To Critique or not to Critique

[mrjimboalaska]

Open discussion an speculation is good stimulation of our thoughts and can be learned from. Critisism of others should not be done in a public forum such as this...
Jimbo

 

[HowardE]

And I say let 'em spew and let 'em armchair quarterback it. What I really don't like to see is the suppression of any discussion because some people are insufferable about their opinions on accidents. Every time there is a posting of an accident on scubaboard I see the same people come out and start screaming "no speculation" and threatening moderation if anyone crosses over the line, and suppressing discussion like that is substantially more harmful than having to put up with idiots with opinions.

I should have been more specific in what I meant.

example 1: An accident is reported only with a newspaper article, and the only source of accurate info is coming from the article. Like a recent accident in Key Largo. People immediately begin speculating as to the cause of death, and go further to place blame for the accident. This is before the facts are even straight.

Wouldn't it be more constructive to discuss the causes and how to prevent these accidents, after knowing what really happened? This is the sort of speculation that I feel is un-necessary. Sometimes, the cause could simply be a heart attack at depth. There's no fault, and really it's barely a dive accident, since the person could have had a heart attack anywhere. Obviuosly if the victim were on land, they could be attended to better, and have a much better chance for survival.

Example 2: The recent accident in Boynton, which is really the reason (I think) that Narcosis started this thread in the first place.

There were a few - who were criticizing the person who discovered the bodies. This criticizm included the branding of said discoverer as "not following his DM protocol, by speaking to the press, etc" - is that really necessary? To pick on someone who had the horrible task of body recovery, not becuase of his duty as a DM, but rather as a skilled diver who saw clues that perhaps the victims were present, and went to look. In this case, I believe it made no difference if he was a DM, Rescue Diver, or just a regular guy with an OW cert who happened to find these victims.

To sit at your desk, and spew your condemnations is a little excessive, since nobody can really say how they'd respond in a given situation, until they find themselves in that situation.

-- I do believe that good can come from discussion of accidents, and a lot can be learned from intuitive speculation, rather than just wild accusation, and banter to troll for responses from others. Speculation is good, but facts about incidents are better. If we base our speculations on the facts, then conclusions can be valid. But when people base their speculations on pure assumption, then I don't believe that's constructive at all. I think it's very important to discuss accidents, but only after we know as many FACTS as possible.

Does this make more sense?

 

[DiveBandit]

Example 2: The recent accident in Boynton, which is really the reason (I think) that Narcosis started this thread in the first place.

Yes and no. I started this thread because I felt this discussion deserved it's own thread and the original thread needed to be un-hijacked. I did not start this thread because I want to justify slamming anyone. I, like others here simply believe that a healthy discussion of what happens at any incident is justified.

I hate to refer back to the original thread, but I will - only to say that simply because I state that "IF" the PADI DM talked to the press and "IF" he gave anything other than the facts he was wrong and he was wrong because standards say you shouldn't do that - does not mean I have "bashed" him personally. I have simply pointed out something, and for doing so I was flamed to a crisp by you and a few others. I never attacked his reputation or qualifications and I believe I even commended him on going above and beyond what was required of him. But that does beg the question "to Critique or not to Critique".

Let the civil discussions continue

 

[HowardE]

Yes and no. I started this thread because I felt this discussion deserved it's own thread and the original thread needed to be un-hijacked. I did not start this thread because I want to justify slamming anyone. I, like others here simply believe that a healthy discussion of what happens at any incident is justified.

I didn't say you were looking for justification for your comments.

I hate to refer back to the original thread, but I will - only to say that simply because I state that "IF" the PADI DM talked to the press and "IF" he gave anything other than the facts he was wrong and he was wrong because standards say you shouldn't do that - does not mean I have "bashed" him personally. I have simply pointed out something, and for doing so I was flamed to a crisp by you and a few others. I never attacked his reputation or qualifications and I believe I even commended him on going above and beyond what was required of him. But that does beg the question "to Critique or not to Critique".

Again - It is irrelevant as to his qualifications and/or affiliations with any dive agency. Yes Kevin has a lot of friends on the board, and of course people who know him well will defend his honor in his absence, as he would do for any of us. Weather it was personal or not, the question could have been posed in a different context, or in its own thread (here) - and had the question not been posed in the previous thread, most people (if not all) wouldn't make the connection, and I wouldn't see any harm in discussing a purely hypothetical situation.

- As to the original point of this particular thread "to critique or not" - Constructive criticizm is a good way for people to learn how to deal with situations. But there is a difference between criticizm and finger pointing. I am not by any means saying that you were doing this (on the other thread) - but others were.

 

[DennisS]

"Joe Diver, age 40, found dead in 35 ft of water"

then it starts

He was diving solo
He was inexperienced
He was out of shape, probably a heart attack
His gear hadn't been serviced recently
He was never certified
He was dehydrated
He hadn't been diving in 5 years
He came up and hit his head on the bottom of the boat
He was shocked by an electric eel

blah, blah, blah I get really tired of the speculation from people that don't have the facts and I think it serves no useful purpose.

 

[nolatom]

I find the whole process useful, whether it's reporting the facts, or opinions on "well, if it was x, the way to avoid (or survive) it is ...". I understand the "if" at the beginning of an opinion. The specific incident may (will) provoke a discussion on dive safety regarding situation x, or y, even if those situations weren't involved in the actual incident. I think those discussions are useful in passing knowledge on to divers (like me) who may not have considered what to do if faced with situation y.

As long as we keep names out of it, and understand we're doing this in a spirit of "what can we learn" rather than, "why I'm a smarter diver than the victim and wouldn't have done (whatever)", I think the discussion, even if based on "speculation", is still useful to we who are still alive and would like to remain so.

 

[Doc]

"IF" the PADI DM talked to the press and "IF" he gave anything other than the facts he was wrong and he was wrong because standards say you shouldn't do that

If he opened his mouth to anyone other than his insurance company's lawyer, he said something wrong.

Sorry, that's about how it goes.

 

[Divesherpa]

I'm in agreement with several members on this point. I disagree with several others.

Here's the facts: If a participant in a recovery informs others about what happened without first consulting an attorney, he is labeled negatively. Speculation from what little information presented becomes excessive and loses the basis of fact.
If a participant in a recovery doesn't inform others what happened, speculation from even less information presented becomes excessive and loses the basis of fact.

Point being, the official records are available for review (in many instances) upon completion of the investigation. The IUCRR works for caves and the info is available (though not as rapidly as some would like). The problem that I have with critiquing a situation in which you don't KNOW THE FACTS is that your information and opinion are not FACT BASED. Therefore, you lose the benefits of conversation because gain zero information.

How many of you people that have such opinions ever read the actual reports?

Cheers,
Jamie

P.S. I have been guilty of this before, as Terry so keenly pointed out. I know the potential damage that talking out of your arse can do.

 

[Diver Dennis]

I think it is good to use accidents as the impetus for discussion along a certain tangent but it irresponsible to second guess diver's actions in a situation where few if any of the true facts are known. Discussing the generalities of an accident is entirely different from talking about assumed specifics and chastising any individuals involved when we don't know what happened.

 

[TerryInFlorida]

- As to the original point of this particular thread "to critique or not" - Constructive criticizm is a good way for people to learn how to deal with situations. But there is a difference between criticizm and finger pointing. I am not by any means saying that you were doing this (on the other thread) - but others were.

Where? Name one person who was pointing a finger at Kevin? I double dutch dare ya'...

On the contrary a simple question was asked, in my opinion it was eventually answered along with tons of gibberish. I can see the point that he had no students or others he was directly responsible for therefore no reliability.