Madnak and I discussed this and came to the agreement. It was never an open forum debate.

The reason behind the name change was that the thread was never an atheist thread from day one. It was a thread dubbed atheist thread, but then was quickly turned into a funny pics thread about religion/atheism etc. So the title was no longer a representation of what the thread was, and it was too good of a thread to lock or even unsticky.

The prayers thread was unstickied because it was a thread where 75% (if not more) was two posters, one of which doesn't even post here anymore. It was a thread that was more of a blog than anything. Again, it was not a representation of the forum at all, therefore does not belong as a sticky.

Find me one post in the last year where I've "abused" jib.

Being critical is not abuse. There is ONE time I can remember where I lost my **** and went off on him. And he gave me infraction points, and I apologized. That was over a year ago.

Since then, have I been critical of him at times? Sure. Critical != abusive.

Can we please focus on the facts and not on what people feel someone will do based on their past?

Jib locked a 500+ post thread because three people supposedly trolled him upon bumping it. Now he's saying he locked it because he thinks it would have been derailed had he left it open. Which is quite funny since the thread had sat stagnant for three months (not two, three), and the last time Jib posted he said he didn't have an answer and needs more time. And what did me, and all the other horribly "abusive" posters say? Fine! Go ahead, and good on you for just saying so!

But yeah, he just totally knew that we were going to abuse the **** out of him had he done anything other than lock that thread up.

You do realize that thread was in the past, right? And when was the last time that I deleted one of your posts or infracted you?

If you want to move forward, then let's move forward.

Do you honestly believe that I was wrong in assuming that? I might even go back and check, but if I remember correctly that all happened in the midst of one your/rize etc gang ups on me.

Even if that is not the case, can you tell me that it was that bad of an assumption given my history with you and rize? Do you believe that rize is also respectful of me? I mean, say what you will, but saying that is a baseless assumption of what that thread would have turned into is not being honest imo

Yes, thank you, I'm quite aware.

A long time, but one wouldn't know that from reading your post itt you made just today. The one where you've "let the abuse go on for too long."

Great lets move forward.

Now why did you lock that thread? Because you were A) trolled, or B) going to be trolled?

You've given two different answers at two different times. This is a specific complaint about your modding, and has nothing to do with whether or not I like you as a person (as you incorrectly suggested).

You will recall a common refrain of mine that RGT is not a democracy - I don't expect decision by committee. I only mentioned it since you said you'd addressed all the relevant points and I suspect that this was one which was quite important to many.

I guess it seems strange to me given both changes were made during a period of a 'the mods are terrible' uprising. Neither seems terribly momentous though.

Yes. See our response to your previous post in that thread where we gave you props for saying you didn't have an answer. Rize even responded to your post with a nifty hand clapping gif.

Sounds kinky, but I don't recall our discussions from a year ago beyond the deist thread.

Yes, see my point about our response to your previous post in that thread.

Depends on how you define "respectful." I don't think its respectful for you to leave threads at the drop of a hat (not the deist thread, the many others where this happened) but others don't seem to think its an issue.

To directly answer your question, I'd say most of the time he's respectful enough based on what forum etiquette is around here. Sometimes he crosses over to disrespectful, yes. Locking threads because you're predicting someone will act a certain way is lolterrible.

It is being honest. See my first point. The last time you posted itt that you didn't have an answer, all us big bad abusers gave you a pat on the back and let you do your thing. You even commented on how surprised you were that we didn't jump down your throat for not having an answer.

So for you to assume that the next time you said you didn't have an answer that all hell would break lose is the definition of a baseless assumption.

You listed him in this thread as one of the three troublemakers in RGT. You also stated that you would be treating him (as one of the three) more harshly in the future. That's what he was responding to.

Rules are not based around the reasonable people. They are based around the trouble makers. If everyone was like you bunny we would not need rules at all.

[/quote]As I said to rizeagainst above - I think the problem is tone, not content/opinion. Inevitably, it seems to me, the issues arise when people stop talking about what people say and start talking about why they say it. Note that you accused Hopey of hating you - I would dispute your ability to know that, unless you've had lots of discussions I'm not privvy to. I pretty much agree with his characterisation that he is sarcastic but not abusive. Similarly with lok2thabrain, though I tend to scan past the 'you-said, he-said' threads so perhaps I'm just missing bits.[/quote]

Well, I disagree. Hopey (even if not as of late due to him not posting) and I have a long history together. In any event, I am not claiming to know his inner most thoughts, but how I perceive them. If I told you that I believed Our House like me, would you question my judgement? Probably not.


Again, I agree. But the problem is that the later is why we are here, not the former. What my rule is there for is to prevent the latter.

And I know that it was offered to you before, but if you have changed your mind about being a mod shoot me a PM.

I never actually said that I would treat anyone more harshly, just that I was no longer going to allow them to be abusive and disruptive. If he, or anyone else, is not or will not be in the future abusive or disruptive, then there will be no issues.

You implied that I've been abusive to you right up to this day, when that's clearly not the case. It was a false characterization in an attempt to strengthen the notion that we're only out to get you because we don't like you.

I didn't realize that this was a issue that was posed in this thread.

both A and B

I think they should be targetting the troublesome behaviour, not the people. If reasonable people break them they should face the same consequences as 'trouble makers'. The infraction system will mean they're likely to receive different tangible punishments since, assuming they expire over time, any reasonable person will probably never suffer any actual punishment beyond the warning implicit in receiving an infraction point or two.
I'm not reliable enough. When Mrs bunny decides I'm wasting too much time 'arguing with those stupid geeks on the internet' then I tend to disappear from the forums for a while - "happy wife, happy life" and all that

Thank you for your answer.

Now, if what myself and the two other posters who replied after I bumped that deist thread were "trolling" then you've got your work cut out for you because there's a whole lot of troll posts you need to address right now.

Do you honestly still think locking that thread was justified?

(btw, you didn't address any of my other points which were tied into this very issue. I'd appreciate if you would take a moment to reply to my entire post regarding this issue.)

+1

I for the most part have no problem with Jibs modding. I dont think they speak for most regs.

My misunderstanding. His post saying he would need more time was #571. Your post quoting Rize asking him if there were any updates was two days later at #580. So it wasn't a bump. Though it was an example of the consent attention you two gave him at that time.

And then both of you took jabs at him right after that.

That would be a massive step in the right direction but I doubt this is serious

I never really had a problem with jibninjas during my rgt posting days.

because his opinion matters since aesthetics is grounds for removing "content". so a better poster would probably not moderate so ****tily since they probably have better opinions in general.

and ty Mat.

Why didn't you just undelete it on your own and apologize to me instead? I don't even know my posts get deleted until days after the fact sometimes. That was not the only post of mine that was deleted either and what about everyone else's? I am not PMing you about a mistake you know you made. Why would I? You can fix it, I can't.

Links to a long history of constant harassment please. This didn't happen unless you redefine harassing into something really watered down and lame.

Uh yeah hi there, I'm the guy who created the thread and I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there

Get this...I titled the thread as "Images for atheists"

Yup

OOT, BBV, BBV4L, NVG, Sporting Events, This forum(?), probably lots of others. And are you going to ban Splendour too? There is no way what she does isn't abusive regardless of "oh just ignore it". There is absolutely not another forum anywhere that would not have banned her long ago, admit it. She even conceded to using RGT as a blog. And is the "Jib doesn't like his feet being put anywhere near the fire" rule going to be abolished?

Yeah I hate to pile on about this point because at the end of the day it is just an lol image thread, but it is pretty clearly Jib taking "revenge" on a poster who was mean to him in the past AINEC.