Where is the line...

[Jax]

A controversial picture . . . A picture of a guy kneeling in front of a pile of lobsters that was his and his 7 friend's limit catch.

It was removed because "It could possibly be used by anti-lobster-fishing people against lobster fishing."

When a post get deleted because someone, somewhere, just might do something, it becomes a matter of individual capriciousness.

Then to delete every post that refers to the picture? and then deleted the complaint thereof?

It is dismaying what now passes as "unacceptable" and "acceptable", and the level of censorship applied.

 

[The Chairman]

The picture in question is now the subject of an FWC investigation. They are appreciative of it not being public at this time.

Jax, I fully understand your position on this and am more than sympathetic towards it. There was a lot of discussion amongst the mods and one of the points made was that it did not violate the spirit of the ToS. However, the legal aspect of the picture has changed all that and has tied our hands until the agent indicates that they are done with their investigation. That being said, a LOT of the discussion after the picture was harassing and/or off topic. IOW, the subject of the 2010 mini season had been effectively hijacked. Like this thread, rather than delete the conversation, they could have been split off... at least until LEO stepped in.

Controversy is fine: hijacking a thread is not.

Thanks for pointing out the perceived discrepancies. We are human and are subject to making mistakes. However, we are committed to learning and improving as we go so that we serve our users and not our own agendas. I hope this helps.

 

[ONESPEED]

A controversial picture . . . A picture of a guy kneeling in front of a pile of lobsters that was his and his 7 friend's limit catch.

Possibly, we'll see how the FWC investigation turns out.

It was removed because "It could possibly be used by anti-lobster-fishing people against lobster fishing."

Not completely accurate, although that is a possibility. The real problem is commercial lobster fisherman use those pictures to rally support against mini season, and lobster divers in general, and it happens frequently. I would all but guarantee the picture in question has already been sniped and will be appearing in the next meeting.

 

[Jax]

Possibly, we'll see how the FWC investigation turns out.

Not completely accurate, although that is a possibility. The real problem is commercial lobster fisherman use those pictures to rally support against mini season, and lobster divers in general, and it happens frequently. I would all but guarantee the picture in question has already been sniped and will be appearing in the next meeting.

I'm not denying the possible impact of those that would use such a pic. It 's the "delete it because we think it might be used by somebody somewhere" attitude.

Geez, there's a thread "85m on air". Someone might decide to do a deep dive on air. Someone might die doing it. Shouldn't that thread be removed? Because after all, the consequences are far worse than a picture being used against mini-season.

Where does one draw the line? There's a lot that could happen, might happen, because something appeared on ScubaBoard. As for the discussion being off-topic . . . how is "over the limit catching during mini-season" and "things that cause issues during mini-season" off-topic?

It just doesn't add up as has the judicious moderation in the past.

 

[Orlando Eric]

Jax-- I believe it was my big poop covered pointy stick which lead to the deleting and I am fine with it. After I read it I thought to myself..."bet that gets moderatededed" -- Scubaboard does not claim to be a free media or the "peoples board" it is Net Doc's. If he decides it is proper to be deleted so be it.

When I visit south florida and a certian SB person is there I try to keep my vulgar vocabulary in check because it offends her. I also have to retype many things on here because of my over use of sexual puns. IT is their place and they can pretty much do what they want in it. Castle Doctrine should certianley apply to a internet message board.

My reponse to the whole thing is ... meh.

 

[Jax]

So, if the capricious Castle Doctrine is the play, what then is so special about the board? Pete himself has called it a 'community'.

Like some HOAs that get out of line, I ask where is the line? It used to be pretty clear.

There is a saying, "A standard left uncorrected sets a new standard."

In the same vein, an enforcement more stringent than spelled out is also a new standard set.

 

[Cave Diver]

I'll give you the same answer that I gave you before:

The Moderators have the last word in any dispute and are responsible for interpreting the ToS.

The thread was moderated, discussed, and moderated some more after more staff members chimed in with opinions on the way the thread was going. There is no "one size fits all" answer. Interpretations will sometimes vary depending on which staff members are available to discuss a decision and what viewpoints those members have on it.

Threads that generate a lot of reports and issues tend to get more attention. That's just the way it works out. And as Pete pointed out this thread generated enough interest to catch the attention of the FWC before we shut it down.

You're welcome to disagree with the decision all you wish, but you should also respect the fact that the staff has a LOT more information available to them when they make decisions than you as a user has. Perspective is sometimes everything.

 

[The Chairman]

FWIW, I do not agree with every decision made by the ScubaBoard mods: I never have. The only time I have reversed their decisions have been due to personal ethics. However, since I can not run this by myself, I abide and support the decisions they have made as we are a community. No, you will never know the ones I disagree with and I don't mind that I take most of the blame. The buck stops here.

 

[Jax]

In Reply to your post [post=5392513]#5392513[/post]

I'll give you the same answer that I gave you before:

The Moderators have the last word in any dispute and are responsible for interpreting the ToS.

Translation: " 'Cause I said so!"

 

[SC_Hoaty]

I'm not trying to hijack this thread, and apologize in advance if this ends up taking this thread in an unintended direction.

Around the same time as the cited thread underwent moderation (with a conspicuous notice) there were a few other posts that disappeared from another, somewhat related thread (another thread about mini-season). I posted a comment in the second thread, noting the fact that posts disappeared without notice.

In attempting to cite that example for this post, I noticed my comment has also been deleted sometime after I posted it. (Or I just cant find it by looking through my post history.)

I don't dispute the right of Pete and Mods to manage the board as they see fit, but I don't really care for the "vanished without a trace" style of moderating that I've been impacted by first hand.

No PM, no Mod post - just gone like it was never there.

Is this really how it is supposed to work?