Haha, touché.

Bumping a thread is now "harassment."

What shouldn't be allowed is for people who don't have answers to tough questions to legislate their way out of admitting it.

I hadnt seen this rule (I was thinking about the "HC Guidelines"). It's hard to think of anyone other than Jibninjas who gets pestered in this way, so I guess I have to concede that point.
Sure. They should be free to not admit it without abuse though.

Once again, asking a question that someone does not have an answer to does not imply "harassment" or "abuse."

If Jib is free to avoid admitting he doesn't have a response then other people should be free to point out that he did not respond without being characterized as "abusers."

Some of Original Position's posts in that thread would legitimately take years of research to respond to.

i have asked jib to look at this thread and keep an open mind about suggestions and complaints. and that's it for tonight.

again, if you wish to be taken seriously and have a legitimate issue go ahead and post and please be extra polite.

politeness is one of those funny things. if somebody cuts me off i'm actually a little prone to mild road rage, but if they wave and apologize i instantly forgive them.

You've been exceptionally fair so far, thanks

I agree.

What I was referring to as abuse were terms like 'lolbad moderator', ******ed and pretty much anything with asterisks in it. In my view, that is not 'pointing out a part of reality' (not that all the comments were exclusively yours), it's expressing an opinion without much regard for how the subject of the comment is going to feel about it. (Even if you're correct in your statements - accurate description can still be hostile and/or abusive).

I would expect you'll have much more luck in getting change enacted if you focus on the actions you object to rather than on traits of any individual and/or their motivations. Which I presume is what was meant by:

Even if that were true it seems like quite an irony that Jib is desperately searching for high RGT content while having locked that thread and thrown away the key and put in several forum rules that prevent it from ever coming back to life.

I'd also like a response from madnak on this Mat, please send a PM to him for me

It is true.

It was locked months ago. It was never coming back to life regardless of the new rules.

I still haven't gotten anyone to answer this question, but I'll ask it again.

If Charles Manson posted in RGT in his 20s, would nobody be allowed to call him a cult leader because it may be viewed as a "hostile and/or abusive" description?

In my opinion, that would be fine.

I take the controversial view that mass murder is a worse crime than poor moderation.

Note also that "You're a cult leader" and "You're a cult leader you useless, ******ed and lousy excuse for a moderator" are two different comments and should be evaluated differently in terms of whether they are abusive and/or hostile (even if they're both correct).

I'm sorry I live in a world where I call a spade a spade, not a world where I call a spade something other than a spade because it's feeling might get hurt.

Yeah they should. Except, if you're the cult leader, you view both of them as offensive. DUCY?

Sure - there's no surprise that I favor a more conciliatory approach towards those I disagree with than you, is there?

I'm not trying to persuade you politeness and warm fuzzies is the way to go through life. I'm suggesting that you are more likely to achieve your goal of getting change in RGT if you drop any reference to personal traits of the moderators and restrict yourself to accurately reporting events (without speculating as to motivation).

Mainly, of course, I'm here because there's not much to argue about in RGT atm, so arguing about what we argue about is the next best thing.

It's Mat Sklansky who identified your tone as hostile, not the cult leader.

Maybe the target would view each as offensive (I wouldnt if it were me, as it happens, so I guess I don't CY). How do you contrast "You havent answered this question" with "You havent answered this question because you're intellectually dishonest"?

Equally hostile?

I'm using OOT as my example here, and I wouldn't be surprised if SE, Politics and other forums have the same policy regarding OPs requesting that their threads be closed

You know that I'm not a mod right?

Once again, pointing out a part of reality is not hostility. Jibninjas, was, in fact, viewing this thread hours ago and did not reply. The fact that I have chosen to point this fact of reality out does not make me hostile. It makes me interested in the actual ****ing reality of the situation. Pardon me.

The 2nd is fine provided you can show some evidence to support it.

What are you even doing in this thread? Honestly? Tpir, Hopey and Lok know at least 100x more about the situation(s) with Jibninjas in RGT than you do.

The fact that you galloped in on a white horse trying to tell everyone they were wrong about Jibninjas simply because they didn't know Mat's account could view deleted posts illustrates that perfectly.

If you want to be of use, please respond with your thoughts on Lok's example of Jib's error prone modding. Otherwise I think you'd do well to just leave given you have basically no knowledge of people's complaints in this thread other than the fact that they happen to be targeted at one of your friends.

Of course it isn't. But equally, if you are portraying reality it doesn't mean you're not being hostile.
Hostility or abusiveness has got nothing to do with being correct, it's about tone.

Claiming to be right or "pointing out reality" does nothing to address the charge of being hostile.

I didn't ask whether it was fine, I asked about the tone.

The objection is regarding method, not content. Whether you like it or not, appearances and behavior matter as to how you are treated. Evidence isn't relevant to whether or not you are exhibiting hostility. I don't know how to make the point any other way.