Merged RD Forum shutting down

[Dragoonster]

Yeah, if Randi started selling snake oil in order to keep railing against snake-oil sellers people who'd respected him would be understandably aggravated. Particularly if such remarkable hypocrisy was being misconstrued by the media.

I don't have any vested interest in Dawkins either way (or Randi) but this is a big deal concerning his integrity. And unfortunately from that, the integrity of atheists as perceived by a large set of society, be they theists or lay skeptics who might otherwise be inclined to not dimiss atheist arguments out of hand. Even folks who don't care much about Dawkins have reason to be interested in the current goings-on.

 

[Rat]

Yes, it may have been this, that, or the other thing how it was handled, but it sure is time to move on and get over it at this point. Sheesh!

Time to move on? After a couple of days? If a year had passed with no developments and you said this, fair enough. But after less than a week?

 

[Fiona]

I agree. It does not really matter whether people *should* care about forums and the communities that form on the net: the fact is that they do. We all know this, even those who do not allow it to matter to them (or if they do not, it is hard to see how they missed it). I have not been to the forum under discussion but it seems that people put in a lot of time there: volunteered as mods and presumably worked as hard as the mods do here: made the board a part of their lives, as many do here too. It would be strange indeed if the were not upset and angry if that was taken away without warning or consideration. Yes the owner has the right, as others have acknowledged: but that does not excuse him from a charge of treating people very badly indeed.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I was about to correct you on the "thirty-plus years" until I realized I'm older than I thought I was. Damn. Anyway, I agree, and it's really quite disappointing to me. I've been a great fan of Dawkins for many years, and this seems at this stage to reveal feet of clay that I wasn't expecting. I was disappointed with the closing of the forums, but could accept that it was his site alone. But it has been handled with a tactlessness and lack of care that I actually find shocking. If Dawkins is fully aware of everything that's happened, let alone if he was aware of the original message sent to mods, then he is at best a bit of a tit. And that saddens me.

Fiona- I feel Rat's post quoted above nicely summarises what a lot of JREF posters may be feeling. Me, for one. RD is something of a hero to many of us- either for his high profile public atheist stance or (more importantly for me personally) as a defender and explainer of neoDarwinism. We hold the man to (perhaps unrealistically) high standards of integrity - and in this it appears he has let us down.
That is not yet established beyond doubt, as we really don't know to what extent he was aware of the events that the board mods witnessed unfolding in real time.
I feel many people want to demonise Josh Timonen precisely because doing so lets RD off the hook. Timonen is the eminence grise behind the throne. Easier to blame the man nobody knows, than accept as Rat says that the king may have feet of clay. I think Timonen screwed up technically by overreacting -likely to a combination of abuse and server overdemand- but that doesn't make him a baby munching maniac, merely someone who made a PR blunder, possibly for what seemed like good reasons at the time.

During our own several upgrade events it has been evident that frustration- even fear- builds very fast among regular posters if they feel they are being kept in the dark about what's going on or what's being planned. A forum poster is powerless. He uses an environment- even lives in it- and to suddenly realise it can be pulled out from under him is as unnerving as the first tremor of a real world earthquake- to some. To others , it's a minor nuisance; same reason "Second Life" matters so much to some folk and is of little interest to others.
It's a very hard mindset to understand- even to believe exists- if you're not part of it yourself. I don't think RD ever has been (which is in no sense a criticism, merely a fact). I'm disappointed by that. I would have expected him to be more savvy about that- especially given the 2008 quote about the value of the community aspect.

 

[Fiona]

That is fair enough Soapy: I do not have any strong opinion of Dawkins, really, but I realise many do. Although my last sentence was critical of him as owner, my post was more concerned with what Rat was talking about in the one above it: the idea that folk should just put it behind them and move on is unrealistic I think.

I accept that Dawkins may not know this: I was myself surprised how important a board can become, and it puzzled me for ages. But it is still my view that, whether you understand that or not, you should treat people with basic courtesy and consideration. His board presumably depended on the work of volunteers, as does this one. Whatever his understanding of emotional attachment, he surely must be able to recognise that folk gifted him their time and effort. A little appreciation would become him.

But really I feel for those who have been dispossessed and that was my main point.

 

[Rat]

...I was myself surprised how important a board can become, and it puzzled me for ages....

Puzzled how others found it important, or how you found it important? I assume the former from the earlier "even those who do not allow it to matter to them" bit, but in that case would be myself puzzled.

Many people, as has been pointed out, live in societies (even in the US) where admitting atheism, let alone discussing it, is almost impossible. Some in, for example, Middle Eastern countries would risk their lives to do so. Finding like-minded people to discuss it with would be impossible without such forums. Speaking more for myself, I find discussions here (though I read them more than take part) that I could not have with most of my acquaintances, colleagues, etc. Not necessarily because such subjects are taboo, but because they have no interest in them, and I would be considered sad even for bringing them up.

It is trivially true that if one forum disappears, then one might find similar discussions on other forums. But after following or participating in a forum for any length of time, one tends rightly or wrongly to consider other members as (perhaps 'almost') friends. It's a separate group of friends to those in real life, or wherever, but is nonetheless real. I can therefore easily understand an outcry when that group of friends is taken away, albeit that that venue was Dawkins's to take away. To be honest, even if the original 30-day period were there, and people could discuss other venues, various people would end up in various places, and the memes and habits and indeed atmosphere of the original forum are largely lost. When the inhabitants are actively prevented from swapping contact details and the like, however, I can easily understand an angry response of the kind that was seen, even if I can't necessarily excuse some of the things that have been said.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'll be intrigued to see if RD's public statements on all this undergo changes in the near future. The original "Outrage" letter is understandable if all he had seen was a selection of the most inexcusable commentary, but I can't help thinking that Australia (where I understand he is) seems to have plenty articulate sceptics who will give him a fuller explanation of the view from the bottom.
His problem is that having strongly supported and praised Timonen, he may find it very hard to accept that the truth - as so often - may be more complicated than he thought.
If he concludes that there has been misjudgement on RDF's side, he must apologise for that and accept personal responsibility for it. To blame Timonen now would seem weaselish indeed. It isn't the JTF, it's the RDF.

At the least, some personal thanks and apology to the moderators is clearly in order.

 

[Prometheus]

Puzzled how others found it important, or how you found it important? I assume the former from the earlier "even those who do not allow it to matter to them" bit, but in that case would be myself puzzled.

Many people, as has been pointed out, live in societies (even in the US) where admitting atheism, let alone discussing it, is almost impossible. Some in, for example, Middle Eastern countries would risk their lives to do so. Finding like-minded people to discuss it with would be impossible without such forums. Speaking more for myself, I find discussions here (though I read them more than take part) that I could not have with most of my acquaintances, colleagues, etc. Not necessarily because such subjects are taboo, but because they have no interest in them, and I would be considered sad even for bringing them up.

It is trivially true that if one forum disappears, then one might find similar discussions on other forums. But after following or participating in a forum for any length of time, one tends rightly or wrongly to consider other members as (perhaps 'almost') friends. It's a separate group of friends to those in real life, or wherever, but is nonetheless real. I can therefore easily understand an outcry when that group of friends is taken away, albeit that that venue was Dawkins's to take away. To be honest, even if the original 30-day period were there, and people could discuss other venues, various people would end up in various places, and the memes and habits and indeed atmosphere of the original forum are largely lost. When the inhabitants are actively prevented from swapping contact details and the like, however, I can easily understand an angry response of the kind that was seen, even if I can't necessarily excuse some of the things that have been said.

This is the strangest part for me. Can there be any sensible reason for that?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Hard to see one, unless it involved genuine fear of serious real world enemies of RD (and I don't doubt they exist) getting in touch with each other. But such people probably already are.

I don't know if it's technically feasible to enable PMs and posts while disabling downloads. If so, that would seem like the way to deal with too many simultaneous back up attempts.

The last thing you need in a situation where major change is planned, is to utterly alienate your staff- and that brings us back to what I called "The dropped match", the letter to the mods. The more I read that, the more I realise how truly dim it is.

On the other hand , it's clearly not the the work of a cynical Machiavelli, (who would have kept telling the mods what they wanted to hear right up to the minute he pulled their privileges), but of someone rather naive about the realities of human nature.
Yep, it's exactly what a nerd or an academic might write. Clueless, but more to be pitied than scolded.

 

[amb]

That makes sense. Too bad RDF didn't have the foresight to apologize in advance for shutting the forum, and include an offer to sell back up copies to any member who wanted one. They could have made a bundle for the foundation instead of stirring up all this animosity.

I'm reading a book at the moment titled.......How To Lose A War. This fiasco will one day be included in a follow up book.

85.000 members in the forum, I bet the new version will battle to have at most, around 5-10 thousand members, and that will be mainly because of Richards popularity if nothing else.

 

[plumjam]

This is the strangest part for me. Can there be any sensible reason for that?

To make it more difficult for them to organise opposition. Divide and conquer.

That, or spite, or a bit of both.

 

[Fiona]

Puzzled how others found it important, or how you found it important? I assume the former from the earlier "even those who do not allow it to matter to them" bit, but in that case would be myself puzzled.

Many people, as has been pointed out, live in societies (even in the US) where admitting atheism, let alone discussing it, is almost impossible. Some in, for example, Middle Eastern countries would risk their lives to do so. Finding like-minded people to discuss it with would be impossible without such forums. Speaking more for myself, I find discussions here (though I read them more than take part) that I could not have with most of my acquaintances, colleagues, etc. Not necessarily because such subjects are taboo, but because they have no interest in them, and I would be considered sad even for bringing them up.

It is trivially true that if one forum disappears, then one might find similar discussions on other forums. But after following or participating in a forum for any length of time, one tends rightly or wrongly to consider other members as (perhaps 'almost') friends. It's a separate group of friends to those in real life, or wherever, but is nonetheless real. I can therefore easily understand an outcry when that group of friends is taken away, albeit that that venue was Dawkins's to take away. To be honest, even if the original 30-day period were there, and people could discuss other venues, various people would end up in various places, and the memes and habits and indeed atmosphere of the original forum are largely lost. When the inhabitants are actively prevented from swapping contact details and the like, however, I can easily understand an angry response of the kind that was seen, even if I can't necessarily excuse some of the things that have been said.

No I really did mean how important it is for me Rat. It was not something I expected and I am not even sure it is a good thing: but it is very real I do not seem to be expressing myself well but I am in agreement with all that you say in this thread

 

[jeremyp]

Something occurred to me earlier today, however -- while this isn't related to a logs, it does come from a technical perspective. His action barring wget may not have been designed so much to prevent people from backing up their posts as to stop people simultaneously hoovering all the bandwidth at once *and* driving the server CPU into the ground with all the database requests. Eighteen billion posts (a rough estimate of the forum's contents, admittedly) all being grabbed in sequence can do that sort of thing.

I'm not Josh so I can't speak for sure about his motives, but if I saw either my bandwidth clog up or my CPU get run over, I would close and lock that particular avenue as well.

Yes, but you wouldn't rickroll the requests would you. You'd either block them completely with an HTTP error or serve a small text file with an explanation in it.

That particular action by the admins speaks volumes about Josh's motives.

 

[amb]

Yes, but you wouldn't rickroll the requests would you. You'd either block them completely with an HTTP error or serve a small text file with an explanation in it.

That particular action by the admins speaks volumes about Josh's motives.

Not just his motives, but the care he showed to all members and moderators. Zilch!

Well Josh. We care less about you and whoever else was responsible for the fiasco. You have destroyed one of the biggest membership forums on the net. That's quite an achievement.

 

[JihadJane]

I'm reading a book at the moment titled.......How To Lose A War. This fiasco will one day be included in a follow up book.

It would also make an interesting case study of how the news media disseminate "information".

 

[remirol]

Yes, but you wouldn't rickroll the requests would you.

I wouldn't count on it. I do have a sense of humor.

That particular action by the admins speaks volumes about Josh's motives.

Not so much. I'm inclined to agree with the following:

On the other hand , it's clearly not the the work of a cynical Machiavelli, (who would have kept telling the mods what they wanted to hear right up to the minute he pulled their privileges), but of someone rather naive about the realities of human nature.

Yep, it's exactly what a nerd or an academic might write. Clueless, but more to be pitied than scolded.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Yes, but you wouldn't rickroll the requests would you. You'd either block them completely with an HTTP error or serve a small text file with an explanation in it.

That particular action by the admins speaks volumes about Josh's motives.

So what did the requests link to ? Are you saying that they were actually misleadingly linked to the Rick Ashley Video or something else?

 

[remirol]

So what did the requests link to ? Are you saying that they were actually misleadingly linked to the Rick Ashley Video or something else?

[disclaimer] I don't know for sure how any of this was done; this is just speculation. [/disclaimer]

I would put a little piece of code up front detecting all attempts of a particular User-Agent ('wget') to access the site, and then instead of serving any content, serve a link to youtube and the Rick video.

ETA: And I'd be very puzzled if people didn't simply figure this out and use 'wget -U', but it would buy me time.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

[disclaimer] I don't know for sure how any of this was done; this is just speculation. [/disclaimer]

I would put a little piece of code up front detecting all attempts of a particular User-Agent ('wget') to access the site, and then instead of serving any content, serve a link to youtube and the Rick video.

ETA: And I'd be very puzzled if people didn't simply figure this out and use 'wget -U', but it would buy me time.

That's how it might be done, I know it's possible , the question I asked was , was it done (the rickrolling) , what did it actually redirect to , and in what circumstances.

Measures to prevent "web wacking" etc I can certainly undersrtand due to bandwidth limits etc -

 

[jeremyp]

the question I asked was , was it done (the rickrolling) , what did it actually redirect to , and in what circumstances.

Anybody who tried to use wget to bulk download posts had their download requests redirected to a Rick Astley video.
remirol is correct: such bulk downloads would cause enormous strain on the web servers and some form of blocking/throttling would certainly be understandable, but it speaks of a juvenile mindset to block them in the way Josh did, particularly in the circumstances.