Cozumel Incident

[ReefHound]

So, SB is the only source of justice in the world of diving? Kangaroo court adjourns, no defense is necessary, we'll notify the perpetrator after sentencing.

Sorry, but there are very few people I trust enough to use their word alone as a basis to destroy a business. None of those people exist solely as anonymous internet presence.

How did you make that quantum leap? Nobody said anything about judging or convicting. I think it's fair game for someone to say "this is my experience, this is what I saw, this is what happened to me". Happens all the time. You decide for yourself what level of credibility to assign to it.

Example, TripAdvisor allows members to submit reviews, where they might say "I stayed at XYZ hotel last weekend, there were roaches in the room". That's their alleged experience, believe it or not. It would take a LOT of such reviews to destroy anyone's business, if then. And if there are that many bad reports coming in, then unless you believe in mass conspiracies they likely have some basis.

I guess such reviews would be prohibited in your world.

It would be hard to bring a DM into it without bringing the shop as well, if I owned a shop you bet I would try to tune in to what people are saying about me. It's as simple as creating a one-time Google alert.

BTW, truth is an absolute defense to charges of slander/libel.

 

[dherbman]

How did you make that quantum leap?

Nobody said anything about judging or convicting. I think it's fair game for someone to say "this is my experience, this is what I saw, this is what happened to me". Happens all the time. You decide for yourself what level of credibility to assign to it.

Quantum leap? My OP, which you quoted was made in response to this:

I'm kind of new to this board, but in my humble opinion, protecting the names of Ops that perform questionably makes no sense. Otherwise, what is this board for? Aren't we all trying to gain wisdom by our collective experiences? I'm relatively new to diving as well, but I do know that I cannot correct the things I don't know if I don't know I don't know them. . If there are areas that a poster in this forum truly feels are "saftey issues", be kind enough to inform us fully. I might be thanking you with my life some day.

Stacy

I read this as "Tell me who the bad ops are so I can avoid them". Every op will have disgruntled customers. Some rightfully so, but that doesn't establish a trend. Many of the negative reports I have seen are just bogus.
In one, a poster complains that the DM sent him up alone. In another, the poster is pissed because the dive was cut short when he still had 1400psi, yet the dm made him ascend with the group because there was a heavy breather that was down to fumes. One poster is pissed about having to dive a computer, another screams because he's told to ignore his.

Example, TripAdvisor allows members to submit reviews, where they might say "I stayed at XYZ hotel last weekend, there were roaches in the room". That's their alleged experience, believe it or not. It would take a LOT of such reviews to destroy anyone's business, if then. And if there are that many bad reports coming in, then unless you believe in mass conspiracies they likely have some basis.

I guess such reviews would be prohibited in your world.

You've made two comments about what I would do in 'my world'. You know nothing about me or 'my world', yet you have cast me as being in favor of censoring reviews when I am clearly for balance. I have seen countless reports from divers about bad ops or DMs which have turned out to be spun from the imagination of some crappy divers who would never of had an issue if their diving ability even remotely came close to their skill at whining on the internet.

I would agree with you that such a negative report would be of benefit if it were true, but truth is subjective and seldom arrived at through the account of a single person. Cockroaches are or are not, assigning fault in diving is not so cut and dried.

It would be hard to bring a DM into it without bringing the shop as well, if I owned a shop you bet I would try to tune in to what people are saying about me. It's as simple as creating a one-time Google alert.

BTW, truth is an absolute defense to charges of slander/libel.

Kinda hard to defend oneself in absentia. It appears that you are OK with that, but I am not.

 

[Code Monkey]

It all depends on the op. I dove with Blue XTC (hi Christi!) and they were great! My wife and I dive with Vyper compters (very conservative) -- I explained to each DM (we had 2 over our week's diving) that our computers are conservative and that we may run out of bottom time before the rest of the group. Each DM was fine with us moving shallower to stay within our NDL. They respected our control over our own diving. As it turned out, I think we only had to alter our profile from the group's a single time.

The biggest problem, I think, with divers and DMs having different thresholds of safety is with new divers. I think newer divers hesitate to assert their idea of safety: the DM has _much_ more experience than the diver does -- how can the diver justify differing from the DM? I know I had similar reservations when I had only a few logged dives. Now, however, I have no problem discussing my limitations with a divemaster and, I've found, they have no problem accomodating those issues.

 

[pilot fish]

"A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure."
-- Segal's Law

That might work for watches. If a person had two dive puters, both in working order and set to the same time, date and logirythms-sp?, he'd be in better shape. If one were to malfunction he's still have his true depth on the other and elapsed time etc.

 

[pilot fish]

How did you make that quantum leap? Nobody said anything about judging or convicting. I think it's fair game for someone to say "this is my experience, this is what I saw, this is what happened to me". Happens all the time. You decide for yourself what level of credibility to assign to it.

Example, TripAdvisor allows members to submit reviews, where they might say "I stayed at XYZ hotel last weekend, there were roaches in the room". That's their alleged experience, believe it or not. It would take a LOT of such reviews to destroy anyone's business, if then. And if there are that many bad reports coming in, then unless you believe in mass conspiracies they likely have some basis.

I guess such reviews would be prohibited in your world.

It would be hard to bring a DM into it without bringing the shop as well, if I owned a shop you bet I would try to tune in to what people are saying about me. It's as simple as creating a one-time Google alert.

BTW, truth is an absolute defense to charges of slander/libel.

I agree with you Reefhound. Isn't that what Trip Reports are all about, your opinion, what you experienced, your recommendations, etc? If I see just one bad report on something I don't place as much weight on it as I would if I saw several. If I saw several bad reports on safety issues on a Dive Op I would probably choose another. One purpose of this board, I think, is to tell other divers about your experiences diving, good or bad.

 

[ReefHound]

Quantum leap? My OP, which you quoted was made in response to this:

I would agree with you that such a negative report would be of benefit if it were true, but truth is subjective and seldom arrived at through the account of a single person. Cockroaches are or are not, assigning fault in diving is not so cut and dried.

The quantum leap is in equating the providing of specific names to mean they have been judged, convicted and sentenced. If someone says "XYZ did this" then it still remains up to each reader to decide on the credibility. Nobody's business will be "ruined" because one crackpot makes an unfounded or ignorant allegation. But you will never detect a pattern amongst anonymity.

When someone makes an allegation, it is either true (or believed to be in good faith) or not. Exactly how does hiding specifics help in either case?

Let's say it's unfounded. The person that is going to swallow it whole and draw a negative impression of that specific name isn't going to react any better if names are withheld. They will likely just draw a negative impression of all dive operators in the area. A more reasonable reader who keeps an open mind until both sides have been heard or one side has been well substantiated won't be drawing any impressions yet.

In fact, the absence of specifics fosters an environment for unfounded allegations by making it harder for them be rebutted and making it difficult to ever get the "other side". Kinda hard to get the other side when you don't know who the other side is. Personally, I question the credibility of a report that refuses to name names because to do so means you are putting your chips on the table and will have to possibly face the other side directly.

 

[DandyDon]

I think the horse is dead now... :11:

 

[miketsp]

That might work for watches. If a person had two dive puters, both in working order and set to the same time, date and logirythms-sp?, he'd be in better shape. If one were to malfunction he's still have his true depth on the other and elapsed time etc.

Ah but there's the rub...
How do you know which one?
Then you need a third to take a vote.

Or even four if you want to be like the graceful degradation of fault tolerance in the space shuttle computer [SKL76]. It uses four processors with majority voting for critical applications.

 

[JeffG]

If one were to malfunction he's still have his true depth on the other and elapsed time etc.

Which one is right? (Assuming that both computers are on, but one is giving out incorrect info)

 

[pilot fish]

When both puters are giving the same info then you really know you are at 65 ft, the temp is 79*, you have been down 20 min and have X amount of time at that depth left. Why do you think tech divers carry two puters?