Forums: Climbing Information: Accident and Incident Analysis:
Open discussion on communicating in I&A
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Accident and Incident Analysis

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


blondgecko
Moderator

Nov 17, 2008, 12:32 PM
Post #1 of 36 (10622 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Open discussion on communicating in I&A
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

A number of accident threads have degenerated into flame-fests lately. Mostly this seems to happen due to people who are genuinely concerned for climber safety, but come across as insensitive or dismissive to the people who were actually hurt. People then flame them, they flame back, the useful message disappears into the noise, and a thread about someone who's been seriously hurt or killed becomes no longer about them. We need to do something about that.

Hence this thread. Its purpose is to discuss the best ways to communicate safety concerns on this site. Not a vote, so much as a chance to vent and make your feelings known. I&A is, and will remain, one of our most heavily moderated forums. This thread, however, will be much more lightly moderated.

One inviolable rule still stands, however: no saying that any person should have died, or you wish they had died, etc. Actually, if possible try to keep references to any particular incident out of this thread altogether.


dingus


Nov 17, 2008, 12:40 PM
Post #2 of 36 (10594 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17387

Re: [blondgecko] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Do you suppose that THIS is the thread that will CHANGE people?

Change the insensitive to sensitive. Change the hand-wringers into voices of serenity?

Will it change the over-analysis? The bullshit theories? The woulda coulda shoulda tap dance?

Hmmm. I think the only way to achieve the nirvana of a one (polite) size fits all forum (of any sort) is through HEAVY moderation to implement YOUR view.

If you go that route please don't pretend its anyone's wish but yours....

DMT

ps. The figurative you, btw, not necessarily the literal...


(This post was edited by dingus on Nov 17, 2008, 12:42 PM)


hafilax


Nov 17, 2008, 12:53 PM
Post #3 of 36 (10567 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 3025

Re: [dingus] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

IMO accident discussions happen because people want a reason for the accident. The thought of a random accident with no cause is freaky to most. There is a need for it to be someones fault. It's hard to be tactful while blaming someone for their own death.

The only thing I can think of would be to have a Condolences forum for all the warm fuzzies and where accident analysis is forbidden. I&A would then be "Enter at your own risk" for those close to the victims.


Partner angry


Nov 17, 2008, 12:55 PM
Post #4 of 36 (10565 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8405

Re: [dingus] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Injuries, accidents, etc it way to broad of a term.

There should be a climbing related injuries forum where people who've popped tendons, torn muscles, and tweaked joints can talk about it.

There should then be an accidents forum split into two different sections. Discussion and analysis of the accident (this could even be done specifically abstract) and get well wishes to the injured party.

To those who've lost their lives, we already have a Memorial forum.

I believe jt has already brought this up.


Gmburns2000


Nov 17, 2008, 1:05 PM
Post #5 of 36 (10543 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15104

Re: [hafilax] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

hafilax wrote:
IMO accident discussions happen because people want a reason for the accident. The thought of a random accident with no cause is freaky to most. There is a need for it to be someones fault. It's hard to be tactful while blaming someone for their own death.

The only thing I can think of would be to have a Condolences forum for all the warm fuzzies and where accident analysis is forbidden. I&A would then be "Enter at your own risk" for those close to the victims.

Ditto. It seems that many of the threads are split into two camps: those who want to discuss the accident and those who want to offer condolences. Often times, these two don't mesh well together, particularly if the accident was preventable by the person who was injured.

I think the notion of having an "enter at your own risk" tag for anyone entering the I&A is a good one, particularly if there is a forum-split between the two messages. However, I can't see having two forums as the answer. I just can't see how folks will be able to keep condolences out of the analysis and vice-versa. It sounds too unwieldy. Still, I support the idea if someone can come up with a good way to do this. Of course, moderation is key.


jt512


Nov 17, 2008, 1:45 PM
Post #6 of 36 (10505 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [angry] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

angry wrote:
Injuries, accidents, etc it way to broad of a term.

There should be a climbing related injuries forum where people who've popped tendons, torn muscles, and tweaked joints can talk about it.

There should then be an accidents forum split into two different sections. Discussion and analysis of the accident (this could even be done specifically abstract) and get well wishes to the injured party.

To those who've lost their lives, we already have a Memorial forum.

I believe jt has already brought this up.

Yes, this issue is already being dealt with: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1997394

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Nov 17, 2008, 1:46 PM)


Partner j_ung


Nov 17, 2008, 1:46 PM
Post #7 of 36 (10500 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [angry] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

angry wrote:
Injuries, accidents, etc it way to broad of a term.

There should be a climbing related injuries forum where people who've popped tendons, torn muscles, and tweaked joints can talk about it.

There should then be an accidents forum split into two different sections. Discussion and analysis of the accident (this could even be done specifically abstract) and get well wishes to the injured party.

To those who've lost their lives, we already have a Memorial forum.

I believe jt has already brought this up.

Aye, he did, and it's a good idea. We're actually in the process of splitting I&A right now. Give it a few more days.


jabtocrag


Nov 17, 2008, 2:15 PM
Post #8 of 36 (10474 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 476

Re: [Gmburns2000] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Gmburns2000 wrote:
hafilax wrote:
IMO accident discussions happen because people want a reason for the accident. The thought of a random accident with no cause is freaky to most. There is a need for it to be someones fault. It's hard to be tactful while blaming someone for their own death.

The only thing I can think of would be to have a Condolences forum for all the warm fuzzies and where accident analysis is forbidden. I&A would then be "Enter at your own risk" for those close to the victims.

Ditto. It seems that many of the threads are split into two camps: those who want to discuss the accident and those who want to offer condolences. Often times, these two don't mesh well together, particularly if the accident was preventable by the person who was injured.

I think the notion of having an "enter at your own risk" tag for anyone entering the I&A is a good one, particularly if there is a forum-split between the two messages. However, I can't see having two forums as the answer. I just can't see how folks will be able to keep condolences out of the analysis and vice-versa. It sounds too unwieldy. Still, I support the idea if someone can come up with a good way to do this. Of course, moderation is key.

Scubaboard has a breakdown like this:

-> Accidents and Incidents
-> Near Misses and Lessons Learned
-> Mishap Analysis
-> Passings

and it works well enough. Although the "Passings" forum is intended to be used for condolences, thereby keeping them out of the analysis and discussions threads, people tend to ignore the spirit of this and regularly cross-post condolences. In fact, this cross posting has shown to cause flame wars.


onceahardman


Nov 17, 2008, 2:46 PM
Post #9 of 36 (10452 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2465

Re: [j_ung] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

May I suggest, that within the "Technical Analysis" forum, that careful moderation be applied to theoretical scenarios?

Maybe it's just me who finds it annoying, but some users come up with unrealistic scenarios, like seperating rope strands for making a longer rappel, etc.

Thanks for you consideration. I'd again like to offer my help if you'd like me to write a general injury prevention "sticky". I'd be happy to do it.


majid_sabet


Nov 17, 2008, 3:16 PM
Post #10 of 36 (10427 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8344

Re: [onceahardman] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I am not too sure if splitting the I&A forum will solves the current problems rather, adding confusion, not just in one forum but in several other making it harder for everyone to follow especially for those who pay close attention to the final analysis . I have seen at least several good reports been dumped in to garbage bin just because some climber said something and another climber blow fuse because his best friend was the one who rapped from the end of the line. Some RCers are extremely sensitive to topic such as; massive injuries and or fatality and this group of people cause more harm than the rest of participant because they canít control their emotions behind PC. I am not saying that people should disrespect injured climbers or family members but these RCers need to either stay away from I&A or behave properly when they become involve with discussions.


Partner angry


Nov 17, 2008, 3:30 PM
Post #11 of 36 (10416 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8405

Re: [majid_sabet] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Actually Majid, splitting the forums would make it easier for you to keep track of accidents.

Instead of having to wade through elbow tendonitus, a memorial thread, and a true accident analysis, you could just look for the accidents.

I do believe however that posting news stories of something that may have involved a climber but there are no details is now, and has always been inappropriate. If you learn some details of an accident that pertains to climbers or mountaineers then by all means, an accident analysis forum would be the place to discuss it. Random google hits of "fall" and "death" are simply morbid.


majid_sabet


Nov 17, 2008, 4:18 PM
Post #12 of 36 (10376 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8344

Re: [angry] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

angry wrote:
Actually Majid, splitting the forums would make it easier for you to keep track of accidents.

Instead of having to wade through elbow tendonitus, a memorial thread, and a true accident analysis, you could just look for the accidents.

I do believe however that posting news stories of something that may have involved a climber but there are no details is now, and has always been inappropriate. If you learn some details of an accident that pertains to climbers or mountaineers then by all means, an accident analysis forum would be the place to discuss it. Random google hits of "fall" and "death" are simply morbid.


I do not see that way cause majority of reporters who publish reports are idiots and have no technical knowledge to satisfy all reader but IMO, listing climbing related report even with poor detail are better than having no report at all. In several occasions, I have seen that injured climbers or their friends (partners) have participated in to discussion only after they noticed that someone else was talking about their accident blah blah blah.


milesenoell


Nov 17, 2008, 4:37 PM
Post #13 of 36 (10362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 1156

Re: [majid_sabet] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
angry wrote:
Actually Majid, splitting the forums would make it easier for you to keep track of accidents.

Instead of having to wade through elbow tendonitus, a memorial thread, and a true accident analysis, you could just look for the accidents.

I do believe however that posting news stories of something that may have involved a climber but there are no details is now, and has always been inappropriate. If you learn some details of an accident that pertains to climbers or mountaineers then by all means, an accident analysis forum would be the place to discuss it. Random google hits of "fall" and "death" are simply morbid.


I do not see that way cause majority of reporters who publish reports are idiots and have no technical knowledge to satisfy all reader but IMO, listing climbing related report even with poor detail are better than having no report at all. In several occasions, I have seen that injured climbers or their friends (partners) have participated in to discussion only after they noticed that someone else was talking about their accident blah blah blah.

I totally disagree. That is like saying that the methodology of the study could suck so bad as to give totally incorrect conclusions but we should still read it in the hopes that we can magically intuit the proper information. Bad data is useless data. Accident reports are typically clouded in a haze of misinformation and questionable interpretations, and the last thing we need is to make that info more accessible to novice climbers and have them try something they thought they understood in a crisis situation.


Partner angry


Nov 17, 2008, 4:38 PM
Post #14 of 36 (10359 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8405

Re: [majid_sabet] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
angry wrote:
Actually Majid, splitting the forums would make it easier for you to keep track of accidents.

Instead of having to wade through elbow tendonitus, a memorial thread, and a true accident analysis, you could just look for the accidents.

I do believe however that posting news stories of something that may have involved a climber but there are no details is now, and has always been inappropriate. If you learn some details of an accident that pertains to climbers or mountaineers then by all means, an accident analysis forum would be the place to discuss it. Random google hits of "fall" and "death" are simply morbid.


I do not see that way cause majority of reporters who publish reports are idiots and have no technical knowledge to satisfy all reader but IMO, listing climbing related report even with poor detail are better than having no report at all. In several occasions, I have seen that injured climbers or their friends (partners) have participated in to discussion only after they noticed that someone else was talking about their accident blah blah blah.

I disagree.

In my recollection you've posted a climbing accident from the news once that wasn't already on this site. Most of the other accidents you've posted have either not been a climbing accident or they were already on the site. That accident was then thoroughly covered by many many of the deceased friends and acquaintances. Given another day, a half dozen other threads on the incident popped up and all of them from people who knew the victims. All of the new threads were from friends and acquaintances of the victims, all were sympathetic, sad, and shocked. Yours on the other hand was cold, harsh, and ignorant.

I'm not attacking you (this time). What I'm saying is that it's disingenuous to post accidents you've just seen on the news. It's insensitive to the victims' families and it's an insult to the victims, considering your reputation on this site. If it is a climbing accident, I promise that someone who knew the victim will post up. There's no reason to try to beat them to the punch.

Finally, posting a bunch of weird and random "vertical" accidents is not better than posting nothing. All it does is add to the noise of the site and drown out the incidents that are very much a part of this past-time.

Just in case you are unsure, you are not a reporter.


onceahardman


Nov 17, 2008, 4:39 PM
Post #15 of 36 (10355 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2465

Re: [majid_sabet] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I do not see that way cause majority of reporters who publish reports are idiots and have no technical knowledge to satisfy all reader but IMO, listing climbing related report even with poor detail are better than having no report at all.

I disagree on several fronts.

A reporter with no technical knowledge is not necessarily an "idiot", he or she is simply unaware of the world of climbing. All journalists could write circles around you. You are probably better at organizing rescues. Everyone has their gifts.

Next, a poor report that doesn't involve technical rock climbing ( or if you don't KNOW whether it involves climbing) really doesn't belong here. It just adds confusion.

I know you have strong opinions, majid, and as often as I disagree with you, I still think you sometimes make good contributions here. It's just that sometimes you seem compelled to just write SOMETHING, even if it's irrelevant.

BTW, you promised a thumb update "within a day or two", over a week ago.


Partner robdotcalm


Nov 17, 2008, 4:53 PM
Post #16 of 36 (10338 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1023

Re: [onceahardman] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

People who want to insult the dead or the injured will continue to do so just as on most websites or blogs insulting others seems a major preoccupation whether or not the recipients of the insults are injured or uninjured, dead or alive. Trying to eliminate this from rockclimbing.com, while commendable, would be a daunting task.

The stated purpose of the I&A forum is,

ďIn a sport with this level of risk you have to be serious about safety. Share your experiences, and learn from others. Let's honor those who've passed away by not repeating mistakes! Please keep posts factual and of high quality.Ē

Actually, thereís another reason for the forum besides this sanctimonious statement, viz., curiosity. People like to be informed about the unusual. News media report on accidents and catastrophes because people want to be informed about them and not that on a given day most people have not had an accident. This is not necessarily voyeurism or Schadenfreude. There is a satisfaction derived in learning about such events despite at times itís being tinged with sadness at what has befallen others. Censoring the news because it might imply that somebody has made a mistake is a surefire way to dull down rockclimbing.com and reduce itís usefulness.

I was the OP of the post that has led to this discussion. It was a simple report on an accident in which the victim, who made a stupid mistake, survived. A poster took it upon himself to say that it was too bad the victim didnít die. That post deserved deletion as much as if the poster had said the he wished the victim had died because of his ethnicity. If moderators simply deleted such hateful posts, the problem would be ended. Incidentally, the only person I know who had a more stupid accident this year is me : stupider accident.

A value of the forum is that a variety of posters offer their opinions. Even the stupid or dangerous ideas are of value since they get one thinking about the accident in a provocative way. And most of the dangerous or stupid ideas are critiqued very quickly. Sanitizing the forum will reduce its usefulness. For these reasons, I find the forum of more value than the annual ďAccidents in North American Mountaineering.Ē Especially when some of the accounts there are cleaned up which make it appear as if the accident were just the result of bad luck. The lack of an ability to challenge the reports, as one can do on rockclimbing.com, significantly reduces the usefulness of this annual.

In summary, let the moderators delete the hateful and insulting posts. That should end the problem.

Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus


Partner robdotcalm


Nov 17, 2008, 4:54 PM
Post #17 of 36 (10334 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1023

Re: [majid_sabet] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
I am not too sure if splitting the I&A forum will solves the current problems rather, adding confusion, not just in one forum but in several other making it harder for everyone to follow especially for those who pay close attention to the final analysis . I have seen at least several good reports been dumped in to garbage bin just because some climber said something and another climber blow fuse because his best friend was the one who rapped from the end of the line. Some RCers are extremely sensitive to topic such as; massive injuries and or fatality and this group of people cause more harm than the rest of participant because they canít control their emotions behind PC. I am not saying that people should disrespect injured climbers or family members but these RCers need to either stay away from I&A or behave properly when they become involve with discussions.

Majid. I agree that splitting I&A will only cause confusion and set up complicated rules that will seldom be followed by posters. By reporting on incidents we might not otherwise have seen, you perform a useful function but being more cautious on what you report and showing more sensitivity to the victims would increase the value of your contributions.

r.c


reno


Nov 17, 2008, 6:45 PM
Post #18 of 36 (10295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [majid_sabet] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
IMO, listing climbing related report even with poor detail are better than having no report at all.

I disagree. Posting reports with little, if any, factual detail only invites speculation, with the resultant "STFU, n00b!" commentary.

The ONLY way I'd encourage reports of that sort would be with a disclaimer of "Further details are unavailable" and heavy moderation of the resultant discussion.

I think JT's idea is pretty dang good, actually. (It pains me to say that, of course, but I'll call a spade a spade when I can.)


Partner angry


Nov 17, 2008, 6:55 PM
Post #19 of 36 (10284 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8405

Re: [reno] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I agree with jt and reno in the same thread.

We don't need to revise the site, clearly the world is going to end.


theguy


Nov 17, 2008, 7:12 PM
Post #20 of 36 (10271 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 461

Re: [dingus] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
Do you suppose that THIS is the thread that will CHANGE people?

+1

There is already a guideline for this forum; this has also been made into a sticky, and clearly asks that participants "keep posts factual and of high quality".

If, as the OP states, I&A were "one of our most heavily moderated forums", posts which aren't factual and of high quality would be removed.

Instead, we have this discussion, and Majid, to name one of I&A's most prolific posters, claiming that factual but low quality posts have a legitimate place in the forum, with apparent ignorance of the guidelines of a forum he should know inside and out.


reno


Nov 17, 2008, 7:21 PM
Post #21 of 36 (10257 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [angry] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

angry wrote:
I agree with jt and reno in the same thread.

We don't need to revise the site, clearly the world is going to end.

Yep. We're fucked.


billl7


Nov 17, 2008, 9:51 PM
Post #22 of 36 (10211 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [blondgecko] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Separating the memorial threads from those for analysis/discussion seems good. Still, it would be like hearding cats to keep the discussions separate - although users can help by pointing new folks to a written policy.

Also, it seems unlikely that non-climbers affected by the loss of someone close won't look to, say, a no-holds-barred analysis thread for answers to the unrelenting questions. They may even post their negative reactions. So be it.

While I agree wishing someone dead is in very bad taste, I'd suggest not drawing such a black-and-white line in the sand. As a general guide-line, yes. But allow the moderators to be a little arbitrary - even indicate this allowance in the written policy.

I have not been a moderator in most any sense of the word but I would assume they need somewhat of a free hand to evaluate each case and to not be pinned down against their common sense by some technicality.

Thanks for opening this up for discussion for a bit.

Bill L


majid_sabet


Nov 17, 2008, 10:35 PM
Post #23 of 36 (10198 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8344

Re: [onceahardman] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

onceahardman wrote:
In reply to:
I do not see that way cause majority of reporters who publish reports are idiots and have no technical knowledge to satisfy all reader but IMO, listing climbing related report even with poor detail are better than having no report at all.

I disagree on several fronts.

A reporter with no technical knowledge is not necessarily an "idiot", he or she is simply unaware of the world of climbing. All journalists could write circles around you. You are probably better at organizing rescues. Everyone has their gifts.

Next, a poor report that doesn't involve technical rock climbing ( or if you don't KNOW whether it involves climbing) really doesn't belong here. It just adds confusion.

I know you have strong opinions, majid, and as often as I disagree with you, I still think you sometimes make good contributions here. It's just that sometimes you seem compelled to just write SOMETHING, even if it's irrelevant.

In reply to:
BTW, you promised a thumb update "within a day or two", over a week ago
.

I will publish a complete report as detail as I could but I am not done with collecting all related info.

you got my word


Partner j_ung


Nov 18, 2008, 9:35 AM
Post #24 of 36 (10156 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [majid_sabet] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I don't think there's any problem posting an accident article from a non-climbing resource and asking if anybody has details, but yeah, the wholesale posting of any and all possibly-climbing-related accident has thus far not proven to be very useful.

Folks who think hateful, obviously out-of-line posts should be deleted on sight are calling for a heavier mod hand than we're willing to swing right now. But, that doesn't mean those posts won't be moderated in some other fashion. Asking for an edit, PM-ing the user... these and other, less intrusive, moddings might work over time.


Partner j_ung


Nov 18, 2008, 9:44 AM
Post #25 of 36 (10145 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [billl7] Open discussion on communicating in I&A [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

billl7 wrote:
Separating the memorial threads from those for analysis/discussion seems good. Still, it would be like hearding cats to keep the discussions separate - although users can help by pointing new folks to a written policy.

Also, it seems unlikely that non-climbers affected by the loss of someone close won't look to, say, a no-holds-barred analysis thread for answers to the unrelenting questions. They may even post their negative reactions. So be it.

While I agree wishing someone dead is in very bad taste, I'd suggest not drawing such a black-and-white line in the sand. As a general guide-line, yes. But allow the moderators to be a little arbitrary - even indicate this allowance in the written policy.

I have not been a moderator in most any sense of the word but I would assume they need somewhat of a free hand to evaluate each case and to not be pinned down against their common sense by some technicality.

Thanks for opening this up for discussion for a bit.

Bill L

Your welcome, and agree with most everything you said.

In regard to separating I&A, it is going to happen -- probably any day now... maybe even today. But all having an injury forum and an accident forum will do is separate those. It won't keep condolences out of accident-analysis threads and vice-versa.

But to be honest, I don't see that as much of a problem. As long as the tone stays somewhat respectful, why shouldn't people be able to post tech-like in a condolence thread? The only problem I foresee with it (other than keeping on top of the modding) is when an accident victim succumbs to his or her injuries and dies. In those cases, I envision a condolence thread starting in In Memory Of. The Accident Analysis thread can remain what it is.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Accident and Incident Analysis

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook