Should Kath Be Allowed To Continue As Moderator?

[StCapps]

You pretty much do everything for dope, you dopehead.

See now that's ad hominem while having no argument, big difference from having a good argument and then throwing in a little ad hom to spice it up. Take note monte.

[Speaker to Animals]

You pretty much do everything for dope, you dopehead.

See now that's ad hominem while having no argument, big difference from having a good argument and then throwing in a little ad hom to spice it up. Take note monte.

Don't you have some BBQ grills to steal to fund your weed habit?

[StCapps]

You pretty much do everything for dope, you dopehead.

See now that's ad hominem while having no argument, big difference from having a good argument and then throwing in a little ad hom to spice it up. Take note monte.

Don't you have some BBQ grills to steal to fund your weed habit?

Quick Kath censor StA, cave to the thin skinned whinny bitches of the world just because they claim to be offended, it's what you do.

[K@th]

]Quick Kath censor StA, cave to the thin skinned whinny bitches of the world just because they claim to be offended, it's what you do.

I'm sorry your brain is too small to see nuance, but most grown ups can. Stay petty, Capps - it's your best skill.

[StCapps]

]Quick Kath censor StA, cave to the thin skinned whinny bitches of the world just because they claim to be offended, it's what you do.

I'm sorry your brain is too small to see nuance, but most grown ups can. Stay petty, Capps - it's your best skill.

Are you kidding me? StA follows me around in every thread with his only retort being "stay off drugs", it's the same in all the ways that matter. You just can't handle my biting sarcasm is all, nor can you handle logically consistent moderation.

[BjornP]

When she goes in and deletes content from your post, she is literally censoring you, genius.

What makes it outrageous is that she is doing it to people ostensibly for something she herself does all the time. It's selective enforcement of her own arbitrary rules to control who gets to post and what ideas get posted. It's literally censorship.

Moderation isn't censorship. Deal with it. That Kath isn't moderating in a consistent manner, doesn't mean that was she's doing isn't moderation. Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules on an internet forum is just that: Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules. If you invite someone into your home because they helped you fix your stranded car on the road yesterday, but then, two hours later decide that you really HATE that good samaritan because they made you look weak or some shit like that, that's totally shitty and stupid behavior, BUT it's YOUR fucking house and you get to decide everything that happens there, including delegate the decision-making to your chained up gimp living under your bead. It's not a taking away of your right to say what you want, because you can simply do that outside the MHF "house" to everyone who wants to listen to you.

[K@th]

]Quick Kath censor StA, cave to the thin skinned whinny bitches of the world just because they claim to be offended, it's what you do.

I'm sorry your brain is too small to see nuance, but most grown ups can. Stay petty, Capps - it's your best skill.

Are you kidding me? StA follows me around in every thread with his only retort being "stay off drugs", it's exactly the same thing. You just can't handle my biting sarcasm is all.

An asshole bitching about another asshole being an asshole. Oh. The. Irony.

[StCapps]

When she goes in and deletes content from your post, she is literally censoring you, genius.

What makes it outrageous is that she is doing it to people ostensibly for something she herself does all the time. It's selective enforcement of her own arbitrary rules to control who gets to post and what ideas get posted. It's literally censorship.

Moderation isn't censorship. Deal with it. That Kath isn't moderating in a consistent manner, doesn't mean that was she's doing isn't moderation. Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules on an internet forum is just that: Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules. If you invite someone into your home because they helped you fix your stranded car on the road yesterday, but then, two hours later decide that you really HATE that good samaritan because they made you look weak or some shit like that, that's totally shitty and stupid behavior, BUT it's YOUR fucking house and you get to decide everything that happens there, including delegate the decision-making to your chained up gimp living under your bead. It's not a taking away of your right to say what you want, because you can simply do that outside the MHF "house" to everyone who wants to listen to you.

Moderation and censorship are not mutually exclusive, dumb dumb. Just because she has the right to do it, because Hash made her moderator, doesn't mean she should. When she moderates spam that's fine, when she censors/moderates posts because she didn't like the content in them, and it's not spam, or porn or what have you, and it's just an arbitrary rule made up on the spot and never applied consistently, not so much.

[Speaker to Animals]

When she goes in and deletes content from your post, she is literally censoring you, genius.

What makes it outrageous is that she is doing it to people ostensibly for something she herself does all the time. It's selective enforcement of her own arbitrary rules to control who gets to post and what ideas get posted. It's literally censorship.

Moderation isn't censorship. Deal with it. That Kath isn't moderating in a consistent manner, doesn't mean that was she's doing isn't moderation. Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules on an internet forum is just that: Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules. If you invite someone into your home because they helped you fix your stranded car on the road yesterday, but then, two hours later decide that you really HATE that good samaritan because they made you look weak or some shit like that, that's totally shitty and stupid behavior, BUT it's YOUR fucking house and you get to decide everything that happens there, including delegate the decision-making to your chained up gimp living under your bead. It's not a taking away of your right to say what you want, because you can simply do that outside the MHF "house" to everyone who wants to listen to you.

Oh, get real. When somebody deletes the content of your posts because it offends her friend -- even when she does THE EXACT SAME THING to other people -- it's literally censorship. Moderation is sending somebody a PM to ask them to stop breaking some rules (which we have almost none to bitch about in the first place).

[BjornP]

When she goes in and deletes content from your post, she is literally censoring you, genius.

What makes it outrageous is that she is doing it to people ostensibly for something she herself does all the time. It's selective enforcement of her own arbitrary rules to control who gets to post and what ideas get posted. It's literally censorship.

Moderation isn't censorship. Deal with it. That Kath isn't moderating in a consistent manner, doesn't mean that was she's doing isn't moderation. Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules on an internet forum is just that: Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules. If you invite someone into your home because they helped you fix your stranded car on the road yesterday, but then, two hours later decide that you really HATE that good samaritan because they made you look weak or some shit like that, that's totally shitty and stupid behavior, BUT it's YOUR fucking house and you get to decide everything that happens there, including delegate the decision-making to your chained up gimp living under your bead. It's not a taking away of your right to say what you want, because you can simply do that outside the MHF "house" to everyone who wants to listen to you.

Moderation and censorship are not mutually exclusive, dumb dumb.

That's deep. Truly. Now, try answering this:

If a professor at a university lecture calls for SJW protestors to be free to engage in discussion as long they do so following some basic rules, like allowing the opposing side to speak without being drowned out by screams of "you're a racist!", he is censoring the SJW's? Their right to talk about their SJW views? He's not simply moderating how the debate should go on?