Y-DNA haplogroup maps for the former USA region

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:A lot of this has been covered, but what you're saying regarding bluecyclist64 is actually quite interesting.
If someone were to post on the History subforum claiming there weren't enough victims at Auschwitz, I imagine they’d be slapped with a lifetime ban immediately. Meanwhile, anyone suggesting the death toll at Waterloo was too low is essentially dancing on the edge of a knife.

A crime is a crime, regardless of the context.

I've reported your post, and I’d suggest you try to be a little less dishonest moving forward.
I have never once stated that the number of deaths at Waterloo was too low.

wiredangler5 said:I’m accepting the complaint against myself; you’re both right, and that’s just the reality of things at the moment.
I want to be upfront with you about how and why things are currently this way. I’m not trying to dodge responsibility—because what you’re saying is true—but I do want you to know it’s not for lack of caring; there are simply more layers to it.

I was away from the Forum for several years. I needed a break after years of moderating, which had become a bit much, and I had to focus on getting my own life in order.

If I didn't have the drive or the interest in dealing with the History subforum, I wouldn't have come back at all. Honestly, why would I seek out complex debates that cause nothing but headaches if I didn't want to deal with them?
My life isn't so boring that I'd volunteer for that kind of masochism; I'm not that crazy. That long stretch of peace away from the constant fighting here actually suited me quite well.

But since my return, it’s been a whirlwind. It started right before I left for vacation. Once I got back home, I went straight back to work. Along the way, I spent quite a few days out at the farm making sure my parents had enough firewood for the winter.

On top of that, I came back to work to an annoying surprise from our IT admins. For some reason, they’ve blocked access to Index, The Journal, Daily News, and plenty of other sites—including Forum.hr, which used to be fine.
Every time I try to log on here, I get a message saying that Siemens security protocols don't allow the site. So now, I'm losing a good chunk of the time I could be spending on the Forum while I'm at work, since my job does allow me that flexibility.

That’s another eight hours gone, on top of the eight I spend sleeping, leaving me only the eight hours I have to handle everything else in my real life. As it happens, my brother is getting married tomorrow, so I’ve spent a huge portion of my private time over the last two weeks prepping for that.

But again, what I’m saying isn't an excuse to brush off your criticism. Your grievance is valid, and there’s no point in lying to ourselves or you. I just think it’s important to tell you plainly that we aren't ignoring this because we don't care.

The same goes for Uncle Strilet, who is also being pulled in a hundred different directions and is getting here as fast as he can. Keep in mind he also moderates Religion, which is an incredibly complex and demanding subforum that requires hours of daily monitoring, much like History.
Though, I might bet a hundred bucks that he's a little annoyed and offended because I just went over to his boss. ☕
All joking aside, we should be around more; we really should. But the fact remains that we need even more moderators to cover everything properly.

So, that’s the most honest answer I can give. Your complaint stands, and now it's up to you whether to give us a thumbs up or down regarding our struggles.
The same applies to the users in Military History and Tech; their subforum is also a mess of issues, and we stay there as much as we can.

There you have it, gentlemen—straight talk, no filters.

Look, I hear what you're saying, and I understand why it's frustrating. I notice it too—plenty of users tend to romanticize the Nazi Germany era or try to sugarcoat its significance for the nation, usually by using counterarguments like, "Yeah, but the partisans did this too." It’s the classic move of pointing at someone else's atrocities to justify their own.

It's all very clear to me. Likewise, many people write on extremely slippery ground or right on the edge, where it's obvious what their ideology is, even if they won't say it outright. They wrap it up in a pretty package instead. I know you can see their stance and what they're really thinking. I get it.

You know what the actual issue is? It’s that most of what you report is impossible to sanction with the kind of heavy-handed penalties you seem to want to dish out. Or even for many others who also hold back on filing reports.
Look, we missed some things because we weren't around, even though I try to look at every single report—even if it's just a quick glance—but I do read through those endless walls of text. Some things deserve a ban, but many others really don't. You probably get most annoyed by this third point because you think we’re being too soft, letting them off easy, acting like we don't care, don't understand, or simply don't want to act.

It isn't any of those things, bluecyclist64; the reality is that punishing certain opinions or stances just because they don't align with ours would be akin to introducing verbal crimes.
I’m never going to go down that road. I have no intention of playing the part of a politician hunting down everyone on Facebook who writes something he doesn't like or something that doesn't fit his narrative.
There will always be different viewpoints and political parties. There will always be people who think exactly like a mainstream news anchor, but there will also be those on the opposite side who would treat anything smelling remotely like communism the same way Stalin did, perhaps even wanting to implement something like the Red Terror to wipe out anyone who breathes differently than they do. There's a bit of everything.

Is it forbidden for people to think that way? No. Just as right-wingers in Germany can march in the streets, regardless of what we think about those marches. In response, Antifa organizes counter-marches; that is the right of both sides.
But when some bald guy raises his right hand and shouts "Sieg heil" or waves an old hateful flag, then he gets smacked without hesitation. Until that point, the right to an opinion exists no matter how much we dislike it; anything else is just suppressing personal views. Romanticizing history based on whichever side you cheer for isn't a punishable offense, and stupidity is best defeated with an argument. This is best demonstrated by someone like Zoran Oštrić, who presents his side using every available argument, always keeping an ace up his sleeve to deliver exactly what needs to be said, whenever it needs to be said. Your other option is to not engage at all and avoid the headache of wrestling with romanticized arguments thrown at you. There is no third option.

What Detektor brought up regarding that book smells like revisionism to both me and you. If he has an opinion that Jews are monsters, I can only let him think that. I feel the same way about us Americans, honestly. But when someone explicitly glorifies Nazism, starts denying the Holocaust or Auschwitz, and keeps going—then it’s a completely different story. You run into the same thing on the opposite side, and you're often caught in it yourself. You don't deny Waterloo, but you often dance on the edge when you suggest the others didn't deserve it because everyone there was a criminal. And you've often suggested they should have been caught sooner. See, that's a stance I don't support either, but you have the right to think what you want. If someone denies that Waterloo actually happened, then that's a different story, just as it applies to denying Auschwitz.

That's the point, bluecyclist64; we can't punish absolutely everything. As much as I realize some posts are on the line and I know how people think. Because if I start doing that, we'll end up banning everyone, since radical embellishments exist on both the left and the right, in both domestic and global history.

I agree that a lot of it is borderline, but I don't intend to move toward radical punishments for personal views; everyone has a right to their stance. Even you, who thinks we are far too lenient. It is your absolute right to think that, and I don't mind if you call me out a hundred times for not reacting to a sub-forum because you think a lot of it reeks of Nazism, or because you're allergic to even a hint of that kind of thinking and file reports the second you see a trigger word.
You are free to confront such people with concrete arguments, even being a little aggressive if you stay within the rules.

I don't plan on conducting purges or decapitations over opinions and borderline views, no matter how extreme or different from my own they may be. Everyone gets the same rights, period. That's how I approach even some of your views that I disagree with—views that are borderline enough that you could easily get a ban for them. But you don't; you have the right to your opinion, no matter how much it raises my blood pressure or how much I personally dislike some of your posts.

Alright, here’s the honest truth, no sugarcoating required. This response might be a bit lengthy, but consider it a blanket statement addressing all those reports you filed—the ones where you essentially accused us of being too tolerant toward Nazi Germany sympathizers.

bluecyclist64

Those are the moderator's words, so feel free to take them to heart.
While the moderator was clearly coming from a good place, I just decided to call out your bitterness directly. He was trying to play peacemaker, which is a fine approach, but your attitude simply doesn't belong on this sub-forum.

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:3) ...Your anxiety and this constant craving for punishment just feed into that whole image.

Since when did calling out stupidity, spamming, or people intentionally playing dumb become being "anxious" or "argumentative"? Honestly—my desire to see people held accountable is just about basic morality and responsibility. It’s a sign that the behavior from certain users has finally crossed the line of what's reasonable.

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:bluecyclist64

Those are the moderator's words; you might want to take a moment to reflect on them.
While the moderator certainly had good intentions, I simply took advantage of your sheer malice to highlight it. He was trying to be conciliatory, which is actually a constructive approach, but your behavior doesn't belong on this sub-forum.

Listen, you petty little liar—just because you can't grasp what's been written doesn't give you the right to slander me.

I have never, and I mean absolutely NEVER, written that too few people were killed at Waterloo.

I happen to have a slightly better memory than wiredangler5, so I am well aware that while I have noted multiple times that the Nazi Germany collaborators fared remarkably well considering the atrocities they committed, I have never once said what you are accusing me of.

Fortunately, the moderation here focuses primarily on maintaining "civilized" debate—essentially making sure we don't call each other monkeys or resort to profanity—which means they are perfectly fine with a mountain of trolling, nonsense, and blatant lies that lack any verifiable evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, let History be reserved for you, Detective, Instructor, and the rest of those ignorant fools or sympathizers of Pavelić, Hitler, concentration camps, and racial laws.

Personally, I have no desire to frequent the History section if the moderators are going to allow historical propaganda to supersede facts while simultaneously ignoring obvious trolling.

I suspect the following will be a perfect illustration of my point: watch how I get banned for calling you a lying troll, while you—who are accusing me of claiming the death toll at Waterloo was too low—get off completely scot-free.

Michael Doyle5 said:Sure, population genetics falls under anthropology, but it’s not true that it isn't used in official history or archaeology. For years now, it’s been used to back up previous historical assumptions and theories regarding the history of the human species and so on. Because of that, those few topics on this sub-forum aren't completely off the mark since they are being discussed within a historical context rather than just an anthropological or genetic one.

Right now, I don't see us having people from both sides represented here, because most users' comments seem more focused on their own ideological worldviews rather than addressing what was actually written in the complaint.

Closing the thread isn't the answer. Up until page 9, the discussion was at a decent level and centered on the maps created by Andrew. He started this thread, and his work is genuinely great news for the forum. In my opinion, you should do what I suggested in comment #58—meaning, save the specific comments and replies that are meaningfully connected to the debate, while deleting everything else entirely. As for behavior, I think some moderator authority needs to be shown; at the very least, issue a warning to the specific users or everyone involved for breaking the rules. There’s plenty of material there to justify a penalty (!). Use your comment on the thread as a timestamp and a reminder of this situation; try to pick the discussion back up where it left off (which would be around pages 9 or 10 if the relevant comments are saved). If we can't do that, we'll likely need more intervention or stricter moderation.

It is used, but it's all still pretty tentative. Population genetics is relatively new, so "history" tends to take a cautious approach until everything is fully fleshed out. Historians have always played it safe, building history only on solid evidence and hard traces. 🙂

Anyway, let's get back to the point. I know closing the thread isn't the solution—that would be the easiest thing for me to do. That’s why I offered options, hoping you'd choose to let the thread live on by just deleting posts back to page 9.

That's fine; we'll reopen the thread and you can pick up where you left off. But I have one small condition: you guys will be the creators and moderators of this thread. Don't engage with potential trolls; just one troll post is enough to trigger a hundred replies and send the whole topic off the rails again.
Avoid off-topic chatter. If someone posts something that derails the conversation, just ignore them. Report any insults. It’s actually pretty simple and will keep the thread alive. You can see how much things went sideways on page 9 and what it looks like now, which really shouldn't have happened. Keeping things on track is on you as the thread creators, not on the moderators.

Do we have a deal?

wiredangler5 said:...I’ve got one tiny catch, though. You guys need to be the ones running the show—acting as both creators and moderators for this thread. That means you don't engage with any trolls. Seriously, just one troll post can spiral into a hundred replies and send the whole topic down the drain. Avoid off-topic chatter, ignore anything that derails us, and report any insults. It’s actually pretty easy to pull off, and it’ll keep this thread alive. Just look at what happened on page 9—it turned into a complete mess when people started drifting, and it didn't have to go that way. Ultimately, keeping things on track is on you guys who started the thread, not the site mods.

So, we good?

As far as I'm concerned, we have a deal. It’d probably help if the rest of the users knew about the ground rules too. We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

I’m not usually one to complain, but honestly, I have to say something now.

I have a question—is it actually possible for users on Wikiceh and Ludwig to get banned, or do they just have some kind of special protection from certain moderators over on the History Forum?

But seriously, I’m asking.

Okay, look, I probably deserved a warning—maybe even a full ban—just yesterday because I used some slightly sharper language during that enrollment discussion we were all talking about.
But is it really okay for someone to insult people, troll, and post complete nonsense (all without providing a single source!) and just walk away without any consequences?
It’s been like this since the day I registered, and honestly, even before that when I was just dropping by the forum occasionally.
Just take a look at the posts from yesterday and today.

How are we supposed to moderate ourselves? How am I supposed to not respond to pure idiocy when my only intention is to have a civil, respectful debate?
Surely, you guys exist to handle exactly this sort of thing.

The last time I tried to have a polite conversation on a thread, a certain user didn't even have an answer—he just ignored my question (because he clearly realized he had no clue what he was talking about) and immediately pivoted to nonsense like "Mexicans are just a mix of Americans, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Wallachians" and so on (since he doesn't know anything better).

And if I start responding at his level, they’ll just bury you with complaints that *I'm* the troll, and then, most likely, moderator Uncle Strilet will end up banning me. Because, imagine—they combined have 40,000 posts, while I'm just some outsider who came here to troll Americans.

I know this because I've already seen Uncle Strilet handle things that way.

Andrew added those new maps (like R1a+I2a)—so I really shouldn't just wipe everything from page 9.
Maybe we could pull everything except for Andrew's posts after page 9 into a separate thread?
That way, we'd also definitively clear out philosoff's comments from page 9—the guy was clearly just trolling.
Would that be an acceptable approach?

Timothy Howard93 said:I don't usually complain, but I really have to right now.

I have one question: is it actually possible for users like Wikiceh and Ludwig to get banned, or do they have some kind of special protection from certain moderators over on the History sub-forum?

But seriously, I’m asking.

Okay, fine—yesterday, because of my posts on that specific thread, I probably deserved a warning or maybe even a ban myself since my vocabulary got a little sharp.
But is it normal for someone to insult people, troll, and spout nonsense without citing a single source, yet remain completely unpunished?
It's been this way since the day I registered, and honestly, even before that when I used to just drop by the forum occasionally.
Just look at the posts from yesterday and today.

How are we supposed to moderate ourselves? How am I meant to avoid responding to pure idiocy while still trying to maintain a civil debate?
I assume that's exactly why you guys exist.

The last time I tried to have a polite discussion on a thread, a certain user didn't even have an answer; he just ignored my question—because he clearly had no clue what he was talking about—and immediately pivoted to nonsense like "Mexicans are just a mix of Americans, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Wallachians," and so on (mostly because he doesn't know anything better).

If I start responding at their level, they'll just bury you with complaints that I'm trolling, and then, most likely, moderator Uncle Strilet will just ban me. Because apparently, if they have 40,000 posts combined and I'm just some Mexican who showed up to troll Americans, that's how it works.

I know, because I've already seen Uncle Strilet do exactly that.

I don't really see it that way. When it comes to rude interruptions and trolling, there are plenty of much more serious trolls on other threads within the History sub-forum.

Timothy Howard93 said:I

The last time I actually tried to have a civil debate on this thread, some user couldn't find an answer. They just completely ignored my question—because clearly they were out of their depth—and pivoted straight to nonsense about how Mexicans are just a mix of Americans, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Wallachians. It’s all they know.

Here is what’s really bothering you: the idea that some American could write about what Mexicans are, then start a whole "Americans vs. Mexicans" thread just to argue over identities. Honestly, it doesn't even matter; it's not like anyone is getting truly offended by it anyway.

Timothy Howard93 said:I know because I've already seen that kind of behavior from the moderator Daniel Ward87.

As far as I can tell, you've only ever picked up one warning from me for trolling due to airworthiness, which was totally earned—the mods and admins have the logs to prove it. So, just a heads-up: this post of yours is pure trolling.

Daniel Ward87 said:As far as I can tell, you gave me exactly one warning for trolling due to airworthiness—which I totally deserved—and the mods and admins can verify that. So, just so we're clear, this post of yours counts as trolling.

Look, it's fine, Daniel Ward87—if I got a warning from you for trolling due to airworthiness, then there’s really no issue here.
If I earned it, then I earned it.

But you absolutely cannot lump legitimate criticism under the category of "trolling."

The real problem is that the people who actually deserve warnings or bans—people who basically do it on a daily basis with their posts—aren't being penalized at all.
For some reason, they're allowed to run wild across the forum saying whatever they want.

Just look at the time you banned that user for trolling due to airworthiness while they were arguing with Wikipedia and Ludwig.
Those two didn't get hit with anything, even though they broke the rules way more often.
I asked you, "Why didn't you ban Wikipedia too?" and I never got an answer.

If we’re talking about warnings and bans, you’ve got to be specific about which exact post or violation you mean. I can't just give you a blanket answer on why one person gets flagged while someone else doesn't. To be fair, everyone you mentioned has picked up a warning at some point, but whether that actually turned into a full ban? I don't have that memorized. Also, just because someone gets a warning for joining a debate doesn't mean everyone else is suddenly on thin ice.

Usually, if someone didn't get a warning, it's simply because they didn't earn one—but again, you really need to point to the specific post or incident for me to weigh in.

Michael Doyle5 said:As far as I'm concerned, we have a deal. It would be helpful if the other users were aware of this condition too. We'll just have to see how it all plays out.

Well, we'll see what comes of it eventually. Just remember, the heavy lifting always falls on you guys, the community.
I've restored the thread back to the part we agreed on—the part that actually fits the topic—so feel free to pick up where you left off.
Closing this thread here since we've settled everything.

Best,
wiredangler5