Philosophy split discussion

[DCBC]

Frankly, I'm not sure if I'm one of the "POV warriors" to whom you refer or not.

Walter, I am the alleged culprit. I posted a background of my experiences that surround the PADI Training Philosophy, in response to Bob's recent post. NetDoc sent me a rambling PM saying that it had no place on SB and removed the post. To his credit, he informed me of this privately.

He posted a long critique of my post "in the backroom" for the Monitors to read. As NetDoc and I have disagreed in the past, he's having the Monitors rule on my posting. I have replied to NetDoc by PM and mentioned that it would appear that the mutual exchange of experiences, ideas and opinions are not encouraged, unless it matches management's position. I'm sure that some of us have had this experience.

I will await the result and am happy to substantiate my statements, as they are based on direct personal experience. Apparently the truth is not always popular.

 

[The Chairman]

Thanks Chris! I was pretty happy with your subsequent comment, but the retraction is even nicer.

Here, DCBC, I fixed this for you:

Walter, I am the [-]alleged [/-]culprit.

But hey, nice play of the martyr card. You know us simple folk here at ScubaBoard are all about suppressing that darn truth. We just can't seem to handle it! [/sarcasm]

The problem is when opinions and erroneous conclusions are masqueraded as unbiased "truth", over and over and over and over and over again. You're about as subtle as a hammer to the head.

 

[Walter]

Tell me you're joking. We have talked about our differences in perspective ad nauseum, both in public and private. Are you a POV Warrior? At times, but you have learned to suppress that urge a lot.

No Pete, I'm not joking. I know I have a reputation for being anti-PADI. I've been trying to change that. With those two thoughts in mind, I'm not sure how I'm seen these days. Apparently you have seen changes and perhaps you can see why I was unsure as a result. I will continue to work on the change.

Then, by all means, re-read my post and learn the CONCEPT.

The concept is fairly simple. It's the application of moderation with regard to the concept that I sometimes miss. This time I missed the issues that caused the moderation. Of course, I'm off the board for long stretches and posts can be removed and/or edited that I haven't seen. In this case we were told the threads were split because posts negative to PADI were made. Frankly, I agree some posts negative to PADI are trolling and bashing. I agree with moderating those type of posts. I hope I never see another post that uses PADI's initials to stand for other words. They serve no useful purpose. I do not think a post is bashing just because it is uncomplimentary to any agency. The message received (late) for the reason for the split didn't seem to match board policy. Hense the confusion.

Yes: a new target. Someone even called the mods "candy asses". Are you suggesting that this was constructive? I certainly didn't see you defending the mods over this statement.

Of course it wasn't constructive. I never claimed there were no negative comments, just that Carolyn and John weren't "targets." In fact, that comment was made defending them. Lots more positive comments were posted than negative ones. In fact, I saw people who were upset with the process specifically point out they were not upset with the moderators. I remember more than one post where a member complained about what was happening while thanking the moderators.

This is exceedingly true.

Thanks.

Unfortunately, there are a few who want to understand the rules only to circumvent them.

Unfortunately, there will always be a few of them in any large group.

By design, POV Warriors instill fear by accosting those who have the temerity to disagree with them.

I doubt many want to instill fear. I think most want to communicate their ideas. Some of us are unaware people could possibly see our posts in such a manner. Some of us are working on other approaches.

They post their conclusions as absolute fact

We've discussed this before. People incorrectly assume others are posting their opinions as fact when they are not. They are merely posting opinions and people assume they mean them as facts. I'm now aware that people do this and am trying very hard to keep folks from makjing those assumptions. It would help if we all tried to be more careful to lable our opinions, but it would also help if we didn't assume other's intentions. What I find ironic is some folks post their opinions with no label stating it is an opinion, then jump on the next poster (who has a different opinion) for not pointing out that it is an opinion.

 

[TechBlue]

Walter, I am the alleged culprit. I posted a background of my experiences that surround the PADI Training Philosophy, in response to Bob's recent post. NetDoc sent me a rambling PM saying that it had no place on SB and removed the post. To his credit, he informed me of this privately.

He posted a long critique of my post "in the backroom" for the Monitors to read. As NetDoc and I have disagreed in the past, he's having the Monitors rule on my posting. I have replied to NetDoc by PM and mentioned that it would appear that the mutual exchange of experiences, ideas and opinions are not encouraged, unless it matches management's position. I'm sure that some of us have had this experience.

I will await the result and am happy to substantiate my statements, as they are based on direct personal experience. Apparently the truth is not always popular.

Rather than pulling the thread I would have thought that particularlly after the last runaround it would be more productive to post an answer either asking for substantiation or providing information to the contrary.

As far as the PADI business model goes and from what we are seeing in the continuosly lowered standards/courses and age restrictions I would have to agree with Wayne's post as being accurate.

 

[The Chairman]

I almost completely agree with your post here. You have tried to become more sensitive to being perceived as a PADI-Basher and kudos to you!

We've discussed this before. People incorrectly assume they are posting their opinions as fact. They are not. They are merely posting opinions and people assume they mean them as facts. I'm now aware that people do this and am trying very hard to keep folks from makjing those assumptions. It would help if we all tried to be more careful to lable our opinions, but it would also help if we didn't assume other's intentions.

When posts contain things like: "I can provide some history" and then make statements like "John started PADI with one thing in-mind;" That's simply not HISTORY. That's stating his conclusion as of it were simple fact. Talk about poisoning the well! Given that this thread is in the "Basic Scuba" area only makes this kind of bashing even more unacceptable.

 

[The Chairman]

Rather than pulling the thread

In case this was missed by more than one: the "pulling" was accidental and nothing more. It wasn't even realized that it was invisible to our users until near the end of the first edit. Mods see EVERYTHING, even if it is invisible to you, so it wasn't apparent. Our bad and you have my apologies.

However, I am not sure that this discussion belongs in Basic Scuba at all. It might be better served under "Agencies" or even in I2I. Reading the entire thread is on my "to do" list for today.

 

[Walter]

I almost completely agree with your post here.

I think you do completely agree.

would also help if we didn't assume other's intentions.

When Wayne posted:

John started PADI with one thing in-mind

he assumed John's intentions. He may or may not be right, but none of us can ever know unless John tells us what his intentions were (are). Since John is no longer with us, we can't ask. We can make educated guesses based on facts, but they will never be more than guesses.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Like you, it did not appear that Bob accepted the concept of a POV Warrior. Until you get that down, more feedback is moot.

Pete ... it's not the concept of a POV Warrior I'm having an issue with ... it's the definition of a POV Warrior. What is it, exactly? Is it someone who tells blatant falsehoods in an attempt to make their point? Is it someone who feels strongly enough about an issue to press it beyond the limits of reasoned conversation?

Or is it someone who feels strongly about something you don't happen to agree with?

I read your PM. And I even agree with a lot of what you had to say.

But it still doesn't clarify to me what the boundaries are for posting one's opinions with respect to some of the frequently-discussed topics in the forums you've specified as having "special rules". It would be helpful to clarify those rules in ways that people are able to quantify ... because I don't believe anyone is motivated by the things you've stated earlier today. I think people generally just have very strong opinons about a topic, based on their perspectives and experiences, and want to express those opinions.

It's really hard to know when you've stepped over boundaries when you don't know where those boundaries are.

All I'm asking is that you define them in ways that are not subject to whether or not a particular staff member agrees with your POV. Because the way it stands now, anyone could be a POV Warrior if they feel strongly about an issue that a given staff member may disagree with ... and that's a pretty subjective boundary.

And enforcing subjective boundaries is what ultimately spawns conversations like the one we're having right now ... which isn't much fun for anybody ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[The Chairman]

It's really hard to know when you've stepped over boundaries when you don't know where those boundaries are.

Cool... why not come up with a working definition that would:

• Define the rules for our ultra-safe zones (basic and new to forums).
• Define (once and for all) agency bashing.
• Define POV Warrior.

All I'm asking is that you define them in ways that are not subject to whether or not a particular staff member agrees with your POV.

It's not that I expect anyone to live up to my or any staff member's opinion. It's that they should discuss things respectfully. NONE of these forums are designated as a debate area and perhaps that's what we need.

Because the way it stands now, anyone could be a POV Warrior if they feel strongly about an issue that a given staff member may disagree with ... and that's a pretty subjective boundary.

Earlier, you used the term "reasonable". Quite often in determining the mean of DB, the highest and lowest numbers are tossed. Quite often, we are left doing just that.

And enforcing subjective boundaries is what ultimately spawns conversations like the one we're having right now ... which isn't much fun for anybody.

It always amazes me when people think that running this place is not work. I think Solomon would flinch at some of the quandaries the staff has pondered.

 

[TechBlue]

In case this was missed by more than one: the "pulling" was accidental and nothing more. It wasn't even realized that it was invisible to our users until near the end of the first edit. Mods see EVERYTHING, even if it is invisible to you, so it wasn't apparent. Our bad and you have my apologies.

My bad, I meant "post" and I believe that the mods have more than explained the "thread pull" but thank you for that.