|
| 15 or younger | 1 |
| 16-19 years | 5 |
| 20-24 years | 15 |
| 25-34 years | 18 |
| 35-44 years | 7 |
| 45-54 years | 5 |
| 55-64 years | - |
| 65 or older | 2 |
| Male | 47 |
| Female | 4 |
| Other / Diverse | 2 |
| I am still at school. | 3 |
| I left school without a degree. | 3 |
| I finished school with a degree. | 5 |
| I am currently studying at a college/university (but not History, Languages or Literature) | 7 |
| I am currently studying at a college/university, and one of my subjects is History, Languages or Literature. | 4 |
| I have obtained a Bachelor's, Master's or similar degree (but not in History, Languages or Literature) | 17 |
| I have obtained a Bachelor's, Master's or similar degree in History, Languages or Literature | 9 |
| I have obtained a Ph. D., but not in History, Languages or Literature. | 2 |
| I have obtained a Ph.D. in History, Languages or Literature. | 3 |
| United States (14 x) | |
| USA (4 x) | |
| Germany (3 x) | |
| UK (3 x) | |
| United Kingdom (3 x) | |
| Romania (3 x) | |
| United States of America (3 x) | |
| France (3 x) | |
| US (2 x) | |
| Turkey | |
| Taiwan | |
| Hong Kong | |
| Canada | |
| Slovak Republic | |
| Poland | |
| Sweden | |
| Indonesia | |
| Ireland | |
| India/United States | |
| the Netherlands | |
| Israel | |
| Estonia | |
| Italy | |
| Philippines |
| Single / divorced / widowed, no children | 39 | |||||
| Single / divorced / widowed, with children aged younger than 12 | - | |||||
| Single / divorced / widowed, with children aged over 12 | - | |||||
| Married / in a relation, no children | 4 | |||||
| Married / in a relation, with children aged younger than 12 | 5 | |||||
| Married / in a relation, with children aged over 12 | 2 | |||||
| Other: | 2 |
|
| Less than 5 minutes | 1 |
| 5-15 minutes | 3 |
| 15-30 minutes | 13 |
| 30-60 minutes | 19 |
| 1-2 hours | 9 |
| more than 2 hours | 8 |
| Lurker: I read, but I don't wirte (much). | 9 |
| Discussant: I read and I write replies to TLs and questions, pose my own questions etc. | 28 |
| Timeline Author: I read and discuss with others, but I also write my own timeline(s), whether short or long, in past years or presently. | 16 |
| Narrative | 8 |
| Non-narrative (textbook style or pseudo-sources) | 12 |
| I like both / It depends. | 33 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Durchschnitt | |
| Very bad | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 14 | 14 | 8 | 2 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Durchschnitt | |
| Very bad | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 12 | 11 | 14 | 9 | 2 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Durchschnitt | |
| Very bad | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 14 | 12 | 10 | 4 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Durchschnitt | |
| Very low | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 13 | 12 | 11 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Durchschnitt | |
| Very low | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 9 | 14 | 12 | 11 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Durchschnitt | |
| Very low | 4 | 4 | 16 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Factual discourse makes assertions about reality.
Counterfactual discourse makes assertions about possibilities. | |
| Factual would be discussion of actual facts, whereas counterfactual is discussing the possibilities of alternate paths. | |
| Factual discussion is the discussion of something which has happened, counterfactual discussion is the discussion of something that has not happened. For factual discourse it is possible to provide concrete evidence on various subjects, however in the realm of the counterfactual that is not possible and the best approximation could be an educated guess based on factual information. | |
| Factual discourse is the discussion of actual history, while counterfactual discourse is the discussion of what could have been. | |
| Counterfactual discourse focuses on historical techniques applied to a fictional divergence. It does not constitute events post POD unless use in analogy. | |
| Factual discourse discusses what actually happened in history, counterfactual discourse starts from the baseline of actual historical events but then extrapolates out to discuss more possibilities. | |
| What it is vs. what it could have been. | |
| "Counterfactual" implies a hypothetical; "factual" is- well- verifiably fact. | |
| Presentation of details. | |
| Factual discourse is the specific discussion of that which has or can occur. | |
| - What happened and what could have happened. | |
| Often counterfactual discourse imitates the form of factual discourse. It differs consequently not in form (how something is said) but rather in content (what is being said). Furthermore, compared to factual discourse, counterfactual texts often are forced to make a position about our understanding of reality (often a historiographical position). | |
| Counterfactual discourse is often framed as 'what if' or as an 'alternate history challenge'. Paradoxically, responses are often better thought out than the ones in factual discourse (by which I mostly mean Chat) | |
| Factual - sticking closely to the cold hard facts, acknowledging that even through our study of the past through historiography, primary sources and archaeology, there are still many white spaces and we often need to be careful to avoid unwarranted speculation.
Counterfactual - a thought experiment, a mental exercise "what if", pursued either for the needs of historical research (modelling a hypothetical scenario of different, alternate developments in real history past) or for the needs of fiction. Some people class alternate history as inherently science-fictional or fantastical, but I do not agree with this very simplistic assessment of the genre. Alternate history is a flexible genre, and while it is firmly within speculative fiction, it is more presicely speculative historical fiction. You do not need fantastical elements in AH, even though they can also be utilised in the genre's fiction. Writing good AH fiction is like writing good historical fiction - just with a twist, that twist being a divergence from the real world history we know and have documented. Not for the sake of wild theories, but to present an alternate, parallel world, where certain developments and events went differently and shaped the world and society differently. | |
| When you start wondering about a Point of Divergence in history from where our history had the possibility of diverging on multiple paths. | |
| Counterfactual discourse is a discourse that is anchored in a few basic differences (may they be openly counterfactual like alternate history TLs or pretend to be true like complotism) and that then form a narrative that is, or looks, cohesive with those differences | |
| Factual discourse is true or attempting to seek the truth.
Counterfactual discourse is untrue or attempting to obscure the truth, and masquerades as being true or attempting to seek the truth. | |
| Factual discourse, even if the author's findings and conclusions might be false, is driven by a genuine attempt to reach a coherent position based on observable reality, and is willing to subject itself to additions and corrections in principle, up to the reversal of the initial position. As I understand it, counterfactual discourse is narrative-driven ("what feels and sounds right or useful and is at best internally consistent, based on what I want to achieve/prove"). The author may be delusional or deliberately misleading his audience. | |
| I usually consider discourse to be counter factual depending on the sources/lackthereof of a certain opinion, which usually represents heaving politically biased/outright false sources. | |
| Factual discourse revolves around things that actually happened historically, whereas counterfactuals are things that could have happened historically. | |
| Counterfactual discourse is significantly more engaging thanks to a higher degree of creative freedom in interpretation and extrapolation of historical facts. | |
| Based on my assumption if the meaning, factual discourse would be pertaining to certain, confirmed or proven topics, while counterfactual would be pertaining to topics unproven (or proven false) | |
| Factual discourse sticks to what is interpreted as true; counterfactual discourse introduces elements of speculation. | |
| Factual are events that actually happened. Counterfactual considers events that might have happened if things had turned out differently.
"I wrote another chapter for my latest novel last night." Is factual. "What would I be doing instead if I had not written that chapter?" Is counterfactual. "I drove to Natanya to be with my cousin on her 9th birthday,' is factual. "What if I caught the bus instead of driving? Who would I have met on the way?" Is counterfactual. | |
| Your use of "counterfactual" without establishing a baseline for your use of the term does not help.
A "factual" discourse is based on (more-or-less) objective reality; events that are accepted as having happened. While counterfactual discourse postulates a starting point of events which objectively did not occur. Within society an example of the intersection of the two is the debate of the mass murder programme implemented by Nazi Germany. One can factually debate aspects of this (i.e. the numbers killed at various locations, the uses made of human remains et cetera) while outside factual reality there is a sub-culture based around the counterfactual that the "generally accepted" view of the Holocaust is false; that it did not occur or was far smaller in scale. | |
| Counterfactual discusses "what if..." questions, while factual does not. | |
| The difference between factual and Counterfactual Is simply Factual Is Answering a question About something That has happened Counterfactual Is the discussion of something that has not happened | |
| Factual discourse deals with the question/theme, what did happen (or reality), counterfactual discourse tries to answer, what would have happen under certain circumstances, that differ from the reality or history. | |
| Factual discourse is both history and historiography - what happened, and analysis of what people have said over the years has happened.
Counterfactual discourse is speculative discourse based on factual discourse. It is wholly opinion-based, if backed by fact. | |
| I have never heard of this terminology, but I suppose that factual discourse would concern things that have happened and counterfactual discourse things that could have happened. | |
| Factual is something true, counterfactual is not. | |
| They aren't so easily disentangled, because the best counterfactual discourse is grounded in fact. The two diverge with the introduction of fluidity, and judgment calls regarding how individuals and societies would respond to changing circumstances, but even this is usually grounded in studying how such people responded to changes in their circumstances in real life. | |
| Factual discourse discusses things that really happened, counterfactual discussion discusses what might have happened. | |
| Counterfactual is "What if X were the case?"
Factual is based on what really happened. | |
| Factual : discussing actual facts as they happened (as far as we know)
Counterfactual : discussing what would have happened if the actual facts had happened differently / did not happen, but in a realistic way | |
| That which has and could be versus that which wasn't and may have been.
And why. | |
| In alternate history, counterfactuality is usually understood as the premise, similar to ordinary suspension of disbelief. | |
| Counterfactual discourse is based on a hypothetical scenario derived from an actual event.
|
| Fictional discourse creates fictitious worlds in accordance with aesthetic principles. Counterfactual discourse creates possible worlds in accordance with the principle of plausibility. | |
| Not much, really. Counterfactual maybe focuses more on the mechanics of "how" and "why" than fictional, I suppose. | |
| Counterfactual is fictional by the virtue of not having happened. There is no difference. Counterfactual and fictional being segregated is likely result of the focus either being on facts/research/plausibility or narrative/enjoyment. However story focused alternate history is in no way inferior to plausibility focused alternate history. Likewise fiction that has no intention of being anything more than art/entertainment can have in depth, meticulously researched, intensely scientific discussion about it. | |
| Counterfactual discourse is the discussion of things that could have happened, while fictional discourse is the discussion of things that could not have happened. | |
| Nothing inherently. Counterfactual genres are fictional whilst not all fiction is counterfactual. | |
| Counterfactual discourse is rooted in a factual starting point while fictional discourse is not. | |
| Fiction ought not have any relation to reality. | |
| This is the exact same question as above, just written differently. | |
| The way an ATL is described. | |
| Counterfactual discourse deals with that which has not occured. | |
| - All counterfactual discourse is fictional thinking but not all fictional thinking is counterfactual discourse (due to asb). | |
| Counterfactual discourse is a subset of fictional discourse, that imitates the form of factual discourse. | |
| Counterfactual discourse is partially based on facts - it starts from some known state (a place, a date, a culture) and just twists some details. Fictional discourse is completely made up, for instance referring to an imaginary world and requiring suspension of disbelief. | |
| Counterfactual - primarily concerned with the more scholarly perspective, more strictly focused on realism, feasibility, logistics, real world limitations, capability of being independently verified and proved through empirical evidence, even if there might be some necessary extrapolation and speculation involved (but within reasonable limits). Counterfactual is essentially the non-fiction approach to the fictional approach's fiction.
Fictional - can be just as rigorous or nearly as rigorous as the counterfactual approach, but it is not a necessity. Fiction can partly bypass some of the more stricter, uncompromising scrutiny that is necessary for serious counterfactuals, and this depends on the goals of the fiction. In my more subjective opinion, even the more loosely realistic fiction should avoid becoming nothing but the indulgences of the author, or outright preachy screeds or propaganda. Historical fiction is engaging because an author respects the intelligence of his or her readers and tries to do his or her best. A propagandist-minded writer of historical and allohistorical fiction, one with a chip on his shoulder, might write fiction that will eventually fall by the wayside, if his dirty tricks are exposed by each successive generation. A broader and nuansed view of the human condition provides timelessness, not preachiness that might become irrelevant in a mere few years or decades. | |
| When the subject you are talking about stops taking into account the butterfly effect or the cause-effect relation and it devolves into simple fiction, sci-fi or political narrative | |
| Counterfactuals are, by their nature, fictional, postulating an alternate reality. However counterfactuals *may* be accepted as such (i.e. on alternatehistory.com where most participants are aware of historical reality) or they may be taken by their adherents as being factual (i.e. Holocaust denial or the more recent refusal by Trump adherents yo accept the 2020 election results). Both of these postulate what is generally taken as a counterfactual scenario but then insist it is factual.
The difference is down to their acceptance as fictional or factual. | |
| Counterfactual discourse is imagined by real people and portrayed as true within the real world.
Fiction discourse is imagined by real people and portrayed as true within the fictional world. | |
| Fictional discourse is both self-aware and meant to be read that way by others. It is meant not to inform directly about reality, but to be consumed. It can be meant as an entertaining narrative or a thought model allowing to analyze aspects of reality in a sort of mental laboratory, or both. The line with the counterfactual is however often blurred. The author may decide their goals - be they moral education, entertainment or persuasion - may best be achieved by keeping the link to reality ambiguous, or by deliberately misleading their audience. | |
| Fictional discourse seems to rely on all participants “being in” on the fact that the discourse is of fictitious realities. | |
| The difference I think is that part of discussing a counterfactual scenario is how it differs from our reality, whereas that's a less important part of talking about fictional writing. Counterfactuals are a subset of fiction | |
| Counterfactual discourse engages in the interpretation and extrapolation of historical facts and the value its derivatives may be compared objectively, whereas the creative products of fictional discourse can only be compared subjectively. | |
| Counterfactual would be taking a topic that is KNOWN to be one way and actively claiming another as correct, while fictional is made up with little to no truth to it. | |
| Counterfactual discourse involves engagement with reality; fictional discourse is confined to the fictional. | |
| I actually think there's little difference. In reality, considering 'What if this or that happened instead' is just fantasy. Unless you believe in the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics.
Of course, Counterfactual just considers the outcomes of alternate events. The extrapolation of the possible consequences of these events bleeds into fiction/fantasy. In my opinion, alternate history is just a genre of historical fantasy. | |
| Counterfactual discourse deals more directly with historical questions and "gaming out" what happens, while fictional is more focused on narrative. | |
| Counterfactual discourse tries to answer, what would have happen under certain circumstances, fictional discourse is more freedom,because the driving force behind fiction is fantasy and not logic based on altering some facts. | |
| Process. Counterfactual discourse starts from known facts and creates a premise from there. Fictional discourse starts with a premise, and creates facts from there to fit that premise. This is known as "worldbuilding". | |
| One is talking about things that could have happened in real life and the other is talking about fiction. | |
| Fictional: Homer Simpson is Yellow.
Counterfactual: Homer Simpson is a Norwegian Lumberjack. | |
| These are also quite similar. I've often likened alternate history to fanfiction, and discussion of effective fanfics often focuses on similar principles to effective alternate history stories, with emphasis on fluidity and the butterfly effect. The only true difference here is whether these narrative principles are applied to an existing fictional universe or to a fictional facsimile of the real world. | |
| Counterfactual has a grounding in reality--It might have happened if x had happened differently. Fiction is entirely made up. | |
| Counterfactual : see above
Fictional : like counterfactual, but not necessarily realistic ? | |
| Not much, maybe a stronger attachment to plausibility. But even good, grounded timelines are bound to take certain liberties for the sake of a narrative, and there's nothing wrong with that. | |
| The historical awareness. | |
| Fictional discourse involved a series of completely fictional characters. |
| Factual discourse makes assertions about reality.
Fictional discourse creates fictitious worlds in accordance with aesthetic principles. | |
| Factual is the discussion of actual facts and history, whereas fictional is discussion of fictional facts, characters, story, etc. | |
| Factual is something that has happened, and is therefore "real". Fictional is something that has not happened and is the creation of a writer or writers. | |
| Factual discourse is the discussion of things that are real, and fictional discourse is the discussion of things that are not real. | |
| Factual focuses on real world events, whilst fictional does not. | |
| Factual discourse is about something real while fictional is not. | |
| Obvious. | |
| You might want to put this question on a different page if you want a different response, since I can see that it's literally the exact same question as 15. | |
| References to real events or lack thereof. | |
| Fictional discourse deals with that which is explicitly incapable of happening under any circumstances. | |
| - What happened and what you dreamed/thought could happen | |
| (1) Fictional discourse may talk about a larger range of topics from that which is real all the way to the imagninary
(2) Fictional discourse form-wise typically span a larger range range compared to factual discourse, from the factual discourse-like counterfactuals to the often emotional first hand narration stories. That is not to say that fictional discourse cannot be written in forms that aren't telegraphic and impartial sounding (e.g. a first hand account about some real life event), simply that it would be non prototypical. | |
| Factual discourse is concerned with what happens (or happened) on Earth, in the real world. Fictional discourse is about imaginary worlds and often requires suspension of disbelief. | |
| Factual - again, factual discourse must be rooted in fact. No one can know everything, but good discourse is about respecting each other's intelligence and limitations of knowledge and mutually adding to each others' knowledge, expanding, verifying, and trading ideas and knowledge/information. Some facts might be elusive and unclear due to incomplete sources, etc., but this should encourage further study, rather than dismissal or wild theories without any factual basis.
Fictional - fictional discourse should, by extension, be rooted in the same respect for people's intelligence and for truth, even while creating fictional contexts. One should ignore the intelligence of readers, especially well-read and well-informed and open-minded readers, at their own peril. | |
| When the anchor of the narrative is or is not based on establishing the facts of reality. | |
| Well at the base objective reality and the ability to show one narrative is true | |
| Factual discourse is rooted in the real world.
Fictional discourse is rooted in the fictional world. | |
| Factual discourse analyzes and describes. Fictional discourse is creative. Factual discourse may dive into speculation as a means to further the analysis, fiction may incorporate observations about reality to enrich itself. Factual discourse seeks to understand and resolve issues of reality, fictional discourse seeks to create something new, though both may strategically incorporate elements of the other in a self-aware way to further their overall goal. | |
| Although the tone of both factual and fictional discourse are both similar, fictional discourse occurs under the knowledge that the fictional discourse relies on context from the initiating party as well as related contributions from other users. | |
| Factual discourse is about real things, fictional discourse is not. | |
| Truth. | |
| Factual is simply 'real' while fictional is 'imaginary' or 'make-believe'. Fictional discourse may include portions of factual discourse but mostly not. | |
| Factual discourse concerns that which is thought to be real, and fictional discourse concerns that which is agreed to be unreal. | |
| Fiction includes fantasy. Factual deals with events that actually happened. However, factual can diffuse into fiction when, for example, writing a historical fiction novel about the lives of children in Ancient Greece. The characters may be completely made up for the story, or they may be real people that actually lived. In this sense, factual and fictional can also include biographies. | |
| Real events with real people vs. real events with fictional people/fictional events with fictional people | |
| Factual discourse deals with the question/theme, what did happen (or reality, fictional discourse deals with themes from our fantasy. | |
| One is about actual things that happened and the other is completely divorced from that. There's certainly plenty of overlap in alt-history cricles, but that's the basic divide. | |
| One is talking about things that have happened in real life, the other about fiction. | |
| Factual is something true that happened IRL, fictional is something that is technically true, but within a fictional setting. | |
| Both are best grounded in the human element and a sound understanding of psychology. The difference is that fiction is whatever the writer wants it to be, which allows the writer more freedom in a sense, but also means that they are obligated to only include elements they want to be a part of their story. This includes elements such as story themes, which are not so easily applied to a retelling of historical events. | |
| Factual is what happened, fictional is completely fabricated. | |
| Err ... The actual facts ? | |
| The stakes of it? | |
| Suspension of disbelief. | |
| Factual discourse is based on the data that are already given
|
| No, never. | 16 |
| I have been criticised by participants, but not reprimanded by administrators. | 21 |
| I have been reprimanded by administrators. | 16 |
| For writing a timeline that played too loosely with historical facts. | |
| I engaged in a personal attack when a discussion became heated. | |
| For criticism, nothing much. Just the regular interaction of discussion. In which people naturally can make mistakes and more informed or experienced people can provide constructive criticism and correct them.
As for reprimand by the administration, I have received one warning (June 7, 2020) after posting a thread with a poll on the "After 1900" sub-forum in order to help decide which nation I would go with for making an alternate flag in a flag contest (thread was named "Don't Ask Why, X nation or Y nation?). The statement in the written warning by a moderator is as follows: "Don't post zero-effort garbage in on-topic forums." While I think it might have been an overreaction on their part, I am willing to accept the validity of it. I haven't really come into any conflict with the site administration and moderation since. | |
| No comment. | |
| 1st time for being rude, the 2nd and 3rd time due to Ian being a bit crazy. He is generally bad at following his own rules. | |
| Because they were stupid. | |
| I posted a what-if from a different user on another site (Sufficient Velocity). Ironically, I was only caught because I directly linked to the OP on SV, which had almost no discussion. | |
| Sometimes for minor errors when referring to historical events. | |
| I criticized another participant for what I thought was racism,and the administrator didn't agree and banned me for a week. | |
| I once posted a detailed recording of a user's dispute/feud against another TL, which the admins thought was provocative.
Also, given the, in my opinion, heavily left-wing leaning tendencies of AH.com, sometimes when it comes to matters of politics, given my own right-wing tendencies, I could get criticized by other users. | |
| Subpar contributions to the map thread which I will fully admit were trash. | |
| Factual mistakes, politics | |
| Criticisms were for occassional breaches of netiquette (now all in my earlier past on the forums) or were not so much criticisms as disagreements over some aspects of alternate history speculation. Good discourse occurs when people do not always agree with each other and can trade knowledge of things they might have overlooked in their allohistorical speculation and the writing of fiction derived from that speculation. In my personal experience, I can honestly say that the vast majority of cases of such discourse on AH.com were not cases of "this is completely wrong" criticisms, but instead constructive criticisms in the vein of "Have you also thought of this ?" or "What about this ? Don't forget this aspect, you might have overlooked it.". In my experience, and most other people's experience, the netizens of AlternateHistory.com are helpful and constructive and welcoming and encouraging, rather than falling for the present day malaise of the Internet, i.e. tearing into everyone with excessive, ego-stroking criticism. The fact that such overly personal or overly negative-minded/mean-spirited behaviour is frowned upon on these forums, including in some of its rules and guidelines, is what helps set it apart from the "free-for-all" arguing that has sadly come to dominate many Internet discussions. | |
| Historical innacuracy | |
| A snarky one-liner in my early days regarding the likely response to the assassination of Margaret Thatcher got me a mod warning.
I have been criticised by some for pointing out errors in their biases. | |
| For basing myself on things I thought I know but are actually stereotypical (in those grey areas where you think you know something but you didn't get to take a step back yet) | |
| For being factually mistaken, overly emotional or using unpleasant hyperbole. One incident involved quoting criticism of a political position that was considered baseless and intolerable slander of that position by an admin. | |
| Criticism usually revolves around correcting knowledge of historical events, with others having different interpretations of historical events without necessarily crossing into the realm of counter factual discourse. | |
| My hot takes and questionable opinions regarding American Football and World Football (Soccer) | |
| timeline quality and historical knowledge | |
| Questioning administrative policies. | |
| Historical implausibility. | |
| People have disagreed with my interpretation of facts. This is inevitable in any discussion space that allows disagreement of any kind. | |
| Mostly it's when people thought I was making a bad argument or suggesting that something was plausible when they thought it was implausible (or vice versa). | |
| Bigotry. | |
| I can be an acerbic debater at times, and my timeline, while mostly praised, has had certain elements deemed implausible at times. | |
| Trolling. | |
| I've received informal warnings from the mods. The specific one I remember was making a joke about Lindsay Graham being a warmonger. CalBear wasn't happy because it was current politics outside Chat.
Never received a formal warning or a kick. | |
| Although I ticked 'no' for question 18, I do feel there's been a lot of organized bullying in the past. Members tend to dog-pile on other less popular members. I also feel there's a huge 'popular crowd' mentality on the forum. Certain members seen to be able to say and write what they like and everyone will praise them for it. While others will get completely ignored.
To give you an example: I participated in a discussion and another participant practically copied what I said word-for-word. Their post was two posts down from mine on the same page. I got completely ignored, while this other person got a huge reaction with a lot of likes and replies. Just because that person is more popular. I think organized bullying is a problem with forum culture in general though, and it is not limited to alternatehistory.com. Actually, I find AHcom to be safer compared to other forums. Mostly I think because it is well moderated. The popularity clique is a big balagan though. | |
| One time for being critical of the US military's commitment to internal justice.
Another for getting into an argument, I think. It's not a usual thing. | |
| Historical inaccuracy or lack of clarity. Criticism was usually very polite. |