Analysis vs Condolences (split from CSSP thread)

[diverbrian]

Everybody asks where speculation intrudes on decorum.

I will give a brief example relevant to me. I was recently around a dive accident that shook me up a little. As I wasn't real close to the scene, the rescuers got there before I would have had a prayer of helping. I decided that it was best to not be a rubber-necker and stayed away (actually a good decision) as pretty much every third person at that dive site is a dive professional/ rescue-trained diver.

The information that I got was not good for the victim's medical condition. So, I talked to some friends but tried to hold off speculating on the boards until I knew more. Sure enough, the guesses that I heard from the first responder that came in from our group the scene were logical. But he wisely didn't didn't present them as conclusions for a reason. He saw but a portion of the scene.

The gentleman lived and is doing great. Based on the information that I had that day, the gentleman should have been dead. Now, there are facts as the victim is alive. If the sharks (us), start circling too early we have been known to be wrong. This is a case where I am glad that I held off posting publicly what I thought, because I would have looked like a fool and possibly said things that were completely off-base. I would have felt obligated to present apologies to the victim who lived for presenting the false information as well.

 

[Scuba Diva]

A Diver's Got To Know Their Limitations.
Very well said.
We CAN learn from discussing and what if scenarios.
Why do you think Instructors debrief students after a dive?
Why do you think Rescue scenarios are briefed and debriefed?
Why do you think Instructors tell you to think about things that may go wrong and discuss them with your buddy before the dive?
Why do you plan your dive and dive your plan?
Because it makes us better divers.
Anyone who knows so much that they can't learn from someone else's experiences........I don't want to dive with.
Many is the time that I've asked myself "What would I have done in that scenario" after listening to another diver (both more experienced and less experienced than myself).
Diving, diving, diving makes us better divers.
Continuing education makes us better divers.
Listening and discussing other divers' experiences makes us better divers.
Conjecture, speculation, discussion.....it's all learning.
Maybe, just maybe, if this happens to one of us......we'll be more prepared.
Maybe the buddy and the victim were new divers and didn't know what to do.
Maybe the buddy panicked and went to get help, not thinking that the victim couldn't breath underwater when he's unconcious, unlike on land.
Maybe they were both Rescue certified and it being a family member she forgot her training.
Maybe they hadn't practiced their rescue scenarios in a while and she forgot.
Maybe the victim was a threat underwater and she had no other choice.
Those of us that have experience probably wouldn't leave a diver down, be it our buddy or someone else's.
Those of us with experience weren't there to help her out.
A new inexperienced diver was. Bless him for having the guts to gear up and take charge of the situation.
Instead of bickering over whether we should or shouldn't discuss or speculate, let's learn something.
A divers got to know their limitations.

 

[Wolfie_47]

As a general proposition, this line of thinking seems to me to be the antithesis of realistic and meaningful accident analysis. In the context of analyzing accidents, it is completely inappropriate to stipulate in advance that the participants involved in the accident cannot be criticized for their actions. If the accident was caused by an error or omission, that conclusion should not be suppressed because it will upset someone.

It is pardoxical to me that many people bemoan society's lack of "personal responsibility", and at the same time refuse to consider just what personal responsibility means. It means, plainly and simply, that people are culpable for their mistakes.

What is wrong with assigning fault, if reasoned analysis suggests that somone made an error? What is so horrible about saying that someone made a mistake? Why is it always and everywhere inappropriate to suggest culpability? What on earth is the problem with pointing out a mistake? That someone's feelings will be hurt?

Sure, sometimes things just happen, and no one is to blame. And sometimes people make bad results happen because of something they did or didn't do, and they might be blameworthy to one degree or another. Accepting responsibility for mistakes is part of being an adult member of society. If that is too emotionally difficult for someone to accept, that person should avoid accident analysis.

If you don't want to to be exposed to any possibility of seeing someone assigning culpability for mistakes, don't read an analysis of an accident.

Amen, Bill. Its' about time someone forgot "Politically Correct" and just said what needed saying.

 

[Kim]

I know what the sticky says, but apparently you do not.

This is in the sticky: "Accident analysis does not "find fault" - it finds hazards - and how to reduce or eliminate them." As I stated before I think this is just wrong as a general statement about accident analysis. Not always, but sometimes, accidents are caused by someone's mistake. Apparently here on ScubaBoard, it is forbidden to point out that someone made a mistake, because doing so amounts to "finding fault."

However, there is nothing in the sticky to support your assertion that "speculation and guesses about real incidents are not allowed." The only mention of speculation in the sticky is this: "Remember that you cannot read minds. Restrict comments to what happened and how to prevent it, without speculating on what someone else was thinking (or not). The only thoughts you are qualified to share are your own." This is a prohibition on attempted mind-reading, not a prohibition on any and all types of "speculation and guesses". I understand that you are philosophically opposed to "speculation and guesses" but if you are pulling posts for that reason, that amounts to imposing your views on others, not enforcing the forum rules.

Well now you are attempting to read my mind. I am not against speculation and guesses in their proper place. I am also not against finding fault based on facts. I am against finding fault based on speculation and guesses. I believe that the statement in the sticky,
"Restrict comments to what happened and how to prevent it".
is clear enough.
To the best of my knowledge speculative fault finding has always been pulled on SB. No matter how you are trying to twist the intent of the sticky it remains fairly clear. If that were not true - why was this discussion split from the original thread?
One last point - since I entered into this discussion to try to explain reasons why, I have considered myself a part of the thread so I am not moderating it or pulling or editing posts.
As to the last post about 'politically correct'. If you can't see the difference between that and due consideration for others then there is not a lot left to say.

 

[CharleyT]

One last point - since I entered into this discussion to try to explain reasons why I have considered myself a part of the thread so I am not moderating it or pulling or editing posts.

This comment confuses me the most. If this thread should be pulled, then pull the darned thing.. You being in the discussion should have zero relevance as to it's overall acceptability by Scubaboard, based on the sticky rules. IMNSHO, if it's against the rules, make it go away and inform those involved of their breach of rules via private message.

Charley

 

[wolf eel]

[Kim Well now you are attempting to read my mind. I am not against speculation and guesses in their proper place. I am also not against finding fault based on facts. I am against finding fault based on speculation and guesses. I believe that the statement in the sticky,]

The only one to be saying anything about fault is you. NO one said who is at fault. The problem with these threads is that everybody seems to talk more about wether or not we are allowed to talk about it !

I would still love too know.
Did she drive from the lake to the dive shop ? And was her gear found floating in the lake or was it in the car with her ?
Cheers
Derek

 

[kman458]

The only one to be saying anything about fault is you. NO one said who is at fault. The problem with these threads is that everybody seems to talk more about wether or not we are allowed to talk about it !

I would still love too know.
Did she drive from the lake to the dive shop ? And was her gear found floating in the lake or was it in the car with her ?
Cheers
Derek

here is a link to the clear springs scuba park. hope this makes it easier to understand the area.
CLEAR SPRINGS SCUBA PARK

 

[texdiveguy]

I just posted the local papers article on the drowning at CSSP......see other post this forum.

 

[snuggle]

derek..why are you bent on asking theses questions over and over again?so you can lay the blame on her?you said no one has laid blame ..sure not in so many words but lets face some here have already laid the blame ..only to themselves ..thats all..what diff does it make if she drove or not or where her gear was..you only want an answer so you can lay blame ..well you know theres nothing rong with saying hey someone made a mistake..but who gives anyone here the right to lay blame on anyone..oh i guess it does make some people feel good to lay blame on someone..they get there kicks doing things like that i suppose..

 

[WJL]

Well now you are attempting to read my mind.

If you want to get all teleological, that is the fundamental purpose of language: to transfer thoughts from one mind to another. In this instance, I am simply responding to your words. You made an assertion that the forum rules prohibit speculation and guesses: "As it stands now speculation and guesses about real incidents are not allowed...." Your assertion is not true, there is no such prohibition. From this it is reasonable to conclude that your stated antipathy for speculation is based on your personal views. If this conclusion is erroneous, I apologize.

I am not against speculation and guesses in their proper place. I am also not against finding fault based on facts. I am against finding fault based on speculation and guesses. I believe that the statement in the sticky,
"Restrict comments to what happened and how to prevent it".
is clear enough.

I don't see how you can formulate objective rules that will sort "proper" speculation from "improper" speculation. In every accident, there is ALWAYS some level of missing or incomplete information. This necessarily implies that in EVERY accident analysis a certain amount of speculation is inevitable. If you are going to analyze an accident, you are going to have to speculate or guess about unknown conditions. The only way to eliminate speculation completely is to prohibit all attempts at analysis.

To the best of my knowledge speculative fault finding has always been pulled on SB. No matter how you are trying to twist the intent of the sticky it remains fairly clear. If that were not true - why was this discussion split from the original thread?

SB monitors can do what they like - but pulling posts because of "speculative fault finding" is not part of the rules stated in the sticky. I disagree with you if you think the intent is clear.

And I think splitting off this thread is a fine idea as it illustrates the basic differences in how different people approach the process of accident analysis. Some people are governed by their emotional response to a tragedy - they are overwhelmed by sympathy for the victim, and empathy for the participants. Others approach the issue from a rational, analytical perspective - they try to pick apart what happened, and why it happened. The first group generally finds the second group to be cold, heartless and judgmental. The second group often finds the first group to be squeamish and overly delicate.

One last point - since I entered into this discussion to try to explain reasons why, I have considered myself a part of the thread so I am not moderating it or pulling or editing posts.

Somebody has been pulling posts from this thread.

As to the last post about 'politically correct'. If you can't see the difference between that and due consideration for others then there is not a lot left to say.

As I understand it, SB rules as you have articulated them prohibit anyone from suggesting that a person may have been at fault in an accident unless every relevant fact is established as true by some unspecified objective source. Since this can never be achieved in the real world, this is a blanket prohibition on fault-finding for practical purposes. In other words, out of what you believe is "due consideration for others," what many would find to be meaningful discussion should be suppressed. That fits the common definition of enforcement of "political correctness."