Should Kath Be Allowed To Continue As Moderator?

[K@th]

I'm tempted to delete this entire thread.

Go ahead. Censorship Cunt to the rescue!

Dude... last time, chillax. I'm not moderating shit.

Being tempted, saying words.... are not actual actions. You know this, yes?

Bitch away when I actually moderate your profile or one of your posts. I'm also tempted to change your profile picture to a screaming child. I won't - temptation is tricky like that.

Wanting to do some funny shit doesn't always equal getting to do some funny shit.

[StCapps]

I'm not moderating shit.

If you do censor me or anyone else, going forward, for no good reason, the war will continue long after the Olympics are over, bet that. The threat already made ensures the war will last until the end of the Olympics, if you want the war to go on longer than that, you know what to do. Too late to dial it back and save your Olympics threads, you should have thought of that before you publicly contemplated censoring hockey talk.

Your actions will have consequences, deal with it, and don't fuck up that badly again, that's my advice.

[K@th]

I'm not moderating shit.

If you do censor me or anyone else for no good reason, the war will continue long after the Olympics will over, bet that. The threat already ensures the war will last until the end of the Olympics, if you want to go on longer that, you know what to do.

You keep acting as if I'm moderating hundreds of posts per day. It's not even hundreds per lifetime. Dude. Re-fucking-lax. Get back to me when you have a legit gripe against me.


Can't believe anyone is so worked up because they can't read about hard cocks going into children's asses. Weird, that, but whatever. There are websites for that.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If you do censor me or anyone else, going forward, for no good reason

So there are good reasons.

[BjornP]

BjornP is a fucking idiot, who thinks they are mutually exclusive terms, and so do you apparently.

You know what's also not mutually exclusive terms? Murder and killing. Somehow people who understand the basic concept of having different words for different meanings, know that those two words are distinct words for a reason. "Not mutually exlusive" doesn't actually mean "might as well be the same thing", Capps.

I know they have different meanings, but there is plenty of crossover that you are trying to pretend does not exist with your silly semantic games, I am just pointing that out. You are making distinctions without meaning when there is tons of crossover between moderation and censorship, you are not actually pointing out the difference between moderation and censorship, you are pointing to similarities and claiming it's a difference.

So, there's plenty of crossover between the two words, right? Which I apparantly deny. But in this case, it's clear and obvious that we're dealing with censorship. Apparantly. Because now, it's easy to exclude one meaning in favor of the other. Yeah, not making sense. Also: "Pointing to similarities claiming it's a difference". Seriously, what the hell's that even mean?

[StCapps]

I'm not moderating shit.

If you do censor me or anyone else for no good reason, the war will continue long after the Olympics will over, bet that. The threat already ensures the war will last until the end of the Olympics, if you want to go on longer that, you know what to do.

You keep acting as if I'm moderating hundreds of posts per day. It's not even hundreds per lifetime. Dude. Re-fucking-lax. Get back to me when you have a legit gripe against me.


Can't believe anyone is so worked up because they can't read about hard cocks going into children's asses. Weird, that, but whatever. There are websites for that.

No I am reacting like you moderated four posts on this forum for no good reason and then threatened to censor me and Smitty for talking hockey. If you did moderate hundreds of posts for no reason, and then threatened to censor me and Smitty for talking hockey, you really would never ever hear the end of it until you left the forum in disgrace or stepped down as moderator to put us on ignore.

[StCapps]

You know what's also not mutually exclusive terms? Murder and killing. Somehow people who understand the basic concept of having different words for different meanings, know that those two words are distinct words for a reason. "Not mutually exlusive" doesn't actually mean "might as well be the same thing", Capps.

I know they have different meanings, but there is plenty of crossover that you are trying to pretend does not exist with your silly semantic games, I am just pointing that out. You are making distinctions without meaning when there is tons of crossover between moderation and censorship, you are not actually pointing out the difference between moderation and censorship, you are pointing to similarities and claiming it's a difference.

So, there's plenty of crossover between the two words, right? Which I apparantly deny. But in this case, it's clear and obvious that we're dealing with censorship. Apparantly. Because now, it's easy to exclude one meaning in favor of the other. Yeah, not making sense. Also: "Pointing to similarities claiming it's a difference". Seriously, what the hell's that even mean?

It means you are making distinctions that don't actually differentiate between the two terms, while thinking you are for some strange reason.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you do censor me or anyone else, going forward, for no good reason

So there are good reasons.

Perhaps, but when the moderator herself violates those same "reasons" on the regular, it crosses over into abuse and pettiness.

[StCapps]

If you do censor me or anyone else, going forward, for no good reason

So there are good reasons.

Yeah censorship is not inherently negative, deleting spam and porn, that is good moderation and censorship, but censoring clubby's pedophile jokes, and threatening to censor hockey talk are obviously negative forms of censorship on the MHF.

[BjornP]

It means you are making distinctions that don't actually differentiate between the two terms, while thinking you are for some strange reason.

Right, now try quoting where I supposedly do that?