Censorship and SB..how far are we going to take this???

[Azza]

Azza, just a note -

First, I enjoy your posts because you have the experience to back up what you say. Your posts and observations on diving are valuable to the board, and I hope you stick around to the extent you can stand it here.

Doc thats an awfully nice thing to say. Thanks

Second, with respect, those posts and exchanges that are political in nature are by no means tied to US government policy.

I understand where you are coming from and to a certain extent I agree with you. Where I am coming from is that it isn't the board policy that is causing this rather some of the individual mods.
One example (was a long time ago and cant remember the exact thread) was where a member posted that another member should quit moaning and thank the US as America was saving the free world. Now to some people outside the US they believe the exact opposite (not saying I am one of them)and therefore that statement was offensive. When I posted so, I was lambasted with hate and my post was pulled but the other stayed up.
Thats not an even hand applied to all. To be fair most of the world wouldn't give a hoot about US politics if it didn't affect the whole world...but it does and I think people need to recognize this is and have a little respect for the international scope of the board when posting things like this.

To be fair it isn't a bad policy that politics is banned because some people don't respect another's right to have an opinion. I would sit down and have a beer with someone who had a complete opposite view to myself because I think diversity makes the world interesting but others here I believe would sooner drink with the devil than have a beer with another member with a differing political opinion. In fact I can completely understand where the anonymous poster was coming from because it seems for a US citizen to criticize the US government is a burning at the stake offense. In my country open criticism against the government is encouraged to keep the bastards honest. We pay their salary, they work for us therefore are answerable to us.

But if posters can fundamentally remain civil, even political discussions have been allowed to remain ongoing.

Actually there was one political thread that I was involved in with Wildcard and we both remained rather civil and actually debated as opposed to slam each other (I know hard to believe eh? I think someone must have slipped some happy powder in his drink that night) and even that was pulled. Now no one in that thread got heated and it actually went a ways to helping opposing sides understand where each other was coming from but it was a no-no.

 

[El Orans]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

I've removed a few posts that had no business being here. Again.

---

 

[El Orans]

I tend to think of myself as pretty liberal, which has earned me holidays before.

That said, the following is an excerpt from a PM I sent to another SB member awhile back.

I’m thinking about starting a thread with a poll, to ask whether there is sufficient backing to look at revising the TOS or – at the least – creating a “TOS lite” opt-in area where graphic nudity, genuinely sexual images and profanity remain off-limits, but where the rules are a bit more relaxed.

As an opt-in area, obviously, if you think you might be offended, no need to join; if you think it might be a bit of a laugh, then come on in.

I reckon that if it was offered as an opt-in sub-forum, we’d have more people interested than not and it would go a long way to redressing the allegations of SB being too repressive and prudish. It doesn’t help that the mods have different standards e.g.

Larry: - Mr. Mod, is this gif of bonking safes OK?

Mr. Mod: - Should be, Larry. I’ll check.

Senior Mod (by PM): - Post a pic like that again Larry, and you’re permanently banned.

I don't mean to stamp on toes, but this seems to go part-way to what Jepuskar is suggesting.

Any thoughts?

Correct.

Consistent moderation is required but difficult to achieve.

 

[Kim]

Correct.

Consistent moderation is required but difficult to achieve.

Which comes back around to different vales for different people. What some find perfectly OK, others get in a huff about.

I think this is the problem because at the end of the day it's normally the prude or the intolerant view that wins out - especially if whoever it is is first on the scene. More liberal moderation becomes impossible then. And THIS is what many notice.

In Larry's case example it was a decision simply getting over-ruled. There'll never be consistency when that sort of thing happens. I remember the incident clearly.

 

[Geoff_H]

Office friendly to a bunch of construction workers is not the same as the office at PITA.

Did you bother to read the ToS? It is clearly laid out in there.

Therefore our rule is to assume a standard equivalent to that of a professional working environment for a large corporate entity. Because posts are in essence made to the public, it should further be assumed that our standard will be applied in the same way it would be to a relationship between co-workers in a work environment.

How many construction workers work in offices anyway? Your attempt to absurdify shows you either didn't bother to read the ToS or chose to pretend you didn't in an absurd attempt to absurdify them.

 

[H2Andy]

Which comes back around to different vales for different people. What some find perfectly OK, others get in a huff about.

[soapbox]

i think so, which is why Mods should moderate to a MINIMAL ScubaBoard standard, and when in doubt, leave things alone

with so many Mods running around, you're going to get uneven and even unfair results; thus, the less Mods do, the happier we'll all be

[/soapbox]

 

[Geoff_H]

I think this is the problem because at the end of the day it's normally the prude or the intolerant view that wins out - especially if whoever it is is first on the scene. More liberal moderation becomes impossible then. And THIS is what many notice.

In Larry's case example it was a decision simply getting over-ruled. There'll never be consistency when that sort of thing happens. I remember the incident clearly.

There will never be consistency - GET OVER IT. Who cares if it is a more liberal view that gets censored or a more conservative one - SHOCK NEWS - real people making decisions coloured by their beliefs. Whatever next?

The mod's are a diverse set of people, from different cultures, countries and different backgrounds. They are human beings - they get happy, sad, tired, good days, bad days and all of things things shape their unpaid and generally unappreicated work on this board.

You'll never get a perfectly consistent set of enforcement of the rules, as there will be disagreements between the mod team just as the members will disagree. Whining about it will not achive anything productive - maybe heed the lesson and stay away from subjects you are unable to comentate on without being sufficiently careful to stay within the guidelines.

I really doubt many people get converted on political views, gun ownership, dolphin hunting, evolution or global warming by what they read on Scubaboard anyway.

 

[Geoff_H]

[soapbox]

i think so, which is why Mods should moderate to a MINIMAL ScubaBoard standard, and when in doubt, leave things alone

with so many Mods running around, you're going to get uneven and even unfair results; thus, the less Mods do, the happier we'll all be

[/soapbox]

Nobody will disagree with the call for minimal moderation (lets all call for lower taxes and world peace too?) But I really don't think there is a problem with the current moderation anyway to be honest.

Too little moderation results in the boards being covered in crap and flame wars, too much results in people getting upset and leaving.

The current balance is about right in my view.

 

[H2Andy]

Nobody will disagree with the call for minimal moderation (lets all call for lower taxes and world peace too?)

nah ... let's call for higher taxes and constant war

(hello?)

obviously you want to improve the things you love, not make them worse, which is why i take the time to post to these type of threads, and why i don't appreciate your argument that calling for minimal moderation is a quixotic and misguided position

while some goals may be hard or impossible to achieve, that shouldnt' keep us from trying

 

[Geoff_H]

while some goals may be hard or impossible to achieve, that shouldnt' keep us from trying

I don't think many people would dispute you're very trying.

I agree that nothing and nobody can rest on their laurels but equally well I don't agree with change for change's sake. There are many flaws in everything in this world but it doesn't necessarily follow they can be improved on...

There are many flaws in democracy for example, but I've yet to see a better system.