Motion to remove moderator Zoran Oštrić

Regarding the History subforum and the actions of moderator Zoran Oštrić.

Look, I’ll give credit where it’s due—this moderator actually puts in the work over at the History section.
He was a solid, dedicated member of this community long before he ever picked up a moderator badge.

But seriously, it’s high time the admin and the head mods step in and try to convince Mr. Oštrić to loosen the reins a bit. His moderation style has become incredibly rigid, blunt, pushy, and honestly, pretty intimidating.
And if anyone thinks I'm exaggerating, just check the private messages—there's plenty of evidence of him being outright disrespectful.

The guy is constantly hijacking thread titles to suit his own whims, which totally crushes any sense of autonomy or creativity the users have. All he’s doing is driving people away and tanking the traffic on the History board.
It doesn't feel like a welcoming space anymore. The whole reason people joined this sub was to dive deep into historical discussions beyond just dry facts, but that vibe is completely dead now.

It feels like Mr. Oštrić is using these restrictive tactics to turn the forum into his own little private fiefdom, effectively bullying everyone else out of wanting to show up or stick around.
Given all this, I’m officially calling for a review of Zoran Oštrić's position.
If he keeps running things this way, he’s going to kill this forum for good.

I don't really hang out in the subforum moderated by Zoran Oštrić, but I have noticed some occasional complaints floating around—though, honestly, I can't say for sure if they're actually justified.

Speaking from experience, I'd say you don't stand much of a chance at getting a moderator removed, regardless of how right you are or how hard you try to bury them under a mountain of logic.
They aren't going to pull him from his position. It’s just never happened here.
The only instance I can recall was when one moderator decided to step down entirely, retreating into their own little corner after being absolutely dismantled in an argument, and they haven't moderated since. 😁

It seems like there simply aren't enough people willing to step up and waste at least two hours every single day on threads they don't even care about... meanwhile, those who *do* care about the topics usually don't fit the administration's mold.
That's why the forum starts feeling chaotic, and frankly, that's a recipe for disaster.

But hey, I'm a perpetual optimist.

As for these specific debates, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see the truth come out—wherever the facts eventually lead us.🤷

On just a few of the forums I frequent, I’ve seen at least three instances—that's all I can recall right now—where a moderator was actually removed. It does happen. Then again, with about 70% of people being generally difficult, and 100% of moderators dealing with folks constantly hunting for sensitive PDFs, you shouldn't expect them to just jump at every little complaint someone makes.

I honestly don't see a leadership change happening—setting a precedent like that is way too risky... But, I’m going to try and have a sit-down with him to see if we can find a totally different way forward.
The goal is to figure out a system where we aren't constantly dealing with this underlying tension, the petty bullying, the constant monitoring, and all that other toxic nonsense.

The end result? We're losing the very people who actually built this community from the ground up.
The vibe here is just suffocating because under Zoran Oštrić's watch, there's zero freedom, zero creativity, and zero soul left. Everything is being crushed into this rigid, pre-packaged box... You basically have to write exactly how he dictates and exactly how he thinks it should be done.

It’s honestly exhausting and pretty depressing that I even have to bring this up like this, but I’m genuinely worried this place is going to tank if Mr. Oštrić keeps moderating with this kind of attitude. There's just too much unilateral power being thrown around without any actual logic behind it... It kills the whole point of having a forum.
It's getting to the point where you practically need a permit just to post anything—what you say, how you phrase it, your entire attitude toward a topic, you name it.

Look, the rules are pretty straightforward... No insults, promote decent communication, show some tolerance, and help raise the level of discussion. I’m not saying moderators shouldn't have opinions—of course they should—but why on earth persecute anyone who doesn't share them?
I mean, seriously, what’s the point of a forum if we’re all forced to think exactly the same way?!

The real solution is making diversity our strength instead of letting it be the thing that tears us apart.
This whole platform was born out of a basic human desire for free speech. Let's actually protect that value!

I mean, what’s actually going on with these deletions? Why are they scrubbing the enrollments? It feels like Mr. Oštrić is just pushing this specific version of American history—you know, the kind of stuff you'd hear from some biased high schooler like Goldstein—and then he treats anyone who disagrees with him like they're basically Nazis. I guess if someone is that politically charged, they just can't be an objective observer or a fair moderator, right?

Of course. It’s always much easier to just swap out a moderator than it is to actually teach the users how to follow the community guidelines. And let’s not even get started on the basic rules for quoting posts.🥳

I’m adding my two cents here: I really think we should move Zoran Oštrić back to being just a regular member without any moderator privileges. To be honest, once that happens, he probably won't chat with me much anymore, and likely won't engage with the rest of the group either. But even so, the guy is clearly knowledgeable and well-read; he’d still be a great asset to any high-quality discussion if he decided to jump back in simply as a fellow user. If they decide to keep him on the mod team, then the history sub-forum is probably going to end up with just a handful of people left. If that’s what the leadership of this site wants, then so be it—regardless of how the rest of us feel about it. Personally, I’m not offended, nor am I feeling particularly sorry about it. At the end of the day, I know that the respected moderator has always had my back, and that’s the only thing that actually matters to me.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve called out this moderator for being both incompetent and completely blinded by his own ideology. Honestly, the biggest joke of all has to be his latest set of "theories" on evolution; apparently, actual science just doesn't sit right with him, so he's busy cooking up his own nonsense—stuff that sounds about as grounded in reality as flat-earth conspiracies—just so he can force biological facts into his weird little political bubble.
👎👎👎

I’m against the recall.

driftingorca16 said:(...)

Give me an example.

bluecyclist64 said:Oh, totally—it’s way easier to just swap out a moderator than it is to actually teach people how to follow basic forum etiquette. And let's not even get started on the quoting rules.🥳

Look, Oštrić isn't bad for the History section... he's actually great at what he does, but when he puts on the moderator hat, he gets way too heavy-handed.
I mean, sure, citing your sources is fine. It's standard.

But you have to look at the bigger picture here.
Sometimes you read a book—or three—you wrap your head around the subject, and you jump into the conversation. You don't always have the physical textbook sitting right in front of you to pull a quote from, but does that mean you aren't allowed to have an opinion?
That's exactly the point I'm making.

Every single sentence needs to fit the context, and the context needs to align with the author. Promoting that rule is all well and good, but honestly? It's nearly impossible to stick to that strictly every single time.
Besides, what's the use of those hundreds of books written by "experts" if modern history just tosses them aside the second some new discovery comes along and flips the whole narrative on its head?

What I'm saying is, history is a quest. A historian is an investigator. It involves impressions, gut feelings, and assessments. This forum should be a place for freer interpretations. Why block someone from experiencing their own version of that search? In the end, science, evidence, and a gathering of smart minds will settle the score anyway.
Oštrić really needs to loosen the grip a little... though I guess that might not be "good" for the strict order of the forum.
But this place should be a launchpad for creativity.

Oštrić is an outstanding moderator. Without him, the History section on this platform would have devolved into a drunken mess of repulsive historical revisionism, fascism, far-right extremism, antisemitism, and a whole host of other filth—ranging from the pathetically pathetic to the criminally actionable.

It’s honestly a miracle our resident amateur historians haven't discovered "The Alternative" yet. They could go there and spout whatever nonsense crosses their minds without any moderation, completely unburdened by the unbearable oversight we have here in History. They’d fit right in with the chemtrail theorists, the anti-vaxxers, the die-hard Donald Trump supporters, and those lunatics claiming civilizations exist on the Moon or Jupiter.

Standing by my colleague Oštrić. Don't let them get to you, man!

Arthur Smith15 said:Oštrić is an amazing moderator; without him, this History sub would just turn into some drunk frat party full of nasty historical revisionism, fascism, far-right nonsense, antisemitism, and all sorts of other garbage—ranging from pathetic to straight-up illegal.

It’s a total mystery why the amateur historians haven't discovered Alternative News yet, where they can spew whatever random thoughts pop into their heads without any moderation or the unbearable oppression we see here in History. They’d fit right in with the chemtrail conspiracy theorists, the anti-vaxxers, the Trump fanatics, and those people claiming civilizations live on the Moon or Jupiter.

Look, I’ve been on this forum for a long time and I've seen plenty of moderators come and go in the History section. And wouldn't you know it, everything you're describing hasn't actually happened, aside from maybe a few minor incidents that previous mods handled perfectly fine without resorting to insults or labeling everyone.

What do you mean "drunk frat party"? Are you out there performing breathalyzer tests or are you some kind of psychic like Milan?

The guy just does a bad job, plain and simple.

bluemason3 said:On a handful of forums where I’m active, I can recall at least three specific instances where a moderator was actually removed from their post. It isn't exactly unheard of, though. Then again, when you consider that about 70% of users—and practically 100% of moderators dealing with sensitive files or PDFs—are just looking for something to download and end up constantly harassing others, I suppose it’s hardly surprising that things aren't handled quite so easily just because someone decides to complain.

Well, I actually wasn't aware of those specific instances. And I have to say, I completely agree—you’d need a mountain of concrete, undeniable evidence to actually justify removing a moderator. I suppose there will always be someone out there who takes issue with how a forum is moderated simply because the rules don't align with their personal worldview or their ego. That’s probably why we see such a high volume of reports in the first place; people tend to get defensive when things don't go their way, but... Look, I feel like we need to have a serious conversation about the role of moderation here. A moderator’s job is pretty straightforward: they should enforce the rules exactly as they are written. If someone hasn't actually broken a rule, then the moderator should just let it go and move on. It seems to me that if there isn't a clear violation, there shouldn't be any intervention at all. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but consistency matters if we want this community to function properly.

Jonathan Wright2 said:The atmosphere here feels incredibly stifling. Under Zoran Oštrić’s watchful eye, there's just no room for actual freedom or genuine creativity. It feels like the spirit of the community has been crushed into this rigid, predictable mold. I guess you almost feel forced to write exactly what he predicts or exactly how he thinks things should be laid out. It's all becoming quite stiflingly structured.

Perhaps a person is simply trying to stick strictly to the forum rules, making sure things don't spiral out of control?

Look, I haven't really dug into that PDF yet, so I definitely don't want to pass any judgment since I wouldn't be in any position to do so. That said, I might take a closer look at it later, now that I've stumbled upon this whole discussion...
However, I’m struggling to find any actual links here that back up these claims, let alone anything substantial enough to draw a conclusion from. It feels like we're missing the evidence needed to make sense of this.
It seems to me that simply pointing fingers at someone based solely on your word isn't exactly a solid way to go about things, is it? I mean, if we're just going to throw accusations around without any real substance, where does it end? It feels a bit reckless, honestly. It seems like we’re operating without any actual arguments being presented via links here. I guess it makes things a bit difficult to follow the logic if there isn't any direct evidence or source material provided to back up the claims. It feels a little hollow, doesn't it? Maybe it's just my way of thinking, but I usually prefer seeing the groundwork before jumping into the deep end.I honestly believe there’s just no point in going down this road, and frankly, I don't think anyone would consider it legitimate or well-founded. You really ought to keep that in mind.

Arthur Smith15 said:Honestly, Oštrić is such an incredible moderator. Without him, I guess the History sub would just turn into some drunken club filled with nasty historical revisionism, fascism, right-wing extremism, antisemitism, and all sorts of other garbage—everything from the pathetic stuff to things that should actually be illegal.

See, this is that whole ink-stained logic where anyone who doesn't agree with Slav or Ivy Goldstein gets branded a drunk fascist. Just keep going, I suppose. It’s not like you need permission, but it’s funny to watch this little group of outcasts hanging out in their own corner, feeling totally free to insult everyone else.

Ethan Barrett22 said:Look, I haven't actually gone through that PDF yet, so I really don't want to pass judgment since I wouldn't be an expert on the matter. But, since this topic popped up right in front of me, I'll definitely take a closer look when I get a chance.
However, I’m having a hard time finding any actual links here to back up what’s being said. Without some real sources to look at, there isn't much we can actually conclude from this.
It’s easy to just point fingers based on nothing more than what someone says, but that's not really how this works. It’s hard to take anything seriously when there isn't a single actual argument presented, let alone any supporting links to back them up.Honestly, there’s just no point in going down this road, and it won't be seen as anything more than baseless. Just something to keep in mind.

I don't even need to provide a specific link for my example because the moderator usually makes it pretty clear, and they'll likely mention it here anyway... Basically, you aren't allowed to bring up those old American historians or discuss that period of history if you're doing it in a negative light.

What do I personally have to do with the history of the old federation or their version of "truth"? Honestly, people like Nada Klajic and her colleagues were probably spending their time back then grabbing dinner at fancy restaurants alongside high-ranking state secretaries or government officials. They’d be sitting there over lamb and wine, likely having those conversations about how history should be interpreted and written—or more accurately, just following whatever orders the state representative handed down to them.

Where did the Vlachs go? Honestly, looking at the records here in the States—from the Midwest all the way down to the East Coast—you can barely find more than five mentions of Mexicans in historical archives. It makes you wonder about the state of history when we’re only uncovering this kind of thing now by digging deep into online databases. And just to be clear, let's establish the foundation for this discussion: the Vlachs weren't originally Mexicans. That is an undeniable fact, and it's where we have to start if we're going to have a real conversation. Does this imply a negation of the larger Mexican population versus the smaller American population? Probably, yes. But what does that actually change for me? I didn't come to these digital history archives to debate how someone chose to identify themselves yesterday or which nationality they claim today. I came here to draw conclusions based on actual, written primary documents. If we follow that logic, we could argue that Americans existed in Africa 150,000 years ago simply because we identify as Americans today. It doesn't hold water.

It feels like I’m being forced to dig through the entire history of nation-building and those intense periods of identity formation back in the 19th century just to make sense of things. You have to look at how those distinct American identities really started to solidify during that era—it’s the foundation for everything we are today. It's solid stuff, really.
I’m talking about those folks arriving in America with what are commonly referred to as Mexican names. Up until the early 1900s, the vast majority of them would identify themselves as being of American descent. But honestly, that distinction doesn't really change the end result, because by the 19th century, they had already made the national decision to identify firmly as Mexicans.

It feels like I’m being forced to build my entire argument on 19th-century nationalist sentiments. Apparently, the fact that most people back then identified themselves as Americans isn't supposed to count for much in this debate. So, what kind of history lesson is this? And honestly, what kind of moderator only accepts one specific version of the truth as absolute fact?

There’s this story about a Mexican writer named Nenadović who visits Istanbul and chats with some locals there. Apparently, they told him they used to identify as Americans simply because that identity was considered "trendy" or high-status in Istanbul and throughout Turkey at the time. Now, should we take that as absolute truth? Honestly, it would only be true if there was actual evidence to back it up. Instead, we only have Nenadović’s word for it, and he was writing during an era of intense national awakening—an era where someone like Vuk Karr was a major influence. We can easily guess the kind of social circles Nenadović moved in and exactly what kind of audience he was trying to reach with his conclusions. Yet, despite that massive gap in proof, the moderator here treats this anecdote as the ultimate, indisputable foundation for deciding who the Americans in Istanbul were. What kind of moderation is that? And what kind of historical interpretation are we dealing with if we just accept hearsay as fact? If we follow this flawed logic, how are we supposed to define who the Americans in Mexico actually are?

If this is how they’re going to handle PDF history, I honestly don't see the point in clinging to any of those files. Everything that needed to be said and documented was already laid out and written during the old era.

I don't really chime in on the history PDFs, though I do follow a few specific topics.
So...
full support @Oštrić, the guy actually knows his stuff when he's moderating.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
There isn't a single soul on this planet who can please everyone, especially not the hardcore conservatives who seem to take issue with literally everything—it’s like they get triggered by a stray hair or something equally trivial.
To those guys, anyone with a differing opinion is an automatic target, and I saw that play out firsthand during that whole debate over Dedaković and Praljk; Zoran Oštrić ended up locking that thread because the right-wing crowd kept pushing for it, which I wasn't a fan of, though it doesn't really bother me much.
Being a moderator or an admin is a thankless job because you can't just pick a side to satisfy everyone's expectations of where you should stand politically.
In my opinion, the mods and admins should focus their energy on banning people who use internationally condemned war criminals as their avatars and actually penalizing them, rather than wasting time on someone who’s just trolling because some other user egged them on—which is exactly what happened to me.
But hey, look, let's be real here—you're never going to make everybody happy, so why even try?

@Frank Foster6

Look, I don't even need to send you a link because the mods usually make it clear... basically, you aren't allowed to bring up those old socialist era historians or their version of history in a negative light here.

Honestly, what do I care about that outdated propaganda? It's probably just a bunch of academics grabbing drinks with government officials at some fancy steakhouse, deciding over dinner how they’re going to spin the narrative based on whatever orders they got from Washington.

You're bringing up all these different ethnic groups and hunting for historical proof that you think isn't there, which is fair enough.
The only truth that matters is that we're human beings belonging to the same species. We didn't always have these labels; we've spent centuries adapting to new circumstances. Now, in the 21st century, we should be rising above all this manufactured division to focus on our survival as a species, rather than retreating into tribalism where we just throw stones at each other trying to prove who's right. 🤦

Frank Foster6 said:I’d also cast my vote to strip Zoran Oštrić of his moderator privileges and let him return to being just another regular user on this Forum... though, frankly, I suspect he wouldn't have much to say to me after that, or likely anyone else for that matter. Still, the man is competent and well-read enough to contribute to a high-quality discussion if he chose to join in as an ordinary member. If he remains a moderator, the History section will inevitably dwindous to just a handful of people. If that’s what the leadership of this Forum wants, then so be it, regardless of our opinions. I’m neither offended nor saddened by such a prospect; I know that the respected moderator has never once undermined me, and that is what matters most to me...

In the History section, there will be more than just "a handful" of people left. As far as I'm concerned, even among those few, there are individuals who would certainly provide more value to the Alternativa than they ever could to History.

Arthur Smith15 said:Oštrić is a brilliant moderator. Without him, History would quickly devolve into a drunken circus of nauseating historical revisionism, fascism, right-wing extremism, antisemitism, and a whole host of other filth—ranging from the pathetically misguided to the criminally actionable.

It is truly a wonder that the armchair historians haven't discovered the Alternativa yet; they could roam free there, spouting whatever nonsense crosses their minds without the unbearable weight of moderation found here in History. With the chemtrail theorists, the anti-vaxxers, the Donald Trump devotees, and the psychics claiming civilizations exist on the Moon and Jupiter, they would fit in perfectly.

It seems the core issue is that we don't tolerate the intolerable ease of making baseless claims; instead, we insist on citing actual sources rather than cherry-picking articles from hack newspapers.