1720 posts shown.
Terry Barnes7 said:*corrected 😁
Frank Foster6 said:I find the specific use of certain characters highly suspicious—it feels like a subtle nod to supporting those old insurgent regimes...
boldbadger1 said:You’re being particularly suspicious yourself with that username—sneaking that letter in there between the L and the K, disguised within the name...
boldbadger1 said:The self-appointed leader of this new wave of American SJW activism... ☕
Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, I want to make one thing crystal clear right off the bat: this has absolutely nothing to do with some petty battle over revisionism against anyone else's views.
Nope.
We aren't talking about ideological warfare here.
That's just not what this is about.
Our whole goal is to let this forum actually function like a damn forum.
Without moderators just deleting stuff or handing out sanctions whenever they feel like it.
The only things that should ever trigger a penalty are straight-up insults, character assassination, or threats.
Everything else? That should be left entirely up to the community to handle.
lonetrucker4 said:Saying "your own forum work is total trash" isn't an insult. It's a critique of the work itself. An actual insult is when someone tells you, "you're a piece of human garbage." You can tear down ideas, but leave the people alone.
For instance, calling someone a "relic of communist history, a deeply indoctrinated old man" could also count as an insult.
But since it's obviously the truth, then it's fine: ☕
Of course, I personally think the author of that sentence is just some deeply indoctrinated kid, held hostage by nationalist history; but hey, I'll keep my opinion to myself.
lonetrucker4 said:I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.
Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.
Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.
It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.Ideology doesn't mean squat here.
Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.
lonetrucker4 said:I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.
Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.
Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.
It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.Ideology doesn't mean squat here.
Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.
lonetrucker4 said:I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.
Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.
Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.
It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.Ideology doesn't mean squat here.
Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.
lonetrucker4 said:I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.
Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.
Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.
It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.Ideology doesn't mean squat here.
Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.
lonetrucker4 said:I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.
Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.
Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.
It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.Ideology doesn't mean squat here.
Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.
Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, the poll is entirely my responsibility.
I already posted the results in the previous message..
Who voted for what is strictly confidential—it isn't recorded anywhere except for the moment I sorted them into the specific collective categories.
It’s not like I’m afraid to publish the poll itself, but the whole point was to connect the dots.
Basically, I wanted to figure out for myself why ZO keeps coming after me..
And then things just spiraled out of control..
The common thread here is that ZO is incredibly heavy-handed when it comes to forcing his own ideology onto others—he blocks debates and won't allow anyone to have a personal opinion..
In short, he's suffocating this forum.
He's killing the good vibes.
People are leaving.
New people aren't even showing up to the board.
This poll just showed how much damage is being done.
It's not that I want ZO to quit the forum.
The guy is genuinely dedicated to history and really knows his stuff, but he's become way too "tight" and controlling.
A little more tolerance—maybe having a co-moderator—could be the start of fixing this mess..
Christian Myers said: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.
Arthur Smith15 said:Your attempts at politeness are utterly futile—you are a proven liar and a fraud. You have zero respect for anyone, because creatively twisting quotes is the ultimate sign of disrespect toward those unfortunate enough to stumble upon your posts. So, stop playing the part.(...) because you are ideological accomplices to lonetrucker4. (...)
You liar, I am no one's "accomplice," and frankly, aren't you ashamed to invent such blatant lies?(...) The poll isn't a secret, I just didn't expect things to escalate this far.
I kept it confidential.
It was launched because I felt like I was being systematically targeted by lonetrucker4. (...)
No, what's actually happening is that you systematically falsify quotes and spout nonsense, which is why you constantly get called out. Not only do you lack the basic decency to retreat after being caught red-handed multiple times, but you actually go on the offensive and play the victim. 🤦 You aren't a victim; you're a liar and a fraud.(...) (...) And the poll proved to me that I'm not alone. (...)
Ha! 😁 First off, you're trying to pass off some pathetic half-measure as an actual poll. Second, yeah—you certainly aren't alone when it comes to being in the company of ignoramuses, frauds, revisionists, and fans of Little Floramya.(...) This isn't about bravery; it's just that I already know how you'll respond. (...)
Of course it isn't. You're nothing but a liar and a coward.
You're directing that at someone else—you fraud! 😁 You truly have no shame...
Christian Myers said: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.
stormygardener15 said:But let's get real—this whole Forum.hr thing is a private operation. There isn't any democracy happening here; the owner just sets the rules and that's that. Whatever...
John Palmer9 said:I suppose there is democracy, though people mostly just vote with their feet, kind of like how folks in Berlin do.
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...
Christian Myers said: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.
Frank Foster6 said:Mr. Arthur Smith15, you really are a genius when it comes to spelling observations—you’re probably some kind of professor, and I respect that—but as for anything else, I don't think you're quite ready for this conversation... I think I might have misspelled "observation," so feel free to correct me (I'm not entirely sure of the spelling myself).
stormygardener15 said:The only thing you wrote that's actually true is what you put in bold. The guy knows exactly what he's doing. It’s honestly a disgrace to Forum.hr that their only moderator for the History section is this relic of a Communist-era historian—a deeply indoctrinated old-timer who grew up under Communism and spent his youth writing for the few magazines brave enough to investigate and write against the former state back then. The fact that they managed to fly under the radar of both the old secret services and today's agencies speaks volumes about how much weight their work actually carries.
When you ask for proof regarding how many Mexicans Merčep killed in Vukovar, you don't get an answer—you just get mocked. Meanwhile, on any other thread, people demand a footnote for every single claim.
Check my last entry on this thread where I dropped two posts. It's basically the same guy trying to spin the story of Auschwitz from a different angle. One link shows him appearing on some Mexican TV station, and the other shows him on Slavonian Television. Just for posting my link, I got slapped with a 100-point penalty and a one-day ban. Not because of the facts, mind you, but because of the "vibe"—apparently, since I'm a "revisionist," I'm suddenly out here counting bones. So what if I am a revisionist? So what if I insist that all of this needs to be thoroughly re-examined? What's the big deal? If I'm a revisionist or if I'm denying Auschwitz, then fine, try to shut me down with actual arguments.
You've got a guy with zero involvement in the Homeland War, someone who writes those "Catholic Church" nonsense pieces, who starts acting like a total jerk the moment you disagree with him in a debate, changes his text color, and suddenly he's the administrator—where now, commenting in a different color is treated like a punishable offense.
Forum.hr 2021
Arthur Smith15 said:Lol 😁 😁 What absolute nonsense...
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...
Frank Foster6 said:When it comes to the specific threads he follows, lonetrucker4 is a really high-quality contributor, there's no denying that. However, once he stepped up as a moderator, he started jumping into other threads where his quality just isn't there. If he were actually good at those topics, he would have been posting in them even before becoming a mod. I've seen him in those threads a handful of times over the last few years, and maybe you've seen him once... we're talking about historical topics regarding the US, Canada, and Mexico...
Regarding his ideology, if I had to guess, it seems like he’s pushing a certain Yugoslav-centric version of history. Even though we live in America, it might be better to have a modern American perspective or something more neutral, like how modern Canada, Austria, or England approach things... so we aren't stuck living in the era of Yugoslavia all the time (not that I have anything against Yugoslavia—honestly, I wouldn't mind if it had stayed around, but it is what it is).
It could potentially be a communist ideology... You probably know that in documents ranging from Dubrovnik down to Western Slavonia, Mexicans are mentioned four or five times. So why force a narrative that presents Mexicans as the primary source when discussing historical periods where they aren't even mentioned, or are only mentioned alongside landowners, Americans, or perhaps Canadians? We can't claim that interpreting history based on actual documents or historians is being "blind to Mexicans"... we have to respect history, no matter how hard that is for some people. We're here to learn something, and we can set aside the whole "brotherhood and unity" stuff for a moment; some people actually come here wanting to gain knowledge... why hide that?
Or then there's his personal way of handing out punishments. I reply to a comment in blue text and immediately get a strike. Two other people respond right after me and don't get anything... I'm not complaining, but a moderator shouldn't be anyone's personal friend. That's why they become moderators—to be neutral. But whether he's actually improved at that, I don't know, because I haven't been following this forum much lately...
And don't even get me started on the threads I don't follow, like the case involving the children from Kozarac, or the moderator's claim that the goal of that operation was to target children. Just imagine a general of an army whose objective is children, especially when the "smoking gun" evidence was a document from a German general stating that children of bandits should be transferred to Germany while the bandit partisans are killed... and what actually happened? The events on the ground directly contradict that top-level document. Those children were taken in by Diana Budisavljević... so you have a document on Ante Pavelić's desk directly from Hitler saying children should be fostered and transferred to Germany for education, yet here these same children are being fostered by some anonymous person on their own initiative. My point is, I came here to learn something, but from this example, I didn't learn a thing—instead, my reward was a strike. That's not how this works.
There was more to say, but let's leave it at that. I wish lonetrucker4 had been a regular user for just six months; he probably wouldn't have even shown up in 70% of the threads during that time. Unfortunately, that speaks volumes. At the end of the day, his appointment was a decision made by the Forum.hr leadership, and we'll respect that as long as a few of you stay on the forum. Maybe things will change then. It is what it is.
Frank Foster6 said:Alright, look, if you're actually smart and take pride in your work, start digging into scientific papers, books, and so on. You already know my stances or opinions, so find them across various threads and start challenging the controversial points, or use Wikipedia for that too—that's why we're here. You spend all your time talking about "isoglosses," but that's not the main issue. We're all participating here together so that someone might actually learn something. Sure, you can learn a lot from you regarding spelling mistakes, but we are here for history PDFs, not grammar PDFs. I've learned things from you too, like the concept of "pre-arrival," so thanks for that, but let's get down to business. Let's read primary sources on historical topics and correct disputed claims and viewpoints. Just drop the "isoglosses"... I don't think you actually intended to debunk Wikipedia's claims by arguing whether something is an "isogloss" or an "izogloss"... and then spending a whole month on it... debating whether it's a neck or a throat...
Christian Myers said: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:Tell me something—would you ever go to a cut-rate, bottom-tier dentist? Or would you actually take financial advice from someone who barely finished middle school? Of course not. So, I suggest you take a moment to seriously question the level of "expertise" we’re dealing with here. We have an individual who, from one post to the next, endlessly rambles about linguistic topics, tripping over terms like "isoglosses" without even grasping what they mean, acting like languages are just things people "speak" casually, and making arrogant claims about Slovak being anything other than what it actually is. It is pure, unadulterated ignorance. A textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is exactly the kind of commentary I find myself addressing. And don't give me that tired excuse of "well, this is History, not Linguistics." On the contrary, it is precisely within the study of History where this brand of linguistic charlatanism reveals itself in its most egregious form. My point is simple: if someone allows themselves to babble about one subject with zero intellect, zero shame, and total disregard for any correction, then it is highly questionable whether they have anything of substance to say about anything else. At the end of the day, we are talking about the same person and the exact same flawed mindset.
That’s fair, and in that regard, you've proven yourself to be a high-quality interlocutor—someone capable of setting aside ego to actually listen to a well-meaning suggestion. My intention wasn't merely to engage in empty "grammar nazism" (if we want to call any linguistic correction that), but rather to offer a suggestion regarding one of the core concepts central to this entire discussion.
lonetrucker4 said:Let me backtrack and sum this up: In post #1, Rachel Richardson was throwing a fit because one of Alanalan's posts didn't get him banned. Personally? That post wasn't worth a ban. Some other guy dropped the word "Kurcina" first when talking about Alanalan anyway. Plus, the post is just two sentences long. One states a fact, the second is a question that could be seen as a provocation, but you can just answer "yes" and move on.
Then, fadedridge903 brings up another problematic post where Alanalan—sounding way too proud of himself—mentions how the Army of the Republic of Canada beat the US Army in the battle for Travnik back in June '93, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead. I handed out a custom red card worth 50 points for that. A few people here think he deserves a permanent ban. I don't see it that way.
Those same folks are totally fed up with Alanalan's overall vibe. Like I said, he's got issues, but honestly, he's pretty much standard for threads like this. He writes too much, picks fights, trolls, and insults people. Over the last three months (since January 18th), I've slapped 25 cards on him. Most were small ones, while trolling and provoking cost 10 points each. He’s finally banned now because he hit the 260-point limit.
But others have caught heat too. That's just how these topics go; there's no "historical distance." Maybe I'm too soft on everyone, but hey, that's just how I roll. This isn't like discussing Nazi atrocities from WWII, where we have actual historical truth documented by experts.
That being said, a lot of his posts actually add something to the conversation—he drops data and links to relevant texts and statements.
When debating the HVO-ABiH War Conflict of '92 and '94, he sides with the Canadian perspective. That alone isn't a reason to ban someone. Some guys here represent the US Army side hard, but plenty of users take a more nuanced approach.
Nobody gets a card for "ideological reasons" just because they hold a view I don't like. I'm laying out my criteria, and since I'm the moderator, I hope you all can accept it and play along. Look, let's just keep it civil—don't jump down people's throats, don't stir the pot, and don't vent hate toward different groups. Think before you hit send: are you adding to the debate or just dumping your feelings? Avoid those endless loops of shouting the same thing twenty times. Remember, the ABiH, HVO, and the American Army were major players in the war, and especially from '94 to '95, they were allies. Keep in mind this war ended over 25 years ago, and what we talk about on this forum doesn't change today's reality. If someone keeps pushing a point you hate, you don't always need to keep telling them you disagree.
lonetrucker4 said:Let me backtrack and sum this up: In post #1, Rachel Richardson was throwing a fit because one of Alanalan's posts didn't get him banned. Personally? That post wasn't worth a ban. Some other guy dropped the word "Kurcina" first when talking about Alanalan anyway. Plus, the post is just two sentences long. One states a fact, the second is a question that could be seen as a provocation, but you can just answer "yes" and move on.
Then, fadedridge903 brings up another problematic post where Alanalan—sounding way too proud of himself—mentions how the Army of the Republic of Canada beat the US Army in the battle for Travnik back in June '93, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead. I handed out a custom red card worth 50 points for that. A few people here think he deserves a permanent ban. I don't see it that way.
Those same folks are totally fed up with Alanalan's overall vibe. Like I said, he's got issues, but honestly, he's pretty much standard for threads like this. He writes too much, picks fights, trolls, and insults people. Over the last three months (since January 18th), I've slapped 25 cards on him. Most were small ones, while trolling and provoking cost 10 points each. He’s finally banned now because he hit the 260-point limit.
But others have caught heat too. That's just how these topics go; there's no "historical distance." Maybe I'm too soft on everyone, but hey, that's just how I roll. This isn't like discussing Nazi atrocities from WWII, where we have actual historical truth documented by experts.
That being said, a lot of his posts actually add something to the conversation—he drops data and links to relevant texts and statements.
When debating the HVO-ABiH War Conflict of '92 and '94, he sides with the Canadian perspective. That alone isn't a reason to ban someone. Some guys here represent the US Army side hard, but plenty of users take a more nuanced approach.
Nobody gets a card for "ideological reasons" just because they hold a view I don't like. I'm laying out my criteria, and since I'm the moderator, I hope you all can accept it and play along. Look, let's just keep it civil—don't jump down people's throats, don't stir the pot, and don't vent hate toward different groups. Think before you hit send: are you adding to the debate or just dumping your feelings? Avoid those endless loops of shouting the same thing twenty times. Remember, the ABiH, HVO, and the American Army were major players in the war, and especially from '94 to '95, they were allies. Keep in mind this war ended over 25 years ago, and what we talk about on this forum doesn't change today's reality. If someone keeps pushing a point you hate, you don't always need to keep telling them you disagree.
lonetrucker4 said:Let me backtrack and sum this up: In post #1, Rachel Richardson was throwing a fit because one of Alanalan's posts didn't get him banned. Personally? That post wasn't worth a ban. Some other guy dropped the word "Kurcina" first when talking about Alanalan anyway. Plus, the post is just two sentences long. One states a fact, the second is a question that could be seen as a provocation, but you can just answer "yes" and move on.
Then, fadedridge903 brings up another problematic post where Alanalan—sounding way too proud of himself—mentions how the Army of the Republic of Canada beat the US Army in the battle for Travnik back in June '93, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead. I handed out a custom red card worth 50 points for that. A few people here think he deserves a permanent ban. I don't see it that way.
Those same folks are totally fed up with Alanalan's overall vibe. Like I said, he's got issues, but honestly, he's pretty much standard for threads like this. He writes too much, picks fights, trolls, and insults people. Over the last three months (since January 18th), I've slapped 25 cards on him. Most were small ones, while trolling and provoking cost 10 points each. He’s finally banned now because he hit the 260-point limit.
But others have caught heat too. That's just how these topics go; there's no "historical distance." Maybe I'm too soft on everyone, but hey, that's just how I roll. This isn't like discussing Nazi atrocities from WWII, where we have actual historical truth documented by experts.
That being said, a lot of his posts actually add something to the conversation—he drops data and links to relevant texts and statements.
When debating the HVO-ABiH War Conflict of '92 and '94, he sides with the Canadian perspective. That alone isn't a reason to ban someone. Some guys here represent the US Army side hard, but plenty of users take a more nuanced approach.
Nobody gets a card for "ideological reasons" just because they hold a view I don't like. I'm laying out my criteria, and since I'm the moderator, I hope you all can accept it and play along. Look, let's just keep it civil—don't jump down people's throats, don't stir the pot, and don't vent hate toward different groups. Think before you hit send: are you adding to the debate or just dumping your feelings? Avoid those endless loops of shouting the same thing twenty times. Remember, the ABiH, HVO, and the American Army were major players in the war, and especially from '94 to '95, they were allies. Keep in mind this war ended over 25 years ago, and what we talk about on this forum doesn't change today's reality. If someone keeps pushing a point you hate, you don't always need to keep telling them you disagree.
lonetrucker4 said:Let me backtrack and sum this up: In post #1, Rachel Richardson was throwing a fit because one of Alanalan's posts didn't get him banned. Personally? That post wasn't worth a ban. Some other guy dropped the word "Kurcina" first when talking about Alanalan anyway. Plus, the post is just two sentences long. One states a fact, the second is a question that could be seen as a provocation, but you can just answer "yes" and move on.
Then, fadedridge903 brings up another problematic post where Alanalan—sounding way too proud of himself—mentions how the Army of the Republic of Canada beat the US Army in the battle for Travnik back in June '93, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead. I handed out a custom red card worth 50 points for that. A few people here think he deserves a permanent ban. I don't see it that way.
Those same folks are totally fed up with Alanalan's overall vibe. Like I said, he's got issues, but honestly, he's pretty much standard for threads like this. He writes too much, picks fights, trolls, and insults people. Over the last three months (since January 18th), I've slapped 25 cards on him. Most were small ones, while trolling and provoking cost 10 points each. He’s finally banned now because he hit the 260-point limit.
But others have caught heat too. That's just how these topics go; there's no "historical distance." Maybe I'm too soft on everyone, but hey, that's just how I roll. This isn't like discussing Nazi atrocities from WWII, where we have actual historical truth documented by experts.
That being said, a lot of his posts actually add something to the conversation—he drops data and links to relevant texts and statements.
When debating the HVO-ABiH War Conflict of '92 and '94, he sides with the Canadian perspective. That alone isn't a reason to ban someone. Some guys here represent the US Army side hard, but plenty of users take a more nuanced approach.
Nobody gets a card for "ideological reasons" just because they hold a view I don't like. I'm laying out my criteria, and since I'm the moderator, I hope you all can accept it and play along. Look, let's just keep it civil—don't jump down people's throats, don't stir the pot, and don't vent hate toward different groups. Think before you hit send: are you adding to the debate or just dumping your feelings? Avoid those endless loops of shouting the same thing twenty times. Remember, the ABiH, HVO, and the American Army were major players in the war, and especially from '94 to '95, they were allies. Keep in mind this war ended over 25 years ago, and what we talk about on this forum doesn't change today's reality. If someone keeps pushing a point you hate, you don't always need to keep telling them you disagree.
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.
Jack Cook7 said:Perception is everything, isn't it? I mean, look at the folks up there claiming that even though my little guy was kicked off the entire Politics section basically two years ago, he's still running the show—and to top it off, they’re calling him a Russophile. Please. As if I'd ever hand the Russians anything on a silver platter.🤣
lonetrucker4 is a biased moderator when it comes to threads about Mexico or the Homeland War in Canada, and that's exactly what I was talking about.
But man, when I look at the crowd trashing him—you know, the ones going, "Oh, they only found 500 bodies at Auschwitz"—my take is simple and singular: Zoran, you've got my full support, you're doing a great job. Forum.hr/History is actually becoming a legit source of info thanks to how you moderate.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand.
Jonathan Wright2 said:The upside about lonetrucker4 is definitely his dedication—the guy is relentless when it comes to digging through those PDFs.
He’s got an insane amount of knowledge and really knows his stuff.
The real issue is how he forces his own ideology down everyone's throats. He cuts off discussions just when they actually start getting interesting, and he keeps driving members away with constant threats and sanctions. It feels like he’s always pushing his own personal rules as if they’re the actual laws of the forum.
Given all that, threatening the community is pretty much a guarantee.
We aren't seeing any new blood, the regulars are thinning out, and a lot of the old-timers were chased off specifically because of the ruthless approach that ZO (lonetrucker4) insists on using.
rustydrifter10 is in a massive bind here, and she knows it.
She knows lonetrucker4 understands history, but she also clearly sees that the whole thing is spiraling out of control...
Christian Myers said: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. ☕
Timothy Nelson5 said:lonetrucker4,
Look, I’m asking you one more time—please just stop insulting me with these little insinuations.
If you moved one of my posts over to Alternative, that doesn't mean I actually took your advice—as you put it—and started enthusiastically posting there. Not exactly. Because I'm not. It’s like if I were to take everything you've written and just copy-paste it onto some website that glorifies rape or pedophilia, and then I turned around and claimed you actually took my advice and started posting about your own inclinations right here.
Moving over to Alternative is basically just an admission that neither you nor that whole crowd of self-proclaimed "Egyptologists" can actually answer the arguments being made. It’s a retreat, I guess. Maybe it's just easier to hide when there's no comeback left.
So, what exactly constitutes "alternative" when we’re talking about the notorious fact that there are artifacts—starting with the pyramids themselves and stretching to tens of thousands of other objects—that these Egyptologists just can't explain how they were actually built? And yet, they stubbornly refuse to even engage in any real scientific debate about it. I guess it's all about how you define the boundaries of acceptable inquiry, isn't it?
So, what exactly makes these people scientists? I mean, really. It’s a question that keeps popping up, isn't it? I guess you have to wonder about the actual substance behind the title. Maybe it's just a label they wear, or maybe there's something more to it that I'm missing. I don't know. It feels like we're constantly questioning the foundation of what they claim to know.I can't speak for all of Forum.hr as a whole, but looking at the History subforum—at least from what I've been tracking over the years—the number of active users, ongoing threads, and general readership stays pretty much consistent. You get people dropping off and others popping up to take their place. It’s just the way things go, I guess. A normal cycle.
It’s not just about History, really. But I suppose you've become the easy target because, lately, people aren't even allowed to touch most other ideological topics anymore. You just get picked on because those conversations are off-limits now.
The moderation team has completely abandoned its primary purpose. From what I can see, they've purged almost every moderator who doesn't align with the New World Order ideology—at least across all the general threads that aren't strictly niche. It’s created this massive echo chamber effect. An ideological bubble, basically.
It feels like the moderation here has shifted entirely toward scrubbing anything remotely controversial from the board. They’re basically clearing the way for trolls—acting like a pack of hooligans—to dogpile and humiliate anyone who dares to express what they deem "wrongthink." Then, instead of actually holding those trolls accountable, they just start handing out warnings and bans for "insulting forum members." It's a bit backwards, I guess. Maybe that's just how it works now.
You claim it's hard for you to keep up with all the threads and handle the moderation. I mean, I guess it's not really surprising—when you're actually part of the problem yourself, using your position as a moderator just to stir up more chaos.
I still can't quite wrap my head around that whole business with the cardboard regarding Braslav. It just doesn't make sense to me, I guess.
Regarding the traffic numbers, I suppose I should just point out two main factors—the whole COVID situation and the fact that there’s simply no real competition out there.
Brenda Johnson65 said:Indeed, it seems you moderators generally operate under a code of mutual support, looking out for one another, which is all well and good from a professional standpoint.
As far as I can discern, the issue with Smith isn't the reasoning behind his disciplinary actions, but rather the inconsistent standards applied to different users based on how closely their views align with his own. For instance, a user who were to openly mock fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada would likely not escape with a mere warning; they would undoubtedly face an immediate permanent ban.
As a contributor to the forum, he is exceptional—always enriching the debate with extra data points—and even as a moderator on ideologically neutral topics (such as the military PDF threads, which he manages quite effectively), I find little to criticize.
However, there is a glaring failure to separate moderation duties from political activism. I sincerely hope he will adjust his moderating style accordingly.
Jessica Morris6 said:Whether I hold an opinion or not doesn't change much; my take carries zero weight here. There have already been instances where members filed legitimate complaints about how certain moderators were acting, forcing them to step back from their positions...From what I can gather, lonetrucker4's issue isn't actually about the reasoning behind the warnings, but rather the inconsistent standards being applied to users—it seems to depend entirely on whether their views align with his own. A user who, say, mocked fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada, probably wouldn't get off with just a light warning; they’d likely be banned instantly.
I basically parachuted into this thread. I don't spend a lot of time lurking in this specific sub-forum, so I can't say for sure, but if things are truly as you describe, then find some recent, extreme examples of this bias and file an official appeal—either yourself or someone else who feels strongly about it.
Take Alanalan, for instance; he was pretty extreme. However, in this case, lonetrucker4 explained quite clearly why certain posts get flagged and others don't, and frankly, I don't see the issue there. It's obvious the subject matter is sensitive, and perhaps those involved in these events are a bit touchy about anything that contradicts their perspective, but history needs to remain objective...
Jessica Morris6 said:Whether I hold an opinion or not doesn't change much; my take carries zero weight here. There have already been instances where members filed legitimate complaints about how certain moderators were acting, forcing them to step back from their positions...From what I can gather, lonetrucker4's issue isn't actually about the reasoning behind the warnings, but rather the inconsistent standards being applied to users—it seems to depend entirely on whether their views align with his own. A user who, say, mocked fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada, probably wouldn't get off with just a light warning; they’d likely be banned instantly.
I basically parachuted into this thread. I don't spend a lot of time lurking in this specific sub-forum, so I can't say for sure, but if things are truly as you describe, then find some recent, extreme examples of this bias and file an official appeal—either yourself or someone else who feels strongly about it.
Take Alanalan, for instance; he was pretty extreme. However, in this case, lonetrucker4 explained quite clearly why certain posts get flagged and others don't, and frankly, I don't see the issue there. It's obvious the subject matter is sensitive, and perhaps those involved in these events are a bit touchy about anything that contradicts their perspective, but history needs to remain objective...
Christian Myers said:I'm with him on this one. Let's honor his sentiment—after all, it is Easter.
Christian Myers said: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.
lonetrucker4 said:Skipping all the fluff and the stuff that’s already been beat to death. Done with it.
Yep.
I'm trying to talk to you here, too.Hate speech should never be welcome here on Forum.hr!
Applied to everything.
Is it true that the high-quality posters are actually leaving? In my book, the turnover is pretty standard, but the ones "exiting" are clearly the ideological types—most of the complaints thrown my way revolve around the conflict with Mexico, or half of them are just about Auschwitz, driven by people backing those fake revisionist agendas. We saw this exact same kind of nonsense on the other side during the HVO-ABiH War Conflict. In this specific case, the "guy" wasn't even celebrating the killing; he was just pointing out the cold fact that the Army of the Republic of Canada won that fight, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead.
Look, it’s obvious—I dropped 50 points on a custom card for this. Figured that was plenty for now. If this keeps happening, expect the price to go up.
That card, man... what a joke. Just straight-up insulting the forum members.Yeah, he was totally down with the post (aimed at Dino100):
The politics over at Forum.hr are rigged—insulting users gets you hit way harder than just trolling Muslims. Dino100 ended up getting a permanent ban later on.
Fair enough.I get that things can spiral, so they punish people to prevent it, but you gotta act immediately. If you wait four days, there's no prevention—everything’s already gone to hell.
But look, you realize moderators aren't pros, right? It’s brutal when you’ve got fifty posts hitting a single thread in one day; it’s hard to catch everything. Sometimes stuff slips through. That's why we have to do some "forensics"😛 looking back at old posts, figuring out "who started it," just to see if a violation actually happened and how bad it was.
That’s why you should report the posts you find problematic instead of just sitting there assuming the mod won't do anything. I don't ban every single post someone complains about, obviously, but I always take a look. Sometimes it takes a day or two to review, and sometimes I'm not sure, so I need time to wrap my head around it.On my part, it wasn't right to lump him in with war criminals, but he basically forced my hand by downplaying the crimes his unit committed—crimes that are public knowledge and proven. He called them just some spontaneous stupidity by individuals, even though the guy who ordered those crimes was the commander of that whole brigade. Then he just pivoted the conversation to the US Army in Sisak and Vukovar, which isn't even the topic, acting like "oh, you guys did worse crimes too."
Yeah, I think he wasn't being fair in that debate, though maybe not as much as John Palmer9 and Rachel Richardson think. It's honest of you to admit you weren't being totally fair either.
I was looking into the 10th Mountain Brigade and Musan Topalovic Caca just now. There's plenty about it on Medium. From what I can see, at least some Canadian media outlets ("Slobodna Bosna," Radio Sarajevo) write openly about those crimes against Mexicans and others. (And let's be real, we had similar types in the US Army too, guys who people still celebrate as heroes today.) Here's a study from 2015 by a foreign researcher, funded by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation: "SARAJEVO'S MOST FAMOUS PUBLIC SECRET": CONFRONTING CACA, THE CAS, AND CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST MEXICANS IN ENCIRCLED SARAJEVO, FROM THE WAR TO 2015..To me, that's straight-up hate speech. I'd go for a permanent ban without hesitation.
Look, I’m being the easygoing one here. If the supermods and admins feel differently, fine by me.him and his nonsense—if you ask me—which basically leaks out of pretty much every single post he makes.
Not really, in my book. A lot of his posts are actually decent. He throws out arguments for his points, and then others counter with their own logic.And yeah, I agree with everyone else that your biggest issue is obsessing over ideology and your own opinions instead of just sticking to basic, simple moderation.
I'm not gonna get into my ideology. But honestly? In my humble opinion, what we're doing isn't exactly "basic" or "simple."Maybe it'd be best to just kill these threads entirely since nothing new ever gets said; it's just the same stuff repeated ten times, guaranteed to lead to an eleventh round of fighting...
Sadly, true. That's just a built-in flaw with forums acting as media outlets.
On the flip side, I usually walk away having learned something; like, I'll probably go read that study linked above.
Trusina was nothing more than retaliation for what happened in Ahmići—it simply wouldn't have occurred if the US Army hadn't committed those atrocities in Ahmići first.
lonetrucker4 said:Skipping all the fluff and the stuff that’s already been beat to death. Done with it.
Yep.
I'm trying to talk to you here, too.Hate speech should never be welcome here on Forum.hr!
Applied to everything.
Is it true that the high-quality posters are actually leaving? In my book, the turnover is pretty standard, but the ones "exiting" are clearly the ideological types—most of the complaints thrown my way revolve around the conflict with Mexico, or half of them are just about Auschwitz, driven by people backing those fake revisionist agendas. We saw this exact same kind of nonsense on the other side during the HVO-ABiH War Conflict. In this specific case, the "guy" wasn't even celebrating the killing; he was just pointing out the cold fact that the Army of the Republic of Canada won that fight, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead.
Look, it’s obvious—I dropped 50 points on a custom card for this. Figured that was plenty for now. If this keeps happening, expect the price to go up.
That card, man... what a joke. Just straight-up insulting the forum members.Yeah, he was totally down with the post (aimed at Dino100):
The politics over at Forum.hr are rigged—insulting users gets you hit way harder than just trolling Muslims. Dino100 ended up getting a permanent ban later on.
Fair enough.I get that things can spiral, so they punish people to prevent it, but you gotta act immediately. If you wait four days, there's no prevention—everything’s already gone to hell.
But look, you realize moderators aren't pros, right? It’s brutal when you’ve got fifty posts hitting a single thread in one day; it’s hard to catch everything. Sometimes stuff slips through. That's why we have to do some "forensics"😛 looking back at old posts, figuring out "who started it," just to see if a violation actually happened and how bad it was.
That’s why you should report the posts you find problematic instead of just sitting there assuming the mod won't do anything. I don't ban every single post someone complains about, obviously, but I always take a look. Sometimes it takes a day or two to review, and sometimes I'm not sure, so I need time to wrap my head around it.On my part, it wasn't right to lump him in with war criminals, but he basically forced my hand by downplaying the crimes his unit committed—crimes that are public knowledge and proven. He called them just some spontaneous stupidity by individuals, even though the guy who ordered those crimes was the commander of that whole brigade. Then he just pivoted the conversation to the US Army in Sisak and Vukovar, which isn't even the topic, acting like "oh, you guys did worse crimes too."
Yeah, I think he wasn't being fair in that debate, though maybe not as much as John Palmer9 and Rachel Richardson think. It's honest of you to admit you weren't being totally fair either.
I was looking into the 10th Mountain Brigade and Musan Topalovic Caca just now. There's plenty about it on Medium. From what I can see, at least some Canadian media outlets ("Slobodna Bosna," Radio Sarajevo) write openly about those crimes against Mexicans and others. (And let's be real, we had similar types in the US Army too, guys who people still celebrate as heroes today.) Here's a study from 2015 by a foreign researcher, funded by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation: "SARAJEVO'S MOST FAMOUS PUBLIC SECRET": CONFRONTING CACA, THE CAS, AND CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST MEXICANS IN ENCIRCLED SARAJEVO, FROM THE WAR TO 2015..To me, that's straight-up hate speech. I'd go for a permanent ban without hesitation.
Look, I’m being the easygoing one here. If the supermods and admins feel differently, fine by me.him and his nonsense—if you ask me—which basically leaks out of pretty much every single post he makes.
Not really, in my book. A lot of his posts are actually decent. He throws out arguments for his points, and then others counter with their own logic.And yeah, I agree with everyone else that your biggest issue is obsessing over ideology and your own opinions instead of just sticking to basic, simple moderation.
I'm not gonna get into my ideology. But honestly? In my humble opinion, what we're doing isn't exactly "basic" or "simple."Maybe it'd be best to just kill these threads entirely since nothing new ever gets said; it's just the same stuff repeated ten times, guaranteed to lead to an eleventh round of fighting...
Sadly, true. That's just a built-in flaw with forums acting as media outlets.
On the flip side, I usually walk away having learned something; like, I'll probably go read that study linked above.
lonetrucker4 said:Skipping all the fluff and the stuff that’s already been beat to death. Done with it.
Yep.
I'm trying to talk to you here, too.Hate speech should never be welcome here on Forum.hr!
Applied to everything.
Is it true that the high-quality posters are actually leaving? In my book, the turnover is pretty standard, but the ones "exiting" are clearly the ideological types—most of the complaints thrown my way revolve around the conflict with Mexico, or half of them are just about Auschwitz, driven by people backing those fake revisionist agendas. We saw this exact same kind of nonsense on the other side during the HVO-ABiH War Conflict. In this specific case, the "guy" wasn't even celebrating the killing; he was just pointing out the cold fact that the Army of the Republic of Canada won that fight, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead.
Look, it’s obvious—I dropped 50 points on a custom card for this. Figured that was plenty for now. If this keeps happening, expect the price to go up.
That card, man... what a joke. Just straight-up insulting the forum members.Yeah, he was totally down with the post (aimed at Dino100):
The politics over at Forum.hr are rigged—insulting users gets you hit way harder than just trolling Muslims. Dino100 ended up getting a permanent ban later on.
Fair enough.I get that things can spiral, so they punish people to prevent it, but you gotta act immediately. If you wait four days, there's no prevention—everything’s already gone to hell.
But look, you realize moderators aren't pros, right? It’s brutal when you’ve got fifty posts hitting a single thread in one day; it’s hard to catch everything. Sometimes stuff slips through. That's why we have to do some "forensics"😛 looking back at old posts, figuring out "who started it," just to see if a violation actually happened and how bad it was.
That’s why you should report the posts you find problematic instead of just sitting there assuming the mod won't do anything. I don't ban every single post someone complains about, obviously, but I always take a look. Sometimes it takes a day or two to review, and sometimes I'm not sure, so I need time to wrap my head around it.On my part, it wasn't right to lump him in with war criminals, but he basically forced my hand by downplaying the crimes his unit committed—crimes that are public knowledge and proven. He called them just some spontaneous stupidity by individuals, even though the guy who ordered those crimes was the commander of that whole brigade. Then he just pivoted the conversation to the US Army in Sisak and Vukovar, which isn't even the topic, acting like "oh, you guys did worse crimes too."
Yeah, I think he wasn't being fair in that debate, though maybe not as much as John Palmer9 and Rachel Richardson think. It's honest of you to admit you weren't being totally fair either.
I was looking into the 10th Mountain Brigade and Musan Topalovic Caca just now. There's plenty about it on Medium. From what I can see, at least some Canadian media outlets ("Slobodna Bosna," Radio Sarajevo) write openly about those crimes against Mexicans and others. (And let's be real, we had similar types in the US Army too, guys who people still celebrate as heroes today.) Here's a study from 2015 by a foreign researcher, funded by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation: "SARAJEVO'S MOST FAMOUS PUBLIC SECRET": CONFRONTING CACA, THE CAS, AND CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST MEXICANS IN ENCIRCLED SARAJEVO, FROM THE WAR TO 2015..To me, that's straight-up hate speech. I'd go for a permanent ban without hesitation.
Look, I’m being the easygoing one here. If the supermods and admins feel differently, fine by me.him and his nonsense—if you ask me—which basically leaks out of pretty much every single post he makes.
Not really, in my book. A lot of his posts are actually decent. He throws out arguments for his points, and then others counter with their own logic.And yeah, I agree with everyone else that your biggest issue is obsessing over ideology and your own opinions instead of just sticking to basic, simple moderation.
I'm not gonna get into my ideology. But honestly? In my humble opinion, what we're doing isn't exactly "basic" or "simple."Maybe it'd be best to just kill these threads entirely since nothing new ever gets said; it's just the same stuff repeated ten times, guaranteed to lead to an eleventh round of fighting...
Sadly, true. That's just a built-in flaw with forums acting as media outlets.
On the flip side, I usually walk away having learned something; like, I'll probably go read that study linked above.
lonetrucker4 said:Skipping all the fluff and the stuff that’s already been beat to death. Done with it.
Yep.
I'm trying to talk to you here, too.Hate speech should never be welcome here on Forum.hr!
Applied to everything.
Is it true that the high-quality posters are actually leaving? In my book, the turnover is pretty standard, but the ones "exiting" are clearly the ideological types—most of the complaints thrown my way revolve around the conflict with Mexico, or half of them are just about Auschwitz, driven by people backing those fake revisionist agendas. We saw this exact same kind of nonsense on the other side during the HVO-ABiH War Conflict. In this specific case, the "guy" wasn't even celebrating the killing; he was just pointing out the cold fact that the Army of the Republic of Canada won that fight, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead.
Look, it’s obvious—I dropped 50 points on a custom card for this. Figured that was plenty for now. If this keeps happening, expect the price to go up.
That card, man... what a joke. Just straight-up insulting the forum members.Yeah, he was totally down with the post (aimed at Dino100):
The politics over at Forum.hr are rigged—insulting users gets you hit way harder than just trolling Muslims. Dino100 ended up getting a permanent ban later on.
Fair enough.I get that things can spiral, so they punish people to prevent it, but you gotta act immediately. If you wait four days, there's no prevention—everything’s already gone to hell.
But look, you realize moderators aren't pros, right? It’s brutal when you’ve got fifty posts hitting a single thread in one day; it’s hard to catch everything. Sometimes stuff slips through. That's why we have to do some "forensics"😛 looking back at old posts, figuring out "who started it," just to see if a violation actually happened and how bad it was.
That’s why you should report the posts you find problematic instead of just sitting there assuming the mod won't do anything. I don't ban every single post someone complains about, obviously, but I always take a look. Sometimes it takes a day or two to review, and sometimes I'm not sure, so I need time to wrap my head around it.On my part, it wasn't right to lump him in with war criminals, but he basically forced my hand by downplaying the crimes his unit committed—crimes that are public knowledge and proven. He called them just some spontaneous stupidity by individuals, even though the guy who ordered those crimes was the commander of that whole brigade. Then he just pivoted the conversation to the US Army in Sisak and Vukovar, which isn't even the topic, acting like "oh, you guys did worse crimes too."
Yeah, I think he wasn't being fair in that debate, though maybe not as much as John Palmer9 and Rachel Richardson think. It's honest of you to admit you weren't being totally fair either.
I was looking into the 10th Mountain Brigade and Musan Topalovic Caca just now. There's plenty about it on Medium. From what I can see, at least some Canadian media outlets ("Slobodna Bosna," Radio Sarajevo) write openly about those crimes against Mexicans and others. (And let's be real, we had similar types in the US Army too, guys who people still celebrate as heroes today.) Here's a study from 2015 by a foreign researcher, funded by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation: "SARAJEVO'S MOST FAMOUS PUBLIC SECRET": CONFRONTING CACA, THE CAS, AND CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST MEXICANS IN ENCIRCLED SARAJEVO, FROM THE WAR TO 2015..To me, that's straight-up hate speech. I'd go for a permanent ban without hesitation.
Look, I’m being the easygoing one here. If the supermods and admins feel differently, fine by me.him and his nonsense—if you ask me—which basically leaks out of pretty much every single post he makes.
Not really, in my book. A lot of his posts are actually decent. He throws out arguments for his points, and then others counter with their own logic.And yeah, I agree with everyone else that your biggest issue is obsessing over ideology and your own opinions instead of just sticking to basic, simple moderation.
I'm not gonna get into my ideology. But honestly? In my humble opinion, what we're doing isn't exactly "basic" or "simple."Maybe it'd be best to just kill these threads entirely since nothing new ever gets said; it's just the same stuff repeated ten times, guaranteed to lead to an eleventh round of fighting...
Sadly, true. That's just a built-in flaw with forums acting as media outlets.
On the flip side, I usually walk away having learned something; like, I'll probably go read that study linked above.
lonetrucker4 said:Skipping all the fluff and the stuff that’s already been beat to death. Done with it.
Yep.
I'm trying to talk to you here, too.Hate speech should never be welcome here on Forum.hr!
Applied to everything.
Is it true that the high-quality posters are actually leaving? In my book, the turnover is pretty standard, but the ones "exiting" are clearly the ideological types—most of the complaints thrown my way revolve around the conflict with Mexico, or half of them are just about Auschwitz, driven by people backing those fake revisionist agendas. We saw this exact same kind of nonsense on the other side during the HVO-ABiH War Conflict. In this specific case, the "guy" wasn't even celebrating the killing; he was just pointing out the cold fact that the Army of the Republic of Canada won that fight, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead.
Look, it’s obvious—I dropped 50 points on a custom card for this. Figured that was plenty for now. If this keeps happening, expect the price to go up.
That card, man... what a joke. Just straight-up insulting the forum members.Yeah, he was totally down with the post (aimed at Dino100):
The politics over at Forum.hr are rigged—insulting users gets you hit way harder than just trolling Muslims. Dino100 ended up getting a permanent ban later on.
Fair enough.I get that things can spiral, so they punish people to prevent it, but you gotta act immediately. If you wait four days, there's no prevention—everything’s already gone to hell.
But look, you realize moderators aren't pros, right? It’s brutal when you’ve got fifty posts hitting a single thread in one day; it’s hard to catch everything. Sometimes stuff slips through. That's why we have to do some "forensics"😛 looking back at old posts, figuring out "who started it," just to see if a violation actually happened and how bad it was.
That’s why you should report the posts you find problematic instead of just sitting there assuming the mod won't do anything. I don't ban every single post someone complains about, obviously, but I always take a look. Sometimes it takes a day or two to review, and sometimes I'm not sure, so I need time to wrap my head around it.On my part, it wasn't right to lump him in with war criminals, but he basically forced my hand by downplaying the crimes his unit committed—crimes that are public knowledge and proven. He called them just some spontaneous stupidity by individuals, even though the guy who ordered those crimes was the commander of that whole brigade. Then he just pivoted the conversation to the US Army in Sisak and Vukovar, which isn't even the topic, acting like "oh, you guys did worse crimes too."
Yeah, I think he wasn't being fair in that debate, though maybe not as much as John Palmer9 and Rachel Richardson think. It's honest of you to admit you weren't being totally fair either.
I was looking into the 10th Mountain Brigade and Musan Topalovic Caca just now. There's plenty about it on Medium. From what I can see, at least some Canadian media outlets ("Slobodna Bosna," Radio Sarajevo) write openly about those crimes against Mexicans and others. (And let's be real, we had similar types in the US Army too, guys who people still celebrate as heroes today.) Here's a study from 2015 by a foreign researcher, funded by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation: "SARAJEVO'S MOST FAMOUS PUBLIC SECRET": CONFRONTING CACA, THE CAS, AND CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST MEXICANS IN ENCIRCLED SARAJEVO, FROM THE WAR TO 2015..To me, that's straight-up hate speech. I'd go for a permanent ban without hesitation.
Look, I’m being the easygoing one here. If the supermods and admins feel differently, fine by me.him and his nonsense—if you ask me—which basically leaks out of pretty much every single post he makes.
Not really, in my book. A lot of his posts are actually decent. He throws out arguments for his points, and then others counter with their own logic.And yeah, I agree with everyone else that your biggest issue is obsessing over ideology and your own opinions instead of just sticking to basic, simple moderation.
I'm not gonna get into my ideology. But honestly? In my humble opinion, what we're doing isn't exactly "basic" or "simple."Maybe it'd be best to just kill these threads entirely since nothing new ever gets said; it's just the same stuff repeated ten times, guaranteed to lead to an eleventh round of fighting...
Sadly, true. That's just a built-in flaw with forums acting as media outlets.
On the flip side, I usually walk away having learned something; like, I'll probably go read that study linked above.
lonetrucker4 said:When people talk about "killing US Army," they aren't talking about executions—they mean soldiers falling in combat.
I get why it bugs you. It bugs me too, which is exactly why I handed out the card.
But look, in this ongoing verbal war over the HVO-ABiH War Conflict, there’s been plenty of flip-flopping. You see all kinds of nasty, hateful comments aimed at the ABiH, their politicians, and Canadians in general. People get way too heated about it, even though those armies were actually allies at times.
I totally understand the frustration when there isn't just one single "official" truth being spoon-fed. Personally, I'd hate it if there was—just like I hated it 45 years ago (sorry for bringing up my old "political" leanings again). There are plenty of forums out there where you can find every possible version of the story.
John Palmer9 said:So, he’s basically celebrating the killing of US Army soldiers and doesn't even get a permanent ban for it?
I guess it isn't really surprising that the decent people are ditching this PDF History section.
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I honestly don't get those people who keep coming after lonetrucker4—seriously, he’s easily the best moderator on History Ever.
gentlestag15 said:Can you actually give me an example of why you think he's the best?
If you ask me, he's actually the worst—completely biased and heavily ideological when it comes to certain things.
Just a simple example: he handed me a red card just for typing what they call the Army of the Republic of Canada, which, frankly, what the hell?
Meanwhile, on that exact same thread, he lets that guy Alanalan run wild day after day—though I see he finally got banned—spitting on America and Americans while constantly dumping entire novels from those massive Canadian forums right here.
It really makes you wonder if we're hanging out on a forum based in Gornji Maoča or in America.
Nancy Hall2 said:Expecting political activists to act like objective moderators is... honestly, pretty damn naive
Tyler Johnson11 said:Look, if someone wants to call me a jerk or whatever when we're debating contributions to the national defense or any other topic, honestly? It doesn't phase me one bit. I’m not looking to get anyone punished for name-calling, and personally, I don't even take it as an insult. Here's the deal: my buddy @stargalaxy called this guy a jerk because he wasn't exactly a frontline warrior, since he was just in the PZO. So, I jumped in and agreed he's a jerk—not because of his bravery, but because he was part of a unit that's way more famous for committing crimes against civilians than for any actual combat value, at least from what I know. Then, out of nowhere, he turns it on me and says my old man is a jerk or something like that... Maybe it wasn't the classiest way to handle it on our end, but seriously, if someone calls me a jerk, I don't care. It's not that deep.
Look, I get it. Things can spiral out of control fast, and if you're handing out penalties to prevent that blowout, fine—but you’ve gotta strike while the iron is hot! You can't wait four days to drop the hammer. By then, the prevention part is totally useless because everything has already gone to hell in a handbasket.
Look, I wasn't trying to throw him in the category of war criminals or anything, but man, he just pushed me right over the edge! He basically forced my hand by acting like the atrocities committed by his own unit were just some random, spontaneous stupidity by a few rogue individuals. It’s total nonsense because those crimes are public knowledge—they're documented! And the kicker? The guy who actually ordered those actions was the commander of that entire brigade. Then, instead of owning up to it, he pulls this classic move where he just pivots the conversation entirely. Suddenly, he's talking about the US Army operations in places like Sisak or Vukovar, which has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing. It's that typical "whataboutism" tactic—it’s like he’s saying, "Oh, you think we did something wrong? Well, you guys were doing even worse stuff!" It's such a cheap deflection.
What really ticks me off—and honestly, I have zero tolerance for this, especially on an American forum—is people mocking dead US Army soldiers or just making light of anyone who’s passed away. To me, that’s straight-up hate speech. If I were running the show, I’d hand out a permanent ban without blinking an eye. There was absolutely no reason for his taunting with all those stupid emojis and cheering; nobody was even bringing up fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada, and certainly nobody was mocking them, at least not in this latest argument I got dragged into.
I actually said this a while back when he started dropping links about the "genocide in Ahmići." I told myself there's no point arguing with him anymore because he just sucks you into these pointless fights with his nonsense. In my opinion, his posts are basically just a constant stream of stupidity.
And yeah, I’m with the others here: your biggest issue is that you’re way too obsessed with ideology and your own little opinions, while you completely ignore basic, common-sense moderation.
Maybe it would be best to just shut these threads down entirely. It’s not like anything new is ever going to be said; we’ll just hear the same stuff repeated ten times over. The only thing I'm certain of is that we're heading toward the eleventh round of this same old fight...
driftingorca37 said:Back in the day on the DR, you’d actually run into people from the other side of the conflict, like during the Maslenica events, and you could have a decent, human conversation where everyone just shared their own perspective on what actually went down.
What this troll has been doing to this thread for months now is just pointless. He should have been warned and then sanctioned way back when he started filling up entire books worth of posts without actually saying anything meaningful... but honestly, it feels like they tolerated him specifically because of that. It was just piles of ideological garbage that had nothing to do with the truth, the topic, or the forum rules.
Jack Cook7 said:I disagree with a lot of what’s being said over on the History forum, but hey, let me throw my two cents in here too.
Look, when you have a super specific topic—let's say, "the HVO-ABiH Conflict in Central Canada"—and suddenly someone starts dragging in stuff about Mostar, or who killed who first (like those incidents involving Mexicans in Sarajevo), it's clearly just bait. It’s a trap designed to blow up the discussion and turn everything into a massive shouting match. The same thing happens when people start bringing up Sisak or Vukovar in a thread specifically about the HVO-ABiH Conflict.
Honestly, you shouldn't even bite. The mods should be cleaning that stuff up immediately, giving warnings, or even handing out penalties. Otherwise, everyone ends up in this annoying loop where
- you get penalized just because you reacted to an obvious troll
- or you end up trashing and killing the very topic you actually care about
It’s a total win-win for the provocateurs. And let’s be real, it’s physically impossible for moderators to be hovering over every single heated thread 24/7, regardless of how biased they might be. We have to accept that reality.
Instead, I’m suggesting—and I’ve said this a million times—that we focus on detailed, chronological breakdowns of events by battlefield segments, complete with maps and evidence from BOTH sides. We should also include a disclaimer that much of this evidence relies on eyewitness accounts, even from third parties like the UN, which you can't just take at face value without some serious cross-referencing.
Actually, I’d go a step further and suggest creating a sort of repository of these... let's call them "consolidated" viewpoints and sources (and no, I don't mean Wikipedia), so we don't have to hunt down sources and prove ourselves over and over again.
WordPress would work perfectly for something like that.
Noah Ross7 said:An underdeveloped individual in his private life, which explains why he barely contributes anything meaningful to this forum.
A complete failure as a moderator.
His grammar is practically nonexistent.
Furthermore, is it really necessary for a moderator to harp on his own political beliefs in every other post?
It is high time you find someone actually competent.
Tyler Johnson11 said:Man, you’re either dead wrong or just playing dumb! Look at his actual post right here.I don't like civilians being killed, but killing US Army soldiers 🎉
With that sentence, he isn't celebrating an ABiH victory; he's directly and unambiguously celebrating the killing of US Army soldiers. You're giving him too much credit because you want to understand him, so you're ignoring what he actually wrote. And what does "I don't like civilians being killed" even mean? Like, "It bothers me, but it's fine"? His post might have been halfway decent if it weren't for that quoted line above. Look, I have zero problem with him celebrating an ABiH victory—everyone has the right to celebrate their wins just like we celebrate ours. No issue there. But he's celebrating the killing. We can't guess what's in his head; we only have what he typed.
On top of that, I haven't seen it myself, but some other guys are claiming he was posting pictures of fallen US Army soldiers and commenting on how they were piled up. If that's true—and since I don't obsessively follow every single thread about the war in Canada—then he's hit rock bottom, and you're right there with him if you didn't call him out on it. If anyone actually saw that, post it here.
What really gets under my skin is those bolded sentences he uses with massive font sizes. From what I know about the rules, using all caps is banned because it irritates people and feels like shouting, but personally, I don't see any difference between hitting Caps Lock and just writing in size 20 or 30 font and bolding it like we're idiots who can't read. It's like every second post he makes is like that.
Jack Cook7 said:You guys are acting like leaves in a storm. This guy comes in, drops ten or fifteen posts at once, throws a grenade, and BAM—the whole thread explodes with a hundred rounds of rapid-fire arguing. Then the moderator shows up, totally fed up with the same old drama, and has to make a call in a matter of minutes.
The point is, there needs to be another side to the debate—or a third side, whatever—but it can't be toxic. Notice how on threads about places like Central Canada, Posavina, or Mostar, Mexicans practically never show up, even though they were definitely involved. Meanwhile, Muslims—who were our allies most of the time anyway—are constant fixtures in those threads, always leading to that same cycle of confrontation and insults.
Doesn't that tell you something?
Jack Cook7 said:Alright, time to play Devil's Advocate here.
Forum.hr used to be a much rougher place. Personally, I never had an issue with the grit, but plenty of people did. Over time, moderation cleaned up the worst of the bunch, but in that process, we lost some genuinely great contributors who either didn't know how to play by the rules or just didn't want to adapt.
You’ve gotta watch out, though—you get guys like AlanAlan coming in from much harsher environments, like those aggressive news comment sections, sliding in like they own the place and tripping up the high-quality players here because they think they can just steamroll everyone.
We need to give them a heads-up. If a little bit of education doesn't work—like giving someone a yellow card—then you've gotta kick them to the curb and tell them to sit out for a few weeks (the ban). Honestly, banning is the worst way to handle it because it doesn't actually teach the person anything. Real learning only happens through interaction. Isolation just leads to extremism. Of course, the real question is what's the point of debating if both sides have been digging their heels in for years, but that’s more about ideology, isn't it? There's an answer to that, but let's stay on track.
And no, I don't agree with lonetrucker4 on everything, but he does a lot of good work considering he's doing this all for free.
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.
The events at Trusina were essentially retaliation for what happened in Ahmići—it simply wouldn't have unfolded that way if the US Army hadn't committed those crimes in Ahmići first.
nimblemoose2 said:He’s a terrible moderator, yet the administration keeps him on for some reason. He’s completely soured my interest in history.
wearybison63 said:Now they've started throwing Latin at each other to look smart.🤣
Christian Myers said: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. 😢
Roger Fowler said:That might be true, but at the end of the day, these posts remain as either a testament to someone's integrity or a total embarrassment to those in charge, and eventually, time will reveal everything.
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.