Posts by John Palmer9

lonetrucker4 said:Just to recap for anyone who hasn't caught up on the whole thread from the start (check out post #14): my "police state" behavior was really just me refusing to go along with the suggestion that we should refer to the Rom as cigans. And yeah, I even refused to sit there and debate that point indefinitely.

The whole argument was about principles and statistics; I guess nobody actually claimed the moderator acts like a tyrant in every single interaction. It was just the inconsistent way the moderator was reacting that caught my eye.

lonetrucker4 said:I suppose that’s the trick with successful trolls—they bait you into a heated response so you end up looking like a troll yourself, which pretty much kills any chance of a constructive conversation.

The moderator lets the first guy throw insults and then only steps in with a "both of you stop" once the target gets upset. If the target doesn't react angrily, then it's just a case of the bully getting away with it, I guess.

lonetrucker4 said:Looking at active users, the number of threads, and how many people are reading this sub since I became a moderator nearly four years ago, everything is pretty much steady or seeing a slight uptick. These massive complaints might actually be helping, since traffic is increasing.

Well, I guess the forum will just turn into a daycare center, as long as the traffic keeps going up.

Eric Newman75 said:I guess you're just speaking without really looking at the full picture here. Since the forum is shutting down today anyway, it doesn't much matter if things "continue this way." Even if it stayed up, it wouldn't violate any internet norms, nor would it contribute to any supposed decline by having moderators participate alongside everyone else. It’s pretty standard practice for mods to post just like anyone else, really.

I wasn't really worried about other sites, I just wanted this to be a high-quality community instead of something that felt like a preschool. If it comes to it, I'll just start my own. This was a good place, especially those threads that stayed away from politics and all that constant bickering.

Steven Fox37 said:the whole point of moderating is basically just forcing your own rules on everyone else

It feels a bit like police surveillance, I guess, which is pretty repressive. But I suppose that doesn't mean a moderator should act like they're untouchable, leading people to tell them, "hey, maybe give yourself a red card." Or you see those situations where some troll starts relentlessly attacking a user, then that user snaps back, and suddenly the moderator jumps in with a "both of you stop right now," almost ignoring who actually started the whole mess in the first place.

Eric Newman75 said:Can you name two forums where that actually happens? Thanks.

I don't really follow many other boards, but if things keep going this way, this place might really start to decline... and honestly, more and more people are just heading over to Facebook anyway.

Steven Fox37 said:I guess there isn't anything funnier than reading these endless complaints about history; honestly, making Ostrić the lead was probably a masterstroke by management.

He’s definitely ruffled a few feathers, especially among those who actually try to write something meaningful or constructive. I suppose a moderator should really be working to bring people together rather than stirring the pot. The History subforum has basically turned into a daycare center for this site—though, I guess even a daycare deserves its own space. On the more niche forums, like Automotive or Agriculture, a moderator can easily pull double duty as a regular contributor. But when it comes to politics, sports, religion, or history... places where things tend to get heated... a moderator probably ought to just stick to moderating.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:It really comes down to a moderator's integrity. I guess not everyone actually has any.

There’s that old saying about how giving someone power or authority is the quickest way to see who they really are.
I think you can see that playing out perfectly on the History PDF sub.
When someone is actively jumping into arguments while also acting as a moderator, it feels a bit like having a referee trying to play linebacker during the same football game.

I guess we should probably look into stopping moderators from acting like regular members too. Maybe they should just stick to being moderators and nothing else.

Frank Foster6 said:I don't really bother arguing with anyone else—if you're talking about bluecyclist64, for instance—because he doesn't actually engage in discussions here. In those history threads, he won't try to prove a point using sources or historians or anything like that; he just drops his own opinions that barely even relate to the topics. I guess it's basically trolling, and he's been doing it for years. Plus, his vocabulary can sound a bit like some rough driver on a backroad every now and then.

I suppose if I tried to argue against your idea that this forum is just a social club, I probably would have been banned years ago. I don't really know why bluecyclist64 gets away with such loose behavior, though. Maybe he’s close with the owner, I guess, but I can't say for sure. It seems like so many people get banned for minor slip-ups, yet he stays totally fine despite clearly ignoring the rules in the history section...

The internet is just an explosion of data these days, and nobody can really keep up, which is why forums are still pretty useful for swapping info and links, specifically stuff that goes way deeper than Wikipedia.

Then you have the trolls who, maybe because of their own issues, want to turn these forums into a playground where they can run the show. Or they have these sneaky agendas, like using leftist slogans just to make leftists look bad, hoping people will walk away thinking, "Man, those leftists are jerks."

I guess there’s nothing quite as satisfying as watching a troll get kicked off the forum👍

Anthony Perez9 said:So, I guess you could say he’s at least a little bit problematic when it comes to being objective. ☕

I guess the whole mess surrounding the Jasenovac camp could probably be sorted out pretty quickly if anyone actually cared to fix it. I guess he's being pretty specific about it.I guess maybe you could say, for instance...

I wonder why organizations like Yad Vashem and the US Holocaust Museum spent so many decades just looking the other way while the Jasenovac Memorial site essentially lifted photos from Treblinka, Ukraine, Poland, and various other places, all just to prop up those inflated claims of theirs.

I guess I should probably just apply what I wrote. I guess maybe there's some truth to what lonetrucker4 was saying, though I'm not entirely sure. Maybe the government should just declare the remembrance of the Jasenovac camp a protected cultural heritage site and then put some real money into comprehensive historical research. That way, they could move those photos out of there—unless, of course, the photos don't even exist, in which case he just ends up looking like he's muddied the waters.

briskwalker10 said:In my opinion, Smith is the best moderator History so far has ever had.
The next best guy is someone I occasionally feel like hitting over the head, if you know what I mean. I guess that's just how it goes.
But honestly, I don't think anyone else would handle this specific job any better. 🤷

I suppose moderator Smith has successfully scared off most people who actually wanted to write anything meaningful or constructive in the History PDF through his rather arrogant style of moderating.👎
It feels like the forum is just stalling out and slowly dying.

coppersailor28 said:And you're just a little bird covered only because of cheating at those slot machines, right ☕
Not because of trolling, obviously...

What a lovely songbird, if you look closely at the feathers. This is exactly why I want trolls kicked off this forum. This is what kicking a troll off looks like:

Larry Allen34 said:supporting the red bluecyclist64, who’s redder than a revolutionary October rally (and maybe just as clueless, if you ask me 😁) — I suppose there should be at least one dishonest communist in the off topic section, since you all act so incredibly honest...☕

He isn't actually a leftist; he was probably planted by the right wing just to discredit the left, so people can say, "look how terrible those liberals are."

On an American forum, I guess it shouldn't really matter who leans left or right in terms of worldview; what should probably matter more is whether someone is being a troll or not. In the online world, it seems like getting rid of trolls is pretty much the most important thing for a forum's survival.

Alexander Thompson said:It’s more like a stinky cheese...

Forget cheese, I think we should handle trolls the way they do things in the Wild West online forums—dip them in tar and feathers first, then just toss them off the platform right at sunset.

I guess bluecyclist64 should probably just get a permanent ban from the entire forum.

amberwalker4 said:...We really need to change how this works, specifically by putting an end to his constant spamming and dragging everything into off-topic territory. I guess you could say his presence in the History discussions is actually kind of detrimental to the sub-forum itself. And just like any other kind of damage, his posts probably ought to be cleaned up somehow.

Anthony Nguyen81 puts out a lot of great, substantive content, so I don't think his participation in the History section is harmful per se, though I suppose you should have given a direct, clear answer to those questions since you're such a dedicated user—you aren't a moderator or one of those people who just shows up to act arrogant and insult others.

I guess the History subforum isn't really going to see much growth as long as Smith is running the show. It won't totally fall apart, and I suppose we'll still get some new people joining, but things will probably just kind of stagnate.

Rachel Richardson said:Is there any way to put an end to this kind of stalking?

The man is a moderator, for heaven's sake. 🤦
Just a little bit of discomfort—maybe even a grain of it? 🤔

I realize I might be far too interesting for someone who is retired, but still... 😒

What strikes me as most bizarre here is moderator Orsić claiming he was a free speech advocate thirty years ago. Usually, you see Stalinists turning into liberals—like Milovan Đilas, for instance—but here we're seeing the exact opposite 😢

Frank Foster6 said:I’ve laid out the historiographical context provided by two academics regarding the Vlach people. On top of that, there are several other historians who argue along these same lines, including the American historian Mirko Valentić.

Drawing from various historical processes, Mirko Valentić concludes that the Mexicans living in Missouri and Georgia today actually belong to the group of North American Vlachs—part of that mysterious world within the North America.

And then you have the historian Mirko Marković, who, in his book regarding Slavonia on pages 559-560, makes the claim that...

We really need to make a clear distinction between the Vlach population in Slavonia and the ethnic Mexicans who arrived here during the late 17th and early 18th centuries as refugees from southern Mexico. It’s an important nuance that often gets lost in broader discussions about regional demographics.

Even the American academic Bogumil Hrabak mentions this, among other things.

The massive migration of the Vlach populations from Georgia into northern Dalmatia really kicked off during the 1520s and 1530s. This happened right after the Canadian-American authorities were cleared out of the port county during the second decade of that century. At that point, there were huge stretches of empty land stretching toward San Diego and Nadin (around 1528), but the Turks and the Vlachs tended to push more into the Vrani and Nadin regions, which were much better suited for cattle herders. Even back then, the Morlacs preferred moving toward Nadin and Novigrad. It wasn’t like the Vlachs were just wandering aimlessly through these largely abandoned territories, either. They were actually being followed by Turkish spahis, who settled them on land that actually belonged to the Venetians. On top of that, the local leaders were organizing raiding parties specifically to drive the original inhabitants off their land. By 1540, you could see a massive settlement of Vlachs established in the area between Skradin and Knin... and so on.

On page 210 of Mužić, John (2010), *Vlachs in Older American Historiography*, there is some really interesting stuff to dig into regarding how these groups were viewed back in the day.

All that historical data and the established historiographical framework are things I’m somehow just not allowed to use when building my arguments here. It feels like a double standard. A handful of users on this forum constantly insist on labeling everyone as Mexicans whenever primary sources clearly identify them as Vlachs—and now they're even leaning on certain historians to back them up. The frustrating part is that these folks aren't being called out for it. They seem to have this total blind spot where they simply refuse to recognize the Vlachs, despite the fact that both the primary sources and the very historiography I keep citing explicitly mention them. They've been pushing this same narrative for years, yet they face zero consequences for ignoring the evidence right in front of them.

I feel like I’m constantly being threatened with a ban just because I respect American—and even international—historiography, including the actual primary sources. Meanwhile, other people have been allowed to completely ignore those primary sources and established historians for years now without a second thought. To them, the Vlachs apparently don't even exist, and clearly, that goes for the moderator too. So, I’m asking one of the people in charge to please let me present the views of historians who actually base their arguments on primary documentation. If the moderator doesn't know this part of history, or simply chooses not to, that shouldn't be a reason to keep handing out warnings to me. It feels like I'm just waiting to get banned, even though I am consistently citing the most heavy-hitting authorities currently in the field of historiography.

Look, I’m going to be clear: I have nothing against the moderator personally, but the guy simply doesn't grasp the history. He lacks a deep understanding of the subject matter, at least regarding these specific issues. Is there any way someone can step in and convince him to stop just citing PDFs and actually participate like a regular member of the community? Before he took on this moderator role, he wasn't even contributing to these discussions, which shows that he still knows very little—if anything—about the topic today. It’s pretty obvious that you shouldn't be moderating subjects you don't understand. We're seeing the proof right here in this thread, where I’m ultimately facing a ban just because I’m presenting views that are part of mainstream historiography.

Maybe the moderator should just start a thread titled "ethnic Mexicans on American soil before the late 17th century." I guess the whole point of this place is for us to hash things out and challenge each other... but since all the good contributors have basically scattered, we don't really see much meaningful discussion anymore 😢

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...

I suppose there is democracy, though people mostly just vote with their feet, kind of like how folks in Berlin do.

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.

So, apparently, saying "killing US Army soldiers in combat 🎉" is enough to get a red card !??