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.

 

[detroit diver]

I thought you knew exactly what was said.

Precisely.

 

[chrpai]

I guess until you find the thread that you will just remain, as always, clueless.

That looks like a violation of the TOS to me.

 

[cornfed]

Guess you better get busy rootin' 'em all out then, huh!

I'm going to have to change my signature back and start recuiting help. I had now I idea what I was getting myself into!

 

[Genesis]

Speaking of banning for violations of the TOS, I see that one of our resident DIR types has just posted a commercial advertisement for a very-commercial trip in the DIR forum, which they are organizing and participating in (and which I'll bet they're not paying their own freight on either), and which constitutes TWO blatent violations - in the wrong place, and not paid for (since commercial trips require payment.)

This is one of the black-letter rule violations in the TOS that is supposed to lead to banning or suspension.....

 

[chrpai]

http://www.scubaboard.com/showpost.php?p=492726&postcount=229

Ok, had to signout to read it. As you know I purposely do not subscribe to the DIR forum and therefore it wouldn't appear in my search results.

"I think I'll have to exercise Rule No. 1. It just isn't worth the risk."

Rule #1 has been widely published two ways....

"Never dive with an unsafe diver"
"Never dive with a stroke"

Either way the meaning pretty clear.

 

[detroit diver]

Ok, had to signout to read it. As you know I purposely do not subscribe to the DIR forum and therefore it wouldn't appear in my search results.

"I think I'll have to exercise Rule No. 1. It just isn't worth the risk."

Rule #1 has been widely published two ways....

"Never dive with an unsafe diver"
"Never dive with a stroke"

Either way the meaning pretty clear.

Good. You found it. So Genesis got to pick either:

a. Never dive with an unsafe diver
or
b. Never dive with a stroke

He chose "b" and called himself a stroke.

But the original poster didn't do that.

So that means that Genesis vioated the TOS and must now be banned because he purposfully insulted someone-himself!

 

[hnladue]

Now you guys have GOT to stop with the 'stroke' thing.....I keep hearing Billy Squier running thru my head...."Stroke me Stroke me".......ugh. And I can see Genesis dancing to it too!!

 

[The Chairman]

Reporting a post in THIS area that is fairly unmoderated is counter-productive. Only I and another have the ability to moderate back here, and unless you are way over the line it will not happen. THAT WAY, no one can claim that they were censored back here. Please don't abuse this privilege (and some are coming close).

Also, I fail to see how this "He said/She said" controversey has ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand. Now again, my aim is to NOT moderate this area if I can get away with it, but you guys are going over the edge. Maybe getting Jerry Springer as a guest moderator would be appropriate.

 

[Genesis]

I did report the other thread "conventionally" Pete.

I was using it as an illustration of how enforcement is uneven - if I started running my boat as a charter and posted trips there, especially in a "general" area, I'd almost certainly get INSTANTLY banned. And I'd deserve it; the policy against that is one of the few that has been crystal clear since the beginning.

Indeed, this is why I tried to get a real solid clarification BEFORE posting any announcements of any of my private runs, because while the rules are "black letter clear", whether a "guy with a boat" that has folks who put money into the fuel kitty violates the spirit of it was NOT clear to me.

Springer... now that would be amusing...

 

[Uncle Pug]

Karl... sometimes it takes time for a moderator to get to it. In this case the post you complained about has been pulled and is in the Commercial Post staging area awaiting payment. The poster is currently on the rack and hot irons are being pressed into his flesh as I type.