Input on our Accident and Incidents Forum... What do you want? How do you want it?

[boulderjohn]

I'm following up here.

As most of you know, in April there was a fatality involving a cave diver on a CCR. This event, and the reactions to it that were posted on Facebook, are some of the reasons why I think A&I forums and the desire for immediate answers by some vocal members, need to be re-examined.

Yesterday a follow-up to the accident was posted on CDF. I am going to quote the follow-up below, but I wish to highlight a couple of points of interest.

The primary autopsy results took a little over a month to be returned. The toxicology results took six months to be returned.

However, the comments that were meant to be damaging to the people involved were posted within hours of the fatality.

Autopsies and toxicology results do not occur at internet speeds. I would encourage anyone involved in an A&I forum (anywhere) to avoid random speculation and playing the blame game.

Ken, that is a good warning to all of us. For those who don't know, Brent published the position that was quoted on the Cave Diver's Forum.

In light of this, Ken, I wonder if you would like to comment on two currently active threads on Cave Diver's Forum. Although the actual topics differ, they both refer to a recent fatality in Mexico. In it, there are rumors flying about supposed poor behavior by the surviving member of the team, an instructor, rumors even more damning than the ones you decry here, and they are coming just as quickly. .I am a participant in both threads, and I have not seen any foundation for the various rumors. I have no idea if they are true or not--I just know that no one has given any hint of any credible source for any of the rumors. I have made several comments cautioning against this, but I am not a moderator there, and those cautions have been ignored.

Here is a quote from one of those posts: "I find it depressing that one active thread on here is about the high quality of cave diving training in Mexico, and another thread is about a fatality in Mexico in which it appears that a cave instructor may have pulled reels when he was separated from a buddy."

Pulling reels with a buddy still in the cave with whereabouts unknown? Wow! It does not get much worse than that! But the people saying this have not told where they heard this or other rumors like it.

In the moderator discussion area on ScubaBoard, I mentioned these threads on CDF and said that if those kinds of posts start appearing on ScubaBoard, we should probably be prepared to moderate them in some way so that we do not become guilty of helping to propagate unfounded rumors that could destroy a person's reputation.

Is that a policy you would endorse?

 

[Bennno]

For crying out loud... what was posted on CDF is what somebody had HEARD and they clearly said it's just what they HEARD, it was not presented as facts. Now you can't even talk about what you've heard anymore?
Great, lets just make SB a news network, where the Mods get to decide what people can read and here not not... MSNBC, FOX News, Scubaboard... same story. A few 'experts' decide what people get to read/hear and what not.

 

[boulderjohn]

For crying out loud... what was posted on CDF is what somebody had HEARD and they clearly said it's just what they HEARD, it was not presented as facts. Now you can't even talk about what you've heard anymore?
Great, lets just make SB a news network, where the Mods get to decide what people can read and here not not... MSNBC, FOX News, Scubaboard... same story. A few 'experts' decide what people get to read/hear and what not.

So what you are saying in terms of this thread is that commenting on rumors you heard is just fine in an A & I thread. As I read it, Ken was saying the opposite. This is evidently a point of disagreement.

 

[The Chairman]

I'm following up here.

Thanks. However, they were pretty sure that this was either a stroke or heart attack from the initial reports. The negative comments concentrated on the instructor's decision to leave the body behind. Those comments, which can not be found here, were just as wrong then when we thought he died from a heart attack, as they are now that we know he died of a heart attack. The comments were reckless enough for the attacker to lose his teaching credentials with IANTD before the result of the autopsy came in. As a friend of the attacker, I was saddened to read his comments and then hear of the sanctions against him. I can't and won't disagree with those sanctions.

We are all here to learn!

That's the point of the forum, indeed.

 

[kensuf]

So what you are saying in terms of this thread is that commenting on rumors you heard is just fine in an A & I thread. As I read it, Ken was saying the opposite. This is evidently a point of disagreement.

John, I appreciate what you're trying to do here but I hope you understand the context of the post you quoted. If you didn't, it's a literary device called irony. "May have" is a far cry from "did".

Let's contrast it with a quote from that Facebook thread:

"The simple fact here is that the instructor involved didn't follow what is considered to be the standard protocol in this situation..."

In answer to your question, yes, I support a policy like you proposd.

 

[Bennno]

So what you are saying in terms of this thread is that commenting on rumors you heard is just fine in an A & I thread.

If all available information are rumors AND the poster clearly states that they're rumors, it should be OK to talk about it.

What's not OK is claiming something to be fact that you have heard or overheard. It's also not OK to demand information from recovery divers and bug them, or worse, call them out for not writing a report for public consumption.
It's also not ok to make up s%&t.

 

[The Chairman]

It's also not ok to make up s%&t.

You mean like this???

It's also not OK to demand information from recovery divers and bug them, or worse, call them out for not writing a report for public consumption.

Dude, have you ever considered politics? You'd fit right in with the hypocrisy!

 

[AdivingBel]

Isn't "spreading rumors" the same as "making up s%&t" only with plausible deniability?

Some good may come from speculation and hypothetical, but when RUMOR comes into play you cross a line. IMHO.

 

[Nirvana]

If all available information are rumors AND the poster clearly states that they're rumors, it should be OK to talk about it.

What's not OK is claiming something to be fact that you have heard or overheard. It's also not OK to demand information from recovery divers and bug them, or worse, call them out for not writing a report for public consumption.
It's also not ok to make up s%&t.

I think that not all rumors or suppositions are equal. In the case of an accident where little is known for a fact, it is may be OK to speculate or discuss rumors. These rumors, however, should be restricted to mishaps, with no one to blame. Those rumors should not be damaging to someone's reputation.

I believe that spreading hearsay about a person's supposed misconduct is often akin to insinuating that they should bear some kind of responsibility, whether criminal, civil or otherwise. It is, thus, very damaging to the individual concerned, particularly if their supposed misconduct is connected to their professional activities. In this case, I do not think that it is OK to openly state such rumors.

 

[KevinNM]

Sometimes a "rumor" is actually the observations made by a well qualified on-scene observer who feels that they cannot state this for the record. And sometimes it is completely made up stuff by someone who is out to get someone.

And unless you are deeply involved in this and know the people involved it's really hard to judge what is what.