Apology from Richard Dawkins (Yes Really).

[Pappa]

But the damage to some of us has already been done. (Those of us who were completely deleted.) And can't be undone, that I know of.

Actually it can, if they extracted the deletions from their most recent backup... but it would be fiddly and time consuming.

Agree completely, but I think it has to be done.

The people responsible should agree to do it for free, or hire (out of their own pocket) someone competent to do it if they can't manage it.

What would be the point though (from RDF's point of view), if the posts are to be deleted in 30 days anyway?

Even after the apology, I can't see how it would be high on their list of priorities. If they were really kind, they'd offer to give a copy of the DB backup to a group willing to continue with it... as far as I know, there would be nothing in law preventing them doing it.

[Varangian]

Well, it takes some balls for a high-profile guy like RD to issue a public apology like that, and one good thing is that it will wrest some arguments from the hands of the fundies. Still, I don't think things will be easily patched. I doubt most ex-RDFers will flood back to the new format forum, but in the best of worlds, maybe RDnet and rationalskepticism.org can link to each other, with RDnet passing on traffic to RSorg for those who want a less strict discussion forum.

[Valden]

PZ Myers - what's the betting that he was tipped off this, not that there's anything sinister in that:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... _whole.php

When pz was posting here, he told us that he would have a word with Richard about keeping the forum available as an archive instead of killing it after 30 days.

I do find it amusing that he considers the attacks on Josh "excessive" considering it was very tame compared to what's been said to non-forum members at RDF. Palin anyone? She's the butt of many nasty jokes on that forum.

[Valden]

But the damage to some of us has already been done. (Those of us who were completely deleted.) And can't be undone, that I know of.

Actually it can, if they extracted the deletions from their most recent backup... but it would be fiddly and time consuming.

Agree completely, but I think it has to be done.

The people responsible should agree to do it for free, or hire (out of their own pocket) someone competent to do it if they can't manage it.

What would be the point though (from RDF's point of view), if the posts are to be deleted in 30 days anyway?

Even after the apology, I can't see how it would be high on their list of priorities. If they were really kind, they'd offer to give a copy of the DB backup to a group willing to continue with it... as far as I know, there would be nothing in law preventing them doing it.

Papa, RD has said the old forum will continue to remain in read-mode. Not deleted.
So the right thing to do would be to get at least the majority of the posts that were deleted, back, so they can be part of the forum for those that want to read them.

[Elessarina]

Pappa, RD has said the old forum will continue to remain in read-mode. Not deleted.

[klr]

But the damage to some of us has already been done. (Those of us who were completely deleted.) And can't be undone, that I know of.

Actually it can, if they extracted the deletions from their most recent backup... but it would be fiddly and time consuming.

Agree completely, but I think it has to be done.

The people responsible should agree to do it for free, or hire (out of their own pocket) someone competent to do it if they can't manage it.

What would be the point though (from RDF's point of view), if the posts are to be deleted in 30 days anyway?

Even after the apology, I can't see how it would be high on their list of priorities. If they were really kind, they'd offer to give a copy of the DB backup to a group willing to continue with it... as far as I know, there would be nothing in law preventing them doing it.

They're being kept for good now according to RD, and the search facility is supposed to be restored (smart moves both). So the restoration of the deleted content is back on the table.

The real problem as I see it is that there's no in house database expertise. On that matter, wasn't it odd how they never solicited for help of that kind when they were making those promises about keeping the old forum content under the new system?

[klr]

PZ Myers - what's the betting that he was tipped off this, not that there's anything sinister in that:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... _whole.php

When pz was posting here, he told us that he would have a word with Richard about keeping the forum available as an archive instead of killing it after 30 days.

I do find it amusing that he considers the attacks on Josh "excessive" considering it was very tame compared to what's been said to non-forum members at RDF. Palin anyone? She's the butt of many nasty jokes on that forum.

Correct, a point which I've made several times over the past few days. Not a forum member = open season. I wonder if that will change under the new system? It really should IMHO.

[MissingNo.]

He still seems to think there were personal attacks on Josh when there weren't. The "rhino's twat" comment was written facetiously for the sake of humour. There's also a big difference between saying "x makes me want to ram a fistful of nails down his throat" and "I'm going to ram a fistful of nails down your throat!" I also have a bit of trouble believing that he didn't intend to imply that the comments were made on a different forum. Anyone reading without knowing about rationalia "Outrage!" would certainly interpret it that way as there was no mention of this site.

It's not a huge deal, though. There are way more positive things than negative in this letter and I still think it's really great that he did this. He has redeemed himself as far as I'm concerned. Also, gratitude is owed to PZ Meyers as well if he did take the time to talk to Dawkins about this.

[NineBerry]

The real problem as I see it is that there's no in house database expertise. On that matter, wasn't it odd how they never solicited for help of that kind when they were making those promises about keeping the old forum content under the new system?

I think such a promise was never made. They only said that user names would be transferred and that there would be a possibility to keep data. (Someone obviously thought that giving people 30 days time to "archive their own content" would somehow work...)

[Pappa]

But the damage to some of us has already been done. (Those of us who were completely deleted.) And can't be undone, that I know of.

Actually it can, if they extracted the deletions from their most recent backup... but it would be fiddly and time consuming.

Agree completely, but I think it has to be done.

The people responsible should agree to do it for free, or hire (out of their own pocket) someone competent to do it if they can't manage it.

What would be the point though (from RDF's point of view), if the posts are to be deleted in 30 days anyway?

Even after the apology, I can't see how it would be high on their list of priorities. If they were really kind, they'd offer to give a copy of the DB backup to a group willing to continue with it... as far as I know, there would be nothing in law preventing them doing it.

Papa, RD has said the old forum will continue to remain in read-mode. Not deleted.
So the right thing to do would be to get at least the majority of the posts that were deleted, back, so they can be part of the forum for those that want to read them.

Sorry, yeah, I realised that a few mins after I posted the above. It would certainly be an idea for someone to suggest those posts/accounts are reinstated.

[klr]

The real problem as I see it is that there's no in house database expertise. On that matter, wasn't it odd how they never solicited for help of that kind when they were making those promises about keeping the old forum content under the new system?

I think such a promise was never made. They only said that user names would be transferred and that there would be a possibility to keep data. (Someone obviously thought that giving people 30 days time to "archive their own content" would somehow work...)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I was referring to the previous six months or so when they should have been doing all the development and testing to carry out this full data transfer/mapping. They swore blind that they would do it as recently as a few weeks ago (courtesy of Andrew Chalkley, responding to you as I recall) . You don't make that sort of promise unless you've more or less figured out beforehand in detail how to do it.

[lordpasternack]

Posted: http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge2#464887

Thank you for this apology, and earnest attempt to clear the air, particularly with respect to your 'Outrage' announcement, Richard. This is well appreciated and was much needed.

But why are you scapegoating yourself for the sins of Josh Timonen and Andrew Chalkers? I have no doubt that some oversight from yourself might have prevented these two, who were clearly not suitable to deal with the situation they were left to handle, might have helped - but they are both accountable adults themselves, and you can't just take complete vicarious responsibility.

And aside from the apologies and taking of vicarious responsibility, is anything practical being done to prevent anything of this sort recurring in future?

Will you watch the watchers yourself, or find someone with a bit more of a head on their shoulders to do such? Is there any kind of disciplinary action being given out, beyond your own not entirely valid self-flagellation? Has it been demonstrated that Josh and/or Andrew - the accountable adults responsible for certain things committed - are themselves remotely regretful for actions that either or both of them took over the relevant time period? And will Josh and/or Andrew actually make a positive commitment towards dialogue with other users of this site in future - even when the chips may be down for them?

It'd be nice if you could clear those matters up.

Also, I'd be keen to know which material was potentially damaging to the reputation of the site - and how a simple change in either forum settings, rules or moderation could not have addressed that matter more than sufficiently? And to what degree was it deemed potentially damaging and by whom? Does this amount to more than mild paranoia and needless fretting?

There was some rather graphic sexual material on the site way back when, and it was dealt with in this manner (and similarly initially implemented appallingly... you'd think that people - yourself perhaps - might have learnt something or other) - and things went relatively smoothly thereafter - but of course for the fact that the initial rules set down left a lot to be desired, and neither yourself nor Josh had any further time for it, but I digress...

I don't find that a satisfactory explanation for the total overhaul of the forum format, with changes in moderation on top.

Are you sure it isn't more to do with Josh personally finding forums "sloppy and lazy" - as a widely reported extract from his Twitter account claims? Are you sure it isn't just a stylistic preference of his - to create something practically identical to the front page, but with user-written 'articles', and more heavy-handed moderation of comments being proposed than exists on the front-page?

(And I'll observe, while I'm here that the front page potentially has far worse published on it, as far as your reputation may go - though you seem more loathe to drop bombs on that community with changes you've even tentatively suggested before.)

I'm sorry to go through your statement with such a fine-toothed comb, but it kind of asked it of me, and I felt compelled to accede.

[kiki5711]

My reply:

Thank you Richard for the apology and treating us as friends and not only potential customers. However, as I always tell my kids when they make a mess, they have to take responsibility for it and speak out on their own behalf.
In that I mean that Josh and his staff need too recognize and apologize for their mistakes and realize that they are dealing with humans with feelings, not just a forum that pays his rent.

Thank you

[Beatsong]

Credit where credit's due. Everyone makes mistakes and he's admitted making one and attempted to make amends for it, which is pretty impressive for someone of his stature.

I agree with the comments that it would be the decent thing to restore the forum to its state before some of the mods were purged.

Mostly, I find myself concentrating now on how the new forum is gonna be and whether I'll be into posting there. I have to say I just can't get excited about it. Randomness and wackiness and posts that aren't strictly relevant are part of what forums are about. The trick is not to sanitise all that away but to get the balance right, and I reckon RD.net HAD it about as right as anyone.

Maybe it's because I'm a creative type rather than a scientist, but the prospective new forum sounds a bit dull and worthy for my liking. Happy to be proved wrong though, so we'll see.

[macdoc]

Aside from an unwarranted defence of Josh at least he took full responsibility and did an appropriate mea culpa.
For that I am grateful tho not forgiving....I'll wait and see the outcome in a longer time frame.

Doing a general apology is fine and should shut up some of the stupidity on the blogs and news media.

That said - every mod should get

a) a personal apology in private -

b) an invitation by Richard to comment to him personally and in private their hurt and their suggestions

I think Mandela calls it Truth and Reconciliation...

personally - I'm moving on from anything to do with his site or foundations......fool me once n'all