I honestly don't know how many times we have to start a thread about the same thing (specifically, the moderation of the History PDF and its current status) before anything actually changes ☕
Instead of just sitting down right now, agreeing on what kind of History PDF we actually want, and making it happen—we’re just going to spend our time bickering. Someone will eventually step in and lock this thread, then someone else will just open a new one about the exact same issue a little while later. How long are we going to keep doing this? Your call.
Macaulay Culkin (obviously) in Home Alone / Good Son—maybe a bit overlooked, but it’s a top-tier 90s thriller Isabelle Fuhrman in Orphan You guys already covered the rest (Portman, The Exorcist, etc.)
Man, there are plenty. I could probably write pages on them. Most of them are just incredibly dull—but then again, who can even keep track? The last one I tried was Spartak. Honestly, they really dragged that one out. I made it about two and a half hours in before my internet cut out on me, so I never actually finished it. I can't even remember if I've ever sat through one of those all the way to the end.
Richard Wilson4 said:Thanks for the input, everyone. Christmas definitely takes the lead—it's everywhere.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but it feels like Christmas is a massive cultural staple in America (since they basically drive the movie industry)—everyone celebrates it, believer or not. Easter, though? That stays strictly religious. That’s probably why we have a million Christmas movies, while you can count the Easter ones on one hand—maybe two if you're feeling generous.
Richard Wilson4 said:Are there actually any decent modern family comedies about this holiday?
Christmas movies? There are like a million of them—I can't even count. But for this one, I can't think of a single one.
Peter Zeiger/Peter Rabbit is great—super fun, really hits that family vibe. That's the only one that comes to mind. Oh, and Hop, though I'm hoping to catch that tomorrow.
Everything else I can remember is either some epic spectacle or a horror flick with killer rabbits.
rustydrifter10 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less about these polls, and I really don't see any point in even bringing them up.
And let’s be real—I have zero faith in a poll where the author conveniently leaves out the very people they know won't vote the way they want. If that's the case, then what's even the point? Thanks a lot, but you can just keep the results and all those little details to yourself, because the administration isn't going to use them to make any actual decisions anyway.
So why not just run a poll where those two specific guys can actually cast their votes? Then we'll see what the public really thinks.
Besides, even if you count those two votes, there's still a massive majority in favor of replacing Smith.
Alright, I’m backing up what Jonathan Wright2 is saying here. I saw the poll and cast my vote for getting Oštrić out of here—honestly, he did a pretty solid job setting this up, considering how these online polls usually go. He posted the results right here, and they speak volumes about how everyone on this forum actually feels.
No, I only make spelling "observations" when I see some forum philosopher or pseudo-linguist spewing utter drivel about language and etymology. The utility is twofold: it amuses me to play the pedant, and it delights me to expose charlatanism. Plus, it allows readers to see exactly how far an "author" is willing to let their fantasies run wild. And no, I'm not a professor—certainly not based on the caliber of people I find myself correcting. In fact, just recently, I had to teach your defender—this self-proclaimed great forum linguist—that it isn't "isogloss" but "isogloss" [sic]... he didn't even thank me 😁 Right now, I'm busy teaching him what the term actually means, because it certainly doesn't mean what he thinks it does in those hundreds of entries where he tries to act like an expert—though judging by that first quote, he’s managed to sell it quite successfully to some people.
It takes time; it's a process...
I'm typing this on my phone, and since I didn't zoom in properly, I thought it was Smith (🤦). You have similar photos, and the writing style is pretty much the same too. Regardless, the second part still stands.
Arthur Smith15 said:Your own track record on this forum is absolute garbage, yet here you are, hypocritically leading the charge against someone else, rambling on about "behavior," "trolling," and "rules."🤦
Go ahead, you complainers—keep opening your little polls, but make sure to include a mandatory question about Auschwitz. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that every single one of you is a hardcore revisionist who would spend all day recounting bones, because clearly, it couldn't possibly be that many victims on little Floramya's watch... There is a clear correlation here between being dissatisfied with the moderator and the specific brand of nonsense you'd be spewing in the History section if that moderator weren't standing in your way.
Oh, and can someone tell me if I even made it onto that secret Jonathan Wright2 list—you know, that poll? 😁 The funniest part is how he comes out looking like a fraud either way: if I'm not on it, he's just polling his own supporters; if I am, then he's a fraud (given the latest news...) because he never actually polled me. 😁 Come on, Jonathan Wright2, man, find some backbone and some dignity and just answer the question...
And is this really okay behavior from a moderator? Rachel Richardson is one of the most active and high-quality people on this thread—she has massive knowledge and solid arguments (even if I don't always agree with them), so her posts definitely don't count as garbage.
Jack Cook7 said:At the end of the day, everything just circles back to WWII and the Homeland War.
Yeah, it’d probably be better if we just started fighting over some medieval stuff instead. We all know which topics are sensitive—it's pretty easy to spot when a moderator is being biased.
Jack Cook7 said:Look, I am a useful idiot. I’ve literally said that dozens of times. You decide if you are one or not.
lonetrucker4 is also a useful idiot, just doing his job, and honestly, he does it pretty well in my book. And yeah, lonetrucker4 has his own specific agenda when it comes to Canada topics. That's just the price you pay for his "free" work.
He does his job so well that he attracts a massive amount of criticism and backlash. It actually reminds me of our own politicians whenever they start bragging about themselves. ☕
Jack Cook7 said:Look, there's a massive difference between someone dying in a firefight and executing prisoners or wounded soldiers—that's straight-up looting and murder.
And then you follow that up with a happy little dancing smiley face? Honestly, that’s completely unacceptable—even by the toughest standards. It's the same logic Mexicans would use if they claimed killing our defenders was "just part of the heat of battle" and thought we'd just shrug it off. Totally uncool.
Brenda Johnson65 said:Ideology isn't actually the issue here. The real problem lies in the blatant double standards—the way rules are applied selectively depending on one's ideological leanings.
I suspect nobody would object to a more uniform approach to moderation. As it stands, it is painfully clear that certain individuals enjoy a layer of protection for various reasons... When it comes to overt hate speech or incitement to violence from specific users, the moderators seem to require an exhaustive period of deep contemplation (which usually results in absolutely nothing), while others are summarily punished for far less—or even for things they merely thought rather than actually said.
It is particularly absurd to hear the excuses that certain posters possess a "unique style," which apparently grants them immunity regarding how they treat others or their general lack of civility and breeding.
Excellent post—honestly, it's like you read my mind. 👍
Though, I'm worried the History PDF section is just going to keep doing things the old way. 😢
Jeffrey Adams said:I say we just lay all the cards on the table—let whoever has the strongest hand take the lead.
I'm sure there are people actually interested in moderating (even though lonetrucker4 claims it doesn't pay, which is... interesting, to say the least), so let them step up and we can hold an election. Or better yet, we could all nominate someone, and the top two can head into a runoff.
Exactly. Before we even talk about elections, we need to agree on what kind of "history" we want this place to reflect. We need to decide how we feel about glorifying totalitarian systems and personalities, labeling other users, those conspiracy theories surrounding the DR, and all that stuff.
Just one general question here. Why is it okay to call other users names like fascists, chauvinists, or religious extremists? Even moderator Oštrić—who uses those kinds of labels quite often—could explain why this is being allowed.
A ton of people jumped on that thread, and honestly? I don't think it should've been shut down—we should've just turned it into a discussion about where the History PDF is headed. It’s in everyone's best interest to get that file fixed and moving forward—sorting out the issues instead of acting like politicians and sweeping things under the rug. Otherwise, we're just going to be surprised when things catch up to us (in this case, when the History PDF ends up being nothing but Oštrić).
lonetrucker4 said:Just looking back through some old threads that haven't seen much action lately. Here's a small example.
The topic Neven Budak reveals American history taboos - Borna isn't an American was started by user dvadesetdevet back on June 20, 2018. His last post here was on January 6, 2019. And honestly, he definitely didn't quit because of me—I never even gave him a single warning card.
Then you've got people like Ljudevitus, Michael Collins, american, Kexx, zagorski križar, Dilberth, mozak_free, wikiceha. They’re still active on this subforum today, even though we clash (and they clash with each other too), and even though I'm probably not anyone's favorite person.
Now, karlo_r did a fair amount of trolling, but from me, he only ever picked up two yellow cards—and later, just one red card worth 35 points in a different thread.
Then there's sirovina. He's pretty quiet these days. I only ever gave him one yellow card (for how he opened a thread). But he racked up a mountain of heavy penalties—100 points or more—from other mods on different subforums like Politics, for things like aggressive trolling, insults, hate speech, and just talking nonsense.
User benedeiktus showed up in that thread too. I gave him one red card in that specific thread, plus a few more in other threads during the second half of 2018, all in the 25-35 point range. But then, between November 2018 and January 2019, he hit a streak of three major penalties from mods on other subforums for hate speech, Holocaust denial, and massive trolling. Since his total hit over 1,000 points, that meant a permanent ban.
So, looking at those two, is this really a group worth missing?
If you ask me, the only thing I can be blamed for is being too lenient.
See ya tomorrow morning!
What criteria did you use to pick that specific thread? And if that's the case, how do you explain the fact that 80% of that PDF left? You have to consider that someone might have left the History section because of one little warning card, or because of a card you gave to someone else, or simply because they didn't like the state of the PDF that you're running. Plus, how do you explain the heavy volume of appeals specifically targeting your work? If you look at the appeal threads, about two-thirds—that's a rough estimate, but you get my point—are directed at you and KLCLK. And often, it's over tiny things or nonsense. Just a few weeks ago, I saw a thread with a photo of Tit at a cemetery. Behind him was a smiling Jovanka (I mean, wtf 🙄), and a user made a sarcastic comment—more like a joke that might or might not be funny depending on who you ask—and that post got a red card. There wasn't any insulting or trolling or anything bad involved. Look, the History PDF isn't just for serious debates. Even in Politics, there’s been plenty of joking around.