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

[chillyinCanada]

[QUO="archer1960, post: 7851087, member: 463836"]Agree that it's a great idea, but also that it's going to be difficult and probably time-consuming.[/QUOTE]

And that's why I suggested a Wiki-like page. Anyone can do the updates and anyone can correct an error/make an amendment in an update.

 

[archer1960]

This is not meant to sound critical of FinnMom but I want to correct a misconception I see repeated over and over and over again.

No matter what your involvement with an accident, NO ONE can prevent you from commenting on it. We have this wonderful thing called the First Amendment that prohibits them from censoring your speech. That being said . . .

If you have been directly involved as a diving professional in an accident, yes your insurance company and lawyer will tell you that they'd prefer you don't comment but they can't deny your coverage if you do. They're concerned that you will say something that will then be used against you in a lawsuit. At the same time, they will also tell you not to talk to the victim's family and instead refer all inquiries to them which - IMHO - makes it look like you're trying to hide something and invites the very lawsuit you're trying to avoid. And the police, USCG, or others may ask you to refrain from commenting but it's a request, not a legally enforceable order.

At a DEMA Risk Management seminar years ago, I asked the insurance guy giving the talk (Peter Meyer) if there ever was a case of a dive professional who had no liability in a case suddenly creating liability through an online post or comment and, after some hemming and hawing, he said "No."

Likewise, this notion that if you're not at all involved in an incident and you start commenting here or elsewhere about it that you'll suddenly be drawn into a lawsuit is also a work of fiction. I've never heard of it happening and if anyone has direct knowledge that it did, I'd be very interested in hearing the circumstances.

- Ken

Just pointing out that a gag order issued by a judge IS enforceable, but normally only applies to parties directly involved in the trial...

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Just pointing out that a gag order issued by a judge IS enforceable, but normally only applies to parties directly involved in the trial...

Not to beat this to death but I don't know of a single instance IN A SCUBA CASE where a judge has issued a gag order to any parties involved. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong if someone can cite a specific case. The "gag order" (as it were) is issued by the training agencies and their attorneys, along with the insurance companies.

- Ken

 

[archer1960]

Not to beat this to death but I don't know of a single instance IN A SCUBA CASE where a judge has issued a gag order to any parties involved. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong if someone can cite a specific case. The "gag order" (as it were) is issued by the training agencies and their attorneys, along with the insurance companies.

- Ken

I don't know of one in a SCUBA case either, but could see it happening if the case was heavily publicized.

 

[Texasguy]

It would be nice if there was a calendar. Different colors showing outcome, international flag, etc.

 

[EricTheDood]

No. Please, no. Please, please, please.

I'm on a forum that use the threaded display style. It sucks major bowling balls whenever you get more than a couple of dozen posts to a thread. It becomes completely impossible to see what's new, and who has said what when. The only advantage of a threaded display is to follow who's replying to whom, which is just as easy in a threaded display if people follow proper quoting practice.

Everything has its tradeoffs.

The linear display makes it so that the oldest and the newest posts always get the most views. Everything in between gets brushed over by the casual reader, especially on a hot thread. For example, the statement of facts was pretty hard to find in the Eagle's Nest thread even 1-2 days after it was posted.

Switching to a different display is unlikely to happen anyway. Just saying that forums with threaded displays address some of the issues raised in this discussion, namely the ability to give strong responses more weight and confining tangential discussions.

 

[wgw04024]

So, what was the consensus?

 

[plumber]

Long-time lurker, here. I've been reading the A&I forum for years, and get a lot of value out of it as I'd come and spend hours catching up on everything that had happened over the last few weeks and months.

It used to be a superb refuge for purely unemotional analysis of what went wrong, and how to prevent making the same mistake. The 'no condolences' rule was well-enforced, and uninformed chatter was kept to a minimum.

These days there seems to be a lot of threads with either very little useful commentary (I understand the desire to list every event that's happened, so I'm not totally opposed to it, but if nobody has any informed commentary it may be worth removing those after a period), or a lot of useful commentary that's intermingled with an awful lot of emotional content. That really harms the signal-to-noise ratio.

Condolences and commiseration after tragedies are worthwhile, but they have their place elsewhere on the site, and detract from the purpose of A&I. Accident investigations should be conducted in an environment that's almost by definition overly cold for any other part of life. Anything less quickly harms the utility value of this particular corner (my favorite one, by far) of this great site.

 

[tridacna]

S/N is unfortunately highly skewed towards noise.

 

[JIMMY PHILLIPS]

I have found it to be incredibly informative and serves to allow me to rethink some things or to consider things I might not have otherwise considered, reading the varied responses from everyone. My only wish is that all respondents assume family of the people impacted may read the posts or that assumption should be made while choosing how statements or questions are structured. There are unlimited ways one might communicate and achieve the intended goal without inflicting pain.
I also agree with just the facts please, or make clear your statement is an assumption due to the lack of information to conclude fact.