Baen Bar closed down.

I don't know that I agree or disagree with you.

From a PR perspective, whether or not the article's claims were accurate, these changes show that Baen is taking the claims seriously and taking action.

Separating the operation of the forum from the publishing business, making it a private forum, and instituting rules that directly address the accusations is the best answer that still keeps the forum running from that PR perspective.

As far as the rule changes go, adding them is the best answer because either those rules were needed to stop things that were (i.e. the accusations of what was going are are true) or the those rules were already being informally followed so making them actual rules changes nothing (i.e. the accusations were not true).

The E wrote:Aaaand the Bar's back up.

Toni Weisskopf made a post that the allegations were looked into and that nothing was found.... And yet. In the same post where she tells everyone that nothing is wrong and that nothing was wrong, she also announces that:
* The Bar will no longer be open to everyone, but will require a proof of purchase of a Baen book to access
* Baen is handing off ownership of the Bar to a company called SFF Forums, which while technically separate from Baen is still run by Toni Weisskopf
* The moderation team has been expanded and there is a promise that the existing rules will be enforced more stringently
* Toni Weisskopf explicitly calls out "attempts to organize violence" as something that will be strictly forbidden

That's a whole lot of smoke for something that wasn't burning, isn't it.

The main criticism Sandford had in the post that started all this is that Baen was apparently turning a blind eye towards some corners of the Bar. That they've now said that they would put at least some focus on moderation and actually making sure that the Bar follows Jim Baen's intents for it is a good thing, assuming that they actually follow through with it.

The E wrote:The main criticism Sandford had in the post that started all this is that Baen was apparently turning a blind eye towards some corners of the Bar. That they've now said that they would put at least some focus on moderation and actually making sure that the Bar follows Jim Baen's intents for it is a good thing, assuming that they actually follow through with it.

Have anyone kept up with the abuse and pure lies that are being hurled at Sandford after his post?

It's kind of interesting that several of us using this forum where concerned with what was happening on Baen's Bar before Sandford wrote his post and saying the same thing, so in this instance we have a lot stupids going after the most visible messenger. And I include a bunch of authors in that statement, because if you are going to the defense of something without actually looking factually at the issue at hand, you are stupid since you didn't dare question your visceral reaction.

Then we have the outright nasty ones, the ones that twist and turn anything into vile innuendos and arguments in an effort to attack Sandford, basically saying he writes about child-abuse with pedophiliac elements.