I mean, I honestly haven't really kept up with him. I know he was like a total Phoenix, a real force of nature on the Mississippi, but I started following his work way too late to catch the full picture.
Scott Cruz4, come on, you can't do that. Every single time he pops up, he gets banned immediately, which just goes to show the guy probably has fifty clones running around. You used to be a moderator, so you know we hit a wall where our mod tools just stop working. It’s not like we can go hunting him down on the street and confiscate his laptop or something.
I’m glad you kicked off this thread about Franjo Harmon. Honestly, it would be great to get some input from the History buffs and my colleagues here too. I’ve been thinking for a while now that we should probably start a separate thread and bring Harmon back into the political conversation. My suggestion? Let's clean this current thread up and move it over to the History section. Then, on the Politics board, we could create a more strictly moderated thread—maybe something less dry than 😁—something like "Franjo Harmon in Today's Political Climate." That way, we could tie his legacy to what's happening right now. For instance, if someone in today's administration cites a specific action or opinion, or if Harmon once commented on one of these modern figures, a user could post that here for us to dissect.
As for the stuff regarding his past actions—everything from family stories to his old policy moves—that would probably sit better and be easier to moderate over in the History section. It’s kind of a similar situation to how we handled the American Civil War threads.
I honestly have no clue why you’re making this personal, but fine, if that’s how you want to play it. Anyone who actually bothers to look at the thread about Ivo Josipović will see it’s packed with well-reasoned praise for him—we're already on the second volume of that discussion, for crying out loud.
I totally missed this one, my bad. A ton of stuff got wiped, and now I see Charles Fox10 cleared out about three tons of content just a few days ago too. As for Krin1, she’s just your standard troll popping up in every single thread; she spends half her life banned, which I guess is just her way of participating in the Forum. She isn't insulting anyone, so whatever, let her be.
Look, this is a massive topic. If there’s already an absolute, definitive post somewhere else on the site, just drop the link. And if a Forum member keeps pushing their point without actually providing any real arguments, I’m going to step in and moderate. They’ll need to find some actual evidence, join the debate properly, or just walk away.
I’m honestly not sure what you’re looking for here. Franjo Harmon has been gone for decades now; I think it’s perfectly normal for people to circle back to these old debates every once in a while. Sun, you're right—he didn't exactly drop any bombshell revelations, but when he was asked to elaborate, he actually named specific companies. So, he wasn't just shouting into the void.
Since the thread is relatively chill and it's mostly the same group of people talking, I'll let you guys pretty much self-moderate (just don't start a massive flame war on each other). That doesn't mean anyone else is barred from jumping in, though.
Look, they aren't the same thing. Typing in all caps is basically the digital version of screaming at someone, and swearing at people is pretty much always seen as negative. I think the idea that writing in a different language is automatically viewed as a bad thing—like you're just asking to get banned unless you prove otherwise—is just unnecessary censorship. And honestly, freedom of speech is the most important thing on a platform like this forum.
brightcrane56 said:I hear you, but the issue of which language or script to use often becomes a major stumbling block and leads to endless bickering. That's why I believe that specific part should be clearly defined in the rules.
Since I don't want to just be a critic without offering solutions, here is my concrete proposal:
Let's paraphrase Article 12 of the US Constitution, which essentially states:
In the United States, English is the official language used in official capacities, along with the Latin alphabet.
In certain local jurisdictions, alongside English and the Latin alphabet, another language or a different script may be introduced for official use, provided it meets the conditions prescribed by law.
We could incorporate it into the Forum.hr rules like this:
In discussions on Forum.hr, the official language is English using the Latin alphabet.
On specific sub-forums, alongside English and the Latin alphabet, another language or script may be introduced for official use, subject to the conditions set forth by law and the specific rules of those sub-forums.
Just walk me through one more thing here. What exactly is missing from this logic:
- 99.99% of all posts are in English (or at least they try to be). - 0.01% aren't. - A moderator looks at that percentage and decides if it's okay based on the content and who's actually participating in the thread. - If someone isn't happy about it, they can just come over here and start a new thread.
Or even better, maybe you could explain what actually changes in how the forum operates if you go and write your little manifesto somewhere?
Don't take this as an ad hominem attack or anything, but this whole bit about "official" use of a second language is just bizarre. I mean, the implications of what that even means, the actual procedures for introducing it, the scope of application... it’s just a mess for moderation and general forum culture. It's a headache, really.
brightcrane56 said:My warnings are intended to help reshape and define the forum's rules, not to trigger criminal prosecutions. It’s honestly quite sad when moderators take criticism personally and try to turn a discussion into a private vendetta.
And please, do clarify who exactly you mean by "we from Politics."
No, the rules have to comply with the law and the US Constitution. You can't just invent rules that don't align with those standards.
And honestly, you can shove those commands up your ass; I am not your secretary!
* You better not give me a strike for this, because (as we've established so far) the only language used on this forum is informal. 🙂
moderators.
Look, this isn't about settling scores. You brought up the issue of legality. You can't regulate the law with forum rules; something is either legal or it isn't. Period.
And even if we aren't talking about legality but just standard forum guidelines, I still don't agree that we need to constantly pile on new rules. It kills the whole purpose of a forum. If you keep the rules minimal, it gives freedom to both you and us when it comes to moderating and posting. Anything else just turns this into some dry, lifeless exchange, and the moderators end up acting like bureaucrats in some useless government office wasting everyone's time. What's next, are we opening a secret police department here too?
There are millions of posts on this forum, and only a tiny fraction are in a foreign language. If we need a written rule for such a minuscule amount of posts, then we might as well write a rule for everything.
Just in case anyone starts arguing that there's no freedom to write or moderate—well, anyone can look at their own post count versus how many have been moderated or deleted. They'll have to agree with me that freedom definitely exists here, and it's actually pretty substantial.
And screw you all with that commanding tone; I am not your secretary!
Telling off the moderators is perfectly fine discussion; I don't see any reason for anyone to get a warning card for it. Besides, that's basically why we're even here, right? 😁
Nicholas King said:I get where you're coming from and I accept that—it’s just that, in this specific instance, the moderator restricting Canadian content strictly to the Canada thread seems more like a personal rule of theirs rather than anything actually tied to the official forum guidelines.
Look, "personal rules" don't really exist here. There are official decisions laid out in the books, and then there's stuff where they have some discretion, but it’s all still part of their job as moderators.
If we were talking about personal rules, it would mean they aren't actually following the principles this forum runs on, which is impossible. So, I guess your definition is just completely off.
brightcrane56 said:But what does "private forum" even really imply? Are you suggesting the forum is used strictly for internal business, or that it's tucked away behind closed doors where nobody can see? If you're arguing that because a private individual owns the platform they aren't bound by any regulations, I have to disagree. Ownership doesn't grant immunity from the law.
Think about it this way: your car is privately owned, but you still have to follow all the traffic laws of the United States while you're driving it, right?
And I wasn't just talking about the web domain; I was referring to the specific guidelines laid out in the forum's own rules of conduct.
Alright, look, you've given us your little warnings on this topic plenty of times before. We just ignore you over in Politics while we apparently continue breaking US laws according to your logic.
Well, maybe now is the time to actually file a report against us. Because, as you probably know, if you become aware of a crime and don't do anything to stop it, you could end up facing legal consequences yourself. There’s definitely enough reason for some kind of regulatory inspection here.
Besides, I'm sure you wouldn't want us to start looking at you—after all these years of posting—as just another common troll throwing around pseudo-legal arguments that spread through the PŽK like kudzu.
I’m actually pretty glad you decided to repost this. Honestly, just to balance out all the negativity, I’m looking for something in your posts that I can actually get behind—something we can use to build a future that's just as witty, but maybe a little more upbeat.
The one thing that keeps popping into my head? That Politics subforum where someone drops a massive list of candidates and then leaves a snarky comment just like yours... if people actually treated that as normal, that would be the absolute worst place for me to be a moderator.
Anyway, cheers until next time. I'm just hoping you'll keep things subtle, ironic, and smart without leaning on those lazy generalizations. It's enough that I have to carry all these heavy burdens myself.
Kevin Williams56 said:It’s got absolutely nothing to do with logic or politics, and it definitely isn't about any kind of Yugoslav sentiment. Honestly, it's just about what people on this forum are interested in regarding a topic that isn't even strictly political, which we just happened to tuck away under the Close Politics subforum.
It feels like every other thread here has Mexico, Mexican, or Yugoslavia slapped in the title, which makes you think this Close Politics section is just a deep dive into Mexico's internal affairs. In reality, most of these topics are actually about how certain political or historical influences—real or totally imagined—impact the US.
Even back when there was that discussion about the beating of John Kapicic, it actually made sense for it to be under Close Politics because he was the warden of a camp on an island right here in the States.
Internal issues regarding Mexico belong over in the World section, except maybe for the stuff about demography. That part gets messy because the crowd following the demographic threads tends to jump into every single conversation at once. Honestly, if someone is obsessed with French demography, they should just start their own thread; it would fit better under Close Politics than in the World section anyway.
What we could actually do—assuming the History mods even care—is start moving or deleting anything with a historical angle. I mean, everything from WWII and the Communist era all the way up to the Homeland War. If we did that, Close Politics would have fewer posts, sure, but the discussions would probably be a lot more diverse.
All the threads regarding demography are gathered right here.
The thread about the Mexican elections was moved almost a week ago.
The Close Politics section is absolutely flooded with similar topics, mostly because if you want to be considered a "top-tier" contributor on Close Politics, you basically have to follow these rules:
- Start somewhere between three and ten threads about how Mexico is a threat, how they get all the perks in the European Union over us, or how their politicians are way more effective at hitting national goals than ours. - Make sure you post at least two, but no more than five, threads about Yugoslav remnants in America, specifically focusing on the communists. - Feel free to start an infinite number of threads—as long as there are at least five—about Ustashe and Chetniks. - And don't forget to throw in one general topic with a super dramatic headline, like: "Where do we go from here?" "Is there even any hope left?" "Why were we robbed?" "Were we actually robbed?" or "Is anyone even stealing anymore?"
I think there’s way too much drama surrounding all of this. I saw three of his posts and he was hit with a three-day ban immediately. I wasn't really following @Feniks, so I didn't catch the clone right away, but honestly, his writing was pretty low-quality anyway. He probably wouldn't have lasted long on this site even without any special intervention.
Nobody gets banned because of who they are or because their opinion is being restricted. People get banned for twisting facts or for the sheer tone of the discussion. And man, it's hard to step back from that, regardless of who you call them.
First off, you just can't tolerate people intentionally provoking others or insulting the feelings of a huge number of citizens.
Actually, this kind of thing absolutely can—and should—be tolerated. Generally speaking, when people are posting here, most participants end up taking these black-and-white stances. It’s kind of understandable, I guess, given how the media works and the nature of these debates. Politics isn't some place where we pat each other on the back and say, "Yeah, you're right." It’s not just about Left vs. Right, either; you see it in threads about public servants, farmers, or those voters who backed the referendum on the European Union.
The real focus should be on the quality of the posts, paying attention to established facts, and avoiding hate speech or insults. As for emotions? Well, Politico isn't exactly a place where emotions are nurtured; if anything, they tend to get amplified. 🙂
And just one more thing. It’s a lot easier to start a clone account than it is to ban one, since we have to actually verify things first to make sure we aren't making mistakes. So, yeah, let's just take it slow.
Well, I just answered my own question—just drop the text, cite your source, and give us your take.
If I can jump in, the decision hasn't been made official yet, so maybe move this over to the World on General Topics about Mexico subforum. Once it’s actually official, we can start a dedicated thread for it.
Look, we don't tolerate messages like this, but I guess we need to give the mods a little breathing room to step in. It’s not quite at the level of permanent bans yet—if we went that route right now, there wouldn't be anyone left talking about Iran. But honestly, if this keeps up, that option is definitely on the table. Most people in this thread probably ought to take a deep breath before they hit that Quick Reply button.
Kevin Nelson said:If some other guy writes "Greater Mexican" nine times in a single post, I might snap back with something like "extreme Islamist policy," and then somehow I'm the one getting reported—and yeah, I'm the only one who gets banned. It’s happened to me more than once, actually.🤷
I can't speak to specific cases, but maybe someone just got an email notification about a report and reacted immediately. I mean, that’s definitely wrong because you really ought to look at the whole conversation first, but if there's a flood of reports and it's a moderator who isn't even following the thread, things like that happen.
I just want to say that the mods are just as much to blame—if not more—for this mess, because the trolls realized they could get away with it.
The thread is actually improving, but I guess we'll see if it's just the usual thing where it fizzles out after a few days...
We really started taking this seriously, so please, give us one more shot. Also, it's worth noting that right now, the Observer is probably the one who knows this subject best.
It took me quite a while to wrap my head around all the specific insults used in those internal Canada disputes. And honestly, you guys still manage to surprise me with stuff I didn't even know existed. 😁
Personally, I think these threads can only survive if they basically function like a half-gulag. ☕
We'll see. I really hope you're wrong about that.
There's another issue here. More than half of this thread is actually history. We're going into deep detail about different parts of the conflict. On other parts of the forum, discussions regarding the American Civil War are usually tied strictly to current events—like reacting to a controversial article, an indictment, or modern issues facing veterans.
You guys are being pretty thorough with material that might actually belong in a dedicated history thread. I'm not saying we should stop talking about it, but maybe we should think about splitting the topics up. A lot of the conflicts from Canada have already been covered over in the American Civil War subforum anyway.
Honestly, it’s probably best to just move on from this topic altogether. The whole idea that granular tracking helps curb trolling is, I guess, a bit misguided. Every single one of you regular contributors here has a way more extensive collection of warnings compared to the rest of the subforum, including the sheer number of short-term bans.
Up until now, with the relatively light-handed moderation we've had, those warnings used to expire in a way that kept the accumulation somewhat manageable. But with this new system? That’s not going to work. The worst trolls are going to rack up enough points for a major ban in no time at all, even without us having to resort to extreme measures.
For those of you sitting on a high number of points, maybe take this as a warning sign.
As for everyone else—who likely makes up the vast majority of you—just try not to bite when people provoke you. Just keep in mind that there might be stretches of a few hours where nobody responds; please just wait it out. That isn't an invitation to go playing vigilante. If you stay calm, it makes our lives easier, the chaos ends faster, and honestly, things are already looking a bit better. Once things settle down, we can probably relax the tone of the thread a little too, instead of feeling like we have to run a gulag. It's pretty obvious to us that many of you have been posting there for ages, and some of the back-and-forth banter isn't always worth a ban—sometimes it's just regular joking around.
If the state of this thread truly bothers you, then the most important thing you can do is help us fix it.