|
|
|
|
theguy
May 28, 2009, 4:51 AM
Post #1 of 3
(2077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 469
|
I'm leery of posting this thread in this forum since it's meant to be for discussion of specific accidents, but this seems better than conflation of this discussion with an actual accident report as is currently the case. As a reminder, the current guidelines are: "This forum is reserved for polite discussion of specific accidents. Please keep posts on subject and respectful of both the people involved and other users." A proposal has been made to revise them as follows:
blondgecko wrote: Provide a ... basic summary of the situation - name(s), date, place, and a brief outline of what's currently known The rationale provided for this is:
blondgecko wrote: 1. It lets anyone who enters the thread know immediately whether or not this is someone they know. 2. It makes sure the thread will come up in a search if someone comes looking for info on that particular incident - now and at a later date. 3. It preserves the details in the event that the article linked is taken down. 4. It helps to identify those dead or injured as people, not just nameless, faceless statistics - and I think we as a community can do better than that. To begin the discussion, my own thoughts on the above points are: 1. One would expect that someone who is concerned enough to open the thread would also be concerned enough to click on the link. So this is really a discussion of whose convenience is more important: the OP's or the reader's. I don't think it behooves the OP to provide convenience features beyond a URL. 2. This would in most cases be satisfied by area and date 3. It seems odd to burden the OP with archiving publicly available internet content merely because they're bringing it to the attention of others; if one follows this argument to its conclusion, they should also provide their email address and keep a backup in case rc.com is taken down. In addition, this requirement will tend to foster debate about whether the outline is correct, which adds nothing to the analysis, unless we're analyzing reading comprehension. In summary, the cons of this requirement outweigh the pros. 4. This purpose is already served by the "In Memory Of" Forum: "A Forum where we honor and pay tribute to our fellow climbers, friends, partners and heroes that have passed away." The division of these forums was created specifically to allow dispassionate analysis of accidents in the I&A A forum. So, in summary, I propose that the core purpose of this forum would be served by providing the date and the location: anything else is at the OP's discretion, and potentially more harmful than beneficial. [Edited for style]
(This post was edited by theguy on May 28, 2009, 2:24 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
theguy
May 28, 2009, 2:24 PM
Post #2 of 3
(2031 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 469
|
Bump
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 28, 2009, 2:58 PM
Post #3 of 3
(2011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
blondgecko wrote: Provide a ... basic summary of the situation - name(s), date, place, and a brief outline of what's currently known 1. It lets anyone who enters the thread know immediately whether or not this is someone they know. I would actually think this would increase the chances of someone finding the thread on RC.com as opposed to not finding it. Realistically, if someone is doing a google search on the person who was injured or died then they are actively seeking information on that person. The whole notion that folks may be offended is foolish. They were likely looking for information. They aren't going to stop reading when they see the name in the top post. They're likely to keep reading. Is it possible that a person might stumble upon a thread? Sure, but I doubt listing the injured or deceased information is going to keep them from continuing into the conversation. And I would find it weird that someone who would not want to read a tragic accident to a family or friend would still be looking at other accidents in an Accident Analysis thread. Sorry, but that's creepier than Majid.
In reply to: 2. It makes sure the thread will come up in a search if someone comes looking for info on that particular incident - now and at a later date. I think that is a worthy goal, but I'm not sure we need names to analyze an accident. Undoubtedly they will be revealed, but I don't think it is necessary to start or even have a discussion. A brief notation of the type of accident and location would help (i.e. - two climbers fell from the top of a single-pitch route and died at such'n'such crag in the state of Nebraska)
In reply to: 3. It preserves the details in the event that the article linked is taken down. Certainly having the information is good for long-term context, but the news articles are often wrong in their own right. The analysis will bring out the important information in the end. And really, what's more important in the analysis, the historical event or the conclusion? Without first-hand information, having the newspaper article for future use doesn't really do much.
In reply to: 4. It helps to identify those dead or injured as people, not just nameless, faceless statistics - and I think we as a community can do better than that. I agree with Theguy. We have a thread for that already. Analysis should be objective, and that means it is nameless. I just don't see where Majid went wrong and I would not support requiring the use of names in a thread. What is wrong with letting people discover on their own?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|