Universism all over again

[The Emu's Prophet]

I've been a member of richarddawkins.ne t for about two years now. You know, a nice, interesting, seemingly stable forum, owned by a respected scientist, with no cause to suspect that some mad admin might ever suddenly decide to pull the plug for no reason. Well, today, out of the blue, they disable all posting, and make this charming announcement that they're Voxing the forum:

Update: We had intended to leave the forum fully-funtioning for 30 days, but due to the inappropriate posts by some users and moderators, we have decided to leave the forum in a read-only state. You can still download and archive your posts and private messages, but the ability to enter new posts has been disabled. It's unfortunate that it had to come to this. We know that change can be difficult and sometimes frightening, but we are all very excited about the direction of the website and the future.

------------------------------------

Dear forum members,

We wanted you all to know at the earliest opportunity about our new website currently in development. RichardDawkins.ne t 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 and 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.ne t 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.

Josh Timonen,
Andrew Chalkley
The Richard Dawkins Foundation

It's bloody Universism all over again! I'm rather cross. 

[nom]

Sad to see that even a site for "rational and scientific news and original content" resorts to Vox-like efforts to control. Because we can't have people thinking for themselves in the context of free and open exchange of ideas. Where could that type of thinking lead? People might end of with different opinions and, if that's the case, they might even disagree with me! <sigh>

[The Emu's Prophet]

This thing is really messed up. Best I can tell, this is what has happened:

About 7 months ago, there were a whole bunch of problems with the site, that culminated in the search function being disabled. The head admin promised that everything would eventually be all fixed and the forum upgraded. The moderators spend months trying to get him to tell them precisely what was being planned, only to be mostly ignored and given Joh Bjelke-Petersen responses of "don't you worry about that". So, on tuesday, out of the blue, the head admin finally announces to the moderators the "exciting new plans" for improving the forum by getting rid of it, telling them that their services are no longer required and basically that they should politely fuck off and not cause any trouble. When the proposed holocaust is announced to the forum, quite naturally a thread is started highly critical of the new "improvements". Some of the members mistakenly blame the moderators, and in response one of the moderators explains that the moderators were not consulted in any of this, and that they were unanimously opposed. In response, in true Vox style, the admin deletes the moderator's account (along with their 10,000 or so posts), as well as the thread critical of the decision, and locks the forum. In addition, he also diabled signatures and PMs in an attempt to prevent anybody from migrating to a new forum (similar to what Vox did to stop people from coming here). Really annoying, since I might otherwise have been able to steer a few people here. Since then, he has also deleted all the posts of about 8 other members as well. Then he writes a message blaming his closing of the forum to cover up what was going on on the forum members and moderators.

I was still willing to give Richard Dawkins himself the benefit of the doubt, for initially it did seem conceivable that he was in the dark about what was going on. Until he responded with this condescending little announcement:

A Message from Richard Dawkins about the website updates

Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” a “suppurating rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s twat.” Or suppose that somebody on the same website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.”

What do you have to do to earn vitriol like that? Eat a baby? Gas a trainload of harmless and defenceless people? Rape an altar boy? Tip an old lady out of her wheel chair and kick her in the teeth before running off with her handbag?

None of the above. What you have to do is write a letter like this:

Dear forum members,

We wanted you all to know at the earliest opportunity about our new website currently in development. RichardDawkins.ne t 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.ne t 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.

You will notice that the forum has in fact been closed to comments (not taken down) sooner than the 30 days alluded to in the letter. This is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in. Note that there is no suggestion of abolishing the principle of a forum in which commenters can start their own threads. Just an editorial re-organization, which will include a change such that the choice of new threads will be subject to editorial control. Editorial control, mark you, by the person who, more than any other individual, has earned the right to the editor’s chair by founding the site in the first place, then maintaining its high standard by hard work and sheer talent. The aim of the letter is to describe an exciting new revamping of our site, one in which quality will take precedence over quantity, where original articles on reason and science, on atheism and scepticism, will be commissioned, where frivolous gossip will be reduced. The new plan may succeed or it may fail, but I think it is worth trying. And even if it fails, it most certainly will not deserve the splenetic hysteria that the mere suggestion of it has received.

Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?

Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode.

If you are one of those who have dealt out such ludicrously hyperbolic animosity, you know who should receive your private apology. And if you are one of those who are as disgusted by it as I am, you know where to send your warm letter of support.

Richard

The "over the top" hostility of the comments immediately sent in on the forum consisted of a thread where people merely disagreed. The quotes that Dawkins mined were posted on a different forum in response to the admin in question back-stabbing the moderators, deleting threads and generally behaving in a censorious Vox-like manner - to say that it is a response to posting a message is a severe misrepresentation . And then Dawkins, supposedly one of the more rational people in this world, comes along endorsing such behaviour, and posts a message belittling all who are angry at being double-crossed, referring to the act of betrayal as "trivial".

Honestly, I think I'm rather going off Richard Dawkins. He certainly seems to be about as arrogant and elitist as his theist critics make out.

Anyone who wants to read more about this sordid affair can read more about it here:
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=75

An account of one of the former moderators is here:
http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/locked-entry-will-open-soon/

[Gurra100]

Seems like another guy being trapped by his own influence. Like so many else he has adapted  a "divine" picture of himself wich afflicts many leaders. This is very destructive as we can see here. I´m sorry for this forum. prophet

[Hueglow]

Honestly, I think I'm rather going off Richard Dawkins. He certainly seems to be about as arrogant and elitist as his theist critics make out.

I sometimes had that impression reading and hearing him, as well as his militance comrade Sam Harris (who is even more stubborn). I didn't know he had a forum.
Whatever they said in response to this criticism, I always found them way too intolerant of religion and too dogmatic. Maybe their position is essentially prone to arrogance, since they're such a tiny group of public figures openly criticising religions, and since they believe that the great majority of people are deluded while they're right. But I didn't know Dawkins would be intolerant of diverging opinions inside the community of atheists. I rather liked him.

Are there many people in that forum involved with other ones, like Universism's, or does each forum generally have its own members?

[The Emu's Prophet]

I still think that most of Dawkins' criticisms of religion are fair, and a lot of the criticism directed towards him is simply due to the fact that a lot of religious people aren't used to people not giving their beliefs "priviliged" status, and instead subjecting them to the same criticisms as would be applied to any other belief with an equally flimsy basis in reality. However, I do think that he does have a something of a tendency to use unproductive ad-homs. I always cringe whenever I see him using phrases such as "dyed in the wool faith-heads", which to me seems quite counterproductive if you want people to actually accept your arguments. Attack the position, not the person (which, incidentally, was the main rule of his ex-forum).

The Richard Dawkins forum was in many ways quite similar to the Universist forum, except about 8 times bigger (it was, until two weeks ago, the busiest atheist forum on the internet). The most important role that the forum performed, IMO, was in providing an avenue by which atheists under difficult circumstances could speak their mind. A lot of people were drawn to the forum by the Richard Dawkins brand, who had just started to question their beliefs (often after reading one of RD's books), but were living in a highly theistic environment in which they couldn't really be open about their true thoughts. The forum provided a means for these people to speak their minds openly, and functioned as an online support network whereby other members could give them encouragement and advice. Dawkins has always in public stated a desire to make it easier for atheists to be open about their nonbelief (with the "OUT campaign" and the "There is probably no god" bus adverts). Yet when he has a forum which is doing precisely this for thousands of atheists all over the world, he wants to get rid of it. Which suggests to me that while he might be passionate about fighting the dangers posed by religion, he doesn't really care that much about the individual people that his work has had an impact on.

Anyway, it seems that this debacle has made the media, with several newspapers repeating the complete misrepresentation of the situation by saying that what happened was that poor Richard Dawkins woke up one morning, was horrified to see that his forum was filled with 85,000 savage barbarians who spent their whole time writing vicious personal attacks (who somehow managed to continually disregard the forum rules forbidding personal attacks without getting banned), and was forced to close it down.

He has in recent days made the following, carefully worded apology:

The controversy caused by our decision to close the forums on RichardDawkins.ne t has greatly upset me. It has been raging for several days now and I have spent that time – frustratingly hampered by long haul flights, jet lag and the need to consult people in several different time zones – talking to colleagues and trustees, and reading a multitude of emails as well as open letters, blogs, internet comments and even newspaper articles, and I am now finally in a position to respond publicly. Please forgive me for replying collectively rather than individually. I am engaged in a strenuous book promotion tour of Australia and it would take too long to write separately to everybody who has written to me.
 
I would like to start by apologising for our handling of this situation. We have not communicated well with our forum volunteers and users (for example in my insensitive 'Outrage' post, which was written in the heat of the moment). In the process we have caused unintended hurt and offence, and I am very sorry about that. 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 hope you will understand the human impulses that led to this, and accept my apology for them. I take full personal responsibility.
 
One thing in particular, in my ‘Outrage’ post, has caused some confusion, which I must dispel. It is clear to me now that people were expecting me to post my explanation of why the forum had been closed, and read my piece in that light. My purpose in writing at that time, however, was rather different: it was simply to express my full support for Josh and my horror at some of the truly appalling personal abuse he had been subjected to during the day. I still stand by that. Josh is a personal friend of mine, one of the most talented people I have ever met, and a vital and highly valued member of our team. The character assassination inflicted on him and other team members was beyond reason. In my passionate haste to defend them, I evidently did not express myself as clearly as I would have liked. OF COURSE the vile comments I quoted were not made on our forum, and it was never my intention to suggest that they were, or that it was these comments that had led to its closure. The connection with our forum was simply that the comments – of necessity now made elsewhere – had been written by a few individuals who had previously used our forum, and revealed a disturbing sense of territorialism, entitlement, and extremism of language; and that this reinforced our determination to ensure that the whole of RichardDawkins.ne t should more closely serve the purposes for which we set it up. 
 
I believe that the new RichardDawkins.ne t, which will be launched in the next few weeks will make this possible. The new Discussion area will still permit users to start their own threads, and to post comments. The only significant difference between this and the old forum will be that new threads (note: not the comments) will have to be approved before they appear. This is purely and simply to ensure that all new threads are on subjects relevant to reason and science. It is akin to the editor of a specialist magazine accepting only articles that are relevant to the topic of that magazine. Our old forum contained many excellent discussions on reason and science and related topics, and we certainly don’t want to lose the facility for those. However, it also contained some threads that were potentially harmful to the website’s (and therefore the Foundation’s) reputation. Our goal is to retain the valuable aspects of the old forum, the parts that actively promote the causes for which the website was set up; whilst losing those parts that do not. There will be no pre-publication moderation of comments on our new site: we will just be ensuring that all new, user-instigated discussion threads are on subjects relevant to reason and science.
 
While I stand by the original decision to close the forum in its current form and move to the new Discussion section instead, I want to take a slightly different course based on the feedback we have received over the last few days. It is clear that many of you greatly value some of the discussions that have already taken place and that you see it as a valuable resource. The prospect of this archive being lost to the future has clearly distressed many people, and I should have foreseen this. We will therefore not, after all, remove the old forum altogether, but will continue to make it available in a read-only form: it will not be possible to post new comments on it and it may not (after the originally promised period of 30 days) contain resource-hungry (for these things cost money) elements such as avatars and photographs. But it will preserve an easy-to-access and searchable archive of the knowledge contained in it. I think this is a reasonable and constructive compromise, and I hope it will remove any anxiety and pressure on people to archive favourite material for themselves.
 
I also want to take this opportunity to do something I should have done much earlier, and that is personally to thank all of you who used and contributed to our forums – especially, of course, the volunteer moderators and administrators who worked so tirelessly to keep them running smoothly. I greatly appreciate the time, commitment and sheer dedication you devoted to the cause of reason and science, and the support you have shown me personally. Thank you. I am sorry that over this unfortunate episode it came to such a painful falling-out with some of you, and would like to think that we could all learn from this sorry saga, and then put it behind us and move on.
 
I want to end on a positive note. The forum is not being destroyed. Users will still be able to initiate and contribute to the new Disussion section. There will be still be an online community here. You will be able to re-post items from the old forum on the new site if you want to continue discussions that had already been started. There never have been plans to make RichardDawkins.ne t a fully moderated site with all comments having to be approved before they appear. And although any new software is always likely to experience a few teething problems, overall the changes will result in a site that runs more smoothly, has better performance, is easier to manage, has a better look and feel, and will have a clearer focus on what we are all aiming for: the promotion of reason and science. Away from the website, we will be continuing with initiatives such as the RDF TV vignettes, an educational series of videos on evolution, a feature-length documentary on the conflict between reason and superstition, Non-Believers Giving Aid, The Out Campaign and more.
 
The last few days have been difficult and painful for all of us, but I hope we can begin to put them behind us now: there is lots to look forward to. It would mean a great deal to me to have your support as we do so. Speaking personally, I hope now to enter fully into the spirit of my Australian tour, which has hitherto been marred by a black cloud of despond and enervating anxiety. I hope now to be free to report on some of my experiences in this amazing and wonderfully friendly country over the next few weeks. Once again, I apologise for our mistakes and take full responsibility for them.
 
Sincerely
Richard

While the fact that he has apologised is something (although he would have been pretty stupid not to), his apology, IMO, still fails to address the main issues. He still continues to use the fact that people reacted strongly after being treated badly as justification for shutting the forum down. He still uses the fact that about four people made strongly worded comments about an admin who had just behaved in a manner which would make Ford Vox blush as proof that the entire forum culture was rotten to the core (while still heaping lavish praise on said admin who created the whole fiasco). To me this apology seems to look like mostly spin, as he's not really admitting any wrongdoing at all, merely making the right noises to try to make the controversy go away.

I don't think any less of his work, and his arguments have the same validity they always have. However, as a person I have lost a considerable degree of respect for him.

[GJ (McG)]

I don't think any less of his work, and his arguments have the same validity they always have. However, as a person I have lost a considerable degree of respect for him.

This might sound trivial.... but this is precisely why I have NEVER wanted to read tabloids, or even many biographies of musicians, writers, actors, artists, etc.  If I enjoy the fruits of someone's labor, I want to enjoy it on a rather pure level.  I don't want to appreciate it one day based on its value alone, and then have it tainted simply because I learn the creator is an asshole!

[GJ (McG)]

PS I LOVE the fact that you turned Vox into a verb!!!!  ROFLMAO
 
Only former Universists would understand it, but the minute I read that a forum had been "Voxed" I knew what you meant!!!
Well done!