Input on our Accident and Incidents Forum... What do you want? How do you want it?

[bowlofpetunias]

Perhaps each thread (accident/incident) could begin with a "living sticky" that summarizes the facts that exist. It is hard-to-impossible to wade through pages of off-topic and uninformed speculation to find out if any new fact has emerged. That sticky could be a a very simple, bulleted format: Who, what, where, when, why. how sort of thing. there will be blanks for a while, perhaps forever.

The A&I forum is valuable as is, but could be more valuable without the condolences, the personal attacks, the rants, and the tangential sidetracks; that is what needs to be moderated.

I learn from the facts and from thoughtful speculation. The purpose of the forum is to enable learning, so as to mitigate making the same error twice.

I was curious about this concept myself and "picked a random A&I thread" in a non MOD capacity and tried it. It was incredibly labour intensive. The other problem is that IMHO we can not state that X is a fact in the legal sense. The best I could do was summaries of the discussion with "Information provided" "Speculation suggested etc It was an interesting exercise tho.

 

[Ayisha]

• Why do you come here?
• How can we be more respectful to friends and survivors?
• Currently, we don't allow names to be used unless released publicly first. Is this fair for the family? Is it fair for us? Is a change needed?

I usually visit the Accidents and Incidents forum daily and find it very valuable. My first visit to Scubaboard was to the A & I forum because a friend told me that a local accident in which I knew the people involved was on SB. I started to read the A & I threads first weekly, then daily, never registering or posting until a year later. I read only the A & I threads for years, until threads started getting split into other forums.

I learned things from the A & I forum over the nearly 14 years that I can honestly say have helped to keep me safe thus far. I've written about the various tips I've read about over the years, and the first place I ever heard them was SB. I think the A & I forum is a very valuable source of information to divers, especially newer ones, but also experienced ones. I can also say that it helps to keep me from becoming complacent and keeps me maintaining a healthy respect for the world we immerse ourselves in.

I find the DAN reports to be too general to be very informative, as well as far too late to still be very memorable.

I also think that if you want to avoid some hurt feelings, having the A & I threads not show up on search engines as well as having to register before being able to view the A & I forum or threads would help.

I think the mods generally do a good, thankless job of trying to keep the threads on track and respectful. Posters for the most part state if they are speculating, and there tends to be some basis for their speculation. I have found that important preventive information often comes out of the speculation, even if it ended up not being directly related to the incident at hand. I also find that it is pretty easy to gloss over any wild speculation or a POV warrior.

If there is significant traffic to the A & I forum, then IMHO it seems evident that it is fulfilling a purpose.

I also agree that names should not be posted until they are released publicly.

A phenomenon I think happens is that sometimes people who used to post in the A & I forum suddenly think incidents should be off limits once they or their friends/loved ones are involved. This seems to be magnified in cave incidents, and the requests begin for speculation and non-expert, non-witness discussion to stop, as has already been mentioned.

 

[Ayisha]

This forum used to be much more restrictive than it currently is. A moderator had to approve all new threads (and maybe even posts...I can't remember). That was done away with because of the amount of work entailed and to provide more real-time posting.

I believe that was the Accident Analysis sub-forum of the A & I forum, and Rick Murchison used to approve threads as well as posts before they were posted. I always thought that was a great idea, but I can imagine it must be labour intensive and difficult to keep it current.

Once upon a time, Cave Diver started to post all the relevant information as it came out at the beginning of an incident thread, and I found that incredibly helpful, but again, that must have been incredibly labour intensive. I think Bowl of Petunias tried to do that as well.

 

[lowviz]

...//... Once upon a time, Cave Diver started to post all the relevant information as it came out at the beginning of an incident thread, and I found that incredibly helpful, but again, that must have been incredibly labour intensive. ...

Yes, that is the problem. How does one control a highly emotional forum?

In addition, I see some benign A&I posts as intended to be public, such as mine. Google "perforated an eardrum site:www.scubaboard.com" You find what I posted on the first page of hits. Google is ever so much better than our local search function. The "site:www.scubaboard.com" command will restrict the search to SB.

Anyway, I don't see any middle ground in A&I. Some threads should be public and the others should be Pub. If a public thread goes nuts, the mods could just flip the switch to Pub rules and only the OP is visible. Exceed that and you are looking at an all-expenses-paid vacation from SB...

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

For me the wild speculation I often see totally degrades the usefulness of this forum, and in many cases is damaging. When a cave accident happens I usually hear the details sooner than anyone else not on scene then I get to wade through the wild speculation I see on here about "what happened". Most of the time it is wrong and provides no value to analysis of the accident. It provides pure entertainment value only and is a time filler, sort of like watching TV. @NetDoc I am not sure how the Mods can stop this other than tagging the posts as speculation.

@DandyDon You seem to like to be the "First on Scene" and report a whole lotta stuff. Much of which seems to fan the flames but not really appropriate or valuable....

@NetDoc @allMods -- Not putting names on the forum is totally appropriate. Accident Analysis does not need to have the names of the victims or the players.

@NetDoc @bowlofpetunias @allmods Lawsuits are a problem. Anyone involved in any accident in the USA is subject to being sued for what they do or not do. There is and will continue to be reluctance and fear of speculating and opining here by people who actually know something.

Instructors on these forums are subject to disciplinary action from their training agencies for things they say on these forums. It has happened and will happen again if instructors deliver opinions that can be seen as disparaging to other dive professionals or agencies.

Many leaders in the dive industry disdain this type forum and view it as an attractive nuisance. Defense attorneys hate this type forum because plaintiff's attorneys view it as a gold mine to find ammo for their cases & some even use it to come up with ideas to file a case.

You can't do 'clear-cut accident without speculation'.

 

[Kris Reynolds]

Here are a list of questions I want answered.

• Why do you come here?
• Why do you post accidents and incidents? (This is especially for you, @DandyDon!)
• WHAT IS OUR MISSION? (in your words, please)
  
• Are we meeting your and the community's needs?
• What are we missing and why?
• How can we add that?
• What needs to be eliminated and why?
• How can we be more respectful to friends and survivors?
• Can we be more respectful without harming our mission?
• Currently, we don't allow names to be used unless released publicly first. Is this fair for the family? Is it fair for us? Is a change needed?

Hello ScubaBoard,

As you can tell by my small post counts, I don't often add to discussions in threads on SB..... mainly because there are far more qualified people to answer most of the questions, or to add perspective and I don't think my comments would add anything significant.

I feel obligated to respond to this post. Although I do not comment frequently, I do read through the forum very regularly, and spend a good deal of my time in Accidents & Incidents and in Scuba related court cases. Other than that, I mostly look at Basic & Advanced scuba threads, and in all 4 cases, it has become a collection of knowledge and experience for me.

My interest in reading the Accidents and Incidents threads specifically is for the following explanations of what happened and why. This has become a pool of easily accessible and more experienced divers that I have been able to use as a resource, that often answer questions that I wouldn't think to ask. In doing so, it has significantly changed the way I analyze my own habits.

From the perspective of a comparatively new diver, this forum has been extremely valuable to me as a resource.... although, there is much sifting required. I think the accident facts, and following posts that explain the immediate "why" behind the facts are very helpful. I have noticed however that sometimes it becomes a soap box for people to comment to their own wider agenda to change views. This doesn't offend me personally, but it does make it take longer for me to get the information I am looking for out of the thread.

One more comment - I never really bothered to look at who was posting what, but whomever are the people mentioned that are searching for accidents and incidents to put on the thread, I would thank them for two reasons. One, it has provided more opportunity for me to see what could go wrong when I dive, and has certainly opened my eyes to how many dive accidents happen all over the world. As a great example, I had no idea divers went missing so frequently all over the world, I am subsequently purchasing a PLB for my wife and I, as well as a CO detector after reading this forum...... which I hope to never use, but will certainly credit SB for saving my life should I ever need to.

• Why do you come here? - See above.
  
• Why do you post accidents and incidents? - I haven't, but should I ever have one (and survive) I will certainly post it on here so others can benefit as I have.
  
• WHAT IS OUR MISSION? (in your words, please) - I have no idea.
  
• Are we meeting your and the community's needs? - Yes
  
• What are we missing and why?
• How can we add that?
• What needs to be eliminated and why?
• How can we be more respectful to friends and survivors?- I would propose that the emotions that posters feel and comment to show failings of training agencies or other businesses and organizations will never compare to the emotions felt by those close to an accident. That is not to say that they are not important, but they are felt with substantially less severity. As a suggestion, I think all posts on any forum should meet this circumstance with compassion first, which can sometimes be lost.
  
• Can we be more respectful without harming our mission? - I think this is the wrong question. Being respectful is always a possible choice. The real question I think you are asking here: "Is being respectful more important than our mission". As above, I don't know what your mission is, however, I place very few things above respect, and most certainly your mission would not make the list. If you cannot achieve the mission through respectful conversation or action, I would pose you should altar your mission.
• Currently, we don't allow names to be used unless released publicly first. Is this fair for the family? Is it fair for us? Is a change needed?- Again, I would go back to my previous two comments. In this circumstance, what is best for the family, and the importance and strength of their emotions far outweigh the curiosity of the forum. There is no intellectual benefit realized by readers in knowing the name of the individual.

Lastly, thank you to all those who take their time to share information, experience and expertise on the threads.

 

[The Chairman]

Instructors on these forums are subject to disciplinary action from their training agencies for things they say on these forums. It has happened and will happen again if instructors deliver opinions that can be seen as disparaging to other dive professionals or agencies.

I think it's appropriate for instructors to be held to a higher standard by their agencies. Unfortunately, agencies can and have used this as intimidation in order to censor valid discussions they simply don't like. It's nothing but SLAPP and they are probably exposing themselves to anti-SLAPP laws that are becoming more popular. No one should ever be discouraged from telling the truth or even their version of the truth. Agencies do a disservice to the entire industry when they get petty and partisan.

Many leaders in the dive industry disdain this type forum and view it as an attractive nuisance.

Geriatrics often don't get the interwebs. People were banned from DEMA at the turn of the century for being online dive shops. As late as 2004 I saw training agencies with notices at DEMA decrying the interwebs and encouraging instructors to avoid ScubaBoard. ScubaBoard still survives and even thrives without them and often in spite of them. I know it's hard for them to believe, but the interwebs aren't going anywhere soon.

Defense attorneys hate this type forum because plaintiff's attorneys view it as a gold mine to find ammo for their cases & some even use it to come up with ideas to file a case.

Stick to the truth and you should be OK. Label your theories as such and don't bash individuals or agencies and there's little that can be used against you. Every state has different anti-SLAPP legislation which means that many frivolous law suits have to be paid for by the plaintiff(s).

 

[lv2dive]

In general I think Scubaboard is the best place available for a mix of allowed speculation tempered with light moderation keeping things from going completely off the rails. There's not much I would change. I learned a lot from the A&I section when I started diving more seriously. There is one slight adjustment I would make, however; I have seen this touched on but briefly in the posts so far.

So, what would I change?

I personally would have a 24-hour hold before allowing commentary about an accident / incident. While it may be more of a Facebook issue, I find it ridiculous that we have people criticizing other's actions before bodies have been removed from the water. What is the harm in allowing a very short period of time to pass before the rampant speculation starts? Often a lot more information becomes available and certainly people involved are not 100% gobsmacked (they may be 90% gobsmacked 24 hours later but at least not 100%!). Just MHO and worth what you paid for it .

 

[kelemvor]

The danger I see over and over is people deciding to listen to someone who has no idea what the hell they're talking about, and going on to repeat something which is dead wrong as gospel. ("They died because they didn't have a snorkel," "Back inflate BCs are inherently dangerous," or "You'll be fine with me, you can trust me, I'm a Divemaster."

In accident analysis there isn't always a right answer and a wrong answer, but there are right questions and wrong questions. People too often confuse those things and get mired down by irrelevant details. In the weeds of a wrong questions inexperienced readers can wind up havin dangerous preconceptions solidified.

We learn most from dive accidents thematically, not by rubbernecking single events.

You're right, sort of. That logic applies to the entire site, and everything posted on it. In fact, it's the reason my open water instructor warned us to stay away from scubaboard - he told us of that very problem. Of course I said "a scuba forum? Sounds great!"

My point is that to have a useful discussion you must include other opinions. Otherwise, Pete might as well just shut down the whole site and set up a domain referral to goatse.


I think a fundamental difference of opinion lies in the purpose of the A&I forum. Some want the forum to be for the purpose of getting to the root cause of an accident and nothing else. I think the discussions - even the bunny trail discussions - are valuable as long as they're not outright incorrect.

 

[boulderjohn]

Once upon a time, Cave Diver started to post all the relevant information as it came out at the beginning of an incident thread, and I found that incredibly helpful, but again, that must have been incredibly labour intensive. I think Bowl of Petunias tried to do that as well.

That was something of an experiment, and we discussed having it as a regular feature. It did not work for several reasons.

The most obvious is that it is far too labor intensive for a small staff of volunteer moderators. It was too much in the individual threads in which it was tried; if we made it a regular feature, we would have to have someone constantly monitoring every single thread in the forum.

There was a second problem that existed only in potential because we never got far enough for it to happen. The idea had one person filtering out the noise and constantly updating with an objective summary of that was known. The problem shuold be obvious--that one person's summary would have to be subjective to some degree, and people who disagreed with that running analysis would create new battles.