Suggestion Finalized Banning Procedure

[The Chairman]

On January 15, 2003, 7 users were banned from Scubaboard. Most of the moderators and a few of our users were not satisfied with the process, and so we began discussing the hows and whys in the moderator’s forum. Subsequently we even opened up a new forum for our users to be able to express their thoughts and ideas.

In formulating the new process, we wanted to ensure to resolve a few issues germane to the larger issue. These would be communication, fairness, consistency and moderator responsibility. To this end we have come up with the following process:

Temp bans (5 days) can be called for by any moderator and are automatic. This can be in response to any violation of the TOS (moderator’s discretion), harassment of others, flaming others, or trolling. The moderator must send a notice (even though an administrator has to flip the switch) to the affected user’s e-mail and detail why the suspension was initiated. These should be rare and can be conditional.

Perm Bans are considered when the user exceeds 2 suspensions in less than 6 months, openly challenges authority (not just asking a question), threatens anyone in any way, or has blatantly violated the TOS. A perm ban requires 8 moderator’s approvals or a 2/3s majority of the mods voting, which ever is more. A temp ban should be called for first and then perm banning should be discussed for at least 5 days. The mod who initiated the temp ban is in charge of the process. They will also set the time for a vote (at least 5 days) and send the appropriate message if so needed. These should be very rare and can be conditional.

Under no circumstances will Scubaboard moderators or administrators disclose reasons or rationale for any disciplinary action to a third party. We view this as a privacy issue and are committed to protect the privacy of the board's users at all times. While we do respect a user's desire to request a review of the status of their account, we specifically forbid the use of sock puppets (multiple user accounts) or another user's account to make your case. All such requests must be sent to scubaboard@moderninsider.com for consideration. At this point of the process, we will not feel obliged to correspond any further unless we change your status. All moderators and administrators will forward any and all such requests sent to them personally as well.

Perm bans can be re-visited by any mod at any time and only need a simple majority of the mods voting to be rescinded.

As with any “invention” you are never sure how it works until tested. So it was suggested and then decided by the mods to subject the January 15 bans to the new process. 4 of the original 7 had perm bannings initiated and those are being discussed. While we hoped to have 3 of those 4 finalized today, server issues have made that impossible. However, we can report that Cobaltbabe, Raven C and 00Scuba have been subsequently restored to full user status. We welcome them back into the Scubaboard fold, and extend our sincerest thanks to those users who gave us input into this issue.

 

[detroit diver]

Then why are you opening your mouth on the subject now?

Because Genesis was just plain wrong. He attempted to sway someone's point of view with a false post.

 

[Genesis]

Incorrect. If I spell something with a bunch of "***"s in place of the original words, that doesn't change what I called you.

Likewise, if I say "you're the fifth word on page #345 of the 2003 Websters Condensed", and that fifth word is "stupid", I may as well have just come out and said it.

Trying to duck responsibility for name-calling and ad-hominen attacks in that sort of fashion is inappropriate at best.

 

[chrpai]

Because Genesis was just plain wrong. He attempted to sway someone's point of view with a false post.

Considering no one has provided a link to the post in question, you have no evidence that he is not telling the truth. I've tried to do some searches but I can't find it.

 

[detroit diver]

Incorrect. If I spell something with a bunch of "***"s in place of the original words, that doesn't change what I called you.

Likewise, if I say "you're the fifth word on page #345 of the 2003 Websters Condensed", and that fifth word is "stupid", I may as well have just come out and said it.

Trying to duck responsibility for name-calling and ad-hominen attacks in that sort of fashion is inappropriate at best.

I guess when you purchase the domain then I will be one of the first to go. Oh well. Until then, your take on what is right and wrong will be someone else's call.

 

[chrpai]

You were told it was abuse of the report post feature to complain about someone saying they would invoke rule number one {rather than dive with you.}

But it did give me an idea. There are certain posters who skate right along the very edge of the TOS without crossing over the line. It is difficult for us as moderators to ban them however they are very disruptive.

Perhaps if we added a new *Democratic Ban*... a board wide poll to see if the Scuba Board community wanted to ban a specific user under a *we just can't stand them anymore* provision.

What do you think Karl?

Pug-

Considering you didn't use the word "that" and you substitute {rather then dive with you.} I take it this is a direct quote. However when I do a search for "invoke rule number one" I only find posts in this thread? Where was the orginal post made?

 

[detroit diver]

Considering no one has provided a link to the post in question, you have no evidence that he is not telling the truth. I've tried to do some searches but I can't find it.

That's your problem. Everyone else relevant to the thread knows exactly what was said, and where to find it. Of course, you are in this just to stir up s*it like usual as you have no relevence to what was said in that thread.

Remember your question: "Then why are you opening your mouth on the subject now?"

You might think about it before responding any more.
__________________

 

[chrpai]

That's your problem. Everyone else relevant to the thread knows exactly what was said, and where to find it. Of course, you are in this just to stir up s*it like usual as you have no relevence to what was said in that thread.

No, if everyone knew "exactly" what was said I'd be able to find it in a search and there wouldn't be any disagreement over what was said. I take it you also have no relevence to what was said unless you were the poster of said violation of the TOS.

 

[DFC5343]

"Can't we all get along"? Rodney King, 1991,93,94,96,98

 

[chrpai]

They didn't call you a stroke now, did they? (Please copy and paste where they did if I'm wrong).

I thought you knew exactly what was said.

Course the irony here is that Genesis is complaining about being called a stroke, yet he loves to use the word himself.

The flow in there is fairly high; I rode it out without having to kick a stroke (pun intended), and the bottom is pretty sandy, so if you DO make contact you won't silt things to zero vis instantly. Plus the conduit makes a real solid permanent guideline...

 

[cornfed]

Trying to duck responsibility for name-calling and ad-hominen attacks in that sort of fashion is inappropriate at best.

Did somebody say AD HOMINEM???