Posts by Jose Clark2

Sam Green73 said:I don't see an answer to this here:

That doesn't warrant a ban. Maybe a warning for being off-topic, but that's pushing it. It certainly isn't worth 35 points or accusations of trolling, nor should everything be censored. Lately, it’s become quite obvious who is actually collecting infractions and who isn't. I've been around this site long enough to know better.

amberwalker4 said:That’s a lie, and I’ve already documented it right here on Unknown.

Do you really have the nerve to act like you get to decide who qualifies to moderate the History section? You can't even tell the difference between a sharp critique and an ad hominem attack.

I wasn't defending anyone; I was just being the voice of reason. Almost everyone ended up with warnings on that thread. Nearly everyone involved. But you and bluewalker6 are the only ones complaining—and not about the warnings, but by essentially staging a lynching. You’re actually demanding Sam Green73 be removed while having the audacity to preach about equality. You contribute nothing to the discussion and are always the first one to troll, derail, or break the rules.

Keep whining and playing the victim if you want. It won't work 🙂.

We complained about the warnings too. I am certainly not deciding who can or cannot be a moderator, but based on past experience and what I have personally witnessed, it is my opinion that the current moderator isn't fit for the job. As for the pile-up of warnings on that thread, anyone can see and compare the facts. Regarding your constant accusations of lying and such, I won't bother commenting to avoid falling into ad hominem territory. Though, I suppose that is your specialty.

Sam Green73 said:Today I let you off with at least three warnings—literally three red cards. If you’re actually curious, I could send you a private message listing all the posts I haven't flagged yet.
It makes no difference to me whether we argue in the Ban corner or out here in the public section of this Unknown thread.

Now, please explain to me why that specific post doesn't warrant a warning.
Or rather, why that post belongs in this topic at all.

So you spared me three warnings. I wonder how many you've handed out to others, because from where I'm sitting, I was flagged for a post that didn't deserve it. You're stifling the debate. You make people afraid to say anything if they don't align with your views. After all, who knows what you'll label as "trolling" and penalize with 35 points? Meanwhile, the Wikipedia crowd can write whatever they want without being called trolls or getting flagged. Of course. If you applied your standards to them, this whole thread would be a massacre of red cards.

I am stating that you lack objectivity, it is plainly visible, and you aren't fit to moderate history. Furthermore, I have been a member of this community for some time; I have a decent post count, and I won't sit here while someone treats me like an idiot. I won't be bullied, and I will point out any infringement on my rights and file a formal complaint.

amberwalker4 said:Interesting points, Jose Clark2... let's look at your actual contribution to this thread, specifically that last post of yours which has since been deleted—lucky for me, I have a good memory. That post was a response to this and went like this:

You didn't answer any questions, you ignored the arguments presented, and honestly, you said nothing about the topic itself. You just resorted to ad hominem attacks.

That’s your famous "contribution" to the threads you haunt. A whole lot of nothing. And once you get called out for it, you come crawling back here to whine about discrimination.

Typical.

I have never attacked anyone, including you, nor have I used ad hominem tactics. I simply responded to the insult you directed at me. It's bold of you to come here and call me out for that. Besides, what is your goal? You took the moderator's side, didn't you? If that's the case, leave me out of it; we aren't discussing me, we are complaining about the moderator.

Sam Green73 said:What exactly?

Your perception is selective. You don't bother applying rules fairly—handing out red cards to everyone else while waiting to flag me for anything at all. I might forgive you, but this isn't worth a ban. Either treat everyone equally or stop using these biased criteria against me. Honestly, you should probably step away from moderating history altogether; you aren't capable of doing it with any sense of integrity.

granitefalcon26 said:You clearly haven't spent much time on those foreign forums. To them, Reddit is some bastion of democracy that lets people say whatever they want and push their nationalist agendas. It’s the same story with their history and politics.

I have been on those types of boards before. I know exactly what goes on there. I've never once been banned for having an opposing view, even though I express them frequently. They aren't immune to myth-making.

amberwalker4 said:I ended up getting a card for trolling too... I don't get this drama. Especially considering who started it—users who get away with everything. For instance, let's have bluewalker6 speak up—did they receive any kind of warning, even a yellow one, recently for falsifying USAID historical sources? If not, they should probably read the History section of the rules PDF and pay attention to the part about forgery.

Commenting to Jose Clark2 makes little sense. If there were any justice here, that individual would have been permanently banned long ago, given the amount of damage caused to the History and Social Science PDFs through endless trolling, forging sources and literature, insulting other users, lying, spreading myths, and promoting chauvinistic views, etc.

Sam Green73's cards are justified; in fact, some should have been issued. Lock the thread.

Look at him trying to play commentator.

Adding this to the complaint: http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=5...&postcount=249

The moderator's conduct is disgraceful.

George Robinson43 said:Fair enough.
You're backing those outsiders because you share their mindset.
That carries more weight than any moderator's tolerance.

I don't see it that way. I have no interest in picking sides. They have a right to their opinions, and if they're making a valid point, they deserve to be heard. Everyone should have the chance to challenge anyone else through civilized, reasoned debate. We don't need any ideological sacred cows here.

Sam Green73 said:No one gets sanctioned just because they're from another country.

However, if the thread title is "The US entered Syria and lost territory during the Civil War. What happened?", then bringing up Byzantium or Nazi Germany is usually just trolling.

I moderate the American Civil War section, and since the beginning, my biggest headache has been locals complaining that outsiders are allowed to post at all, or accusing me of protecting them from insults.
So, you're somewhat right when you claim I'm protecting "your people."

I don't participate in that Civil War debate, so I can't say how you moderate there or who you protect. On the other hand, I am active on the history forums, and I can tell you what the perception of your moderation has been. At one point, you went on a banning spree, which led to this whole "us vs. them" sentiment. I'm not implying you ban people solely based on loyalty, but that's how it looks. I'm the exception that proves the rule—I'm from California and have no ties to those groups. It simply feels like you look the other way for our side while handing out cards to the others.

Ultimately, we tried to appeal to you, the rest of the team, and the admins to make your moderation criteria more objective and less rigid.

George Robinson43 said:I have the same question.

Jose Clark2, who exactly are we talking about? 🙂

They aren't "yours." They're ours—American users or those writing in English who support our side. Unlike the others, who are posting from abroad.

Sam Green73 said:Call it what you want, but I just call it a passion for debate.

If you love arguing this much, why not just step down from moderation? Go ahead and engage with everyone. There’s no point in having a discussion if you just hand out warnings and toss people into the Ban corner.

Sam Green73 said:When moderating, I tend to be harsher toward those who initiate trolling rather than those who simply get caught up in it.

I can't stand when threads get derailed.
I prefer concise, reasoned debates over endless, circular nonsense.

You can find decent guidelines online, such as netiquette.org #forums

Everything seems like trolling to you. You’ve handed out plenty of red cards for alleged trolling just because you didn't like what someone wrote. It makes you look biased. Aside from trolling calls and 35 points, there's a whole spectrum of other penalties too. I get that this is the easy way out, but really, is this actual moderation?

I’m signing on to this complaint. The moderator has completely gutted the thread by handing out warnings and pushing anyone who disagrees with "our side" toward a ban. He ignores insults directed at our people—or handles them incredibly lightly—yet he'll slap someone with 35 points for having a different opinion.

A perfect example of his moderation style can be seen in this post: http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=5...6&postcount=77

"My head hurts.
If I see a word starting with a T and I'm not 100% certain it's something other than trolling, it's an automatic warning for trolling.

That covers everything. This rule applies to every thread I moderate."

What does objective moderation even mean anymore? If a colleague can't handle moderating a topic or control their own bias, they should be assigned to something else, not history.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:What’s even the point of having a report button?
If I’m wrong or breaking a rule, just say so.
Besides, Linda Smith7, why are you still arguing here if you're permanently banned? ☕
@Jose Clark2/">@@Jose Clark2, this isn't an online pub; if that's what you're looking for, go find a chat room. There needs to be some order, which is why rules exist.
@The Zagorski Crosser, well said. 🙂

Exactly. And for the record, I haven't been a member of this site for thirty posts, nor did I register yesterday or a month ago, so stop underestimating me. You and your friend are just trying to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with you. If someone points out flaws in your logic and debates you, learn to deal with it instead of plotting ways to run to the moderators to get people purged so your little group can maintain control.

amberwalker4 said:Fine. Just so we're clear, I'll quote the rules for you—who knows how many times they've been read.

Starting a new thread.
When starting a new thread, the opening post needs to hit a minimum of 100 words. It’s a standard rule here.
The initial post needs to present a specific question or hypothesis for discussion. If that isn't possible, an explanation should be provided.

The way we debate.
The purpose of this subforum is education and the exchange of knowledge. Please ensure all discussions remain reasoned and constructive.
Please base your arguments on credible literature and verifiable sources. Relying on vague claims like "I think" or "I heard" without providing actual evidence will result in a sanction.
Fabricating sources or literature is strictly prohibited and will be penalized.
If you want to discuss unverified rumors or just have a quick question that doesn't fit elsewhere, please head over to the "Information Desk" thread.

The reports will be coming in throughout the day. We’ll see who’s actually telling the truth and whose story falls apart under scrutiny.

You seem to believe you’d be happiest if you were both the plaintiff and the judge. Naturally, you’d want to hold the gavel yourself. When things don't go your way, you revert to that typical argumentative persona—something you've demonstrated on various threads more times than I can count. Perhaps there's a connection between that behavior and why the site admins haven't bothered responding to your grievances. Sit with that for a moment.

Sandra Brown18 said:To be perfectly honest, most of you should have been banned already. I didn't want to go straight to the hammer, especially after multiple warnings.
There were no results. From now on, bans will be handed out freely, as very few of you actually follow the rules. It’s nothing but insults.
Jose Clark2 was rightfully penalized, and even then, it was only after repeatedly insulting an entire profession.
As I said, it's nice to see such unity in attacking me. At least you can agree on something. 😁.
By the way, I received very few submissions.

Speaking of moderation, announcing that "bans will be flying" isn't helpful. It serves no one's interest—not even the group of users who started this complaint thread. I am against swinging to the other extreme where moderation becomes nothing more than handing out punishments.

Ultimately, things are being blown out of proportion here because a few people simply cannot handle their ideas being challenged. Instead of enjoying a hobby or seeking the truth, they turn this into what Hildebrand called a "cyberwar."

I am unsure why you are bringing up those 500 points you awarded again. You gave them, I filed a grievance, everyone shared their thoughts—including Nica—and the matter is settled for me. Furthermore, Hildebrand wasn't calling you out because of me; he was pointing out that if we follow the criteria strictly, others deserved the same amount of points.

In my view, it would be best if no one had to deal with awarding points or issuing bans at all. Let's just move forward normally and civilly, with a bit more respect for one another and for the forum we all enjoy using.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:Look, if you weren't being so blatantly disrespectful of the rules, I wouldn't have anything to report in the first place, would I? ☕

Look, you aren't exactly slow. Since neither of us is, it’s clear this isn't actually about the rules or breaking them. Down in California, we have a saying for this kind of nonsense: it's just a nuisance. ☕

bluecyclist64 said:She simply lacks the skill set and the insight required for a moderator role.

It’s unfortunate when a forum recruits anyone just to fill a seat.

It reminds me of how we have Danny and Nice over on Reddit. Don't give me that—just appoint me as an alternative moderator instead...

It isn't that I have an issue with those specific mods; it’s just that they are moderators without any actual competence.

Would you like to appoint me as a moderator until you find someone with genuine knowledge and drive?

Watching History and DZ is nauseating. It feels like reading The New York Times...

A very bold stance. Though, I hope you aren't including me in your critique of History. A few of us actually try to prevent it from becoming what you described.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:Fine, I’m reporting this post.
Trolling in a thread about trolling? How ironic.
If I actually moderated history, believe me, I’d be looking at a permanent ban myself.
Look, it isn't personal, but you are systematically trolling and breaking the rules. Others have bent the rules before, but nobody—absolutely nobody—does it on the scale you do.
I honestly don't get it. Are you just that bored with your life?

Really, what is there even to say to that? It's clear you'd love to hand out permanent bans to me, then to Linda Smith7, and everyone else who dares to seriously challenge your authority. We all know how much weight those positions actually carry, and just how little scientific merit they really have. 😉