First reaction by Richard Dawkins.

[TBickle]

I'm a "celebrity" now? Heh. I'm a guy with a blog, with absolutely zero influence over Josh, and no obligations in return.

Although I am a little miffed. I've seen the traffic numbers on RD.net from Google Analytics, and it gets about 1/2 to 2/3 of the traffic of Pharyngula (and sorry to inform you of the diminution of your status further still, but the forums only got about 1/4 of the traffic of the whole site). And you guys keep talking about how RD.net is the biggest.

And yeah, I know how important these kinds of sites can be to people -- they often represent the only outlet for atheists in a sea of superstitious fools to reach out and express themselves. When I say that they are not that important, I mean that the particular instantiation of a mode of communication, whether it's RD.net or Rationalia or Pharyngula or RaptureReady, isn't the big deal. The fact that you're communicating is what matters. And that hasn't changed.

Again, you don't understand. It HAS changed.

[Strontium Dog]

In the interest of fairness perhaps Richard or PZ should go and have a look at the actual thread on RDF when the announcement was made, it was no where near as vitriolic as what happened on here, AFTER Josh had :

a) Removed PM Functionality
b) Deleted tens of thousands of science posts
c) removed signatures that attempted to give people another place to meet
d) Locked the forums and turned off search completely to make it nigh impossible to archive any content.
e) specifically forbade mods from helping people to arrange to go to a new forum
f) redirected archival programs to a Rick-roll

Oh wait, you can't, it's been conveniently perma-deleted in it's entirety.

yes vitriol was thrown here, but hard working staff members were treated like utter shit.

Quite right, 95Theses.

If anyone, whether they are Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers or Beelzebub himself, thinks that those comments about Josh were made merely in response to a post about the forum changing, then they need their heads testing.

We might be an angry baying mob carrying torches, but it is not without good reason.

[ficklefiend]

Although I am a little miffed. I've seen the traffic numbers on RD.net from Google Analytics, and it gets about 1/2 to 2/3 of the traffic of Pharyngula (and sorry to inform you of the diminution of your status further still, but the forums only got about 1/4 of the traffic of the whole site). And you guys keep talking about how RD.net is the biggest.

From what I've seen the comparison to the front page was in terms of posts made.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think it does have a bit to do with maturity. There is change and then there is change. On the scale of things to bitch about, taking down or modifying the RDF chat forum is pretty far down on the list.

No. Absolutely nothing to do with maturity, it's to do with psychology. What happened here really is a classic change management screw-up, go look it up.

I'm not disputing that with you - yes, the administrators could have done a few things to soften the blow, and it would have kept some people from going off the deep end on this.

However, change management doesn't justify every silly reaction by people effected. To me, the reaction of some people on this forum is like someone shot their dog or something. PZMeyer's point is well-taken. It's just a forum, people. As much as we all liked it and valued it, there is a level of outrage appropriate for things like this...

[locutus7]

I said below on an earlier post somewhere. Who knew I had predictive powers:


"Frankly, I'm guessing RD has realized they stumbled in the execution of this transition, and he is concerned about internet smears to his reputation. So he will unleash some supporters to unspool the counternarrative of "just a few malcontents.""

[pzmyers]

Oddly, they are far more important thatn you think if you move in circles where the majority are vocally theist (working class, low education, rural communities throughout all countries, I reckon). You may have bigger comfort zones in your real world than many forum members. It's all about trying to see things from a different perspective and I don't think RD is able to see far beyond the hallowed halls.

Have you ever been to Morris, Minnesota? Working class, rural, major industry is farming, almost entirely Republican, with a small college plunked down in the middle of it. We've got 14 churches for 5000 people. I have virtually no comfort zone at all. I'm known as the village atheist. The Stevens County council of churches has condemned me.

I've talked with many people who would agree with you entirely, that the internet is an important lifeline for isolated atheists. Richard Dawkins is aware of the importance of the internet, too.

I'm just saying that focusing on one forum and one style of communication is a big mistake. Internet forums regularly implode into shouting cliques like this, get used to it. It's part of the ecosystem.

[num1cubfn]

I think it does have a bit to do with maturity. There is change and then there is change. On the scale of things to bitch about, taking down or modifying the RDF chat forum is pretty far down on the list.

No. Absolutely nothing to do with maturity, it's to do with psychology. What happened here really is a classic change management screw-up, go look it up.

I'm not disputing that with you - yes, the administrators could have done a few things to soften the blow, and it would have kept some people from going off the deep end on this.

However, change management doesn't justify every silly reaction by people effected. To me, the reaction of some people on this forum is like someone shot their dog or something. PZMeyer's point is well-taken. It's just a forum, people. As much as we all liked it and valued it, there is a level of outrage appropriate for things like this...

You still fail to realize that this uproar is NOT about a forum change. it's about tens of thousands of deleted forum posts. It's about people not being banned for no reason, but actually having every post they ever made DELETED without reason. It's about Josh doing everything in his power to prevent forum members from reconnecting on another forum. It's about linking to rick roll websites. It's about things that Josh DID, not about proposed changes.

[klr]

Oh, and you can just imagine how Josh has portrayed this forum to RD.

[eXcommunicate]

Yes, people value the forum. I, for one, valued it very much. I went there all the time. It was my favorite place to post. You and I had many discussions, usually on opposite sides, and I always thought it was great (I was under a different name).

What?! What is this devilry?! I demand to know who you are! Goddamnit, is this Prospero?

But, even though I value it, that doesn't mean I give it an importance that it doesn't deserve. Even if they decided to end it - say, because of cost issues and they wanted to take the site in a different direction - I would be disappointed and I would oppose such a move, but in the grand scheme of things, there would be far greater things to go off half-cocked about.

Well, I think I personally have been pretty measured about it, asking salient questions and putting forth reasonable supposition and commentary (perhaps I think too highly of my response to this whole thing). Yes, I have been a wee bit emotional, but one thing I haven't done is march around with a torch and pitchfork.

But as I commented in another colossal thread, I think there is a disturbing trend in various media and certainly on the Internet toward "managed content" and a disregard to a free flowing, organic exchange in favor of "moderation." I think this move at RD.net is another example, but I won't know for sure until the new "forum" is up and running. People just don't like the idea of their Internet being sanitized. The reaction of Mr. Timonen and Mr. Dawkins to this whole thing tells me they just don't understand the underlying concerns, and use the vitriol of a minority of their website's user base as rationalization for their callousness.

Rest assured though, none of this makes me lose sleep at night. lol

[cowiz]

Oh, and you can just imagine how Josh has portrayed this forum to RD.

Does the phrase "petulant children" ring any bells?

[floppit]

The pathetic thing is it focusses on the absolute worst of the reaction, while completely ignoring all the perfectly calm, rational expressions of frustration and concern made by hundreds of people.

You know what - this has to be said, RD has been picking the juicy bits from whatever religion or foe he takes on, surely to god you didn't think a different approach would be taken over this? Has anyone seriously thought that the emails of vitriol was all he ever got from believers? Didn't you see his response to liberal christians after a nut job fundy spouted drivel re Haiti? The real irony is his accusation of ludicrously hyperbolic animosity, something, on occasion levelled at his approach to theism.

Anyway - for those who the above seriously offends, go for it - I would have gone pop if I didn't say it eventually.

[M]

Oddly, they are far more important thatn you think if you move in circles where the majority are vocally theist (working class, low education, rural communities throughout all countries, I reckon). You may have bigger comfort zones in your real world than many forum members. It's all about trying to see things from a different perspective and I don't think RD is able to see far beyond the hallowed halls.

Have you ever been to Morris, Minnesota? Working class, rural, major industry is farming, almost entirely Republican, with a small college plunked down in the middle of it. We've got 14 churches for 5000 people. I have virtually no comfort zone at all. I'm known as the village atheist. The Stevens County council of churches has condemned me.

I've talked with many people who would agree with you entirely, that the internet is an important lifeline for isolated atheists. Richard Dawkins is aware of the importance of the internet, too.

I'm just saying that focusing on one forum and one style of communication is a big mistake. Internet forums regularly implode into shouting cliques like this, get used to it. It's part of the ecosystem.

I fully understand. In the same way you (plural) should understand that people's relationships and posts on that site mattered to the. We had this in 2008 when OT was rifled; people were told that they were "babies" (RD himself), "get over it", move on" within hours of the upset. It baffles me that intelligent people can be so lacking in empathy.

[Twoflower]

Oh, and you can just imagine how Josh has portrayed this forum to RD.

Does the phrase "petulant children" ring any bells?

Thumb suckers?

[virphen]

I'm just saying that focusing on one forum and one style of communication is a big mistake. Internet forums regularly implode into shouting cliques like this, get used to it. It's part of the ecosystem.

PZ, please try and understand where we're coming from. It isn't about the forum, it's about people, and how those people were treated. In particular people who donated thousands of hours of their time to help out the RDF and try and support its goals. Those people really were treated like they were something you tread in on a farm.

[Coito ergo sum]

What RD doesn’t address, and doesn’t even acknowledge, is the way in which the whole thing was miss-managed. It’s about recognising that people are uncomfortable with change and having a plan in place to manage the process in the right way. Explaining why, listening, reassuring, responding to comments and all that standard text-book stuff. This fiasco would make a great business school case study in precisely what not to do.

A humble admission of “I got it wrong” would be a good start but no, everyone else is at fault. Does he not understand that “splenetic hysteria” is exactly what happens when you seriously screw-up change management?

If I had to hazard a guess, I would suggest the following:

1. Dawkins hasn't recognized that there has been any "mismanagement" and reads the reaction as immaturity;
2. Dawkins doesn't consider it a worthwhile endeavor to waste his time figuring out whether Josh injured the feelings of some grown men and women who for some reason became emotionally invested in what amounted to an online chat room.
3. Nobody ever accused Dawkins of being the "touchy feely" type. "Explaining why, listening, reassuring..." - please - nobody was getting fired from paying jobs. It was a web forum. My guess is that he figures that a new forum will be up in a while and he seems to think, according to his comment on the subject, that people will still be able to post what they want.

I think if this was something we paid for it might make sense to be really irate about it. As for me, thanks for the 18 months, give or take, of fun discussions, debate and all that. Hopefully the new thing will be really good too.

I appreciate your POV, but regardless of whether Richard Dawkins (or you) take discussion forums seriously, other people do. Discussion forums are the new town hall, and RD.net's was the biggest atheist themed town hall in the world.

I acknowledge that, which is why I applauded your point in another post. I can see your point.

My suggestion would be that there are ways to deal with these things that do not amount to ranting and raving and cursing the name of Dawkins. There's a button on RDF that allows one to email the administrator from one's personal website and I would think a nice, well thought out email discussing the things that we would like to see preserved in an itemized and understandable fashion would go a long way if a good number of people made reasonable suggestions.

What I can't figure out is what someone cursing out Dawkins and calling him names here or anywhere else would expect to achieve. It's not like all the screaming and crying is going to make anyone say, "oh, shit, I was wrong. My bad, folks. The forum will be back up and running with no changes tomorrow." Of course that's not going to happen.

Yes, people value the forum. I, for one, valued it very much. I went there all the time. It was my favorite place to post. You and I had many discussions, usually on opposite sides, and I always thought it was great (I was under a different name). But, even though I value it, that doesn't mean I give it an importance that it doesn't deserve. Even if they decided to end it - say, because of cost issues and they wanted to take the site in a different direction - I would be disappointed and I would oppose such a move, but in the grand scheme of things, there would be far greater things to go off half-cocked about.

People are angrily objecting to what Josh has done (see thesis95 above), NOT at Dawkins. Your misunderstanding of what is going on explains why you are not upset with what happened.

No, I am up to speed on what people are upset about. You can scroll up the thread and see people bitching about Dawkins' himself, personally. I realize that a lot of anger is expressed at this guy Josh too, and probably even primarily.

I'm not upset with what happened because I'm not emotionally invested in the existence of a discussion forum. I really liked RDF forum. It was the only one that ever posted on regularly until this website. So, there is no web forum is MORE important to me at all. However, how upset can a grown man get at the elimination of a web forum, even the most important web forum in the world?