because I've never gone a day in my life where I didn't have direct access to all the food I might want to eat. I've lived half my expected life-span this way and will probably live the remainder of my life this way. Still, my statement would not withstand a few seconds of scrutity. Although I might not ever have to worry about eating, there are others in the world starving to death.

I think your notion of not worrying about something so important has not been deeply thought about. No offense.

 

[Zantra]

This is exactly how businesses fail- by ignoring the customer and arrogantly assuming they know what's best without listening to input. And this site IS a business, I'm sure- even if it's not for profit, revenue has to be generated to continue the site. It seems like they aren't interested in running this business any more.

Whatever the justification for the changes, they destroyed their public image by ignoring the problem and reacting this way. "I don't don't like what you're saying, you're mean people-I can do what I want" doesn't really work as a public relations position.

*shrug*

bummer

That said, it is his business to run into the ground, if he so chooses. That's life

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Like a Cheers bar where everyone knows your name

However, one key distinction is that, for the most part, no one knows our names.

I find it interesting that Dawkins made the effort to quote the raunchy insults directly.

 

[zomgwtf]

This is exactly how businesses fail- by ignoring the customer and arrogantly assuming they know what's best without listening to input. And this site IS a business, I'm sure- even if it's not for profit, revenue has to be generated to continue the site. It seems like they aren't interested in running this business any more.

Whatever the justification for the changes, they destroyed their public image by ignoring the problem and reacting this way. "I don't don't like what you're saying, you're mean people-I can do what I want" doesn't really work as a public relations position.

*shrug*

bummer

That said, it is his business to run into the ground, if he so chooses. That's life

This isn't what had happened AFAIK. What had happened was Dawkins (and whoever else he had discussed this with... apparently not most of the staff) had decided to change the format of the forum so that the quality of the threads being posted and the content within them was higher. It reminds me of just being an open 'journal' except it'll all happen in real-time. You post your comment about it, you get a response. No mailing to this journal who talks to this editor who looks up this article etc. and no more flame wars or posts which he clearly think are not up to his standards.

The insults came after he had announced that these changes were going to be taking place.

 

[Borek]

This isn't what had happened AFAIK. What had happened was Dawkins (and whoever else he had discussed this with... apparently not most of the staff) had decided to change the format of the forum so that the quality of the threads being posted and the content within them was higher.

It is not decision to make changes to the format that started the problems, it was the way this decision was executed.

In a way what RD (and his team) did was "We are gods, we do whatever we want, bow mortals". Not a best approach for the atheist.

 

[pftest]

What if someone falsly accused you of child molestation? What if there was no evidence and you were not charged legally, but everyone believed it was true? Would you still not care about reputation? If so, you are a rare person indeed.

Perhaps there are some aspects of reputation that do not concern you at all, but I'm quite sure there are other aspects to it that are a foundation that you can not live without.

Do you really think other people worrying about a mar on their reputation is silly? Isn't there a matter of principle with regards to the truth versus lies. Or, if a bad reputaion is deserved, isn't there a practicality issue in surviving in a world that shuns you?

I could make a statement that "worrying about eating is silly". I might say this because I've never gone a day in my life where I didn't have direct access to all the food I might want to eat. I've lived half my expected life-span this way and will probably live the remainder of my life this way. Still, my statement would not withstand a few seconds of scrutity. Although I might not ever have to worry about eating, there are others in the world starving to death.

I think your notion of not worrying about something so important has not been deeply thought about. No offense.

You are right, i would care if people thought i was a child molester. So reputation is not always irrelevant. There is of course also a silly version of worrying to much about reputation, for example in turkey/pakistan/afghanistan some people kill their daughters to preserve family reputation. And there is the whole range inbetween your example and mine.

 

[pftest]

Here are more details of what happened:

As you will know if you read the original entry, Josh and Andrew received a lot of criticism after the announcement. This thread was mild. Us moderators were thought to be behind the decision at first, so we made it clear that we had been sacked and knew nothing about what was happening. Josh and Andrew then locked the forum, deleted the accounts of mods explaining what happened, and deleted accounts of regular members trying to tell others of the censorship. The whole criticism thread was deleted. They locked the forum, stifled communications, then reopened the forum in a read-only state. They then made an announcement claiming that the forum was locked due to the bad behaviour of mods and regular members, which isn’t true.

...

Next, Dawkins made an announcement himself, quoting some very aggressive insults made against the team.

Please take note:

• Although the criticism thread was deleted, many mods and regular members saved the contents before it was lost.
• The quoted insults are not found anywhere in that thread.
• Indeed, the quotes have been traced to an entirely different forum, and weren’t posted by the sacked moderators.
• These quotes were posted after the forum was locked, despite being used as reasons for locking the forum.

http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/update-on-dawkins-forum-closure/

 

[Evo]

This isn't what had happened AFAIK. What had happened was Dawkins (and whoever else he had discussed this with... apparently not most of the staff) had decided to change the format of the forum so that the quality of the threads being posted and the content within them was higher.

This is how I see it also. I would even guess that he was hoping to flush the forum out to some extent.

Here is what they posted as their plan for discussions going forward.

The new discussion area will not be a new forum. It will be different. We will be using a system of tags to categorize items, instead of sub-forums. Discussions can have multiple tags, such as “Education”, “Children”, and “Critical Thinking”. Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed. The approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site. This is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly. We hope this discussion area will reflect the foundation’s goals and values.

Dawkins' main goal is obviously not to run a forum. The forum was just a part of his website and it sounds as if it was not going in the direction that he really wanted. It seems he wishes to make it more science oriented and less a place for people to bash each other.

 

[zomgwtf]

Here are more details of what happened:

It seems slightly far fetched to me that Josh would be able to tell RD what people were saying about him causing him to lock the forum before it was even said about him...

Think about it, the way that this timeline is played out by the blog poster is like this:

1) RD sends a letter to members stating what he and his staff intend to do to the forums.
2) Forum members either don't understand or just don't like the intentions so start a criticism thread to talk about it. No insults happen here, admins come and lock thread+delete.
3) RD locks forums and releases an statement supposedly outraged by particular comments which he directly quotes.
4) People on other forums begin bashing RD and admins for locking the forum and use the exact phrases which RD had quoted before.

Now the weirdness happens in steps 3-4. How exactly could RD have written that statement quoting pretty rediculous comments directed at him and/or his admins prior to the comments ever being made?

Is this blog poster trying to say that it's Josh going around posting these comments? He told Dawkins what people were saying and then went and posted it as some sort of evidence?? It just doesn't make sense to me. I think that this blog poster doesn't know the full story of everything that went down which is why I don't think you should quote mine from his article as though it is 'detailing' the events which occured.

 

[zomgwtf]

It is not decision to make changes to the format that started the problems, it was the way this decision was executed.

In a way what RD (and his team) did was "We are gods, we do whatever we want, bow mortals". Not a best approach for the atheist.

To me it looks more like a 'If you can't rationally debate why the forum changes should not occur and resort to ad hominin attacks then we will just lock the forums up right now.'

I don't see how this is hard to understand.
Would you like it if on your personal website with your name (which is known worldwide) is being bashed with vile ad hominin because of a decision to change the forum format?
I mean, Dawkins may have not had invested time into operating the forum, maybe he never even visited it once, the fact remains it's his personal website and him and his friends (the admins are also his close friends) are being attacked by comments so he/they had decided to lock out forum members from posting any further.

 

[Borek]

Would you like it if on your personal website with your name (which is known worldwide) is being bashed with vile ad hominin because of a decision to change the forum format?

Assuming that's what have happened - no. But that's only one side of the story, which is true only assuming 90% of what Peter Harrison wrote is a lie. Which it can be - but it is a word against word at the moment.

I mean, Dawkins may have not had invested time into operating the forum, maybe he never even visited it once

Hard to tell how frequent visitor to the forum he was, but his post count is 436 and at least in http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=95709&start=0 he was not only staritng discussions but also taking part later.

But even assuming he never really wanted to have a forum, decision to close it without explaining his decision to the team of moderators who do most of the leg work in keeping the forums running in some direction is a sure way of getting into troubles. I am almost sure that if he tried to explain to the moderating team why he want's to close the forum, or change the format, whole operation could be done without much noise and a row.

the fact remains it's his personal website and him and his friends (the admins are also his close friends) are being attacked by comments so he/they had decided to lock out forum members from posting any further.

As I wrote above - that's assuming RD post tells the only truth. I am not accusing him of being wrong, but he may not know the whole story.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why does it matter at all what the mods think or what the former forum community says?

It's his website and if he decides it's going in the wrong direction he can change it to be anything he wants... he could even sell it to a pornographic website promoting beastiality under his name if he wanted.

One thing you seem to completely overlook is that he does not have the right to be exempt from public scrutiny.

 

[pftest]

Now the weirdness happens in steps 3-4. How exactly could RD have written that statement quoting pretty rediculous comments directed at him and/or his admins prior to the comments ever being made?

The insults were made at a different forum, after the RD forum was locked. RD himself didnt comment on the situation till a day later.

I think that this blog poster doesn't know the full story of everything that went down which is why I don't think you should quote mine from his article as though it is 'detailing' the events which occured.

Calm down. You seem to have not read what Peter Harrison actually wrote.

 

[pftest]

Would you like it if on your personal website with your name (which is known worldwide) is being bashed with vile ad hominin because of a decision to change the forum format?

Just to be clear: the RD forum will not be changed, it will be completely removed. It has as many posts as physicsforums.

 

[pftest]

This isn't what had happened AFAIK. What had happened was Dawkins (and whoever else he had discussed this with... apparently not most of the staff) had decided to change the format of the forum so that the quality of the threads being posted and the content within them was higher. It reminds me of just being an open 'journal' except it'll all happen in real-time. You post your comment about it, you get a response. No mailing to this journal who talks to this editor who looks up this article etc. and no more flame wars or posts which he clearly think are not up to his standards.

The insults came after he had announced that these changes were going to be taking place.

This is what Peter Harrison writes about that (same link as i gave earlier):

...I would like to take this moment to stress that the big issue isn’t over the website changing. Yes, I think the forum was worth keeping. Richard Dawkins believes otherwise. We’ll know who is right once the new website is up and running. I can accept the possibility that I’m wrong. This kind of thing is subjective. It’s an important matter for all the users of the forum, so I was simply sharing my opinion that the forum should be kept. But it is Richard’s website and obviously it is his decision.

The primary purpose of the previous blog entry was simply to provide the real story since the site admins at RD.Net had censored it and provided the public with lies. The secondary purpose was to help ex-members locate each other, since communications were blocked on the forum. Discussions over the best direction for the website to take are interesting, and I encourage them, but what I really aim to highlight is the dishonest tactics that have been put in place. Also, at no point have I accused Richard Dawkins of being behind these tactics. Based on all of the evidence, I believe that Dawkins has been duped by Andrew Chalkley and Josh Timonen. It is certainly Richard’s idea to try and improve the website by removing the forum, and his team are simply following orders, but there is also evidence that his team has lied to Richard as well as the public.

http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/update-on-dawkins-forum-closure/

 

[zomgwtf]

One thing you seem to completely overlook is that he does not have the right to be exempt from public scrutiny.

Nah I didn't overlook that. Where does it look like I've overlooked this? Sure people can talk trash about him, he can respond however he pleases.

One thing that people complaining seem to overlook is that it's his. One thing that the moderators seem to overlook is that it's his too, and they don't work for him they just volunteer for the forum. He should have kept them involved but no, he doesn't need to, just as people don't need to hold their negative comments to themselves.

@pftest, I did read everything he wrote and I read most of the comments. Most of the comments made clearly indicate that trash talking occurd prior to the forums being locked not after. You can go to www.rationalskepticism.org and read everything on there from a large variety of members and staff.

As well the forum is not being completely removed, everything is being deleted and the format for posting threads is changing. The change being that the threads will need to be approved prior to being publicly shown.

EDIT: As well Peter can keep writing whatever he likes, his word is likely to have no effect on what Dawkins wants to do with his website and it also probably means very little to Dawkins relative to his friend Josh's word. So why continue to complain? Just live with it Dawkins wants to change the way the forums are operated and that's his decision. Let's wait and see what comes of it.
He has the right to continue writing whatever he wants on his blog and people have the right to post whatever they want all over the internet, Dawkins has the right to change the forum and to believe who he wants when it comes to 'my word against yours' situations. Seems to me that both sides are currently excercising these rights.

 

[pftest]

One thing that people complaining seem to overlook is that it's his. One thing that the moderators seem to overlook is that it's his too, and they don't work for him they just volunteer for the forum. He should have kept them involved but no, he doesn't need to, just as people don't need to hold their negative comments to themselves.

Peter Harrisons post that i quoted above falsifies this.

@pftest, I did read everything he wrote and I read most of the comments. Most of the comments made clearly indicate that trash talking occurd prior to the forums being locked not after. You can go to www.rationalskepticism.org and read everything on there from a large variety of members and staff.

Could you provide a link to the trashtalking that occurred before the RD forums were closed?

As well the forum is not being completely removed, everything is being deleted and the format for posting threads is changing.

You replaced the word "removed" with "deleted" just for the sake of contradicting me. Its the same thing.
The RD forum admin himself explained that there won't be a new forum:

We will leave the current forum up for 30 days, giving regular users an opportunity to locally archive any content they value. When the new website goes live, you are welcome to submit these posts as new discussions. The forum will then be taken down from the web. You will not loose your username on the new system.

The new discussion area will not be a new forum.
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=110356

 

[Evo]

Peter Harrisons post that i quoted above falsifies this.

Could you provide a link to the trashtalking that occurred before the RD forums were closed?

You replaced the word "removed" with "deleted" just for the sake of contradicting me. Its the same thing.
The RD forum admin himself explained that there won't be a new forum:

It's Dawkins's website. You seem to think we should all get upset about his decison for some reason. I don't get it.

I used to belong to a forum years ago that was taken down completely and with no warning. It happens. Another forum I belonged to was sold off, everything changed, it went downhill and I stopped going there. Life happens, move along.

 

[pftest]

It's Dawkins's website. You seem to think we should all get upset about his decison for some reason. I don't get it.

I don't know what you are referring to. I didnt say it wasnt dawkins website or that anyone should or should not get upset.
I can understand why many members there don't like the removal of the forum and their posts. And its poorly executed by the RD staff.

I used to belong to a forum years ago that was taken down completely and with no warning. It happens. Another forum I belonged to was sold off, everything changed, it went downhill and I stopped going there. Life happens, move along.

I agree.

 

[Evo]

I can understand why many members there don't like the removal of the forum and their posts. And its poorly executed by the RD staff.

They've been given 30 days to copy anything they want. Heck, I can go there right now and copy whatever I want. The first couple of year's worth of posts at PF were lost due to revisions made. Some are archived on the wayback machine website.

Right now the wayback machine is running 6-18 months behind in posting data. They just made a move to Sun in 2009 http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2009-03/sunflash.20090325.1.xml

Here are search results for RD's website, including the forum. It goes from 2006 to July 2008 right now. Our last update was August 2008. I don't know how they manage.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.richarddawkins.net

 

[pftest]

They've been given 30 days to copy anything they want. Heck, I can go there right now and copy whatever I want. The first couple of year's worth of posts at PF were lost due to revisions made. Some are archived on the wayback machine website.

Right now the wayback machine is running 6-18 months behind in posting data. They just made a move to Sun in 2009 http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2009-03/sunflash.20090325.1.xml

Here are search results for RD's website, including the forum. It goes from 2006 to July 2008 right now. Our last update was August 2008. I don't know how they manage.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.richarddawkins.net

Saving entire forums as .html files or copying plaintext isn't going to work. If they had access to the database and could replicate the forum scripts they might be able to make an almost exact copy. I don't think its going to happen unless RD.net allows it.