Alternative heading: Arrangement of Accidents, Incidents and Speculation forum 
Seems like this needs some rethinking. There have been multiple sub threads split off the recent Catalina incident. Including two separate ones on the appropriateness of speculation in such cases (one in A&I and one in Basic Discussions).
Moderators (or whomever these suggestions are going to), please review these posts (I have a feeling you are doing just that already). Lot's of good points in them.
Mainly that an easily identifiable and well moderated source for just the facts would be welcomed. We don't want to make this just a bare bones, no discussion thread, so discussion should follow. Speculation is okay at this point, too. Because we know "the facts", or at least where to go to get them, if available.
Also I just want to clear up that the "no speculation" crowd does not object to speculation per se. We all see the benefit in the discussions that follow from speculative scenarios. But all those discussions and benefits can follow without speculating as to the facts in a particular instance. In fact, in many cases, that approach will just muddy the water. The benefits flow from discussing the hypothetical situation, not from attempting to assign a speculative hypothesis to a set of facts, so why try to, since that may invite rebuttals that are besides the educational point? That is what we have official investigations for. (Not sure if I am articulating this clearly)
Looks like TS&M's suggestion about a sticky might work. DennisS had a suggestion for a forum "learning from accidents" that would also work, though many may not like it since it would move the discussion (physically) away from the incident.
But would you also please take this opportunity to arrange the forum in it's totality? What is the need that is being served by the current forum/subforum arrangement? Yes, presentation of facts need to moderated, but otherwise let the discussion/analysis/speculation flow freely (normal TOC apply, of course).
On this larger question, bsee65 made a good point in his post 44 here http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ac...culating-we-need-wait-4-offical-report-5.html. In the context of gaining from a discussion, what is the difference between accidents, incidents, mishaps, near misses, lessons learned? Same question should be asked in the context of factual presentation.
I'll just copy the post from bsee65 verbatim here, just for emphasis, since I suspect you all are already engaged on the facts vs speculation issue, but may miss this larger issue.
"With regard to forum layouts, my opinion is that the current forums are backward. Your description of actual accident details is the forum that should be moderated to ensure that only known facts and likely educated speculation is fairly presented. The "Mishap Analysis" forum should be the more free-flowing discussion of various incidents. Based upon the small amount of activity in that particular forum, I am unsure what need it exists to meet as a moderated area. It might even be appropriate that there be a thread created in the analysis forum for each factual accident report with mutual links to connect them. Of course, then one must determine the protocols. For example, what separates an "accidents and incidents" item from a "near misses and lessons learned" issue?
One significant benefit I would see from this is that there would be absolutely no excuse for someone to jump into page 10 of a discussion thread without having read the known facts of the incident. If they are neatly presented in a separate thread/post, I would hope there would be fewer instances of speculation piled on top of speculation to the point of a fantasy scenario that couldn't possibly fit the known facts. Another benefit would be a clearer delineation between facts and speculation should some interested party read the content.
Just idle speculation on my part here. I agree things could be better, and it might even be possible that all interests can be served."
(Did (s)he really say "idle speculation"? Holy cow, talk about pouring gas on an open flame!)
But seriously, I agree that all interests can be served. If not, the mods may be busy moving/splitting threads more than they need to. Good job so far, by the way.
Thanks.
Seems like this needs some rethinking. There have been multiple sub threads split off the recent Catalina incident. Including two separate ones on the appropriateness of speculation in such cases (one in A&I and one in Basic Discussions).
Moderators (or whomever these suggestions are going to), please review these posts (I have a feeling you are doing just that already). Lot's of good points in them.
Mainly that an easily identifiable and well moderated source for just the facts would be welcomed. We don't want to make this just a bare bones, no discussion thread, so discussion should follow. Speculation is okay at this point, too. Because we know "the facts", or at least where to go to get them, if available.
Also I just want to clear up that the "no speculation" crowd does not object to speculation per se. We all see the benefit in the discussions that follow from speculative scenarios. But all those discussions and benefits can follow without speculating as to the facts in a particular instance. In fact, in many cases, that approach will just muddy the water. The benefits flow from discussing the hypothetical situation, not from attempting to assign a speculative hypothesis to a set of facts, so why try to, since that may invite rebuttals that are besides the educational point? That is what we have official investigations for. (Not sure if I am articulating this clearly)
Looks like TS&M's suggestion about a sticky might work. DennisS had a suggestion for a forum "learning from accidents" that would also work, though many may not like it since it would move the discussion (physically) away from the incident.
But would you also please take this opportunity to arrange the forum in it's totality? What is the need that is being served by the current forum/subforum arrangement? Yes, presentation of facts need to moderated, but otherwise let the discussion/analysis/speculation flow freely (normal TOC apply, of course).
On this larger question, bsee65 made a good point in his post 44 here http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ac...culating-we-need-wait-4-offical-report-5.html. In the context of gaining from a discussion, what is the difference between accidents, incidents, mishaps, near misses, lessons learned? Same question should be asked in the context of factual presentation.
I'll just copy the post from bsee65 verbatim here, just for emphasis, since I suspect you all are already engaged on the facts vs speculation issue, but may miss this larger issue.
"With regard to forum layouts, my opinion is that the current forums are backward. Your description of actual accident details is the forum that should be moderated to ensure that only known facts and likely educated speculation is fairly presented. The "Mishap Analysis" forum should be the more free-flowing discussion of various incidents. Based upon the small amount of activity in that particular forum, I am unsure what need it exists to meet as a moderated area. It might even be appropriate that there be a thread created in the analysis forum for each factual accident report with mutual links to connect them. Of course, then one must determine the protocols. For example, what separates an "accidents and incidents" item from a "near misses and lessons learned" issue?
One significant benefit I would see from this is that there would be absolutely no excuse for someone to jump into page 10 of a discussion thread without having read the known facts of the incident. If they are neatly presented in a separate thread/post, I would hope there would be fewer instances of speculation piled on top of speculation to the point of a fantasy scenario that couldn't possibly fit the known facts. Another benefit would be a clearer delineation between facts and speculation should some interested party read the content.
Just idle speculation on my part here. I agree things could be better, and it might even be possible that all interests can be served."
(Did (s)he really say "idle speculation"? Holy cow, talk about pouring gas on an open flame!)
But seriously, I agree that all interests can be served. If not, the mods may be busy moving/splitting threads more than they need to. Good job so far, by the way.
Thanks.
Last edited:
