Pushing a Thread to "Close to Reply".

1. 72

   Miebakagh57posted 3 years ago

   Forum threads are usually post for discussion.                     They come in any topic or subject. Usually, those participating in the discussions were all mature individuals.          Some may or may not agree to points, opinions, facts, data, or figures. But why try to  force your views on the other person? This can generate hot temper. Why resort to bad mouthing those not agreeing to your views or mindset? One call another "idiot" in this case. Too bad in a forum consisting of mature adults.                Seriously, if an argument cannot be substantiated with facts or commonsense, why not say: "I don't understand your statement". That is logical emugh for one to move on, instead of forcing a firce usless accusation that does not do justice to the topic or subject. This equally lead to a thread being  "Close to Reply" when it has not yet come to a near conclusion. Your thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 84

      NateB11posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
   2. 84

      NateB11posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Also...
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         NathB11, these two pictures seems funny! I thought it was our winning Fatfreddycat doing the posts. Could you explain a little more?

         replyreport
         1. 84

            NateB11posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Your post seemed a bit cryptic, so I posted the two gifs.

            replyreport
   3. 90

      MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I know which forum you are talking about, and I wonder why it is closed. Does HP close forums or did the author? The author doesn't seem to me to be the type of person to have shut down the discussion. He is a brave soul with some good ideas. I wish he'd join in this discussion and enlighten us.
      
      Also if it is closed, then why are we still receiving notifications? Great mystery here.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Miz, I don't know which forum you're finguruing about. But I've experienced three such forums being closed to reply. One is my thread.                                               Yes, it looks a little mystery to me. In one instance, I thought it was a technical glitch then replies begun to stream in.                                                      Still a mystery...as there's another forum trending on with the usual bad-mouthing or name calling. I'm still active in that forum. Why was it not closed by HubPages adds another mystery, or rather beats the mind.                                         Honestly, a writer can't closed a forum, Hubpages does. But as you've noticed, either here or there hubpagas' posts notifications when the forum is declared closed to to reply. That beats the mind. Is not it?

         replyreport
         1. 90

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, it does. I didn't know that there were more than one. I won't mention which one, but you had posted on it, too, so I took for granted that you were referring to it. I haven't received any more notifications for it, so I suppose that it takes a day or two for their computers to catch up.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Miz, two days ago, I saw the thread in the Hubpages Forum. I intend to bring it up, but they is no reply button. Thanks for your input.

               replyreport
   4. 85

      Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      From my perspective, they've ramped up closing threads due to not wanting to reveal a bias that could lead to lawsuits, such as discrimination suits.
      
      Take an anti-white thread posted by islandbites a few months ago for a proper example, it was quickly removed from the forums altogether. No one in the thread was banned unlike the usual route HP community managers took in the past. I think this is a way for HubPages to avoid a conflict of interests with their authors who become heated in the forums, because previously they did regularly take unfair discriminatory action against one author, then on the other hand they were ignoring the others taking part in punishable behavior just because one was more extreme than the others.
      
      Honestly, I prefer when they completely shut down topics when no more progress can be made and the conversation is obviously going nowhere but downhill. That's what most functional social forums do, keyword being functional, and it goes very well for those forums. Time to evolve and adapt, because I've advocated for the removal of the topical forums since joining due to a lack of fair and active moderation, but this will be more welcome than outright and complete censorship.

      replyreport
   5. 87

      tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      You know they close threads at times because of the count of posts have reached a point of too many.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         In that case, why a thread on covid19 is still trending in the forum for over a year? The author push it forward with new updates regurlarly.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Just a thought you can take with a grain of salt. Nothing is gospel especially in the politics/social topic. I have seen threads from the far distant past that had in range for a few to possibly twenty or more replies still thriving allowing posts/replies. And, I have seen threads from last year to years ago with many pages of replies Closed over the ten years I have been here.
            
            I follow the Political/Social topic daily reading every thread. I know the thread you are referring to well. I don't think it was anymore nasty than any other one in the last four years.
            
            The two reasons off the top of my head I would possibly consider for why it was closed is because someone reported it for HP to consider. Or, more than one person was reporting different people for their behavior through writing. Then HP felt rather than discipline individuals just close the thread.
            
            Most regular forum followers know HP Does Not follow the threads except the Official Announcements and Technical Questions. Once in great while Matt will show up for the Regular HP threads and address a problem for a member with a procedure problem pretty much.
            
            Just something to consider. Like I said, Take it with a grain of salt. And, all that is just my view and not gospel.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               tsmog, thank you.

               replyreport
2. 95

   PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago

   It sounds like you might be referring to a specific thread? I don't know which one.
   
   I may be wrong, but I think HP closes forums to further comments sometimes for the reasons you've outlined: if it's getting heated, insults are flying around, and people have effectively stopped discussing the subject material.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      ...yes, it's getting heated and insults are flying. But writers still earger to discuss.                                     Critically, I don't have any specific thread in question. It's a general observation I've made on various discusions the latest being a political and social issues.

      replyreport
3. 95

   PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago

   I generally avoid the controversial forum threads like politics and religion on here. I feel like they mop up lots of time. They can also put me in a bad frame of mind and make it difficult to concentrate on writing.
   
   It's a little different on Medium. There, you often have to be more provocative to get views, I've found. Some people make money by stirring the pot, it's a strategy for them.

   replyreport
4. 95

   Rupert Taylorposted 3 years ago

   Paul - I'm with you in avoiding the toxic stew anytime Trump/Biden issues are raised. If only these folk could find some way of channeling their vicious hatred of each other into something positive what a happier place this would be.
   
   The level of discourse is so lacking in thoughtful analysis and wholesale consumption of falsehoods and myths as to make me shake my head. So, I move on and leave them to it, believing my input would only bring down their bile and venom on my innocent head.
   
   The above applies to religious "discussions" also. Yes, it does.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "Yes, it does" when two or three minds can't agree. Political and religious issues are not the excemptions here. You can take on any subject, and it equally apply "also".

      replyreport
      1. 95

         PaulGoodman67posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I feel that in some discussions there can be something to be gained. I just don't see any gain for me with the political/religious forums on here.
         
         Maybe I'm too mercenary, but I see my time as a commodity and worry about wasting it. I try to be as productive as I can.
         
         Of course, from a technical point of view, the forums create links and maybe build some SEO for the site.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            NateB11posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I've never wanted to spend any time on forums here for political discussion either, just like I don't talk politics at work.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               PaulGoodman67posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Some very prominent writers on this site have ended up getting permanently banned due to losing it in the forums. They would still probably be here had they been able to stay away from the politics and religion.

               replyreport
         2. 72

            Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Paul, I agree with you.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               PaulGoodman67posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               You are always very polite and measured, Miebakagh, I doubt that you will ever be banned.
               
               Maybe I'm just mercenary. I will write about politics on Medium, when there's money involved. Though even there, I'm reluctant to get drawn into debates.
               
               The US is a very toxic place politically, I enjoy escaping that element of the country when I travel to somewhere else.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  That's a true element every country has, especially them that copy the American democracy.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     PaulGoodman67posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Countries and regions vary wildly in levels of political tension, in my experience. For instance, Northern Ireland is way more charged than other parts of the UK.
                     
                     Of course, there are currently "hotter" areas around the world for politics and conflict, but the US is pretty high. Almost every aspect of life is politicized here, it was a shock to the system when I first lived here.

                     replyreport
                     1. 72

                        Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Paul, I agree with you. But Northern Ireland case is historically unique to her.

                        replyreport
5. 72

   Miebakagh57posted 3 years ago

   The latest thread discusssin the Biden v. Trump election vote recount disputes is no longer trending. Perhaps writers are no longer interest in discussing the thread? Or is it nearing the close to reply level? I last notice that hate and name calling is flying too much.

   replyreport
6. 95

   Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

   Miebakagh,
   
   I noticed the thread I started with the recount of the 2020 election is closed.  I have no idea why such a thing occurred.  I had updates of things happening in Wisconsin for the recount to post...but...alas...I am not able to post them.
   
   It's okay...this is Hubpage's forum.  They will take the heat if anyone gets angry enough to take action.  I believe they acted in their own best self interest.
   
   It is a shame some forum discussions dissolve into name calling and threats. But, experience has told me, this is how many of the discussions go between people with strong beliefs engage with one another. This is especially true when people are not face to face and believe they can say whatever they want by being a great distance away and simply typing words on a keyboard.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      jansharesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you.

         replyreport
   2. 72

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      RMN, yes, I'm refering to your thread specific.                                   I learnt much from it about the vote recound and the conseqences.                                 But alas, hammers and spammars are being thrown at one another for no just cause. I believe you had good intention for the American nation, and that's what counts.

      replyreport
   3. 70

      Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I have come to believe the insults flow for another reason(s).
      
      The first would be the person is immature in nature and development (age doesn't matter there are many immature individuals in their 60s).
      
      The second would be the person has an emotional or fanatical belief about the particular subject and is not interested in debating the merits of an issue, they merely want to push their belief and shout down all dissent.
      
      The third would be in response to knowing one's position is being defeated on the merits and facts being presented, so that person redirects to insulting the individual and labeling them.
      
      Labeling a person allows others who hold similar beliefs to identify the person labeled, for those with closed minds not interested in debating the matters, this signals to them to go on the attack, focusing on the person not the issue of debate.
      
      Such efforts of group attack work well in Twitter, Facebook, and other Social Media platforms in large part because those who would defend an opposing position get banned from those sites.
      
      It doesn't work so well here, because there is far less banning, and those that throw insults and labels at others can only go so far without being banned themselves.
      
      Many of the positions taken in these HubPage forums where someone is being labeled a "Trumpster" or a "Extremist Enabler" would be banned on the major Social Media sites, anything resembling Trump support, or even severe criticism toward Biden, will often get the person banned.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Once again Ken, You Speak The Truth.

         replyreport
7. 94

   jansharesposted 3 years ago

   I didn't see these forums. But to your point, Miebakagh, I think it's sad when forum participants become combative and disrespectful. It does put HP in a position to keep the forums clean with civil discourse. I remember how it used to be in the forums when I got here in 2012. A thread would go on and on between battling hubbers until someone would get banned. As you said, it's a shame to see adults in an otherwise great community resort to name-calling and such. It's so unnecessary and unbecoming.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      bravewarriorposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I avoid the topics of politics and religion. Both lead to heated discussions because they are so personal. I'd rather not argue, so I stick my head in the sand.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         jansharesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, I avoid them like the plague, Shauna. As we say in the hood, "Ain't nobody got time fi dat."

         replyreport
      2. 72

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         That's a bad picture for a writer to hid the head in the sand.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            bravewarriorposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            How so, Miebakagh?

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Bravewarrior, are you an ostrich? Definitely, you're not.                                                  When I first dive into the forums here on HubPages, I surfaced up telling those participating in  America politics that I wouldn't gyped myself by prying into their affairs.                                           Specifically, I post in that very first forum "That's for the America and their Americans." Surprisedly, I was challenged to input an idea or two to mitigate the problem. That I oblige myself. So there's no use hiding the head in the sand.                                             A writer is not an Ostrich. He/she should think, visualized, imagine, ask questions, and provide answers with the head. However, if the topic does not interest you, does it make any sense to cut the head off?

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  bravewarriorposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Miebakagh, I simply refuse to get into political or religious discussions. Call me an ostrich if you wish, but there's nothing wrong with my choice to avoid conflict.

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     No, you're not an ostrich. Most definitely no.                                       Really, I've never call any person Ostrich. But I do as occasion arise use the word as a symbol. Have you notice that I ask a question or use it as a question?                                       If a guy like you want to stay away from politics, all the best.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        bravewarriorposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Miebakagh, I'm not a guy. Women can be bravewarriors, too!

                        replyreport
                        1. 72

                           Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Shuana, I've notice for long that you're a woman. And yes, a woman can be a brave warrior as the menfolk.                                 But I'm a practical person. Is it no longer  correct or current that guy can refer to both men and women folks in  American English or here in the forum?

                           replyreport
                           1. 90

                              MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Miebakagh, I don't think it was ever proper to refer to a gal as a "guy," at least not in my neck of the woods. But I'm sure Shauna forgives you.

                              replyreport
                              1. 72

                                 Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 Miz, that I noted and understanding.                                    Precisely, two months ago, a guy made the same thing as  I did here in the forum. I object by saying that the person he's refering to is a lady. And that in the forum are men and women.                                  Seriously, a hubber counter-objected that in  American English, a "guy" can generally refer to both male and female! So I sieze that to test the waters further this week.                                              The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictinary(Internatimal Student Edition) before me, had this to say in an informal sense:"a group of people of either sex." But Webster's Dictimary says at one point "a person of ludicrouse appearance." That excuse the womenfolk.                                       HubPages is an American online platform. We either use  Australian, British or American English. So where do we go from here? I would have had said as usual of me..guys and gals, if I'm addrering a mix of men and women.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 88

                                    theraggededgeposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yes, it's confusing. You can say 'hey guys' to refer to a group of either, or mixed-sex. It's a generic term.
                                    
                                    It's better to directly address an individual by their name, not by 'guy' or 'gal'.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 72

                                       Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                       Bev, I'm expecting you wade in and contribute. For you're there back then.                                                    Thank goodness...you're here. Your points are immensely encouraging, specific the last paragraphe.

                                       report
                                    2. 95

                                       PaulGoodman67posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                       Bev's right, it's complicated. "Guy" can often imply male, but can also sometimes be used in a genderless way.
                                       
                                       It also depends, to some extent, on what crowd you're in. Things like location and age group can have subtly different usage, in my experience.
                                       
                                       "Guy" is generally used much more in US English than English English.

                                       report
                                 2. 90

                                    MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    I stick with my opinion that gals are not guys, and I specified "in my neck of the woods." That is southern slang for "where I live." The person who says that a group of women can be addressed as "guys" may find that all right in her area, but we don't do that in the Southern U.S. And as far as I've been able to determine, we haven't seceded from the U.S. again. It  would be proper to address a group of women with "hello, ladies" because if there are more than three, it gets awkward to call out four or more names. At least that's how we do it South of the Mason Dixon line. If the group is mixed male and female and not just women, using "guys" would be okay. But I've actually heard a true southerner say, "hello, ladies and gentlemen to a mixed group". That was back in high school when a lot of things were said in jest.
                                    
                                    By the way, you brought up a point on which I'd like to elaborate. The lady or gentleman reference. Nothing is more irritating to me than to have someone who has just committed a violent crime referred to as a "gentleman". Like in an interview in a news story where a policeman or a bystander says "...and then the gentleman started shooting at everybody."

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 72

                                       Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                       MizBejabbes, truth is told.                                     As every native or foreign speaker or writer of the English language knows or has seen and observed, English possess serious dificulties to its self.                                      Critically, in a country like Great Britain, where the English language originates, it still has problems in local variety...slangs, idioms, and figures of speech.                                               In your last sentense, I laugh at the way you use "gentleman". It can't be compare to a squire. It was bastardised, and so lost it's meaning.                                             All said, we have to be on the safer side here, using "standard" format. "Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our end of year party" is common addressing format.

                                       report
   2. 72

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with your last statement.

      replyreport
8. 87

   Jodahposted 3 years ago

   Miebakagh, it is only okay to refer to a collective of people as "guys" but not if referring to a single woman.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      John, thank you.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      bravewarriorposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      John, you're my knight in shining armor!

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         bravewarrior, I envy that statement.

         replyreport
9. 83

   bravewarriorposted 3 years ago

   John's correct in the group versus solitary clarification. "Hey, you guys" refers to everyone in the group regardless of sex. However, when you address one person, if you're not going to use their name, use the appropriate word for the gender. When my son calls me "dude", I tell him at the very least I'm a dudette.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The word's dude, the opposite dudette. Very good to note and add to my American English bank.                                     Nevertheless, saying 'hey all' to a mix sex can be fine, but that  seems un-English.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         bravewarriorposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         "Hey, all" works, too. Even better!

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            You're okay, and I'm okay. But I transtate that from a local dialect.

            replyreport
         2. 90

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            There is merit to our custom in the southern U.S. to use the generic "hey y'all" instead of "you guys".

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Another merit to my knowledge bank.

               replyreport
            2. 83

               bravewarriorposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               @MizB: Howdy!

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Howdy is good. I like that. Howdy back atcha!

                  replyreport
10. 72

    Miebakagh57posted 3 years ago

    You gals, I take it are here drunken with ya Southern United Slates slangs?                                            The literated fellow like me, that pass out of the English class can hardly follow you. Help!

    replyreport
    1. 83

       bravewarriorposted 3 years agoin reply to this

       Miebakagh, don't fret. We Southerners (Suthnuhs) have a language all our own.

       replyreport
       1. 72

          Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          bravewarrior, no problem. It seems we've regress much from the original discourse.                                      As a matter of fact, if I disagree with a hubber's comment, I could hold that with substantative facts. No use freting and hating a fellow writter. I've found out that those we think are empty head at times proves to be experts in other areas.

          replyreport
    2. 90

       MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

       That's funny Miebakagh. If you have access to some old American western movies, you can learn a lot about our southern and western slang from them. Besides that, they are very entertaining. Old Roy Rogers and Gene Autrey movies are the best. I'm still a fan of them.
       
       Something you said in an earlier answer to me came back to haunt me. The experts used to tell us that English was the second hardest language in the world to learn, second only to Chinese. I can see why. It is such a Germanic-based hodgepodge, unlike the Romance languages.

       replyreport
       1. 72

          Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Miz, actually, the English language, is not a mother tongue of the British. It was a second language to the Old Englanders. They have their mother tongue.                                     English is borrowed from  Africanise, Germany, French, and many other languages. That really, made it a foreign languege, and dificult to learn.                                             Okay, Old Roy Roger and all that? I'll look and get copies. You're welcome.

          replyreport