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.

 

[Walter]

Pug,

Careful, you could be the first victim.

 

[The Chairman]

Where would this board be without some spirited debate? I just read the post in question and found it well within the TOS. The TOS is not meant to force everyone to agree with every one else... nor does it force friendships or diving partners. There are a host of names and words we just don't allow, but we allow anyone to say whether they respect someone else or not.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Nice try DD; your right rigger has been ignored.

Was that a down rigger or an out rigger?

 

[Uncle Pug]

Pug,
Careful, you could be the first victim.

I go where invited and am willing to leave on the same basis.

 

[JohnF]

Thanks JohnF,
... we would rather be light handed then heavy handed and forgiving rather then vengeful. Some people don't make that possible.

I realize you already know this but it bears repeating. Sometimes in an effort to please or in some way accommodate the minority, we unwittingly tread on the toes of the majority. If someone's words or actions are offensive to you and/or the mods, then there's every likelihood that's how they'll be perceived by the silent majority. Sometimes one's first impression is the right one. If you think someone is baiting, then you're probably right. Fix it.

There's something to be said for a benevolent oligarchy if only for it's ability to deal expeditiously and unilaterally with uncomfortable situations, like someone who constantly lives on the edge of the rules, and delights in annoying the many. If the rule in question is worded in such a way as to leave some discretion to the interpreter (and enforcer), then those edge livers won't know exactly where the edge is and consequently may be less inclined to show off their balancing prowess. Admittedly this puts extra pressure on the moderators, but I suspect that added pressure will be more than offset by the discouragement such a structure offers to the career rule thwarters. Deal with the spirit of the rule rather than the definition of the rule.

All easy for me to say, isn't it? I'm not on the hot seat. But someone has to do it, and folks obviously appreciate your efforts or they wouldn't keep coming back to read and post and in some cases to offer criticisms and suggestions for improvements. It's all good.

JohnF

 

[Snowbear]

I go where invited and am willing to leave on the same basis.

Please - let the Puggings continue until moral improves!

 

[Big-t-2538]

Nice to see you have adopted a policy....

To this point, IMO it's spelled out to the users that the moderators can ban someone....no one other than the mods and the individuals have to know why...

Plain and simple...it's in writing...

 

[TCDiver1]

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.

Pete, personally i have little doubt that you do your best to be fair in all cases. It is a thankless job you have taken on to be sure. Thanks for doing your best.

I have even less doubt that you will ever keep all of the people happy all of the time. That is one of the constants in this world.

One thing i would like to point out though is i keep seeing that 20,000 number being thrown out there as a reference and think it is more than a little misleading. How many truly active posters are out there? How many of those active posters prefer to just keep silent in controversial threads/topics? Heck, it appears that many of the Mods keep silent in those controversial threads/topics for the most part.

Considering those two things doesn't that 20,000 becomes much, much smaller and the 1/2 dozen complainers become a more significant percentage? Either way i suppose the question becomes what one thinks is a significant percentage.

One question though. Can you give me an example of "challanging a Mods authority?" I'm honestly wondering what that means. Can give me an example?

 

[Genesis]

One thing i would like to point out though is i keep seeing that 20,000 number being thrown out there as a reference and think it is more than a little misleading. How many truly active posters are out there? How many of those active posters prefer to just keep silent in controversial threads/topics? Heck, it appears that many of the Mods keep silent in those controversial threads/topics for the most part.

Its very simple to find out GED

All you have to do is query the user database and look for all user records active within, say, the last two weeks.

Since the system keeps track of this for cookie maintenance purposes, the data is there. Its a simple query to retrieve.

I suspect that if what I've seen on the other boards I've been involved in (with the access to pull such a query) holds true that number is anywhere between 1 in 10 (on the high side) to 1 in 30 (on the low), and that for "active posters" its closer to 1 in 100.

20,000 is actually a very small number.

 

[chrpai]

CHRPAI,

Questioning a mod's authority as a mod is a no-no.
Questioning a mod's diving practices is way OK.
...pretense of merely questioning diving practices.

So in other words you better not question a Mods diving practice because they can claim that your question isn't sincere and that your really questioning their authority. Glad to know thats the policy these days.