The Demise of Dawkins.Net

Fanny Cradock

I certainly wont miss the manner in which some opinions were expressed, yet I think that it is sad that people who have invested so much in something they feel strongly about have been jerked around. Before anyone gloats (and, yes, it is difficult to resist that feeling of Schadenfreude), it could happen to any forum - Christian or otherwise. As a mod I have a respect for fellow mods and posters who are willing to give a sizeable amount of their time to a cause they believe in.

Maybe this thread will generate discussion, maybe it wont. However, I think it is an interesting development nevertheless. Interesting article here: http://shipoffools.com/features/2010/atheist_website.html

Ickle Magoo

Not exactly the demise of Dawkins.net. According to the man himself:

The new Discussion area will still permit users to start their own threads, and to post comments. The only significant difference between this and the old forum will be that new threads (note: not the comments) will have to be approved before they appear. This is purely and simply to ensure that all new threads are on subjects relevant to reason and science. It is akin to the editor of a specialist magazine accepting only articles that are relevant to the topic of that magazine. Our old forum contained many excellent discussions on reason and science and related topics, and we certainly don’t want to lose the facility for those. However, it also contained some threads that were potentially harmful to the website’s (and therefore the Foundation’s) reputation. Our goal is to retain the valuable aspects of the old forum, the parts that actively promote the causes for which the website was set up; whilst losing those parts that do not. There will be no pre-publication moderation of comments on our new site: we will just be ensuring that all new, user-instigated discussion threads are on subjects relevant to reason and science.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5165

Fanny Cradock

In it's current form it certainly over.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In it's current form it certainly over.

That might not be such a bad thing. The sheer amount of trolling in there was amazing....

Ickle Magoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In it's current form it certainly over.

The format of the public discussion area changing still doesn't = the demise of RichardsDawkins.net though, does it?

Zombrex

Interesting blog post about this

http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/locked-entry-will-open-soon/

Seems the problem with the site was disinterest and mismanagement from the team Dawkins put in place to run it.

Not particularly unique to RDF, this sort of thing happens all the time with internet forums.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I certainly wont miss the manner in which some opinions were expressed, yet I think that it is sad that people who have invested so much in something they feel strongly about have been jerked around. Before anyone gloats (and, yes, it is difficult to resist that feeling of Schadenfreude), it could happen to any forum - Christian or otherwise. As a mod I have a respect for fellow mods and posters who are willing to give a sizeable amount of their time to a cause they believe in.

Maybe this thread will generate discussion, maybe it wont. However, I think it is an interesting development nevertheless. Interesting article here: http://shipoffools.com/features/2010/atheist_website.html

It's an interesting situation alright. Awful, awful article though. More so because the guy verges on making some very good points throughout and then ruins it by cluttering it up with cheap attempts at point scoring. Having a go at the National Secular Society for not having an interview with the Pope, is he serious? Suggesting the forum (in his view) failed because atheism isn't enough to base a forum on? Anyone want to link the guy to the A&A forum on this site?

Fanny Cradock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The format of the public discussion area changing still doesn't = the demise of RichardsDawkins.net though, does it?

No, I guess it doesn't. I should have worded my post more carefully. Still, it wasn't my intention to get into an argument.

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

Having a go at the National Secular Society for not having an interview with the Pope, is he serious?

I don't think so.

PDN

As I heard a few people say around these parts recently, "It's sad if your beliefs are so weak that you have to change the rules on an internet forum to protect yourself from those who disagree with you." :pac:

Ickle Magoo

Yeah, they should just start waving the ban stick around if anyone says anything they don't like.

Fanny Cradock

In certain ways I can understand why Dawkins agreed to change things. Perhaps in its new guise (dare I say "resurrection") RichardDawkins.net will be a place I would feel comfortable visiting.

liamw

I just think Josh and himself thought some of the forum material was misrepresenting the site and affecting it's integrity.

...and will have a clearer focus on what we are all aiming for: the promotion of reason and science

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5165

The thread title is a bit OTT

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In it's current form it certainly over.

Evolution in action

Fanny Cradock

liamw wrote: »

The thread title is a bit OTT

Yes, we have been over that. I've acknowledged it and apologised. Get over it.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Evolution in action

Perhaps natural selection?

studiorat

liamw wrote: »

The thread title is a bit OTT

Never let accuracy get in the way of good alliteration I say... :pac:

Ghost Buster

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yeah, they should just start waving the ban stick around if anyone says anything they don't like.

Why do you say that?
Where does that happen?

liamw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, we have been over that. I've acknowledged it and apologised. Get over it.

Thank you so much. I think I'm finally starting to 'get over it'