• Welcome to ScubaBoard


  1. Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

    Benefits of registering include

    • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
    • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
    • You can make this box go away

    Joining is quick and easy. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

Addition to Terms of Service?

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by NYCNaiad, May 5, 2017.

  1. NYCNaiad

    NYCNaiad Dive babble all day long Staff Member

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: NYC
    1,544
    874
    113
    There have been a spate of posts by a few individuals who create a new post & then never return to discuss it. It appears likely that they are using the posts as a method to create drama or as an under-the-radar way of advertising. However, these posts still fall within the current SB Terms of Service (ToS). So I'd like to suggest an addition.

    In the ToS, it notes: "Our focus is to advance safety, knowledge and enjoyment within the diving community by encouraging the mutual exchange of experiences, ideas and opinions". I recommend that an additional line item be included in the document noting: "A pattern of original posts without any additional participation is considered spam and will not be tolerated."

    Don't get me wrong. I've enjoyed some of the discussions that ensued from these posts. However, I think it's important that the original poster participate at least once in a while too.
     
    teknitroxdiver likes this.
  2. uncfnp

    uncfnp Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: North Carolina
    5,834
    4,034
    113
    I understand your frustration but rather then making more hard to implement and enforce rules as well as more work for the Mods just click on the concerning individual's avatar and select "ignore."
     
    gfaith likes this.
  3. giffenk

    giffenk Great White

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: toronto
    4,924
    2,403
    113
    Ignore is new to me. Does this mean that the complete thread started by that person will be invisible, or just posts from that person?
     
  4. Diver0001

    Diver0001 Instructor, Scuba

    0
    24
    0
    The issue is also commercial. Let's turn it around.....

    Nobody likes spammers but the person starting these threads (and yes, we do know who you are talking about) are NOT selling cheap mobile phones or viagra pills. They are selling a scuba related product that is relevant to the site and may very well interest this population.

    Scubaboard does not have a policy to *restrict* companies that may have something interesting for divers from interacting with people who may want to buy that product. We also do not have a policy that the OP of a thread is required to participate in their own thread.

    For the same reason that Jim Lapenta is allowed to talk about his latest book, or certain vendors are allowed to talk about how great their backplates are.... we have been allowing the user you are talking about to talk about the courses they offer.

    We have had cases in the past of users who were so aggressive in their marketing that their posts were disruptive and not relevant to the threads they were posting in. We saw that as spam and we ... er... "coached" them to avoid "spamming".

    In this case the user in question is starting threads, which by definition does not derail the thread. Although the posts are bordering on spam in some cases and controversial in terms of content, the user is saying things in these threads that is scuba related. If it is scuba related then moderators try not to take the role of the "thought police". We try to allow room for users of the site to "have at them". This is what we decided to do with the user you are talking about. Moderators do not believe it their role to filter out Idiotic information. We believe that users are MUCH better positioned and MUCH better informed than we are and we believe that a lively "debate" about the merits of the post may (a) inform other users about how the community feels about it and (b) with a little luck, educate the OP about the garbage they are posting.

    This could help you understand why some of those posts have been allowed to stand.

    R..
     
  5. uncfnp

    uncfnp Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: North Carolina
    5,834
    4,034
    113
    And there's the rub. I believe it will remove any thread started by that individual. But if you feel no useful discussion will occur due to that post it should not be a problem.
     
  6. Diver0001

    Diver0001 Instructor, Scuba

    0
    24
    0
    It's been a while but I believe deleting the first post in a thread deletes the entire thread. There are ways to get around that (splitting the thread) but it is more work.

    R..
     
  7. NYCNaiad

    NYCNaiad Dive babble all day long Staff Member

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: NYC
    1,544
    874
    113
    I appreciate the detailed answers, but for clarification...

    I want these posts to continue to be created. As I said above, I actually enjoy some of the discussions that have come up from them.

    I also have no problem with the content of these posts & have even defended at least one of these individuals because the post was not spam or click bait. (See here.)

    However, I think there is a problem with anyone (regardless of whether the topic is scuba-related or not) continuously creating posts & never responding/discussing it after the initial post.

    Including a line in the ToS to the effect of "A pattern of original posts without any additional participation is considered spam." does not mean that it has to be enforced every time. But it provides leverage when needed to remind any individual who persistently does it that they can't just drop bombs or use posts to help market themselves without at least a little interaction.

    I work in the tech industry & have managed a couple social forum/content mgt system products in the past. It's fairly common to include ToS to this effect & encourage discussion from the OP. If SB prefers not to, that's SB's prerogative. I just think it's a good idea. :)
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
  8. gfaith

    gfaith Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 100 - 199
    Location: Desert SE of NM
    444
    168
    43
    You guys had me curious so I put Topbodz on ignore. As I remember he was a questionable seller on SB. Anyway, I could then not see any posts by him, but posts he started had warnings from other users.
     
  9. Aquanomad

    Aquanomad Barracuda

    # of Dives:
    Location: HI
    274
    62
    28
    Who cares if an op participates after a post? Sometimes people throw it up on a wall and see what sticks. And others take it from there. Just what we need. More internet forum police. Seems easiest to not participate if you don't like it rather add needless new language to the tos.
     
  10. NYCNaiad

    NYCNaiad Dive babble all day long Staff Member

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: NYC
    1,544
    874
    113
    Not sure if you saw my clarification post above, but I actually like some of the posts & want them to continue to be created.

    And you're right...sometimes people do occasionally post something & then don't go back to it. I've probably done it myself. But I'm talking about the people who are doing this persistently to create drama or as an under-the-radar way of advertising. There's literally just a handful of them that I've seen. I want them to respond because otherwise it becomes less of a forum "for mutual exchange of experiences, ideas and opinions" which is noted as the purpose of SB & more of a publication for those who want to use it as such. Just my opinion. :)
     
    Lorenzoid likes this.

Share This Page