It seems to me other way round. I did not judged either, but I wrote why certain reports could not be trusted. The "this particular thing is likely exaggerated" comments were downvoted at the time I read it - regard less of how factual they were and no they did not claimed Azteks not have human sacrifice at all.
That is discussing history without judgement. If you bring this as proof that Cortez was unfairly disbelieved, which people do, then it is absolutely relevant to bring why, the way he collected evidence and what his goals were. That is part of historical discussion too.
This whole discussion, meaning other (top) threads are primary about making civilization judgement. Except that, only Aztek (or communist for some odd reason) kills are allowed in that discussion. It is literally there, Europeans coming were clearly superior, because we don't talk about facts that break that nice vision - namely that potential victims of sacrifice ended up being tortured in order to extract evidence that they themselves killed people (or have gold).
So no, discussion turned into civilization moral judgement before me and at that point it is perfectly ok to discuss involved civilizations - or at least what they were doing at that time at that place.
-----------
Offtopic: I think you can actually judge past people. You can judge Aztek priest, who is in it in part for own gain or cruel Samurai, Nazi leader or Colombus or whoever specifically. You should not however buy one of these guys woldview, just because he is our tribe remotely, and claim his self serving violence and treatment of commoners are fair due to somebody else's action.