Suggestion Finalized Banning Procedure

[The Chairman]

On January 15, 2003, 7 users were banned from Scubaboard. Most of the moderators and a few of our users were not satisfied with the process, and so we began discussing the hows and whys in the moderator’s forum. Subsequently we even opened up a new forum for our users to be able to express their thoughts and ideas.

In formulating the new process, we wanted to ensure to resolve a few issues germane to the larger issue. These would be communication, fairness, consistency and moderator responsibility. To this end we have come up with the following process:

Temp bans (5 days) can be called for by any moderator and are automatic. This can be in response to any violation of the TOS (moderator’s discretion), harassment of others, flaming others, or trolling. The moderator must send a notice (even though an administrator has to flip the switch) to the affected user’s e-mail and detail why the suspension was initiated. These should be rare and can be conditional.

Perm Bans are considered when the user exceeds 2 suspensions in less than 6 months, openly challenges authority (not just asking a question), threatens anyone in any way, or has blatantly violated the TOS. A perm ban requires 8 moderator’s approvals or a 2/3s majority of the mods voting, which ever is more. A temp ban should be called for first and then perm banning should be discussed for at least 5 days. The mod who initiated the temp ban is in charge of the process. They will also set the time for a vote (at least 5 days) and send the appropriate message if so needed. These should be very rare and can be conditional.

Under no circumstances will Scubaboard moderators or administrators disclose reasons or rationale for any disciplinary action to a third party. We view this as a privacy issue and are committed to protect the privacy of the board's users at all times. While we do respect a user's desire to request a review of the status of their account, we specifically forbid the use of sock puppets (multiple user accounts) or another user's account to make your case. All such requests must be sent to scubaboard@moderninsider.com for consideration. At this point of the process, we will not feel obliged to correspond any further unless we change your status. All moderators and administrators will forward any and all such requests sent to them personally as well.

Perm bans can be re-visited by any mod at any time and only need a simple majority of the mods voting to be rescinded.

As with any “invention” you are never sure how it works until tested. So it was suggested and then decided by the mods to subject the January 15 bans to the new process. 4 of the original 7 had perm bannings initiated and those are being discussed. While we hoped to have 3 of those 4 finalized today, server issues have made that impossible. However, we can report that Cobaltbabe, Raven C and 00Scuba have been subsequently restored to full user status. We welcome them back into the Scubaboard fold, and extend our sincerest thanks to those users who gave us input into this issue.

 

[jonnythan]

This is my opinion of the process:

Fine. Great. Good job. However, this does absolutely nothing to help prevent the kind of blowup you had several days ago. Users disappear, rumors surface that the users were banned, no one ever has any idea why, and the users start to question what the moderators' motivation was. Banning by association? Because of dislike? etc.

I still can't fathom why anyone would be opposed to a final public notice such as "Jonnythan has been banned for challenging authority" in a locked thread. That would be the end of it.

This new policy will not prevent blowups like you saw last week. The public notice policy would.

Do you understand that?

 

[Uncle Pug]

Jonnythan... as Pete explained in another thread SB legal counsel has advised against such disclosure. I hope you can understand that we must follow that advise.

 

[jonnythan]

I find it hard to believe that any lawyer with a clue would advise against that. But, yanno, hey. That's just MO.

 

[The Chairman]

To put it in perspective... the "blow-up" probably had no more than a 1/2 dozen people actually complaining. More people expressed support in that thread than outrage. Out of 20,000, that's not a bad record. While I don't think I could ever make everyone happy, I do endeavor to be fair to everyone. No, I don't even succeed at that, but I do my level best at an honest effort.

 

[Scubamedicjoe]

Ok but the main problem still is hear your or SCUBABOARD TOS is very poorly wrote.
It’s very disorganized, it need to updated and wrote in format such as line itemized,
and most of us hope to see Seajay back soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we can only hope.

 

[WreckWriter]

Good job Pete.

WW

 

[Boogie711]

I find it hard to believe that any lawyer with a clue would advise against that. But, yanno, hey. That's just MO.

As do I. There are two courts here that you have to worry about - the legal courts, and the court of public opinion. You can win in legal court all day long but it won't mean jack if you've managed to piss off your users in the court of public opinion.

That being said, I'm happy to see Cobaltbabe back. Thank you.

Will you be drafting a similar policy regarding pulled threads?

 

[chrpai]

Did I read that right? Any moderator can instantly ban you for any reason at their discretion? Then if they do it twice they can campaign to eliminate you? Also I have a question about "questioning authority" ... does that just apply to questioning the authority of a moderator or does that also apply to questioning the (alledged ) authority of someones diving knowledge?

 

[hnladue]

Good job Pete ( and other Mods!!). This is a good start and hopefully will work out well for everyone!!