justification? If not like me. Someone can arbitrarily ban anyone for unjustified reason! What is the mean of defense for someone that is banned? Why can't he/she face a trial? Are we a microcosm of democracy or not?
Why were you banned?
And no, we are NOT a microcosm of democracy; HubPages ownes this site, lock stock and barrel. No voting needed or allowed.
I don't know why, you tell me. In fact people decide to ban someone with Hubpages's blessing, that's what I am against. I want Hubpages to give me a rational justification of someone else's decision. What can I do once I am banned. Nothing. My right to speech or defense is inexistent.
If you want to know why Hubpages banned you, I suggest asking them.
9 times out of 10 they won't tell you, just refer you to the meaningless T&C.
To take OPs complaint seriously I would want to know he tried that, and what the reply was.
Failing that, knowing the day it happened and the Tos one could probably find the offending post. the forum guidelines are pretty straightforward. It is almost always something along the line of using a personal insult.
I've now been banned three or four times and never to my knowledge for a personal insult.
"almost", "something along the line..." what makes it vague. Your attempt to dissolve them is at your honor but not enough for me!
Exact. What makes me believe that they go through them. If they don't why to give the authority to the quidam?
I twice asked them (in former bans) and they were vague. I want a detailed answer.
The problem is, as I see it, that you think you have a right to post here when you do not. Your title and OP in this thread bear this out - you claim it was not justified while at the same time claiming you have no idea why it was done. The two claims are the antithesis of each other and you cannot reasonable make both.
But HubPages isn't interested in any defense or apology you might offer - they banned you and don't care what you think about it or that you think they don't have a right to do so. They don't need to give you justification, and most definitely do not need to give justification you agree with.
I've been banned twice; the first time there were only a few posts and isolating the one that did the "damage" was easy. I didn't agree with it, but it wasn't my choice - it is and was HubPages and I can either live with it or move on to another site.
The second time I understood very well why I was banned and agreed with it - I had learned a little about why HubPages institutes a ban. You can do the same thing if you will quit assuming it has to fit your concept of what is bannable and simply try to figure out what HP considers a bannable offense.
Are you sure your ban was unjustified? Hubpages is not a democracy. Read the terms of service. They tell you all the reasons that may cause you to be banned.
Difficult to follow, but I gathered the OP doesn't know why he was banned. And if he doesn't know, he certainly doesn't know if it was justified or not...
Their explanation is always GENERAL, I want the DETAIL. Show me that I was WRONG. But to bend without a good fight is not ME.
Unfortunately, it is a fight you cannot win by fighting it. Only by accepting it and understanding why it was done, without worrying about it being fair or even ethical, can you win, and only if you quit making the same offense.
Will you also advice me to report anybody that disagrees or insults me?
I several times disagreed with you, it doesn't make you my enemy but an opponent.
Report all the disagreements you wish. Should there be present in the text an actual insult, I'm sure you'll be able to get anyone you wish banned. If not, you and everyone else will all float on.
Whether or not you report people is up to you. I report quite often - but only for spamming the forums. I have never reported a personal attack, even one carried out on me, and I have been the unhappy recipient of more than a couple personal attacks. It just isn't worth it to me.
Hubpages doesn't ban. People ban. Hubpages obeys without checking its veracity. I was ban for a month and until I don't know why.
I was unaware of that - having never been banned. But, if what you say is correct, it probably says more about the person who requested your ban than about you. These are public forums and all opinions should be welcome, but some people are just overly-sensitive. From what I've seen of your posts - you seem like a decent guy. I don't see you making vicious attacks on others or anything else.
Just put it down to some people being too thin-skinned. As a kid, my parents raised me not to be a "tattletale" and I taught my kids the same thing. When we get to be adults, I think we should be better suited to deal with others - without tattling.
I don't think this is a common occurrence, this is really the first time I've heard of it. I guess one of the risks of being on a forum like this is running into people who don't have similar social skills.
Thanks for starting this thread. It's been enlightening.
And lacking in understanding of the English language and its changing usage from one English speaking country to another English speaking country.
My last 7 day ban was for telling somebody they were being obtuse, which in my country is accepted to mean "missing the point" from the hysterical reaction my post received and the following ban I can only conclude that it means something else in your country.
Which raises the question "should people be banned for, what is to them, proper use of language?
1 annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand:
obtuse adjective. Dictionary
stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless; insensitive, imperceptive, uncomprehending; dim, dimwitted, dense, dumb, slow on the uptake, halfwitted, brain-dead, moronic, cretinous, thick, dopey, lamebrained, dumb-ass, dead from the neck up, boneheaded, chowderheaded. ANTONYMS clever, astute. Thesaurus
What does YOUR dictionary/thesaurus say?
"annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand:"
and it was pretty obvious from the context that I used it in that I meant "slow to understand".
you said you meant, "missing the point."
I personally see nothing wrong with "slow to understand" but that too is banable??? Hey!!! I've got some reporting to do!!!
...think i'll skip it; already "filed" it. Still got all my skin. Lol...
Well if somebody is slow to understand . . .
Perhaps I should have told them that they were wonderfully astute
Hey, if you are quacking and waddling... majestic dove??? Grown-up debates do at times require "grown-ups" and so many here forget. I would swear some of my forum-mates are 16 using pics of their aunt/uncle as avatars.
Hey! As a Christian, I have been labeled with outright adjectives: unintelligent, unlearned, ignorant, delusional, lacking common sense. And my God gets it too.
Then again, I aint no tattler. I simply respond. The report button is never my response either. I must have thick skin. And/or the ability to place rude comments in their proper "file"
Or rounded at the extremity! Is it our fault if someone is too sensitive. Aren't we adults?
I suspect a few.
I have heard many insults. There is one who does it with confidence. An absolute rant and a half with a smile. Hardly ever banned. Must know somebody...
It is unfair.
I just caught one insulting me Superkev, I didn't report him but I'm wondering if the righteous Hubpages will act upon its principles or turn a blind eye? The answer to my question goes without saying.
I think someone has to sound the alarm. They probably don't have monitors.
I will ASSURE it. How could they? The logic of a private entity is to lower the costs. It is the reason why they hide behind generalities versus details to justify one's irrational behavior.
Remember in the "ACCOLADES" window delations are gratified with points!
Hubstaff clearly read the forums to some extent, because they respond in the threads.
Is "being obtuse" a personal attack? It is still an opinion. Then what is the limit not to reach?
I accept the difference of opinion. Whoever can gain my support if they rationally debate. In 6 years I personally banned one person because he was racist it is to say how tolerant I am. I disagree a lot but it doesn't mean that I will PUNISH someone because she or he thinks differently.
You realize you didn't ban anyone? Right? You reported. Is that what you are mad about? Someone reported you?
Reporting means ban don't play with me. Then why don't they bring the evidence?
As a proof superkev just insulted me. I didn't report him and he is still online.
Given your answers you will be more likely not be reported, because you are part of the majority, most of the conservatives on this platform like a jovial debater but the one that criticizes and brings other sources but the mainstream media ones will be subjected to banishment because they dare titillate their hypersensitivity.
BAHAHAHAH! I was drinking coffee dude, now my keyboard is sticky.
I get the fight the power stuff. I think all this energy could be funneled into fighting the power that actually matters. I mean really, you could have fired off 20 petitions or wrote a manifesto or something in the time it took to argue a banning on forum that maybe 50 people read and that no real change will ever come from.
In addition, it's kinda a bummer but I don't think you'd be cool with someone coming to YOUR site and telling you what you had to allow on it. Just saying.
So someone reported you. Big deal. So the people who own this site agreed that you broke the rules... again big deal. Does this really affect your life in any meaningful way? Isn't there something more productive you could be doing?
Always cracking a good joke!
If I had to report you over and over without any justification to support it, would you still use this light tone or would you start questioning Hubpages's ethics?
If you report someone who has not actually violated the forum rules (in this case, Melissa has not personally attacked you by any definition of the word) no banning would take place because the rules have not been broken. You can hit the report button on any post you want to. Whether or not it results in a ban is entirely dependent on whether or not a rule was broken.
And who says that? What is the basis of your assertion? I least, me, I'm relating something that happened to me.
Every personal attack is subjective. As I already said it, why doesn't Hubpages show me the offense explaining and confirming the ban?
Hubpages is under no obligation to show you anything or cater to your demands. It is a private company, and can moderate according to their own rules. If you don't find it fair, go somewhere else. No one is keeping you here, and you participate at will. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the staff at Hubpages owes you something. That's not the way private companies work, sorry.
Hubpages is under no obligation to show you anything or cater to your demands
Really, really ironic that you hold that view. Wow... Hubpages...
I have been banned for using the word whining. I've heard it here 3 times in this very convrrsation. No bans. go figure...
Report away. The button is below this post.
I should report you for telling someone else to report you.
Oh the circular argument that is about to occur.
Then I'll report you for telling me that you are going to report me for telling someone to report me.
Fine! Well I'll report you for telling me that you're going to report me for telling someone else to report you.
I guess you don't feel concerned then why are you wasting my time? Is it a personal insult? But someone else may find your little act with Farland insulting?
I am not a bit concerned. Not even a little. Not an iota, a smidgen or a pinch. Again, report away.
Being insulted and being personally attacked are two separate things
Not a personal insult:
The color blue is a putrid, horrible abomination. Blue shirts should be outlawed because they are irrepressibly ugly. Liking blue is delusional.
A personal attack:
Betty is delusional. She is ugly in that blue shirt and she should be jailed. She looks like a putrid, horrible abomination. She is obtuse. She doesn't get how stupid she is.
Now, if Betty loves blue and is currently wearing a blue shirt, she is going to be offended by both statements (especially if she has a persecution complex about liking blue). However, the first statement is a discussion of Blue... the second statement is a discussion of Betty.
Edit: For example, if you tell someone that they appear ignorant and uneducated, you are attacking a person rather than their opinion.
No, "liking blue is delusional" would be a personal attack in my estimation. LOL.
No, they would be offended. For it to be a personal attack, it kind of needs to be made at a specific person. I can't poll the forum and make sure that nobody that likes blue is going to be involved in the conversation or read it, ever.
If I like blue, you say I am delusional. That might offend me. But I cannot consider it a personal attack. Okay.
No, I never said any particular person was delusional. I said liking blue was delusional.
Liking blue is a general opinion.
Calling a particular person delusional is a personal attack.
If one becomes defensive and takes it personally that I believe that liking blue is delusional, then THEY are taking it to the personal level. So they are being personally offended by a general statement.
Edit: Kinda like the difference between saying homosexuality is an abomination and telling a gay person that they specifically are an abomination.
Both are horrible statements, but only one is a personal attack.
Have you noticed that in both groups of words "personal attack" and "personal insult" the common denominator is personal, and do you know who it refers to? The person. Did I make my point? Again, if you dare, what is the difference?
OK, I'm done playing. You told someone that they appeared uneducated and ignorant and you got banned for a personal attack because you personally attacked someone.
How is that not a personal attack? Be very careful answering that question too... or you'll make another one.
Which ban was it? And what did the opponent say since you are in a hurry to behead me?
Both uneducated and ignorant can be defined as uninformed in what way is it insulting? Those adjectives become insulting for the person that sees only one meaning therefore whose fault is it mine or theirs?
It doesn't matter what he/she said. If it was a personal attack, then they were up for banning too.
Their behavior, if any, doesn't excuse yours.
Yes it matters, as I answered it precedently both mean uninformed. It only proves that any word is open to interpretation.
No, it really doesn't. When you call somebody names or say negative things about them personally, then it is a personal attack. You can say an OPINION is ignorant, you can't say a PERSON is. You said a person was, not his viewpoint.
Your question has been answered. Whether or not you like the answer is irrelevant.
What does uninformed mean? Is it my fault if someone is limited vocabulary speaking and can't define those two adjectives?
If both adjectives mean the same, the fault reposes upon the hubber for his/her misunderstanding and for his/her hypersensitivity resulting from it.
Irrelevant, yes, but also a little ironic considering who the post was replying to...
My ban that time was the result of someone else's hypersensitivity. And since Hubpages doesn't overview them, we are entrapped.
I thought that everybody could pick the analogy! I guess not.
It is not in my habit.
In court you are innocent until proven guilty. So far I consider myself innocent until proven guilty. I call upon Hubpages to bring me the evidence.
The point being that it wouldn't matter if you pressed the button a million times, I didn't do anything bannable...lately.
I was banned for a month. I spent it absolutely not caring that I was banned for a month. I did other things in my, you know, life. It was actually a pretty productive month.
Hubpages is not court, and you are not entitled to a quick or speedy trial by a jury of your peers. Again, private company. With its own rules. Like it or not, we all have to deal with them. There is a whole big wide internet out there that has thousands of forums with no rules whatsoever. If you don't like the rules or being banned, you're free to check them out. Seriously.
this is an interesting subject, for I didn't even know there was such a thing as a temporary ban.I was always under the impression if someone gets banned, they stay banned.
But I don't think anyone is trying to "play" you about the difference between reporting and banning. I know I've reported a few folks for flaming others, and I haven't noticed any of them getting the boot. Not that I seek to get anyone booted out - that does seem a little drastic. The few exceptions I can think of is if a person is deliberately stalking another member, knowingly defaming others, a demonstrated pattern of harassment, spreading libel or posting purely commercial material for personal gain.
I do feel if a member gets banned they deserve to be told exactly why. Such consideration may not be an obligation Hupages admin. has, of course. Yet such explanations are common courtesy and show professionalism. And I hope you receive an answer to your questions very soon. Good luck!
I am fogggy about my month-long ban and tried to get answers but remembered how difficult that can be. I do hate it. One minute you're fine and smartly debating; then BAM... the cop.
Exactly! And it is fair according to Hubpages?
Appears so. I am always taken aback by the "form letter" responses that scream, "you figure it out"
However, I am alive for a short time. I say what is necessary; be it received or no. But I bet that if the context of the "offenses" were viewed I would have only been banned half as much. But they've probably got lots of reporters and not as many report verifiers. What will be will be.
I gotta be meeeee! Thinkn Sammy Davis
Of course it is people that ban - HubPages is a paper corporation that can do nothing without the people in it's employ.
If, on the other hand, you're claiming that it is some hubber, not an employee of HP, that banned you, you are badly mistaken. No one outside of HP can ban anyone.
I do have to wonder, though, if you don't know the reason what makes you think it was without justification? Can you justify that claim?
I personally can answer that by saying, because I don't use comments that I consider banable. The context of the conversation should be looked at when considering banning. People say, well you're a doodie head! I respond with you're a bigger doodie head! (Or something like that) and I see the "cop"
I really think people consider it fun to bait for bans. ESPECIALLY when you show them that they are no smarter than you.
Isn't it an abuse of power and who will overlook the abuse if not Hubpages but apparently no power is exerted otherwise they would have brought you the evidence.
Yep! But this is their show. They may ban at will.
Ours is not to reason why...
No petty bickering with someone who will not be banned for arguing with you; and most often starting the crap.
Yes. I agree. If we are several people to agree upon a dysfunction doesn't it mean that the dysfunction exist? I'm not talking to Hubpages's defenders since their judgment is blinded by their interests. They wouldn't want their image to be broken.
No, it means that a few people share an opinion. If all my friends agree that unicorns are real, it doesn't prove they exist.
And what is this opinion based upon? Fairy tale like your irrelevant example or factual?
Hmm. I haven't seen any HP defenders here, just people trying to explain the facts of internet sites to you. While you continue to exclaim that you have rights to do whatever you wish on someone else's site.
I did that to my parents when I was a teenager. I told them that I had the right to free speech. My father informed me that I had no such rights under his roof.
I didn't know dad was a lawyer
We will forgive you, after all, you were ONLY a teenager!
True. The very young in our society often think they have any and all rights they can conceive of. Deluded of course, and most learn better with experience but a few maintain the delusion that the world owes them whatever they wish.
Tell me about it. I've come to the conclusion that if a teenager can walk and chew gum at the same time that they are in the 95 percentile in intelligence. I'm not sure how anyone survives it.
How will anyone understand what you just said? But I guess because you are jovial, you ALWAYS crack jokes your conservative friends will ignore it.
Can't you figure out one's political opinion through their answers? People are an open book in this platform.
Agreed. I've raised two myself, and now those two are getting close to having some themselves.
Bill Cosby has it right - children, all children, are brain damaged.
What a reference? I would have prefered Francoise Dolto's or Bruno Bettelheim's. And they would have definitively disagree with your statement.
My oldest showed all signs of being intelligent... Then he lost his mind. It was horrible. He, after his first girlfriend, announced that he now understood women. My husband still chuckles in his sleep over that one.
There seems to be a tipping point where they know things academically but have absolutely no idea how they work in the real world. They get mad when what they thought they knew actually doesn't apply in any way shape or form to real life.
Hence the existential angst and proclamations of unfairness and injustice. Every 18 year old thinks they are going to start a revolution.
I've often noticed that irrational anger myself, but never put it together quite that way. I do believe you've hit it right on the head, though.
My fifteen year old is brilliant. I mean absolutely brilliant... academically.
He has yet to figure out that it takes no more effort for his father to ground him than it takes for him not to ground him. He runs off at the mouth, his father expends the effort to raise an eyebrow and say a sentence...and then continues his way completely uncaring of the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The fifteen year old spends two weeks without any privileges for a insult that really didn't bother his father a bit... yet thinks he somehow came out on top.
Got a grandson that does exactly the same thing; runs his mouth without regard to the results. And is punished at least every couple of days for it, but never learns that the only consequence of the insult hurts HIM, no one else.
My middle kid used to attempt to punish us by denying him self of the things he wanted. He finally gave it up and a few days ago we talked about it. He says he remembers the last time he did it and realized how absurd it was.
M Child "Dad can I have the rest of the almonds?"
Me "Ask you brothers if they want any and split them up."
M Child "You guys want any almonds?"
Youngest Child "Sure"
Me "Okay split them up between the two of you."
M Child "No, he can have them all" Stomps away.
Y Child "crunch, crunch, crunch".
Me "ha ha ha ha. You sure fixed us".
Hasn't done it since.
In what way is it our concern? After all, haven't you shown the same distance earlier?
Don't you have a mirror somewhere? You meant tainted facts.
What about the "report" button? Now that one of their employee does the job, it has to be proven! And in your profile page isn't there a function in the "accolades" window that congratulates delations?
I know which they are, I just want the proof. I can denounce whoever would disagree with me and they will be ban, on which ground do they ban? If it is justified I want them to prove me I did wrong.
Heck no. I got a response one time that generally explained. But ok, the emperor gave me a thought just now. I do try...keep on getting banned. And I never know the exact comment that did it.
In many cases, bans are extreme. I suggest that bans should be for extreme personal attacks, cyberbullying, and trolling. If a person elects to engage in some intense banter which could include strong emphasis, a ban is unnecessary. If a person's temperament is overly sensitive, then h/she should not be in the forums in the first place. Strong opinions including emphasis should be encouraged and not penalized. This is political correctness taken to an extreme level. Bans should be for extreme personal attacks using profanity, cyberbullying, and trolling, that's IT!
Remind me Grace, who threw a major wobble when I told them they were being obtuse (i.e.. missing the point)?
That would be reasonable if indeed there was consistent moderation on these forums, but there is little if no moderation at all here.
Usually, moderators are visible members who engage and generate discussions. They will rarely ban anyone unless it is extreme. Banning is not a solution, it only serves to create more problems, especially when the invisible person doing the banning never explains or even points out what was said.
Good moderators get involved by talking to those who may be pushing the boundaries of the TOS, explaining why their comments could lead them to eventually getting banned if their actions become extreme.
Moderation here appears to consist of someone at Hubpages being saddled with dealing with the "Report" button emails in their inbox, clearing them out by simply hitting the ban button whenever the reports come in, most likely never actually reading any of the posts. The person who was banned often has no clue as to what happened, hence they can never understand what it is they did and will most likely repeat the action again. That is why it is very important for a moderator to explain themselves, to get involved with the community, rather than being an invisible entity with a big stick.
I'm not sure if this is a joke or you're serious...
He was saying that he thought a HP mod was not doing the monitoring correctly....I'm not sure how that is banworthy unless he was degrading them or personally attacking them. Imo But you know. I may be wrong.
Most likely he was banned for one of his many posts that insult other forum users. Most of the time that is why people are banned from the forums and he has post that tick that box.
Hmm...I guess I would have to go read the posts. I was actually addressing this question to Prodio, who said he reported him (the OP) for his post about the moderator not moderating correctly. Although in certain contexts I could understand how that would be ban-able, I didn't see how it was in this case, as he was not issuing personal attacks against the mod.
But I guess that's the whole issue being discussed, isn't it? How the personal attack is received and how it's interpreted, and that one person will see it as a personal attack and another will not...
I do get your point however.
That is the problem with not only participating in forum discussions, but becomes most prevalent when moderating a forum, the understanding of what constitutes a personal attack such that a ban is required. This is even hotly debated amongst moderators themselves.
For a member, it is important these distinctions are made clear so as to know specifically the boundaries a particular forum moderator will set and act upon. If more than one moderator, those boundaries become unclear and may often contradict.
Description of Personal Attack
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie … ttack.html
Not to underestimate my own situation, but it is one of the reasons why I don't report posts, you know, so that there is no evidence for accusing me of being a hypocrite.
I would hope no one would want to be a hypocrite. As for examples, there is one I pointed out in this thread. I don't feel like weeding through OPs posts to find others (those related to the banning and any others reported will have been deleted anyway) but I remember them occurring periodically when debating issues that seem to be important to him. I think the definition of a personal attack is not obscure, it is saying that [specific person] is [bad thing].
Most likely, most of the time... TOO VAGUE!
I put myself in the modes' slippers - and you know, figured out that that reply does demand some serious moderation! You know!
I am still wondering what is the utility of a "moderate" button? Do they want our opinion yes or no? If it is felt as an insult in what way the offended can't defend herself/himself? Do we need to be assisted by a supreme authority each time we feel attacked? We are not in kindergarten anymore. Again, why would anyone pay for someone else's immaturity, hypersensitivity?
We are a cocooned society. Our government protects us against an invisible Al-Qaeda? We can't drink beers in the streets without the fear of a cop in the area? We can't jaywalk... All responsibility is lifted from our childlike behaviours!
I think I skipped over this post. And unfairly, because you make some good points. It has long been my opinion that the forum modrator(s) should have a much more visible presence at HP. It's a vital component of the site and I think it deserves more concentrated attention than it receives from staff. It wouldn't hurt for things like warnings and maybe the occasional cautionary message to get thrown out there.
That being said, there are a couple of things that I think we forget sometimes. We're all adults and should be able to police ourselves AND most importantly, being banned from forum participation is not equivalent to being censored. Usually, a hubber is still free to write hubs to their heart's content, which get published without censorship unless they are poor quality or in clear violation of rules.
That's just my take on it.
I was temporarily banned for 24 hours. I deserved it.
I was not told why. I just figured it was due to the last post that was part of a string of posts that got pretty heated. Anyway I try to cool my jets now before I get so sharp tongued.
You see. A dictatorship. No one can express oneself without fearing the consequences. Was it yesterday that I read a post praising Hubpages that underlined our freedom of speech, the "harmony" reigning in the debates. An harmonious debate, by extension doesn't exist since a platform will automatically gather several political, social, cultural backgrounds. Either we have an open debate and the hypersensitive is, like in Darwin's natural selection, eliminated, either maccarthyism is the rule. Yesterday's communists are today's conspirationists (I like this word).
It would be interesting to know that since it was a heated debate if you were the only one sanctioned? Now do you think that it is fair that someone reported (probably because she/he was losing the argumentation) you and that your opponent could keep on expressing herself/himself without fearing Damocles's sword from you or from a superior authority?
Have you contacted the big people of Hubpages about it?
No point, they always refuge themselves behind their ivory towers. I just want them to copy/paste my offence so that I can defend myself without ostracizing me for a long limited period.
Well, I know one thing for sure… if you accuse someone of saying the king's new clothes are really exquisite and join in to explain the clothes he was wearing in great detail, (when in all actuality the king was naked,) you will be banned. Happened twice. Then I realized any personal attack against another is a ban-able offense, as it should be.
What is a personal attack because your opinion will differ?
Now that is a tricky question: What is a personal attack? If you visit the 'Forum rules' section of this website - you will find that they mention it - but don't define it.
Perhaps they have left it to users to use their intuition to define what constitutes a personal attack.
"What are we not allowed to do in the Forums?
Making Personal Attacks: Debate and disagreements on points of substance are all right, but personal attacks, petty bickering, extreme profanity, and thread hijacking will be dealt with swiftly."
Right! The definition is foggy. Intuition, I guess. But it can be a bit "left to interpretation" as to what constitutes what.
I have been raked over hot coals for hours with insult upon insult. And THEN banned.
I always have to ask myself, "What in the world did I say???"
Has he recently become responsible for deciding who gets banned here at HP?
Red Men are always quite intuitive, you know.
Please tell me the error in my name was not purposeful?
'Is your intuition right about God?'
You know, we are here to discuss bans, one of the rules is to not hijack a forum. Fair-warning.
Aaahhh... I see.
Ya know... I could've sworn that some of my forum mates are 16 posing...
Sorry, I've only ever hit the report button once or twice and that was a while back. But I can tell you I've had numerous bans however the moderators are very reasonable. Recently I was coming off a month long ban when I was suddenly given a three month ban. I asked the moderators what I had said that prompted the ban and was presented with 3 things that had I guess been reported. I showed the moderator the context of the posts and indicated that none of them were personal attacks or petty bickering and they must have agreed and lifted the ban.
I try to never make anything personal. Calling someone obtuse is personal, while telling them that there idea is full of holes is not.
Your example reflects the reigning insanity. It is obvious that people abuse of this report button. And it is clear that objectivity isn't the driving force. Obtuse also means "rounded at the extremity" why would we automatically assume that you meant the worst? In that case, is it your fault or the offended?
"...petty bickering, extreme profanity, and thread hijacking will be dealt with swiftly", I understand VERY well, now I want them to present the evidence.
Although HP may just be following their ToS, unable to monitor every post their reliance on the report button results in disproportionate enforcement. Certain folks here have proven prolific reporters, and only against those opposing their views. Since the other side rarely engages in this petty practice, one side of some arguments suffers the wrath of HP for questionable comments, while the other side continues on their merry way, frequently making the same violations they complain of, but doing so with impunity. Sadly, I have seen many good hubbers grow weary of the nonsense and move on. I have learned to be very careful, particularly when posting anything I know may offend the vigilantes.
I report posts. I do this because I agree with the policy that personal insults should not be used. And because while I have many faults, I am not a hypocrite. I think calling people a $%%&&@# is not a good thing for the forums. But anyone and toward anyone. This is not the school yard where I have to put up with crap I dislike out of fear of my peers.
I quite agree but all too often it is used to stifle disagreement,
I agree with psyche completely. There is a lot of speculation in this thread that report=ban. I don't believe that at all. HP makes the decision to ban or not, and I do NOT believe they make those decisions based on the number of reports. I've seen folks banned for remarks that were entirely innocuous in my opinion, and have seen others use downright cruel and inflammatory language repeatedly and seem to never miss a minute of posting. It is useless in stifling disagreements. I also fine it amusing that a select few on all sides of issues seem to feel unfairly targeted. Short answer - if you know you shouldn't say it, don't. If you choose to say it anyway while being fully aware of the consequences, don't whine about being banned.
*No "you" is intended personally, just a universal "you."
"I've seen folks banned for remarks that were entirely innocuous in my opinion, and have seen others use downright cruel and inflammatory language repeatedly and seem to never miss a minute of posting."
Thus backing the idea that banning are indiscriminate. Some get banned for trifles, others don't get banned for flagrant abuse.
I don't disagree with that, but I do vehemently maintain that just because one gets reported doesn't mean they will be banned. My point is that people are often reported (and told such) by many people and not banned. If all it took to get banned was to be reported, that wouldn't be the case.
That would certainly support the fact there is very poor moderation here.
Report does not = ban. I never said it did. Report = "please review and scrutinize". Political correctness is all about censorship, so not surprisingly it seems the PC folks tend to be the ones embracing this process. If their view comes through in who gets reported, while they themselves are not reported for the same or worse behavior, the result is disproportionate enforcement of the ToS.
Yes, HP does...but their scrutiny is largely, if not almost completely, based on reports. I never said the people didn't technically violate the ToS, (even if it is a bit of a stretch). I am saying violating ToS doesn't seem to get you banned unless reporting is included. If someone targets another, they will probably be successful in getting them banned eventually.
Your statement supports my assertions. What do you think the difference is? Perhaps who hits the report button and who doesn't? Some good hubbers are now gone because of this, so I would say it can be quite effective in stifling disagreements, at least in the bigger picture.
Considering I know you are familiar with the same instances I am, over the years, I am bit surprised you can say this. I am aware of your alliances, so perhaps that is a factor in your not seeing the discrepancies. Just wondering, have you ever seen anyone repeatedly banned, (or even banned once), for telling believers they personally are ignorant, uneducated, delusional, etc? That is probably the most prolific personal attack in the religious forums, but it goes unchecked because those on the receiving end are not thin skinned enough to turn to that report button. Of course, every time this topic comes up, everyone is on good behavior for a short time, but you have been around so I suspect you know exactly what I am talking about.
Good advice, and all the more so when dealing with certain folks, or speaking against certain topics. Be vague, and general and perhaps you can still make your point. I am not complaining, by the way about my own banning. So far it has only happened once. Since then I have been aware of the active dynamic in play and framed my responses accordingly. Sad to have to be so careful, but that seems to be what it has come to. Worrying about any possible way your words could be misrepresented or misunderstood for fear of banning. Know what I mean? Based on this comment, I suspect you do:
Oh, bBerean, I've no problem with anything you said here except the whole thing about knowing where my alliances lay. Frankly, there are posters I am friends with and others I am not. I've indeed seen two atheist posters banned (one permanently) for making such statements - and rightfully so. I've also seen Christians banned for similar behavior who broke the rules and created new accounts to get back in the game. I've also been around HP for a longer period of time than I realize sometimes and when I first began in the forum, things that result in bans now were considered completely irrelevant and unimportant and rarely merited even a glance from mods, reported or not.
I, for one, take a LOT of things quite personally, especially repeatedly having my faith mocked (by those who have none) and questioned (by others who do). I've been told more than once that I'm delusional, irrational, follow Satan, and water down my faith to tickle the ears of folks I want to like me. I have never reported one word spoken against me.
I feel that the rules are enforced a bit abitrarily on occasion and I feel that they're enforced too harshly on others. But, unless one takes their grievances to the people responsible for the enforcement of the rules, they will always feel that they've been treated unfairly.
And, yeah, not to be contrary, but saying that people report others to get them banned to squash disagreements is essentially saying that reports will get people banned, which I just don't believe to be the case. People get banned when a moderator (however they may come across it) finds that a post has violated an HP rule. It is what it is. If you are unable to speak passionately without being banned, and wish not to be banned, then either the passion needs to be reined in for some semblance of neutrality or the passion needs to be expressed in a way that isn't offensive to others. At the end of the day, if you wouldn't want someone to say something to you in a certain way, then you need to set the example and not use that way of expressing yourself to them.
*Edit: I am rarely, if ever, careful about how I word something and I never feel a need to shrink from passionately acknowledging or defending my thoughts and beliefs. I've not been banned yet, though, and it certainly isn't because I've encountered a ton of friendly supporters. Some of the time, offense comes from the person hearing the words and not the one speaking them. I don't think it's right to say that people who don't encounter bans are just towing the PC line. I'm not particularly PC about much of anything.
Mo, my point has been that someone who gets their posts repeatedly reported for scrutiny by HP is likely to eventually, if not immediately get banned, (if there is even remote merit to the complaint), while folks who never get reported will likely never be banned.
Perhaps where we disagree is in my contention that the reports are disproportionately against certain views, ideologies and in some case hubbers. It seems people predisposed to the PC sensitivity and who are likely to act on it, hold particular views. Not exactly a shock.
Like you said, just be careful and you will be fine, so I am not disregarding the role people play in their own banning. In spite of this knowledge, and over time being able to get a good picture of where the reports most certainly must be originating, (based on many factors), I have not taken to retaliation by reporting those folks for constant review, (even though their comments often technically warrant it per ToS). If someone were to employ their tactics against them, however, I do suspect they too would be banned, (again making clear I do not consider it discrimination by HP in any way).
My point is...how do WE know where any of the reports are coming from, IF things are even being reported, and IF some things ARE reported and not deemed to have broken any rules? Are you privy to the HP Secret Book of Knowledge? I'm sure not!
I think in many cases, we are too sensitive and maybe just experiencing our own bit of personal paranoia.
Please excuse the caps...LOL I'm typing from my phone and caps are an easier way of emphasizing than HTML.
Many reasons. Can I prove it in court? Of course not. Can I notice the same players involved when these things take place? Can I recognize themes and patterns? Can I make a mental note when they directly or indirectly take credit and or celebrate the bannings? Yes, I can do all this.
I am talking about several hubbers affected over a couple years...all with these common factors. Don't ask me to pretend I don't notice. These same folks have in the past become quite defensive whenever this topic has come up, particularly if associated to a specific hubber they may have reported. I am a bit surprised we haven't seen them chime in here yet, but of course I can't point it out if they do, right?
So call it what you want. I am sure some will view it as just my imagination influenced by that uneducated, ignorant, delusional aspect I keep hearing about. (Don't worry, I won't tell).
Well, I certainly am not in your head, so I'll take your word for what you think. Most of the time, the only way I've ever learned that someone was banned was when they mentioned it on their return or sent a private message to someone else to ask that it be made public. I've had three people notify me personally that they were banned, one of whom you'd think might have been far quicker to talk to you about it. Go figure. Only a big deal when it's made into one, I guess.
I have also had several of those correspondence, including with the one you are probably alluding to, who I was in correspondence with all along. I never said a word in the forums about it until specifically asked to deliver a message, which was long after the ban.
Yeah, you'd be amazed at the number of folks who ask that the participants be notified that they were banned. I genuinely think it's often just so it doesn't look as though they've abandoned the conversation, but other times I don't see it as much more than looking for sympathy. Oh, and just to clarify, it wasn't Beth who notified me. She and I corresponded only a handful of times and it was usually about music.
Okay, so you have me wondering. No matter. I did step away for a few months though, just because of lack of time. I have heard from several during bans, but only a couple come to mind who got fed up and left.
Btw, Beth didn't whine or seek sympathy, she left silently...but there was a large response to her absence. After a time she asked I post in one of the threads which had been generated regarding it, to clear up some misconceptions and incorrect speculations that were being expressed, so I did. I said nothing prior to that.
See, here's a part of the problem. I said it has happened. I often think it's a play for sympathy. I did NOT say, nor imply, that was the case with Beth. I mentioned her name solely because I wanted to be clear that she wasn't the person to whom I was referring. People get annoyed with small things like this sometimes and it ends up blowing up for people when it's not an issue. We can't constantly make assumptions about people and what their words mean. I had personally been expecting Beth's departure for a long time. She's been hinting at it for months.
I never assumed you were talking about her, but your comments provided a logical segueway to clarify that aspect of her departure. Sorry if you thought I was implying you were speaking specifically about her regarding seeking sympathy.
Beth made several personal attacks that could be construed as nothing but personal attacks. There was no intent for conversation or any misunderstanding. They were made specifically to insult... usually me or ATM. She broke the rules, she got banned. Just for the record, I think I might have reported maybe one or two of them... and I didn't report the last one that earned her that ban, even though it was directed at me.
That being said, I've been banned before. I knew what I did, I knew as I was doing it that I was likely going to get banned, and I had no real desire to complain about it. It wasn't unjust. I broke the rules, I knew I was breaking the rules, and I decided it was worth it.
That's called being a grown-up.
Edit: In addition, just because one is offended doesn't mean they were personally attacked. The flip side to personal attacks is being overly defensive. Sometimes when we really love something (like our faith) and somebody criticizes it, we feel insulted. That isn't a personal attack... our over-sensitivity is our problem, not the problem of somebody who disagrees with us.
Not to mention the fact, that multiple times after a ban of briefer periods, Beth returned to the forums complaining about how unfair bans were, and they were only directed at true believers with the "truth" and perpetrated by those who stood against them both inside and outside the faith.
She may not have done it after she chose to leave, but the trend had already been well established by that point.
Yes, that happened quite frequently.
I never got the whole "They are picking on me because of my religion" thing. From what I've seen, if you make personal attacks you are getting banned. It has nothing to do with your faith. It's all about what your little fingers type out on the screen.
I think it's more common to have the religious posters complain about bias because there is a presumption of persecution. Since they see the complaints of others, it reinforces that presumption. The non-religious simply just chose not to complain in a public forum about their bans. The only bias is in the "reporting" of bans by those who were banned.
I agree completely. Most of the atheists that I see interact on these forums may disappear from time to time. I assume that they're banned. But when they're back, they're back, and they don't utter a word about it. It's funny that the complaining and whining is only coming from one side - the same side that is complaining about being persecuted and that there is a ban bias against them.
On the other hand, there are several atheists in this forum alone who have said that they have been banned. Do you think they are token banneds just to throw off those who are onto the religious persecution that is obviously so prevalent here?
Edit: This whole situation reminds me of a silly country song... one of the verses is
"you been married nine times... hell maybe its you"
That's about where I am with this...
You been banned 6 times? Hell, maybe it's you.
No worries. Don't tell anyone, but I've been known to jump to the occasional conclusion...lol
But I can see a trend here. The ones see as "conspirationists" if you will, are the ones that will likely be targeted, the ones that see the world differently than the politically correct, the ones that will question using rationality... The ones that will question instead of defending Hubpages for a blatant discrimination.
What makes you believe that Hubpages check every report? If it is so why don't they send a detailed answer to the prejudiced one?
I believe they check each report. I may be wrong. I've not been banned yet, so I suppose my opinions aren't really of any relevance. Have you asked them for a detailed report? If they've told you what you said, and you disagree, what more would you like to see happen? How do you know the person who reported you was the person you supposedly insulted? How do you know that person wasn't banned as well? Bringing it to the forum will do you no good, sadly. Take it to then and be sure you're fighting the right enemy.
It will do me good to expose injustice.
Why would you assume that I insulted someone? If I did it I will gladly pay the price but they have to bring me the evidence. And if there isn't why was I banned for a month with no due defense?
but it's not really injustice. You think it is. You believe it is. But you have yet to demonstrate any kind of hub conspiracy, here, and starting a forum thread against the moderators is not likely to win you any points for bannable offenses in the future. If you want an explanation, email them. They may answer you, they may not. Complaining about it after the fact isn't going to do anyone any good. Learn from whatever mistake you might have made, and avoid making the same one going forward.
"they may not"? It is their duty. They are the supreme authority.
So what if it is my fourth offense and I got no lesson from it, do I seem so unreasonable?
Hub conspiracy? I'm talking about a fact. I'm asking the supreme authority to bring me the reason why I was banned? And again, if we believe that they are the ones that censor, at the last resort, why is it that Superkev (an example among others) has a free pass?
In my opinion, your concern and dramatic take on this does indeed seem a bit unreasonable. We all have our moments, though, so, as I said, carry on with yours. I've no desire to fight with you, so I'll just concern myself with the discussions I've been having with others on the thread.
Have you ever been banned for a month without any mean to defend yourself? If not, how can you understand me? Like Melissa, you will sweep it under the rug!
As I said, many people have been banned for much longer than a month. They are still coming back and participating, and not finding it necessary to start a forum thread about how unfair they feel it is. I see no need personally to whine about something you are ultimately incapable of controlling. Either deal with it, and move on - or don't, and find another site with fewer rules to abide by.
But anybody else can whine by reporting me and it accepted, if ever it is reviewed?
anyone can whine about anything. If a rule is broken and it's reported it results in a ban. If you got a month long ban, I'm guessing it was NOT the first time. The first ban is usually 24 hours. The second is 3 days. You're not going to get any "justice" by posting a forum thread about it.
they are under no duty to explain their actions to you. This is their site. They own it. You participate in it, and to abide by their terms of service. If you break the rules and are reported, you may see consequences. If you don't like the rules of the site, you do not have to stay or participate. You are free to pursue alternatives. It's really that simple. I've gotten in heated and emotional discussions with many people here, and I was only banned once - within my first week - for breaking the rules. I, unlike many others, learned my lesson, and it has not been repeated. That's the way it is when you participate on a site belonging to (and under the authority of) someone else.
I'm going by A-what you say thy told you and B-what you say you said. I also said supposedly insulted. Again, my opinion is irrelevant. Carry on. Perhaps you'll win the battle and take down the tyrannical HP overlords, or shut the forum down so none of us can "ban" you.
Is it a supposed sense of humor or are you trying indirectly to ridicule me? You see people like you envenom consciously the debate hoping that I will lose myself and lower who I am, don't bother, you can't measure up and you can't toy with me either.
Yeah, it was my way of making light of a situation that I feel is being taken too seriously. I don't do debate, and I don't know that I've ever tried to "envenom" anything, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Carry on.
The "people like you" comment makes it clear to me why OP gets banned from the forums sometimes. It is a clear example of attributing something derogatory to a specific person, a.k.a. a personal insult.
That's how I read it as well. I'm not one to wonder what gets folks banned, though. It's generally fairly obvious. But I suppose we all sometimes feel as though we have a battle to fight, even if others can't agree.
The thing is, you can be just as nasty as you like without technically insulting someone if you like. Some people just can't quite discern the difference or don't want to make the effort.
Names? I guess that anyone can assume that it is an indirect insult. In that logic, what does impede me to hit the report button?
That's sorta the point - nothing impedes you or anyone else from hitting the report button. Then the post is reviewed. If an objective moderator recognizes your words as a personal attack - an attack on the person and not the idea - you are banned.
No, I refuse to punish someone because she/he thinks differently or because she/he insults me. But the insult remains subjective. What I will find insulting someone else won't. And, again why wouldn't I beat her on an argumentative level? Why would I lower myself to press on a button that will make the problem that I couldn't face intellectually disappear physically?
This "report" button reminds me of a neighbor that has to call the police instead of facing her/his neighbor when experiencing a tort.
What clouds it for me is the banning of someone for something similar or not as bad (IMO) as one who keeps posting. There seems to be a double standard; and cloudiness once one tries to pinpoint the offensive material which caused the ban.
"That's how I read it as well. I'm not one to wonder what gets folks banned, though. It's generally fairly obvious". Isn't it a contradiction in itself your sentence? What must I assume?
How do you read : " Perhaps you'll win the battle and take down the tyrannical HP overlords, or shut the forum down so none of us can "ban" you."? A constructive and serious debater?
Your position is clear, you are defending HP without even bringing evidence to support your opinion. I am "de facto", the loser.
If you can't debate, I understand then don't debate. But to come here and tell me that I am wrong because I am David and it is Goliath, you have to understand that I need more substance.
I am really surprised that these posters are not waving the "more evidence" flag now. They usually do... oh well...
But you can insult people in a more subtler way, can't you psycheskinner? You tend to diminish people's opinion, couldn't someone else or me for the matter report you since you're a quick trigger? I could see it as a personal insult in what way wouldn't I be right? It is subjective. Is subjectivity objective? Everybody will agree on the negation.
Answer destined to psycheskinner.
I have no problem with there being standards all must abide by, but until HP has people watching every post and impartially enforcing that standard, it will remain disproportionate in favor of the views held by those embracing this as a means of silencing opposition. Perhaps this does not apply to you, but the complaint is relevant.
Such selective enforcement, even if unintentional by HP, is exactly what happened with one of the most beloved contributors to the forums, (assuming that can be determined by being named "forum queen"). Based on what I have seen happen to hubbers before her, I do believe she was targeted with each post scrutinized, looking for reasons to report her. After taking enough hits of the report button, the banning becomes more severe. Facing a year ban, this extremely popular hubber acquiesced to the pressure, decided life's too short, closed her hubs and moved on. Bravo.
Except what he stated DIDN'T happen. It's a gross misrepresentation of what actually occurred.
Didn't he say that she was banned for a year? But still what could justify a year ban?
It was pending and she was banned ulteriorly...
By the way, what do you understand while reading "...Such selective enforcement, even if unintentional by HP, is exactly what happened with one of the most beloved contributors to the forums, (assuming that can be determined by being named "forum queen")..."?
Repeated undeniable vehement personal attacks, insults and emotional outbursts, blatant falsehoods and inaccurate representations of actual events. She was notorious for it, despite it being pointed out to her by numerous others. It's no secret.
The more you are banned, the longer your banning becomes. When you repeatedly break the same rules, the consequences grow exponentially. She refused to change or even recognize her errors, and choose to leave entirely of her own accord, rather than to not be allowed to participate in the forums. Several users have been banned from the forums permanently.
As for being beloved, we can argue that. She was mocked a lot for her repeated behavior. I might even speculate that being forum Queen was a bit of a joke that she took seriously. The only people who loved her seemed to be the ones she constantly was in agreement with - a relatively small number. She seemed to like arguing and insulting far more than agreeing.
That would be the point I was trying to make, that if the HP mod who doles out the bans takes a quick moment to actually point out the offending remark specifically with the TOS rule being broken, there would be a lot less people repeatedly breaking the same rules or being banned permanently.
We even have folks here who have been banned and took the time to explain to HP their case, with the result being the ban was lifted. Does that mean the HP mod made a mistake? How are we ever going to know if they make a mistake if they don't explain their reason for banning someone?
It would appear Beth may be a very good example of this phenomena, whereas she never got an explanation as to why she was banned, hence she continued to break the same rules. This could be why she left in a huff after being banned for a month. She simply was not made aware of her transgressions. In that case, I actually feel sympathetic for her case, regardless of whether her latest ban was valid or not.
I agree with all of what you say here, Ed!!!
Break out the bubbly
Thank you. Done.
Seriously, I do have empathy for Beth's case in that she was very likely disturbed from getting banned and not getting insight from HP on what she did wrong, at least, from her perspective. Sure, we can automatically assume Beth has never warranted a banning or we can assume she deserved it. It doesn't matter. If Beth did not receive an explanation, then she probably does have every right to be upset and leave. I think this is one of the most honorable and honest moves she has made for herself here. I respect her for it. I think she should come back and I would still go on holding that new found respect for her.
Many of us are guilty of being banned at least once. Should we then be throwing that first stone knowing that we are probably getting someone else banned?
I say, protest the use of the Report button and only use it in cases of extreme profanity, spam-and-scams or sales pitches. We're all adults here, we can handle each others perceived indiscretions and solve our own problems with open speech, or just move on to the next post.
Yikes! I can hardly believe I am saying this, but please pour me a glass.
I think he just used a biblical reference. I'm feeling light headed.
See, we're slowly winning him/her over.
Say hello again to Ed, Beth.
I think he missed me. Who did he have to argue with?
Have you ever watched the Simpsons?
Maggie Simpson, the baby, has a nemesis. They call it, "The baby with the one eyebrow."
I have often wondered if that's who I was to Ed. lol
I haven't seen the Simpsons since the early seasons, but am fairly aware through social osmosis. While not sure which of you is which, I can see the relevance of the analogy.
If the picture you used in your original profile was you, then you must have plucked the middle part of the eyebrow, cause I distinctly saw two eyebrows.
Hi again, Beth! Welcome back!
Beth speaks her mind. That is not banworthy in my opinion. But I'm just genaea...
I had that seething rage once. I understand. It is frustrating to "best" someone's argument with a certain knowledge and be unexplainably banned. No due process. No, guilt of having done wrong. No idea why. And a month is ridiculous.
Hi Cg, thanks for the support. Not trying to make a big deal about the banning thing, though I do seem to be referenced a lot in this thread. I just don't agree with the banning process here so I took myself out of the equation. Wasn't trying to be disrespectful to the staff. I just needed a break.
I have rarely if ever run across anything said here that was ban worthy, by anyone. Even if I am told quite adamantly that I am going to burn in hell for an eternity with specific verses from the Bible supporting that, I would much rather speak my mind freely to that person rather than trying to get them banned.
Kinda funny if you think about it... Most ppl are offended when someone says "Go to hell." You are offended when someone says, "Don't go to hell."
I seldom ever bring up hell to ppl. Not that I am not straight forward about what scripture says... I just think it comes across as if I know for sure what God is going to do in someone's life and someone's eternity and none of us do. God is in control. That being said, we who believe in scripture without reservation would be foolish to stick our heads in the sand in order to feel accepted and liked. Either we believe His word is true or we don't.
That's a very interesting way of looking at it. I can't find the words other than to say you're right, it is kinda funny when you think about it.
Exactly, none of us know anything about our own eternities, let alone that of others. If God's in control, then we're just along for ride and we got nothing to say about someone else.
It totally get that, Beth, and I respect that. If one can be true to themselves no matter what, that is a sign of integrity and honesty, something that deserves respect.
But, if one is not of a mind to consider what they're doing is not acceptable or likable, what would be the purpose of living in a society with others? One would have to be living the life a hermit, or perhaps forced into it because no one accepted or liked what they did. Perhaps, a little of column A and a little of column B.
Who are you and what have you done with Ed?! I feel at this moment that we could be friends.
That is the conundrum of the Encephaloid, it can act in many ways, allow me to offer a few examples using physics.
The Encephaloid can act like Shrodingers Cat, we never know if it's alive or dead, or if the action of our opening the skull did in fact kill it.
The Encephaloid can act like Gravity, contained as a property in all things that affect the dimensions surrounding it, yet completely misunderstood in terms of how it works.
The Encephaloid can act like Relativity, riding atop a photon of light, where time stands completely still and it exists in all points in the entire universe at that exact same frozen, timeless moment.
Apparently puppies just poop on the carpet.
It's true. My sister has a Husky pup AND I have a baby niece.
I thought I might be pregnant a few weeks ago... I'm 45. Ack! I didn't know whether to be excited or terrified.
I have been following this thread - delightedly, without feeling the need to comment, until now. I agree with you completely. (which I am sure you will note, does not happen often)
I can see the potential for a poster to go over the edge and need to be banned, but so far, (five years), I have not seen an example of it.
I disagree with this "thin-skinned don't be offensive" politically correct posture HP has taken. But it is their game, so I try to play by their rules. Even when it means I have to go to the thesaurus to find an acceptable way to tell someone they are an ass.
What about if the euphemism you used to say to someone that she/he was an ass, was misunderstood and consequently she/he banned you, in order words are we RESPONSIBLE of someone else's limited vocabulary? What is our resort to defend our position?
Or maybe a black list does exist and if what we write in our hubs, forums don't correspond to political correctness, WE ARE BANNED. Again, without the physical proof, it is an open door to abuses.
"Many of us are guilty of being banned at least once.", what is the basis of your assumption? If you were guilty, does it make someone else guilty? Most of us assume our guilt, does it mean that we are? If HP points a finger at me, at least prove me right. Until today, NO REACTION... Does it mean that in few, I'll have another ban based upon... my history?
If you read what people wrote here, you'd find that out yourself as many have admitted to being banned at least once. The evidence is here on these forums.
Being banned doesn't imply guilt, does it? Most of them don't even know why they were banned. If the evidence is there, bring it to me then.
I never said it did, I merely stated what I read here about others who have been banned.
Really? That's odd, that's exactly what I've been talking about.
Now what if someone was banned once, asked for an explanation and was given a generality. The second time, the same.
Not everybody has time to deal with HP or to hunt them down for the truth, after many bans and dismissals, he won't refer to HP anymore. He won't see HP as the supreme authority but as an automatized dismissal page.
What does assure us that the data is fairly treated? Because A, B, C say so? If Descartes QUESTIONED what he learned maybe it corresponded to the rise of doubt.
Exactly, then what will be our weapon against them. Should they keep the power to abuse? Or shall it be reformed? Why not banning an "overuse" of the report button? I don't see why we should pay the consequence? Or after all, why not behaving accordingly? Each time one or several of the debaters I know that would be likely to report me will be automatically reported? If crime pays, why not? Or Hubpages, DO YOUR JOB!
I think it builds up for some. I know of times when a troll just followed me around and posted retorts to my posts that were just disagreeable in nature. I think that is the intent in some cases. And sometimes I need to be reeled in as my inability to describe through writing what my thoughts are. I step out of line and maybe a little time out in the corner is needed. Just think if you were in a person to person debate and your demeanor was just not what the moderator felt was germane to the topic. You would be cut off and lose ground in the process.
In my experience, only having been banned once, despite numerous people telling me that they're reporting me for something, it comes down to understanding the difference between criticizing and challenging a belief rather than a believer. You are not your beliefs, and beliefs have no feelings by which to be offended. There is a difference between saying your belief is stupid verses a believer is stupid. Additionally, several posters have had no qualms about calling me, the person, stupid, telling me I'm possessed by demons, speaking of my violent and abusive fathers love for me without knowing me, etc. If you're going to take criticism of any type personally, the forums are probably not the place for you until you gain some maturity. (Universal "you")
I cannot Tolerate anyone who refuses to take responsibility for their own words and behavior, who turns around and wines about persecution or how unfairly they're being treated because they were banned for personally attacking another hubber - not once, not accidentally, but repeatedly, despite having it explained to them multiple times by multiple people. No one forced then to insult others. Get over it. It's a forum. You either have to abide by the rules or face the consequences. There is no conspiracy against one group. The atheists that I know who got banned usually just don't publicly whine about it and write posts about how unfairly they're being treated by the moderators.
Oh dear. I can't find my invitation to the grave dance, and now it appears the banwagon has left without me.
No worries. You seem to have found the conspiracy persecution train which travels concurrently. Keep it up, and you may catch the banwagon before too long.
Yes, I am happy. Thrilled actually. I was apathetic at first, but conversations have been much more pleasant lately.
So yep. Dancing shoes on. I'm thinking about dusting off the Atomic Dog for this one.
Why must I be like that... Why must I chase the cat? Ain't nothing but the dog in me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuyS9M8 … feature=kp
Bow wow wow yippee yo yippee yay!
I'm so embarrassed, what with true colors flying making my assertions of an agenda appear soooo unlikely. I am sure everyone will be putting forth their best efforts. I would expect no less. Sad, but expected.
Superkev in one of my post answered : "I am getting tired of answering your posts in Pidgin English and your idiotic assertions. As my mother used to say, "You're just talking to hear your brains rattle". "
Personally any insult never reach me, I know myself too well. Now I won't report him because it is his opinion of me. Now what do you think does he deserve a report?
But I still wonder why can he still express himself and why was I banned? Is it fair? Shall this power belong to us or Hubpages? But again what will ensure me that Hubpages will be objective and fair?
It was certainly never my intention to help establish a platform on which the grave dancing would take place. I simply didn't see that coming, let alone how low the dancers could dip. My apologies to the party not able to be present to defend themselves for my role in unwittingly helping to set that stage.
*pats on the head* I'm not dancing on anyone's grave. Just pointing out that the way you explained the situation is not at ALL what happened, and that a bias may be showing a teensy bit in your posts.
Its okay. We don't all have to take things quite so personally or seriously all of the time. Sometimes jokes are...ya know...jokes.
Harlem Shake Time!!!!
Again, not feeling a bit of guilt or sympathy. Not one iota. Not even a smidgen or a pinch. I am enjoying all the conversations that I have where no one blames my dead son every time I disagree with them. It's a wonderful experience.
As I was scrolling down the page, my attention was caught by Ryan Kett's statement : "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 nuts after one told me to kill myself?
I'm going to work on my blog and take all of my hubs with me. Every one of them, shove your page rank up your arse.
Im sure that a few of you can be testimony to how I go out of my way to answer the questions of newbies on here. f*** you, I'm off.
It's damn rude. " " is confirming my suspicions.
4 years ago the injustice existed. So much for the paranoia, right? As they forgive many (right-winged most likely), they banned him for reacting. I can't but ignore that the opponents started the conflict. It is as if the provocation was created for one purpose, his quitting.
Remember when you were in first grade? Caught fighting, you were sent home and it didn't matter WHO started it.
When my little grandkids fight (usually as a result of one tormenting another until suddenly it's on and the screams and tears flow) they are separated and it doesn't matter who started it - violence is not allowed.
When the children of HP attack each other, it doesn't matter who started it - it is not allowed. Whether you think a personal attack is a reasonable response or not. Whether you think all right wingers get off free or not. Whether you think the religious or the atheist gets away with murder or not.
Sorry I can't relate, I am not a CHILD! If you are it is your problem but don't reduce me to the erroneous image that you have from the majority. Maybe the majority needs your 'GRANDPATERNAL" authority, I don't.
You said nothing about an existing trend though, why? Is it conscientiously that you diverted the subject?
An "existing trend" is it? Because Kett also attacked someone and was banned? Our country has an "existing trend" against murder (and a whole lot of other things as well); should be excuse the crime because of that "existing trend? Don't be silly; "trends" like this are there for a reason; because some people refuse to control themselves and, like unruly children (there are 4 grandkids living in my home at this time), misbehave and attack each other. And then claim "They started it!" or "I didn't do nuttin!".
I think the rules are interpreted differently by different people. Perhaps whoever chose the ban felt that in the context, something was possibly offensive or harmful. Perhaps they did not see the whole context. Without knowing the context, how can we tell?
But don't you think that it is problematic since whoever will be at risk? What does guarantee the hubber that any report, therefore a ban is justified? So far, the ones that also experienced a ban didn't know why, in those conditions how a debater will debate freely if A, B or C hypersensitive, uninformed (since this adjective isn't synonymous with uneducated and ignorant for the majority of hubbers) has the power to censor you?
I agree that it would not only be fair but beneficial to explain specifically what caused the ban. (e.g. the specific post, etc.) However, I understand also that they may be attempting to prevent further riot, in being vague. The more vague they are and the less you (in a GENERAL sense, not you specifically) know about specifics, the fewer HP members you will suspect as a potential "reporter" and the less chance the person banned will attempt to confront the person suspected. If this were the case, however, I'm not sure it would be for the overall good of the members. If you have no idea what you did, how can you know not to do it again? However, we do have rules available to us. The tricky part is how those rules are interpreted. It is my opinion that the HP Admins interpret them VERY strictly, just to make sure that they aren't seen as playing favorites. i could be totally wrong. I personally have never been banned.
To summarize, I think that the rules are VERY strictly defined to make sure that ALL people are protected. Whether or not this is a good idea, well, we're all going to disagree.
Exactly how can we tell? Hypersensitivity or reason?
Hi this is Beth, I am now a puppy. You're welcome.
I could reply to so much, lol. But instead I will just say, I'm gonna have one acct for speaking in the forums, and one for writing. Not so I can switch it up if I get banned, but b/c I would like to be able to write without having ppl use my personal life against me. Those words are not meant to instigate ill will, but to be forthright. Thas'about it.
Hi Beth/Sed-me, did you serve your ban? If not this will get you banned again.
You can just call me Beth, Redman. lol
Thank you for your concern. I did not serve my ban at all, but chose to leave HP's. It has however, been over a month since the ban was issued. (bBerean thought I'd said a year, but it was only a month.) Good to see you again. Hope you're well.
What is so offending in what sed me wrote?
I have no idea what she said that got her banned.
What the hell! Is this an "I Love Beth" love fest? while I disagree vehemently with HP's "Politically Correct" banning policies, I don't think "Beth" deserves adoration! Her toes are crooked!
Maximan, Sassyman, (or whatever), and other similar "questionable" perspectives, (just as susceptible to banning), and "personalities" are subject to ridicule and banning too - what makes Beth special?
And we all know what cute puppies do - poop on the carpet!
On a serious note... I always enjoyed Beth's comments, and regardless of who we are speaking of... I think HP has gone too far to the "Politically Correct" side in their banning judgements.
If you are so thin-skinned as to be offended by any comments that aren't coming from the chior - then maybe you are in the wrong place,
My toes aren't crooked. lol
I think ppl are just being nice. It only sticks out 'cause we might not see as much of it as we could.
If you left, I would be glad if you returned. Leave for a month and I'll start a thread just for you.
Ha! You say that now, but what if I could prove your toes are crooked? HP is still too ready to ban folks. If I wanted to attend an Amen meeting I would not be commenting here,
But thanks for the thoughts. I may need that "thread" - at the rate I am going, there are a lot of "Chuckleheads" that still need my attention.
I'm not sure how you got all that from me saying welcome back Beth. Just being nice.
Dudes got a lot on his mind... it had to come out...
This is off-topic, but it has to be said... Sed-me and the puppy just don't cut it. If you can't get beth37, (or whatever the number), try Beth38, or something. But Beth has to come back to be you. So dump Sed-me now! That's an order!
Men are so bossy.
Apparently English to Latin translation, "It's me" becomes "sed me", but latin to English is actually "but me"... so maybe we can translate it as "It's me, but me is a puppy now."
" "Politically Correct" banning policies" where does it start, where does it stop? I am surprised how people accept their fate without insisting upon HP's transparency!
Max, as I stated in another response, after five years here, (although I generally only see Politics and Social Issues threads), I have yet to see a post I would consider offensive enough to warrant a ban.
But, it is not my ballgame.
I have no idea what got you banned, but I do agree HP should offer at least a categorization of your offense. Which puts me in a quandary, because I don't think you would have pursued this thread so vigorously if you had an explanation - but on the other hand - five years of HP interactions have shown them, (at least in my dealings), to be more than cooperative and open when dealing with members, (meaning me).
ps. I must point out that, (contrary to your frequent assertions), hitting the "report" button does not get you banned. HP members cannot ban you. It must be HP staff. So even though a "report" may have brought you to their attention - it was their determination, and not another forum member, that got you banned.
I understand very well the process. Reporting leads to banning. How many reports lead to banning? What kind of reports lead to banning? Is it justified or not?
Not to say the reason why will lead to questioning without answering my problem. I accepted their vague reason but now I think that I am entitled to transparency or am I doomed to be played with? I find it despising when "we" provide a source of income for the platform, a status and value on the marketplace and the only answer is an anonymous and formatted answer.
You are making it unnecessarily complicated-seeming. The moderators determine whether the post is against HP policy. Whether they look at it because they just happen to be reading the thread, or because it was reported, is completely unimportant. Maybe some people get away with things because they are not noticed or reported, that is also irrelevant to what the rules actually are.
It would be nice if they would consider the context as opposed to one lone post... or maybe they do? It doesn't appear that way to me. There are times when one poster will ride another poster from thread to thread and for pages within threads before the person with the saddle on, so to speak, tells the rider what they think of their constant negativity. l understand in a perfect world, we should walk away, but we're all flawed.
I got banned once for actually trying to avoid an argument. I was making lighthearted jokes and actually felt kind of good about the person who was on the attack b/c joking and laughing with someone makes me feel like something positive can still happen. Out of the blue I was banned. I'm sure I deserved it at other times, but that time I was literally doing everything in my power to avoid being unkind. When I asked HP why, they said I had been banned for bickering. Kind of a bummer.
I think it is far more fair to simply say what you cannot do, and apply it to every post. IMHO it is basically 1) don't disclose your income and 2) don't call people names.
It seems that whatever line of defense the offended has, he will be the loser rightly or wrongly. In your case "bickering" in what way was it justified? Where was the relevance of their accusation? It only shows the absence of ethics.
Are we condemned to pleasantly agree with everybody even if we don't? When I read answers related to hubs, it is funny to see the discrepancy and the hypocrisy between people who clearly disagree. When one questions the veracity of a "fact" and the other thanks the reader peremptorily without opening the debate.
And you are making it unnecessarily simple. If everybody was like you compliant and complaisant every corporation could get away with murder. Although with the Trans-Pacific Partnership we are heading to people's demise. You just underlined their unprofessionalism, their bias, their inefficiency, according to you was it subconscious?
I got it. To me, it seems that HP is a microcosm of the US society. Where free and objective speeches are gagged and independent journalists are laid off or killed.
Geez, trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to hug a porcupine.
You really need to get this "the U.S. is The Devil' chip off your shoulder. It really hurts your credibility.
I was lonely. lol It was a bad time to depart, my kids are out of town. One can only play so much scrabble.
Sorry to hear that.
I'm waiting for another to be done with a ban, though theirs is much longer. There's a lot about human behavior I don't totally understand, not logically anyway. OTHER things describe a lot I see though. Oh well.
On a side note, Scrabble can be fun!
Hi cute little teddy bear. Same for me. Your humility and humor and solidity are appealing and I think it forces people to listen. Right path-like.
Ok, I aint one for the fuzzy-wuzzy focus Spotlight either. But since they brought it up...
Welcome back and see you around. If I can evade the banning.
Heh, heh. Don't know if that will save you, but it's worth a try. Pretty hard to ban anyone while looking at that avatar. What a great puppy!
Oops. You are right. as usual...
I shall be more careful.
by Helen Murphy Howell4 years ago
It's the same old story in the UK coming up to Guy Fawkes Night - an elderly woman in a small town near to my village has sustained serious eye injuries after a firework was thrown at her while she stood at a bus stop!...
by theirishobserver.6 years ago
France - Belguim - the ban is spreadingPresident Nicolas Sarkozy urged French Muslims today not to feel hurt nor stigmatised by a planned ban on full face veils that will fine women who hide their faces and jail men if...
by Eddie3 years ago
Though I would bring this one up too ! I've already banned musical chairs now its time for some really serious stuff , children have been killed ,, maimed , injured and a few parents as well , have...
by Bad_Company6 years ago
Life my friends tis a strange thing and it always makes me laugh. As that old TattoGuy I was granted access to the Forums but was banned again by a paranoid woman reporting me and I had a lot of emails supporting me on...
by Andria4 years ago
Awake in the wrong hours of the 24 hour clock, I was on a forum I drop by now and then. They run a really funny forum game whereby you dream up a very silly reason to ban the person above you.As we sometimes see bans...
by Pete Maida7 years ago
I have had comments from someone named badgirl who has referred to being banned. I try not to be a gossip monger, but she has me curious. Does anyone have any scoop on this?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.