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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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 can’t 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.

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

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

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.

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.

.

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