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.

 

[redacted]

Karl... have you ever considered the implications of us solving all of your issues?
Think about it... if we eliminated everything you could possibly complain about what would become of you?
Save a few for a rainy day buddy.

Karl - UP was just trying to say thank you for your help; knowing how busy the MOD squad is.

UP - Sometimes your subtle humor can easily be misunderstood.

 

[Uncle Pug]

"Commercial advertising is not allowed on Scuba Board except in those forums expressly designated for such activity. Any commercial post found in a category of a non-commercial nature will be removed and the author’s account may be suspended or revoked permanently. "

We try to leave enough latitude in the TOS that we can use some common sense as circumstances dictate.

In this case, since the poster once notified that we considered the post commercial in nature was willing to pay for the priviledge of posting common sense tells us it is better to receive the payment and allow the post than to ban the poster.

As for dismissing Karl for being oversensitive... I had never considered dismissing him for that.

As for starting crap with you... the poster admitted it, was censured for it, apologized for it and had the offending post removed. If for some reason you don't feel that is sufficient you will have to take it up with him during your DIRf.

 

[Laser]

If for some reason you don't feel that is sufficient you will have to take it up with him during your DIRf.

Now that's funny!

 

[DFC5343]

Wat a bunch of girls...<DFC popping smoke again!>

 

[Genesis]

In this case, since the poster once notified that we considered the post commercial in nature was willing to pay for the priviledge of posting common sense tells us it is better to receive the payment and allow the post than to ban the poster.

I quote from the TOS:

Absolutely no special privileges or treatment will be given to any commercial advertiser. Users advertising on Scuba Board are subject to the same rules as all other members. Purchasing advertising will not cause your ScubaBoard account to be unbanned!

Seems to be a bit of a contradiction there....

THAT is what is at the root of what some are carping about Pug. This issue is black-letter clear. Nor is this particular incident a "first offense", as you're well aware.

Yet there were apparently people banned for simply being someone's friend/girlfriend/boyfriend in the last go-around, and at least one person was banned for simply inquiring where the other person had gone and why.

Admittedly, some of those have since been reversed, BUT that doesn't change the fact that the banishments did take place.

I also have pointed out that despite my request (more than once) in the discussion on private trips and what constitutes a "violation" that the USCG's view of what constitutes "compensation" be adopted as the board's definition, I have received neither a yes or no answer. By the black-letter reading of the rules if someone offers me a beer when we get back in and are washing up the boat I've violated the TOS!

This leaves me, along with others, in the VERY uncomfortable position of not knowing if I can post announcements of my planned runs offshore this spring and summer without violating the TOS and being summarily banned, since I have been unable to receive a straight answer to a simple question.

It is not the rules that people are carping about Pug.

Its the fact that they are not applied evenly and some people are "more equal" than others, even to the point of being able to blatently violate a black-letter prohibition that in the rules calls for a suspension or permanent banishment and have it "overlooked" if they're willing to pay the fee. This is true even though the policy clearly states that paying up won't cure the problem!

You said above that you try to enforce the TOS as evenly as possible. If I accept that at face value should I not then ask "what's going on in this case?"

 

[chrpai]

In this case, since the poster once notified that we considered the post commercial in nature was willing to pay for the priviledge of posting common sense tells us it is better to receive the payment and allow the post than to ban the poster.

...you will have to take it up with him during your DIRf.

Nice troll. I guess that last comment is your not-so-vailed reference to the fact that everyone will eventually be assimilated. And your right, why uphold the TOS ( it says WILL be removed ) when you can get revenue from the violaters. This is despite the fact that you once PM'd me saying that you didn't know who the advertisers were.

 

[Uncle Pug]

should I not then ask "what's going on in this case?"

In this case it was claimed and accepted that the individual had not read the commercial posting TOS and was not aware that their post was considered a commercial enterprise. The post was pulled. It will be re-inserted when payment is made.

Now if the poster should try to plead ignorance again with a subsequent commercial posting and not be able to supply an affidavit from an M.D. stating that he has either Alzheimer’s or one of the variants of spongiform encephalopathy then we will most certainly take a dim view of his protestation of innocence.

 

[detroit diver]

Nice troll. I guess that last comment is your not-so-vailed reference to the fact that everyone will eventually be assimilated. And your right, why uphold the TOS ( it says WILL be removed ) when you can get revenue from the violaters. This is despite the fact that you once PM'd me saying that you didn't know who the advertisers were.

From your previous post:

""Commercial advertising is not allowed on Scuba Board except in those forums expressly designated for such activity. Any commercial post found in a category of a non-commercial nature will be removed and the author’s account may be suspended or revoked permanently. " (emphasis mine).

Looks like they did exactly what they said they would. They removed the post, and decided that the authors post would not be suspended or revoked permanently.

The key word here (IMO) is MAY. Gives them a lot of leeway to run their business. And gives you something to bit*h about.

 

[The Chairman]

How I deal with MHK is no one's business but my own.

I have tried to be quite understanding and accommodating through out all of this, but I am getting the impression that unless I run things in precisely the manner that someone sees fit, then my board is simply unfair.

Hogwash.

When you pay for the right to be here, then your arguments might hold water. If you were to pay for a moderator to follow your every whim night and day, then you could well be as impatient as you are.

As it is, there are a few users who cause more problems than all the rest combined and they simply have no problem with this. They cry "foul" over some miniscule problem and never see the work that they create. They pontificate long and hard about the injustice they must bear up under and do not have a clue how much time and energy has been spent trying to make this the best chat room for Scuba on the net. These are the very same people who strain a gnat and swallow a camel (sorry for the reference UP). They are trying to glom onto a Pharisaical outlook with the TOS when it was written to guide the spirit of this board and not to kill it instead.

Illigetimi non carborundum!

 

[chrpai]

Then why even have a TOS? Just delete it and close this thread.