This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Regulars here will know my views on the dangers of speculating about the cause of serious accidents immediately following announcements of tragedies. My concerns came from having seen the bad effects this can have first-hand from the family side, when what could have been a comforting thread of heartfelt greif and great memories too often turns into something no normal greiving person should ever sensibly view.
The psychology of response to tragedy often leads to behaviour on the surface lacking in human empathy; from the inadvertant (almost autistic) 'need to learn now' types to the downright dumb and/or nasty (from rubberneckers to nihilistic trolls). The internet has made things much worse as before such behavior rarely got further than gossip (except maybe at the nastier end of the press): now the comments pages of newspapers are full of bile. Climbers always seemed to get this need for empathy, with even black humour usually having a sympathetic edge and for the internet UKC has been pretty good over the years. Yet I may be wrong but from the dislikes I'm getting I feel like quite a lot of posters here think such public (and permanently recorded) discussion is OK. Even if I suspect these same people would never behave that way if in the room with those facing loss, something probaby needs to be done.
So is it time that UKC had a clearer definition of condolences/memorial threads where speculation and argument is simply banned (as distinct from other threads where discussion ls allowed... hopefully as sypathetically as possible given the situation)? This would cut wasteful argument but much more importantly allow the relatives and friends to have a place for heartfelt support from the UKC community.
Post edited at 10:17
61
13
In reply to Offwidth:
Completely agree. I have first hand experience of the pain that can be caused by misguided speculation and 'rubbernecking' comments on these very forums. Surely we can do better?
In the immediate aftermath of an accident families will scour all media to gain some sense of reason for their loss - we should respect that by keeping comments directly related to the accident to notes of condolence.
On another thread it was argued that memorial threads could be a valuable resource for 'lessons learned': lessons learned should be elsewhere I think.
Rob
Completely agree. I have first hand experience of the pain that can be caused by misguided speculation and 'rubbernecking' comments on these very forums. Surely we can do better?
In the immediate aftermath of an accident families will scour all media to gain some sense of reason for their loss - we should respect that by keeping comments directly related to the accident to notes of condolence.
On another thread it was argued that memorial threads could be a valuable resource for 'lessons learned': lessons learned should be elsewhere I think.
Rob
Post edited at 10:43
15
In reply to Offwidth:
I totally agree. Btw I am actually autistic and if I can understand that it's not the place for "learning" then it can't be that complicated. That should be left until later, when all the facts are clear and kept separate from condolences. Speculation and rubbernecking is just unpleasant.
I totally agree. Btw I am actually autistic and if I can understand that it's not the place for "learning" then it can't be that complicated. That should be left until later, when all the facts are clear and kept separate from condolences. Speculation and rubbernecking is just unpleasant.
15
In reply to Offwidth:
I suppose I should point out the irony of a post asking for greater sensitivity from forum users that starts out by perpetuating a pretty inaccurate stereotype about Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
> The psychology of response to tragedy often leads to behaviour on the surface lacking in human empathy; from the inadvertant (almost autistic)...
I suppose I should point out the irony of a post asking for greater sensitivity from forum users that starts out by perpetuating a pretty inaccurate stereotype about Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
41
In reply to planetmarshall:
I'm not sure if it is inaccurate. Learning from an incident is a logically correct thing to do, having to have it pointed out that this could cause upset elsewhere and still not getting it does seem like the kind of thing some autistic people might have difficulty with.
Perhaps it would be good to take the autism debate elsewhere and get this thread back on topic. It's important.
I'm not sure if it is inaccurate. Learning from an incident is a logically correct thing to do, having to have it pointed out that this could cause upset elsewhere and still not getting it does seem like the kind of thing some autistic people might have difficulty with.
Perhaps it would be good to take the autism debate elsewhere and get this thread back on topic. It's important.
Post edited at 11:28
16
3
In reply to Offwidth:
If I die in the mountains, I don't also want to become the victim of one of those awful "condolence threads" where people who mostly never knew me declare "heartfelt sympathy" and "sincere condolences" before quickly moving on and clicking on the next thread. I find them pretty nauseating to be honest - UKC at its insincere worst. Sorry, but that's honestly how I feel. It's just not the place for it.
If I die in the mountains, I don't also want to become the victim of one of those awful "condolence threads" where people who mostly never knew me declare "heartfelt sympathy" and "sincere condolences" before quickly moving on and clicking on the next thread. I find them pretty nauseating to be honest - UKC at its insincere worst. Sorry, but that's honestly how I feel. It's just not the place for it.
104
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
I don't know you in person. but I've spoken to you on here and found you helpful and interesting. If I posted that when your time is up, is that so bad? Condolence threads aren't for the dead, they are for those left behind.
I don't know you in person. but I've spoken to you on here and found you helpful and interesting. If I posted that when your time is up, is that so bad? Condolence threads aren't for the dead, they are for those left behind.
14
2
In reply to Offwidth:
If I died, I would not want others to die the same way - anything that could be gleaned from my death that saves others lives would be just as fitting (if not more) an epitaph, as a thread of heartfelt anecdotes. I don't know if others feel the same way? For example, here is a separate thread that was created soon after the death of Todd Skinner for the discussion of the death, rather than the memory of the man:
https://www.mountainproject.com/v/belay-loops--the-discussion-following-tss...
This discussion is clearly valuable, and the sooner it's done - the better, to prevent any further tragedies. This is (IMO) how it should be done.
If I died, I would not want others to die the same way - anything that could be gleaned from my death that saves others lives would be just as fitting (if not more) an epitaph, as a thread of heartfelt anecdotes. I don't know if others feel the same way? For example, here is a separate thread that was created soon after the death of Todd Skinner for the discussion of the death, rather than the memory of the man:
https://www.mountainproject.com/v/belay-loops--the-discussion-following-tss...
This discussion is clearly valuable, and the sooner it's done - the better, to prevent any further tragedies. This is (IMO) how it should be done.
16
In reply to Offwidth:
Heartfelt grief and great memories are unlikely to come from the internet, i would far rather people write directly to the family with things like that. We need to accept it is a public and impersonal forum (people not using user names not always their own names etc.) With the greatest respect to families of people who have had accidents, it may be worth not reading the forums, or asking someone to scan through first.
Forums are an area of discussion. There will be speculation. There will be misguided comments. That's about everything, not just accidents. Death happens, it's still sad and painful but you can't stop people talking about it.
Juan
Heartfelt grief and great memories are unlikely to come from the internet, i would far rather people write directly to the family with things like that. We need to accept it is a public and impersonal forum (people not using user names not always their own names etc.) With the greatest respect to families of people who have had accidents, it may be worth not reading the forums, or asking someone to scan through first.
Forums are an area of discussion. There will be speculation. There will be misguided comments. That's about everything, not just accidents. Death happens, it's still sad and painful but you can't stop people talking about it.
Juan
11
1
2
2
In reply to Offwidth:
I entirely agree. Any purported efforts to learn are usually both ill-informed and focus on the final events rather than a root cause analysis from which one might actually learn something. However, there is even less knowledge of those root causes and so the whole thing becomes a nauseating spectacle, which the press have latched onto as a source for risk-taking/thrill-seeking/irresponsible column fillers.
I loathe them. I have a quick look to see if it's someone I know and leave as fast as possible. In the past, when I have been contacted by the press about an accident, I've kept it to 'We are all deeply saddened' and given them nothing more. They have no right to it, so don't feed the animals.
I entirely agree. Any purported efforts to learn are usually both ill-informed and focus on the final events rather than a root cause analysis from which one might actually learn something. However, there is even less knowledge of those root causes and so the whole thing becomes a nauseating spectacle, which the press have latched onto as a source for risk-taking/thrill-seeking/irresponsible column fillers.
I loathe them. I have a quick look to see if it's someone I know and leave as fast as possible. In the past, when I have been contacted by the press about an accident, I've kept it to 'We are all deeply saddened' and given them nothing more. They have no right to it, so don't feed the animals.
Post edited at 12:02
2
2
In reply to Offwidth:
I understand where you're coming from. But why would family members visit a website populated by people with no knowledge of or connection to their deceased relative in the hope of reading nice things about them? The best they're going to get is lots of "I never knew them but I'm sad about what happened anyway" posts.
If the person in question was a famous climber, or a regular UKC poster, then the resulting thread is likely to be self-censored (I expect there are examples to prove this wrong, but that's my impression).
In any case, the speculation threads here are usually pretty inoffensive at worst, useful at best. If you want "something no normal greiving person should ever sensibly view" then you just need to go to any comment section on any newspaper site.
I understand where you're coming from. But why would family members visit a website populated by people with no knowledge of or connection to their deceased relative in the hope of reading nice things about them? The best they're going to get is lots of "I never knew them but I'm sad about what happened anyway" posts.
If the person in question was a famous climber, or a regular UKC poster, then the resulting thread is likely to be self-censored (I expect there are examples to prove this wrong, but that's my impression).
In any case, the speculation threads here are usually pretty inoffensive at worst, useful at best. If you want "something no normal greiving person should ever sensibly view" then you just need to go to any comment section on any newspaper site.
21
In reply to nniff:
Now that's a more valid reason avoiding speculation - lazy journalists are likely to pick it up and fill their articles with it as if it were proven fact.
> I have a quick look to see if it's someone I know and leave as fast as possible. In the past, when I have been contacted by the press about an accident, I've kept it to 'We are all deeply saddened' and given them nothing more. They have no right to it, so don't feed the animals.
Now that's a more valid reason avoiding speculation - lazy journalists are likely to pick it up and fill their articles with it as if it were proven fact.
8
In reply to Offwidth:
The recent "memorial thread" (if it can be called that) for Ken Wilson was a good example of the positive use of UKC in highlighting the massive contribution to our sport of someone whose work has in some way touched a large population of those who love climbing or being in the hills. Within it there were brilliant insights into KW from some who knew him and others who were familiar with him only via his books. I found it to be a fitting tribute and think that those close to him would have drawn both solace and pride from the thread's existence
The recent "memorial thread" (if it can be called that) for Ken Wilson was a good example of the positive use of UKC in highlighting the massive contribution to our sport of someone whose work has in some way touched a large population of those who love climbing or being in the hills. Within it there were brilliant insights into KW from some who knew him and others who were familiar with him only via his books. I found it to be a fitting tribute and think that those close to him would have drawn both solace and pride from the thread's existence
12
In reply to Offwidth:
The whole concept of condolences threads seems weird to me.
If you know the person who has died then you should be expressing your condolences by other means.
If you don't know them then I'm not sure why anyone would feel to express condolences on a random thread on an online forum.
The whole concept of condolences threads seems weird to me.
If you know the person who has died then you should be expressing your condolences by other means.
If you don't know them then I'm not sure why anyone would feel to express condolences on a random thread on an online forum.
28
2
2
1
In reply to timjones:
It is sometimes the case that even without meeting one another face to face, users of a forum can become familiar with the posting styles and opinions of certain more frequent posters. On that basis, is sharing condolences within a community such as this really so strange? (For instance, based on your posts on here, I've gathered certain impressions of you; the 'flesh-and-blood' face-to-face you might seem entirely different, but a version of you exists here as well).
It is sometimes the case that even without meeting one another face to face, users of a forum can become familiar with the posting styles and opinions of certain more frequent posters. On that basis, is sharing condolences within a community such as this really so strange? (For instance, based on your posts on here, I've gathered certain impressions of you; the 'flesh-and-blood' face-to-face you might seem entirely different, but a version of you exists here as well).
5
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Sorry - I don't really follow you.
> Did anyone go onto the thread to speculate how or why he died?
Sorry - I don't really follow you.
In reply to Offwidth:
Discussion following speculation isn't necessarily wrong, anyway. If (as some have) we speculate that the two climbers died from overdoing a 'light is right' philosophy, then that doesn't exist in a vacuum. If people think they might have done that, then people can discuss why they think that was a possibility - as the thread demonstrates, many people have reservations about some of the advice currently knocking about. People can discuss how the hypothesised scenario can be avoided (e.g. bothy bags). The threads often start out discussing the specific incident but rapidly become more about a general point rather than the specific (particularly where there is little detail).
If it subsequently turns out that they died in a freak bear attack (or whatever), then obviously none of that discussion applies to them but it doesn't mean the discussion wasn't valuable or useful - it is a discussion forum intended more for immediate discussion than long-term archiving (even though searching the forum is often useful).
I would agree that people need to be very clear about the different elements of such a thread: what is pure speculation and consequently not yet shown, what is just general advice that might or might not have been useful in their case, and what the facts of the case are and reasonable conclusions drawn from them.
Finally if I ever do something stupid and die in the mountains, I don't want someone to say I 'died doing what I loved' which is just not true, I want people to say I 'died being stupid - don't be like that guy'.
Discussion following speculation isn't necessarily wrong, anyway. If (as some have) we speculate that the two climbers died from overdoing a 'light is right' philosophy, then that doesn't exist in a vacuum. If people think they might have done that, then people can discuss why they think that was a possibility - as the thread demonstrates, many people have reservations about some of the advice currently knocking about. People can discuss how the hypothesised scenario can be avoided (e.g. bothy bags). The threads often start out discussing the specific incident but rapidly become more about a general point rather than the specific (particularly where there is little detail).
If it subsequently turns out that they died in a freak bear attack (or whatever), then obviously none of that discussion applies to them but it doesn't mean the discussion wasn't valuable or useful - it is a discussion forum intended more for immediate discussion than long-term archiving (even though searching the forum is often useful).
I would agree that people need to be very clear about the different elements of such a thread: what is pure speculation and consequently not yet shown, what is just general advice that might or might not have been useful in their case, and what the facts of the case are and reasonable conclusions drawn from them.
Finally if I ever do something stupid and die in the mountains, I don't want someone to say I 'died doing what I loved' which is just not true, I want people to say I 'died being stupid - don't be like that guy'.
Post edited at 14:25
13
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Totally agree with you there.
In my opinion 'that other' (US based) climbing website does it well, with a specific Accident and Incident Analysis forum and I don't see why this could not be added to UKC with appropriate moderation.
One other point, getting information out there as quickly as possible, as mentioned on this thread, is not always appropriate where the facts haven't yet been established. Reviewing major incidents /crises events and identifying lessons learned is not rocket science, but it does take discipline.
- discipline to gather facts before jumping to conclusions;
- discipline to reflect honestly on your actions / lack of actions / decision making;
- discipline to challenge and justify all assumptions;
- discipline to stick with evidence (which can be based on your experience) whilst recognising any limitations;
- discipline to only make evidence based and objective outcomes.
The problem with jumping to a conclusion without really understanding the situation is that you can create a level of perceived risk that (i) prevents rationale risk assessment and (ii) in the worse case may actually cause an accident by changing behaviour to avoid a risk that was never really there in the first place.
Totally agree with you there.
In my opinion 'that other' (US based) climbing website does it well, with a specific Accident and Incident Analysis forum and I don't see why this could not be added to UKC with appropriate moderation.
One other point, getting information out there as quickly as possible, as mentioned on this thread, is not always appropriate where the facts haven't yet been established. Reviewing major incidents /crises events and identifying lessons learned is not rocket science, but it does take discipline.
- discipline to gather facts before jumping to conclusions;
- discipline to reflect honestly on your actions / lack of actions / decision making;
- discipline to challenge and justify all assumptions;
- discipline to stick with evidence (which can be based on your experience) whilst recognising any limitations;
- discipline to only make evidence based and objective outcomes.
The problem with jumping to a conclusion without really understanding the situation is that you can create a level of perceived risk that (i) prevents rationale risk assessment and (ii) in the worse case may actually cause an accident by changing behaviour to avoid a risk that was never really there in the first place.
1
2
In reply to Greenbanks:
It's what the thread is about, separating the speculation about what went wrong from condolences.
> Sorry - I don't really follow you.
It's what the thread is about, separating the speculation about what went wrong from condolences.
1
1
In reply to timjones:
You don't have to understand, even vaguely. It works for some, it doesn't work for others. I generally don't feel the need to pass condolences wrt people I don't know, but I recognise some people do and some people suffering from tragedy will appreciate it.
What would be nice is if people who are so keen to give opinions without the facts being available at least would admit that they may cause upset to people suffering a loss, for little meaningful benefit...
You don't have to understand, even vaguely. It works for some, it doesn't work for others. I generally don't feel the need to pass condolences wrt people I don't know, but I recognise some people do and some people suffering from tragedy will appreciate it.
What would be nice is if people who are so keen to give opinions without the facts being available at least would admit that they may cause upset to people suffering a loss, for little meaningful benefit...
3
2
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Good point there, but I would temper it slightly. Being clear that you are discussing hypotheticals / assumptions is still relevant less someone without as much experience gets the wrong end of the stick (why do people wear climbing helmets indoors anyway...).
Mixing it up is exactly Offwidths point - keeping the two conversations separate is a good idea.
Re your last para - I'm 100% with you, caveated by my other points re facts!
Good point there, but I would temper it slightly. Being clear that you are discussing hypotheticals / assumptions is still relevant less someone without as much experience gets the wrong end of the stick (why do people wear climbing helmets indoors anyway...).
Mixing it up is exactly Offwidths point - keeping the two conversations separate is a good idea.
Re your last para - I'm 100% with you, caveated by my other points re facts!
3
1
In reply to timjones:
You never said a truer word Tim. Weird indeed. And self indulgent.
> The whole concept of condolences threads seems weird to me.
> If you know the person who has died then you should be expressing your condolences by other means.
> If you don't know them then I'm not sure why anyone would feel to express condolences on a random thread on an online forum.
You never said a truer word Tim. Weird indeed. And self indulgent.
6
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
Thank you Robert, for stating publicly what I also feel but have lacked the temerity to express. If as the originator suggests some censorship of so called condolence threads is called for let's just ban them altogether, except perhaps in the cases of prominent persons who are famous in our small niche, that's a different matter.
Believe me, you posters of these comments, the family and friends of the unfortunate person don't care what you think - they don't know who you are. I'd hazard a guess the rest of the readers of UKC forums don't care what you think either. I certainly don't. I suspect most of this stuff is to make the writers of such comments feel better about themselves.
Thank you Robert, for stating publicly what I also feel but have lacked the temerity to express. If as the originator suggests some censorship of so called condolence threads is called for let's just ban them altogether, except perhaps in the cases of prominent persons who are famous in our small niche, that's a different matter.
Believe me, you posters of these comments, the family and friends of the unfortunate person don't care what you think - they don't know who you are. I'd hazard a guess the rest of the readers of UKC forums don't care what you think either. I certainly don't. I suspect most of this stuff is to make the writers of such comments feel better about themselves.
12
4
In reply to marsbar:
Yes, that would be fine. Thanks. And if you also said that you hoped that others would not in future screw up by not being arsed to rope up for that little glacier crossing, then that would be fine too.
And, in my opinion, should be addressed in private to them by those who knew the person, not randomly on a public forum.
> I don't know you in person. but I've spoken to you on here and found you helpful and interesting. If I posted that when your time is up, is that so bad?
Yes, that would be fine. Thanks. And if you also said that you hoped that others would not in future screw up by not being arsed to rope up for that little glacier crossing, then that would be fine too.
> Condolence threads aren't for the dead, they are for those left behind.
And, in my opinion, should be addressed in private to them by those who knew the person, not randomly on a public forum.
14
In reply to Martin Bennett:
Holy sh!t Martin, congratulations, I guess I missed your appointment as Global Moral & Ethical Decision Maker!
Perhaps you missed out three words and I'm being unfair...'in my opinion...'
👹😂
Holy sh!t Martin, congratulations, I guess I missed your appointment as Global Moral & Ethical Decision Maker!
Perhaps you missed out three words and I'm being unfair...'in my opinion...'
👹😂
Post edited at 14:50
3
7
In reply to timjones:
I don't understand this at all. When a climbing partner whom I'd met on here, been on a few trips with and done some of the best climbing of my life with died, I spent some time writing a few words on here in remembrance. I didn't know him outside of climbing, the other people with whom I wanted to share those memories would be reading the thread, so obviously that's where I wrote.
In my mind, what I wrote was not glib or insincere, and I did not quickly click on another thread. I also had chance to express condolences to the family, but obviously I didn't bore them with the details of how long I'd spent belaying him on a single move of a hard pitch while the tide came in.
Should I have a found out the email addresses of all his climbing partners and emailed them privately? Or would that also have been (In Reply to Martin Bennett) "self indulgent".
Perhaps you can explain a bit more about why you find my way of expressing condolences so loathsome?
If I die climbing and there's a thread on here, I obviously won't be able to give a damn, but I do hope I get some "heartfelt condolences" from the likes of Indy and Simon4...
> The whole concept of condolences threads seems weird to me.
> If you know the person who has died then you should be expressing your condolences by other means.
I don't understand this at all. When a climbing partner whom I'd met on here, been on a few trips with and done some of the best climbing of my life with died, I spent some time writing a few words on here in remembrance. I didn't know him outside of climbing, the other people with whom I wanted to share those memories would be reading the thread, so obviously that's where I wrote.
In my mind, what I wrote was not glib or insincere, and I did not quickly click on another thread. I also had chance to express condolences to the family, but obviously I didn't bore them with the details of how long I'd spent belaying him on a single move of a hard pitch while the tide came in.
Should I have a found out the email addresses of all his climbing partners and emailed them privately? Or would that also have been (In Reply to Martin Bennett) "self indulgent".
Perhaps you can explain a bit more about why you find my way of expressing condolences so loathsome?
If I die climbing and there's a thread on here, I obviously won't be able to give a damn, but I do hope I get some "heartfelt condolences" from the likes of Indy and Simon4...
Post edited at 14:55
12
4
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well said Jon, I was just thinking the same. I also posted on the same thread. Perhaps a few on here need to take a good look at themselves? What they're saying makes me sad about the whole episode all over again...
Well said Jon, I was just thinking the same. I also posted on the same thread. Perhaps a few on here need to take a good look at themselves? What they're saying makes me sad about the whole episode all over again...
4
1
In reply to Martin Bennett:
Believe me, oh self appointed font of everyone's knowledge, family and friends can be upset by reading information that turns out to be wrong. Read the very first post as evidence.
You're trying to play the knowledgeable guy, except you let yourself down by suggesting you know and understand everyone's opinion. At least have the temerity to recognise that you are but one individual who doesn't have a monopoly on all knowledge.
Your guess on satisfying ego may be correct for some, but not for others. Me? Until very recently I dealt with planning for, dealing with and learning from very major incidents and crises as a job, so have an interest in how individuals learn from bad stuff. What about you? Why do you need to post about this?
No one is suggesting that comments are stopped, just that we find a consensus on the best way to allow freedom to express condolences whilst still supporting useful learning in a way which minimises the potential to hurt others. Am I being really thick, or is there something wrong with that?
Believe me, oh self appointed font of everyone's knowledge, family and friends can be upset by reading information that turns out to be wrong. Read the very first post as evidence.
You're trying to play the knowledgeable guy, except you let yourself down by suggesting you know and understand everyone's opinion. At least have the temerity to recognise that you are but one individual who doesn't have a monopoly on all knowledge.
Your guess on satisfying ego may be correct for some, but not for others. Me? Until very recently I dealt with planning for, dealing with and learning from very major incidents and crises as a job, so have an interest in how individuals learn from bad stuff. What about you? Why do you need to post about this?
No one is suggesting that comments are stopped, just that we find a consensus on the best way to allow freedom to express condolences whilst still supporting useful learning in a way which minimises the potential to hurt others. Am I being really thick, or is there something wrong with that?
3
4
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I think there is a clear distinction between condolence and memorial threads (or comments within a thread). Sharing memories of someone you knew seems fine to me. Briefly posting "heartfelt condolences" about someone you did not know would be very different.
> When a climbing partner whom I'd met on here, been on a few trips with and done some of the best climbing of my life with died, I spent some time writing a few words on here in remembrance.
> In my mind, what I wrote was not glib or insincere, and I did not quickly click on another thread.
I think there is a clear distinction between condolence and memorial threads (or comments within a thread). Sharing memories of someone you knew seems fine to me. Briefly posting "heartfelt condolences" about someone you did not know would be very different.
8
In reply to Robert Durran:
Example:
Early start, still <OC; normally 'stable' route; no climbers known to be above you; normal climbing arrangements/gear as a pair.
Rock fall striking leader; rock fall striking rope when abseiling.
Or how about: weather moves in considerably earlier or worse than forecast (we all know forecasts are exactly forecasts and hence predictive, right?); simple slip leads to fall and rope runs over an previously unknown sharp edge; simple fall/slip leads to immediately fatal injuries... I could probably go on, but only needed a single example to refute your point about bad luck never being to blame.
Example:
Early start, still <OC; normally 'stable' route; no climbers known to be above you; normal climbing arrangements/gear as a pair.
Rock fall striking leader; rock fall striking rope when abseiling.
Or how about: weather moves in considerably earlier or worse than forecast (we all know forecasts are exactly forecasts and hence predictive, right?); simple slip leads to fall and rope runs over an previously unknown sharp edge; simple fall/slip leads to immediately fatal injuries... I could probably go on, but only needed a single example to refute your point about bad luck never being to blame.
1
In reply to Calski:
But I would argue that the very fact that you managed to come up with these examples shows that they can, to an extent, be anticipated and that therefore steps can be taken to moderate their potential threat.
> Example:
But I would argue that the very fact that you managed to come up with these examples shows that they can, to an extent, be anticipated and that therefore steps can be taken to moderate their potential threat.
4
In reply to Calski:
I don;t know which one you mean but supertopo seems to mix condolences and analysis in the same threads, and as long as the analysis doesn;t get too nasty it seems to be generally accepted.
> 'that other' (US based) climbing website does it well,
I don;t know which one you mean but supertopo seems to mix condolences and analysis in the same threads, and as long as the analysis doesn;t get too nasty it seems to be generally accepted.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
There's a huge difference between weird and loathsome.
I find it weird to offer random online condolences to people that you don't know, but I think its loathsome to put words in other peoples mouths
There's a huge difference between weird and loathsome.
I find it weird to offer random online condolences to people that you don't know, but I think its loathsome to put words in other peoples mouths
6
In reply to Calski:
In the thread that started this debate the opinions offered were in no way offensive. They simply urged others to think carefully before adopting a superlight approach. It's hard to believe that people who don't even know the deceased can take offence at such general comments and appoint themselves as moral guardians of the internet.
> You don't have to understand, even vaguely. It works for some, it doesn't work for others. I generally don't feel the need to pass condolences wrt people I don't know, but I recognise some people do and some people suffering from tragedy will appreciate it.
> What would be nice is if people who are so keen to give opinions without the facts being available at least would admit that they may cause upset to people suffering a loss, for little meaningful benefit...
In the thread that started this debate the opinions offered were in no way offensive. They simply urged others to think carefully before adopting a superlight approach. It's hard to believe that people who don't even know the deceased can take offence at such general comments and appoint themselves as moral guardians of the internet.
6
In reply to timjones:
OK, it was Martin Bennett and another poster who were saying it was "self indulgent" and "making people feel better about themselves", which in the context of someone's death is an pretty loathsome behaviour.
Some people might offer condolences to people they don't know, which I agree is weird, but on here and in climbing generally, we often know people as sporadic climbing partners, friends of friends, or just online. There's nothing weird about expressing condolences in those situations. As for someone you've climbed your hardest routes with, why sharing those memories with others in the same position should be regarded as "self indulgent" I'm still lost as it seems completely natural and normal to me.
Perhaps it depends on whether you see UKC as a community of people, some of whom you know in person, some you know only online, and others not at all, or whether you think it's just a public notice board.
OK, it was Martin Bennett and another poster who were saying it was "self indulgent" and "making people feel better about themselves", which in the context of someone's death is an pretty loathsome behaviour.
Some people might offer condolences to people they don't know, which I agree is weird, but on here and in climbing generally, we often know people as sporadic climbing partners, friends of friends, or just online. There's nothing weird about expressing condolences in those situations. As for someone you've climbed your hardest routes with, why sharing those memories with others in the same position should be regarded as "self indulgent" I'm still lost as it seems completely natural and normal to me.
Perhaps it depends on whether you see UKC as a community of people, some of whom you know in person, some you know only online, and others not at all, or whether you think it's just a public notice board.
4
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
Sharing condolences within a community is rather different to the thread that started this debate.
A simple suggestion that we should make sure we carry enough warm clothing whilst in the Alps appeared to cause an illogical degree of offence to people who to all appearances don't even know the deceased.
I'm bemused that an individual feels able to designate a thread as a condolences thread and then berate others for offering a few words pretty innocuous, general advice.
> It is sometimes the case that even without meeting one another face to face, users of a forum can become familiar with the posting styles and opinions of certain more frequent posters. On that basis, is sharing condolences within a community such as this really so strange? (For instance, based on your posts on here, I've gathered certain impressions of you; the 'flesh-and-blood' face-to-face you might seem entirely different, but a version of you exists here as well).
Sharing condolences within a community is rather different to the thread that started this debate.
A simple suggestion that we should make sure we carry enough warm clothing whilst in the Alps appeared to cause an illogical degree of offence to people who to all appearances don't even know the deceased.
I'm bemused that an individual feels able to designate a thread as a condolences thread and then berate others for offering a few words pretty innocuous, general advice.
7
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
To my eyes the answer to that question should be no. People offered general advice based on the news story but I wasn't aware that they either speculated on how the climbers died or criticised their actions.
> Yes
To my eyes the answer to that question should be no. People offered general advice based on the news story but I wasn't aware that they either speculated on how the climbers died or criticised their actions.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
To take umbrage at the pretty mild advice offered in the thread in question seemed bizarre to me. As far as I can tell there is no suggestion that the deceased were UKC members and it appeared that none of the contributors to the thread actually knew the deceased.
In the event of the death of a regular UKC contributor I suspect that things would play out very differently.
> Perhaps it depends on whether you see UKC as a community of people, some of whom you know in person, some you know only online, and others not at all, or whether you think it's just a public notice board.
To take umbrage at the pretty mild advice offered in the thread in question seemed bizarre to me. As far as I can tell there is no suggestion that the deceased were UKC members and it appeared that none of the contributors to the thread actually knew the deceased.
In the event of the death of a regular UKC contributor I suspect that things would play out very differently.
7
1
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Were there any helpful suggestions as to how he could have avoided his demise? Or expressions of incredulity that anyone should die in such a manner?
> AFAIK the question was never answered.
Were there any helpful suggestions as to how he could have avoided his demise? Or expressions of incredulity that anyone should die in such a manner?
1
In reply to timjones:
You try to tell people what they 'should' be doing when their friends have been killed...
And you wonder why people don't like that.
You try to tell people what they 'should' be doing when their friends have been killed...
> If you know the person who has died then you should be expressing your condolences by other means.
And you wonder why people don't like that.
4
In reply to Offwidth:
It would be good if the BMC investigated fatalities and other serious accidents so we could all learn from them. The AAC do it. I suspect people will still tend to speculate but it might discourage some speculation.
It would be good if the BMC investigated fatalities and other serious accidents so we could all learn from them. The AAC do it. I suspect people will still tend to speculate but it might discourage some speculation.
2
1
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Were those who took umbrage in the Matterhorn thread friends of the deceased or just people trying to tell other people what they should do?
> You try to tell people what they 'should' be doing when their friends have been killed...
Were those who took umbrage in the Matterhorn thread friends of the deceased or just people trying to tell other people what they should do?
5
In reply to timjones:
What the **** are you talking about? You said...
Do you not understand???
> Were those who took umbrage in the Matterhorn thread friends of the deceased or just people trying to tell other people what they should do?
What the **** are you talking about? You said...
> If you know the person who has died then you should be expressing your condolences by other means.
Do you not understand???
1
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
OK maybe I could phrase that a little better......
If I knew the deceased I wouldn't choose a random online forum as the means to offer my condolences and I wouldn't jump in to offer online condolences over the death of someone that I had absolutely no connection with other than a shared hobby.
It's obvious that others may choose to do so but I don't believe that gives them the right to criticise others for offering some pretty innocuous general advice on the same thread.
> What the **** are you talking about?
> You said...
> Do you not understand???
OK maybe I could phrase that a little better......
If I knew the deceased I wouldn't choose a random online forum as the means to offer my condolences and I wouldn't jump in to offer online condolences over the death of someone that I had absolutely no connection with other than a shared hobby.
It's obvious that others may choose to do so but I don't believe that gives them the right to criticise others for offering some pretty innocuous general advice on the same thread.
Post edited at 16:55
7
In reply to Sir Chasm:
No. But that's not what you asked
> Were there any helpful suggestions as to how he could have avoided his demise? Or expressions of incredulity that anyone should die in such a manner?
No. But that's not what you asked
1
In reply to timjones:
There was a preachy holier-than-thou-tone to some of the posts taking umbrage, which was unfortunate. However, it is pretty much impossible to take lessons from accidents in the same thread as they are reported in without implicit (at least) criticism of those involved, which is not appropriate. Doing it in a separate thread avoids the problem to a large extent.
> Were those who took umbrage in the Matterhorn thread friends of the deceased or just people trying to tell other people what they should do?
There was a preachy holier-than-thou-tone to some of the posts taking umbrage, which was unfortunate. However, it is pretty much impossible to take lessons from accidents in the same thread as they are reported in without implicit (at least) criticism of those involved, which is not appropriate. Doing it in a separate thread avoids the problem to a large extent.
1
1
1
In reply to MG:
The usual process is:
- a commiseration thread starts
- a few people suggest some lessons that could be learned
- others say it's the wrong place and there needs to be a new thread
- no new thread is started as everything that can be said already has been
> Doing it in a separate thread avoids the problem to a large extent.
The usual process is:
- a commiseration thread starts
- a few people suggest some lessons that could be learned
- others say it's the wrong place and there needs to be a new thread
- no new thread is started as everything that can be said already has been
4
In reply to timjones:
Who would? I'd contribute where others who knew the deceased were sharing their memories, because that feels like a completely appropriate way to express the emotion. Any such expression provides some degree of catharsis (does that make it self-indulgent?) but the forum provides a way to share your thoughts and memories with people who knew the deceased in the same context as you.
Is there some question over the public nature of an online forum? I don't think so unless something private is being shared without consent.
> OK maybe I could phrase that a little better......
> If I knew the deceased I wouldn't choose a random online forum as the means to offer my condolences
Who would? I'd contribute where others who knew the deceased were sharing their memories, because that feels like a completely appropriate way to express the emotion. Any such expression provides some degree of catharsis (does that make it self-indulgent?) but the forum provides a way to share your thoughts and memories with people who knew the deceased in the same context as you.
Is there some question over the public nature of an online forum? I don't think so unless something private is being shared without consent.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Don't forget that I've not used the phrase "self indulgent"
People will find catharsis in many ways and I wouldn't criticise anyone who found it in a genuine memorial thread for a forum member or well known climber. My only point was that I don't think it's right to designate a news thread as an obituary thread and then condemn others who offer genuine and good advice rather than joining in with the condolences
.
there isn't a question over the public nature of a forum in my mind but there is a question over the designation of any news thread that reports a death as a condolences thread.
> Who would? I'd contribute where others who knew the deceased were sharing their memories, because that feels like a completely appropriate way to express the emotion. Any such expression provides some degree of catharsis (does that make it self-indulgent?) but the forum provides a way to share your thoughts and memories with people who knew the deceased in the same context as you.
Don't forget that I've not used the phrase "self indulgent"
People will find catharsis in many ways and I wouldn't criticise anyone who found it in a genuine memorial thread for a forum member or well known climber. My only point was that I don't think it's right to designate a news thread as an obituary thread and then condemn others who offer genuine and good advice rather than joining in with the condolences
.
> Is there some question over the public nature of an online forum? I don't think so unless something private is being shared without consent.
there isn't a question over the public nature of a forum in my mind but there is a question over the designation of any news thread that reports a death as a condolences thread.
1
In reply to MG:
I'd strongly disagree with that. A general "lets be careful" style comment does not necessarily imply criticism in my mind.
> There was a preachy holier-than-thou-tone to some of the posts taking umbrage, which was unfortunate. However, it is pretty much impossible to take lessons from accidents in the same thread as they are reported in without implicit (at least) criticism of those involved, which is not appropriate. Doing it in a separate thread avoids the problem to a large extent.
I'd strongly disagree with that. A general "lets be careful" style comment does not necessarily imply criticism in my mind.
3
In reply to Robert Durran:
Er, yes. You can moderate all you like, but you might still get hit and killed by a random falling stone. I would have thought that's pretty close to a definition of bad luck...
Let's not debate this too long, as it'll get dull. I agree, the majority of accidents are probably (I have no evidence to support this, I'm asserting) caused by risk that could be foreseen. Many are perhaps caused by risks that could be foreseen and effectively mitigated against. But that's not what you said...to me it's pretty clear that bad luck, sometimes, is just bad luck.
If you still disagree, fair one.
Er, yes. You can moderate all you like, but you might still get hit and killed by a random falling stone. I would have thought that's pretty close to a definition of bad luck...
Let's not debate this too long, as it'll get dull. I agree, the majority of accidents are probably (I have no evidence to support this, I'm asserting) caused by risk that could be foreseen. Many are perhaps caused by risks that could be foreseen and effectively mitigated against. But that's not what you said...to me it's pretty clear that bad luck, sometimes, is just bad luck.
If you still disagree, fair one.
1
1
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
In the past, I think one of the relatives of a prolific deep water soloing person who had died while climbing posted on here, thanking people for their kind comments (or words to that effect). I'm not sure if asking why they'd come on here is a question one might find a straight forward or logical answer to (human beings are rarely logical).
Having had to deal with a big loss myself within the past three years, I think grief can send one almost into 'another place' in not feeling really oneself. From this, I can easily imagine how somebody might start to search for anything online about the accident of somebody they knew, as a way of somehow trying to make sense of what's just happened and looking for 'answers' (which perhaps only come as some kind of emotional peace starts to develop) while feeling like this, and and how any speculation about whether it might have been their fault could make things more difficult for them. It's the kind of thing which might keep one awake at night, and keep coming back in the thoughts.
I think all Offwidth is suggesting is that people show some kindness and sensitivity while anybody close to the deceased is vulnerable.
> I understand where you're coming from. But why would family members visit a website populated by people with no knowledge of or connection to their deceased relative in the hope of reading nice things about them? The best they're going to get is lots of "I never knew them but I'm sad about what happened anyway" posts.
In the past, I think one of the relatives of a prolific deep water soloing person who had died while climbing posted on here, thanking people for their kind comments (or words to that effect). I'm not sure if asking why they'd come on here is a question one might find a straight forward or logical answer to (human beings are rarely logical).
Having had to deal with a big loss myself within the past three years, I think grief can send one almost into 'another place' in not feeling really oneself. From this, I can easily imagine how somebody might start to search for anything online about the accident of somebody they knew, as a way of somehow trying to make sense of what's just happened and looking for 'answers' (which perhaps only come as some kind of emotional peace starts to develop) while feeling like this, and and how any speculation about whether it might have been their fault could make things more difficult for them. It's the kind of thing which might keep one awake at night, and keep coming back in the thoughts.
I think all Offwidth is suggesting is that people show some kindness and sensitivity while anybody close to the deceased is vulnerable.
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
Well yes but I'm not sure anyone is in favour of unkindness and insensitivity.
Some years ago the wife of a dead climber turned up on a thread discussing the accident and appeared to welcome the discussion. That may be the same incident you described, I can't remember. It's clearly possible that family and friends will read such threads and they may well be as interested as others in better understanding what happened, even if in most cases they won't post themselves. The need for some tact in what is expressed should not mean that all discussion is illegitimate.
I don't think the Matterhorn discussion is insensitive. It's a relevant topic for debate for many people and I don't think anyone is criticising those who lost their lives. Nor has it turned into a standard UKC slagging match. I don't see a problem.
> I think all Offwidth is suggesting is that people show some kindness and sensitivity while anybody close to the deceased is vulnerable.
Well yes but I'm not sure anyone is in favour of unkindness and insensitivity.
Some years ago the wife of a dead climber turned up on a thread discussing the accident and appeared to welcome the discussion. That may be the same incident you described, I can't remember. It's clearly possible that family and friends will read such threads and they may well be as interested as others in better understanding what happened, even if in most cases they won't post themselves. The need for some tact in what is expressed should not mean that all discussion is illegitimate.
I don't think the Matterhorn discussion is insensitive. It's a relevant topic for debate for many people and I don't think anyone is criticising those who lost their lives. Nor has it turned into a standard UKC slagging match. I don't see a problem.
6
In reply to Offwidth:
has anyone asked Stu Tyrell if his matterhorn thread was intended to be a condolences thread? When I saw the OP it seemed he was just reporting an accident - there's the word 'News' in the title and no message of support in the body of the post, just a link to the news report. Perhaps if he'd written some words of sympathy or titled the post indicating such, the people you're taking exception to may have responded differently. As it stands, it started out looking to me like any other newspaper report that inevitably invites comment so perhaps you're right and we should have a separate sub-forum for memorial threads that doesn't get hijacked.
has anyone asked Stu Tyrell if his matterhorn thread was intended to be a condolences thread? When I saw the OP it seemed he was just reporting an accident - there's the word 'News' in the title and no message of support in the body of the post, just a link to the news report. Perhaps if he'd written some words of sympathy or titled the post indicating such, the people you're taking exception to may have responded differently. As it stands, it started out looking to me like any other newspaper report that inevitably invites comment so perhaps you're right and we should have a separate sub-forum for memorial threads that doesn't get hijacked.
4
In reply to Dogwatch:
It is insensitive to speculate and criticise those that died on the thread that is supposed to be for condolences.
As has been said several times already, once the complete facts are known and time has begun to heal, that is when another thread can be started and used as a learning discussion. To do so without the facts is insensitive and less useful.
It is insensitive to speculate and criticise those that died on the thread that is supposed to be for condolences.
As has been said several times already, once the complete facts are known and time has begun to heal, that is when another thread can be started and used as a learning discussion. To do so without the facts is insensitive and less useful.
1
5
In reply to graeme jackson:
In my opinion a sub forum isn't needed, although it's a good idea. Another option is any thread that has a title "sad news" or RIP is should not be treated as a debate thread.
Debate threads could be titled Incident on {name of mountain or climb} - lessons learned.
In my opinion a sub forum isn't needed, although it's a good idea. Another option is any thread that has a title "sad news" or RIP is should not be treated as a debate thread.
Debate threads could be titled Incident on {name of mountain or climb} - lessons learned.
2
In reply to timjones:
Okay, thanks Tim. Although I don't consider UKC a random forum, just an online subset of the climbing community, which is a big part of my life. I've met a few members in the flesh, but regardless we all share a similar passion, and one that carries with it a certain amount of risk.
> OK maybe I could phrase that a little better......
Okay, thanks Tim. Although I don't consider UKC a random forum, just an online subset of the climbing community, which is a big part of my life. I've met a few members in the flesh, but regardless we all share a similar passion, and one that carries with it a certain amount of risk.
1
In reply to Timmd:
His OP is actually quite specific: UKC should start having "condolences/memorial threads where speculation and argument is simply banned". Obviously, this was prompted by the Matterhorn thread where he (and others) tried to close down any discussion about lightweight gear out of sensitivity to relatives & friends. But maybe relatives/friends want the advice to get out there so that fewer people have to go through the grieving process.
> I think all Offwidth is suggesting is that people show some kindness and sensitivity while anybody close to the deceased is vulnerable.
His OP is actually quite specific: UKC should start having "condolences/memorial threads where speculation and argument is simply banned". Obviously, this was prompted by the Matterhorn thread where he (and others) tried to close down any discussion about lightweight gear out of sensitivity to relatives & friends. But maybe relatives/friends want the advice to get out there so that fewer people have to go through the grieving process.
4
In reply to GrantM:
The advice would still be out there if there was another thread discussing lightweight gear. Or is there some difficulty with starting another thread?
The advice would still be out there if there was another thread discussing lightweight gear. Or is there some difficulty with starting another thread?
3
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
It's largely due to the fact that we all partake in a risky sport that I can see no sense in a few self appointed moral arbiters taking the hump over the simple inoffensive suggestion that we should all take care and minimise the risks where possible.
> Okay, thanks Tim. Although I don't consider UKC a random forum, just an online subset of the climbing community, which is a big part of my life. I've met a few members in the flesh, but regardless we all share a similar passion, and one that carries with it a certain amount of risk.
It's largely due to the fact that we all partake in a risky sport that I can see no sense in a few self appointed moral arbiters taking the hump over the simple inoffensive suggestion that we should all take care and minimise the risks where possible.
5
In reply to Sir Chasm:
There are instances where this would be the right thing to do.
I'm don't rhink that the Matterhorn thread was such a case. It started out as a news thread, maybe those who wished to offer condolences should have started a.condolence thread?
> The advice would still be out there if there was another thread discussing lightweight gear. Or is there some difficulty with starting another thread?
There are instances where this would be the right thing to do.
I'm don't rhink that the Matterhorn thread was such a case. It started out as a news thread, maybe those who wished to offer condolences should have started a.condolence thread?
5
In reply to timjones:
I think that's a conversation I wasn't a part of, and not really what I was challenging. But I don't see a problem with expressing your feelings on here when something bad happens, but equally I don't see a problem with people being curious either. I think we're all curious to know what happened in accidents or mishaps, I don't see anything positive in pretending that you're not. But some people don't seem to like it, so I leave those threads alone. It's a tricky one, and there isn't an answer that suits everyone.
> It's largely due to the fact that we all partake in a risky sport that I can see no sense in a few self appointed moral arbiters taking the hump over the simple inoffensive suggestion that we should all take care and minimise the risks where possible.
I think that's a conversation I wasn't a part of, and not really what I was challenging. But I don't see a problem with expressing your feelings on here when something bad happens, but equally I don't see a problem with people being curious either. I think we're all curious to know what happened in accidents or mishaps, I don't see anything positive in pretending that you're not. But some people don't seem to like it, so I leave those threads alone. It's a tricky one, and there isn't an answer that suits everyone.
In reply to Offwidth:
I can sympathise with the idea of a condolances forum - but I don't think it would achieve anything. The reason being if anyone wanted to read what the world thought of their son/daughter they wouldn't necessarily know anything about UKC, let alone its forum structure, so they'd just Google the name of their lost one which would bring up any thread on any forum.
I can sympathise with the idea of a condolances forum - but I don't think it would achieve anything. The reason being if anyone wanted to read what the world thought of their son/daughter they wouldn't necessarily know anything about UKC, let alone its forum structure, so they'd just Google the name of their lost one which would bring up any thread on any forum.
4
In reply to timjones:
It's seems to me it would have been quite easy to say "I'll start a new thread on the merits of taking an extra jumper".
> There are instances where this would be the right thing to do.
> I'm don't rhink that the Matterhorn thread was such a case. It started out as a news thread, maybe those who wished to offer condolences should have started a.condolence thread?
It's seems to me it would have been quite easy to say "I'll start a new thread on the merits of taking an extra jumper".
3
In reply to Sir Chasm:
But why would you do that?
That isn't the way conversations work.
> It's seems to me it would have been quite easy to say "I'll start a new thread on the merits of taking an extra jumper".
But why would you do that?
That isn't the way conversations work.
6
In reply to timjones:
Of course it is, have you never had a meeting where you said "we'll discuss that topic another time"?
> But why would you do that?
> That isn't the way conversations work.
Of course it is, have you never had a meeting where you said "we'll discuss that topic another time"?
1
In reply to GrahamD:
Personally for me it did. Reading nice things other people had to say about a couple of friend's who were killed, on a forum on UKC, did make me feel better, as did contributing to the thread. It was a positive thing, I just can't see what's negative about it at all. It seems odd that people can't understand this. It doesn't have to be your son or daughter for you to care.
> I can sympathise with the idea of a condolances forum - but I don't think it would achieve anything.
Personally for me it did. Reading nice things other people had to say about a couple of friend's who were killed, on a forum on UKC, did make me feel better, as did contributing to the thread. It was a positive thing, I just can't see what's negative about it at all. It seems odd that people can't understand this. It doesn't have to be your son or daughter for you to care.
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
It happens sometimes but I don't believe that the Matterhorn thread was such an occasion. It's highly subjective.
> Of course it is, have you never had a meeting where you said "we'll discuss that topic another time"?
It happens sometimes but I don't believe that the Matterhorn thread was such an occasion. It's highly subjective.
1
In reply to timjones:
So when you said it doesn't happen what you actually meant was that it does happen.
And, yes, of course it's subjective.
> It happens sometimes but I don't believe that the Matterhorn thread was such an occasion. It's highly subjective.
So when you said it doesn't happen what you actually meant was that it does happen.
And, yes, of course it's subjective.
1
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I think that is probably the difference between a memorial thread and random people who don't know the deceased writing "how sad" or "my condolences to the family" on a thread that is more of a "news" nature.
It would be crass to offer unsolicited advice on a memorial thread but I can see no problem with advice offered in a non-critical manner on a thread that starts with a link to a news story elsewhere.
> Personally for me it did. Reading nice things other people had to say about a couple of friend's who were killed, on a forum on UKC, did make me feel better, as did contributing to the thread. It was a positive thing, I just can't see what's negative about it at all. It seems odd that people can't understand this. It doesn't have to be your son or daughter for you to care.
I think that is probably the difference between a memorial thread and random people who don't know the deceased writing "how sad" or "my condolences to the family" on a thread that is more of a "news" nature.
It would be crass to offer unsolicited advice on a memorial thread but I can see no problem with advice offered in a non-critical manner on a thread that starts with a link to a news story elsewhere.
2
In reply to Sir Chasm:
So why do some feel the need to condemn others for a very minor infringement of this subjective standard?
I'd also add that I never said "it doesn't happen", maybe you should learn to read
> So when you said it doesn't happen what you actually meant was that it does happen.
> And, yes, of course it's subjective.
So why do some feel the need to condemn others for a very minor infringement of this subjective standard?
I'd also add that I never said "it doesn't happen", maybe you should learn to read
Post edited at 10:52
2
In reply to timjones:
That isn't me, ask them.
What is your (and I do mean your) problem with starting another thread discussing issues raised in the Matterhorn thread?
> So why do some feel the need to condemn others for a very minor infringement of this subjective standard?
That isn't me, ask them.
What is your (and I do mean your) problem with starting another thread discussing issues raised in the Matterhorn thread?
1
In reply to timjones:
Post your edit, you said conversations didn't work like that then accepted they could work like that. My reading's fine, what I'm reading is contradictory drivel
> So why do some feel the need to condemn others for a very minor infringement of this subjective standard?
> I'd also add that I never said "it doesn't happen", maybe you should learn to read
Post your edit, you said conversations didn't work like that then accepted they could work like that. My reading's fine, what I'm reading is contradictory drivel
1
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
The simple fact that I don't have any issue with the content of the Matterhorn thread and I don't think that those who took umbrage have the right to shut down an innocuous discussion.
> That isn't me, ask them.
> What is your (and I do mean your) problem with starting another thread discussing issues raised in the Matterhorn thread?
The simple fact that I don't have any issue with the content of the Matterhorn thread and I don't think that those who took umbrage have the right to shut down an innocuous discussion.
4
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
In a conversation of a similar nature to the Matterhorn thread, I would probably ask why or point out that I don't believe that it is necessary to take the conversation elsewhere.
That is how conversations work
> Post your edit, you said conversations didn't work like that then accepted they could work like that. My reading's fine, what I'm reading is contradictory drivel
In a conversation of a similar nature to the Matterhorn thread, I would probably ask why or point out that I don't believe that it is necessary to take the conversation elsewhere.
That is how conversations work
1
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
For someone who knows their way around the forum, I agree its a nice thing to have. For someone (in the vast majority of the population) who just searched for a name though, they would be taken to any forum where that name appeared so they would be just as subjected to the speculation/discussion surrounding the death as they would be to the condolances. What I'm saying is its very hard in practice to isolate the condolances from the discussion, even if you have them on seperate forums.
> Personally for me it did. Reading nice things other people had to say about a couple of friend's who were killed, on a forum on UKC, did make me feel better, as did contributing to the thread. It was a positive thing, I just can't see what's negative about it at all.
For someone who knows their way around the forum, I agree its a nice thing to have. For someone (in the vast majority of the population) who just searched for a name though, they would be taken to any forum where that name appeared so they would be just as subjected to the speculation/discussion surrounding the death as they would be to the condolances. What I'm saying is its very hard in practice to isolate the condolances from the discussion, even if you have them on seperate forums.
In reply to all:
Thanks everyone.
Firstly irrespective of what some here think a number of condolences threads are read by family and friends and do act as memorials. The bad side of this (rubbenecking and callous off the mark speculation) was what started me off asking posters on UKC to behave better, the good side to me illustrates a real strength of the site. Two really good recent examples of this are the Ken Wilson and Brian Cropper threads (linked to articles). The efforts of contributers like Mick Ward and Phil Kelly are one of the key reasons I stay when many friends have given up on UKC. So many not quite famous climbers pass on every year with no collected record of what they meant to their friends family and to the great game. UKC offers a perfect platform to erase this gap.
The reason I asked for clarification on such threads to be better defined is to improve the site so those who will behave badly do it elsewhere and people know that posting is OK.
It might seem a bit odd that acquaintances might want to post here but how do we know exactly what people might feel and why would anyone want to stop people? Alongside the hundreds I have met, many climbers I have never met (and of a good range of abilities in both sets ) have influenced me greatly by their skill, imagination, determination, character, efforts, and/or volunteering, and thats just within climbing. Only a minority of these could be called close friends. We all have busy lives and an internet forum post is quick, public and permanent.
I've never complained about threads where those involved wanted immediate discussions for safety reasons, such as Tito Travesa or Dan Osman. I am one of the most regular to link safety advice in UKC (sadly often after complaints such advice doesn't exist). I am frustrated that the sober discussion of safety issues arising from accidents, after the investigations are complete, happens so rarely on UKC (in stark contrast to compliants about the need for speculative ill informed discussion immediately after a tragedy).
Thanks everyone.
Firstly irrespective of what some here think a number of condolences threads are read by family and friends and do act as memorials. The bad side of this (rubbenecking and callous off the mark speculation) was what started me off asking posters on UKC to behave better, the good side to me illustrates a real strength of the site. Two really good recent examples of this are the Ken Wilson and Brian Cropper threads (linked to articles). The efforts of contributers like Mick Ward and Phil Kelly are one of the key reasons I stay when many friends have given up on UKC. So many not quite famous climbers pass on every year with no collected record of what they meant to their friends family and to the great game. UKC offers a perfect platform to erase this gap.
The reason I asked for clarification on such threads to be better defined is to improve the site so those who will behave badly do it elsewhere and people know that posting is OK.
It might seem a bit odd that acquaintances might want to post here but how do we know exactly what people might feel and why would anyone want to stop people? Alongside the hundreds I have met, many climbers I have never met (and of a good range of abilities in both sets ) have influenced me greatly by their skill, imagination, determination, character, efforts, and/or volunteering, and thats just within climbing. Only a minority of these could be called close friends. We all have busy lives and an internet forum post is quick, public and permanent.
I've never complained about threads where those involved wanted immediate discussions for safety reasons, such as Tito Travesa or Dan Osman. I am one of the most regular to link safety advice in UKC (sadly often after complaints such advice doesn't exist). I am frustrated that the sober discussion of safety issues arising from accidents, after the investigations are complete, happens so rarely on UKC (in stark contrast to compliants about the need for speculative ill informed discussion immediately after a tragedy).
Post edited at 11:07
1
4
In reply to timjones:
You're having reading problems, I asked what was your problem with starting another thread? That isn't shutting down discussion.
> The simple fact that I don't have any issue with the content of the Matterhorn thread and I don't think that those who took umbrage have the right to shut down an innocuous discussion.
You're having reading problems, I asked what was your problem with starting another thread? That isn't shutting down discussion.
2
In reply to timjones:
So, according to you, first of all it doesn't happen, then it does, then it still happens
> In a conversation of a similar nature to the Matterhorn thread, I would probably ask why or point out that I don't believe that it is necessary to take the conversation elsewhere.
> That is how conversations work
So, according to you, first of all it doesn't happen, then it does, then it still happens
1
In reply to timjones:
I'm not really interested in how the thread is categorised, or who the people are (I presume by random you mean they don't know the deceased). I think the intention is positive in both cases, and that's the important thing in my opinion. Is it that really that hard to spot when somebody means well, random or not, memorial thread or not, and when somebody is trying to tell the world that they'd have done things better in similar circumstances? How you respond to that is more complicated.
> I think that is probably the difference between a memorial thread and random people who don't know the deceased writing "how sad" or "my condolences to the family" on a thread that is more of a "news" nature.
I'm not really interested in how the thread is categorised, or who the people are (I presume by random you mean they don't know the deceased). I think the intention is positive in both cases, and that's the important thing in my opinion. Is it that really that hard to spot when somebody means well, random or not, memorial thread or not, and when somebody is trying to tell the world that they'd have done things better in similar circumstances? How you respond to that is more complicated.
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
No, but in practice it will usually have that effect.
> You're having reading problems, I asked what was your problem with starting another thread? That isn't shutting down discussion.
No, but in practice it will usually have that effect.
2
In reply to Offwidth:
There is most definitely a place for threads such as the Ken Wilson and Brian Cropper ones.
However, that doesn't make the sort of general advice and discussion that occurred in the Matterhorn thread wrong or unacceptable.
IME people often leave or drift away UKC due to the sort of criticism that was doled out for offering some simple, innocent advice on that thread.
Would you return to a pub where the "regulars" butted into conversations and tried to dictate what you could talk about?
There is most definitely a place for threads such as the Ken Wilson and Brian Cropper ones.
However, that doesn't make the sort of general advice and discussion that occurred in the Matterhorn thread wrong or unacceptable.
IME people often leave or drift away UKC due to the sort of criticism that was doled out for offering some simple, innocent advice on that thread.
Would you return to a pub where the "regulars" butted into conversations and tried to dictate what you could talk about?
4
In reply to Robert Durran:
If you can show a couple of examples where that's happened it would be instructive.
If it does happen in the way you suggest why do you think those people so keen to drop their pearls of wisdom would be less likely to comment?
> No, but in practice it will usually have that effect.
If you can show a couple of examples where that's happened it would be instructive.
If it does happen in the way you suggest why do you think those people so keen to drop their pearls of wisdom would be less likely to comment?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
The lack of examples of where it has happened speaks for itself.
I think they probably would if someone else started another thread - but they probably just don't, rightly or wrongly, see the need to do so themselves.
> If you can show a couple of examples where that's happened it would be instructive.
The lack of examples of where it has happened speaks for itself.
> If it does happen in the way you suggest why do you think those people so keen to drop their pearls of wisdom would be less likely to comment?
I think they probably would if someone else started another thread - but they probably just don't, rightly or wrongly, see the need to do so themselves.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
It's conversation, it evolves with few hard and fast rules
Someone might say "we should take it elsewhere". If they're acting like an over-sensitive little flower they are likely to be ignored!
> So, according to you, first of all it doesn't happen, then it does, then it still happens
It's conversation, it evolves with few hard and fast rules
Someone might say "we should take it elsewhere". If they're acting like an over-sensitive little flower they are likely to be ignored!
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Absence of evidence as evidence of absence?
But, apparently, it's important to get the advice out there. Just not important enough to go to the great lengths of starting a new thread?
> The lack of examples of where it has happened speaks for itself.
Absence of evidence as evidence of absence?
> I think they probably would if someone else started another thread - but they probably just don't, rightly or wrongly, see the need to do so themselves.
But, apparently, it's important to get the advice out there. Just not important enough to go to the great lengths of starting a new thread?
1
In reply to timjones:
Yes, it "evolved" for you in the space of a couple of posts
> It's conversation, it evolves with few hard and fast rules
> Someone might say "we should take it elsewhere". If they're acting like an over-sensitive little flower they are likely to be ignored!
Yes, it "evolved" for you in the space of a couple of posts
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Or maybe important enough to put on a thread that already has a life of its own and that people are already looking at.
> But, apparently, it's important to get the advice out there. Just not important enough to go to the great lengths of starting a new thread?
Or maybe important enough to put on a thread that already has a life of its own and that people are already looking at.
4
In reply to Robert Durran:
Meh, they can't even be bothered to link to their new thread full of life-saving advice? They sound very concerned.
> Or maybe important enough to put on a thread that already has a life of its own and that people are already looking at.
Meh, they can't even be bothered to link to their new thread full of life-saving advice? They sound very concerned.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
There is no new thread; they don't see the need to start one.
> Meh, they can't even be bothered to link to their new thread full of life-saving advice?
There is no new thread; they don't see the need to start one.
Post edited at 12:00
4
In reply to timjones:
That thread sums up what want I want to avoid (what I regard as idle speculation and associated argument) and in some senses what I regard as good practice (the side thread for bivi/bothy bags issue). I'm always amazed people think such things are OK given the circumstances ( how many reported climbing accidents these days will never involve close friends of some UKC posters) but they clearly they do and a place needs to be provided for that. So what I want to see is a clear definition of a memorial thread that will be moderated to remove such posts and side threads where moderation wont be required unless they otherwise break site rules.
We are not talking about a typical real-world pub scenario we are talking about an equivalent to face-to-face behaviour in public soon after a tragedy, where people being insensitive will pretty much always be told (or more forcefully be made clear such behaviour isn't welcome).
That thread sums up what want I want to avoid (what I regard as idle speculation and associated argument) and in some senses what I regard as good practice (the side thread for bivi/bothy bags issue). I'm always amazed people think such things are OK given the circumstances ( how many reported climbing accidents these days will never involve close friends of some UKC posters) but they clearly they do and a place needs to be provided for that. So what I want to see is a clear definition of a memorial thread that will be moderated to remove such posts and side threads where moderation wont be required unless they otherwise break site rules.
We are not talking about a typical real-world pub scenario we are talking about an equivalent to face-to-face behaviour in public soon after a tragedy, where people being insensitive will pretty much always be told (or more forcefully be made clear such behaviour isn't welcome).
5
9
3
In reply to Offwidth:
I would suggest that, if someone were to start such a thread clearly labelled as such in the title, then it would generally be respected. Starting such a thread might be a better approach than expecting an existing "news" thread to be treated as such.
> So what I want to see is a clear definition of a memorial thread that will be moderated to remove such posts . . .
I would suggest that, if someone were to start such a thread clearly labelled as such in the title, then it would generally be respected. Starting such a thread might be a better approach than expecting an existing "news" thread to be treated as such.
6
In reply to Offwidth:
So it's not OK to suggest they were poorly equipped but it's fine to say they should have had a bothy bag?
> That thread sums up what want I want to avoid (what I regard as idle speculation and associated argument) and in some senses what I regard as good practice (the side thread for bivi/bothy bags issue).
So it's not OK to suggest they were poorly equipped but it's fine to say they should have had a bothy bag?
3
In reply to Offwidth:
In that case I think that you are being just a little over sensitive.
The sentiment that you are expressing is correct but I think the thread in question is not a good example.
In that case I think that you are being just a little over sensitive.
The sentiment that you are expressing is correct but I think the thread in question is not a good example.
3
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Are you having a conversation or picking an argument for the sake of it?
> Yes, it "evolved" for you in the space of a couple of posts
Are you having a conversation or picking an argument for the sake of it?
3
In reply to Jim 1003:
I may not always agree with Offwidth on everything he says on the forum, but he is a regular contributor, clearly puts a lot of work in in his local area, and personal attacks of that kind are frankly unnecessary.
More importantly, "you're" not "your".
> Your probably the reason many contributors give up on UKC
I may not always agree with Offwidth on everything he says on the forum, but he is a regular contributor, clearly puts a lot of work in in his local area, and personal attacks of that kind are frankly unnecessary.
More importantly, "you're" not "your".
4
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Yes, I agree, and it's worth noting that the Matterhorn thread was clearly started as a news thread which the condolence mongers then failed to hijack. However, a thread should be clearly labelled as "condolence" or "memorial". I and, judging from the "like" response to my first post on this thread, the vast majority of people who find the condolence stuff utterly inappropriate on here, can then avoid the "condolence" threads while possibly sharing memories on "memorial" threads. And I would argue that advice which might help others not to repeat mistakes can be a worthy memorial.
> I would suggest that, if someone were to start such a thread clearly labelled as such in the title, then it would generally be respected. Starting such a thread might be a better approach than expecting an existing "news" thread to be treated as such.
Yes, I agree, and it's worth noting that the Matterhorn thread was clearly started as a news thread which the condolence mongers then failed to hijack. However, a thread should be clearly labelled as "condolence" or "memorial". I and, judging from the "like" response to my first post on this thread, the vast majority of people who find the condolence stuff utterly inappropriate on here, can then avoid the "condolence" threads while possibly sharing memories on "memorial" threads. And I would argue that advice which might help others not to repeat mistakes can be a worthy memorial.
5
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I think it's very important that people don't start to talk about how they'd have done things better unless/until everything possible is known about what happened, otherwise it can be unfairly inaccurate, and people may not actually learn very much, and not what needs to be learnt from what happened.
> I'm not really interested in how the thread is categorised, or who the people are (I presume by random you mean they don't know the deceased). I think the intention is positive in both cases, and that's the important thing in my opinion. Is it that really that hard to spot when somebody means well, random or not, memorial thread or not, and when somebody is trying to tell the world that they'd have done things better in similar circumstances? How you respond to that is more complicated.
I think it's very important that people don't start to talk about how they'd have done things better unless/until everything possible is known about what happened, otherwise it can be unfairly inaccurate, and people may not actually learn very much, and not what needs to be learnt from what happened.
2
In reply to Timmd:
Exactly... people are claiming learning experiences with no evidence of effectiveness from what is usually little more than speculative rubbernecking gossip. It doesn't stack up that these tragic news threads are so busy with such lessons and yet threads on proper accident analysis are so few and far between.
Exactly... people are claiming learning experiences with no evidence of effectiveness from what is usually little more than speculative rubbernecking gossip. It doesn't stack up that these tragic news threads are so busy with such lessons and yet threads on proper accident analysis are so few and far between.
1
2
In reply to Timmd:
I think it's important to have some awareness of what effect your words can have, given the audience you might expect. I would imagine you could get some good, well intention general advice based on a partial account of what happened, or some outright dangerous advice based on the full facts. But this discussion won't come to a consensus anytime soon, so I'll try to get some work done. People seem to be trying to label, categorise and divide the world! Anyway...
> I think it's very important that people don't start to talk about how they'd have done things better unless/until everything possible is known about what happened
I think it's important to have some awareness of what effect your words can have, given the audience you might expect. I would imagine you could get some good, well intention general advice based on a partial account of what happened, or some outright dangerous advice based on the full facts. But this discussion won't come to a consensus anytime soon, so I'll try to get some work done. People seem to be trying to label, categorise and divide the world! Anyway...
1
In reply to Offwidth:
One of the articles directly quotes Police Rescue Marshall Giovannini: “Sadly they were not well enough equipped for the winter conditions.” - in this case it seems there is something much more clear cut than speculative gossip to go on. And I'm not sure that anyone has really criticised the climbers - clearly the winter like temperatures were pretty unusual but it shows that it might be worth expecting the unexpected (so to speak) in the mountains.
> Exactly... people are claiming learning experiences with no evidence of effectiveness from what is usually little more than speculative rubbernecking gossip.
One of the articles directly quotes Police Rescue Marshall Giovannini: “Sadly they were not well enough equipped for the winter conditions.” - in this case it seems there is something much more clear cut than speculative gossip to go on. And I'm not sure that anyone has really criticised the climbers - clearly the winter like temperatures were pretty unusual but it shows that it might be worth expecting the unexpected (so to speak) in the mountains.
4
In reply to Robert Durran:
A lot of people read and lean from other's issues without necessarily being critical of the individuals. Reminders are always worth having, no matter how experienced. In fact, in tragic reminders your probably going to take more notice.
A lot of people read and lean from other's issues without necessarily being critical of the individuals. Reminders are always worth having, no matter how experienced. In fact, in tragic reminders your probably going to take more notice.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Bring prepared for the possibility of, and being able to deal with, the unexpected, is to me, a crucial skill for an alpinist to have.
In the absence of any official reports regarding the Matterhorn incident, it would possibly be presumptuous to comment further, although I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that the Matterhorn is well known for being suddenly and badly affected by flash storms at any time if the year, and not taking this into account does seem to indicate either an oversight/lapse of judgement (we've all done it) or a deliberate strategy/calculated risk, which backfired tragically.
> One of the articles directly quotes Police Rescue Marshall Giovannini: £Sadly they were not well enough equipped for the winter conditions.£ - in this case it seems there is something much more clear cut than speculative gossip to go on. And I'm not sure that anyone has really criticised the climbers - clearly the winter like temperatures were pretty unusual but it shows that it might be worth expecting the unexpected (so to speak) in the mountains.
Bring prepared for the possibility of, and being able to deal with, the unexpected, is to me, a crucial skill for an alpinist to have.
In the absence of any official reports regarding the Matterhorn incident, it would possibly be presumptuous to comment further, although I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that the Matterhorn is well known for being suddenly and badly affected by flash storms at any time if the year, and not taking this into account does seem to indicate either an oversight/lapse of judgement (we've all done it) or a deliberate strategy/calculated risk, which backfired tragically.
Post edited at 14:45
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Nothing wrong with that informed quote in my view and your safety comments on the thread are pretty reasonable (if I think better made elsewhere) my main beef is with others. I do disagree about the learning benefits of the discussion on these threads: where is the evidence? The biggest accident analysis around (the John Dill YOSAR report) shows that time and time again experienced climbers make stupid mistakes (so knowledge of risk isn't the issue, understanding and changing attitudes is): "at least 80 percent of the fatalities, and many injuries, were easily preventable. In case after case, ignorance, a casual attitude, and/or some form of distraction proved to be the most dangerous aspects of the sport."
http://www.supertopo.com/topos/yosemite/stayalive.pdf
I suspect alpine climbing in the Alps has higher accident rates than Yosemite and larger objective risks on average.
Nothing wrong with that informed quote in my view and your safety comments on the thread are pretty reasonable (if I think better made elsewhere) my main beef is with others. I do disagree about the learning benefits of the discussion on these threads: where is the evidence? The biggest accident analysis around (the John Dill YOSAR report) shows that time and time again experienced climbers make stupid mistakes (so knowledge of risk isn't the issue, understanding and changing attitudes is): "at least 80 percent of the fatalities, and many injuries, were easily preventable. In case after case, ignorance, a casual attitude, and/or some form of distraction proved to be the most dangerous aspects of the sport."
http://www.supertopo.com/topos/yosemite/stayalive.pdf
I suspect alpine climbing in the Alps has higher accident rates than Yosemite and larger objective risks on average.
Post edited at 15:08
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Well, several people have said the discussion has made them think a bit about how much clothing/shelter they might carry on a route - that can only be a good thing (as I think I made clear, the "light is right" thing is often pushed quite irresponsibly on here).
Yes, and attitudes to "going light" have changed for better or worse and need, in my opinion, to be reappraised.
Of course experienced climbers make stupid and avoidable mistakes (I've made plenty), but the point is that they are avoidable and anything that reminds us of that means they are more likely to be avoided.
> I do disagree about the learning benefits of the discussion on these threads: where is the evidence?
Well, several people have said the discussion has made them think a bit about how much clothing/shelter they might carry on a route - that can only be a good thing (as I think I made clear, the "light is right" thing is often pushed quite irresponsibly on here).
> The biggest accident analysis around shows that time and time again experienced climbers make stupid mistakes (so knowledge of risk isn't the issue, understanding and changing attitudes is): "at least 80 percent of the fatalities, and many injuries, were easily preventable. In case after case, ignorance, a casual attitude, and/or some form of distraction proved to be the most dangerous aspects of the sport."
Yes, and attitudes to "going light" have changed for better or worse and need, in my opinion, to be reappraised.
Of course experienced climbers make stupid and avoidable mistakes (I've made plenty), but the point is that they are avoidable and anything that reminds us of that means they are more likely to be avoided.
2
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Not me guv. I just want people to be kind and only speak with certainty when they know what they're talking about*.
*Being philosophical/un-sanctimonious, the world could be quite different if that was the general rule.
> I think it's important to have some awareness of what effect your words can have, given the audience you might expect. I would imagine you could get some good, well intention general advice based on a partial account of what happened, or some outright dangerous advice based on the full facts. But this discussion won't come to a consensus anytime soon, so I'll try to get some work done. People seem to be trying to label, categorise and divide the world! Anyway...
Not me guv. I just want people to be kind and only speak with certainty when they know what they're talking about*.
*Being philosophical/un-sanctimonious, the world could be quite different if that was the general rule.
Post edited at 15:50
1
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
People say all sorts of things on here that if we extrapolated would mismatch with reality. I prefer to believe what is evidenced. I've certainly seen people hurt by speculation and false accusations based on inaccurate press reports and a lack of knowledge of factors you would be clear about if you were there (where I have been). I don't want to curtail discussion, just to keep it away from tragic announcements and if we are talking detail and apportioning blame, to do that in the face of the full facts (otherwise we are little better than the Daily Fail).
If you want to take safety to its logical conclusion no one would climb, let alone alpine climb with its often huge objective risks. Yet we choose to climb and judgement and experience is a part of that and being harsh with hindsight without the full facts, especially when people have died, is to me callous. Its easy enough and much kinder to start another thread and to generalise in a way that is obviously linked and if learning will happen it will happen tuere just as well, so why does it need to be on the announcement thread?
On going light although I understand your concerns you simply don't know about the accidents prevemted by climbers who were faster and less fatigued. In this case we have some strong evidence but no proper full analysis as yet.
People say all sorts of things on here that if we extrapolated would mismatch with reality. I prefer to believe what is evidenced. I've certainly seen people hurt by speculation and false accusations based on inaccurate press reports and a lack of knowledge of factors you would be clear about if you were there (where I have been). I don't want to curtail discussion, just to keep it away from tragic announcements and if we are talking detail and apportioning blame, to do that in the face of the full facts (otherwise we are little better than the Daily Fail).
If you want to take safety to its logical conclusion no one would climb, let alone alpine climb with its often huge objective risks. Yet we choose to climb and judgement and experience is a part of that and being harsh with hindsight without the full facts, especially when people have died, is to me callous. Its easy enough and much kinder to start another thread and to generalise in a way that is obviously linked and if learning will happen it will happen tuere just as well, so why does it need to be on the announcement thread?
On going light although I understand your concerns you simply don't know about the accidents prevemted by climbers who were faster and less fatigued. In this case we have some strong evidence but no proper full analysis as yet.
Post edited at 17:10
5
In reply to Offwidth:
I think one of the problems with speculation in condolences threads is them being used to justify headlines of tabloids that blame the victims. While I imagine that many family members would take solace in the fact that a like-minded community is learning from the tragedy, they may not feel the same about their local rag containing the headline "local climber dies in Alps due to inappropriate clothing". If the report then goes on to quote a UKC user, it would seem to me that the UKC user quoted is at least indirectly responsible for the irresponsible reporting of the paper and any upset that may cause the family.
I know I am going to get slated for this, but I think it's worth considering the downstream effects of posting on forums, even if the poster has the best intentions, we know journalists are fishing for stories on here and that editors will publish anything to get a reaction.
If having an "accidents and lessons" forum separated and anonymised as far as any tragedy is concerned helps to avoid further grief, I don't see it being a problem.
Note, I know nothing about the tragedy in question, nor did I read the other thread, just my 2p worth on how irresponsible journalists may hijack comments to sell papers.
I think one of the problems with speculation in condolences threads is them being used to justify headlines of tabloids that blame the victims. While I imagine that many family members would take solace in the fact that a like-minded community is learning from the tragedy, they may not feel the same about their local rag containing the headline "local climber dies in Alps due to inappropriate clothing". If the report then goes on to quote a UKC user, it would seem to me that the UKC user quoted is at least indirectly responsible for the irresponsible reporting of the paper and any upset that may cause the family.
I know I am going to get slated for this, but I think it's worth considering the downstream effects of posting on forums, even if the poster has the best intentions, we know journalists are fishing for stories on here and that editors will publish anything to get a reaction.
If having an "accidents and lessons" forum separated and anonymised as far as any tragedy is concerned helps to avoid further grief, I don't see it being a problem.
Note, I know nothing about the tragedy in question, nor did I read the other thread, just my 2p worth on how irresponsible journalists may hijack comments to sell papers.
1
In reply to GrahamD:
I agree with your second point but gosh, a whole forum devoted to tragic accidents?! How depressing.
> I can sympathise with the idea of a condolances forum - but I don't think it would achieve anything.
I agree with your second point but gosh, a whole forum devoted to tragic accidents?! How depressing.
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
That's a fair point. It seems old weather patterns may be becoming unreliable thanks to climate change.
> One of the articles directly quotes Police Rescue Marshall Giovannini: £Sadly they were not well enough equipped for the winter conditions.£ - in this case it seems there is something much more clear cut than speculative gossip to go on. And I'm not sure that anyone has really criticised the climbers - clearly the winter like temperatures were pretty unusual but it shows that it might be worth expecting the unexpected (so to speak) in the mountains.
That's a fair point. It seems old weather patterns may be becoming unreliable thanks to climate change.
Post edited at 19:41
1
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Absolutely right. I myself have been hurt by speculation and false accusations more than once. It's unforgettable, decades later, and the hurt doesn't lessen.
> ....I've certainly seen people hurt by speculation and false accusations....
Absolutely right. I myself have been hurt by speculation and false accusations more than once. It's unforgettable, decades later, and the hurt doesn't lessen.
1
1
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I'm not asking for a forum. I want a clear definition of such a thread that has tighter rules. It could go in the best related forum from alpine, winter or rocktalk. If people choose to set up a memorial/condolences thread those wanting to discuss any related safety niceties (or pick a fight or whatever other bad behaviour) will need to start a new thread (simlar to say the bivi/bothy bag thread).
.
I'm not asking for a forum. I want a clear definition of such a thread that has tighter rules. It could go in the best related forum from alpine, winter or rocktalk. If people choose to set up a memorial/condolences thread those wanting to discuss any related safety niceties (or pick a fight or whatever other bad behaviour) will need to start a new thread (simlar to say the bivi/bothy bag thread).
.
Post edited at 08:31
2
In reply to Offwidth:
In my experience self policing usually works quite well as it is (of course there will be the odd exception). Usually it is obvious from the title and content of the OP whether it is a 'RIP' condolence thread or not - a 'sad news' title is usually more in this spirit than say one of the official news threads - and folk will respond accordingly.
The dilemma tends to be that learning comes better from analysis of specific examples - everyone knows the theory of good preparation etc but the best potential for learning is through looking at what went wrong in specific cases. Folk will say 'just start a new thread' but if using specific examples this can still be seen as insensitive or unduly speculative. Which is fine - we could simply avoid these specific discussions - but then no-one is likely to learn much, at least from online discussion.
In my experience self policing usually works quite well as it is (of course there will be the odd exception). Usually it is obvious from the title and content of the OP whether it is a 'RIP' condolence thread or not - a 'sad news' title is usually more in this spirit than say one of the official news threads - and folk will respond accordingly.
The dilemma tends to be that learning comes better from analysis of specific examples - everyone knows the theory of good preparation etc but the best potential for learning is through looking at what went wrong in specific cases. Folk will say 'just start a new thread' but if using specific examples this can still be seen as insensitive or unduly speculative. Which is fine - we could simply avoid these specific discussions - but then no-one is likely to learn much, at least from online discussion.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
How are you going to police that, though, since you're not a moderator? Say someone posts something that's within UKC guidelines but you decide it's inappropriate: what's your next step?
> I'm not asking for a forum. I want a clear definition of such a thread that has tighter rules. It could go in the best related forum from alpine, winter or rocktalk. If people choose to set up a memorial/condolences thread those wanting to discuss any related safety niceties (or pick a fight or whatever other bad behaviour) will need to start a new thread (simlar to say the bivi/bothy bag thread).
How are you going to police that, though, since you're not a moderator? Say someone posts something that's within UKC guidelines but you decide it's inappropriate: what's your next step?
In reply to GrantM:
It will largely self police. Where it doesn't if it has clear rules it's a standard moderator issue. For the extra effort the site gets a series of memorials, which if things go well will attract irregular site users to post and sometimes will be a respectful slice of history. Go have a look at the Brian Cropper thread.
This will replace the current bickering and largely unwanted and inappropriatly placed safety classes and genuine safety linked threads will get better comment (as many won't get involved on a tragic news thread). Lets assume for a moment there are a few thousand significant climbers of interest to at least some UKC posters, thats averaging a few deaths a month. Add in the unlucky punters, and the site regulars, this could give a significant searchable record for the future.
It will largely self police. Where it doesn't if it has clear rules it's a standard moderator issue. For the extra effort the site gets a series of memorials, which if things go well will attract irregular site users to post and sometimes will be a respectful slice of history. Go have a look at the Brian Cropper thread.
This will replace the current bickering and largely unwanted and inappropriatly placed safety classes and genuine safety linked threads will get better comment (as many won't get involved on a tragic news thread). Lets assume for a moment there are a few thousand significant climbers of interest to at least some UKC posters, thats averaging a few deaths a month. Add in the unlucky punters, and the site regulars, this could give a significant searchable record for the future.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
A few thoughts in no particular order.
Those who have grown up using social networking (which I guess UKC counts as?) often have different rules and mores than those of us who we re born in a different generation, so perhaps a RIP in a memorial thread about someone you have never met means something different to different generations.
Families and friends will often scour any pages I think for any hint of an answer to the huge unanswerable WHY? that has just arrived in their lives. So any thread about specific incidents must be carefully moderated or self censored with this in mind.
The whole let's discuss the facts when they are known thing just never happens. I can't think of a mechanism to make it work, so I understand why there is a compelling argument to discuss them in the original thread.
Lastly on a personal note - there was a young climber on here who died in an accident a while back. I didn't know him personally but was only a step removed. He was local to me and of a similar age and climbed in the same areas (I still come across his username and comments when logging routes). I know which crag he died at, and I think I know which route he died on. The route is one I have wanted to do for many years and I would very much like to know more about the circumstances of the accident. Was it a fall and ripped gear? A belay failure from clipping old tat? Was it rockfall or perhaps a fall whilst unroped and scrambling off? The standard YOSAR report does not help me much here beyond saying "Whatever happened you should be capable of making your own assessments and avoiding the same fate", still I would very much like to know what the fate was. I know in this instance there was another UKC user who had climbed with the guy who was pained by the information vacuum. Just to be greeted by a blank "There was an accident, he's gone, now stop rubbernecking" wasn't enough.
Thanks for taking the time to bring this up and for all the other work you do for the community.
A few thoughts in no particular order.
Those who have grown up using social networking (which I guess UKC counts as?) often have different rules and mores than those of us who we re born in a different generation, so perhaps a RIP in a memorial thread about someone you have never met means something different to different generations.
Families and friends will often scour any pages I think for any hint of an answer to the huge unanswerable WHY? that has just arrived in their lives. So any thread about specific incidents must be carefully moderated or self censored with this in mind.
The whole let's discuss the facts when they are known thing just never happens. I can't think of a mechanism to make it work, so I understand why there is a compelling argument to discuss them in the original thread.
Lastly on a personal note - there was a young climber on here who died in an accident a while back. I didn't know him personally but was only a step removed. He was local to me and of a similar age and climbed in the same areas (I still come across his username and comments when logging routes). I know which crag he died at, and I think I know which route he died on. The route is one I have wanted to do for many years and I would very much like to know more about the circumstances of the accident. Was it a fall and ripped gear? A belay failure from clipping old tat? Was it rockfall or perhaps a fall whilst unroped and scrambling off? The standard YOSAR report does not help me much here beyond saying "Whatever happened you should be capable of making your own assessments and avoiding the same fate", still I would very much like to know what the fate was. I know in this instance there was another UKC user who had climbed with the guy who was pained by the information vacuum. Just to be greeted by a blank "There was an accident, he's gone, now stop rubbernecking" wasn't enough.
Thanks for taking the time to bring this up and for all the other work you do for the community.
3
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Memorial threads are fine, but given the overwhelming distaste for the condolences stuff, could we perhaps have a rule that if the thread is hijacked with condolences, we are allowed to retaliate by saying how they f***** up X,Y and Z and had it coming to them? And vice versa. A sort of MAD system to keep memorial threads clean.
> If people choose to set up a memorial/condolences thread..........
Memorial threads are fine, but given the overwhelming distaste for the condolences stuff, could we perhaps have a rule that if the thread is hijacked with condolences, we are allowed to retaliate by saying how they f***** up X,Y and Z and had it coming to them? And vice versa. A sort of MAD system to keep memorial threads clean.
3
In reply to Tall Clare:
I liked this, just chatting to my wife about the range of opinions here on this thread and read your comment. I was surprised just how many different characters I could describe to her off of here, little bits of trivia about a life that as you say make up a picture of someone. All that and I'm not a regular reader or contributor at all. There are definitely people on here who's online persona I like and those less so, our thoughts and comments do show a lot about us.
I liked this, just chatting to my wife about the range of opinions here on this thread and read your comment. I was surprised just how many different characters I could describe to her off of here, little bits of trivia about a life that as you say make up a picture of someone. All that and I'm not a regular reader or contributor at all. There are definitely people on here who's online persona I like and those less so, our thoughts and comments do show a lot about us.
2
In reply to Offwidth:
As much as I agree with the general points you are making, you can't use a thread like the one for Brian (or Ken W) as an example.
Brian died of an illness (as did Ken) at a relatively old age (for a climber) which is of course completely different to when someone dies in a climbing incident.
Also, Brian was a well known figure in the UK climbing scene.
> It will largely self police. Where it doesn't if it has clear rules it's a standard moderator issue. For the extra effort the site gets a series of memorials, which if things go well will attract irregular site users to post and sometimes will be a respectful slice of history. Go have a look at the Brian Cropper thread.
As much as I agree with the general points you are making, you can't use a thread like the one for Brian (or Ken W) as an example.
Brian died of an illness (as did Ken) at a relatively old age (for a climber) which is of course completely different to when someone dies in a climbing incident.
Also, Brian was a well known figure in the UK climbing scene.
Post edited at 09:41
4
In reply to Goucho:
Why not? Im just as interested in recording the passing of climbers who don't die within the game. Brian is a typical example of a climber important to many other climbers of the time whom the vast majority of UKC posters simply will not have heard of. How many others like him get overlooked every year (it must be a huge majority) and how many more slightly less important climbers. If people have touched others through contibutioms to the game through talent or say extensive volunteering, I'd like to see a place for them to be remembered bythose who knew them and be discovered by those who didn't. With all the mixed quality that we get here these days memorials to such folk would a massive positive for the site. I think they would also attract back more adults (such threads do tend to flip the site back to the more mature attitudes of the good old early days). As a co pratitor Supertopo also seem to manage it much better than UKC (go check out their thread on Ken).
Why not? Im just as interested in recording the passing of climbers who don't die within the game. Brian is a typical example of a climber important to many other climbers of the time whom the vast majority of UKC posters simply will not have heard of. How many others like him get overlooked every year (it must be a huge majority) and how many more slightly less important climbers. If people have touched others through contibutioms to the game through talent or say extensive volunteering, I'd like to see a place for them to be remembered bythose who knew them and be discovered by those who didn't. With all the mixed quality that we get here these days memorials to such folk would a massive positive for the site. I think they would also attract back more adults (such threads do tend to flip the site back to the more mature attitudes of the good old early days). As a co pratitor Supertopo also seem to manage it much better than UKC (go check out their thread on Ken).
2
In reply to Offwidth:
Sorry, I got completely confused with the Matterhorn thread, and completely lost context or point.
I shall go and sit in a dark room and dribble.
Sorry, I got completely confused with the Matterhorn thread, and completely lost context or point.
I shall go and sit in a dark room and dribble.
In reply to Offwidth:
I completely agree. It just needs people to start the threads as memorial threads appropriately.
> Why not? Im just as interested in recording the passing of climbers.....
I completely agree. It just needs people to start the threads as memorial threads appropriately.
In reply to Offwidth:
From a practical point of view do we start two threads one called,
Obituary: Man dies climbing...
And then a seperate one speculating to the cause of death/accident?
You'd still have to 'hide' the second thread, perhaps these threads should be started in the pub or something.
I think the key to the argument is that I don't think any of the threads are evern started as 'tribute to...' 'memorial thread for...' because it's a recent event and effectively news. People comment on the news not really taking into account that it will be read by family. Although, to be fair a public forum isn't the best place to grieve or seek comfort, a daily mail comment section even less so
From a practical point of view do we start two threads one called,
Obituary: Man dies climbing...
And then a seperate one speculating to the cause of death/accident?
You'd still have to 'hide' the second thread, perhaps these threads should be started in the pub or something.
I think the key to the argument is that I don't think any of the threads are evern started as 'tribute to...' 'memorial thread for...' because it's a recent event and effectively news. People comment on the news not really taking into account that it will be read by family. Although, to be fair a public forum isn't the best place to grieve or seek comfort, a daily mail comment section even less so
Post edited at 23:30
In reply to FreshSlate:
Consider for a mo, that somebody grieving might on impulse search for anything about what happened to their loved one, and with these being public forums, they'd likely come across something about them, and then end up reading whatever is posted while in the 'chaos' of their emotions.
I don't suppose somebody who has just lost anybody dear to them, sits back and thinks where the best place might be to seek comfort, and decides to go on a public forum.
The point of public forums not being the best place to seek comfort or nice comments etc has been mentioned a few times, I can't help wondering if it's being made by people who don't have any real experience of grief and loss.
> Although, to be fair a public forum isn't the best place to grieve or seek comfort,
Consider for a mo, that somebody grieving might on impulse search for anything about what happened to their loved one, and with these being public forums, they'd likely come across something about them, and then end up reading whatever is posted while in the 'chaos' of their emotions.
I don't suppose somebody who has just lost anybody dear to them, sits back and thinks where the best place might be to seek comfort, and decides to go on a public forum.
The point of public forums not being the best place to seek comfort or nice comments etc has been mentioned a few times, I can't help wondering if it's being made by people who don't have any real experience of grief and loss.
Post edited at 01:04
In reply to Timmd:
Its odd really. Posters keep saying it doesn't happen even though some of us have witnessed it and on better threads we have had family posts thanking people for their kind words. Of course its not the first place people will go and many won't even know UKC exists, but it does happen.
It's even more likely UKC registered climbers will be looking: climbing is a fairly small community.
The legacy issues would be a real bonus for the site. So many climbers who did so much are just not famous enough for an obituary or so detatched from the climbing world no one realises that they have departed. If people think I was exaggerating with my few a month passing unheralded comment: just on the Froggatt guide I co-edited there are of the order of a hundred acknowledgements and a few thousand 1st ascentionists most of whom are still alive and only a small fraction of whom might get a magazine obituary but the majority of whom I'd be happy to read a UKC thread on and many where an article would be appropriate. The Brian Cropper article and thread clearly show what could be... as I said a climber well known to those with a keen eye for climbing history but whom most UKC posters will never have heard of.
Its odd really. Posters keep saying it doesn't happen even though some of us have witnessed it and on better threads we have had family posts thanking people for their kind words. Of course its not the first place people will go and many won't even know UKC exists, but it does happen.
It's even more likely UKC registered climbers will be looking: climbing is a fairly small community.
The legacy issues would be a real bonus for the site. So many climbers who did so much are just not famous enough for an obituary or so detatched from the climbing world no one realises that they have departed. If people think I was exaggerating with my few a month passing unheralded comment: just on the Froggatt guide I co-edited there are of the order of a hundred acknowledgements and a few thousand 1st ascentionists most of whom are still alive and only a small fraction of whom might get a magazine obituary but the majority of whom I'd be happy to read a UKC thread on and many where an article would be appropriate. The Brian Cropper article and thread clearly show what could be... as I said a climber well known to those with a keen eye for climbing history but whom most UKC posters will never have heard of.
In reply to Offwidth:
From my perspective, I just know how one can be rather 'impulse driven' or compulsive when somebody is always at the front of one's thoughts, so that searching for anything about them or what happened to them on line would be a likely thing for somebody to be doing, meaning they could chance upon something on here. Having 'been through the mill' of loss and all that goes with it, I just know that logic and rationality don't always come into it. When I read people saying it would be the best or first place that anybody would/should come to for comfort - in the end, that isn't really the point. I almost think you have to have been through it to know that, but that could be to lose sight of life always being subjective (though there's still an element of truth in it - I think).
From my perspective, I just know how one can be rather 'impulse driven' or compulsive when somebody is always at the front of one's thoughts, so that searching for anything about them or what happened to them on line would be a likely thing for somebody to be doing, meaning they could chance upon something on here. Having 'been through the mill' of loss and all that goes with it, I just know that logic and rationality don't always come into it. When I read people saying it would be the best or first place that anybody would/should come to for comfort - in the end, that isn't really the point. I almost think you have to have been through it to know that, but that could be to lose sight of life always being subjective (though there's still an element of truth in it - I think).
Post edited at 00:26
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...