What happened!?

[rutski]

I just visited the richarddawkins.net forums for the first time in almost a year. After a few minutes of reading, I started asking myself "hey, why are there no new posts after late February?"

When I read Josh's notice, the one that included the wording "We ask that you respect our decision," red flags went off everywhere in my head. I always mentally translate that sort of language to something like "I'm going to do something really pushy and rude just because I'm in charge here and all you losers are my bitches. But I'm going to pretend to be nice about it, so you guys aren't allowed criticize me, sound good?"

You can imagine the great 3-4 hours of reading which followed, getting caught up on the event. Damn, I really wish that Josh T. had taken his power issues out somewhere else. Rationalia looks good too, but I miss the feel of the original forum.

I can't believe that both Richard and PZ never scolded Josh, at a bare minimum, for deleting years of valuable posts on a whim like that. Or did they? Either way, I don't have much respect left for either of them anymore.

Anyway, hey again everybody.
/waves

[Bella Fortuna]

Welcome!

There are more serious threads of the old RDF style at rationalskepticism.org. We have some serious topics as well, but are mainly an "off-topic" community for socialising and having fun. You've probably discovered some of the key threads related to the RDF forum shutdown, you can read at your leisure if you like as you have a look around here. Lots of folks visit both this forum and RatSkep in tandem.

[charlou]

Hi rutski, and welcome.

I'm moving your thread to our RDF Announcement subforum. If you search for the original RDF Announcement thread (started by hackenslash) you'll find more information, along with a lengthy discussion about it.

Edit: Announcement about RDF thread starts here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =75&t=8864

[FBM]

Howdy.

Pull up a chair and sit a spell.

[HomerJay]

Lots of folks visit both this forum and RatSkep in tandem.

I'm biskeptical.

[Conny]

I'm biskeptical.

so am i, and i'm going to start using that term too . very clever!

[lordpasternack]

Rutski - in short, a lot happened. In the end, Richard Dawkins put the halt to the entire forum being deleted - but there were a couple of posters who had already had their entire history - their entire past existence - wiped from the face of RD.net, by that point. Also, some staff members decided to delete all their forum posts before Richard's decision to conserve the forum, since they were concerned that sensitive posts that might have been made in previously private areas of the forum might be picked up by people who were downloading the entire contents of the forum to create archives. Those deleted posts haven't and probably won't be restored...

Many of us were riled to varying degrees by Josh and/or Andrew Chalkley's flagrant wankery and abuse of Richard Dawkins' trust and confidence in the process. Many of us criticised what looked like continued manifest incompetence when they finally got around to bringing in the proposed new site - some of whom bona fide web-developers who gave entirely objective, sound and authoritative technical criticism of the farce - where some of the rest of us were simply scoffing indignantly.

Richard stood by Josh - even after he conceded generally that Josh had indulged in wankery against us - and he made various soundbites about the winds of change, and even made a small comment about content on the forum potentially damaging to the reputation of RDFRS, and how this was part of the rationale for the overhaul of the site. I have given a couple of reasoned posts for why I call bollocks on his rationale - and even stating that I doubt he personally knew enough about any part of the forum to be able to have any kind of reasoned rationale for how and why it should have been changed in the first place. I think he just mostly blindly trusted Josh and whoever else to know what they were doing and what they were talking about - even while the truth of the matter is that those people were probably even less familiar with the forum than Richard ever was.

It is my convicted and somewhat informed opinion that it was a decision made out of vast ignorance and naivety, which Richard has made a couple of abortive attempts to rationalise post hoc - to convince us and possibly himself, too - and has failed to fool me, at least. It could still have chanced to have been a great move for the site in general, anyway - in spite of all the manifest incompetence, and wankery, and vast ignorance and naivety and whatnot... It might still have been a good move.

But of course I had and I retain deep skepticism to that end. I predicted a drop in traffic a few months ago, and lo and behold, the general traffic trend for the best part of 2010 has been southwards, and almost symmetrical to the previous upward trend that had prevailed for over a year before that. I think that trend is going to continue if the site remains in its current state. And before anyone makes any comments about quality over quantity - honestly, just look at it... It's at best mediocre overall...

But I do still like Richard Dawkins personally, a lot - even if what he got during this was a lot of me nipping his ear and being somewhat offensively frank and nagging. I got a bit worked up about it at the time, and I don't tend to mince my words in general. I live in the hope that most of my opinions will be vindicated in some way in due course, and he'll at least appreciate my insight and perception after all is said and done... I'd still happily give the man a Sharon Stone moment, should I ever find myself seated in a strategically suitable position near him...