Merged RD Forum shutting down

[godless dave]

But, it must be said, I think the JREF has implemented an elaborate system for the express purpose of avoiding the need to do something like this.

Nobody at RD.net has established that there was a need to change the forum at all.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Paradise.

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

 

[remirol]

And a tad assholish to think there was something wrong with an outcry and that you have the right to make the forum read only to prevent people from criticizing your decision.

Oh, dear, you appear to have misunderstood the concept of "rights" entirely. On a private forum, them who pays the bills has all the rights.

I don't think for a moment anyone believes that shutting down the forum will stop any outcry, nor that there was anything _wrong_ with users being upset because the forum is going away. The outcry is quite understandable -- this is a major change on very short notice, and people are _going_ to be upset. I don't intend to pass judgment on whether this is a change for the better or not; I simply don't know (though I would be inclined to note that the measures are significantly more draconian than here, which doesn't fill me with optimism).

However, it is the internet, and upset forum users have a tendency to express their displeasure in, how you say, a less-than-ideal manner, and in cases like this, also in a less-than-rational manner. The thing is, the decision's made and done. In situations like that, there's a difference between knowing that an outcry is going to occur, and being willing to host the outcry while it's occurring.

 

[remirol]

Nobody at RD.net has established that there was a need to change the forum at all.

The forum was obviously not accomplishing the purposes the people who pay for it wanted it to accomplish. Thus, there's a need to change the forum.

Whether they regain their userbase and readership after this change will (partly) determine whether or not this was a change for the better.

 

[remirol]

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

That explains why I can see it by the dashboard light.

 

[Cleon]

Paradise.

Apparently Mr. Dawkins' coal train has hauled it away.

 

[remirol]

Apparently Mr. Dawkins' coal train has hauled it away.

... to Newcastle? right, right, OK, i'll stop, srs thread is srs

 

[godless dave]

Oh, dear, you appear to have misunderstood the concept of "rights" entirely. On a private forum, them who pays the bills has all the rights.

Of course they do. I'm talking about moral rights, not legal rights.

I don't think for a moment anyone believes that shutting down the forum will stop any outcry, nor that there was anything _wrong_ with users being upset because the forum is going away. The outcry is quite understandable -- this is a major change on very short notice, and people are _going_ to be upset. I don't intend to pass judgment on whether this is a change for the better or not; I simply don't know (though I would be inclined to note that the measures are significantly more draconian than here, which doesn't fill me with optimism).

However, it is the internet, and upset forum users have a tendency to express their displeasure in, how you say, a less-than-ideal manner, and in cases like this, also in a less-than-rational manner.

So what?

 

[godless dave]

The forum was obviously not accomplishing the purposes the people who pay for it wanted it to accomplish. Thus, there's a need to change the forum.

Then it would be nice of them to explain what that purpose is so we can see why it's so obvious.

It also would have behooved them to look at what purpose the forum did accomplish, and decide if that's something they want to support. From what I saw of that forum, it did accomplish a purpose, one that I would have thought Richard Dawkins would have been happy to be involved with.

If they didn't like paying for it, they could have raised money from forum users - as long as they didn't do it like IIDB, where they raised a bunch of money and then changed the forum anyway.

 

[remirol]

Of course they do. I'm talking about moral rights, not legal rights.

Ah, so because of some nebulous concept of morality (an inherently subjective thing), the people who pay the bills to host the forum and aren't getting what they want from that forum should simply continue to pay the bills while everyone who doesn't pay the bills bickers over whether or not the bill-payers' decision is the right thing to do.

So what?

So it means that they made their decision, and they aren't interested in being berated on their dime for a decision they aren't going to change. What's so unusual about this? Are you willing to pay for people to shout at you? You'd be one of the first.

 

[godless dave]

Ah, so because of some nebulous concept of morality (an inherently subjective thing), the people who pay the bills to host the forum and aren't getting what they want from that forum should simply continue to pay the bills while everyone who doesn't pay the bills bickers over whether or not the bill-payers' decision is the right thing to do.

If they don't want to look like douchebags, yes.

So it means that they made their decision, and they aren't interested in being berated on their dime for a decision they aren't going to change. What's so unusual about this?

It's not unusual. Being an ******* is extremely common.

Are you willing to pay for people to shout at you? You'd be one of the first.

Nobody required Josh to read the posts criticizing his decision.

 

[remirol]

Then it would be nice of them to explain what that purpose is so we can see why it's so obvious.

How do you know they don't intend to do that when the new site arrives?

It also would have behooved them to look at what purpose the forum did accomplish, and decide if that's something they want to support.

Are you really willing to assert that the powers-that-be did not look at their forum extensively before they made this decision? REALLY?

If they didn't like paying for it, they could have raised money from forum users

You've conflated being willing to spend money with being willing to host a particular service in a particular form. Donation drives only address the former, not the latter.

 

[remirol]

If they don't want to look like douchebags, yes.

It's not unusual. Being an ******* is extremely common.

I see we've inserted some more subjectivity in here that now appears to be entirely within the realm of personal opinion. I refer you to my earlier posts, and specifically the words "less than rational".

Nobody required Josh to read the posts criticizing his decision.

See above WRT the difference between being willing to host the outcry, and being aware the outcry is going to occur.

 

[godless dave]

How do you know they don't intend to do that when the new site arrives?

That's a little too late, don't you think?

Are you really willing to assert that the powers-that-be did not look at their forum extensively before they made this decision? REALLY?

It sure looks that way.

You've conflated being willing to spend money with being willing to host a particular service in a particular form. Donation drives only address the former, not the latter.

Money is the only reason you gave for not wanting to host the forum, and I can't think of any other reasons.

 

[godless dave]

I see we've inserted some more subjectivity in here that now appears to be entirely within the realm of personal opinion. I refer you to my earlier posts, and specifically the words "less than rational".

Yes, feelings are subjective. Congratulations on that philosophical insight.

See above WRT the difference between being willing to host the outcry, and being aware the outcry is going to occur.

And I know of no reason, aside from being a thin-skinned control freak, that someone would not be willing to host the outcry.

 

[remirol]

That's a little too late, don't you think?

Why should it be?

It sure looks that way.

And what evidence precisely do you provide for this assertion?

Money is the only reason you gave for not wanting to hos the forum, and I can't think of any other reasons.

However, it is the internet, and upset forum users have a tendency to express their displeasure in, how you say, a less-than-ideal manner, and in cases like this, also in a less-than-rational manner. The thing is, the decision's made and done. In situations like that, there's a difference between knowing that an outcry is going to occur, and being willing to host the outcry while it's occurring.

1) You appear to have made up your statement out of thin air. I've requoted what I've said just so you can think about it for awhile.
2) Argument from ignorance fails. Just because you can't think of reasons doesn't mean there aren't some.

Yes, feelings are subjective. Congratulations on that philosophical insight.

Excellent. Since we both agree, we can discard all the subjectivity as a reason to take any action due to lack of rationality.

And I know of no reason, aside from being a thin-skinned control freak, that someone would not be willing to host the outcry.

That's a combination of false dichotomy and argument from ignorance. Try again?

 

[kmortis]

It's a shame they've closed down the forum, and I do think they were a tad naive if they thought they could post such an announcement and there not be quite an outcry.

What? All changes here have been met with aplumb and dignity.








Oh, where oh, where is my [sarcasm] tag?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Nobody required Josh to read the posts criticizing his decision.

But he was also not required to let people post those criticisms in a place in which he was in control.


(I don't know how the RDF was structured so my comments may be wrong.)

 

[Darat]

What? All changes here have been met with aplumb and dignity.



...snip....

I know it may come as a shock to some folks here but this island of clam and rationality is quite rare on the internet, you are not typical.

 

[Cuddles]

island of clam

I think the forum needs a new tagline.