Suggestion Bannings...

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.
OP
The Chairman

The Chairman

Chairman of the Board
Scuba Instructor
Divemaster
Messages
73,380
Reaction score
44,633
Location
Cave Country!
# of dives
I just don't log dives
OK gang... give me some input.

What should (if anything) warrant a temp ban (5 day suspension)?

What should (if anything) warrant a perm ban?
 
cornfed:
Yes I understand your point and if you didn't have some many good one's this would be easier!

*chuckle* You ain't shootin' fish in a barrel here.

I like to think I operate at a PG-13 rating. But maybe this is more of a PG or even G rated board. I don't know, it's kind of hard to tell from the TOS. I think feedback from the moderators and board staff would be valuable in helping people interpret the TOS. I guess I'm just looking for ways to help me understand the rules so I can be sure I'm playing by them.

I completely hear what you are saying, but truely, how can you _really_ know where the line is from _any_ information given out in regards to a certain action, without seeing it? Back to the corn-on-the-cob analogy. If you are banned for having too much corn kernels in your teeth, how is Boogie supposed to know how much is too much, without actually seeing a picture of the offending corn kernel presentation?

So by giving out a taste of why an action was performed, you know have a focused panic, and more misunderstanding. Anyone that has ever had corn kernels in their teeth want to know what the line is, when it's not just a general "12 kernels and 230 inches of silk", it's more a nature of who someone is. Someone with ten thousand posts and 10 instances of crossing the line is going to be treated differently than someone with 10 posts and 5 instances of crossing the line. It's all a perspective. To ban someone is to make the judgement that the harm they cause outweighs the benefits of their presence. Sometimes it's easy; sometimes it's hard.

The more specifics, the more focused a panic is going to be and the more it's going to be misunderstood. Do unto others is truely the key here. If you conduct yourself in curteous matter [as much as possible given some of the local wildlife], then you probably won't have a problem. If you screw up, you screw up... big deal. Come on Drew, is a slap on the wrist and the inability to post for a few days really a punishment that requires panic to avoid? I know your answer to that one.

Live your life as best as possible, and learn your lessons as you go along. I've not been involved in any permanent bans where I would imagine the culprit could have any question as to why. They will argue and argue like a caged wild animal, but all in all they really know those times when they sat back and got joy hitting 'submit' with the thoughts of "ooh... this'll be fun!" and an evil grin on their face just came back to bite them on the ass.
 
Perhaps I have a rather unique perspective on this topic being as I have both been a Scubaboard moderator and been the recipient of a ban.

Long ago but not so far away I was friendly with several of the moderators here and one of them, Pete actually, pushed for me to be given moderator status. Finally, and I know against several objections, it was granted. Following that I became friends with the owners of the board, KN and LD.

Being a moderator here was exceptionally difficult for me for several reasons. For one thing I tend to speak my mind in what I consider a straightforward fashion but which some tend to consider as a mean-spirited way. If I feel an individual has no business in the water, I may very well say so. This is just the way I am, not really optional for me. For another thing, I had distinct differences of opinion with several of the existing moderators.

With that in mind you might guess that it wasn't long before my views came into conflict with those of some other other moderators. When I saw that this was going to be the never-ending story I decided to resign.

It actually took me several tries. KN did not want to accept my resignation. I think it was mostly just personal feelings and the fact that we are both ex military types that kept him from doing so. I choose to believe that he and LD simply liked me and wanted to keep me within the "inner circle" here.

Eventually though, other pressures came to bear. As I understand it, one of the other moderators, no names here, decided that she would "take a vacation" from moderating duties until my status was finalized. This did the trick after a few days and my resignation was accepted. I returned to "senior member" status.

A while later personal issues got on top of KN and LD and they needed time away from the board to sort things out. At this point greatly increased power was given to several of the moderators, Jeff and Pete. These powers included the ability to ban members, formerly the privilege of only KN and LD (possibly Tech Admin too, not sure on that).

Things continued on and, as will happen, I managed to get myself in a pissing contest with another member or two. One day I found I was unable to log in.

Checking my scubasource email I found a message from Pete, ironically the same guy who had once pushed so hard to get me moderator status, saying that I was under a 5 day suspension.

This seemed fair. I understood that I tend to push things a bit hard at times and that I can be abrasive. Unfortunately the letter also stated that I had to ask to be allowed back in and specifically agree to be a good boy.

My 5 day suspension stretched into many months because I was unwilling to ask for my pardon. It was, and remains, my feeling that a 5 day suspension should be automatically undone on the 6th day. Clearly Pete felt otherwise. I was also displeased that the status on my account was set to custom and continued to show "senior member" rather than my actual status which was "suspended" or "banned".

In any case, this isn't about me, its about the general state of moderation on this board. I know most of the moderators, a bunch in real life, not just here. About half of them truly care about this board and its members, they are the ones that will always send a PM or email explaining why an action was taken, the rest aren't fit to pee on an electric fence.

Now that Pete owns this place a few things are sure to change. There's been a few moderators step down, sadly mostly good ones, and a few new ones appointed, some good, some less than. Unfortunately moderators are people too. They have all the strengths and weaknesses of us peons and are just as likely to use their powers to advance their own agendas as we might be. Scubaboard is not, as many have pointed out, a democracy. Its Pete's show, to be played as he sees fit.

This is getting a bit rambling without really hitting my point so I'll go ahead and get there. Were I in Pete's shoes I would try to realize the tremendous potential, in many ways, of what I had been handed. The first thing I would do would be to clean out the chaff.

It would that he has started on this course. Unfortunately he should have started with his "mod squad" instead of letting them make the decisions of who was chaff.

Several of the recently booted should have expected it. Others shouldn't have. I'd venture a guess that if one of them hadn't tried to organize dive trips she would have been ok. Organizing trips conflicts with the occupation of one of the moderators. That's a sure loser. The only I can't figure is CobaltBabe. She probably stuck up for one of the others and went for association. Pete, you shouldn't have allowed that. Your bad.

The bottom line is that the members should make suggestions on how to improve things here. If those suggestions are not taken then your choice becomes basically like it or leave it.

WW
 
chrpai:
What about people who regularly post commerecial links in the signature?

Commercial links are allowed in signatures as per the TOS.

So if a few koolaid drinkers regularly report the posts of a non koolaid drinker they get banned?

Nope, not at all. However, if we get 5 reports that a post offends users it gives us an idea that there may be more going on than we thought. Those 5 reports aren't getting anyone banned but it's one way to know what some users are feeling.
 
fgray1:
If what you say was true then It would have taken more than 90 Seconds to stop me from accessing the forum. Given that how do I report the abuse?
Besides I find it hard to beleive that one moderator would report abuse by another moderator. Kinda like the old boys club. WINK, WINK,.
I had a friend ask a Moderator why I was banned and you herd the response given in the last post. The moderators for the most part do a good job. But some of them take this far to personal.
Once again I'm speaking from what I see as an outsider and your speaking as an insider. Two differant prospectives. Pete I even sent you a private message about this problem but I got no response. So what am I to think.
Fred

Moderators have come and gone over the years. Some for personal choices, some because they crossed the line. Those who have stayed on and the new ones are a geat group but that does not mean they can not error. There are two admins on this board, NetDoc and myself. I get all the email forms sent by the board and you know, if you logoout, the email forum becomes nameless for those of you who want to report anything without being linked to it.
 
Spectre:
Back to the corn-on-the-cob analogy. If you are banned for having too much corn kernels in your teeth, how is Boogie supposed to know how much is too much, without actually seeing a picture of the offending corn kernel presentation?

So by giving out a taste of why an action was performed, you know have a focused panic, and more misunderstanding.
<snip>
The more specifics, the more focused a panic is going to be and the more it's going to be misunderstood.

This concept of focused panic is something I hadn't thought of. It might just be the reason UP's attempt crib trolling back fired. I think I'm starting to see your point.
 
Are all moderators at the instructor level? What are the areas of expertise? How is a moderator nominated/elected/asked? Public or privately? Voted on by the moderators,populus or both?
 
DFC5343:
Are all moderators at the instructor level? What are the areas of expertise? How is a moderator nominated/elected/asked? Public or privately? Voted on by the moderators,populus or both?

Nope. Some are bunny divers. Its all done privately, owner's call.

WW
 
WreckWriter:
Nope. Some are bunny divers.
Is that a specialty course?
 
DFC5343:
Are all moderators at the instructor level?
I'm not sure I see why this matters.
 
dbulmer:
A couple of months I came close to giving up Scuba completely. I was scared - Jepuskar was one of the people who offered some advice.

A couple of weeks later I came across SeaJay. His enthusiasm was a ray of sunshine and inspiration for me personally. It saddens me that the moderators felt it appropriate to take action for whatever reason. That said, I think Boogie has a valid point - if you are going to ban someone then at least give an indication why ... if you single someone out then it has to act as a deterrent and should be explained.

Sometimes in the thrust of a heated thread, things are said that should not be - sometimes leaving a person to stew on their own comments can be ample punishment. If the trangressions of SeaJay et al are unforgiveable then fair enough but at least offer some explanation .

I was not talking about Seajay. I think he is a funny guy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom