Victims' Names in Accidents forum a problem; "No Condolences" rule is Not Working

[DandyDon]

1: We used to not allow the names of victims to be included in A&I. I don't remember why that was changed, but we really should go back to that I think. It can be uncomfortable to discuss a loss there knowing the the victim's family may well find the thread when searching for news - all too often with the thread at the top of the hits, upsetting to the families to see objective discussions about accidents involving their loved ones, and sometimes worse.

Can we please return to "No Victims Names" for that forum...???

2: The "No Condolences" rule is a total failure! The idea is an important one as described in the sticky that few probably read...

(4) No "condolences to the family" here
...........
It is important for us as a community to assess and discuss diving accidents and incidents as a means of preventing them. However, once emotions are involved intelligent discussion becomes next to impossible.

It's just not working. Condolences posts often outnumber all others with the potential of problems.

And save your breath please with the idea of Reporting those. I have done so; I don't bother anymore. Hey, it's hard for me to not include words of compassionate regrets too as a loss of any diver is a loss of our own as well as possibly someone's family member - but maybe we need a re-direction tool?

How about a disclaimer like this that appears on every A&I post...?

No Condolences Allowed Here Please; Click Passings - ScubaBoard
​

Except maybe the target after the hyperlink link would be to a closed thread on Passings that explains in detail why Condolences are not allowed in A&I, but are encouraged there...?

Maybe someone else will offer a better idea, but the current situation is unfortunate.

 

[Doc]

If one were to look at the A&I thread that likely caused you to write this, possibly others would come up with the same conclusion... and also other entirely different lines of thought.

The first 52 posts in http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ac...0-diver-dies-galapagos-peter-hughes-boat.html point up the reason that the A&I Forum itself is a bastard child of the internet Age, and nothing more.

Don~ It might be a good idea to refer to participants as DIVER Adam and DIVEMASTER Bob, etc., but the perceived hurt and expressed angst caused by using real names is a factor of these concerned parties using search engines themselves to see if there is any mention "out there".

Nowadays, if you go looking, you'll likely find the names in the news.

The entire thread, at least the first 52 posts so far, point up the true lack of usefulness and value that this A&I Forum has, the notable exceptions were http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/4795029-post24.html and http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/4804037-post36.html

"It is also important for everyone to realize that anything that is sent to an agency in the way of a report will never be seen by any of us here, it will be used (and twisted) solely for the legal defense of the agency and the agency affiliated facilities and individuals. This is often at cross purposes to the best interests of the diver's reputation and the surviving family."

... and by extension, "anything that is here on SB" will be conjecture.

Removing the specific names from a thread is ignoring the general cancer of the Forum, but... many people do stop to gawk at misfortunes. Really, there is no other explanation- nothing is learned. But it can not be stopped.

We will go on to the next interesting 1/2 story and the survivors of the current incident will be left to sort out the actual truth and grief as is it comes in a natural fashion. We will all be looking at the next big thing.

We have forgotten what we learned in pre-school. The excuse (dissecting the incident in absentia) that we use for this new-age pandering borders on morose delectation.

 

[DennisS]

How about a no speculation rule. Opinions based on known facts only.

 

[The Chairman]

Don,

Names were not to be used UNTIL the next of kin has been notified. We still adhere to that rule. When they become public knowledge, it becomes moot trying to hide them.

As for the rules being a "total failure", it should be noted that few read the rules and far fewer abide by them. Everyone sees themselves as the exception. With a volunteer staff, it's almost impossible to spend that much mod power on just one section of SB. However, I will discuss this with my Advisors to see if we can improve here.

Doc, I fully disagree about your assessment that there is a cancer in the forum. You seem to want to force people to conform to your methods of coping and that just isn't very helpful for them. The reason there is so much conjecture is that there is seldom any concrete news indicating HOW they died. Most autopsies merely place the CoD as drowning and do not venture into the events leading up to the drowning.

It's a litigious world and so there will almost always be a dearth of useful information.

 

[Doc]

How about a no speculation rule. Opinions based on known facts only.

I think the best answer immediately followed your post....

You seem to want to force people to conform to your methods of coping and that just isn't very helpful for them. The reason there is so much conjecture is that there is seldom any concrete news indicating HOW they died. Most autopsies merely place the CoD as drowning and do not venture into the events leading up to the drowning. It's a litigious world and so there will almost always be a dearth of useful information.

 

[DennisS]

Lack of facts is what causes the rampant speculation. You can almost cut and paste the generic replies, no matter what the accident.

 

[fairybasslet]

You seem to want to force people to conform to your methods of coping and that just isn't very helpful for them.

Bingo. SB isn't CCV chat, where you can't even mention mosquitoes let alone malaria pills.

 

[The Chairman]

The use of forums has several benefits and probably an equal number of drawbacks.

• There is seldom any consensus. Does there need to be?
• Not all facts can or will be presented.
• Alternate theories can and will be proposed but they are seldom exhaustive.
• Putting your thoughts down in print can often be cathartic and therapeutic.
• Having your theories and personal realities challenged often helps you to work to different conclusions and develop improved thought processes.
• The lessons learned are often cumulative. Having the same conclusion repeated from thread to thread is not necessarily a bad thing.

The point of the Accidents/Incidents forum was never to be a purely scholastic evaluation of a series of events with little or no impact on the way we dive. On the contrary, it was created for us to evaluate our own diving and to reflect on our own mortality. IOW, this is meant to effect change in the lives and diving habits of our users and readers.

I hope this helps.

 

[cruiser]

What if we made the "Accidents & Incidents" thread a sub-forum that you "opt into," like "The Pub" is a subforum of "Surface Interval?"

 

[Cave Diver]

What if we made the "Accidents & Incidents" thread a sub-forum that you "opt into," like "The Pub" is a subforum of "Surface Interval?"

Making it opt in may "hide" it from search engines if someone is looking for details on an accident. Once someone opts in to a forum they may still "forget" which forum they're in. I've been guilty a time or two of replying to a thread without noticing it was in the Womens Views, etc.

Another possibility would be to make the A & I a "moderated" forum where any responses require approval before they post, but then we'd have to triple our mod staff.