History Discussion

bluecyclist64 said:lonetrucker4, do me, would you please just list out how many cards and total points I've racked up from you? Since I'm apparently so incredibly privileged...🤣
Let's see who actually managed to collect more.

Not really much. Only six in the last 12 months.

And man, you used to get pretty pissed off sometimes. 😁

But you barely show up anymore. This rule about not being able to hand out more than one strike per post is driving me crazy. 🤣

lonetrucker4 said:I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.

By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.

Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.

Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.

It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.

It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.

Ideology doesn't mean squat here.

Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.

My issue isn't the vulgarity itself—it's the entire post.
What did that post actually contribute to the discussion?
Where is the value in it?

And this notion that we should only penalize the person who started it...
Just look at what Arthur Smith15 is doing.
Why haven't his posts been penalized, or even removed?

I have no desire to descend to that level of communication, but such behavior falls far below any standard rules.

lonetrucker4 said:I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.

By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.

Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.

Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.

It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.

It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.

Ideology doesn't mean squat here.

Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.

And that's fine.
That's exactly why I opened this thread.

The point isn't to strip someone of their ability to write; it's simply to point out an obvious rule violation.
I hope they stop behaving this way so that further sanctions won't be necessary.

lonetrucker4 said:I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.

By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.

Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.

Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.

It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.

It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.

Ideology doesn't mean squat here.

Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.

No justification for a war crime is ever acceptable.
The nationality or ideology of the person doing it is completely irrelevant.

An apology from that user would be appropriate.

lonetrucker4 said:I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.

By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.

Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.

Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.

It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.

It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.

Ideology doesn't mean squat here.

Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.

Who am I arguing with?

I have my own opinions and stances, which I defend with arguments.
That is what a discussion is...
If I am wrong about something, it will be addressed through debate—that is the very purpose of a discussion.

You don't think like I do; that's fine. However, that doesn't mean I am biased.

lonetrucker4 said:I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.

By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.

Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.

Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.

It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.

It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.

Ideology doesn't mean squat here.

Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.

Is that a standard you apply to yourself as well?😁

The whole point of a discussion is to compare perspectives and fill in the gaps in our knowledge.
Ideology is irrelevant here; actual knowledge is what matters.
Just look at the Zagorian post from today and Nancy Klein's quote regarding the Potisj Quote.🙏

Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, the poll is entirely my responsibility.
I already posted the results in the previous message..
Who voted for what is strictly confidential—it isn't recorded anywhere except for the moment I sorted them into the specific collective categories.

It’s not like I’m afraid to publish the poll itself, but the whole point was to connect the dots.
Basically, I wanted to figure out for myself why ZO keeps coming after me..
And then things just spiraled out of control..

The common thread here is that ZO is incredibly heavy-handed when it comes to forcing his own ideology onto others—he blocks debates and won't allow anyone to have a personal opinion..
In short, he's suffocating this forum.
He's killing the good vibes.
People are leaving.
New people aren't even showing up to the board.
This poll just showed how much damage is being done.

It's not that I want ZO to quit the forum.
The guy is genuinely dedicated to history and really knows his stuff, but he's become way too "tight" and controlling.
A little more tolerance—maybe having a co-moderator—could be the start of fixing this mess..

It wouldn't be difficult to facilitate a public debate or a poll.
If there are issues—and there obviously are—it's in everyone's interest to resolve them.

Christian Myers said:Alright, I’m backing up what Jonathan Wright2 is saying here. I saw the poll and cast my vote for getting Oštrić out of here—honestly, he did a pretty solid job setting this up, considering how these online polls usually go. He posted the results right here, and they speak volumes about how everyone on this forum actually feels.

He certainly remembers how to run a poll.

We all want better moderation...

Arthur Smith15 said:Your attempts at politeness are utterly futile—you are a proven liar and a fraud. You have zero respect for anyone, because creatively twisting quotes is the ultimate sign of disrespect toward those unfortunate enough to stumble upon your posts. So, stop playing the part.

(...) because you are ideological accomplices to lonetrucker4. (...)

You liar, I am no one's "accomplice," and frankly, aren't you ashamed to invent such blatant lies?

(...) The poll isn't a secret, I just didn't expect things to escalate this far.
I kept it confidential.
It was launched because I felt like I was being systematically targeted by lonetrucker4. (...)

No, what's actually happening is that you systematically falsify quotes and spout nonsense, which is why you constantly get called out. Not only do you lack the basic decency to retreat after being caught red-handed multiple times, but you actually go on the offensive and play the victim. 🤦 You aren't a victim; you're a liar and a fraud.

(...) (...) And the poll proved to me that I'm not alone. (...)

Ha! 😁 First off, you're trying to pass off some pathetic half-measure as an actual poll. Second, yeah—you certainly aren't alone when it comes to being in the company of ignoramuses, frauds, revisionists, and fans of Little Floramya.

(...) This isn't about bravery; it's just that I already know how you'll respond. (...)

Of course it isn't. You're nothing but a liar and a coward.

You're directing that at someone else—you fraud! 😁 You truly have no shame...

So, what is there to conclude about Arthur Smith15's contribution to this discussion?
Why is this kind of language even tolerated?

Christian Myers said:So why not just run a poll where those two specific guys can actually cast their votes? Then we'll see what the public really thinks.

Besides, even if you count those two votes, there's still a massive majority in favor of replacing Smith.

A public poll is an excellent idea. 👍

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...

Well, that's fine too.

But then again—rules have to apply to everyone equally.

It’s simply not right—Arthur Smith15 should be able to barge into a discussion, insult everyone present, and then face absolutely zero consequences for it.

John Palmer9 said:I suppose there is democracy, though people mostly just vote with their feet, kind of like how folks in Berlin do.

That would be a total disaster—and honestly, quite a few people have already gone down that road. :/

Rachel Richardson said:Look, let's just get one thing straight once and for all—you're nothing more than a troll. Since you're already here, we might as well clear the air.

You keep jumping at me—constantly trying to play the intellectual, constantly pushing my buttons just to provoke a reaction.
You haven't been penalized even once—but honestly, what is the actual value of your posts?
Persistent personal attacks against other participants?

It’s not okay at all—but the guy just won't quit, constantly harping on the exact same thing over and over again.
I honestly can't help but wonder—how many points would I have racked up if I had just given him a taste of his own medicine?
Starting with the (lack of) quality of his posts, and moving forward from there.

It isn't.
His contribution to these discussions is pretty much limited to jumping into a thread and then launching unpunished insults at everyone else—just like he’s doing right now.

Unfortunately, this is the truth.
The flyers being handed out are creating a "wrong" impression.

And you weren't even rewarded with points for all that effort.
Leaping in, picking fights—over and over again.
And you should have been there.
For every single one of those posts—for the entire story—you end up turning it back in a way that violates every single rule on the forum.

👍

Look, Arthur Smith15 is a prime example of someone who just relentlessly insults others without ever facing any consequences.
So, what actually happened to him?

lonetrucker4 has his own ideology—which shouldn't be an issue in and of itself, regardless of how inaccurate it might be—provided that the forum rules are actually applied objectively.

And that’s really the ceiling for him when it comes to actual debate.
Tragic.

It occurred to me a few times as well—that cloning might actually be happening.

Let's try this one more time.
Everything I’ve said has been backed by sources.
The theory regarding the South Slavic origins of the Central Slovak dialect (which serves as the basis for the Slovak standard) isn't mine—it belongs to Lončarić.
He is the linguistics authority here; I am certainly not.
Did you even bother reading his work on the Kajkavian dialect?

You keep lunging at me—being rude and trying to settle scores with imaginary enemies, as if you're trying to prove they're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Just take a breath, calm down, and go read the Forum.hr rules.
This forum isn't a place for bickering or for trying to prove how smart someone else is.
The whole point of a debate is to provide reasoned comments on the topic itself, not to attack the person you're talking to—which is exactly what you keep doing.
I’m seriously asking you to stop, just as I would ask the moderators to step in and address your behavior.

Saying "your own forum work is total trash" isn't an insult. It's a critique of the work itself. An actual insult is when someone tells you, "you're a piece of human garbage." You can tear down ideas, but leave the people alone.

For instance, calling someone a "relic of communist history, a deeply indoctrinated old man" could also count as an insult.

But since it's obviously the truth, then it's fine: ☕

Of course, I personally think the author of that sentence is just some deeply indoctrinated kid, held hostage by nationalist history; but hey, I'll keep my opinion to myself.

lonetrucker4 said:Saying "your own forum work is total trash" isn't an insult. It's a critique of the work itself. An actual insult is when someone tells you, "you're a piece of human garbage." You can tear down ideas, but leave the people alone.

For instance, calling someone a "relic of communist history, a deeply indoctrinated old man" could also count as an insult.

But since it's obviously the truth, then it's fine: ☕

Of course, I personally think the author of that sentence is just some deeply indoctrinated kid, held hostage by nationalist history; but hey, I'll keep my opinion to myself.

The Dunning-Kruger reference is directed at the user, not the opinion.
That is a blatant insult.

And claiming someone's entire history of posts is "absolute garbage" is nothing more than pure provocation and bad faith.
Under the forum rules, that is just as punishable.

Lawrence Booth2 said:I voted against the blades
In the meantime, I’ve gone ahead and requested a partial split on a few different subforums—life is good, though I really hope the mods aren't drowning in extra work because of me
That whole thing was just unbearable... I’m reading a book and trying to pull ideas from it, for crying out loud
where to be fast
Which book are we talking about?
Which page? Give me a source...
After five pages of this thread... still the same stuff... people losing points over low image resolution... hellooo, we aren't at Harvard here
You guys aren't my professors; I don't need this kind of scrutiny
I have my access to Library of Congress archives and my own books
You're irrelevant

I handed you a yellow card back on November 7, 2020, in that thread "why Japan didn't attack the Soviet Union in 1941" because you broke the subforum rules (don't just make stuff up; you gotta cite sources). That topic was being handled by Kalijaga, an Indonesian guy who actually knows his stuff about Asian history, which most of us here don't.

You wrote:

Zeljko81 said:I was writing my high school paper on the Battle of Moscow.
I remember the Japanese condition was capturing Moscow, which German scouts spotted through telescopes...

Then Kalijaga asked you: "What sources did you use? Got a link?" And this was your response:

Zeljko81 said:Look, I used to be active on 14 different forums... but here, the crowd is obsessed with just two things: "Give me a link, do you have a link?" They're acting like panhandlers. And the other thing that bugs me is this whole "trolling" label... people use it all wrong.

Let me answer you... even though this feels like ancient history from 1999.
I used Branko Kitanoic's book on the Battle of Moscow and the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 1998.

Why didn't you just name the source right away? You got a yellow card over some stupid opening paragraph. If you hadn't provided the source after that, you would've been hit with a red. If you hadn't said anything at all, nobody would've cared.

After five pages of the thread... same thing again... losing points because of bad image resolution... hellooo, we aren't at a university here.

It's not bad, the resolution is just too high. ☕ Those are the forum rules—preventing images from distorting on the screen when the resolution is too close to the monitor's own resolution (you need to see the borders).

And that's what you find "unbearable"? 🤔

Lawrence Booth2 said:I voted against the blades
In the meantime, I’ve gone ahead and requested a partial split on a few different subforums—life is good, though I really hope the mods aren't drowning in extra work because of me
That whole thing was just unbearable... I’m reading a book and trying to pull ideas from it, for crying out loud
where to be fast
Which book are we talking about?
Which page? Give me a source...
After five pages of this thread... still the same stuff... people losing points over low image resolution... hellooo, we aren't at Harvard here
You guys aren't my professors; I don't need this kind of scrutiny
I have my access to Library of Congress archives and my own books
You're irrelevant

You hit the nail on the head with this one..
You read a book, you compare facts, you dig deep, you analyze...
...but then questions like "what's your critique?" or "where's your counterargument?" basically go out the window;
"Which book did you read?"
"Are you even sure you read the right one?"
"Why'd you bother reading it?"
"Show me proof you actually read it!"
"Give me the exact source, word for word, comma for comma.."
"Why do you even have an opinion?"
"Why are you calling Tito by his last name!?"
"Why do you think differently than me?"
"Why do you have a personal opinion?!"
"Why are you comparing things?"
"Where are your sources for that comparison?!"
Just write exactly what you're told and don't dare think anything differently than how I think... yeah, basically that.

It's this kind of mindless conformity that absolutely kills a forum.

Look, I want to make one thing crystal clear right off the bat: this has absolutely nothing to do with some petty battle over revisionism against anyone else's views.
Nope.
We aren't talking about ideological warfare here.
That's just not what this is about.

Our whole goal is to let this forum actually function like a damn forum.
Without moderators just deleting stuff or handing out sanctions whenever they feel like it.

The only things that should ever trigger a penalty are straight-up insults, character assassination, or threats.
Everything else? That should be left entirely up to the community to handle.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, I want to make one thing crystal clear right off the bat: this has absolutely nothing to do with some petty battle over revisionism against anyone else's views.
Nope.
We aren't talking about ideological warfare here.
That's just not what this is about.

Our whole goal is to let this forum actually function like a damn forum.
Without moderators just deleting stuff or handing out sanctions whenever they feel like it.

The only things that should ever trigger a penalty are straight-up insults, character assassination, or threats.
Everything else? That should be left entirely up to the community to handle.

👍

The core issue really comes down to consistency and transparency.
Take the way Arthur Smith15 was targeted—that's a perfect example.
A user can violate the rules, insult you, and insult me, yet somehow it's deemed "not controversial"?

If the rules exist, they need to apply to everyone equally.

Actually, Arthur Smith15 perfectly illustrates the issue with Zoran's perspective.

He isn't a moderator here—so he lacks the authority to act—but invoking the Dunning-Kruger effect is a direct insult.
Sure, there’s a chance he simply doesn't grasp the context, but if that's the case, he shouldn't be defending a user who is clearly in violation.
I can't help but wonder how things would play out if anyone else had insulted Dante like that.

The thing is, this user acts this way because he knows he can get away with it. I've asked him a million times to stop jumping down my throat, and I've reported his posts—but what actually happens?
A user who repeatedly breaks the rules ends up being shielded by the moderators.
Instead of receiving a correction or a condemnation of something so obvious.
And really, it shouldn't be an issue at all.

It’s pretty obvious the goal of the moderation here isn't actually to facilitate a debate based on any set of rules. It feels more like they're just steering the conversation toward a pre-packaged conclusion by deleting or flagging any views they don't like..

I guess they probably want to influence public opinion (?) to ensure history is viewed through one specific lens—the same way it was portrayed back in the old regime. Apparently, looking at history from a different angle is automatically branded as revisionism..
So, this isn't moderation; it's political maneuvering with a very clear agenda..

That's just my take, anyway. It seems like the old system is being defended by people who are clearly nostalgic for it (whether it was the old federation, communism, socialism, whatever...), so I doubt you'll see any change in how things are handled here..
I'm not exactly a historian, but honestly, American historians don't seem much different from this, at least based on some of the interviews I've read.

Will they succeed in controlling the narrative? Probably not. Besides, this forum isn't the only place on the internet to speak your mind.. just start a Facebook group or a subreddit, or something else..

>: And lonetrucker4 isn't the only one acting like this. We saw the same thing with KLCCLK regarding those threads about COVID (where he insisted it was just a slightly heavy flu and kept flagging anyone with a different view), and even with the topics on immigrants...

Kyle Nelson2 said:It’s pretty obvious the goal of the moderation here isn't actually to facilitate a debate based on any set of rules. It feels more like they're just steering the conversation toward a pre-packaged conclusion by deleting or flagging any views they don't like..

I guess they probably want to influence public opinion (?) to ensure history is viewed through one specific lens—the same way it was portrayed back in the old regime. Apparently, looking at history from a different angle is automatically branded as revisionism..
So, this isn't moderation; it's political maneuvering with a very clear agenda..

That's just my take, anyway. It seems like the old system is being defended by people who are clearly nostalgic for it (whether it was the old federation, communism, socialism, whatever...), so I doubt you'll see any change in how things are handled here..
I'm not exactly a historian, but honestly, American historians don't seem much different from this, at least based on some of the interviews I've read.

Will they succeed in controlling the narrative? Probably not. Besides, this forum isn't the only place on the internet to speak your mind.. just start a Facebook group or a subreddit, or something else..

>: And lonetrucker4 isn't the only one acting like this. We saw the same thing with KLCCLK regarding those threads about COVID (where he insisted it was just a slightly heavy flu and kept flagging anyone with a different view), and even with the topics on immigrants...

Exactly.
History isn't an exact science with fixed laws. It's actually one of the most fluid disciplines out there, which means it's incredibly susceptible to reinterpretation and manipulation.
Historical revision happens all the time; it's nothing unusual. A foundation is dug up, a mass grave is found, a document surfaces in the archives—suddenly, you have to revise everything, update the narrative, and integrate new findings.

Honestly, moderator Ostrić is doing his job perfectly fine for this forum.
He operates strictly based on his own political and ideological convictions, and his moderation follows that specific matrix.

You can see this best by comparing the threads about WWII and the Resistance Movement.
There's nothing we can really do about it, and besides, would anyone else even be better?
We can complain about Ostrić and disagree with his views personally, but he isn't a bad moderator.

There's always room for improvement, but at least we aren't forced to pay his salary, unlike CNN, Klasnić, and those other parasites.😁

Jonathan Wright2 said:You hit the nail on the head with this one..
You read a book, you compare facts, you dig deep, you analyze...
...but then questions like "what's your critique?" or "where's your counterargument?" basically go out the window;
"Which book did you read?"
"Are you even sure you read the right one?"
"Why'd you bother reading it?"
"Show me proof you actually read it!"
"Give me the exact source, word for word, comma for comma.."
"Why do you even have an opinion?"
"Why are you calling Tito by his last name!?"
"Why do you think differently than me?"
"Why do you have a personal opinion?!"
"Why are you comparing things?"
"Where are your sources for that comparison?!"
Just write exactly what you're told and don't dare think anything differently than how I think... yeah, basically that.

It's this kind of mindless conformity that absolutely kills a forum.

You can keep crying about it until the day after tomorrow if you like, but the bottom line remains unchanged: you’ve been caught in a lie more times than I can count.
Which is more lethal for a PDF titled *History - "The Follow-through"* (read: getting caught in a lie): simply lying, or outright falsifying the data?🙂

Rachel Richardson said:👍

The core issue really comes down to consistency and transparency.
Take the way Arthur Smith15 was targeted—that's a perfect example.
A user can violate the rules, insult you, and insult me, yet somehow it's deemed "not controversial"?

If the rules exist, they need to apply to everyone equally.

He didn't insult you at all. If you look closely, everything he wrote is backed up by the actual evidence found in your own posts. So, what exactly is the issue here? It’s the classic Dunning-Kruger effect in action, isn't it? It’s truly fascinating—and frankly, a bit exhausting—to watch how often people fall right into that trap. You see it everywhere, from local town hall meetings to high-level corporate boardrooms. There is this pervasive, unshakable confidence that stems purely from a lack of actual understanding. They don't know enough to realize just how much they're missing, so they march forward with absolute certainty, convinced they've mastered a subject they barely grasp. Personally, I’ve spent enough years navigating complex systems to know that true expertise usually comes with a healthy dose of doubt, not loud-mouthed arrogance.?
Such triviality is hardly fitting for someone contributing to this forum—especially one who speaks five or six languages and works hard enough to put food on the table for several children.🥳

Rachel Richardson said:👍

The core issue really comes down to consistency and transparency.
Take the way Arthur Smith15 was targeted—that's a perfect example.
A user can violate the rules, insult you, and insult me, yet somehow it's deemed "not controversial"?

If the rules exist, they need to apply to everyone equally.

Arthur Smith15 is fine by me. Before things went south and ZO started this systemic crackdown, I never saw him as an adversary.
And honestly, I still don't.
He feels like he belongs right there next to ZO, and hey, that's his choice.

It just sucks that he doesn't realize he'll be the one facing the music eventually—because losing your right to an opinion is the most depressing way to participate in a forum.
He’s probably feeling slighted because he wasn't invited to the poll; out of 170 people called up, it was just him and bluecyclist64 who got left out.
I feel for them, really, but they’ve spent their time backing and approving the very sanctions that ZO is aggressively pushing. They never once asked "why"—they just blindly joined in on criticizing whoever ZO decided to crush.

I don't want to sound pathetic, so I'll stop there, but...
I'm not saying being a moderator is easy.
Not even close.
It’s a demanding job, middle of the fray like this.
It drains you.
And there’s no such thing as absolute success.
There's just an average.

And that's exactly what's worrying me about the current average.
Too many users are complaining about the exact same methods, the same guy, and the same motives.
A forum should be a living, breathing organism where debate happens naturally, without a moderator stepping in just to assert dominance or force their own intervention.

I've talked to ZO in private messages, but he views this as a "shielding mission." He sees himself as a warrior against historical revisionism—basically fighting anyone who criticizes the cult of the regime from before 1990.
Now, look, I'm not some right-wing nationalist, and I'm definitely not a conservative.
I'm a left-leaning liberal, but I firmly believe that without opposing viewpoints, a forum loses its entire purpose.
ZO is going to level everything out, smoothing it all down until it fits perfectly within his personal ideological bubble, and that's that.
That’s wrong, and that’s what I’m trying to get across.
It destroys the core of what we have here.
It kills the quality.

It reminds me of when ZO banned that academic, Dubravka Jelčić, simply because he was explaining his conclusions regarding historical events.
Those events didn't fit into ZO's preferred narrative, so they were wiped away.
I reported his quotes faithfully from the news sites—you can verify them yourself—but ZO decided the academic was *persona non grata* on this site.
Even though the man has passed on, they won't even let his name be mentioned because he was a critic of communism.

Personally, I don't agree with everything Jelčić had to say.
I don't approve of the general criticism leveled against the Resistance Movement at all.
But the man wrote down what he thought.
He had a right to his opinion.
When I saw that ZO had scrubbed everything, it really hit home for me.
That's when I realized ZO has far too much unchecked power as a moderator, and the admin needs to step in and see the scale of this unilateral behavior—behavior that is directly hurting the interest of this forum.

Look, it’s true: when I’m diving into history or running this forum, I lead with an ideology.

Ideology is just a fancy way of saying a system of ideas expressed through language (logos). Not having one is a disaster—your thoughts end up a cluttered mess, totally disconnected, making any real discussion impossible.

My specific playbook, which I’ve laid out plenty of times (check out the thread Methods and Criteria in History (Historical Science)) says we should try to get as close to the objective truth as humanly possible so we can figure out "how it actually was"—what really went down. That’s 90% of the job; the rest is just fine print.

That’s the core philosophy here in the history subforum. Those are the rules, set back in 2011. My other takes—whether they're about politics or the structure of the cosmos—don't matter here. In terms of political ideology, I’m an environmentalist, but I’m not going to sit here ranting about how the Resistance Movement was trashing nature while they were hiding in the woods... People usually think "ideology" means political dogma. (And honestly, people often mistake their own political views for being the only truth. Like how Communists used to claim every other political stance was just a "distorted consciousness," while their "dialectical materialism" was the only actual science.)

We learn things based on historical sources . Sometimes I’ll use the term "primary source" just to distinguish them from general info—like if someone says, "I heard it on some news program." But sources aren't always reliable, which is why the backbone of historical science is source criticism ; that’s where things get messy and "fluid." For instance, oral histories like "my grandpa told me" are shaky at best, and serious historians don't even touch them. Witnesses are unreliable—we know that from every crime drama on TV. It’s not exact like hard sciences (unless you count specialized fields like forensics), but that doesn't mean there aren't standards or levels of certainty.

Most of us amateurs aren't digging through archives, doing archaeological digs, or analyzing the alloy of an ancient coin, so we have to be careful readers . We need to hunt down the sources that our sources used. Does that lead us to anything real? Did our source actually do the legwork? More often than not, what we see is just uncritical repetition across mainstream and digital media. It is incredibly easy to believe whatever we want to believe because it fits perfectly with our existing biases and beliefs.

We saw a perfect example recently in the thread Jimmy Lyggett, the Black American boxing coach for the so-called Independent State of America? The media constantly churns out stories claiming Lyggett held that role. Usually, they’re just rehashing a single article from a major paper back in 2010 or some segment from a CNN broadcast.

After reading carefully and chasing the trail of sources, we ended up with just one verifiable source online (a newspaper clipping from 1942) and a book on American boxing from 2002. The author is a boxing fanatic who spent his life in the sport, doing deep archival research and talking to living witnesses. He has a page and a half on Lyggett. He notes that Lyggett lived in the city starting in the early '30s and was appointed to coach the regional representative team in 1939. But he says nothing about him staying in that role after the Independent State of America was established. The regime actually tolerated him, so he kept coaching certain clubs and training individual boxers, but he never coached the national team under that regime.

So, basically, the claim that he was the coach—let alone the manager—of the wartime national team doesn't hold water. Maybe new sources will pop up, but for now, that's the reality. The media, especially those hyper-partisan outlets, has peddled all sorts of nonsense, like the idea he fled the country on April 15, 1945, fearing the Communists. The one author we actually know did the research states that Lyggett stayed in the city for several months after the fall of the regime, working as a coach until at least August 1945.

Rachel Barrett8 said:Exactly.
History isn't an exact science with fixed laws. It's actually one of the most fluid disciplines out there, which means it's incredibly susceptible to reinterpretation and manipulation.
Historical revision happens all the time; it's nothing unusual. A foundation is dug up, a mass grave is found, a document surfaces in the archives—suddenly, you have to revise everything, update the narrative, and integrate new findings.

Honestly, moderator Ostrić is doing his job perfectly fine for this forum.
He operates strictly based on his own political and ideological convictions, and his moderation follows that specific matrix.

You can see this best by comparing the threads about WWII and the Resistance Movement.
There's nothing we can really do about it, and besides, would anyone else even be better?
We can complain about Ostrić and disagree with his views personally, but he isn't a bad moderator.

There's always room for improvement, but at least we aren't forced to pay his salary, unlike CNN, Klasnić, and those other parasites.😁

Spot on. Look at the little example right above. People love how fluid and "lawless" it is when it suits their agenda.

Take this as a case in point: a bunch of users on this forum are desperately trying to claim that Jimmy Lyggett was the coach for the Independent State of America national team, even though there's zero proof. (Here's another classic move: "Oh, just prove he wasn't!" That's nonsense. You don't have to prove something didn't happen; how do you prove centaurs don't exist? Or prove Tito didn't have dozens of mistresses? You prove that something *did* happen.)

It could always be better, at least we aren't forced to pay for it like we do with CNN, Klasnić, and those other parasites.😁

We're essentially paying professors at universities by force. This is a textbook case of managing political ideology.

bluecyclist64 said:You can keep crying about it until the day after tomorrow if you like, but the bottom line remains unchanged: you’ve been caught in a lie more times than I can count.
Which is more lethal for a PDF titled *History - "The Follow-through"* (read: getting caught in a lie): simply lying, or outright falsifying the data?🙂

He didn't insult you at all. If you look closely, everything he wrote is backed up by the actual evidence found in your own posts. So, what exactly is the issue here? It’s the classic Dunning-Kruger effect in action, isn't it? It’s truly fascinating—and frankly, a bit exhausting—to watch how often people fall right into that trap. You see it everywhere, from local town hall meetings to high-level corporate boardrooms. There is this pervasive, unshakable confidence that stems purely from a lack of actual understanding. They don't know enough to realize just how much they're missing, so they march forward with absolute certainty, convinced they've mastered a subject they barely grasp. Personally, I’ve spent enough years navigating complex systems to know that true expertise usually comes with a healthy dose of doubt, not loud-mouthed arrogance.?
Such triviality is hardly fitting for someone contributing to this forum—especially one who speaks five or six languages and works hard enough to put food on the table for several children.🥳

"When brothers are fuming, the house feels small—but it feels even smaller when they aren't even brothers to begin with" —Vanja Figenwald, Leader, no. 807 (p. 52).

Thanks for the critique. Really.
But seriously, what exactly did I lie about, and where?
How exactly am I lying?

If I'm citing my sources, why on earth would I lie?!
And look, I *do* cite my sources—I do it all the time in the bigger threads I start.

Come on, man...
Tell me exactly where I'm lying, and don't you dare skip the citations.
Let's see if Arthur Smith15 can do the same.

Just put aside whatever ZO thinks for a second.
Answer me what *you* think... that's the question.
Don't just lean on what others say without trying to wrap your head around it yourself. You'll find it much easier to be tolerant of opposing views if you actually try—even though you and ZO are both original-style communists, which, hey, you have every right to be...
...as long as you can actually back up your arguments.
Sure, you've got the sharp tongue and the heated emotions, but you don't shut down a debate the way ZO does.
ZO just cuts the conversation off right when things are getting good.
And that's exactly when you start having fun.
Why do you even tolerate that?!

I just finished reading the post above by ZO.
It actually sounds pretty tolerant.
And honestly, it’s kind of encouraging—someone who isn't afraid to change their own ways is someone with actual backbone.
Respect.

But then, moving on to the whole ideology thing...
If a moderator gives themselves all this leeway, why on earth are they denying those same freedoms to everyone else?

If you're going to go looking for microscopic flaws in everyone else, why act so shocked when people start piling on the criticism of your own work?

Look, a moderator's job should be to crack down on insults, harassment, belittling, threats, and foul language.
Everything else? That's just what a forum is for.
It’s a win-win for everybody.
The debates will get better, engagement will go up, and the moderator can actually keep their authority intact.

There really isn't any other way besides the natural order of things.
Whatever someone writes, they should be ready to handle either the heat or the praise. Or both, really.
It's totally insane for a moderator to try and dictate what's "desirable" and what isn't.
If some user writes exactly what they want to say, then fine—they should deal with the consequences.
Everyone gets to see the truth.
Everyone gets to voice their opinion.
And it'll become crystal clear who actually knows what they're talking about... and who doesn't.

A moderator's presence depends entirely on how the forum is organized internally.
And decent moderators understand that freedom of speech is the lifeblood of a forum.
What does a moderator even gain from forcing their ideology on people, if not just feeding their own massive ego?!

What the hell are you guys even talking about? It’s all just pure nonsense. Seriously, if you don't like ZO and you're one of those 84 out of 120 people making a fuss, then just ban yourself and get lost from this History forum. That is the only way the admins will actually step in; anything else is just beating a dead horse.
I don't personally hang out on the History boards much—except for the occasional bit over in the American War of Independence section—so I don't deal with ZO constantly. But from the little I *do* deal with, I've already got a pretty good idea of who I'm working with. Either accept it or move on. You're out here printing endless posts for nothing.

Look, moderation is literally just punishing people for breaking the forum rules... that's it. Everything else falls under free speech..

Once a moderator decides something is against the rules, well, that's basically where the whole debate hits a dead end.
I won't get bogged down in all the tiny details, but just look at the logic—like whether you call Stalin "Stalin," "Dzhugashvili," or "Joseph Stalin." It doesn't really matter because everyone knows exactly who we're talking about..
But for some reason, the moderator insists on policing this stuff to prevent any supposed “confusion.”
For what, honestly? What's the point?

The lack of any actual, high-quality discussion actually just feeds the other side's argument, mostly because they aren't even given the chance to have their points challenged with real facts.

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...

It just brings shame upon the whole community, but I suppose it serves a purpose if it forces those who constantly preach about democracy, justice, and morality to finally eat their own words. They think nobody notices the hypocrisy, but we see it, and honestly, isn't that the most important part?

Rachel Richardson said:My issue isn't the vulgarity itself—it's the entire post.
What did that post actually contribute to the discussion?
Where is the value in it?

And this notion that we should only penalize the person who started it...
Just look at what Arthur Smith15 is doing.
Why haven't his posts been penalized, or even removed?

I have no desire to descend to that level of communication, but such behavior falls far below any standard rules.

And that's fine.
That's exactly why I opened this thread.

The point isn't to strip someone of their ability to write; it's simply to point out an obvious rule violation.
I hope they stop behaving this way so that further sanctions won't be necessary.

No justification for a war crime is ever acceptable.
The nationality or ideology of the person doing it is completely irrelevant.

An apology from that user would be appropriate.

Who am I arguing with?

I have my own opinions and stances, which I defend with arguments.
That is what a discussion is...
If I am wrong about something, it will be addressed through debate—that is the very purpose of a discussion.

You don't think like I do; that's fine. However, that doesn't mean I am biased.

Is that a standard you apply to yourself as well?😁

The whole point of a discussion is to compare perspectives and fill in the gaps in our knowledge.
Ideology is irrelevant here; actual knowledge is what matters.
Just look at the Zagorian post from today and Nancy Klein's quote regarding the Potisj Quote.🙏

It wouldn't be difficult to facilitate a public debate or a poll.
If there are issues—and there obviously are—it's in everyone's interest to resolve them.

He certainly remembers how to run a poll.

We all want better moderation...

So, what is there to conclude about Arthur Smith15's contribution to this discussion?
Why is this kind of language even tolerated?

A public poll is an excellent idea. 👍

Well, that's fine too.

But then again—rules have to apply to everyone equally.

It’s simply not right—Arthur Smith15 should be able to barge into a discussion, insult everyone present, and then face absolutely zero consequences for it.

That would be a total disaster—and honestly, quite a few people have already gone down that road. :/

Rachel Richardson said:👍

The core issue really comes down to consistency and transparency.
Take the way Arthur Smith15 was targeted—that's a perfect example.
A user can violate the rules, insult you, and insult me, yet somehow it's deemed "not controversial"?

If the rules exist, they need to apply to everyone equally.

Rachel Richardson said:Actually, Arthur Smith15 perfectly illustrates the issue with Zoran's perspective.

He isn't a moderator here—so he lacks the authority to act—but invoking the Dunning-Kruger effect is a direct insult.
Sure, there’s a chance he simply doesn't grasp the context, but if that's the case, he shouldn't be defending a user who is clearly in violation.
I can't help but wonder how things would play out if anyone else had insulted Dante like that.

The thing is, this user acts this way because he knows he can get away with it. I've asked him a million times to stop jumping down my throat, and I've reported his posts—but what actually happens?
A user who repeatedly breaks the rules ends up being shielded by the moderators.
Instead of receiving a correction or a condemnation of something so obvious.
And really, it shouldn't be an issue at all.

Oh, please... Save those crocodile tears for someone who actually gives a damn. 😁 You are sitting there acting incredibly hypocritical, playing the victim when you are quite literally the one polluting this entire History subforum with an endless stream of garbage, stupidity, ignorance, nonsense, trolling, thread-hijacking, and pure pseudoscience. Let’s be honest: your contributions to the History section are almost entirely useless junk. It is just a repetitive loop of the same tired entries and maps—the kind of mindless bullshit a generic internet generator would churn out—which you incessantly recycle from one post to the next and one thread to another without any regard for substance or context. I have seen your "grand" forum legacy here on PŽK—it's nothing more than a cycle of point-grubbing, bans, whining, trolling, hijacking threads, filing complaints, and playing favorites. You should be genuinely ashamed of this pathetic performance, constantly bemoaning your situation, appealing to higher authorities, and putting on this ridiculous act like you're being persecuted. 🤦

Regarding this absolute nonsense about clones; you should consider yourselves lucky that I'm not lonetrucker4, because if I were, both you and the pollster would have been staring at history through a filtered lens a long time ago.