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

Jump to Last Post 1-30 of 30 discussions (168 posts)

57
leebertteaposted 14 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?
reply report
67
ilmdamailyposted 14 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."
reply report
61
William R. Wilsonposted 14 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.
reply report
1. 61
  Doug Hughesposted 14 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.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 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.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 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.
  reply report
  60
  Friendlywordposted 14 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.
  reply report
2. 58
  Poetic Elementsposted 14 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.
  reply report
93
habeeposted 14 years ago
I agree, Doug. HP disciplines the right and the left.
reply report
1. 74
  IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I totally agree.
  
  I get banned all the time.
  reply report
93
habeeposted 14 years ago
Jim, I know what you're talking about. I don't understand why either of you were banned. He is perplexed, also.
reply report
1. 59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I haven't seen him is he still banned?
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 14 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.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 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.
  reply report
  73
  lorlie6posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Little camper?" OOOhhhh, that's sooooo mean, Jim.
  reply report
57
Studio Eposted 14 years ago
All you have to do is start your own website and call it hubcap pages hahahahaha
reply report
1. 59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not a bad idea.
  reply report
57
TerryGlposted 14 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.
reply report
69
alternate poetposted 14 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.
reply report
1. 74
  IntimatEvolutionposted 14 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.
  reply report
83
donotfearposted 14 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.
reply report
1. 80
  lovemychrisposted 14 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?
  reply report
86
Pcunixposted 14 years ago
Does HP have a liberal slant?

I certainly hope so. I'd hate to be associated with any place that didn't.
reply report
93
habeeposted 14 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.
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 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 :-)
  reply report
  93
  habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. I thought you were using "liberal" as a political term.
  reply report
2. 0
  EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ditto. I *hate* sites with a cosy "we all think the same here, don't we" attitude.
  reply report
  60
  Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How could you stand it? ewwwww!
  reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 14 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. :-)
reply report
1. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 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.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you that responding to your email would be the courteous and professional thing to do.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 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.
  reply report
2. 0
  EmpressFelicityposted 14 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.
  reply report
75
Mighty Momposted 14 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 !!!!
reply report
0
Nelle Hoxieposted 14 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.
reply report
59
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

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.
reply report
63
Lisa HWposted 14 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.)
reply report
1. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 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?
  reply report
  69
  alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are just a bad bad b*****d !!!
  
  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
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  News to me.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 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.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 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.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 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.
  reply report
  83
  donotfearposted 14 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 ....
  reply report
  63
  Lisa HWposted 14 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.
  reply report
2. 60
  Friendlywordposted 14 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!
  reply report
65
relacheposted 14 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.
reply report
58
Poetic Elementsposted 14 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.
reply report
1. 71
  Diane Insideposted 14 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.
  reply report
  60
  Friendlywordposted 14 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"?
  reply report
  58
  Poetic Elementsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  HP makes money from the forums? Really? Where did you read that?
  reply report
  60
  Friendlywordposted 14 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.
  reply report
  58
  Poetic Elementsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, now I understand what you meant to say.
  reply report
  58
  Poetic Elementsposted 14 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.
  reply report
  63
  Lisa HWposted 14 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. I guess the idea is to keep people from arguing, but it's REALLY weird and kind of dictator-like.
  
  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. 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.
  reply report
86
Pcunixposted 14 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.
reply report
1. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 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!
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ha! Obviously, they can't differentiate an amphibian from a reptile.
  
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 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!
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 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.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 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.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 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 ?
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The moderator can also make the call without anyone hitting the button.
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 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).
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 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!
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 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?
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I certainly did not.
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 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.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 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.
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 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.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 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.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  YES - I agree with this, except that I conspire that they think I must be a commie b*****d cos I live in China - this would be an impartial conspiracy theory then
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  "impartial conspiracy theory"
  
  Love it.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 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)
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 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.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 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.
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 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.
  
  I asked for a more or less exact definition of "personal attack" quite a while ago, to no avail...
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 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.
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Are you saying the rules should be based on the 10 commandments?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why would you think I couldn't find nuance and relativism in there?
  
  Besides, which Ten?
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Joke
  reply report
  62
  readytoescapeposted 14 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
  reply report
2. 66
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is definitely not people from Massachusetts!
  reply report
3. 63
  Lisa HWposted 14 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.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 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.
  reply report
93
habeeposted 14 years ago
Oh, c'mon', RD - everyone knows how ultra sensitive you are! lol
reply report
59
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 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.
reply report
57
leebertteaposted 14 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.
reply report
77
BDazzlerposted 14 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.
reply report
59
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
I bet someone will be banned as a result of postings in this thread. It's liable to get hot!
reply report
1. 84
  rebekahELLEposted 14 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.
  reply report
66
Arthur Fontesposted 14 years ago
I think responding to the poster instead of the post could be construed as a personal attack. Depending on the posters response?
reply report
1. 64
  Mishaposted 14 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?
  reply report
  66
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Definetly personal attacks IMO.
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  First one got 7 days ban, second one was left alone...
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 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.
  
  Like I keep saying, it really is up to admin and there will always be disagreements and discussion about the fairness of their decisions.
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  First one is clearly a violation. Second one not so much.
  reply report
  66
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 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.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 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 :-)
  reply report
  66
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 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.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 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.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 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?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think you and I actually agree that minimal banning is the best way to go. If admin only banned for threats and stalking, then there would be a lot less banning and a lot less discussion about what is fair or not.
  
  Having said all that, HP owners obviously feel differently, so if we want to play in their playground we have to follow their rules, even if they appear to be administered haphazardly.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think a personal attack is a pretty obvious thing.
  
  It can be seen and understood by anybody.
  
  But, until such time that these minor offenses are ignored I will be reporting those who actually attack others.
  
  Tit for tat, childish?
  
  Yep, but someone reported Randy and I, so its on.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But we do not know that, Jim! This is what I am talking about when I say the lack of info to the banned person may cause worse problems in the long run. But perhaps this is the intent. Get everyone riled up and everyone reports everyone else. Sheesh!
  
  Wouldn't this entail even more work for the staff? Or is controversy good for the site? Strange how we all have such a confusing and diverse take on these "crystal clear" rules!
  
  So, should everyone report every tiny personal attack here? Is this what HP wants? Maybe so!
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I just wish we'd all agree not to report. It would solve a lot of these silly issues.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I will quit now, I think my blood-lust has been satisfied.
  
  I only reported actual attacks.
  
  I do agree that it should stop.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thumbs up.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hey there TK Sensei/Sab oh. How is the new troll working out? .
  
  Dear me................
  report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Dear you
  
  Once again this troll label is thrown around, I'm still waiting on your incontrovertible evidence that heaven nor hell exists.
  
  And I'm not sab oh.
  
  But you are humorous.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOL
  
  Irony - do you speak it?
  report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Incontrovertible evidence, do you have it as you said you did?
  
  I don't know what you are finding ironic.
  
  I am not saying I have incontrovertible evidence that God exists.
  
  I'm just waiting for you to prove the nonexistence of heaven or hell.
  
  But you can't can you?
  
  Now come back and call me a troll or whatever else you can think of to hide your lack of facts.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  I was speaking to some one who told me she had facts and truth and proof about the existence of these things and I was being "ironic" when I responded to her.
  
  Do I need to explain it in words of one syllable?
  report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you say so.
  
  I'll take that to mean you do not have proof.
  
  By the way I read her post.
  
  Uh huh
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting that you chose not to respond to her.
  
  100% total lack of evidence in favor, combined with a good dose of common sense and an in-depth knowledge of the bible is good enough for me, but any time you want to provide some evidence - I am all ears.
  
  Oh - that is right - the burden of proof does not belong to the one making the positive statement.
  report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  First of all I explained on the thread involved why I didn't ask anything of her.
  
  Her "proof" was that she believed, and seeing that she can't prove what she believes why ask her to?
  
  You on the other hand said "I have incontrovertible proof"
  
  I very politely asked you to post the proof.
  
  You responded by calling me a troll.
  
  What do you want me to provide proof of?
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Untrue., You did no such thing.
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/49449?page=8
  If you do not want to be considered a troll - I suggest you stop behaving like one.
  
  ciao
  report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I did Mark. I didn't know that asking when and how something was done was troll behavior.
  
  And I can certainly see why you would want to run from this conversation.
  
  Mark Knowles wrote:
  
  Irony. Do u speak it, troll? See u dint kwestion the kristian dun u? Just kurious - why is that?
  
  So your answer is to not answer, well done.
  
  ****But to answer you no one can prove what they think or believe.**** http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/49449?page=9
  
  You said "The incontrovertible facts of the matter is that there is no heaven or hell. These are proven facts. wink"
  
  Where are the incontrovertible facts?
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No Jim, they told me which post I was banned for, but they left it up in the air whether it was due to someone else reporting us or if the moderator took it upon him/her self to make the call. At first I thought you reported me and I figured you thought the same about me. Surely, it is easy to see how this could have easily caused even more trouble between the banned members.
  
  Being banned is not the point here. I have not claimed to be innocent in my post. But knowing how far one may go with a discussion on the forums would seem to me to be important so as to prevent further bans in the future. At this point, I have no idea what is, or is not acceptable.
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I understand you now.
  
  Here is where I'm coming from, both statements from you and I were so tame that I would think a moderator would have said "there is nothing there"
  
  I have seen outright attacks that go completely ignored, I do not (like you) understand what or what not can be said. It all seems very arbitrary.
  
  I did think you reported me at first, and then saw your email, I wouldn't have ever reported anyone for anything.
  
  That has now changed.
  
  BTW, email me and tell me who else was banned, I didn't know there was another person.
  reply report
  66
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 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.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't know HP unpublished it; I assumed you did. That does seem like overkill on their part.
  reply report
  66
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  I know, it was fiction, I have seen hubs that go into detail about certain bannings. My story came from my imagination and was complete fiction. Yet it somehow violated Adsense.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 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 :-)
  reply report
  66
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 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."
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I don't think it is discrimination or even insulting to say that you hope that someone gains wisdom as they age.
  
  I don't even remember what triggered that thought. Something he said sounded like something a young person would think. I don't think there was anything awful about it, basically just that he'll probably change his mind when he's a little older.
  
  But anyway - as I told Misha at the time, I'd accept being banned with good humor. I may have meant nothing nasty there, but I definitely have cloaked nastiness in other words at other times, so I have been guilty in fact if not in this specific deed.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem"? Because that "you'll probably change your mind when you get older" comment of yours was a classic example of ad hominem.
  
  My motto when engaging in political discussion on forums is "always target the argument, not the person". It's probably why in nearly a year on HP, I've never been banned, despite having participated in numerous political threads.
  
  It's something that a lot of people on here (whatever "side" they're on) might do well to remember. It's possible to insult someone without resorting to phrases like "you're an a***hole!"; ad hominem is a form of insult because it basically says "well, you would say that wouldn't you because you're [insert category here]". In using ad hominem, you're saying that what someone says isn't worth even discussing because they're too young/stupid/the wrong gender/the wrong race/whatever else to be worth treating with respect.
  
  Though having said that, I do think people hit the report button far too readily here.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think most people have this motto, but we're human and sometimes don't live up to our own ideals.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When you are banned for something you consider mild you may have a different outlook on things. I have been here longer than you and this is my first ban. So don't get too comfortable! LOL!
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Saying that someone might change their mind about something when they get older is not an ad hominem argument. It is not even saying they are wrong,
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Umm...
  
  "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
  
  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
  3. Therefore A's claim is false. "
  
  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie … minem.html
  
  Really? Then what is it saying?
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Youth is not an irrelevant fact.
  
  I remember now what it was about. I said I believed that all of us, right wing or left, simply want to create a better world. Sometimes that is for selfish reasons, but usually there is at least some concern for others. We just disagree on the methods.
  
  I was astonished that he disagreed with that. I forget what he said, but whatever it was, it made me think he is young.
  
  If you insist that I was attacking him, report this thread to a moderator and perhaps they will agree. I said before that I would take any such action in good humor.
  report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry to sound as though I'm banging on and on but you just don't seem to "get" what I'm talking about.
  
  IIRC the original thread went something along the lines of
  
  Person A (Misha? Can't remember, it's irrelevant anyway) made statement X
  
  In response to statement X from person A, you said something along the lines of "You think that? You must be very young".
  
  This is insulting, because in effect you're saying "I don't respect you enough (and quite possibly I'm too lazy and/or haven't thought through my argument enough) to actually address what you're saying, so I'll just dismiss it with an airy wave of my hand and a sweeping generalisation."
  
  I have no intention of reporting you, because although such ad hominem "attacks" are indeed insulting, I don't think they warrant an actual ban. As I said earlier, the only time I personally would report someone is if they made an actual threat against me/someone else.
  
  But at the same time, I don't see why I shouldn't call a spade a spade. Ad hominems are insulting. They might not involve the use of swear words or threats, but they're insulting nonetheless.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you think that is an insult in that context, than that is what you think. I disagree; I think I was just expressing an opinion as to why he wouldn't agree with a statement that I think anyone much over 40 would instantly agree with.
  
  Why don't we ask a few folks here? Do you agree that both liberals and conservatives have the intent and desire to improve things (which obviously includes a desire to leave things as they are)? Again, I noted that some may have selfish motives, but if we ignore those folks, our disagreements come down to means and methods. I think the world is a better place with gay rights and a woman's right to an abortion, you might like your world constructed differently.
  
  That part is certainly no attack, is it? As I said, he disagreed. I don't know why, maybe he thinks we liberals are all satanic agents or simply deranged. If so, I think getting older and gaining wisdom through experiencing more people and seeing that there really are decent people with differing viewpoints might cause him to eventually change his mind.
  
  If you want to call that an ad hominem attack, fine. I doubt very many will agree with you.
  
  Oh, yeah, I remember his response now. He said I was 'clueless' about us both having good intentions.
  report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, you obviously still don't "get it". Never mind.
  
  Liked your hub on growing your own vegetables BTW.
  report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I get it and I agree with you.
  report
  66
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  I do not want you banned. I think you are a great addition to the forums. You speak with your own voice and you have a sense of humor. HP needs people like you. Besides you live in the same town as my father
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And I once had an employee with the same last name as you :-)
  
  Nice kid. Last I talked to him, he was living in P-Town doing some sort of 'puter support.
  reply report
  63
  Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  One point, though, is that legally speaking, "discrimination" relates to things like hiring practices, housing, etc. In day-to-day/non-law-related life, there's going to be one kind of discrimination or another. Some people there shouldn't be any policing of thinking, and thinking someone you're talking to doesn't know what he's talking about because he young or old or purple is as much where one person's views are coming from as another's.
  
  Several months ago a twenty-something person who really can't know what it's like to be past the 50th birthday made some remark about looking forward to being like the Golden Girls (and then she made some remark about how they did whatever they wanted to do - in other words, went wild - when it came to "taking dates to the next level" pretty freely). Well, a) most women 50 aren't anywhere near as elderly seeming as the Golden Girls were and b) a whole lot of 50-plus women are no different at that age than they were at 20 or 30. In other words, the young twenty-something didn't have a clue about what 50 years old are like. Even so, it wasn't an attack. It was an innocent statement based on her own youthful thinking. Might it be nice if people of different ages (or other groups) understood each other better? Sure. But, can we expect those differences in thinking not to show up in discussion, or factor into someone else's thinking? I don't think so.
  
  If I tell some 70-year-old, "You don't know what it's like to be in your 50's in 2010" I wouldn't be attacking him or discriminating against him. I'd just be speaking the truth.
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL The other one is mine, and I served a whole week for it
  reply report
  63
  Lisa HWposted 14 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.
  reply report
  66
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 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.
  reply report
  63
  Lisa HWposted 14 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)
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 14 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.
  reply report
  84
  rebekahELLEposted 14 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.
  reply report
76
Shadesbreathposted 14 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.
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Agree with this.
  reply report
64
Mishaposted 14 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:

reply report
1. 84
  rebekahELLEposted 14 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..
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 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
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Misha, perhaps you meant "ignoramus" in a good way and were misunderstood.
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nah David, I was seriously smoothing what I actually wanted to say
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 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 /-)
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When I got banned, I said exactly what I thought, and it was worth it. :-)
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  True, but I think I did this more for internal reasons.
  reply report
  84
  rebekahELLEposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ha, I see.
  
  well, it looks like Jim and Randy are ready to shake hands and say, sorry. so maybe the thread is serving a purpose..
  reply report
  59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We shook cyber hands long ago.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 14 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.
  reply report
  84
  rebekahELLEposted 14 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.
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, they seem to snake hands
  reply report
2. 61
  William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with others here that the first is an insult, the second is not. Just my two cents...
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  With some others William. Not everybody agrees to that
  reply report
75
Mighty Momposted 14 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."
reply report
1. 59
  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Or more correctly Barack Obama.
  reply report
2. 61
  William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  :-D
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I did that for about 2 weeks, and received a cease and desist order from HP.
  reply report
81
thisisoliposted 14 years ago
I haven't been banned yet, just about manage to hold my tongue when I really want to let rip on someone!
reply report
63
Lisa HWposted 14 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. 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.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

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

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

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

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies