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.

 

[The Chairman]

CHRPAI,

you read it right. Moderators have been empowered to do their job and they do it phenomenally well. If I had to make every decision then I wouldn't need any. As it stands, I can't and won't try.

Questioning a mod's authority as a mod is a no-no.

Questioning a mod's diving practices is way OK.

Flaming, baiting or trolling ANYONE is also a no-no. Don't let your dis-like of a mod lead you down this path under the pretense of merely questioning diving practices.

There have been at least two people who disagree with how I dive, are quite verbose about it and who I recommended to become moderators. Can you guess who they are???

 

[The Chairman]

Boogie711,

there are more than two courts to worry about. My conscience just won't let me do some things for expediency's sake. The lawyer just cemented my decision. If I have something to say about you, you should be the one I am talking to and not the rest of the board. I don't expect you to grasp that concept, but what you think of me matters very little when compared to how I think of me. What I think of you matters even less.

As for pulled posts... why don't you start a thread on that? We are discussing that in the backroom already, and I would love to hear your thoughts on that.

 

[The Chairman]

I do appreciate the accolades... but this policy reflects input from the ENTIRE board as well as the moderators. As much as I would like to take the credit, there are quite a few others who deserve it as well.

 

[Soggy]

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?

It's a private board...they can do whatever they want. Their house, their rules. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Incidentally, this is similar to the banning policy we have adopted at The Deco Stop and it has worked quite well.

 

[Scott M]

Pete, Thanks for the clarification on the rules and thank you for offering SB in general, it is much appreciated.

I have a question. If you feel it is out of line please feel free to remove it.

With the "formal rules" now in place, would it be prudent to allow those banned to return under the more formal guidelines with the last infraction as their first? I ask this because in many situations when rules or enforcement of rules has changed there is typically a grace period for people to learn what the rules are and that there enforcement "will" be taken seriously.

I have only been a member for a short time but to me it seemed that under the previous management the TOS was up for interpretation and it seemed that bannings were rare and warnings were taken lightly. So when a member was warned (Maybe many times) it wasn't taken to seriously because nothing would happen. Kind of a business as usual. Now that there is a new sheriff in town (so to speak) would it not be fair to allow the users to fully understand that infractions WILL get them banned.

Thanks

 

[cornfed]

Ok but the main problem still is hear your or SCUBABOARD TOS is very poorly wrote.

The irony of this is just too much...

 

[cornfed]

Boogie711,
<snip> I don't expect you to grasp that concept

LOL, that wasn't very polite, now was it?

While I may not agree with some of you policies, I do commend you for making an honest effort to change things. You gave us an opportunity to voice our opinions and it is quite clear that you heard them and for that I thank you.

I would recommend taking a look at the TOS to see if there is anything that could use tightening up or clarification.

 

[cyklon_300]

that can be rescinded...?

Maybe we need a 'death penalty'...no, NCAA has those and they aren't permanent either...ok, how about Double Secret Probation...?

 

[DivemasterSteve]

thanks Pete for taking the time to listen to everyone that did voice what they thought. i and i'm sure many more people appreciate that. thanks also for keeping SB alive and giving us a place to come.

i do like your new rules that you posted on banning and i read about the 7 banned members and "4 of the original 7 had perm bannings initiated and those are being discussed." i for one hope that yall decide to allow them all back and give them another chance.

thanks,
steve

 

[Genesis]

In addition, if "name calling" is a violation of the TOS, then it needs to be so without exception.

The "fuzzy" language needs to go - it should be entirely possible to determine in a deterministic fashion whether something you are about to post violates the TOS before you send it.

As an example, I was just told that it is not legitimate to report a post by someone who called me a "stroke." Why not? If name-calling is against the rules, then it is!