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.

 

[JohnF]

Subsequently we even opened up a new forum for our users to be able to express their thoughts and ideas.
QUOTE]

That's Keep It Simple Stupid, not an expression of affection, Pete. You and yer mods are to be commended on going as far as you have to keep things transparent and to encourage members' input on issues. So as long as you're listening I have some thoughts of my own.

Don't forget that you own the whole thang and are providing it free of charge and really have no obligation to the rest of us, save for the public relations aspect, which is of course important from the point of view of the forum continuing to succeed. My KISS reference above is simply a suggestion that you beware of getting too convoluted a rules and accountability infrastructure.

Get the best advice available from legal counsel you trust. I know it seems ridiculous to need legal counsel for a useful service provided free of charge with few restrictions, but that's the way of it today. Get the advice and stick to it. Otherwise you've wasted your money and probably need new counsel.

Then establish the simplest possible set of rules and guidelines, and empower people whose judgement and discretion you trust to implement and enforce this program. Support their decisions unreservedly in public and if you can't, then replace that individual. If you can't stand behind your mods then you shouldn't be trusting them with your investment.

One can stand firm without being arbitrary if one's operational guidelines are well-founded, and the easiest set of rules to support will be the simplest set, leaving the least amount of room for misinterpretation or reinterpretation. In other words don't get buffaloed into creating a whole bunch of rules for specific situations. Eventually they'll come back to bite you on the butt.

Respectfully
JohnF

 

[Jerryg]

Pete
Thanks for the clarification. However keep in mind that many people will read threads like you mentioned without making comments. I myself never posted on that thread but was observing to see what the reaction would be from the administrators. It sounds like an effective and clear cut policy now exists. Thanks again

 

[Uncle Pug]

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!

You were told it was abuse of the report post feature to complain about someone saying they would invoke rule number one {rather than dive with you.}

But it did give me an idea. There are certain posters who skate right along the very edge of the TOS without crossing over the line. It is difficult for us as moderators to ban them however they are very disruptive.

Perhaps if we added a new *Democratic Ban*... a board wide poll to see if the Scuba Board community wanted to ban a specific user under a *we just can't stand them anymore* provision.

What do you think Karl?

 

[diverbrian]

You were told it was abuse of the report post feature to complain about someone saying they would invoke rule number one {rather than dive with you.}

But it did give me an idea. There are certain posters who skate right along the very edge of the TOS without crossing over the line. It is difficult for us as moderators to ban them however they are very disruptive.

Perhaps if we added a new *Democratic Ban*... a board wide poll to see if the Scuba Board community wanted to ban them under a *we just can't stand them anymore* provision.

What do you think Karl?

The problem with a "we just can't stand them anymore provision" would be that a vocal minority could ban someone for disagreeing with them. Even the threat of that could stifle free discussion.

There is an answer for most of us as to disruptive users. It is called the "Ignore Users" feature. I have never used it, but I sure have been tempted to on occassion.

 

[cornfed]

There is an answer for most of us as to disruptive users. It is called the "Ignore Users" feature. I have never used it, but I sure have been tempted to on occassion.

Problem is if you put Karl on your ignore list every other post on the board would be blank!

 

[Genesis]

You were told it was abuse of the report post feature to complain about someone saying they would invoke rule number one {rather than dive with you.}

But it did give me an idea. There are certain posters who skate right along the very edge of the TOS without crossing over the line. It is difficult for us as moderators to ban them however they are very disruptive.

Perhaps if we added a new *Democratic Ban*... a board wide poll to see if the Scuba Board community wanted to ban a specific user under a *we just can't stand them anymore* provision.

What do you think Karl?

This is precisely the sort of baiting/trolling that is supposed to be prohibited.

You did ask.

And the challenge, Pug, as you clearly read, was for him to bring a bottle of his magical gas with him - in response to HIS challenge. Mine was much less expensive (for him!) and easier. If he didn't want to get in the water with me, he didn't have to. Nowhere was it stated or implied that this was a necesasry part of the bargain.

In response to my challenge to him, he resorted to name-calling.

 

[The Chairman]

Thanks JohnF,

While I "own" the domain, I don't feel as if I own the community, but rather have been entrusted to protect it and preserve it. The TOS was written to give the maximum latitude to the hardest working group of volunteers I have ever known. I would trust them with my life under water, of course I am going to trust them with this board. That being said, we would rather be light handed then heavy handed and forgiving rather then vengeful. Some people don't make that possible.

Pug, you should really have a coke alert on your thread... now I gots to clean up a mess and I have that "smell" of diet coke in my nose!

 

[JohnF]

Thanks JohnF,

Pug, you should really have a coke alert on your thread... now I gots to clean up a mess and I have that "smell" of diet coke in my nose!

Look on the bright side. Ya coulda been eating limburger.

JohnF

 

[detroit diver]

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!

Nice try, but this won't hold water. They didn't call you a stroke now, did they? (Please copy and paste where they did if I'm wrong).

If you're willing to mislead everyone on this point, what else can we expect?

 

[Genesis]

Nice try DD; your right rigger has been ignored.