The ban hammer

[Tanked]

I wonder when was the last time you posted anything to do with Scuba? 81% of your posts are in the Surface Interval, 15% are in closed cases (removed for one reason or another) and about 4% are in the Scuba related areas.

Isn't this true of most people in the Pub?

 

[The Chairman]

I thought the pub was allowed a bit more leeway....

Bigotry is not allowed anywhere on ScubaBoard. I don't mind racy. I don't mind raunchy. I abhor bigotry. The bigots want to make you think this is about us (or me) being prudes. That's just a red herring for their sexist bigotry.

I have noticed an increased number of bans lately? Letterboy?

He's still here. He's just mad that we took him out of the pub and the Surface Interval for posting bigotry. He says he might take his toys and go home because we won't let him post bigotry here on ScubaBoard. I invite all bigots to rethink their presence here. We don't need or want that here on ScubaBoard.

I am hoping the mere discussion of bans are not considered provocative........

Nah. Discussion and even dissent are fine. We're not perfect but we won't be tolerating meanness or bigotry either.

 

[The Chairman]

Isn't this true of most people in the Pub?

I'll let you do that research but i don't think so. Get back to us with the results when you can.

 

[Tanked]

There were 8 mentions of this supposed "bigotry"...


---------- Post added November 13th, 2013 at 08:10 PM ----------

I'll let you do that research but i don't think so. Get back to us with the results when you can.

I'm on it!

 

[Cave Diver]

Cave Diver, you actually proved the point that you were arguing against. You state that you weren't involved in the matter, yet proceed to invoke past behavior to justify a ban in something that you weren't involved in. Sounds like targeting or profiling to me. You infer that my presence is no longer welcome, I'll probably continue to watch this thread for a bit but like many people I can see my involvement with the board fading fast.

No, it's another instance of you twisting things to fit your view.

I wasn't involved in the matter, which means I wasn't here when the incident occurred or the decisions made. That does not preclude me from going back and researching it on my return. As it turns out, that review indicated that this all stemmed from behavior which I myself have warned you about repeatedly in the past. I've also taken lesser actions against you for similar postings and had you claim you've never been warned prior to that. During the course of those discussions, I've brought up copies of our previous conversations to refresh your memory.

In many of these instances, I've acted as a liaison between you and the moderation team to effect a "playground" for some of you to enjoy without it affecting the experience for other users. In spite of those efforts, you and a few other users continually pushed the boundaries. Everyone acts up from time to time, myself included as you've pointed out in the past. But at some point Enough is Enough. It would seem that cross road has been reached in this instance and the decision is that the contributions aren't worth the disruptions.

 

[ScubaInChicago]

Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this is going nowhere good, and fast....

but I would still like to see the picture of the "Ugly Dog"

---------- Post added November 13th, 2013 at 07:18 PM ----------

I wasn't involved in the matter, which means I wasn't here when the incident occurred or the decisions made. That does not preclude me from going back and researching it on my return.

Any chance you can review the dog picture and forward me a copy?

 

[Dr. Lecter]

Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this is going nowhere good, and fast...

I shouldn't get involved in this thread, but I will anyway. I don't think you should confuse the generally-accepted definition of words like "bigotry" or "harassment" with the SB definition of those terms. The former addresses serious issues while the latter, IMO, tends to involve a transparent attempt to put a square peg into a round hole for reasons that have nothing to do with a plain reading of the ToS.

I've posted what I believe to be an example of this sort of SB staff behavior below, since I don't see any reasonable expectation that PMs will remain private absent an agreement among the participants to that effect. NetDoc may disagree, and if so I have no doubt he will at a minimum edit my post. So long as it remains up and unedited, however, it's up to the reader to decide for themselves whether it's just evidence that I taunt SB staff beyond what is commonly accepted on SB, go off topic beyond the degree of OT that is commonly accepted in SB threads, and engage in harassment.

meow

Since you hold sole and unreviewable
authority, it would be hard to describe any interaction on SB as "fighting." I
will continue to conduct myself on SB in a manner I believe proper and in
accordance with the plain meaning of the ToS. Whether you do so as well, or
chose to continue to make up your own rules and redefine the meaning of commonly
understood words to the extent you choose to make me "unwelcome" here is
something over which I have no control and with which I will not further concern
myself.

Regards.

"unbalanced mind or a bully"?
Trying to appear reasonable and then casting aspersions in the same paragraph is
the mark of an idiot trying to defend the indefensible. If I had any doubt, your
passive aggressive response validates my decision to remove the post.

I
will not be fighting with you on this. Change your posting style and demeanor or
you won't be welcome here anymore. It's just that simple.

Because recent times have been trying for Scubaboard in general and you
personally, I will forgive you for your reaction to a friendly joke. Perhaps
sometime in the future you'll wake up and realize deleting a objectively
harmless jest in a thread that is itself a collection of jokes, and then ranting
about taunting, harassment, ToS violations and lack of respect, is the act of
either an unbalanced mind or a bully. Perhaps not; it's your sandbox,
afterall.

I've deleted this post for at least three
reasons.

1) You're taunting the staff
2) You're way off topic
3)
You're attempting to harass me

If you like ScubaBoard and want to stick
around, then you need to modify your posting style and demeanor. Here's a link
to the ToS: Terms of Service Items
The first sentence of the ToS starts out

ScubaBoard is a friendly forum
(interactive computer service) based on mutual respect.

If you can't
post in a friendly manner with a modicum of respect then you simply do not
belong here. I don't really care if you stay or go: it's your decision. Just
play nice.

In Reply to your post
[post=6941218]#6941218[/post]

She looks cute...
Whoaaaaaaaaaaa, in her
tight wet suit!!!

What was that policy
again?

 

[ScubaInChicago]

I read that as someone being called an idiot...I would have thought that it would be against the TOS....but who am I???

"unbalanced mind or a bully"?
Trying to appear reasonable and then casting aspersions in the same paragraph is
the mark of an idiot trying to defend the indefensible. If I had any doubt, your
passive aggressive response validates my decision to remove the post.

I
will not be fighting with you on this. Change your posting style and demeanor or

you won't be welcome here anymore. It's just that simple.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Give me a ****ing break......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.......figure it out

---------- Post added November 13th, 2013 at 08:44 PM ----------

Give me a ****ing break......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.......figure it out

Why should I have to tolerate insensitive people making fun of my Av.....when all I wanted was to look good for the moderation staff.....yet this Tim guy starts making advances.....talking about spitting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.......figure it out

 

[The Chairman]

Dr Lecter never fails to disappoint me. The best way to deal with such an irrational person is with a good meow.

Here is the standard for bigotry as defined by Wikipedia: Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

While Lecter may think that sexism is not bigotry, I and the rest of the staff vehemently disagree. He also thinks that he should be allowed to taunt and harass others. We also disagree.

Finally, Private messages should remain private unless agreed upon by both parties. I find him ethically challenged at best.

I shouldn't get involved in this thread, but I will anyway. I don't think you should confuse the generally-accepted definition of words like "bigotry" or "harassment" with the SB definition of those terms. The former addresses serious issues while the latter, IMO, tends to involve a transparent attempt to put a square peg into a round hole for reasons that have nothing to do with a plain reading of the ToS.

I've posted what I believe to be an example of this sort of SB staff behavior below, since I don't see any reasonable expectation that PMs will remain private absent an agreement among the participants to that effect. NetDoc may disagree, and if so I have no doubt he will at a minimum edit my post. So long as it remains up and unedited, however, it's up to the reader to decide for themselves whether it's just evidence that I taunt SB staff beyond what is commonly accepted on SB, go off topic beyond the degree of OT that is commonly accepted in SB threads, and engage in harassment.