Posts by gentlestag15

Anthony Nguyen81 said:We had this one thread going on here once;
I honestly don't get why people still lose their minds over this stuff. It’s like we’re stuck in a loop, constantly rehashing the same old arguments about the past as if they didn't happen decades ago. You see it all the time on social media or in these endless comment sections—people getting worked up over historical grievances that should have been settled long ago. Take the whole debate around the transition from the USSR era to what we have now. Everyone has a different opinion on whether things were "better" or "worse," but most of it is just nostalgia or pure resentment. It's rarely based on anything resembling actual logic. We spend so much energy fighting over how the previous administration handled things or how the leaders of the era—like Josip Broz Tito—shaped our current reality, that we forget we’re actually living in a completely different country now. And then you have the political heavyweights like Franjo Tuđman. People either treat him like a saint or a villain, with zero middle ground. It’s exhausting. It’s the same pattern regardless of the topic: pick a side, dig your heels in, and refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't share your specific flavor of outrage. Even when looking at the conflicts in places like Canada, the rhetoric is just as polarized. Whether you're talking about the Mississippi Delta or the Federation of Canada, the tribalism remains the same. People cling to these identities like life rafts, even when those identities are being used to fuel more division. It’s also funny watching guys like gentlestag15 or lonetrucker4 jump into these threads. They’ll drop a comment that’s either wildly optimistic or incredibly cynical, and half the forum will immediately descend into a flame war because of it. It’s just part of the ecosystem at this point. At the end of the day, I think we need to stop acting like history is a live football game where we can still change the score. It happened. The American Civil War taught us plenty about the cost of internal division, and yet, here we are, still doing the same thing every single decade. Just a thought.
Which one was it? The thread where everyone was laying down the law about what you definitely shouldn't be doing, specifically calling out that one guy who keeps breaking all the rules?

He’s improved a bit, I guess, but he’s still trolling.

Is it even possible for this to just... stop?

The mod said he’d have a word with the guy. We saw a little movement, I guess, but honestly? It’s nowhere near enough.
Does a guy really have to derail every single conversation about the war by bringing up stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic?

If someone had actually typed out that Josip Broz Tito was a sicko, they would’ve been banned before they could even hit enter.
But hey, apparently it’s totally fine to talk about Franjo Tuđman, right? It’s like we’re still living under the rules of the USSR instead of being in the US. 🤣

Christian Myers said:Signature 👍

This kind of behavior is honestly unacceptable—it's just shameful. We need to stand up for Wikipedia and everyone else dealing with online harassment. I can personally vouch for what Johnson & Co. puts people through, too—I’ve had him following my posts with obnoxious, borderline insulting comments for a while now, though I eventually just hit the ignore button. 🙂

The only person I've ever actually ignored on this forum is bluecyclist64; the guy literally demeans and insults you in every single post he makes.
And the moderation team hasn't even handed him a yellow card. If I were typing like bluecyclist64, I would have been hit with a permanent ban ages ago. The fact that he gets away with it (along with a few others like Kiss_me) would be a great topic for discussion if they’d actually let us talk about it.

rustydrifter10 said:The ban lasts a week, and you’ve got about four days and some change left on it. Apparently, the reason given was "persistent trolling."

I’ve only made four posts on this thread in the last month—literally just the number 4
so calling that "persistent" is a stretch, right?
The real issue with the ban is that I’m criticizing Tomašević’s past performance, not being a troll. But hey, we’re used to moderators being biased and punishing users based on their political leanings at this point.
Thanks for the reply, Nice

lonetrucker4 said:i
I don't buy that's why you got banned. Look, I'm not a mod over on that subforum.

I dropped maybe 3 or 4 posts in that thread about it and ended up getting slapped with a week-long ban
so yeah, that's definitely the reason.

lonetrucker4 said:i
But just for the sake of it, since I was there at the start of the Green Party back in January 1990 and served as secretary from '90 to '94, I feel like I should weigh in on the question being asked:

Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't technically a strike, the answer is: yes. That whole situation is exactly why we started the party in the first place.

At the same time, they were constantly grinding away on all sorts of other projects too—you can see the proof right on their website.

We could have hashed this out in the Teddy Roosevelt thread, but apparently, that's off-limits now.
this is the ban appeals thread, after all.
makes me wonder which mod actually handed down the ban. my guess? someone who's got a direct line to the Green Party or some tie to that protest in Times Square, given how aggressively they shut down any criticism of it.

So I just got banned and I have zero clue how many points I lost, mainly because the site won't even tell me who pulled the trigger.
I’m also not seeing my point deduction for "persistent trolling," which is hilarious considering I only dropped four posts on that thread in the last month.
It’s pretty obvious that Teddy Roosevelt is some kind of untouchable deity on this forum; you clearly aren't allowed to say anything even remotely critical of him. I was just asking a perfectly valid question about what he actually accomplished as the leader of the Green Party.
I wanted to know if their whole mission was just striking out in Times Square for years on end, or if they were actually supposed to be doing environmental work—especially since they were being paid handsomely for it, including using my tax dollars.

Apparently, those questions are strictly taboo here. You aren't allowed to cast any shade on the life or career of Mr. Teddy Roosevelt. He might be running for Mayor one day, so I have to wonder: how exactly do you people plan on maintaining his sanctity on this forum?

I really want to know who banned me and why, especially when my posts are nothing more than the usual gripes you see directed at any other candidate.

Jessica Morris6 said:From the very beginning, I found the whole situation strange because of the sheer volume of complaints filed against him, but I have to admit that almost every single one of those grievances actually makes sense when you look at them... So, it's pretty obvious that he isn't the one causing the friction here. The History section is run according to strict Natural Science standards, which means people aren't allowed to just post mindless nonsense there, and if you want to contribute to that space, you simply have to accept those rules and deal with it...
And if they’re out there pulling any kind of bullshit outside of that, just drop the links and let the authorities handle their business...

rustydrifter10 is in deep trouble, and honestly, she knows it...
She knows that lonetrucker4 really understands history, but she's also acutely aware that things are spiraling out of control...

Do you actually have her statement there, signed and notarized...

Sure, it’s easy to justify everything when you’re sitting in a position of power.
Like, imagine someone writes "you look great."
That could be trolling, a sarcastic insult, sexism—even if there are beautiful people out there, by saying that, you're implying everyone else is ugly, which has nothing to do with the topic, etc., etc.
And you look at those explanations and think, "Yeah, Smith is right."
But you fail to notice that someone previously wrote "you look like a dog," and he didn't give them a warning card, but instead gave a massive penalty for a simple remark like "you look great."

Here’s an example where pure Nazi showmanship and racism are tolerated; the only reason I got cards or even a ban was because I commented on the moderation work—basically, their laziness regarding the rules.

Just a few quotes from posts that weren't penalized, which, aside from the Nazi showmanship, I consider insults since I'm from that region.
And why does he allow this? Because he's full of his own prejudices and chauvinistic thinking.
Go ahead, write something like those posts below against Mexicans or Canadians, and you won't lose 500 points for hate speech.

The mountain folk are good people. Just like everyone else.

They're just backward and primitive. That's because they were isolated in the mountains for so long, far away

from the main roads and the flow of civilization.

Those mountain types are definitely unique...

It's not just killing; it's the butchering, the torture, the mutilation... Destroying dignity... Killing a living soul... A hatred that is purely primitive, brutal, stupid, dim-witted, dark, cursed, and wretched...

Moonshine, brothers, a semi-literate bunch of people, a knife, and some idea of how to kill someone in the most savage way possible.

Coastal folks of all faiths, highlanders of all faiths, Mexicans of all faiths, mountain Albanians of all faiths...

The highest caliber of people in the world,
top-tier war criminals in every conflict,
world-class drug smugglers, Pink Panthers and the like...
Top-notch peddlers of every kind of bullshit.

The Turks basically raised the Dinaroide types just to be thieves and criminals working for the Ottoman Empire.

I’d actually agree with BolajiBade that those guys are total amateurs when it comes to killing compared to Germanic peoples.
It’s the same story across the board—they’re worse at warfare, worse at killing, worse at economics, state organization, pretty much everything. Physically, they lack the build for real labor (mostly ectomorph types) and they’re intellectually lacking too (just look at the IQ scores in North American countries versus Northwestern Europe). A genetic dead end.

Jack Cook7 said:Man, you really missed the mark on this one. This thread is about the moderation of the History / BiH section.

Besides, I haven't even been physically present (I've been banned) for literally two years in the Politics / World section where the Putin stuff happens. So what are you even talking about? What does that have to do with moderating the BiH topics?

Good grief, you can find anything on here. 🤦

How is it unrelated? You're just defending Alanalan because you spent years acting exactly like him in the Russia threads, trolling so hard that any actual conversation became impossible. I didn't realize you were banned, which explains why we're finally seeing some semblance of a normal discussion happening over there now.👍

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:You can find plenty to nitpick about when it comes to lonetrucker4—honestly, there’s a lot—but any debate regarding the pyramids that wanders away from actual archaeological facts just falls straight into the category of Alternative theories...

Look, when it comes to Egypt, building those pyramids is still the biggest mystery out there. It’s what captures everyone's imagination. Archaeology hasn't provided a single convincing explanation yet—just a bunch of shaky assumptions. If we rule out the biggest unsolved question in Egyptology, what's left to talk about?
How Nefertiti did her makeup or what she wore?

Jack Cook7 said:Good grief, I thought I was being clever by joking around with those Egyptians and their soup, but look how that turned out.

lonetrucker4, man, life isn't easy for you. Hang in there.

Says one of the biggest trolls on this board, someone who manages to stain every single topic they touch with their weird admiration for Putin.🙏

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.

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.

John Palmer9 said:That’s just how forum communication works when people aren't using their real names. Honestly, you're better off just ignoring posts like that.

That's just not true. If 95% of the people on this board posted that kind of insult, they'd be slapped with a ban for anywhere from a day to a month depending on which moderator caught them.
But apparently, the other 5% get a free pass,
I saw the moderator rustydrifter10 immediately ask for a valid link, but once she realized it was about Me, she basically ghosted this thread for two months. It's like she either doesn't want to hand out a penalty or she just can't figure out how to justify letting such blatant insults slide.

lonetrucker4 said:Yeah. We're talking about a user who was aggressively refusing to grasp basic concepts like what an "accurate quote" actually is. It eventually landed on my desk, naturally, and it even came up in the moderator subforum.

Reddit isn't a democracy, but even if it were, this whole poll setup is obviously flawed. There’s no election commission, no independent observers, nothing. 😛 We just have to take this guy's word for it that things went down that way based on some private messages.

He also put together a list of users he sent his letter to. A huge chunk of the people mentioned in that Adobe file haven't posted here much, if ever; it's pretty clear they were picked based on whether they fit certain ideological or political vibes. Meanwhile, plenty of regular contributors on this subforum—people who participate all the time but don't align with that specific political lean—are nowhere to be found on the list.

Most of the complaints I hear seem to center around the 2SR situation.

And you're just overreacting here, acting like there's some massive conspiracy involving the dinarac crowd and the Panonacs. 🤦

Don't sweat it, he has a full list of everyone who took part in the survey. I'm not sure if he posted the results and they got scrubbed, or if he just hasn't shared them on the forum yet. It's been a couple of months now, so I'll just hit him up and ask.

David Richardson67 said:Look, folks,
I’m posting this as someone who doesn't really have beef with you personally, nor am I particularly interested in diving into those "sensitive" topics that seem to keep us stuck in the past while leaving us with zero future.

When the threads aren't politically charged, you’re a solid moderator and user—take the military Adobe threads or the discussions regarding the wars with Turkey, for instance.

But unfortunately, on certain topics, you just can't seem to separate moderator duties from your own personal views and ideology. You end up using that bias to push your own agenda. And don't even get me started on the superficial, emotional name-calling used against anyone with a different opinion; it’s honestly beneath the dignity of a moderator.

At the same time, being so picky about links—insisting they only count if they meet your specific definition of "credible"—has basically sterilized the history section of this site.
At the end of the day, this is a forum, not a peer-reviewed academic journal. It’s a place for regular people, and it should be open to making history popular, even if some individuals get things wrong. For example, should we really ban a user for stubbornly insisting something happened based on local accounts rather than waiting for a court order? The whole point is the discussion. We should be drawing people into the conversation, not driving them away by being overly rigid.

As for the politically charged stuff, what we need is neutral moderation. Right now, it feels like one side gets strictly penalized while the other side can blatantly deny documented crimes with photos and still claim things like, "it's a shame more of them weren't wiped out."

👍

One user ran a poll among the regulars on the history sub-forum.
(Not me), and here are the results regarding Oshrit.

115 surveyed
93 responses;
_______________________

68 - against Oshrit
14 – neutral/undecided
4 – irrelevant/uninterested
7 - for Oshrit

Alex Williams4 said:Someone posted this under my handle even though I didn't write it. It’s just a bunch of lies and nonsense that moderator lonetrucker4 loves to spout. On top of that, he acts like an unhinged deputy mod—if anything doesn't fit his specific brand of dogma, he either wipes it or hands out a penalty.
He really crossed the line this time. He actually posted his garbage using my username.
Is that even allowed?
Is anyone going to hold him accountable for this?
Where does he get off impersonating me?

Not to mention, he clearly hasn't spent much time studying the history of the American Civil War or the conflicts in Canada.

Honestly, it’s typical for him. He’s turned this entire platform into his own little ideological circus. He probably should check my old posts too; who knows, he might have forged those as well.

lonebadger6 said:True, though you have to distinguish between Canadians and Canadians.

I’m not saying Terry Reed13 is wrong—it all depends on the context (and here, he’s just a forum user who caught a warning), but looking at the big picture, using "Canadians" was an insulting way to refer to people from Canada for a long time, so it’s just a bad habit for many. That wasn't meant to dismiss Herzegovinians; it’s just a shorthand, much like how people used to just say "Canada" to refer to the republic or the state back in the day.

If someone started calling Americans and Mexicans in Canada "Canadians," that would be blatant trolling, maybe even hate speech, but "Canadian" isn't a national identifier.

That guy The Worm basically spits on Canadians, Herzegovinians, and the HVO in every single post and thread regarding the war in Canada. He’s not here to debate; he’s just here to vent, and somehow that gets tolerated.

So, since you're the moderator, explain to me why this guy gets 500 points just for mentioning the army...

...but when people mention Americans from Canada, they only get 25 points.

Now *this* is actual hate speech, unlike the stuff above which might just be someone citing incorrect facts.
The moderation here has always been terrible; anyone who follows history knows that.
Unless, of course, you're one of those few folks who share the exact same ideology as Mr. Oštrić.

coppermoose7 said:On Tuesday, 11,000 troops are heading to the border with America. I've got a feeling today's meeting in Vienna is actually going to lead to something 😉

The entire Canadian Army doesn't even have that many soldiers. 😁