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]

Go for it Cornfed...

 

[The Chairman]

For the record...

Moderators do not moderate in threads that they participated in.

Moderators do not call for bans on users they have issues with.

Whenever there is a conflict of interest, moderators ask the other moderators to step in and make a call. I have done it on MANY occasions as have ALL of the moderators. This is the second point in our "Moderator's Rules of Engagement", which is like the TOS for mods:

2) Don't abuse your moderator privileges. IOW, never "fight" in a thread you are moderating or vice versa. You are allowed to have opinions (even strong ones) but are not allowed to use your power to further those opinions. Never use your status to manipulate or intimidate a user. This also means that you should never moderate a thread or a user where there might be a conflict of interest. Ask another moderator to step in to take care of things instead. Never edit a user's post to read something they didn't intend. Just to make sure any "correction" edit you do make is accurate, always PM the user to let him/her know what you editied and why. When it comes to this area... "avoid all appearances of evil" is a good guideline.

 

[detroit diver]

He's not misleading anyone. When a diver refers to Rule #1 and a certain diver, everyone knows EXACTLY what that person is implying, and its not a compliment. Since Pug knows what was said, I'm assuming that he's the moderator that claimed Genesis was abusing the report post. To me its unexcusable for a DIR moderator to use his power to blame the victim of an character attack.

Implications are one thing. That's not what was said. The accuser said that someone called him a stroke. And they did not.

 

[chrpai]

Implications are one thing. That's not what was said. The accuser said that someone called him a stroke. And they did not.

Do you think its proper to make the implication?

 

[Genesis]

Implications are one thing. That's not what was said. The accuser said that someone called him a stroke. And they did not.

So its ok if I call you "Michael Jackson-like"?

Hypothetically, of course.....

 

[detroit diver]

Do you think its proper to make the implication?

Irrelevant what I think about this. What's implied is not the issue. What was ACTUALLY said was the issue.

 

[chrpai]

Irrelevant what I think about this. What's implied is not the issue. What was ACTUALLY said was the issue.

No, I'm calling you out onto the carpet. Do YOU DetriotDiver think its proper for someone to go around and imply insults? Answer the question.

 

[detroit diver]

So its ok if I call you "Michael Jackson-like"?

Hypothetically, of course.....

I couldn't care less what you call me. I don't push "report to mod" buttons. It's just not that important or petty to me.

 

[chrpai]

I couldn't care less what you call me. I don't push "report to mod" buttons. It's just not that important or petty to me.

Then why are you opening your mouth on the subject now?

 

[detroit diver]

No, I'm calling you out onto the carpet. Do YOU DetriotDiver think its proper for someone to go around and imply insults? Answer the question.

No. It's not relevant to the discussion.

Feel better?