jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (168 posts)

Does A Liberal Bias Affect The Way Hubpages Moderators...

  1. leeberttea profile image55
    leebertteaposted 7 years ago

    ... administer the forums?

    I asked a similar question in a poll in a recent Hub and though I had many views I didn't get many votes. Now I wonder are people afraid of the consequences if they post their votes or their views?

  2. ilmdamaily profile image73
    ilmdamailyposted 7 years ago

    Does it matter?

    Hubpages - as far as I understand it - is a private company. Their terms of service seem fairly reasonable, and skewed in the interests of the preservation of their business model. Which makes sense.

    If someone felt like they didn't have a voice here, there's a million other places on the 'net for it to be heard. 

    The mistake would be in believing that there is in fact any truly "neutral" ground. We all have biases, the only thing we can do is make them public. Anything else is just pretending. 

    To quote the movie Jarhead:

    "There is no such thing as speech that is free. You must pay for everything that you say."

  3. William R. Wilson profile image59
    William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago

    I've been banned, so has Ralph Deeds, so have many other liberal posters on here.  Many people have gotten fed up and left Hubpages for one reason or another, sometimes because they got banned.  If you post something that looks like a personal attack and someone reports it to HP staff you'll get banned.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image59
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I have been banned 3 times.

      I know Pretty Panther has been (once).

      The difference between liberal and conservative bloggers getting banned is that conservatives write whiney hubs about how unfair hubpages is when they get banned.

      Ilmdamaily makes a good point. - which should be obvious. We are all guests on the forums. None of us pays a monthly fee to use the service. There are rules - and as far as I can tell, they are administered fairly.

      I did have some doubts about why there was not a permanent ban for a hubber who threatened annother hubber with a Smith and Wesson comment, but the moderator seems to have decided the comment was vague enough that there was no action. The generous interpretation was extended to a rabid conservative, So there goes your 'bias' theory.

      1. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I haven't seen any whiny hubs, I did read a couple that stated the case they were banned for a personal attack that wasn't.

        I was banned a week or so ago for a personal attack that wasn't, and the guy I didn't personally attack was banned for a personal attack against me that wasn't.

        So are they fair?

        I guess that was fair, strange but fair.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Actually Jim, I was waiting for a response to my email about the ban causing even more enmity between those banned because they neither said whether it was a reported incident or simply the moderator making the call.  Now I have less confidence in this site because of the way this was handled.

          When I finally get a response from the moderator I may resume publishing here again.

      2. Friendlyword profile image61
        Friendlywordposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I just got back after five weeks of being banned. The hubteam does not care who you are, or how much you are provoked; you can not personally attack anyone.

        I remember that comment Doug! Did you report him? I'm sure El didn't. He threw around a few threats of his own.

    2. Poetic Elements profile image54
      Poetic Elementsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I believe from what I have seen that preserving the business model is their top concern.  However, I also believe that some HP folks are very subjective regarding the actual enforcement of rules and so forth.
      I spoke to a reporter who said that he was told by someone at HP NO ONE gets banned for several different reasons we discussed.  However, I know for a fact that this is not true.  So I can only assume that people who are totally banned from HP never, ever get the chance to petition the entire HP organization for the actions of just one employee.
      I was recently told that I would get banned first thing this coming week because I named my series of poetry with the same name as a person or persons who was/were banned.  I mean where in the TOS does it say you are not allowed to use the same words as someone else!? I find that ridiculous until someone else I know here at HP told me something just like that recently happened to someone else. 
      Perhaps the answer is that no one can question the actions of the individuals who do the banning.
      I don't know.  I just want to share my poetry.  Bookmark me and see if I am still here by the end of the week.  That might shed some light on this issue.
      I will say this: the more you express yourself in the forums the higher your chances of getting banned.  Whereas, if you write hubs filled with profanity and odd political views but do NOT attract any attention, you will probably be here a long, long time.
      I DO believe the people who make it easy for HP to get them are banned faster if not instead of other violators who keep quiet and never ever go into the forums.
      You make yourself an easy target and HP folks probably get paid the same for banning someone who is constantly talking sh*t in the forums then they would get paid for tracking down someone who hardly ever goes into the forums but regularly breaks rules in his/her hubs.

  4. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    I agree, Doug. HP disciplines the right and the left.

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
      IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree.


      I get banned all the time.

  5. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Jim, I know what you're talking about. I don't understand why either of you were banned. He is perplexed, also.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I haven't seen him is he still banned?

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        No, Jim. I think he's a little afraid to venture back on the forums. He just left my house, and we talked about it a little.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          It was weird, I came right back on and continue to respond to people the same way I always did.

          I won't make the mistake of questioning the logic some people use, and I will report those actual personal attacks that I see so many of our liberal friends engaging in.

          So William, buck up little camper.

          1. lorlie6 profile image85
            lorlie6posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "Little camper?"  OOOhhhh, that's sooooo mean, Jim. lol

  6. Studio E profile image55
    Studio Eposted 7 years ago

    All you have to do is start your own website and call it hubcap pages hahahahaha smile

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not a bad idea.

  7. TerryGl profile image60
    TerryGlposted 7 years ago

    I left Hubpages and then returned just over 12 months ago. I was away for quite a few months before returning.

    Now when I first started here I was a member for about 2 years.

    In those early days the forum was carte blanche and anything goes. That was why I and many others left HP. The forum was like a cancer that sucked you in and started to rule your life.

    No matter what affiliations hub staff have, I believe the fact remains they have cleaned this forum up a hell of a lot. They are very pro-active and if they err on the side of caution then that can only be a good thing.

  8. alternate poet profile image63
    alternate poetposted 7 years ago

    What a typical right wing ploy - to scream victimisation when the rules that apply to everybody don't suit them.

    In the religious and political forums posters often go too far and shoot their mouths off - frequently making posts that contain what could be seen as a personal attack - or can be claimed to be personal atack.  If the other person complains and you can be seen to have made such a personal attack then it is kinda automatic ban - what else can Hubpages do?

    The answer is to stop attacking other people and attack their argument - not the person.

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
      IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I get banned for cursing, and not so much for personal attacks.  I'm trying to clean up my act.  However, I rarely spend time in the forums anymore. 

      I guess I like cussing to much.smile

  9. donotfear profile image91
    donotfearposted 7 years ago

    Well, whaddaya' know.....I've never been banned. But I haven't ever personally attacked anyone in the forums, though I have been attacked once & told..."you disgust me".  Yeah, for real. Ticked me off, but what the heck?  I left a comment on a hub once that I regret. Then it came back to bite me on the butt, I deserved it. 

    As far as the Hub team being slanted either Right or Left, I'm not going to say what I think.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You attack with pictures donot...which maybe could never be considered an insult. But once after I wrote something, you put a picture of a pumpkin throwing up. That is an insult.

      I notice someone here insults now by saying "a certain poster on here is a rabid anti-semite"....she knows that we know who she's talking about....still a personal insult, but a sneaky way to get it out.

      I've been banned too, and one of my hubs has had the adds taken off.....for political and religious reasons I'm assuming.

      Some of this is very insidious. It's like the Inquisition....are you with us or not?

  10. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 7 years ago

    Does HP have a liberal slant?

    I certainly hope so.  I'd hate to be associated with any place that didn't.

  11. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Pcunix, why do you want a liberal slant? I would prefer a neutral site with no slant at all. Luckily, I haven't seen any "slant" here.

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Because "liberal" allows different opinion. 

      If we are talkng politics, a conservative moderator might be just as fair as anyone else in allowing disparate opinion, but in doing so, they would accurately be called "liberal".  Not politically liberal, but liberal in their sufferance of varied opinions.

      So, again, yes, I would definitely want a liberal slant.  Neutral is liberal in this context. 

      Sometimes people forget that the word has other meaning.  It was once a compliment - and still is, to some of us :-)

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I agree. I thought you were using "liberal" as a political term.

    2. EmpressFelicity profile image77
      EmpressFelicityposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ditto.  I *hate* sites with a cosy "we all think the same here, don't we" attitude.

      1. Friendlyword profile image61
        Friendlywordposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        How could you stand it? ewwwww!

  12. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

    I doubt that there is bias from HP admin when it comes to the forums.   Perceptions about what constitutes a personal attack vary widely. Only HP administration can make that decision, and like someone else already said, if you don't like the forums here there are a million others to choose from on the internet.

    I have been personally attacked many times here, but I would never report it, because even if I get peeved about or offended by something someone says to me, I believe they have a right to say it, even if it constitutes a personal attack. 

    However, I do realize that if I attack back, I could get banned (which I did), even if I am attacked first.  That might be unfair, but this is just a forum, not a court of law.  :-)

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps you are right PP, but in my experience with writing on other sites, the amount of fairness shown on the forums usually indicates the overall fairness on the site.  This includes the business aspects also.

      I do not protest the ban, or even the reason for the ban, but the possible worse harm which could have been caused by the manner in which it was done.  If it is too much trouble for the moderator to respond to an email which may help avoid further trouble, then I have gained valuable insight into the general workings of HP.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I agree with you that responding to your email would be the courteous and professional thing to do.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I did have to contact Jim and the other banned hubber to reassure them I did not report them and cause their ban.  Otherwise, it opens up a possible retribution thing when such confusion is caused by inadequate information concerning those banned. 

          A simple email from the moderator to those banned would seem to be the obvious answer to this dilemma.

    2. EmpressFelicity profile image77
      EmpressFelicityposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Same here - I might report a post where someone was making what I thought was an actual threat against me or another member, but that's about it.

      Some people on here get their underwear in a tangle over utter trivia IMO.

  13. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Yes, I believe a "liberal" bias informs the way the Hub Pages admin moderates the forums.
    They are, in fact, quite "liberal" in allowing insults and snipes and smearing based on political affiliation or religion (or lack thereof). In other words, they could easily be stricter big_smile !!!!

  14. profile image0
    Nelle Hoxieposted 7 years ago

    You know I've never understood the importance that many people put on the forums as a political forum - and I've never understood why HP even continues to allow it.

    If it were up to me it would be for a discussian of HP related issues only - much the way the WebmasterWorld, Amazon and ebay forums are run.

    HP is such a small company with limited resources, I think they do the best they can. And figuring how to moderate between the liberals and conservatives here is a thankless task.

  15. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    http://www.tailored.com.au/uploaded_images/crying-man-703805.jpg

    It's sooooooooo unfair!!

    I should be able to belittle and insult people who disagree with me.  It's in the Constitution!  But I'm tellin' ya it ain't over.  Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?
    Hell no!

    I refudiate any a**hole who tries to deny my free speech rights.

  16. Lisa HW profile image82
    Lisa HWposted 7 years ago

    I think it's nice the forums have discussions about stuff other than HubPages. It does make a nice break from writing (or other work, in my case).  Besides, I've often gotten ideas for Hubs by browsing what's on here.

    I think HubPages has a nice, (reasonably) middle-ground kind of way of running things on the forum.  I know another site that runs its forum with such an iron fist, and such an expectation that people keep in line with an almost robot-like thinking, they shouldn't even bother pretending their forum is anything but getting "official word" on writing there.

    At the other end of the things, I discovered the forums on another writing site a few days ago (just looked to see what's there).  This isn't a phrase I'd ordinarily use, but all I can say is, "Oh My!"  Maybe I didn't look long enough, but that one pretty much looks like only wise guys post (and post two-liners).  It looks like the "sense of community" is between the wise guys, and that's it.  I didn't see any real discussion anywhere.  To me, the whole thing just looked like a massive waste of space.  I don't even see any "relating" going on between people are who are apparently pals.

    So, I think HubPages forum is a reasonable middle ground.  I, personally, can't really see reporting anyone on a forum.  Who cares if someone makes an insulting remark or "attacks" once in awhile.  I suppose I can see banning someone who does nothing but come on here to attack people.  Either way, I don't think liberal leanings matter if people don't say anything that's a "borderline" (or out-and-out) attack.  (I really don't get making an issue over being banned.  Again, who cares?  Go with it.)

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      As I stated Lisa, the ban was not what I had problems with.  It was the way it was handled.  Just in case some are wondering what outrageous behavior caused my ban, it was this statement according to the moderator.



        "Like your logic, even your laugh would be pathetic, if you want to take the insult route."


      Terrible, huh?

      1. alternate poet profile image63
        alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You are just a bad bad b*****d !!!    big_smile

        All of us 'intelligent commentators' have all been banned or suspended at one time or another I think - it goes with speaking your mind.  I have been banned a few times due to pathetic weaseling complaints from totally ignorant people who are unable to win an argument and so resort to childish games.  Hubpages has a problem with this as they are only human and probably only have a few minutes to apply to these issues between writing a zillion hubs, partying and generally having fun. Their decisions can be very strange I find m- and the promised emails about why and what only ever materialised once.

        I think the intelligent and grown up way to respond to the childish behaviour of whoever reported you is to GET THEM BANNED in return in a childish tit for tat spat  big_smile big_smile big_smile

        1. EmpressFelicity profile image77
          EmpressFelicityposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          News to me.

        2. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The childish "tit for tat spat" was what I wished to avoid, AP!  Until I contacted staff I thought Jim or the other banned member had reported me for a personal attack.  But apparently it was a decision made by the moderator him/herself.

          Who knows?  This is why I contacted the other hubbers to let them know I did not report them.  As I said earlier, the lack of information given those banned could cause even more anger and reporting than the mild posts causing the ban in the first place. 

          Perhaps it is because of the lack of staff to properly answer hubbers emails concerning this and other problems here.  The only other time I contacted staff I received an answer long after my query was made and too late to be of any assistance.

      2. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        And the logic comment that I made to you was a rather tame one.

        I think I said it was flawed or something equally harmless.

        And I didn't call you pathetic I called the round and round pathetic.

        Now watch me get banned.

      3. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Maybe it's because I got banned just a few days before you, for calling another hubber "pathetic."  That really was a personal attack.  Maybe they thought what you wrote was close enough that they had to ban you, too? 

        Just speculating.  It could all be completely unrelated.

      4. donotfear profile image91
        donotfearposted 7 years agoin reply to this


        I've heard worse, & they're still on the forums. Sorry you got the left foot of fellowship. It seems a bit ....

      5. Lisa HW profile image82
        Lisa HWposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Randy, my comment about complaining about bans didn't really come from thinking about any one (yours, for example) complaint in particular.  It more came from the general situation that there are always so many complaints on here about getting banned.  (Sorry if it looked otherwise.)

        It does look pretty laughable to be banned over something like that; and this is only a guess, but with that example, I wonder if it's really a matter of "erring on side of Liberal" as it is being over-cautious in general.   I suppose, technically, if someone analyzed the meaning of the word, "pathetic" and the fact it was aimed at someone, it would be considered "a mild attack" (as compared to a "really mean" one like, "you're a jerk").

        Maybe there is a low bar for what's considered an attack, but maybe it depends on who complains soon enough or at all?  I have no idea how any banning works or doesn't  or who's thinking what politics-wise, but I can't help wonder if it's more a matter of erring on the side of "business-caution" or else if it's a matter of getting a reading on how many times someone may come across as "edgy" in something like the political forum.  (Might they overlook a bunch of stuff first before "being pushed over the edge"?  In a borderline case, might they ban more quickly if someone's name has come up before? )

        I'm not leaning on the "defend administrators" side out of any loyalty to people I don't even know; but I know if people disagree with me on my Hubs I'm more than happy to post their disagreements (because I figure, "Let the world see how wacky this is."  I can't help but assume a lot of people have no problems "showcasing" views they don't agree with, just for that reason.  Another thought might be whether there are far more Liberal-leaners who come and go and make a few cracks here and there as compared to the numbers of Conversatives who are on the politics forum over the long term.  I'm not making guesses about that - it's just another thought.

    2. Friendlyword profile image61
      Friendlywordposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I like what you said Lisa. I guess you can’t name the site you referred to.
      Hubpages is the best place to exchange ideas with others without the discussion degrading to a point of useless name calling. I'm not completely there yet, but I'm learning.
      And I can say without a doubt, the hubpages  team has a bias towards me. They love me! They were suppose to ban me permanently after my first ban. They put up with a lot in an effort to keep this site flowing smoothly and requiring people to keep some kind of civility in the forums.
      What I learned here on hubpages has helped me to communicate better in every part of my everyday life. I don’t think I'll ever be banned again. Thank you for the lessons and the patience Hubteam!

  17. relache profile image88
    relacheposted 7 years ago

    If by "liberal" you mean to ask if the HubPages staff moderate as little as they have to, I think the answer is "yes."

    Some days I don't mind the forums, and some days I miss the first year when they didn't exist yet.

  18. Poetic Elements profile image54
    Poetic Elementsposted 7 years ago

    Nah, relache, some of these people would die without the forums!
    I think maybe what they should do here is get rid of all the overly-generalized rules and write nothing but specific guidelines.  I realize that would mean the end of employees being able to widely "interpret" rules or just ban someone because he/she felt the person was too much trouble to moderate but it certainly would help the people who write here.
    Define specifics as to such things as to what personal attacks are or what may or may not be shown in a picture.  if they did this then perhaps there would not be so much gray and you would not have one hubber getting away with stuff for years while another gets banned within his/her first day.

    1. Diane Inside profile image80
      Diane Insideposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      sometimes I wonder if they should just say NO POLITICS, NO RELIGION,  type forums.

      I mean still have hubs about whatever you want just not in the forums.

      I wonder how that would go over.

      1. Friendlyword profile image61
        Friendlywordposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        How do you figure anyone here would make a dime after that?  You think all these people would come to hubpages to "Think of a word that ends with a P"?

        1. Poetic Elements profile image54
          Poetic Elementsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          HP makes money from the forums?  Really?  Where did you read that?

          1. Friendlyword profile image61
            Friendlywordposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            No no I think the forums attract new hubbers and keep hubbers like me occupied between writing new hubs.  a lot of people are here to express their opinions on an intelligent site. If your site only attracts other hubbers here to make money on Ad Hubs; who would be your audience? The carrying on here is both tame enough, and exciting enough to attract a lot of people to hubpages.
            I'm living proof of the fact that hubpages needs "Attractive Personalities" and experienced writers here on hubpages. In my opinion of course.

            1. Poetic Elements profile image54
              Poetic Elementsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Oh, now I understand what you meant to say.

      2. Poetic Elements profile image54
        Poetic Elementsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I understand your point--I think--but just to clarify--you are not allowed to do hubs about anything you want . . . not from what I have read in the TOS.

      3. Lisa HW profile image82
        Lisa HWposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Diane, I haven't been there for awhile; but there's another site's forum where they keep all the Conservatives in one place, all the Liberals in another, and separate all the individual religions (and non-religious types) separate as well.   lol    I guess the idea is to keep people from arguing, but it's REALLY weird and kind of dictator-like.   lol


        Friendlyworld, I'm just not comfortable naming names.  I'm a member of a lot of writing sites, and somehow (both for "selfish- business reasons" and other reasons) it doesn't seem right to go on one site and "bad-mouth" another one.   hmm   I've actually only had real, longer-term, experience on one of those sites.  The one I just went and looked at was one I may not have given enough chance to.  Then again, I think if someone new were to come to these forums their first impression might more be about all the religious threads, as compared to the one that looked full of wise-guy remarks (that I mentioned above).  Someone new on here could easily run into some decent discussions or non-wise-guy silliness just be looking around.

  19. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 7 years ago

    I have yet to  be banned, though Misha and Jim thought I should have been.

    I think this shows a definite bias toward clown hair.  Or people who live in Massachusetts.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      But not snakes!  Funny thing though, while I was banned and unable to respond, I was quoted and called a "stupid toad" on one thread!  Go figure!  LOL!  Did I report it?  Naw!  No big deal!

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Ha!  Obviously, they can't differentiate an amphibian from a reptile.

        big_smile

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          This is why I simply ignore the posters in a case like this, PP!  I've heard writers are very sensitive, but I cannot say for sure!

      2. profile image0
        china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I have also been banned recently and I still have no idea why.  I would have thought that a simple email informing me that I have been banned and why - briefly, and what rule has been infringed - would be only polite.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          This is my main complaint about the banning process, China Man!  I had to ask for the post which got me banned.  I was so surprised at which one it was as it seemed to be one of the least insulting posts I had made on either the religious or political forums.

          There are no guidelines to follow and no forthcoming information which entails why some posts are worse than others.  Why this is so remains a mystery to me as one would think HP could at least try to clarify the reasons for getting banned.

          1. profile image0
            china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            But the banning is, or should be, the result of a complaint, or complaints, through the report button.  There was an occasion with one little group where if one got into trouble with the nonsense they were promoting then they would all come over and hit that report button.

            The bottom line is that if you make an insulting comment - and you and I do just now and then - AND someone complains then HP seem almost duty bound to enforce the rule ?

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              The moderator can also make the call without anyone hitting the button.

        2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          It would also be time consuming for people who have a business to run.  The forum rules are crystal clear and anyone who posts should understand them and agree to abide by them.  I don't expect anymore time or effort from HP staff in running a forum which is basically a benefit for us, not the main focus of their business (or resources).

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            So how does one determine which post they were banned for so as to know what or what not to say?  And sending an email is too much trouble for the moderator?  If so, then what other facets of HP are handled in this same manner?  Don't know, do you? I don't know about you, Ron but this makes a difference to me!

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              When you tried to post again didn't you get a message explaining the period of your ban along with a link to the offending post?

              1. profile image0
                china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I certainly did not.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  It's been my experience that a link is provided.  If you did not get such a notice, I think you have a legitimate complaint.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                When I was banned, I discovered I was banned when I tried to post.  The message told me I was banned for three days because of posts to a particular thread, and the message included a link to the thread.  It didn't provide a link to the particular post within the thread.  In my case, I'm confident I know exactly what the infraction was; others might not be so sure.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I got a similar message.  In that particular situation the entire thread was getting out of hand.  I'm sure more than 1 post was a problem and I imagine I wasn't the only one banned.

                  You on the other hand, were probably banned for your ultra-conservative views-thus proving the conspiracy theory true.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, HP admin has been monitoring my radical right-wing paranoia from the moment I arrived, waiting for the tiniest opportunity to ban me from the forums and deprive me of my right to insult anyone I want to without consequence.

                2. profile image0
                  china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Maybe the moderators are sexually biased ?  I did not get any info except the p**s off for a week notice, (my translation) big_smile

              3. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                No, I did not Ron.  I had to email HP to find out which post was the reason for the ban.  I then had to email them again to find out two others were banned on the same thread.  My last email requesting them to inform the others that I didn't report them was apparently ignored

                Edited to add- When I tried to post the message only said I was banned from the forum for three days.  No mention of personal attack was given at this time.

          2. profile image0
            china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I do not agree that it is not in 'their' interest. the forums are part of the whole Hubpages setup and affect the opinions of everyone on here in some way or another.  Poor handling of one issue throws doubt on general competence,  everybody knows that if you want to know about a restaurant cleanliness go look at their washroom - this has the same connection.

          3. Misha profile image76
            Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Obviously they are not, based on the number of otherwise bright people being confused with some bans or lack of them. Especially considering the wide range of cultural backgrounds HP users come from. smile

            I asked for a more or less exact definition of "personal attack" quite a while ago, to no avail...

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Indeed.  Some of us are liberals, and lack certain attributes that could help us follow the rules. 

              Our insistence on nuance and moral relativism makes it hard for us to see rules as anything  more than suggestions to be interpreted in the context of the moment.  I suffer from that affliction myself, and am sure to run afoul of HP law sooner or later.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Are you saying the rules should be based on the 10 commandments?

                1. Pcunix profile image88
                  Pcunixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Why would you think I couldn't find nuance and relativism in there?

                  Besides, which Ten?

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Joke

              2. readytoescape profile image61
                readytoescapeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Not unlike the Liberal Progressive view of the US Constitution, which as they interpret, is an old Document in need of change upon any given whim of the moment to satisfy political gain and the lust for power and control.

                Hub Pages Forum rules and TOS should be viewed similarly, LOL

    2. Arthur Fontes profile image86
      Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It is definitely not people from Massachusetts!

    3. Lisa HW profile image82
      Lisa HWposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      PC, go over to the religious forum and tell someone something about them is pathetic.  Apparently, that ought to do it.   lol

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        But I don't think them pathetic.  I think they are driven by emotions and can't help believing what they want to believe.  I'm a liberal for similar reasons - it's emotional first.

  20. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Oh, c'mon', RD - everyone knows how ultra sensitive you are! lol

  21. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    Anyone who wonders why they were banned should post a link in this thread to the infraction.  I'll bet 99% of the people participating could quickly explain it to you.

  22. leeberttea profile image55
    leebertteaposted 7 years ago

    I'm not whining. I understand it's a private website and it's up to the owners to make and enforce rules. I am complaining though that they themselves aren't specific in their definitions or in their enforcement of their rules. Perhaps they simply respond when someone complains about a post without actually reading the post. It is interesting that these so called offensive posts or personal attacks are left in the threads for all to see. Perhaps a better approach would be to delete the offending post and issue a warning with a copy of the post attached and say three warnings in 24 hours would earn a ban.

    Whatever, they do, they should be consistent if nothing else.

  23. BDazzler profile image81
    BDazzlerposted 7 years ago

    For those of us who are more conservative, it will appear that "middle of the road" is more liberal.  For those who are more liberal, "middle of the road" will be more conservative.

    As a conservative, I have no doubt that I will see some liberal bias on HP, but, for the most part, it appears that someone is banned because of complaints.

    I have concluded that many liberals on hub pages are control freaks and complain louder, and therefore more conservatives have gotten banned.

    As I have no data to prove this, those who disagree with me would rightly point to my conservative bias. 

    Bottom line is, even with liberal bias, most of the time, I like this place and don't take it too seriously.  It's a high quality site and moderated better than most.

  24. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    I bet someone will be banned as a result of postings in this thread.  It's liable to get hot!

    1. rebekahELLE profile image89
      rebekahELLEposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      lol, soon we'll see the Closed to Reply at the bottom of the thread... I think there are deeper issues when someone is just plain nasty... or mocking. that's the low point here in these forums. I can understand opposing viewpoints, but mockery is just ugly.. go play on the playground. I've had discussions with the OP, but we've never attacked each other. at least we discuss, some here won't even respect that, I don't bother with those posters.
      I don't really see a liberal bias here. I don't see anything wrong with tolerance, although some seem to think it's a bad word.

  25. Arthur Fontes profile image86
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    I think responding to the poster instead of the post could be construed as a personal attack.  Depending on the posters response?

    1. Misha profile image76
      Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How about calling a guy an "arrogant ignoramus"? Or saying he is too young for his opinion to be considered seriously?

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image86
        Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Definetly personal attacks IMO.

        1. Misha profile image76
          Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          First one got 7 days ban, second one was left alone...

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Someone calling me an "arrogant ignoramus" would just make me laugh and would be mild compared to other insults I've received, which I did not report, and for which the perpetrator was not banned.

            And if someone called me "young" I'd be flattered.  smile

            Like I keep saying, it really is up to admin and there will always be disagreements and discussion about the fairness of their decisions.

        2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          First one is clearly a violation.  Second one not so much.

          1. Arthur Fontes profile image86
            Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "saying he is too young for his opinion to be considered seriously"


            Is claiming that due to the person's age he/she would not be smart enough for their opinion to be taken seriously?


            What else could be meant by that statement.

            I know many very intelligent and opinionated young people.  Age does not equate with wisdom.

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              But that's not what was said at all.  That's Misha giving you a reinterpretation, not what actually was written.

              Misha apparently wanted me banned.  I'm not saying he tried to make that happen, but he made it plain what his wishes were :-)

              1. Arthur Fontes profile image86
                Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this



                If you made references to his age and whether or not that due to his age he should not be taken seriously.

                Did you address his words or his Person?

                If you were addressing him personally then that is a personal attack.

                If you were not banned then so be it, that is none of my business.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I find it fascinating that people who normally advocate for personal freedom are reporting people for arguably minor offenses then quibbling over whether or not they were justifiably NOT banned.

                  Wouldn't it be better if banning (and reporting) were reserved for truly egregious offenses like threats or stalking?

                  Just my opinion.  If we're going to advocate for freedom of speech on the forums, then we have to be a lot more thick skinned.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                    Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I think thats the entire point.

                    What are the offenses?

                    Randy was banned and simply wanted to know what the offending post was. I guess he didn't get the answer.

                    I contacted the staff and was directed to the exact post. It was never my intention to attack Randy or insult him in any way.

                    We come from two different ideologies and were both banned, I guess thats fair.

                    But, I see attacks constantly from certain members who seem to do so with impunity, if they are ever banned I don't see it.

                    And because this is the internet how do we know we are not talking to and being attacked by a staff member?

                  2. Arthur Fontes profile image86
                    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Just speaking from experience.

                    I had a hub unpublished for no obvious reason.  You know the one, you commented on it.  In an hour the hub was unpublished because it ""violated"" adsense policy.

                    Oh well,I moved it elsewhere with no problem and am actually seeing a little traffic from it back to HP.

                    I enjoy the forums but I am not nearly as active as I used to be.  Too much tattling.

                2. Pcunix profile image88
                  Pcunixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I see Misha found it - that's good as I wasn't willing to go searching for it.  I said

                  "As I said, you seem to be very young. I hope you gain some wisdom as you age."

                  I dunno who said the other thing - wasn't me :-)

                  1. Arthur Fontes profile image86
                    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    If Hp allowed it I guess it was not a personal attack!

                    It would be defined as discrimination in the real world.


                    "Age discrimination is discrimination on the grounds of age. Although theoretically the word can refer to the discrimination against any age group, age discrimination usually comes in one of three forms: discrimination against youth (also called adultism), discrimination against those 40 years old or older,[10] and discrimination against elderly people."

                  2. Misha profile image76
                    Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    LOL The other one is mine, and I served a whole week for it smile

            2. Lisa HW profile image82
              Lisa HWposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              There's no defending that "arrogant ignoramus" thing, but there could be defending of that "too young...." remark.

              Yes, there are very intelligent young people who can know more than someone older.  No doubt about that.   "Opinionated" doesn't necessarily mean the opinion was based on intelligence, wisdom, or the thinking that is sometimes only learned through living through x amount of experience.

              There is a very real situation that can occur with someone young (not matter how intelligent or well informed he may be), in which someone is too young to have experienced/witnessed enough to have the insight that someone older can.

              I could (but won't) give examples of some thinking I had as old as 40 that I've changed and become wiser about over the last decade or so.  I was as intelligent then as I am now, but - boy - I know more now than I did, only because I had to experience some things in order to learn that much.  If some 70-year-old tells me I'm too young to understand or have a valid opinion on SOME things now, I've learned enough to know there's a good chance (not a certainty, but a good chance) he'll be right.

              On top of that, Science now knows that the brain isn't even fully mature until early- to mid- twenties, and a person's thinking can be different when his brain isn't quite finished maturing.

              If I had the "Power of Banning" I would never have banned that remark.

              1. Arthur Fontes profile image86
                Arthur Fontesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                In all fairness the age of a person is a personal subject.  Does anyone know for sure the age of a forum poster?


                Age is personal.

                1. Lisa HW profile image82
                  Lisa HWposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Arthur, agreed that a person's age is personal; but it's also just a reality. My only point is that comment, by itself, is not necessarily an insult or attack.  If some 70-year-old told me I'm too young to have an experienced enough opinion about SOME (not ALL things, of course), I wouldn't see it as an attack.  I don't have to tell anyone how old I am for the reality to be that if a 70-year-old says there's something (again, about SOME things) I'm too young to have a broad enough perspective of, or experience with; that my not telling my exact age would make a difference.

                  If you use the personal aspect of age as the criteron for "no comments about", that would get into something like a person's sex.  "You're a man, so there's no way you can know what it feels like to be a mother."  That kind of thing wouldn't be an attack.  Or - wealth.  "You're wealthy, so you don't know how it is to to be poor" or "You're poor, so you don't know what it's like to be wealthy".   etc. etc.

                  I think there are times an age-related comment could be an "attack" (as in expecting someone younger to just listen to someone older because of age and not respecting the younger person).  I don't happen to see that particular age-related remark as an attack.  Might the person who made it have been incorrect?  Maybe.  Maybe the younger person actually had some experience that others his age don't usually have.  Still, whether the person was correct or incorrect is one thing.  Whether the age comment was an attack is another.  (IMO)

            3. BDazzler profile image81
              BDazzlerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Depends on how young and the context ... the brain is not fully developed until about age 25. 

              There's a difference between respecting someone's potential and ability and setting them up for failure by treating them as an expert on something they cannot possibly have the life experience to know about.

      2. rebekahELLE profile image89
        rebekahELLEposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I think the first is just so immature, it couldn't be taken seriously. the second is not worth a ban, but certainly without any substance. I know people in their twenties that are much more mature and intelligent than some over 40. I think it's their ability to look at a situation or viewpoint without deep seated prejudices. age really has no merit in someone having a worthy opinion. I disagree that with age comes wisdom, perhaps for those who actually learned from their life experiences but wisdom comes with applied knowledge, some never bother to gain any.

  26. Shadesbreath profile image86
    Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago

    HP is fine.  If someone get's banned it's because they lost control of their language--a real no-no on a writing site.  There is no argument that can't be made with the right rhetorical choices.  The key (and definition of rhetoric) being the choosing of the right words for any CURRENT situation.  A current situation is not just the point being made, but just as importantly includes the location of the argument as much as the persons with whom the argument is being made and the audience for whom the argument is being performed.  Yes, it is a performance.  And the moderators are part of the audience.  So are the crybabies and the hyper-sensitive types on all sides.  If you get banned, it's your fault.  You know where you are before you start typing.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Agree with this.

  27. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    LOL I feel it is necessary to be more precise here, cause small nuances do change things. I took the time to dig for the exact phrases:





    smile

    1. rebekahELLE profile image89
      rebekahELLEposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      misha, were these directed at you? I think they're rather self-aggrandizing, but not worth a ban. I guess I missed this thread where the bans took place. is it still around?

      I really should be working..

      1. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        LOL While I got my fair share of insults, those were not directed at me. In fact one of them I typed in myself smile

        1. BDazzler profile image81
          BDazzlerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Misha, perhaps you meant "ignoramus" in a good way and were misunderstood. wink

          1. Misha profile image76
            Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Nah David, I was seriously smoothing what I actually wanted to say lol

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Kind of funny when you were holding back and still got banned.  You might as well have let loose with both barrels /-)

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                When I got banned, I said exactly what I thought, and it was worth it.  :-)

              2. Misha profile image76
                Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                True, but I think I did this more for internal reasons. smile

        2. rebekahELLE profile image89
          rebekahELLEposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          ha, I see. wink

          well, it looks like Jim and Randy are ready to shake hands and say, sorry. so maybe the thread is serving a purpose.. lol

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            We shook cyber hands long ago.

          2. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            As far as I know, neither Jim nor I took the thread as anything other than a difference of opinion between us.  Apparently, others were deciding our feelings for us.  No animosity between us despite the moderators intervention.

            1. rebekahELLE profile image89
              rebekahELLEposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              I think a lot of it has to do with peoples moods when they're in the forums.
              you could be right, someone else may have reported it. I think if someone is going to report an attack, it should be the people involved.. and even then, does it really warrant a report or just a break from the forums.

          3. Misha profile image76
            Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, they seem to snake hands wink

    2. William R. Wilson profile image59
      William R. Wilsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with others here that the first is an insult, the second is not.  Just my two cents...

      1. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        With some others William. Not everybody agrees to that smile

  28. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Regarding the "You are an arrogant ignoramous" insult.
    Do you suppose it was the double whammy of the insult that pushed it over the edge?
    To call someone "arrogant" (or pompous or self-aggrandizing) seems -- at least to me -- to be within bounds.
    To call someone an "ignoramous" appears -- at least to me -- to be a feeble attempt to dress up the word "stupid" in four syllables. It's a direct attack on someone's intelligence.
    To combine the two would seem to be accusing the poster of being proud of being stupid.

    So if someone (theoretically) wanted to call another poster an arrogant ignoramous but not have it be perceived as a direct attack, said person could choose a metaphor for the insult.

    In the above case, for example, one could quite easily substitute the words "Sarah Palin" for "arrogant ignoramous."

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Or more correctly Barack Obama.

    2. William R. Wilson profile image59
      William R. Wilsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      :-D

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I did that for about 2 weeks, and received a cease and desist order from HP.

  29. thisisoli profile image54
    thisisoliposted 7 years ago

    I haven't been banned yet, just about manage to hold my tongue when I really want to let rip on someone!

  30. Lisa HW profile image82
    Lisa HWposted 7 years ago

    I just don't really get making a big deal and reporting stuff unless it's truly hate speech or something disturbingly twisted.  It's an Internet forum, for goodness sake.   hmm  I think if things get nasty people ought to either just leave the thread and don't back; or else, if they want one last word post something like, "I'm not going to continue a discussion with someone who resorts to name-calling" - and then leave.  Let whatever else happens after that in a thread happen.  What you don't know won't irk you.

 
working