Allow Speculation?-Split from Catalina Diver died today

[DennisS]

This thread is a wonderful example of how far off base speculation can take people. Read the first few pages then on the 7th page (post 70ish) you will find out what really happened from the diver involved.

The speculators were a long way off on this one.

Speculation is careless, dangerous and disrespectful.

I've noticed that unless some later facts show up, the speculations just get further from the original information. The speculators start spiraling on the previous speculation as if it was fact. Then someone else chimes in, "if this were the case" and on an on it goes. They should have two forums, accident speculation, accident facts. The speculation is just noise that has to be bypassed to get the facts.

 

[RU4SKUBA]

The definitions of gossip and speculation are awfully similar and I give praise to anyone who knocks a gossip down a peg... or two. I struggle to understand why 'talk about what you know' is such a difficult concept to grasp... but I would SPECULATE that some people don't really care about the truth.

 

[Leejnd]

Mods, thanks for pulling this out into its own thread. It seems like the speculation pros/cons discussion has to come up in every single accident thread. Maybe, for each of these threads, when the first "stop speculating!" rant shows up (and it will), you can just toss it in here.

Your right Diverrex. If people DID use this forum for the posting and discussion of facts it wouldn't be filled with pages of useless banter. Speculation dilutes the facts until they get to the point where people don't bother to read it all. Any time I try to follow up on a local accident I find myself sifting through pages of wasteful, worthless posts.

A few select members insist on filling every thread with speculation which renders this part of the forum nearly useless.

I'm an advocate for a forum where certain members can while away the hours speculating about hypothetical ideas of what could have caused an accident.

We know a couple facts about this accident and that is all. Not enough to reasonably speculate and it isn't fair to do such to the deceased nor their families.

Cody, I just have to ask: so are you saying that none of the clearly valuable discussions that Diverrex brought up should have occurred? Are you saying that your preference would be that we DON'T have those types of discussions? Did you really see no value in them at all? If so, I'm surprised and disappointed, because I'm quite sure that there are others who read them who either learned something important, or were reminded of something that they might have forgotten, that could serve them well in a future emergency. I gave an example earlier of how a discussion generated by speculation in one of these threads helped ME recently. Would you have preferred that we never had that discussion, so I never gained that wisdom? Not me. I'm glad it came up and I'm glad I learned something from it.

Leejnd, I'm not angry at all. I just don't like to see a useful tool be wasted uselessly. It is certainly unfortunate you don't seem to understand this concept, however I doubt we will ever come to an agreement on this.

As I tried to emphasize earlier, just as there different types of speculation (some valuable, some not), there are different ways of disagreeing with someone - some respectful, some not. I feel that you (and Ken, for that matter) are expressing your disagreement with me in a disrespectful manner. To say "That's CRAP!" to someone, or to shout in caps 'YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!" and say "you don't seem to understand this concept" are all hostile and disrespectful forms of disagreement.

I acknowledge that we disagree...but I do not believe that I "DONT GET IT" or that I am "unable to understand a concept." (I also don't think my opinion was CRAP.) I think par of the issue is that YOU are unable (unwilling?) to understand MY points.

I have stated repeatedly that there are positive and negative ways to speculate in these threads. We have seen examples of both types in that Catalina diver thread. But like Scubafanatic so articulately pointed out, you seem to want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It appears that what YOU want is to ONLY be able to discuss known, verified facts. Unfortunately, the reality is that we often don't GET any known, verified facts...or if we do, it is long after the fact. In your world, it seems what you want is not an accident analysis forum, but an accident OFFICIAL NEWS REPORT forum.

Any discussion that is outside verified official accident reports is going to involve some guesswork and speculation. Can this be done in a way that is more respectful to the diver and family/friends? Yes, of course...and I have agreed with that point numerous times. But WILL it? No. It won't. These are normal human beings we are dealing with here, and these types of discussions WILL occur in a forum of this nature. Rant about it all you want...but I'm just tellin' you like it is.

I WOULD appreciate it if you would be a little more respectful in your disagreements with me, however. I have done nothing to deserve your hostility...other than disagree with you. I know it's hard to have someone not agree with you. But you CAN be nice. Really.

This thread is a wonderful example of how far off base speculation can take people. Read the first few pages then on the 7th page (post 70ish) you will find out what really happened from the diver involved.

The speculators were a long way off on this one.

Speculation is careless, dangerous and disrespectful.

Some is. Some is not. Some is of value. That's what these forums are for. And the Mods agree with me on this.

...and pray tell, what percentage of such inncidents/accidents viewed/reported/discussed here on SB result in 'us' seeing any sort of 'official' investigation/accident report ???

Exactly. We often don't GET any official information at all, or at least until long after the incident. However, this forum is here to discuss the accident, even in the absence of official information. So...speculation is what you are going to find here. Like it or not. Don't shoot the messenger...I'm just tellin' it like it is.

While speculation can, on occasion, provide useful information or suggestions, much of what was in that thread was just downright stupid and careless... hopefully a result of not reading what was stated by people who actually knew something about the incident.

Let me suggest something that may not have been considered. If YOU were the instructor involved in an incident, would YOU want to read groundless speculation about the incident... especially when it seems to criticize the instructor without basis? I know I would take such posts in a hurtful manner if I were an instructor who had just lost a student.

Of course this is one reason I never plan to become a dive professional. I would never want to find myself in a situation of this nature.

I agree that much of the speculation in this thread was as you describe. Much of the speculation in ALL of these threads is like this. But I believe it is wrong to decry ALL speculation. There are examples above in which there were very valuable speculative discussions. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Skip over the stupid ones...and I agree that many of them were stupid. And family/friends need to just be aware that this IS what's going to happen in these threads...unless all conversations about accidents, other than official reports, are banned. Which would eliminate an awful lot of opportunities for valuable learning, wouldn't it?

I agree it must be painful for the instructor...just like it must be for the family/friends. I've told my family that in the awful event that anything ever happens to ME while diving, don't read about it in here. There is probably little to be learned by my family that they couldn't get elsewhere. The divers on Scubaboard are going to pick it apart, and there will probably be lots of groundless and unfair speculation. As well as lots of learning. Not saying it's right. Just saying it IS.

I've noticed that unless some later facts show up, the speculations just get further from the original information. The speculators start spiraling on the previous speculation as if it was fact. Then someone else chimes in, "if this were the case" and on an on it goes. They should have two forums, accident speculation, accident facts. The speculation is just noise that has to be bypassed to get the facts.

I agree that lots of the speculation in that thread, and others like this, are as you describe. But my point is that some seem to want to restrict discussion to ONLY verified official facts. That cuts out the opportunities for valuable learning that can result from speculative discussions. Not ALL the speculation is just noise. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

If it would stop all the speculation is bad/speculation is good rants that end up in all these threads, then I would wholeheartedly support having two forums - one for "Verified Official Accident Reports" and one for "Accident Analysis - Speculation Allowed". Would that suit you?

The definitions of gossip and speculation are awfully similar and I give praise to anyone who knocks a gossip down a peg... or two. I struggle to understand why 'talk about what you know' is such a difficult concept to grasp... but I would SPECULATE that some people don't really care about the truth.

I disagree that we don't care about the truth. I know *I* care about the truth! And I personally am careful what I say. Go find one of MY posts that was careless or insensitive. But to tell us that we can't talk about these accidents at all, other than about verified facts, eliminates the value of these threads. And the Mods agree.

Perhaps I'm a little more tied to this whole concept because of my own recent experience. I am PROOF that a discussion arising out of specuation in an accident thread can be helpful, and can even save lives. If it wasn't for one of those discussions, there might very well be a diver with a huge lump on his head from my lead weights...or worse!

 

[merxlin]

Most of the A&I reports are a mix of facts an speculation. Even when the facts are present, there will be speculation: why was A done when you should do B? The question is does the speculation serve any purpose? I believe it does, in that so many more scenarios are discussed than just the original incident, and also there is usually a fair amount of good information about standards and practices discussed. Sure, you have to put up with some individual egos and narrow minded thinking. There will always be some people who think their way is the only way. But if one can filter the BS out, there is usually some positive substance to be taken from the discussion.

If we want to only deal with facts, then maybe the A&I thread should only be available for a first hand report, with no discussion. I.e. someone presents the facts (not a repost of a newspaper article or second hand conversation) including how they know what they know, and hopefully follows up with more facts as they become available. The thread is locked to anyone else posting. That would give us all the details. But would it serve any purpose?

 

[*dave*]

I think some speculation can be useful when it provide an opportunity for a learning experience. In this thread I see at least three examples of that:

1. Discussion of safe ascent rates
2. The immediate actions to take when a buddy signals OOA
3. Possible reasons why someone can feel like they are not getting any air even though the tank and reg are delivering it.

Personally speaking, I learned these things in my OW course. With the exception of incidents occurring in overhead environments, I can't think of anything I have learned from the rampant speculation in the A&I forum.

Incidents confirm what we should already know, but I don't see them as instructional.

Why do I read these threads?

• I'm looking for new ways to die that I'm not aware of.... Still looking for my first new way to die, btw.
  
• I'm looking for confirmation that the diver violated a rule I would not have violated. This gives me a false sense of security I wouldn't make the same mistake.
  
• I'm satisfying my morbid sense of curiosity.

I'd be sincerely interested in hearing what people have learned from these threads, which wasn't covered during OW. The entire argument in favor seems akin to learning to drive by speculating on auto accidents.

BTW, my comments relate solely to A&I threads relating to OW incidents.

 

[Leejnd]

Personally speaking, I learned these things in my OW course. With the exception of incidents occurring in overhead environments, I can't think of anything I have learned from the rampant speculation in the A&I forum.

Dave,

I have two points to make about your comment:

1. Just because people learned things in their OW course doesn't mean that there isn't value in them RE-learning them...or, even better, learning of the results and consequences of doing things wrong. Some of our OW courses happened years ago. Can anyone remember every single thing they were taught? And is there anyone who really thinks their OW, or even AOW, course taught them everything they needed to know? Every possible situation that might occur? Every consequence of doing something the wrong way?

2. I gave an excellent example from my own experience of something that I learned from a speculative discussion in an accident thread, that I didn't learn in OW, or even AOW. I was taught that if you're in trouble at the surface, dump your weights NOW. Nobody ever said to me to give at least a thought to who might be below you. I just happened to end up in a situation in which it was of value for me to have this thought occur to me...and I may have saved someone's noggin because of it. (Although that's speculation!)

Because some members get so up-in-arms about ANY speculation occuring (even that of a positive, useful nature), I will now openly state that I'm on Cody's side: I think there needs to be two forums. One for official accident reports and facts. The other for discussion, analysis and speculation. Let us divers talk about it. Let us get our lessons where we can. And I would urge any family/friends/involved parties to avoid the analysis thread of their accident, and stick to the official reports and facts thread.

 

[Jax]

This thread is a wonderful example of how far off base speculation can take people. Read the first few pages then on the 7th page (post 70ish) you will find out what really happened from the diver involved.

First of all, you are wrong here. There is nothing from the diver involved.

The speculators were a long way off on this one.

Speculation is careless, dangerous and disrespectful.

Your disgust and disrespect for the speculations of others is very clear and obvious. Why, then, do you continue to stay in this thread? You are not convincing others and are simply exhibiting manners of a troll.

However, for others who might not have formal After-Action Review experience, please consider that august US agencies such as the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board (US), Law Enforcement investigating officials at many levels, and any professional organization (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.) use speculation after an incident to arrive at various assumptions and conclusions which are weighed against facts and physical evidence.

This "Step 4" in the Problem Solving Process is part of a cycle, where Step 2: gathering facts and information bearing on the incident - and Step 3: consider alternatives (scenarios). The cycle goes round and round until (a) a consensus or expert opinion is reached and (b) lessons learned are established.

The consensus or expert opinion will not be reached for some time, but lessons have already been learned.

If you cannot contribute to the discussion, please be so kind as to leave the rest of us alone.

 

[DennisS]

I'm sure we're going to get valuable input on the most recent cave diving fatality, probably from some midwest AOW diver with 35 dives. His speculation will be as on target as the OW instructor who knows this would never happen to one of his students.

 

[Leejnd]

I'm sure we're going to get valuable input on the most recent cave diving fatality, probably from some midwest AOW diver with 35 dives. His speculation will be as on target as the OW instructor who knows this would never happen to one of his students.

Perhaps. But we will probably also get some speculation from cave divers: why didn't he do a, when he could have done b? Do you think such-and-such might have occurred? If so, what's the best way to keep that from happening to me?

But then, evidently a number of you would find those discussions to be of no value...irresponsible, careless, dangerous, and disrespectful.

 

[Leejnd]

However, for others who might not have formal After-Action Review experience, please consider that august US agencies such as the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board (US), Law Enforcement investigating officials at many levels, and any professional organization (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.) use speculation after an incident to arrive at various assumptions and conclusions which are weighed against facts and physical evidence.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but find humor in your use of aviation to make your valid and excellent point. The fact is that Cody is a pilot and a flight instructor. So I find it ironic that he is so adamantly opposed to using speculation as part of the accident analysis process...especially when you point out that even the FAA considers it of value.

Cody, I mean no disrespect to you. I have tried to see your point, and I do understand where you are coming from. But I respectfully disagree that there is no value to ANY speculation in the accident analysis process, and that ALL speculation is careless, dangerous, and disrespectful. But as I said earlier, I would go along with your concept of having two accident forums, if it would eliminate these anti-speculation discussions in every A&I thread.