Larry Walker24 said:Who would make a good history mod based on this forum?
Me, 😬
Just kidding. I couldn't say for sure—but if I had to pick my favorite regulars over there, it'd be Mike, The Lone Ranger, and Wikipedia. There are plenty of other great folks around, obviously, but they’re the first ones that come to mind. As for whether they'd actually be good moderators? No clue. We'd probably need to see what kind of history sub we even want to build first.
lonetrucker4 said:And you know those are lies? Look, people debate this stuff all the time—nobody gets a ban just for having an opinion. You only get flagged if you’re being insulting, if you’re acting like a broken record, or if you’re stubbornly digging your heels in on blatant falsehoods, etc.
When it comes to threads about the American Civil War, my standards are actually a lot more relaxed than they are for ancient history. It’s all still pretty recent—archives aren't always open to everyone, and we don't really have that "historical distance" yet. I haven't handed out bans to anyone just because they're pushing theories I don't personally agree with.
I'm also a bit more lenient when we're talking about, say, Medieval American history. There are so few sources available there that almost any theory can be defended—even if some of them seem pretty unlikely to me.
It's the same deal with discussions on population genetics—it's a relatively new field and constantly evolving. People jump to conclusions or make hasty claims quite often, but generally, I let it slide unless someone starts acting like they've got a monopoly on the truth. I even started a separate thread about "personal data and how/where to get tested"—which technically isn't "History," but since it ties into population genetics, it makes sense for it to live here. That thread is working out great.
It’s not about what I "know"—it’s that a bunch of us were telling you the truth. The issue wasn't the facts themselves, but the fact that the trolling just kept going without any consequences. And you ended up getting tangled up in it too. Everyone else in the debate said the same thing. If this were happening on a different topic—like WWII, where you claim things aren't "recent" enough despite there still being survivors—you would've been hit with a warning or even a ban immediately.
Lawrence Booth2 said:lonetrucker4 is a lousy moderator and KLCK is way too political it’s just not a good vibe
I saved myself by taking a partial ban and honestly, life on the forum is great now
I see people complaining over losing 50 points, while I stayed quiet through one-day bans that cost me 500 points all at once I realized it wasn't worth risking my standing on the rest of the forum just for those two or three sub-forums—definitely not worth it plus, you have to weigh every single message to make sure you don't "offend" someone and then comes the infractions again so yeah, better to just step back what do I even need this in my life? if there's ever a vote to impeach them, give me a call
Same here. I left PDF Politics (partly because of the politicians, partly because of KLLCK) and I feel much better.
William Clark86 said:Look, I'm not a lawyer—I'll stick to the philosophical side of things😁
Being both a moderator and an active participant in a debate is basically a conflict of interest, 😁 having been a moderator myself, I know firsthand that it makes you a bad debater—and by extension, a lousy moderator.
Especially when a moderator is stuck in their own delusions and just refuses to face reality. Take this example: while pushing a bunch of stretched-thin, wishful thinking theories as if they were gospel, lonetrucker4 claims that the only legitimate force in Canada was the Muslim army—presenting it as an indisputable fact.
The thing is, there isn't a single state or international legal document that backs that claim up. Meanwhile, I’m over here posting the official Federation Veterans Act from the government website—which clearly treats the different factions equally— yet my posts get deleted and I get flagged... all because the "Mr. Moderator" refuses to accept reality.
As far as I'm concerned, feel free to keep moderating this way—you probably will anyway—but then you really have to ask what the point of this sub-forum even is.🤷
lonetrucker4 is a bad moderator. I remember how he completely ruined the discussion about Vukovar; he let himself be trolled and lied to by one user, even though several others debunked those lies with solid arguments. He just kept doubling down on his conspiracy theories—with lonetrucker4's full support.
We definitely need more moderators on the History subforum—at least three.
Totally agree. And we need mods who actually focus on stopping insults rather than trying to police everyone else's opinions or pushing their own political agendas.
Kenneth Cruz67 said:Back on the History forum, in that thread about the Black boxer in Nazi Germany, I posted something about Jesse Owens.
The post went like this:
My post got nuked and I slapped with 50 penalty points—all because they claimed my suggestion that Roosevelt was a bigger racist than Hitler was "trolling."
First off—racism in the USA and how Americans treated Jesse Owens is extremely well-documented; you can find a million articles on it all over the web.
Third—this guy obviously has some deep-seated biases.
Honestly, wtf? The post wasn't provocative, it wasn't off-topic, it wasn't offensive, and there wasn't anything incorrect or inappropriate in it.
And I get hit with 50 points for that?
It’s just like last time—he slapped me with a trolling warning, banned me, and then actually pulled my post into its own separate thread. Seriously, wtf.
This is nothing more than basic harassment and a vendetta just because I don't agree with lonetrucker4 regarding global warming.
Can someone in charge—anyone who isn't lonetrucker4—please review this penalty and the points?
Your post is factually accurate and interesting because you're bringing up info that not everyone knows (not even me, and I'm a history professor). Plus, I don't see any attempt on your part to justify racism, Nazism, or their crimes. Comparing racism across different countries is an interesting topic that should actually be encouraged—and that goes for antisemitism too, among other things. Maybe if you had "trolled" by lying about how certain historical events were orchestrated for plunder, you wouldn't have gotten flagged.
I honestly don't even know where to start. People are posting all sorts of things, so you have to be careful how you react—but look, violence isn't the answer. It just isn't. Nobody actually wants to live in the Wild West here. Even if there are some losers on Facebook who seem to crave it. And besides, who gets to decide what "justice" looks like? Who decides who deserves a machine gun? That’s just madness—both for the people and the country.
Just watched it. It was solid, but honestly, didn't quite hit the mark for me like I thought it would—a bit too much filler in there. It’s a decent flick, just leans more toward boring than great at times. 7/10
gentlehawk95 said:Well, obviously they are, especially now that Mel Brooks is getting up there in years.🤣🤣🤣🤣 All joking aside, though, a series just works better when you have more than a measly two hours to play with; you can actually let the plot breathe. I mean, how many series lately have been based on films from decades ago? Good grief, especially in the last couple of years, we've seen endless shows based on movies that came out ten years ago, and of course, the show ends up being superior simply because it has the luxury of time to stretch out the timeline and weave in much deeper subplots.
Not necessarily, though. I've sat through some series—maybe 8 to 10 episodes—that could've easily been squeezed into one solid two-hour movie. It feels like they just stretch things out just to hit a specific episode count. Personally, I'm more of a movie guy—I don't really have the patience to follow a show for months or even years. I'd rather watch a movie in one evening and know exactly how it ends. The only exceptions are those episodic shows where every episode stands on its own—then I might tune into something like Monko, Malcolm, or whatever.
Patrick Martin said:Just answer one thing for me, did he have a woman in his life before he became the legendary Napoleon?
Yeah. There was an older widow—just a few years older, so don't go thinking he was dating some grandma—who had a couple of lovers before him, but he was the one who stuck around for good.
So, an English-language version—basically a remake—is in the works, directed by Oliver Hermanus (never actually heard of him or anything he’s done, to be honest). They've got Bill Nighy and Aimee Lou Wood lined up for the cast. Look, I don't have a problem with remakes in general, but I just have a bad feeling about this one—not necessarily as a remake, but the movie itself doesn't look promising either.
Kenneth Cruz67 said:And who are you to decide that? Other people might be relevant, maybe they aren't—but we all know you're just a failed history student, so you're definitely not an authority here. It’s like a med student who failed out trying to perform surgery 😁
The Labor Party was just another fifth column working alongside the Germans, Italians, Nazis, and Chetniks.
Who actually picked the representatives for the Labor Party? Based on what? With what kind of authority or elections? Nothing, man. Just a bunch of forest bandits and highway thugs forming a group and seizing power.
I'm sure the Labor Party wasn't some democratic, civilized body either. They were just an extension of the resistance, Tito, and the Communist Party.
I don't even get why a moderator should be deciding this stuff. In my book, the moderator for the History sub-forum should mainly focus on banning people for insulting users—including calling others fascists, Nazis, communists, and so on—and making sure everyone stays on topic. They shouldn't be policing what people think (or how they should think) or which sources they use. If someone posts a wrong source, the other users are right there to correct them or point it out. So, the kind of thing I wouldn't ban—even for the reasons you mentioned—the moderator (regardless of whether it's Oštrić, and I won't go there regarding his education) isn't really the judge of, and can easily be subjective.
Isn't that a horror movie? I know, sometimes the line between horror and everything else gets pretty blurry—but honestly, I think everyone puts this one right in the horror category.
Great topic. Sometimes the line between horror and everything else gets a little blurry. I’d point to that scene in Disney's Tarzan—you know, where Clayton meets his end by hanging? That shadow alone was intense. Then there’s Scar's death in The Lion King. If anyone remembers The Black Cauldron—that forgotten Disney movie with such a dark vibe and that creepy villain, the Horned King—it definitely fits. I'm bringing up these animated scenes because they're technically made for kids, which actually makes them feel even darker. For live-action movies, you really have to dig a bit deeper. I mostly just think of straight-up horror flicks... though is Saw more of a horror-thriller?