Richard Dawkins' forum run by prefects with swagger sticks?

[Shaker]

You should be

[klr]

You should be

I have very catholic musical tastes (note the small 'c').

Yes, those were the days indeed, when one could bestride the narrow forum layout like a colossus ...

[ScholasticSpastic]

Mary Hopkins is fine, I guess, but she's so wooden and her voice is to tiny I find it really hard to get into this quite wonderful song when she sings it.

Leningrad Cowboys do it better:


/Unsanctioned Moderator Derail Encouragement.

(Sorry, folks, I'm just not upset enough about the moderation at RD.net to keep on topic. )

[CJ]

Whatever, I just hope to fuck (for your own sake) that you didn't mention my name in any way.

No. At no point did I mention you in the PM

[Ayaan]

I forgot I posted in here, but I now see that post is hilarious and farcical. Dawkins is turning in to a right tosser. Topsy was always an arse as far as I could see, she just couldn't wait to ascend the mod's hierarchy and start banninating people she didn't like. I imagine she was thrashing way on her clitoris as she did it.

Just have to say something here ... As much as I find the moderation of RDF to be fundamentally negative and counterproductive, creating issues rather than resolving them, I would never characterise any of the staff members in the way Meeky is here. They're regular, fallible people who make mistakes and get away with it for three reasons: the heirarchical structure of the membership/staff dynamic, the design of the guidelines, and the completely impenetrable, isolated exclusivity the staff foster for themselves.

I know, it's not the most intelligent criticism, but this is the thing. Dawkins is upper middle class to upper class, speaks using impeccable received pronunciation and he's running a moral crusade. A man like that does not need to give the world extra reasons to think he's a wanker, and the average working class chap is just going to hear a university toff telling them what to think.

Like it or not, that is what he faces. He can debate Dinesh D'Souza et al all all he wants, but he won't change anything as long as he comes across as a galavanting member of the ruling class. Sorry - that's just the way it looks to most ordinary people who cannot understand the nuances of what he is saying.

Not often I agree with MC but over the time I have been involved with RDF and have read TGD I wholeheartedly agree with MCs sentiments about RD and his 'silver spoon' Oxford Prof' attitude. RD has no idea how to communicate to the person of average IQ and below that came across in his programme about Darwin when he talked to the school kids, it was a new definition of patronising!

+1

However the issue at TDF NOW isn't RD as much as RichardPrins and the rules he has had to implement. Given the rules there, the 'police' HAVE to be draconian.

The rules at RDF now are the rules that Prof. Dawkins wanted. They are what the staff have to work with.

[Shaker]

Not often I agree with MC but over the time I have been involved with RDF and have read TGD I wholeheartedly agree with MCs sentiments about RD and his 'silver spoon' Oxford Prof' attitude. RD has no idea how to communicate to the person of average IQ and below that came across in his programme about Darwin when he talked to the school kids, it was a new definition of patronising!

N.B. That seems AOK to me.

TTFN!

[CJ]

I just had a reply from RD

Hello

There has been some debate as to whether you read PMs sent to you.
Please would you confirm who initially opened this PM.

Regards
Chris

I, Richard Dawkins, opened this message
Richard

He reads his PMs!

[AshtonBlack]

Oh my, I've never seen so many people agreeing with MC in one thread... whatever next? Cats living with Dogs? GawdZilla not posting for a week?

Also, I've not posted much on RDF net, except to plug my mate's blog(No not meekie's one.), since the great purge. No interest any more. Sad, but true.

[lordpasternack]

Meeky - the only thing I hold against Dawkins for the moderation of his forum is the fact that he has allowed there to be a set-up where the moderation of the forum is practically not overseen by anyone, and does not need to have any particular accountability to the members either - besides a few other flaws in the set-up. He doesn't actually dictate or keep on top of the moderation himself, and that's part of the problem - and I genuinely, genuinely think that if he knew some of the questionable moderation that has gone on on the forum, he would be the first to call the moderating team on it.

As is noted in the OP, Richard himself said that, for the front page at least, he would rather not have moderation - and if he was to have moderators, they would be diplomatic, easy-going and whatnot (I'm paraphrasing). He is also on-record as having criticised the front-page folk for flagging posts as "trolling"/"offensive" just because they had some passionate disagreement with the sentiments expressed. Both these instances that I can put my finger on ocurred on the front page, where Richard is slightly more present, and I think they give a little hint as to what he might likely also like for the forum area of the site.

What I don't understand is why he doesn't take the time to chase the logical thought that if these things are occasionally creeping up onto the front page - where he is there to catch them and try to nip them in the bud - what might be going on in the forum area, where he isn't around to see it play out?

I mean, does he not consider - does he not know - that this front page moderator who sparked all the grumbling from the front-pagers, was an admin of the forum (and had probably risen through the ranks to reach that position) for several months, and his general demeanor was much the same then as it was when the staff on the board decided to give him another staff position? (And to note - I have every respect for Kevin/klr as a person - but I honestly wouldn't hand any more reins of power to him for the indefinite future.) And does he not consider that the whole kerfuffle with the sexual content on the board, and the implementation of the guidelines, might have been avoided had something been put in place to oversee OBC's adminship? (And I would add that all current mods who still seem to feel aggrieved by that particular admin decision from OBC also clearly didn't take enough initiative to try to contact Josh or Richard about the potentially damaging content on the site.)

I just find it difficult to understand why the thought never even crosses his mind. But as long as the moderation on RD.net continues to trundle along averaging at "slightly irksome" on the Annoyance Gauge, I suspect very little of those stupid little things - but still questionable things (like the ethos of those who are to all intents and purposes at the helm, and the tendency to take punitive actions against members whose ethos or views one finds objectionable) - will ever reach Richard at any critical mass to give him the impression that this sentiment is anything more than a few whining troublemakers.

This does sound a little presumptuous - but I know that Richard is at least congenial to me on the board: he knows my "name", and has had a few interactions with me, and whatnot - at least two of which to mind were complimentary. ( ) I don't think he views me as being a troublemaker as such (in fact, I don't think a single soul on RDF would, except perhaps Topsy, when she's pissed off in an argument with me or something) - so I almost feel as though I can use my position, standing on the verge of permanent banning, almost as the gauge by which he might come to feel that something in the system needs looking at.

Did I really deserve a formal warning for stating in simple candid (and non-racy) terms that my partner found some aspects of the quality his sex-life improve after he embarked on foreskin restoration? Did I really deserve that formal warning for the ad-hoc ruling that I missed, that had been arbitrated in-thread? Did I really deserve that formal warning - that was eventually rescinded - for an uncharacteristic, regrettable straightforward slip-up of revealling a small tidbit of something that had been said in a PM conversation?

And all that may sound horrible egocentric - but unfortunately, I don't have much of an accurate record of any other member's run-ins with the mods. Certainly, though, it seems that it's taken me to get into the position of hanging on the edge of banning, for certain members of staff to realise that not practically every minor transgression of mine requires official admonishment - even if I should "know better", or whatever.

I think there may be some change in philosophy in the wings, and I tried to drop it in myself, to considering that one's position as a mod is not to look out for troublemakers, keep a firm boot on some folk, or try to teach some members a good lesson - but simply to steward the forum to within written rules - dealing with transgressions for what they are as opposed to who comitted them.

(I actually think that anonymous posting atmospheres are actually good for the latter point there - in modding and in simple debate - in that it's impossible to judge any post/transgression by anything other than its own value: there's no other bias that can exist when practically every post is authored by some indistinct and unknown character.)

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit...

[lordpasternack]

However the issue at RDF NOW isn't RD as much as RichardPrins and the rules he has had to implement. Given the rules there, the 'police' HAVE to be draconian.

The rules at RDF now are the rules that Prof. Dawkins wanted. They are what the staff have to work with.

Richard, as I've gleaned from a few encounters, will yield to the last word of a lawyer, whether or not it is technically a principle that he actually embraces in theory. Though I must say that I'm a bit put out by Richard's waxing self-interested about his "reputation" - even where it may be politically shrewd, or whatever. (And even, to note, The Ecophysiologist was surprised about that matter.) I'm a very quixotic person, and I hold to certain ideals quite vehemently.

Still, the implementation of the agreed-upon rules need not be as harsh as it sometimes is.

Edit to fix a sentence left hanging in mid-air. I was distracted by an engaging conversation about Orwell's 1984 on MSN...

[klr]

...
I mean, does he not consider - does he not know - that this front page moderator who sparked all the grumbling from the front-pagers, was an admin of the forum (and had probably risen through the ranks to reach that position) for several months, and his general demeanor was much the same then as it was when the staff on the board decided to give him another staff position? (And to note - I have every respect for Kevin/klr as a person - but I honestly wouldn't hand any more reins of power to him for the indefinite future.)
...

Excuse me? Where on earth do you think you got the right to pontificate like this? First up, you've hardly ever spoken to me one-to-one, let alone outside the context of some moderation issue. You think you are entitled to judge on such limited exposure and such a narrow context? No you are not. So you don't "know" me, and therefore you are not in position to say that you "... have every respect ... as a person ...", or indeed to hold any opinion good, bad or indifferent about me at that level, other than a basic presumption of respect that should be allowed to everyone by default. There are a number of people here and elsewhere who do know me, based on extended and very detailed contact.

As for forming an opinion based on my moderation: You have not been in the position that I have, you don't know what actually transpired behind the scenes during all that time - trust me, you really don't. You are therefore not qualified to put forward anything other than a vague impression.

So why should I be bothered at all with the expression of what is essentially a worthless opinion? For one thing, it doesn't do much for the tone of this forum to see people going around making groundless accusations against other people, or even just saying out loud things that they should keep to themselves, or be discussing in private. It also rather ironic. You essentially accuse me of being tactless. You know, there are a whole litany of things that I could have discussed in my time here, but I've chosen to keep quiet in public, and almost as quiet in private. And for the most part to choose my words very carefully when I do speak on a touchy issue. Which is pretty much how I operated back at RD.net, except when responsibility dictated otherwise, and I do not believe in shirking responsibility. I no more like being confrontational than the next person - life is too short really - and I do it only out of strict necessity.

I should say that there is actually quite a bit to commend in your post, although there are also other parts that I would take issue with besides the above. But I don't really feel in the mood to go through it bit by bit somehow.

Now here's a very curious thing: If I wanted to, I could talk at length about everything that has happened in the past couple of years. Believe me, you'd hear things that would make your jaw drop, and then some . Quite why I haven't done so do to date, I am not even sure myself. It's not as if I have anything to hide - I am ruthlessly self-analytical. It's certainly not because I feel beholden to anyone . I certainly never took any vow of silence. It's certainly not because I'm afraid of the general shit-storm that would ensue.

Finally, anyone who wants to offer an opinion about the RD.net Front Page really ought to take all the available facts (to them) into account before saying anything. And there are plenty of things to consider. My personal favourite happens to be this comment:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge3#322295

I don't know about you, but when a thread degenerates into in-group, cliquish, bar-room willy-waving between a few individuals who all seem to know each other (but apparently don't like each other very much), I'm off. This is not a chat room, it is a thread about the Darwin 200 pamphlet. Very probably there is nothing more to be said on-topic, in which case I'm ready to move out.

[Ayaan]

{snip...} Now here's a very curious thing: If I wanted to, I could talk at length about everything that has happened in the past couple of years. Believe me, you'd hear things that would make your jaw drop, and then some . Quite why I haven't done so do to date, I am not even sure myself. It's not as if I have anything to hide - I am ruthlessly self-analytical. It's certainly not because I feel beholden to anyone . I certainly never took any vow of silence. It's certainly not because I'm afraid of the general shit-storm that would ensue.

Finally, anyone who wants to offer an opinion about the RD.net Front Page really ought to take all the available facts (to them) into account before saying anything. And there are plenty of things to consider. My personal favourite happens to be this comment:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge3#322295

I don't know about you, but when a thread degenerates into in-group, cliquish, bar-room willy-waving between a few individuals who all seem to know each other (but apparently don't like each other very much), I'm off. This is not a chat room, it is a thread about the Darwin 200 pamphlet. Very probably there is nothing more to be said on-topic, in which case I'm ready to move out.

Because you have integrity and feel (as I do) that what happened behind-the-scenes at RDF should stay there. I consider it an honor to have worked with you at RDF and hate the way things wound up. (rootbeer floats) Let's just say that I have gotten good at biting my tongue when threads like this pop up.

[lordpasternack]

...
I mean, does he not consider - does he not know - that this front page moderator who sparked all the grumbling from the front-pagers, was an admin of the forum (and had probably risen through the ranks to reach that position) for several months, and his general demeanor was much the same then as it was when the staff on the board decided to give him another staff position? (And to note - I have every respect for Kevin/klr as a person - but I honestly wouldn't hand any more reins of power to him for the indefinite future.)
...

Excuse me? Where on earth do you think you got the right to pontificate like this? First up, you've hardly ever spoken to me one-to-one, let alone outside the context of some moderation issue. You think you are entitled to judge on such limited exposure and such a narrow context? No you are not. So you don't "know" me, and therefore you are not in position to say that you "... have every respect ... as a person ...", or indeed to hold any opinion good, bad or indifferent about me at that level, other than a basic presumption of respect that should be allowed to everyone by default. There are a number of people here and elsewhere who do know me, based on extended and very detailed contact.

Kevin - I said that I respect you as a person, but did not like your moderation style. You're right that I don't know you very much outside of your moderation (and you are, as you've said, quite private on the fora), but it was only to your moderation that I was referring. I've gleaned a small amount of information about you as a person from various interactions - enough to feel some sort of rapport with you - but I was never able to appreciate your demeanor as a moderator/admin.

As for forming an opinion based on my moderation: You have not been in the position that I have, you don't know what actually transpired behind the scenes during all that time - trust me, you really don't. You are therefore not qualified to put forward anything other than a vague impression.

I don't know what happened behind the scenes, and I actually recall having a short dialogue with you on your being ousted from the staff, and you said the same then, and just a little bit more that I'll pause to maintain discretion. I was congenial with you then, and it was genuine. I do see something or other in you that I like...

... But I did see what happened out in the open - and I'm sorry Kevin, but I am not a fan of some of the tactics you used. I just disagree with that at a personal level.

For one thing, it doesn't do much for the tone of this forum to see people going around making groundless accusations against other people, or even just saying out loud things that they should keep to themselves, or be discussing in private. It also rather ironic. You essentially accuse me of being tactless.

I wouldn't accuse you of being tactless - more overbearing in your "tact". There is a general theme that permeates some of the things you've brought up in this thread about keeping up appearances, not bringing the team down, shaming the man at the top, etc. It was particularly what distiguished your short career modding the front page. You just couldn't stop shooting the troublemakers, the uncouth, those damaging the reputation of the site. Frankly, I think Free Expression is more sacred than anyone's reputation (but that's personal inclination) - and I think and hope that in this sort of environment such Free Expression will yield criticism of non-constructive and/or spurious remarks.

You know, there are a whole litany of things that I could have discussed in my time here, but I've chosen to keep quiet in public, and almost as quiet in private. And for the most part to choose my words very carefully when I do speak on a touchy issue. Which is pretty much how I operated back at RD.net, except when responsibility dictated otherwise, and I do not believe in shirking responsibility. I no more like being confrontational than the next person - life is too short really - and I do it only out of strict necessity.

That's another thing: your honour. You seem to feel, in your modding, that it's your calling and duty to enforce what you feel is right - and as mentioned above, what you feel is right is not necessarily what others feel is right - including Dawkins himself, who was slightly more offensive about your modding than I was. There's no secret that the "head prefect with swagger stick" epithet was a general reference to yourself...

I should say that there is actually quite a bit to commend in your post, although there are also other parts that I would take issue with besides the above. But I don't really feel in the mood to go through it bit by bit somehow.

Well, if you have the time...

Now here's a very curious thing: If I wanted to, I could talk at length about everything that has happened in the past couple of years. Believe me, you'd hear things that would make your jaw drop, and then some . Quite why I haven't done so do to date, I am not even sure myself. It's not as if I have anything to hide - I am ruthlessly self-analytical. It's certainly not because I feel beholden to anyone . I certainly never took any vow of silence. It's certainly not because I'm afraid of the general shit-storm that would ensue.

It's possibly because you apply your moderation ethos to your own words?

Finally, anyone who wants to offer an opinion about the RD.net Front Page really ought to take all the available facts (to them) into account before saying anything. And there are plenty of things to consider. My personal favourite happens to be this comment:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge3#322295

I don't know about you, but when a thread degenerates into in-group, cliquish, bar-room willy-waving between a few individuals who all seem to know each other (but apparently don't like each other very much), I'm off. This is not a chat room, it is a thread about the Darwin 200 pamphlet. Very probably there is nothing more to be said on-topic, in which case I'm ready to move out.

That's not entirely on-topic.

In any case, you should also take into account that though Richard dislikes that sort of dialogue, he still allows it, and still holds to the ideal that he wouldn't like moderation.

And in fact, he did make a comment in a similar vein at some point where he made the concession that he enjoyed some banter now and again, but didn't like it descending too much into cliquey derails.

[charlou]

I just had a reply from RD

Hello

There has been some debate as to whether you read PMs sent to you.
Please would you confirm who initially opened this PM.

Regards
Chris

I, Richard Dawkins, opened this message
Richard

He reads his PMs!

[charlou]

Two things ...

* I think we can discuss RDF guidelines and moderation without getting personal and/or insulting about members or staff of RDF, past or present. [/my opinion]


* Any discussion which becomes personal may be split and moved to our In Depth forum if it continues. [/staff comment]