>>32491058>brings up consistency in moderation as a point against a post>doesn't address the point regarding inconsistency in moderation, instead jumping to something elseThanks for addressing the point.
For the past while that I can remember, quite a bit of porn and other shitposts have been allowed to live, while things like mere crops or suggestive photos have been deleted.
Hunger games threads too, but those kinda deserved it desuOnly real consistency, if you want to say there was any, was in bad moderation.
