Discussion about Ronald Reagan [politics]

Hi,
I didn't want to clutter the main thread, so I'll leave my thoughts here.

The question is pretty straightforward: why is such blatant trolling being tolerated in the FT discussion?

I won't drop specific links, but anyone who checks the last two pages will see exactly what I mean.
Not to mention that some—the absolute worst—posts have already been scrubbed.
I've been following this topic for years, and ever since lateijo started contributing their arguments, the quality has actually improved quite a bit.

But then, once the trolls settle down for a few days or weeks, they resurface with the exact same tired talking points—zero actual substance, just the same debunked lies and falsehoods we've seen before.

Are we really going to let some random interloper swoop in every two weeks to spout the same old baseless nonsense and barroom chatter?

Look, this is a massive topic. If there’s already an absolute, definitive post somewhere else on the site, just drop the link. And if a Forum member keeps pushing their point without actually providing any real arguments, I’m going to step in and moderate. They’ll need to find some actual evidence, join the debate properly, or just walk away.

I’m honestly not sure what you’re looking for here. Franjo Harmon has been gone for decades now; I think it’s perfectly normal for people to circle back to these old debates every once in a while. Sun, you're right—he didn't exactly drop any bombshell revelations, but when he was asked to elaborate, he actually named specific companies. So, he wasn't just shouting into the void.

Since the thread is relatively chill and it's mostly the same group of people talking, I'll let you guys pretty much self-moderate (just don't start a massive flame war on each other). That doesn't mean anyone else is barred from jumping in, though.

Jose White23 said:The topic is significant—if there's already an undeniable thread somewhere, link it. If a Forum member persists without providing actual arguments, I will step in to moderate. They’ll need to find their evidence, join the debate properly, or simply back off.

I am not quite sure what you expect from this discussion—Franjo Harmon has been gone for decades now, so it is only natural to revisit certain subjects from time to time. The Sun, the truth... he hasn't offered anything groundbreaking, though when asked to clarify, he did name specific companies—so he wasn't just shouting into the void.

Since the thread remains relatively civil and involves the same group of people, I will let you mostly self-moderate—provided you don't descend into a flame war. That is not to say others don't have the right to weigh in.

I don't see why you're implying I'm questioning anyone's right to post.🤷

That Forum member you mentioned has already been cleared out a few times and received a warning, yet they keep pushing the same narrative without any proof—they listed companies, sure, but provided zero evidence of illegal dealings—and KRIN1 is just trolling, as usual...

It seems you only prohibit such things in threads about Ivo Josipović...😉

In some places, people look for evidence, while in others, it is enough to just throw insults... that is how it appears to me.

Neither you poor souls nor anyone else deserves a sanction...

I honestly have no clue why you’re making this personal, but fine, if that’s how you want to play it. Anyone who actually bothers to look at the thread about Ivo Josipović will see it’s packed with well-reasoned praise for him—we're already on the second volume of that discussion, for crying out loud.

I totally missed this one, my bad. A ton of stuff got wiped, and now I see Charles Fox10 cleared out about three tons of content just a few days ago too. As for Krin1, she’s just your standard troll popping up in every single thread; she spends half her life banned, which I guess is just her way of participating in the Forum. She isn't insulting anyone, so whatever, let her be.

Jose White23 said:I have no idea why you’re making this personal—but fine, if that’s how you want it. Anyone looking at the thread about Ivo Josipović would see it’s filled with reasoned praise... we're already on the second volume.

I got flagged for this; I missed it. A lot was deleted—now I see Charles Fox10 also wiped out three tons of content just a few days ago. Krin1 is trolling as usual across all threads—she’s often banned, which seems to be her preferred way of participating. She isn't insulting anyone, so let her be.

I wasn't making it personal (you're probably referring to the part about "allowing" things)
that was more of a side note in our conversation...

The flag isn't the issue, it's the thread itself... there's no point in cluttering things up with "dive bar" chatter that makes everything unreadable and tedious.

All five of them.

I’m glad you kicked off this thread about Franjo Harmon. Honestly, it would be great to get some input from the History buffs and my colleagues here too. I’ve been thinking for a while now that we should probably start a separate thread and bring Harmon back into the political conversation. My suggestion? Let's clean this current thread up and move it over to the History section. Then, on the Politics board, we could create a more strictly moderated thread—maybe something less dry than 😁—something like "Franjo Harmon in Today's Political Climate." That way, we could tie his legacy to what's happening right now. For instance, if someone in today's administration cites a specific action or opinion, or if Harmon once commented on one of these modern figures, a user could post that here for us to dissect.

As for the stuff regarding his past actions—everything from family stories to his old policy moves—that would probably sit better and be easier to moderate over in the History section. It’s kind of a similar situation to how we handled the American Civil War threads.

A solid idea.

BTW:

Just take a look at what this thread has devolved into today... and suddenly we're back to the Mississippi River...

I think Krin1 went a little overboard with all those haikus lately, so maybe they'll focus a bit more on the Olympics this weekend.

I'm not really familiar with this Dravian guy or his work, so I'll have someone from the crew take a look.

My next question is this:
why on earth are we letting the same old troll—someone who’s probably been permanently banned at least 50 times by now—keep hijacking threads and just spawning endless clones of the exact same argument?

I think we all know exactly who I'm talking about.

Jose White23 said:Krin1 really went overboard with the haikus—I think I'll spend more time watching the Olympics this weekend.

I'm unfamiliar with this Dravian guy and his work... someone from the group should probably look into it.

Maybe you know him as Phoenix—he's basically an institution now.
I can't recall all his various aliases, and honestly, it wouldn't be easy
to keep track of every single one of his banned clones...

I mean, I honestly haven't really kept up with him. I know he was like a total Phoenix, a real force of nature on the Mississippi, but I started following his work way too late to catch the full picture.

Scott Cruz4, come on, you can't do that. Every single time he pops up, he gets banned immediately, which just goes to show the guy probably has fifty clones running around. You used to be a moderator, so you know we hit a wall where our mod tools just stop working. It’s not like we can go hunting him down on the street and confiscate his laptop or something.

Jose White23 said:I mean, I just haven't really followed him. I know he used to be like a Phoenix or some kind of legend on the Mississippi River—I'm just late to the party because I didn't track his whole body of work.

Francis, seriously, you can't do that. Every single time this guy shows up, he gets banned—which honestly just proves he’s got fifty different clones running around. You were a moderator, so you know exactly where our authority ends. We can't go out looking for him on a street corner to confiscate his laptop.

Every time he makes a new clone, he’s allowed to drop a hundred or two hundred posts and completely derail the entire thread before anyone finally hits the ban button.
Deleting those posts would actually be way more effective at discouraging these clones from signing up all over again.

Jose White23 said:Whatever...

Glad you started this thread about Franjo Harmon. It’d be great if the History buffs and my colleagues weighed in too. I've been thinking for a while now that we need a separate thread to bring Franjo Harmon back into the political conversation. My suggestion? Clean this thread up and move it over to History, and then start a strictly moderated political thread called "Franjo Harmon in Today's Political Landscape" (or something less dry than 😁) where we can link his legacy to current events. Like, if someone in Washington today cites an old action or opinion from him, people could post it here and discuss it.

The stuff about what actually happened in the past—from family stories to his old policy moves—would probably fit better and get better moderation over in History. Kind of like how they handled the American Civil War.

A new one should definitely be made. This current thread feels more like a history lesson than actual politics, but I'm not down for just moving the whole thing to History. You can't clean up 300+ pages to make it fit there, and leaving it as-is wouldn't be right. So, I say close this one and open a new, tightly moderated one in Politics. As for the History crowd, if they want to talk about Harmon, they can just start their own thread.

Well, in my view, if Josip Broz Marshall is entitled to his own dedicated thread, then it would only be fair that his contemporary (even if he was quite a bit younger) Franjo Harmon receives one as well. The only complication is that we are dealing with Franjo Harmon, a figure whose life is public knowledge to everyone.

It seems to me that in any debate regarding Franjo Harmon, it would be incredibly difficult to disentangle what belongs to History from what belongs to politics, given how inextricably the two are intertwined. Because he passed away relatively recently and because the legacy of Franjo Harmon remains such a pressing subject today, it is almost inevitable that discussions about him will drift into tangents involving recent or even current daily politics.
This is especially true for those controversial matters that remain murky to this day—issues where it is nearly impossible to establish clear moderation criteria. We still lack a firm, scientifically grounded, neutral standpoint from which to judge whether a user's writing aligns with actual events and facts, or if they are simply trolling or going off-topic versus exercising their right to personal interpretation (which everyone possesses, since there is no single Truth-everyone has their own perspective).
Therefore, we must allow for slight touches of modern political relevance while simultaneously keeping the discussion tethered to the higher standards we strive to maintain in our History section for such problematic topics. I can guarantee immediately that there will be dissatisfied users who feel unfairly targeted, alongside others who will complain about off-topic posts and trolling, insisting that without bans—and perhaps some collateral damage—this won't work.

In short, personally, I would prefer to avoid such topics altogether; however, since we are discussing a historical figure whose public life traces back to the era of World War II, no one can deny the right to discuss him within a historical forum.
But another issue will arise if the thread is opened: should it be hosted under History or the American Civil War?

You really hit the nail on the head with how you framed this. I’m right there with you.

It’s honestly expected. Since he hasn't been gone that long and his whole legacy is still such a massive topic today, discussions about Franjo Harmon inevitably get sucked into tangents about recent—or even current—day-to-day politics.

Basically, this thread is missing something, which is probably why people are thinking about moving it. There isn't enough connection to everyday issues; most of the talk just circles back to what he did while he was alive. If he were more relevant to current events, we wouldn't be stuck in the Politics section, which—let's face it—isn't exactly the best place for a topic like this. It’s a shame the discussion gets so diluted, especially since there are some really high-quality posts in here.

But alright, let's do this. This thread is already at 6,100 posts, so let's just let it run until it hits 10,000 or until threads get closed due to size. Until then, everyone can think about whether they want to move the Franjo Harmon discussion over to History, and if so, how. We can split the responsibility and maybe eventually open two separate threads—one for Politics and one for History.

Jose White23 said:Fine, whatever. Let's play it this way then. This thread is already at 6,100 posts. It can hit 10,000 before they finally shut it down for being too huge.

That’s gonna take about a year... 🤷

Kevin Williams56 said:That should last you about a year. 🤷

I had the same thought. To keep things simple, let's just say we'll figure out how to pull it all together by October.

Alex Scott5 said:But we’ll just run into another headache if we start this thread—should it live under General History or the American Civil War section?

Honestly, I don't think that should be an issue at all.
The man was a major player both before and after the American Civil War.
It doesn't make much sense to put such narrow limits on the conversation; we could easily just host two separate discussions:
"Ronald Reagan as a historical figure" and "Ronald Reagan during the American Civil War"