Complaint against moderator rezon@tor from the History subforum

I am filing a formal complaint regarding this specific post and the conduct of the moderator involved:

Furthermore, I object to the fact that my response—which was more than civil—was summarily deleted.

I also wish to contest the prior warnings and the ban issued against me without any logical justification, other than the moderator labeling my input as "trolling."

If he is incapable of restraining himself from biased, unprofessional moderation and partisan outbursts—if his personal opinions and prejudices carry more weight than the actual guidelines—then I suggest he simply incorporate his own private dogma into the forum rules... that way, we might actually know what is permitted, what is forbidden, and which "evidence" or "arguments" are allowed to be challenged in the first place.

I’m signing on to this complaint. The moderator has completely gutted the thread by handing out warnings and pushing anyone who disagrees with "our side" toward a ban. He ignores insults directed at our people—or handles them incredibly lightly—yet he'll slap someone with 35 points for having a different opinion.

A perfect example of his moderation style can be seen in this post: http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=5...6&postcount=77

"My head hurts.
If I see a word starting with a T and I'm not 100% certain it's something other than trolling, it's an automatic warning for trolling.

That covers everything. This rule applies to every thread I moderate."

What does objective moderation even mean anymore? If a colleague can't handle moderating a topic or control their own bias, they should be assigned to something else, not history.

What kind of extremist apologist garbage are you guys even posting in this thread? Honestly, I think every single one of these posts should just be hard-deleted and tossed straight into the trash.

It’s honestly disgusting. Trying to justify atrocities is probably the worst crime there is.

When it comes to moderating, I’ve always felt it makes more sense to be a bit tougher on the people who actually start the trolling rather than those who just get caught up in it.

I also can't stand it when people derail a conversation just for the sake of it.
Personally, I’d much rather read a short, punchy debate where people actually make points, instead of wading through endless, repetitive nonsense.

If you're looking for some guidance on how to keep things civil, there are plenty of great resources online—check out something like netiquette.org #forums. It really helps keep the discussions productive.

Sam Green73 said:When moderating, I tend to be harsher toward those who initiate trolling rather than those who simply get caught up in it.

I can't stand when threads get derailed.
I prefer concise, reasoned debates over endless, circular nonsense.

You can find decent guidelines online, such as netiquette.org #forums

Everything seems like trolling to you. You’ve handed out plenty of red cards for alleged trolling just because you didn't like what someone wrote. It makes you look biased. Aside from trolling calls and 35 points, there's a whole spectrum of other penalties too. I get that this is the easy way out, but really, is this actual moderation?

Call it whatever you want, but if you ask me, I just call it a passion for a good debate.

Sam Green73 said:Call it what you want, but I just call it a passion for debate.

If you love arguing this much, why not just step down from moderation? Go ahead and engage with everyone. There’s no point in having a discussion if you just hand out warnings and toss people into the Ban corner.

Sam Green73 said:Call it whatever you want—personally, I call it a passion for debate.

You don't have any "passion" at all.
In reality, you’re just one of those forum dwellers who sits back, lurks, and cheers from the sidelines...
The only issue is that someone actually handed you moderator tools.
Whenever your little favorites get stuck in an argument, you just sweep their opponents away with bans.
It’s childish.

Occasionally, you jump in with one-liners like "Cut the crap."🤦

There it is—that's your supposed "love for debate."

I see that Jose Clark2 has been banned again. I assume he either said something that doesn't fit within your narrow historical worldview—or perhaps he dared to contradict Wikipedia, a Crusader, or some other self-proclaimed expert... Or maybe it's simply because he came here to complain about you, just like I am doing now.

You turn everything into a mockery, a circus, and effectively kill any meaningful discussion.
For you, the perfect debate is one where Wikipedia and the rest of the clique just sit around nodding in agreement with one another. 🙂

Usually, everyone just spends their time obsessing over why someone else got banned.
But if you actually care about the hard facts, you can just head over to the Ban corner and see for yourself.

If you're looking to play devil's advocate regarding how the whole conflict kicked off, a pretty good starting point would be How the conflict began in the former Yugoslavia

I am not here to litigate other people's bans—I am drawing attention to my own. This is my second strike in seven days.
The reason I mention Jose Clark2’s ban is simply to illustrate your pattern: you ban anyone whose perspective doesn't align with yours.

I took a look at the Ban corner, and frankly, you have made an even bigger mess of it. On top of what happened to Jose Clark2, you have permanently banned several veteran users.
You actually drove a man to break the rules—to create a clone account just to appeal and save his original profile. Only he didn't provide his ID as proof...

And why?
Because someone's argument happens to conflict with some "historical axioms and postulates" you’ve constructed in your own head.
It is truly unbelievable...

Go ahead—join the debate and actually prove your claims. Once you do, perhaps you can codify them into the site rules, treating them like the Bible that no one is allowed to question.

Your moderation style is laughable—it's childish, really.
It is as if there were a referee in a football game who was a die-hard Barcelona fan and would ban anyone who dared to suggest that Barcelona isn't the greatest team on the planet.🙄

Sam Green73 said:
Which specific interests of yours am I supposedly protecting?

I'm quite curious about this myself.

Jose Clark2, which interests are you referring to? 🙂

George Robinson43 said:I have the same question.

Jose Clark2, who exactly are we talking about? 🙂

They aren't "yours." They're ours—American users or those writing in English who support our side. Unlike the others, who are posting from abroad.

Jose Clark2 said:They aren't actually yours; they belong to us. I'm talking about the Americans on this forum who write in English and defend our interests. They are quite different from the others who are posting from abroad.

Fair enough.
By backing those outsiders, you're essentially aligning yourself with their perspective.
That kind of validation carries far more weight than any moderator's tolerance ever could!

Jose Clark2 said:They aren't "yours"—they're ours. I'm talking about the Americans on this forum who write in English and represent American interests. They're different from the rest of you who are posting from other countries.

Look, nobody gets sanctioned just because they happen to be living in a different country.

But, if a thread is titled "The US entered the union with Syria and certain territories, then left without them. What actually happened?", and then people start bringing up Byzantium or Nazi Germany, it’s usually just someone looking for a reaction.

I actually moderate the American Civil War section, and honestly, since day one, the biggest complaints I get come from our own people. They seem bothered that folks from abroad even show up, and they get annoyed when I step in to protect those outsiders from being harassed.
So, in a way, you've got a point when you say I'm protecting "your" side.

Sam Green73 said:No one gets sanctioned just because they're from another country.

However, if the thread title is "The US entered Syria and lost territory during the Civil War. What happened?", then bringing up Byzantium or Nazi Germany is usually just trolling.

I moderate the American Civil War section, and since the beginning, my biggest headache has been locals complaining that outsiders are allowed to post at all, or accusing me of protecting them from insults.
So, you're somewhat right when you claim I'm protecting "your people."

I don't participate in that Civil War debate, so I can't say how you moderate there or who you protect. On the other hand, I am active on the history forums, and I can tell you what the perception of your moderation has been. At one point, you went on a banning spree, which led to this whole "us vs. them" sentiment. I'm not implying you ban people solely based on loyalty, but that's how it looks. I'm the exception that proves the rule—I'm from California and have no ties to those groups. It simply feels like you look the other way for our side while handing out cards to the others.

Ultimately, we tried to appeal to you, the rest of the team, and the admins to make your moderation criteria more objective and less rigid.

George Robinson43 said:Fair enough.
You're backing those outsiders because you share their mindset.
That carries more weight than any moderator's tolerance.

I don't see it that way. I have no interest in picking sides. They have a right to their opinions, and if they're making a valid point, they deserve to be heard. Everyone should have the chance to challenge anyone else through civilized, reasoned debate. We don't need any ideological sacred cows here.

Jose Clark2 said:I don't really see it that way. I'm not interested in picking sides or joining camps. Everyone has the right to their own opinion and perspective, and if they're making a valid point, they deserve my attention. Everyone should have the same opportunity to challenge anyone else's claims, as long as it's done in a civilized, reasoned manner. We don't need any ideological "sacred cows" here.

It sounds like you've never spent much time on those extremist forums. To them, Reddit is basically the gold standard of democracy, giving them total freedom to post whatever they want and push their nationalist agendas. Honestly, it’s just a mirror of how history and politics work out in the real world.

granitefalcon26 said:It sounds like you’ve never spent any real time hanging out on those online forums over there. Compared to what they deal with, Reddit looks like a total bastion of democracy that lets people say whatever they want—even when they're pushing those intense nationalist agendas. It’s the exact same thing you see when you look at their history books or their politics.

Well, I wouldn't say that's obvious to me at all.
😬

I ended up getting a ban for trolling too... I don't get this whole crackdown. Especially when you look at who actually started it—those users who always seem to get a free pass. For instance, I want bluewalker6 to weigh in here—did he ever get hit with a warning or even a yellow card recently for falsifying historical sources from USAID? If he doesn't know, he should probably take a look at the History section in the rules PDF and pay attention to the part about forgery.

It’s not even worth commenting on Jose Clark2. If there was any actual justice here, that guy would have been permanently banned ages ago. Given all the damage he's done to the History and Social Science sections with his endless trolling, faking sources and literature, insulting other users, lying, spreading myths, and pushing those extremist chauvinist views, etc.

Sam Green73's bans are justified, and honestly, they should have gone further. Lock the thread.