Indrid Banned?, what happened?

Jeff,


The basic assumption of any forum is the presence of PEOPLE actively engaged in free conversation. Aparently Indrid was a provocative person, who enjoyed more the more "manly" aspect of conversation (i do not enjoy using this word). I agree that sometimes he went too far, but he formed the core of a group of people that, in my humble feminine uninteresting-from-the-point-of-view-of-a-war-fanatic gave this forum a more intelligent dimension.

Without him, Chandernagore, Alexandru H. Imperialist and a few others this forum is dead.

The Paradox Forums kept the address of your site as a sticky on the first page of Hearts of Iron I subforum. The moderators from there thought of you as pretty darn important for knowledge about Romania and WW2. In many posts, I urged people to visit your place and read about it, and most of them were pleased with the results.

Don't get me wrong. It wasn't meant to sound deragatory. Just that this forum is supposed to be, IMO, something else than the very large online communities out there. My model and I suppose Dragos' too is the Axis History Forum, which I consider one of the very best historical forums on the net. That is my basis of comparison, not others.

I know that your models are western but let me ask you this: how many romanians are interested in the more factual and "boring" side of WW2? How many of them are board game fanatics? How many of them collect models of tanks and airplanes? How many of them recreate battles in their spare time? How many of them read specialty books? And, finally, how many of them are over 30 years old? (as much as you like to kid yourself with the opposite, you really are among the few young romanian people really interested in this)

I can divide this forum through one simple operation: young Romanians, older Foreigners. You and dragos want us older, we want you younger. It's a conflict of interests and I can safely assume that Ialta is to blame in this particular case... You remind me of my own interest with stamps from when I was young. Everyone collected them, but I got interested more, bought manuals, instruments, and all I could get is the approval and interest of mature people. I wanted to do that with guys my age, but it seems I had become boring to them....

You either can accept us, hoping that this offtopic activity might increase, in some way, romanian interest for WW2, or you can shut the thing off, for lack of interest. Sure, people will always come to ask a question, but most will leave after two posts (one question and one "thank you").

This post has been edited by Alexandru H. on June 15, 2005 06:30 pm

Agarici,

would you believe it that I made up with Imperialist, even if I can promise him that I won't stop shutting my mouth when something will annoy me about him?

But your analysis is right (mostly because you agree with my distorted views on the world)

I know that your models are western but let me ask you this: how many romanians are interested in the more factual and "boring" side of WW2? How many of them are board game fanatics? How many of them collect models of tanks and airplanes? How many of them recreate battles in their spare time? How many of them read specialty books? And, finally, how many of them are over 30 years old? (as much as you like to kid yourself with the opposite, you really are among the few young romanian people really interested in this)

I can divide this forum through one simple operation: young Romanians, older Foreigners. You and dragos want us older, we want you younger. It's a conflict of interests and I can safely assume that Ialta is to blame in this particular case... You remind me of my own interest with stamps from when I was young. Everyone collected them, but I got interested more, bought manuals, instruments, and all I could get is the approval and interest of mature people. I wanted to do that with guys my age, but it seems I had become boring to them....

You either can accept us, hoping that this offtopic activity might increase, in some way, romanian interest for WW2, or you can shut the thing off, for lack of interest. Sure, people will always come to ask a question, but most will leave after two posts (one question and one "thank you").

Alexandru, I really don't understand what you really want to prove here, why you can never quit arguing, even when it is clear that you will not make any progress in the direction you seek. For the 100th time: go implement your ideas on your own if you are so passionate about them.

Dragos has a day job. I am going to a faculty that takes up a lot of my time. I also have many other interests and activities, places to go to, to photograph, a dog to walk every day, dance classes, friends to go out with, veterans to visit, a book project, many articles for the site that need to be finished or translated, two forums to moderate, emails to write etc, etc. Spending time everyday having to read through uninteresting (for me) discussions, to censore unappropiate phrases, to issue warnings, just because you, Imperialist and Indrid need a palce to argue isn't too important in my eyes and I am sure Dragos feels pretty much the same. It isn't personal. We just have other priorities.

Arguing continuously, like in this case here, trying to always have the last word, may be important to you, it can even be a way for you to exercise your wits. But it doesn't take a military history forum to do this, especially since you find it so boring. You can do it very well in other places. There are plenty other forums on the net, which you also find to be better moderated. There is also the solution to create your own forum as a part of your online magazine project. I am not being mean here, just suggesting more reasonable solutions.

As for your glimpse of the site's future, I am already having a deja vu and I am sure Dragos has it too

Hi Alexandru H.,

I was absolutely amazed at your suggestion that Romanians may not be interested in the drier, factual side of WWII.

How on earth can anyone form an accurate opinion on a subject without attention to the bare facts?

The sharing of historical facts is central to this forum. They are its very raison d'etre.

The facts cannot be sidelined in favour of "entertainment". The facts must come first here, or the credibility of the site will suffer,

Ideally the facts would be put over in an entertaining manner, but mere "entertainment" cannot become the central feature. If the choice is dry facts or "entertainment", facts must win every time on a historical forum like this.

I joined this forum to ask and learn about Romanian military history. I have no personal interest in discussing Evolution, Indrid or Dresden here. I have only reluctantly been drawn into the general discussion section because I believe it important to Reason and the Truth that opinons offered in such a public place which are not backed by the facts should not go unchallenged.

If uninformed opinions put over by "entertainers" are not challenged, third parties reading such threads (and there are many more of them than just the contributors) are likely to be misled.

Although its focus is much narrower, the standards maintained by this forum are,
in my experience, the equal of any similar military historical forum anywhere. Don't let them decline in the name of mere "entertainment".

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Does anyone else believe that Romanians have such a low regard for facts?

I completely agree with the moderators on this issue. I have nothing against Indrid but this forum is dedicated to military history. I'd rather read on post per day, if that post is based on facts, than having to read many useless forum-fights.

It's not so hard to set up a forum. You guys should make a forum dedicated to general discussion and argumentative talks on Romania's history. Your forum and this one could advertise each other, so that people interested in facts could come here and people interested more in arguments based on those facts could come to your forum.

Those who have time and energy to be, are interested, but they can find that info in authoritative books. For specialised and highly educated debates there is the academic community. Also who wants to learn in-depth things on a particular subject can apply to a high-level educational institution.
This forum cannot by itself provide neither the first, the second, or the third functions.
And it cannot evolve into a network where PhDs communicate through highly educated posts each with a list of references included.
This forum functions as an introductory place for those new to the subject, as a place of DEBATES for people from random backgrounds discussing around info or books they;ve read, and a place of DEBATES on general,absurdly unrelated and marvelously imaginative and unbridled issues.


If someone wants to impose a higher level of discussion it should first provide a necessary framework. I have plenty of interesting and full of references, written according to academical standards papers, but I'm certainly not going to publish them here under a random nickname because you, Sid, want "authoritative" posts only, and that authority can only be derived by placing references.
I'm rather going to circulate them inside the academic community, not on the forum.
I am sure that is the case for Alex also, and it was for Indrid, and for many others. Does that mean that whatever we say is baseless?

[edit -- and does it mean that we need to write a paper for everything we say? maybe a book for every sentence we utter? sorry, if thats what you want, I dont have time for that, and neither do you, so why not stop playing the authoritative card here?]

Well, considering like I said, that you label all non-referenced opinions put in entertaining fashion, uninformed, I think you'll have a mighty challenge on your hands.
A double-challenge, given that referenced posts might also fail your standards of balanced info and non-restricteness-on-particular-subject/event:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...=15&#entry34240

I certainly hope you'll not turn into the policeman of this forum. Thought police especially worries me.

take care

p.s. Yes, so was I dragged into the General Discussion forum, some time ago. I learnt it was more about opinions than references. The references are left for the other parts. But, as the part of the forum I was interested in is DEAD at least temporarily, I see no harm in interacting with the other members in GD area. Do you?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on June 16, 2005 01:28 pm

Since the subforum is called "General Discussions", it has nothing to do with military history, therefore the lack of military subjects shouldn't be considered as a minus for our posts.

Why does everyone keeps dodging the real issue? Did I say anything about the management of the military subforums? All I question is the excess of control in a subforum specifically tailored for off-topic discussions. Ok, I understand that from the point of view of mods, it is but an useless accessory to the real purpose of the forum. Accessory, yes, useless, not by a long shot. That particular section keeps some members around (with all the moderating attempts to kick them out)

dragos03, sid, you keep producing reasons for why not to enter that section. Ok, fine, don't do it. I never posted in the Romanian Navy section because a) the main page has enough informations to satisfy my needs; b) I barely know the difference between a barrel and a carrier, so debates are out. Why do you feel the urge of entering the General Discussions when you clearly are interested of everything but that place?

Victor,

Let's say you are right and I am wrong. Why do you need a General Discussion forum if everyone that comes here is solely interested in military debates, except for the bad seeds? Why do you, in spite of your busy schedule, feel the need to act like a policeman, even if it's not even needed? Why do you like to treat us as aggressive, potential troublemakers, just because the discussion became a little passionate? From my point of view, the only one that clearly crossed the line was alexkdl, who (surprise!) was a cherished member of the military elite group. The "essaists", at least, know their limitations in the military field; the "elites" think themselves as our teachers in everything.

It is important for me to hear you admit that some of the things that happened here were wrong. It's not about my wit, is about my peace of mind.

Sid,

now what can I say about your long post? That is off-topic maybe. You are talking about military information sharing, I'm referring to the "off-topic" General Discussion subforum.

And I believe that posts that reinforce wrong beliefs presented as reasonable facts should be disputed. What is your point? That we forced you to post in the General Discussion subforum? Like I said, maybe the "elites" should try to abstain in some situations from posting in the GD section with the explicit intention of showing the rest of us that they are right in everything.

I'll think about it, dragos03. It certainly seems like an interesting idea.

This post has been edited by Alexandru H. on June 16, 2005 01:29 pm

Oh, thats the crux of the issue! And it reminds me of the first reactions to Andrei Gheorghe's "13-14". They that hated it soooo much that they could not stop watching it. But they didnt want to change the channel because they could not stand the idea of it going on for others to see. They felt the urge of challenging that which might "mislead" or "corrupt" third parties. So they actually went in on the show!!!
Hahaha. So they, the ones that were so comcerned about the moral/intellectual sanity of third parties capable to make reasonable decisions on their own afterall, became part of the show they so desperately want banned.
thats why I think some people are against the GD subforum. Because it sucks people in on account of their own anger towards various things told there.
The bad part is that here things and persons are far more easily banned than in the case of "13-14".

take care

I disagree with your statement. The primary role of this forum is to facilitate the exchange of information. That means, for examples, foreign historians who do not have the means or resources to access localized books, archives, etc can submit to this forum, in order to obtain, if not directly the information they require, at least directions to the sources. The same goes for Romanian historians that want foreign information and do not have the resources to travel abroad in order to access the arrchives (for example woj offered scans of a Polish document regarding supply of material to Romania). The scholarly community (let's not restrict to academic) and the Internet, and implicitly this forum, are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, you can find among registered members aknowledged historians or authors, while not being academicians, have a level of knowledge superior to certain members of the academy on highly specialized subjects. Therefor, you can find answers on this forum you might not find in your so-called "academic community".

I can only find this statement as weird. What is the academical standards you are speaking about, and you cannot find on this website, and what prevents you to circulate the information under a random or a real name?

This post has been edited by dragos on June 16, 2005 01:56 pm

He is again talking about the General Discussion forum and not the military-specialized ones....

We are really having a problem of communication around here

I think he is talking about this forum in general. He should clarify this.

And here is the example I was talking about:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=894

This post has been edited by dragos on June 16, 2005 02:05 pm

I'll think about it, dragos03. It certainly seems like an interesting idea.

If you are willing to embrace this idea, I will offer my IT expertise to help you put it into practice.

I agree. Maybe the forum would not be totally dead, but certainly the GD section would be a poorer place without the names you mention. "Provocative" was an excellent choice of words to describe Indrid.

I suppose what I have problems with is the binary nature of this argument: either everyone says whatever they want -- personal attacks, threats, blatant racism, crazy conspiracy theories etc., or we live in a police state and the moderators are fascist oppressors, censoring us and banning us on the slightest impulse. It seems to me that the moderators are trying to find a middle ground -- avoid the extremes, not allow GD to take over the forum, but also not allow moderating the forum to take over their lives. I see nothing wrong in this. As the moderators have pointed out, people who have very strong opinions about how a forum should be run have many options available to them. If any of the names you mentioned started their own forum, I might give it a look (although I originally came here for the WW2 history, and that remains an important reason for my presence on the forum).

I don't know about the "manly" aspect of conversation -- I certainly know plenty of women who hold strong opinions and are not at all shy in expressing them.