Thanks Howard.
If SB is going to use bans of varying length, shouldn't the TOS address those?
Not really. The TOS is not the local ordinance, nor is the TOS to be a menu of crime = punishment. The TOS is a variable that is interpreted by the moderators, and the final say is up to Advisors, myself, and Pete.
Discipline is again rarely enforced. Only a small handful of disciplinary bans are handed out at all during a year, and only another smaller handful of members are banned pertinently.
If we made a
"If you circumvent the language filter" that's a demerit.
"Call someone a troll" that's two demerits
"Make fun of someone's trim" one demerit.
"Dogpile on _____ " three demerits, etc... then what? Would people pick and choose how bad they could be and push that envelope too? Do we want automatic bans for people who have been "naughty"? We don't in general think that members are that juvenile, or need that much structure. Therefore, the "automatic ban" is not our SOP, even though the TOS uses language like, "Automatic Ban." This language is so that if we DO do that (I said do-do), then we're "covered."
The TOS is purposefully somewhat vague, so that we can interpret each case individually. That is part of Pete's vision for SB since he acquired the site in 2001.
If you look at the TOS, which you highlighted the banning process... You'll notice that it's much more harsh than we really are at all. Rarely is someone "automatically" banned for any of the reasons listed, except for non-scuba spammers. We even give scuba spammers a chance to change their tune. We are extremely liberal with the policy that is posted.
In general. As I stated earlier... Bans are rarely handed out, and also in general, there may be a long ad nauseam discussion about whether or not the individual should be banned. Sometimes also, there isn't.
Needless to say... More policy isn't going to be the answer here on SB. We like the TOS, and have refined it and revised it once or twice over the years to reflect our vision for our fair city.
With that said... and as I said before, we will not use the infraction system on members. It doesn't fit our model.
As for "Playing by the rules" - The TOS clearly states this:
"
No post should exceed a "PG" rating (link). Profane, racial, insulting or mean spirited language is simply not allowed here and this includes any sort of harassment or cyber bullying."
Shouldn't those be the rules that people are complaining aren't being followed? By far, the complaints I hear from the "guy on the street" is that there's a lot of mean people on SB. They beat up on people, gang up, criticize, etc. If anything, we should more strictly enforce the niceness rules... But really, everything is mostly in balance and we try to give people latitude, because in the end, SB is about fun.
If you're concerned about someone getting an unprecedented two week ban, maybe it's because they're repeatedly walking the thin line of what's acceptable and what's not? With that said... The abuse or appeals email hasn't received anything (according to the keeper of those email addresses) so apparently, your friend who was banned didn't have anything to say about it?
I don't really know any of the details of your friend's ban, as I haven't been following it. I have a lot of DEMA preparation to do for my two seminars, and I've also been working with scuba students..
Maybe users shouldn't dive so close to the no decompression limits? When we push the limits... we sometimes take a hit.