Alleged censorship on ScubaBoard

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, that was my question, thanks for answering it

So it was okay to dive deep air when there was no commonly available 'better system'?

In the 70's, 80's and early 90's, "deep" was a new world, that the adventurous felt compelled to explore. The smarter among the adventure diving set, would attempt to mitigate the increased risks of deeper diving, as well as possible.

There were many deep air deaths in the early 90's...and I was on more than a couple of deep body recovery dives, due to the problems associated with diving deep on air.
YOU don't see al the deaths happening today--all around you, even to people you have met and dived with. I knew Andre Smith of Divers Supply ( Triple Death Tragedy) ...I knew Craig Suavely... I knew several others that were not DIR, and before DIR, and this was a huge incentive to seek out a better way....It was insufficient to make George or Bill or me stop diving deep in the 92 to 95 timeline, but it was enough to make us wish for a better way.

With the body of knowledge we have today, with my experiences on both deep air and on Trimix, for me to purposely choose to dive deep air to 280 today, it would take a catastrophic need..such as an attempt to help someone that somehow was pulled down into deep water, when I was not prepared....it would not be my plan today, knowing what I know....

To your question...you kind of miss the point of the reality in the early 90's.... it was not what was "commonly available" as better in those days.....back then, we really did not know that trimix was better.....then some time around 96 ot 97, each of us gained enough knowledge, to KNOW there was a better way.... it had nothing to do with what was commonly available...it had everything to do with knowing what is better, and then attempting to use what is better.

This discussion is not about dealing with the issues that you may have, if you are diving in a part of the world where it is next to impossible to get a helium fill. You exist in a world where you actually KNOW that helium is much safer on a 280 foot deep dive. Less chance of ox tox ( pretty much no chance), and you are going to be smarter at 280 on trimix, then you on air....You KNOW this.

....then you have the issues of where this really kicks you in the butt, and forces you to utilize the knowledge.....It may do this well for a desire to dive a wreck at 280 feet deep.....this awareness you have may force you to NOT do this dive, if you can't get trimix....on the other hand, a friend of yours describes a holy grail of dive experiences, at 150 feet deep....no trimix is available.....Now it gets tougher.....now you might compromise , and figure once upon a time, this IS the way an advanced diver would have done this---so then you would talk yourself into trying it....and if you are one of the people "good" on deep air like George, Bill and I were, then this will probably be something you, or I could get away with....Is it the smartest thing that you or I could do, knowing what we know now?
 
Last edited:
This discussion is not about dealing with the issues that you may have, if you are diving in a part of the world where it is next to impossible to get a helium fill. You exist in a world where you actually KNOW that helium is much safer on a 280 foot deep dive. Less chance of ox tox ( pretty much no chance), and you are going to be smarter at 280 on trimix, then you on air....You KNOW this.

....then you have the issues of where this really kicks you in the butt, and forces you to utilize the knowledge.....It may do this well for a desire to dive a wreck at 280 feet deep.....this awareness you have may force you to NOT do this dive, if you can't get trimix....on the other hand, a friend of yours describes a holy grail of dive experiences, at 150 feet deep....no trimix is available.....Now it gets tougher.....now you might compromise , and figure once upon a time, this IS the way an advanced diver would have done this---so then you would talk yourself into trying it....and if you are one of the people "good" on deep air like George, Bill and I were, then this will probably be something you, or I could get away with....Is it the smartest thing that you or I could do, knowing what we know now?

Dan this (segment of the) discussion is (or was, or I thought it was) about the term STROKE, which you earlier defined as (amongst other things) someone who dives deep air, knowing there are other better options available. I'm not going to bust your nuts about the semantics of that statement, or point out inconsistencies with your earlier diving practices. I am not going to disagree that deep dves will be 'safer' on mix than on air - that's a given in today's diving environment, leaving avaialabilty aside.

What I am going to do is say that you can come diving with me any day in the clear, open, warm waters of the Philippines to 55, 65, 75, 85m on air and not have to worry - I'll look after you :)
 
YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT. Perhaps if not already being done, The board management should perhaps look at the most active moderator actions to see if 20% of the mods are doing the most actions that are being negativily referenced by many of these comments. Certainly this monitoring can not be done by the users and posters as (already noted) there are too many personalities involved. I say this hypothetically, that those, the mods are accountable to, should monitor and effect beghaviorial change to the mod activity as needed in persuit of consistancy. Now on the posters that are upset of moderator actions , they must accept the mod and mod review process whether an outcome is agreeable or not.
Three things will always prevail

Perfection is not achievable
10% of one resources will fix 90% of the problems and the remaining 90% of resources is needed to fix the remailing 10% of problems.
Any and all changes will be seen as negative by someone

There are conversations where tangents are natural, and where you enjoy and expect them...and there are conversations of a very focussed nature, where a ridiculous tangent SHOULD BE removed.....This is what you need a good Moderator for--one that can understand the real issues in a thread, and the sub text, and then "do the right thing".... Of course, there are good moderators, and there are BAD Moderators. If they always had to post their names when they did a moderation action, then we could all keep score....and we could "GRADE" them on whether they were good or bad at their job!!!!! Right now, it is not even PASS/FAIL....it is all PASS.


---------- Post added August 9th, 2013 at 05:06 PM ----------

dan

i cant say that i know you at all. So in responce to this post let me say this. In short the word stroke should be called the "S" word and banned. It is a word that is used so loosely that it can mean anything so long as it is negative. Human nature is very much in play with this word. The DIR nuts, so to speak, have built a wall with this word. It is as devisive a word as the "B" , "C" "N" and many more words. I will give you that, you may not in some cases intend it to be bad, (although i dont know how) but the use of the word has never been atached to anything that could be openly used in polite company, let alone church or around your mother. The DIR system itself has alone done this. Take a quiz get 19 of 20 questions right and you are a stroke for not being perfect. The rules denote a stroke as a one who engages sub primitive forms of diveing and should be banned at best. You dont associate with, speek to, or share water with a stroke. Which by default precludes making nonstrokes out of strokes. Many like myself find the attitude offensive and not the word per se'. However the word attaches the person to the attitude and there fore the attitude the person and the word are bound together. The same attitude demands that the 99% conform to the 1%. Human nature doesnt allow for that to happen. Yet some members of the 1% dont understand that. I will agree that most of the DIR community has softened thier position and have either become more palatable to the 99% or are at heart 99%ers in 1% clothing. So when you say that if it is hapening to you, that many others are being treated the same. The many others is an even smaller group of the 1%. Hardliners so to speak. Certainly there is nothing wrong in thier process when it comes to diving, however, it is thier process that works for them and though ( many will agrue yea or na) it is not for everyone. Split fins, maskes with purge valves, other than black gear, brands, lack of perfect skills, to many d rings ect will not kill you as a hard rule. Even the newest of divers can see this. So yes if you were called on for using the word stroke, I would say it was an appropriate action for use in a general access portion of the board. If you are in a Private DIR section of the board, the situation may be different as you are among like minded folks that can through peer influence deal with the issue without moderator action. I my self have backed away from the areas predominatly by hardliners and a preticular associated moderator. That kitchen is too hot for me so I stay out. And that is the loss to the minority numbered DIR community. There is too much to be learned from the DIR folks to engage in wall building through use of blatent derogatory name calling. Behaviors like this has drastically been cleaned up over the past 2-3 years. One day when people can get pst the stigma of DIR, thier methods will get incorperated into the mainline training process. Untill then who in thier right mind, (given prevailing attitudes of some) would take a course that incorporates DIR concepts. New trainee's get a pass on being ignorant when it comes to this. Hardliners dont.

This all came from my being in a post on the Basic forum, and using the Stroke Adjective to describe a well known poster, one that probably took the adjective as a compliment, not as an insult, as she had been describing herself and her methods for months--right out of the Wikipedia definition of the adjective.....And then suddenly I was banned, no warning, and told that even though I had said nothing against the rules of SB since March, there was a zero tolerance plan in effect.


So in one sense, this is my complaint for how I was treated...But, this is a policy that clearly they are using on many other members, and it does not seem to be fair---and I would be shocked to hear that this is what the majority of SB would want....I think a few individual moderators ( at least one that I know of would be happy to see me bent or dead) are looking at my posts for opportunities to ban me.....the one I expect is the most inclined to ban me...the one friends with Chatterton--whom I offended PRIOR to my outlining my future Kinder and Gentler posting style, this guy must have an axe to grind..If I am wrong, apologies, but we don't actually get to know who is upset by our posts, and who is looking for a chance to ban us.....so all I can do is infer from past posts to me....

Again, if this is happening to me, it is happening to many others....and THAT is what this post was really about...
 
very appropriate responce dan.

This proves my last post quoting you. The word stroke is not the issue as is the attitude behind the word.

This section below is never taken into consideration by those using the term. Most opposition to the DIR community is in responce to those who do not consider this when using the term. No one should use the term unless it is used in the context it was created for. No recreational diver diveing recreationally should ever be refered to as a stroke. Now a rec diver 100 ft into a cave or wreck with a walmart light, is a whole different matter



"""""Other divers with behaviors that would be deemed bad or dangerous by DIR Cave divers for Cave diving, would NOT be offering the SAME threats in open water dives to potential buddies. In fact, most of the Stroke behaviors for the cave diving world, would at worst generate sloppy diving issues or some Free Ascents without catastrophic incidents, most of the time -- when this occurs in an open water, recreational dive area. So the question becomes, if the Stroke behavior does not really create the jeopardies in Open water that the term was useful for in Cave Diving, then would it not be mis-used for open water diving, for most instances. My personal experience has been that in the last decade, I have only seen one person I would label a stroke, and the Stroke word was really NOT useful in it's original context for this person---I was actually misusing the adjective, because this individual was very UNLIKELY to actually kill any open water divers with the behaviors they were promoting. Without the Dire Consequences for certain behaviors, the Stroke designation is a complete exaggeration, unfounded, and unfair for most uses.""""""






Hopefully, I can do this in the scope of a definition that will be seen as a constructive post, and a good thing:)


This term was NOT coined to refer to any divers outside of the Cave diving world, a place where every dive is potentially far more life-threatening that even the most advanced dive for a recreational diver....which also means, that if you are not aware of this context, the ideas expressed may seem to be "over the top"...But, in Cave diving, the description really does take on an entirely different meaning....so please try reading this definition with Cave diving in mind..

A Stroke by George Irvine definitiion: "The term 'stroke' refers to someone who, knowing there is a better system, chooses to dive in a less than optimal way. It applies to those instructors who encourage students (who know no better) to exercise Personal Preference, in order to sell more equipment; it applies to those who don't plan their dives; those who dive beyond their abilities; who dive deep on air; who take unnecessary risks; who do big dives using unfamiliar gear; who's only reason for diving is depth. Diving with strokes moves us into an area where our safety is no longer in our own hands. Strokes are sometimes highly 'qualified'. Often they seem very confident - usually because they have no concept of the danger they are getting themselves, and you, into." — George M Irvine III


The birth of the term, Doing it right, came from a reporter interviewing George, and asking why so many cave diving groups around North florida were dying like flies, and yet the WKPP was enjoying a zero death record, with the biggest cave dives on the planet....George answered, that his WKPP divers were not dying, because they were "Doing it Right"....clearly suggesting that the cave divers that were dying, were making major mistakes...and among these, things like diving without a line, diving with insufficient gas or the wrong gas, diving with no buoyancy and trim which causes silt-outs, and then getting your self into a virtual blackout, being lost, and dying from this....and on and on....DIR had the directives to prevent each of the death scenarios.

The Stroke term was within this conveyance.....for a Cave Diver to avoid a death in-cave, they had several things they needed to avoid....Since certain types of people can cause major problems on a Cave dive, it was important to describe them--to paint their picture, so cave divers could SEE this person, and avoid death due to their bad ideas, bad behaviors, etc.

In today's parlance, and for Recreational diving---Can we use the word Stroke, and should we? My answer for this...... Very rarely is "Stroke" useful for Recreational Diving descriptors, and the reasons follow:
  • Where Caves will try to kill you on almost every dive( metaphorically).....Recreational diving allows dozens of mistakes daily, and even when some of the most foolish mistakes are made, such as running OOA, the recreational diver can always run straight up to the surface with a free ascent, and mitigate the mistake with a minimum of fuss--the same mistake in Cave would have been a death sentence.
  • Other divers with behaviors that would be deemed bad or dangerous by DIR Cave divers for Cave diving, would NOT be offering the SAME threats in open water dives to potential buddies. In fact, most of the Stroke behaviors for the cave diving world, would at worst generate sloppy diving issues or some Free Ascents without catastrophic incidents, most of the time -- when this occurs in an open water, recreational dive area. So the question becomes, if the Stroke behavior does not really create the jeopardies in Open water that the term was useful for in Cave Diving, then would it not be mis-used for open water diving, for most instances. My personal experience has been that in the last decade, I have only seen one person I would label a stroke, and the Stroke word was really NOT useful in it's original context for this person---I was actually misusing the adjective, because this individual was very UNLIKELY to actually kill any open water divers with the behaviors they were promoting. Without the Dire Consequences for certain behaviors, the Stroke designation is a complete exaggeration, unfounded, and unfair for most uses.
  • There are a few people that GLORY in being perceived as a Stroke....they actually like the notoriety, and as a form of contrarian in their daily lives, they enjoy saying and doing things that are unsettling to others....I believe the word Stroke can be used for some of these divers, and that they would enjoy the application of it....AND, that it should be clear enough that the actual meaning of the word for this type of person will not be met--that it is like saying that "Dan viciously tore into the Strip Steak, as hungry as he was"....and clearly, vicious was not possible for the actual eating behavior, nor was tearing into it.....however, for a conversation among friends, where creativity in expressing yourself ( being amusing) is deemed desirable, I think most should agree that in some limited situations, there will be places this Stroke Adjective can be used for amusement, and it will do no damage to anyone---and it will NOT be taken to mean what it was originally meant to mean.
  • I think this "Definition" of mine, is the key to understanding the word Stroke, and that I have every right to re-define it here on Scubaboard--re-define it for ALL members that have a different understanding or definition of it....and since I was the most prolific of the original people conveying what DIR meant to the recreational divers of the world( on rec. scuba) and since I got all my understandings of DIR and uses of descriptors like STROKE from my Dive Buddy George Irvine--who had tasked me with disseminating DIR to the "unwashed masses of rec. scuba ( that's a mis-use to be amusing, get it? :) ) .... because of all this, it should be easy enough for most here on SB to see the truth in this, and it should also be clear that when I used this adjective to describe one of all of our favorite CONTRARIANS, it should NOT have been seen as me trying to make an insult.....
 
There might be a bit of levity in there, but the name was arrogated by the very people it described. GI3's penchant for the cyber smack down was emulated by every stroke with enough nerve to do so. It's why DIR got such a bad name so quickly. Divers claiming to be DIR, who were clearly otherwise (strokes) did their level best to be as bombastic as their new found hero: George "Trey" Irvine III. They did it to prove to everyone, but mostly themselves, that they were worthy of being DIR. Their strokiness took on a new dimension and they made the internet a decidedly unfriendly place. It's why we don't allow calling people strokes here.

You know, we should alter this poster, if only subtlety:

screen-shot-2011-06-15-at-14-33-43.jpg


Trouble diving. Trouble posting. Trouble understanding. Week kick.​



Week/weak Sorry Pete.. Lova ya.. but ya get no special treatment from me.
 
YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT. Perhaps if not already being done, The board management should perhaps look at the most active moderator actions to see if 20% of the mods are doing the most actions that are being negativily referenced by many of these comments. Certainly this monitoring can not be done by the users and posters as (already noted) there are too many personalities involved. I say this hypothetically, that those, the mods are accountable to, should monitor and effect beghaviorial change to the mod activity as needed in persuit of consistancy. Now on the posters that are upset of moderator actions , they must accept the mod and mod review process whether an outcome is agreeable or not.
Three things will always prevail

Perfection is not achievable
10% of one resources will fix 90% of the problems and the remaining 90% of resources is needed to fix the remailing 10% of problems.
Any and all changes will be seen as negative by someone



---------- Post added August 9th, 2013 at 05:06 PM ----------

dan

i cant say that i know you at all. So in responce to this post let me say this. In short the word stroke should be called the "S" word and banned. It is a word that is used so loosely that it can mean anything so long as it is negative. Human nature is very much in play with this word. The DIR nuts, so to speak, have built a wall with this word. It is as devisive a word as the "B" , "C" "N" and many more words. I will give you that, you may not in some cases intend it to be bad, (although i dont know how) but the use of the word has never been atached to anything that could be openly used in polite company, let alone church or around your mother. The DIR system itself has alone done this. Take a quiz get 19 of 20 questions right and you are a stroke for not being perfect. The rules denote a stroke as a one who engages sub primitive forms of diveing and should be banned at best. You dont associate with, speek to, or share water with a stroke. Which by default precludes making nonstrokes out of strokes. Many like myself find the attitude offensive and not the word per se'. However the word attaches the person to the attitude and there fore the attitude the person and the word are bound together. The same attitude demands that the 99% conform to the 1%. Human nature doesnt allow for that to happen. Yet some members of the 1% dont understand that. I will agree that most of the DIR community has softened thier position and have either become more palatable to the 99% or are at heart 99%ers in 1% clothing. So when you say that if it is hapening to you, that many others are being treated the same. The many others is an even smaller group of the 1%. Hardliners so to speak. Certainly there is nothing wrong in thier process when it comes to diving, however, it is thier process that works for them and though ( many will agrue yea or na) it is not for everyone. Split fins, maskes with purge valves, other than black gear, brands, lack of perfect skills, to many d rings ect will not kill you as a hard rule. Even the newest of divers can see this. So yes if you were called on for using the word stroke, I would say it was an appropriate action for use in a general access portion of the board. If you are in a Private DIR section of the board, the situation may be different as you are among like minded folks that can through peer influence deal with the issue without moderator action. I my self have backed away from the areas predominatly by hardliners and a preticular associated moderator. That kitchen is too hot for me so I stay out. And that is the loss to the minority numbered DIR community. There is too much to be learned from the DIR folks to engage in wall building through use of blatent derogatory name calling. Behaviors like this has drastically been cleaned up over the past 2-3 years. One day when people can get pst the stigma of DIR, thier methods will get incorperated into the mainline training process. Untill then who in thier right mind, (given prevailing attitudes of some) would take a course that incorporates DIR concepts. New trainee's get a pass on being ignorant when it comes to this. Hardliners dont.


Ok, I can live with this assessment, if it was a general consensus.....however, if this was the case, and the moderator saw my use in this on the basic forum, in a relatively inoffensive manner( due to the person it referred to often glorying in the definition), then I think it is CLEAR that the intelligent action for the moderator would have been removing my "bad word", and sending me a note that this was unacceptable, and to not post words like this.....

Since there was only compliance in my posting behavior since march( with the posting styles requested by SB), the zero tolerance and instant ban is what I take issue with, and what I believe is a MEAN SPIRITED ACTION a by a moderator--most likely one in particular that I know has extreme hatred for me ( and this is no exaggeration, by his own pm's to me).
 
Since there was only compliance in my posting behavior since march( with the posting styles requested by SB), the zero tolerance and instant ban is what I take issue with, and what I believe is a MEAN SPIRITED ACTION a by a moderator--most likely one in particular that I know has extreme hatred for me ( and this is no exaggeration, by his own pm's to me).

If a person with a long rap sheet for multiple crimes over a number of years commits a burglary and is sentenced to 20 years in prison under the state's habitual criminal law, would it be fair to say that he got a 20 year sentence for burglary?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MMM
I think you are not ging to win this argument. Allthough many times things are done in all innocense, one falls victum to being labeled by a movement or group. Where in one venue it is ok and another it is not. You will call your bos MR x at work but bob is ok at the bar. Dont try to meet your wife and friends at a resteraunt and say "Hi girls" Its ok at home but not in hearing range of the libbers. The word stroke is one of those words that has a life of its own, whose very pulse is regulated by those who use or miss use the word with or without a purpose. Those that use the "S" word and push it will normally have an agenda that most either know the background of the word and dislike the agenda behind it or can live with its existance so long as they dont have to be confronted with it by the marooooons that feel it is thier lifes mission to throw it in your face as an act or display of superiority. No matter what the scenereo is , most people do not want to be negatively confronted about anything. If this was a bitch board... Perhaps i should have said complaint board. Then one could join the board with the expectation of being complained at, about, or to. Simarily No one would go to a church board knowing that no matter what they said or did they would be told they were hell bound by someone who felt superior by virtue of thier choir status. Bottom line is no mater what your intent is, the society has overridden your intent with its predominate use of the same word. So your definition doesnt count so long as the rest associate the word with other meanings.

Ok, I can live with this assessment, if it was a general consensus.....however, if this was the case, and the moderator saw my use in this on the basic forum, in a relatively inoffensive manner( due to the person it referred to often glorying in the definition), then I think it is CLEAR that the intelligent action for the moderator would have been removing my "bad word", and sending me a note that this was unacceptable, and to not post words like this.....

Since there was only compliance in my posting behavior since march( with the posting styles requested by SB), the zero tolerance and instant ban is what I take issue with, and what I believe is a MEAN SPIRITED ACTION a by a moderator--most likely one in particular that I know has extreme hatred for me ( and this is no exaggeration, by his own pm's to me).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom