I think mods should lead by example.

That includes making every effort possible to reply to posts addressed to you, especially when you start a thread.

That said, I should have probably left that bit you quoted out of my wall of text because it really isn't central to the issue at hand. I don't like how Jib handles himself when it comes to posting, but as you point out, that probably shouldn't have an influence on his ability as a mod.

Point taken.

Mat,

Thank you for taking some time out of your day to look at this stuff. I know you're busy.

Look at the response Jib got when he said he didn't have an answer at that time, and he would try to research things when he had time in order to pick up where he left off.

Everyone said (paraphrasing), "Hey, no problem."

If he needs years, well, most of us (hopefully all ldo) have those years to wait and what can we possibly say to someone who simply admits they don't have an answer at that time? Nothing.

What are the odds that all of a sudden he "wanted" to lock the thread the exact same day it was bumped three months later?

The OP requesting to have their thread closed is not the same as what happened here.

rize, re: jib looking at the thread but not responding. He probably just wants to take a minute to think things over before responding. And rightfully so, imo.

Jib is out of town and will join this thread tomorrow.

The no-bump rule is a good one. Not much worse than seeing two or three no- or low-content bumps in a row in an essentially dead thread.

That's not how this works, if you didn't want randos coming in with their opinion you would've done this in RGT or over PM. You're just annoyed that I'm not on your side currently.

No Easter Bunny? No Santa Claus?

Seriously, though - what is your basis for saying this? Most people seem to believe in one or more deities - and have for all of recorded history. Seems to me that belief in one or more deities is the default state, therefore. But I don't know how to prove this either way, from a scientific viewpoint. And, without science, it is all a matter of belief.

Whether one believes in one god, many gods, or no gods - it's all the same.

Personally, I'm kinda liking the Flying Spaghetti Monster right now.


Been there, done that, actually. Way back when in philosophy class when, in the course of trying to disprove Anselm's "Ontological Argument", I came to realize that atheism is just as much a belief system as theism is. And have therefore been agnostic ever since. The existence of god(s) is not scientifically provable - at least not by humans at this point in time.

Lee

I take issue with this. If someone created a blog with comments and wanted to end it that would be fine. It seems to me that once someone creates a thread and posts it on a public forum they lose ownership. A forum can have dozens of people discussing a subject (and that subject can veer into multiple commentaries weaved together) who all have invested time into it. Why would all of those related conversations stop simply because the OP is no longer interested? Its like saying that someone who starts a conversation with a group of people gets to decide when all people have to stop talking.

I don't understand the whole idea of closing threads other then if they've just degraded to nothing but insults.

I don't know if this has been pointed out (directly), but you're confusing facts and opinions. And it's the 'opinions' that come across as hostile.

For instance: "Jib has viewed this thread and not replied". Completely factual (assuming he actually did view said thread).

"Jib has viewed this thread and not replied because he's practicing avoidance". Facts followed by your opinion or guess. To me, it's not horrible, but it is becoming hostile.

"Jib has viewed this thread and not replied because he's practicing avoidance and he's an XXXXXXXXXXX for doing so". Getting into more opinion and namecalling.

There's calling a spade a spade, but just using that expression doesn't give one leeway to tack on their personal opinion onto things. I.e. there's being blunt and there's being blunt and insulting.

You bumped it after he said it would take him some time, so you had more then nothing to say.

If you want a specific poster to respond to a specific post in a specific thread, you should pm that poster, bumping the thread just to say, "pls respond," is lolbad and should be infraction worthy. Not sure why The thread was closed though

Didn't using "just being honest" as an excuse for being a rude ******* end when we all graduated high school? Jeebus.

Either that or become a reg in Sports Betting.

No it didn't and it's amazing that you didn't see the irony in what you said before hitting reply.

Nobody's arguing for people to be "painfully polite". There is a big difference between "painfully polite" and "obnoxious *******". Additionally, those are two ends of a spectrum as well, so it's not a choice of one or the other.

If people have become so hellbent on being politically correct that the second that someone remarks that Jibninjas avoided answering a question they are branded as "abusers", I think it's fair to characterize that as painfully polite. Even if it weren't, you know exactly what I am referring to when I say that. Why don't you respond to the meat of the matter instead of complaining about semantics?

I'm not referring to your actions in that thread. I'm talking about your actions in this thread. As someone said, they seemed to be antagonistic, even after Mat said he'd look into it.

---------------------

Edit: I'm more or less on your side. Mat's looking into it. I don't think it's a good idea to piss Mat off--while I think he's more rational than most people, pissing someone off you want on your side isn't wise.

Or, if you had any idea what this thread was actually about (Jibninja's poor moderation actions over the span of the last year or so) you could see my comments in a different light. I know Tpir, Hopey, and Lok do. Because they've actually seen who the antagonist is, and spoiler alert, it's not me. This is me reacting to the antagonist.

You like others in this thread simply do not know what you are talking about. You've seen 30 seconds of this movie. (this thread) A few of us in this thread have seen the whole movie and more than once. Odd how we all agree what's going on is wrong. Yet the people commenting ITT who have never even visited RGT think they know it better what's going on, because I mean after all, their name is written in pink or green, so apparently that automatically means you know more than regular posters.

Good example of being antagonistic

"He hit me first" isn't really an excuse.

Wrong assumption

If this thread is supposed to help analyze and possibly change the way RGT is modded then everyone should stay on track. Just throwing that out there. If you're having more fun this way, that's ok too.

First I want to say that as I mentioned in another thread, I have been out of town on business. I just got back today. Both my browser at home and at work have 2+2 app tabbed so it is always up, plus I have been following the thread on my phone. I am going to attempt to address every issue in this thread, but being that it is now 148 posts long it might take a bit and I might miss something. So if I do just let me know. I am going to do this in multiple posts.

I want to first address the issue in the OP about my original deletion of the post and subsequent infraction points given to tpir.

The original post that was deleted was one in which tpir quoted my and then just put a "?" as his comment. The post was deleted because a "?" is hardly content rich post.

Once that happened and OP noticed tpir immediately posted this :

Many Mod's probably would have infracted him for this post alone, but the reason was that he broke rule #5 of the HC threads:

I received no PM about the deleted post, so he was infracted.

The second and third posts that he got infracted for was the following:

I think that these posts speak for themselves and doubt that there are many if any Mods on two plus two that would not infract for these posts.

The irony of all of this is that the original post that I deleted was one in which tpir quoted me and made changes, although because he did not bold his changes (which is common practice when quoting someone and changing their words) I didn't even notice that he changed my post at all. I thought it was exactly the same. If tpir would have PM'd me (as he was supposed to) and questions me deleted his post I would have found out very quickly what he had done and would have simply undeleted the post as I would have realized that I had made a mistake.

Now I will try and go through this thread and answer the questions brought up throughout the thread.

This post is a good example of what a majority of tpir's posts are like. The posts that he got infracted for were not isolated incidents, but part of a common theme in his posting style.

Once again, me pointing out that you are not an RGT regular and have likely set foot in there 1 or 2 times or not at all and therefore have little to no input on this threads matter is not "antagonizing." Stop playing the hurt feelings card. I will be calling spades spades.

Yeah, except it is. If someone punches you in the face while walking down the street I can tell you you are allowed to defend yourself in kind without being charged with battery yourself.