CDS discussion point announcement

[Genesis]

Due to the rules here, it is not possible to have a discussion of the CDS election process.

This discussion is taking place on some other forums, however, the places where this is happening to date ban people "at will", thereby preventing a full and fair public debate. The CDS has its own forum, but it does not permit posting by the public or even by all members.

I believe it is important that there be an open and uncensored place to talk about these issues so that all points of view can be heard.

It is not possible for people to form a valid opinion of who they should vote for without being able to have that public, open debate on the issues.

Towards this end I have set up a forum over at Scubaforum at http://www.scubaforum.org/cgi-scuba/...?forum=NSS-CDS - all are welcome, and you do not have to be registered to read. Registration is required to post, but my forum system is one in which it is basically impossible to get banned or censored.

I would like to encourage BOD candidates to engage a dicussion there, along with all interested parties. As a new NSS-CDS member, these matters are important to me - and if you're a member or thinking of being one, I suspect they're important to you too!

Other organizations (e,g. the NACD) who wish to have a similar "no censorship" place to discuss matters related to them are welcome as well - I'll set 'em up on request, it takes just a couple of minutes.

Thanks...

[FW]

You probably won't get all the candidates to post on an uncensored forum. I, for one, don't want to get in the middle of any "flame wars".

I agree that the postings on the CDS forum are unfair, so you don't see me posting there either. That forum is only supposed to be for CDS business, not politics.

All the candidates have "platform statements". If that isn't enough information about a particular candidate, e-mail them, or leave a request here, and they can PM you if they want to.

Forrest Wilson

[Genesis]

Platform statements are all fine and well, but there is a major problem here that I believe needs addressing.

There are charges and counter-charges being flung around on other forums - and I'm not talking about the CDS board. One place where this is taking place has just banned one person, and has been known to ban others for disagreeing with a given agency or its agenda - which means that there's no reason to believe that the "tough questions" will actually get asked. There are, however, truly NASTY claims being made on that forum.

Without public, open, non-censored debate there is no way to know if any or all of those allegations are true or both false and made with the intent of influencing the election outcome.

IMHO a board member or candidate who won't come out and debate in a public, no-censorship forum is unworthy to hold office.

This is especially true when there are allegations of misconduct - including in one case violations of the law - being bandied about along with allegations of other "dirty deeds" such as adopting resolutions at meetings where it is known that dissenters on the matter will not be present.

I joined the CDS in order to determine whether there is a reason for me to get involved in the organizations that claim to represent me as a cave diver. I've got my card and ballot sitting here on my desk.

Before I vote it, I want answers - and not on a phone call or face-to-face where nobody is held to account for what they say.

I want those answers in a public forum where accountability is absolute and if a statement is made that is claimed to be false, it can be challenged openly and the debate played out.

I think that's only fair. Indeed, I would hope that other CDS members would insist on such transparency for the leadership of this organzation.

We can't do it here, due to the rules. We can't do it on other boards, due to the censorship and the history of tossing people off who don't agree with the preconceived notions of the operators.

But we can do it on my board, because I don't believe in censorship, own the resource and thus can set the rules, and I'm willing to host it.

I will not vote for any candidate who refuses to have that public, open debate, and hope that other CDS members will adopt the same stance.

Private conversations and position papers are not enough when you want to take on a public advocacy position and represent my interests as a cave diver.

By definition if you're on the board of this organization you're a public figure in this activity. If you aspire to this position or hold it currently, IMHO you have a duty to come out and defend both your positions and, for current BOD members, your past performance.

[Dave]

This discussion is taking place on some other forums, however, the places where this is happening to date ban people "at will", thereby preventing a full and fair public debate.

Fair go Karl, there was only one suspension in that discussion, and it was more than justified, the person in question didn’t do anything but stir the pot. It was unrelated, and inflammatory. Discussion and debate is often good and usually constructive, that thread was heading waaay off track. It was also a 3 day suspension, not a ban. I think the powers that be were more than fair in that situation.
I admire those, such as Forrest, who can remain level headed and refrain from getting into the silliness, it shows maturity and professionalism, and in my opinion says alot about their character.
Dave

[Genesis]

I have serious questions about this process and I'm permanently banned there, because I challenged an agency publically and sent a further challenge via a PM to a representative of that agency.

As a member of the organization conducting the balloting, I believe that for this debate to take place anywhere that every member does not have full, equal access is inherently improper.

This is especially true when there are serious allegations being made about misconduct.

Here the rules are clear, published and consistently applied (which I really like, by the way.) You simply can't have this debate on CDF, and that's cool.

Having this "debate" on a forum where the rules are arbitrary, there is no due process, and the rules are interpreted however any of a group of people wish to interpret them - in private - on a given day doesn't work for me - and IMHO it shouldn't work for anyone else either.

A call for people to privately call candidates is even worse, because that provides the opportunity for someone to speak out of as many corners of their mouth as they can find, with no way for the membership to provide a check and balance or hold people accountable for their statements (and, if it devolves into that, charges and counter-charges.)

I understand how it got started there, given the popularity, and hold no grudge to those who opened the discussion there - I doubt any of this "policy stuff" was even on their mind at the outset.

However, I feel that it is important to provide a completely-open, no-censorship place for this debate to take place, and to encourage people to take the discussion there. It requires no effort for anyone to do so as there are no "hoops" to jump through and access is open to all, without discrimination of any sort.

If candidates don't want to debate in a fully-open public forum I respect their choice. However, my ballot will be marked according to my perception of each candidates willingness not only to put forth a platform but also to deal with the tough questions - where neither they or the questioners will be silenced - in such a forum.

That, to me at least, is the salient issue here, since I'm being asked to vote for people who will actually represent me.

[DeWayne]

While I agree with the need for such debate to be freely accessible by all members, for it to take place anywhere other than the CDS's own forum does not make sense to me. It sounds as if the CDS is saying you guys go out behhind the barn and slug it out then come back and we'll vote for the winner. Staging these debates on the different forums, other than the one setup and run by the CDS, means that there will be some members who will not get the entire truth (if any of that even comes out). Too many possibilities for a plethora of stories to emerge and taint what is already shaping up to be a disgraceful election. I would hope that this is something that the current BoD members have thought about seriously.

[FW]

While I agree with the need for such debate to be freely accessible by all members, for it to take place anywhere other than the CDS's own forum does not make sense to me. It sounds as if the CDS is saying you guys go out behhind the barn and slug it out then come back and we'll vote for the winner. Staging these debates on the different forums, other than the one setup and run by the CDS, means that there will be some members who will not get the entire truth (if any of that even comes out). Too many possibilities for a plethora of stories to emerge and taint what is already shaping up to be a disgraceful election. I would hope that this is something that the current BoD members have thought about seriously.

The CDS "forum" is basically an electronic "meeting room". It was never meant to be like the Cave Divers Forum.

I agree that public debate is good, but even presidential debates are moderated. Sometimes, that is the only thing that keeps them from turning into "free for all's".

[Genesis]

Presidential debates take place on the television in the form of ads, in the form of "stiff-necked" debates, and in the form of various other events - some staged, some not.

How much real information did you get from the "official" Presidential Debates this time around? I got darn near none. Why? I believe it is because both candidates knew they were "safe" from being challenged in any material way on anything they had to say.

There were outright false statements made by both candidates in those debates. None of them were called out right there.

This is the problem with that sort of format - you can outright lie and due to the moderation its impossible for someone who can prove you're lying to present their evidence.

I agree that there ought to be an "official" place for this debate to take place. However, there isn't. As a consequence of that, and the unfortunate reality of where its begun in a couple of places that are really not much more than "advertisements" - without the right of free rebuttal - I set up a place for it where those problems don't exist.

[rblackburn]

I would be happy to debate the issues in a "forum" accessable to 100% of the membership, including those without internet access. Until that is set up (which I see no real way to do it), I will not get into public flame wars. Anyone who wants to talk to me can contact me via PM here, email (rblackburn@mindspring.com) or phone (770-815-7387)

[Kelly Jessop]

Karl
I understand what you are suggesting,and I appreciate your desire to be an informed person before making a decision on who to vote for. I will agree with Forrest a moderated debate/discussion that has rules will be productive. A free for all with character attacks does no good but turn away memberships desire to understand the organization. It must be inclusive of all,or an individual has the right to decline. I have never shyed away from a constructive discussion and have always made myself available at divesites,e-mail/PM or by telephone. Thanks again for offering the services of your web site.
Sincerely
Kelly Jessop