I said that when you're banned from the forums, you'll see which thread incurred the ban and when your forum rights will be reinstated.
As I've said before, all you have to do to avoid getting banned is refrain from personal attacks. And if you've been banned for personal attacks several times, then you should really take extra care to learn from those experiences.
Jason, your statement apparently isn't truth with regards to HP's policy. I was never pointed to the so-called "personal attack", which supposedly happened. Sorry, but that is truth.
The window that pops up, during someone's ban from the forum is only informing people of the fact that they were banned from posting and how long the ban is for. It no longer presents the member with the post which got them banned.
And, that has been my point. I just served a 7 day ban, but have not once been directed to the specific conversation and/or post that got me banned. Which is what has caused my displeasure.
I appreciate the welcome back, but IF you can, find the post and let me know. Yes, it is that important for me to know. Telling me it is a personal attack does nothing, but tell me that moderators of the forum agreed with the individual who reported the post.
You know what, I had the feeling it was really beyond foolish.
Just curious? Was he also banned for his "bigot" statement? Or was it one-sided.
Calling someone "clueless" isn't a personal attack and to think it was is absurd. His post didn't answer the forum topic, but attacked me as an individual, which why I said he was clueless.
How can my pointing out how "clueless" that member is with regards to forum decorum/rules about posting, be any more ignorant, without using the word "ignorant"(which would get me banned)....Hence why the word "clueless" was used.
Did moderators not bother looking at the entire conversation, like they are supposed to do?
Yeah, bro, you should have never been banned for that. I would think a personal attack would involve a heated dispute, not a slightly sarcastic comment with a big happy face at the end. From now on, I'll have to moderate my comments.
And, I am humbled by them and honored at the same time. I haven't met anyone in my life, who would ever call me that. I have been called an a$$hole a few times. And, just recently. However, I do know he was banned for his offense and also lost his account for the email he sent me. And, I am sure he could have even lost his second account, because of the exact same action, which apparently shows that he doesn't listen or refuses to learn.
There are plenty of people who could legally fit into the mentally deranged category, but the only people actually allowed to tell anyone that is a bunch of medical doctors. Any one else saying it, is just opinion.
I've been called "clueless" many times, and never once has it offended me. There's a big difference between an intense debate with a little sarcasm vs. a strong personal attack.
I've been a big supporter of HP for a long time, and have referred many people here because I believe in the program. I've made comments like that in the past, and I'm sure just about everyone has. If it was something more intense, or said with harmful intent, I could understand. This just baffles me though. I really start to worry about a company when I see things like this start happening.
At least, that's my own opinion, and not meant as an attack against anyone or anything.
Just the other day someone attacked Cagsil, called him a fag and proceeded to email him insults. It took you days to review the person and more days to ban them, yet you banned Cagsil almost immediately for calling someone clueless.
Being called clueless simple means the person is ignorant, being ignorant simply means you have no idea of a subject.
It seems to me this was a personal attack on Cagsil by HP. There I said it.
<grins> I think she meant that for Jason.. Besides, I wouldn't want to have that authority, I get a bit trigger happy sometimes.
Cardisa, I don't know if it was a personal attack against Cagsil, but rather, a mistake in judgement. At least, I hope that's the case. I have a lot of respect for HP, what they've done, and what they've helped people do. Overall, I think they do a good job, but occasionally things like this happen.
Cardisa, and here I thought you were just cussin' me out for the fun of it.. It's alright, I can take it.. I'm a big boy. I would make some joke about me being clueless and all, but that just wouldn't be right.
Sorry, I simply couldn't resist.. Sometimes, ya just gotta smile.
The definition of clueless is, "Totally uninformed about what is going on; not having even a clue from which to infer what is occurring."
Common misconception: Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy.
In order to become a fallacy, the insult would need to given as a reason for believing some conclusion, for example, "X is idiotically ignorant [of politics], so why should we listen to him now?" ~~wiki
I was banned because one of the moderators mistakenly thought I had used a profanity. I used a word which in context meant that I was questioning the courage of a group of people. In a different context, it would have meant that I was wondering whether that group of people was a bunch of vaginas.
Are postings that inadvertently show a moderator to be lacking in language skills considered a personal attack on that moderator?
How long am I banned for this time? I'm sure the penalty for questioning the omniscience of a moderator is quite severe.
I'd probably have to agree with Camlo on this completely on this. Although Cagsil can be a bit obnoxious and arrogant sometimes in forums, I think in this particular case you can't say he was at fault here. If anything, Druid's statements were much more harsher, and he should've gotten banned instead of Cagsil. I fail to see how the word "clueless" is more offensive than the words druid used, as he did use words like "prejudiced bigot", and compared Cag's intelligence to that of a "Tarzan" type mentality. If that doesn't constitute as a personal attack on some level, then I don't know what does to be quite honest.
I don't know if Hubpages banned Druid too or not, but he definitely should've been banned for that statement against Cagsil, and Cagsil never should've gotten banned to begin with. Unfortunately for Druid, I know many of Cags friends will probably attack him now for this, as I think this would've been better served as a private conversation between all parties involved. However, it's out there now, and I doubt this is going away.
I apologize if I offended someone with this post, and I mean no ill offense to anyone here. However, i'm merely putting in my two cents.
And you fail to see my point. The point is that hubpages staff never should've banned cagsil to begin with, as the statement he made to druid were not of a personal attack nature. If you read druid's response to cagsil though, then you can clearly tell it was a personal attack on some level; which is why he should've been banned instead of cagsil which is what I was getting at.
I've got an idea - why not ban all banning? (Except in really serious cases, like when somebody makes an actual threat of real physical harm.)
I speak as someone who has been on the receiving end of a few Internet forum insults; for example, long ago in another online life, a guy I was debating with compared my intellect to polished dog turd. (Why he used the word "polished" is a mystery to me, but still.)
I didn't enjoy being on the receiving end of this, er, compliment but at the same time, I reasoned that my opponent's outburst told the reader more about him than about me and I didn't give a toss what he thought of me anyway. (And this particular forum was unmoderated, so there was nobody to whom I could run and say "Miiiiss, he insulted me - waaaaaah!")
As long as you have rules like "no personal insults" on a forum like this, and a banning policy such as the one that exists here, then there will always be complaints about unfair or biased moderation. And there will always be a load of people who click the Report button at the slightest provocation, real or imagined.
Driud Dude needs o be banned if he was not already. This was his reponse to Cagsil thread. By the way his response was why Cagsil said he was 'clueless'.
Thread posted by Druid Dude:- "No clue about morals...only you could step off the Matterhorn and end up at the beach at Malibu. I don't think you could have made less sense if you had been trying to make less. Survival of the fittest. Law of the jungle. Who are you...Tarzan? You should realize that survival of the Smartest doesn't necessarily mean "fittest", and how do you imagine yourself with that impenetrable blindness that you so obviously suffer from. You speak of love, yet you are so superficial, and can't even make consistant statements on your "favorite" subject, even though we all know that your favorite subject is other people's riduculous beliefs, which only shows you have not a single tolerant bone in your body. Disrespect of others proves you to be be a prejudiced bigot"
All I can say is that there are things being said here as if they were fact but which are not true.
- Cagsil was not the only one banned in that thread. - It did not take "days" to ban another attacker in the same thread. - This is far from a new policy; we've been applying the same rules for years.
Our rules are our rules; we stick by them, even when people say we're too harsh or too lenient (and we hear both in equal measure). Again, if you want to avoid getting forum-banned, all you have to do is avoid making personal (ad hominem) attacks.
I don't agree. Tangling with a fundamentalist is what gets people banned, and more than likely results in hubs and profiles voted down as well. The choke on a gnat and swallow an elephant rules seem to apply in the religion and belief forums.
The fanatics here threaten and make personal (ad hominem) attacks with impunity for the most part under the guise of god said it, not them.
No one is above the rules. Of course, we get blamed for impartiality all the time. Conservatives think we favor liberals, liberals think we favor conservatives, atheists think we favor the religious, the religious think we favor the atheists, and so on...
Moderators are suppose to be objective, weighing in the context of the conversation. Not suppose to be biased.
You would never get the opportunity. You are unable to put aside your bias beliefs. And, I am sure moderators have a tough time doing it on an individual level, considering their training for the job.
I have said it before and I will say it again, so an example can be made- Calling someone ignorant isn't a personal insult. Every living and breathing human being on the planet is ignorant in some manner. To deny that, denies oneself of being human.
Ignorance is one flaw of many. I have several hubs on the subject.
The thing is, Jason, that many here are quite confused as to what represents and constitutes a personal attack. Many here believe that by just criticizing their religious beliefs, we are attacking them personally.
Could you please explain what is and what isn't a personal attack based on your TOS? It would greatly help those who are confused and those who are sure they are being attacked but are obviously not.
This was discussed in detail on the forums here before. I think it is something like if you say to someone "your writing is clueless" or "that's a clueless idea" (not that I can imagine anyone using those words in this instance - ie 'clueless') then those are not considered to be personal attacks. But saying "you are clueless" is, because then you are attacking the person and not their thoughts or ideas.
This is a silly argument. Calling someone any derogatory name at all gets you a forum ban. End of. Cags knew the rules, and he broke them and was given time out, like everyone gets. Welcome back Cags by the way, but you did deserve it.
I avoid the forums like the plague (or was that plaque)....simply because I was on the receiving end of some of these kinds of remarks. I truly don't think "clueless" is a compliment but understand your angst in not being able to express yourself. I guess the old saying "if you can't say something nice"....still applies though.
DISCLAIMER: Humble opinion from an old lady who would gasp at being called clueless and then burst into tears.
I shall think twice now about posting anything on a forum. I have been at the receiving end of several very personal attacks, yet have never even thought of reporting them. It is human nature when being attacked, to want to respond. If this freedom can lead to being banned, I will in future be vary wary before responding to any attack I may receive. I don't mean any offence to anyone by my post.
I have not seen you to 'be on the end of very personal attacks'. I have seen your statements challenged and suggestions beng made that you were exaggerating.
You, like many others, should learn to differentiate between a personal attack and disagreement with what you say. If you are not able to defend your statements then don't make them if you do not want to be brought to task for them.
Being a simple minded blonde , what on earth was Jason doing posting a link to the offending post? Talk about badly handled, I would however like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that we need new blood on this site and not in the literal sense so please a little moderation in our arguments "clueless" could have been replaced as " lacking a complete understanding", yes, even you Cagsil could try just a little .........
Hey Laurel. Nice to see you. I'm glad you found what I said humorous however it was true. I wasn't even talking to a religious person. My post was to DruidDude, who isn't religious, but is a mystic/spiritualist.
It appears that I didn't clarify enough in my post, when I replied to his post that day. Oh well, it happens from time to time, when I don't go to the extreme of explaining myself.
well apparently I did. I got my first ban - not quite sure what for - presumably it was the medical pic of a woman with extra breasts when they were talking about extra nipples in the religious forums - wasn't exactly attractive. It got snipped with the words nudity. If I'd put a man up with extra nipples, would that have gotten me banned?
I saw that same picture. I reported the hub it was in. I found it to be possibly out of line, with regards to adsense and it's rules. Google can interpret it's TOS and does so, and lets people know when violations occur. HP attempts to step in before Google steps to the plate. If Google finds violations, then it could cost HP it's account.
So, I flagged it(reported it) and a moderator could view it. Anything you come across, which might borderline break HP's TOS or Google's TOS, then flag it and let a moderator see it. Let them make a decision.
While I wouldn't call that particular application of the rules draconian, it does seem tremendously rigorous given the actual offense. However, just goes to show why I prefer subtlety and, when necessary, sarcasm.
Gosh, I've called various persons. . . .effing morons, etc, numerous times - but the time I got banned from the forums, and never told for how long - was the time I mentioned a website, and left their link. . . .in an effort to be helpful to the community.
Would you have to be clueless to not realize that calling someone clueless would result in a ban. If I had said "cags you must be clueless... would I have been banned?) I am clueless as how that is truly offensive (will i now be banned for insulting myself?) in my mind that is not in any way insulting, only saying that you think someone is wrong about a subject and that they are writing about things they know nothing about! I wonder if you had spelt it out would you have been banned or is it just the word clueless or can you truly not disagree with anyone without a ban now? If you can no longer disagree with people the religious forums will be empty very quickly as everyone will be banned! Talk about a lot of BS!!!!! Well i am clueless, can HP please supply a full of list of words that can be used and in what circumstances..
472 results in the forums for clueless including the titles, were they all banned???? There are hubbers with the name "clueless...", would you be banned for mentioning them?
I'm asking this question because I am genuinely curious. I have never reported anyone on any forum for personally attacking me, even though it has happened. I never will report a personal attack, unless it rises...
I recently made a post on a hub entitled 'Cowards on HubPages' The post was denied with this explanation:I have denied some comments here because they contain only personal derrision and although the forums will not be...
I have heard this before from others, and in the past, have had this problem myself. Now it has reared its ugly head again. There are some on this site who cannot hold a civil conversation or disagree calmly...
There's been a lot of discussion of forum rules and policies recently, as well as criticism of the HubPages staff, so Paul and I agreed that a thread reiterating our position was in order.The rules are very clear:No...
I would quite like one, but why should I contact the hubpages team if they cannot give me the courtesy of letting me know why.94 hubs in less than 3 months, and for what? To get banned for losing my rag with religious...