The Schism of October 2008

[charlou]

I'm quoting pretty directly from LP. Isn't calling people sex-phobic and prudish...

You're not quoting directly. You're paraphrasing and taking liberties with that to twist the tone of what I said to suit yourself.

I didn't call any person or persons uptight, prudish, or sex-phobic - but rather commented that certain actions seemed so, or seemed evocative of such in my opinion.

If I say that I think that yellow cars are in my opinion incredibly poor taste - I don't necessarily imply that every person with a yellow car has terrible taste point blank. No sweeping generalisation, but rather a DISCRETE comment on a particular opinion on taste with respect to a particular incidence. Yes, based on disagreement - disagreement on the matter of whether yellow cars are tasteful...

As to this forum and its raison d'etre - it exists because the current community wants it and supports it and that's the bottom line. As to the saturation of sexy content - well have a look yourself and make some gauge!

As to the place sex/sexuality has in a 'rationalist' forum - the answer in fact is that it can have a very positive place, when a particular ethos is fostered. But just to humour your mindset - what place does frivolous off-topic discussion have on a 'rationalist' board, or indeed any board with a narrowish set agenda? Do you think off-topic sections should be done away with? I don't, and I view the informal discussion of sex/sexuality in much the light. I don't see it as meriting any more particular scrutiny before being brought on board, and I currently feel vindicated by the general ethos that goes here.

Another very good response, lp.

The focus on the sexual aspect of our forum is understandable .. it's the intent behind that focus that I'm wondering about.

[Tigger]

I'd imagine that it's similar to the reason why TAF would rather forget that time in their history. It's hard to look back on past conflicts without reassigning blame to those involved, and that's typically not something you don't want to do when the bridges are almost rebuilt.

Ah, I see! Everyone's friends again! Does that mean that some of those involved are on Rationalia, then? And isn't it fun to assign blame? Isn't it cathartic, as they say in American sitcoms? (After all, it leads to learning and growth!)

What's OBC doing these days?

Which is why I'm also totally fine being in the dark on some aspects of this, despite my curiosity.

Fair enough. So, should I not ask any more then? I love a bit of mischief, that's all!

I mentioned the "troubles" around the "schism" when I first came here but I think I got away with it.

I was a member at RD.net at the time but IIRC there was a veterans only section and things seemed to go on, (plots were hatched?), that we ordinary members were not party to. All veterans lost their privileges afterwards but I'm not sure of anything really.
OBC is over at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ where there are more mods and ex-mods from RDF than you can shake a stick at.

You did indeed, but not as your first post, and nor was it a bugle call.

[NoDayJob]

You did indeed, but not as your first post, and nor was it a bugle call.

Agreed.
If it helps at all I remember Paddy from around RD.net, I don't recall anything untoward or nefarious from him/her or I probably would have noticed.

[paddy_rice]

The Simpsons has got better with time, so have we.

You are joking, surely? The Simpsons started to go downhill after series 11 or so, and the newest ones are cringe-worthy. I mean, really, really bad, despite what Chuck Paluhniuk says.

I suppose you'll deny sarcasm as well.

Certainly not!

The focus on the sexual aspect of our forum is understandable .. it's the intent behind that focus that I'm wondering about.

What are you on about Charlou, seriously?

You did indeed, but not as your first post, and nor was it a bugle call.

Agreed.
If it helps at all I remember Paddy from around RD.net, I don't recall anything untoward or nefarious from him/her or I probably would have noticed.

Cheers NDJ. You're right, I never received more than an informal warning on the RD forums.

[Hermit]

Klr covers most of the story in this thread: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 21#p376235

The basic story is that once upon a time there were threads on the taste of semen and felching and such like in the off-topic section of RD.net, and eventually Richard caught wind of this (eventually being the operative word - shows how out-of-touch with the forum community he was, and how hands-off his approach was), and guidelines were drafted in a hurry to clamp down on this lest it affected Richard's PR, and potentially consequently the standing of RDFRS - which is a separate legal entity from RD.net, but has an obvious de facto connection. (I'd add that the exact level or nature of this potential threat was never quantified/proven to my mind, and so remains a type of prudence with a hearty drizzling of freshly squeezed paranoia.)

The admin told to implement this change was dead against it, and did several things in the implementing of it to rile people, and perhaps make some point or other. As I remember it, there were other general minor fuck-ups that added to upset and confusion around that time. Very little went right. Here's the lowdown from memory.

• Admin removed the whole off-topic section from public view with no notice when he was not requested to do so - though the 'urgency' implied from Richard's words might have justifiably led him to the conclude that this would be the best response in circumstances. Still, he did it without offering any real explanation, and implied that this was something that he was definitely made to do.
• Admin put a language censor on that changed swearwords to asterisks just when people were starting to lose confusion about what the fuck was going on in the first place - saying that such language was now unacceptable on RD.net. People were not happy.
• Several other minor things happened to upset various people.
• Eventually the automatic language censor was removed, and Richard Dawkins mentioned that it had nothing to do with himself or Josh.
• General clarity began to break out and there was peace again, but much of the off-topic group moved on to freer pastures away from the new guidelines that they viewed as too prohibitive.

And eventually that same admin went berserk in his running of the breakaway faction, and we were spawned as a result. This forum was created practically a year to the day before the current upheaval on RD.net. Happy schisming!

[Mod Comment]

Question answered.
Tread locked.

[/Mod Comment]

Oh, wait. Wrong forum.

Look! A bunny rabbit bearing bacon and cheese!

[charlou]

Look! A bunny rabbit bearing bacon and cheese!

Plenty for everyone ...

[Hermit]

Is she saying "cheeeeese" there? If so, was she referring to Roquefort?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Look! A bunny rabbit bearing bacon and cheese!

Plenty for everyone ...

Sorry, there's only two there. :sad:

[Hermit]

Look! A bunny rabbit bearing bacon and cheese!

Plenty for everyone ...

Sorry, there's only two there. :sad:

Indeed. There should be three. One for each hand and the third for the mouth.

Come to think of it, there should be five.

[paddy_rice]

As to the place sex/sexuality has in a 'rationalist' forum - the answer in fact is that it can have a very positive place, when a particular ethos is fostered. But just to humour your mindset - what place does frivolous off-topic discussion have on a 'rationalist' board, or indeed any board with a narrowish set agenda? Do you think off-topic sections should be done away with? I don't, and I view the informal discussion of sex/sexuality in much the light. I don't see it as meriting any more particular scrutiny before being brought on board, and I currently feel vindicated by the general ethos that goes here.

I wasn't judging you or anyone else, LP: I'm too indifferent to care. And I agree sex doesn't warrant particular scrutiny, unless other board members feel threatened, for whatever reason.

[Bella Fortuna]

And I agree sex doesn't warrant particular scrutiny, unless other board members feel threatened, for whatever reason.

Are you making some sort of allegation here?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And I agree sex doesn't warrant particular scrutiny, unless other board members feel threatened, for whatever reason.

Are you making some sort of allegation here?

I didn't read it as such, Bella. Sound rather like our policy.

[AshtonBlack]

As to the place sex/sexuality has in a 'rationalist' forum - the answer in fact is that it can have a very positive place, when a particular ethos is fostered. But just to humour your mindset - what place does frivolous off-topic discussion have on a 'rationalist' board, or indeed any board with a narrowish set agenda? Do you think off-topic sections should be done away with? I don't, and I view the informal discussion of sex/sexuality in much the light. I don't see it as meriting any more particular scrutiny before being brought on board, and I currently feel vindicated by the general ethos that goes here.

I wasn't judging you or anyone else, LP: I'm too indifferent to care. And I agree sex doesn't warrant particular scrutiny, unless other board members feel threatened, for whatever reason.

Well, if people are genuinely "threatened" by a given subject, as opposed to just being "uncomfortable" or even "disgusted" about it then I agree. But I cannot see, so forgive me, how one can feel that way given the nature of fora. To be more specific, could you give an example of a "threatening" subject that wouldn't break the current Rules on things like harassment or bigotry.

[Hermit]

Look! Another bunny!

[charlou]

I wasn't judging you or anyone else, LP: I'm too indifferent to care. And I agree sex doesn't warrant particular scrutiny, unless other board members feel threatened, for whatever reason.

If a member or members' forum behaviour warrants scrutiny admins/moderators should be notified immediately.