UKC

Tom Livingstone reflects on what style means to him in the context of climbing, and beyond...

Style is embodied in adventure of the unknown. A guaranteed route in the mountains holds no appeal. For me, alpinism is starting in the dead of night, following the white light of hope from your headlamp. It's filling your lungs with cold air, wondering where each breath will take you. It's the crunch of granite crystals beneath your rock shoes and the uncertainty as the axe strikes.

Read more

In reply to UKC Articles:

The decision to onsight rather than work a route is all about embracing uncertainty and a rich experience (and likely fall potential!). I found this bit interesting:

"I felt electric for days after my first hard trad onsight. I floated on a steady buzz, contented, even though I can only remember a few of the moves from Surgical Lust (a climb on Scimitar Ridge). A few years before, I was tempted to headpoint a route of this E7 grade, but now I'm glad I saved it for the onsight."

I can understand being pleased not to have worked a particular route, but personally I don't find that headpointing the next grade up in any way reduces the powerful experience of the later onsight of a different route.  

In reply to UKC Articles:

Struggling to work out why, as of 20:50, there are 4 dislikes for this post! 

(I "liked" it, just for balance)

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Envy or even jealousy ?

Climb in whatever style you like, but do not think it does not matter.

So did I.

 

In reply to UKC Articles:

Style matters but really only to yourself. Sometimes style can hold you back. As an old schooler my ‘style’ is to read the guidebook, choose the routes I fancy, get to the bottom of the crag, have a bit of a look and then climb the route. I never used to even have a system of terminology for it. It was climbing.

This approach, combined with a lack of application limited my grade aspirations to mid E grades. Had I wanted to go harder I could have tried headpointing or just climbed more.

I remember vividly when I led Hardd on Carreg Hyll-Drem, I was off balance at the crux, one move from success but I bottled and used the peg as a hold for about half a second. That was bad style!

Not sure what my message is but I sure as hell know what style means in climbing.

In reply :

Style matters. 

Onsighting close to your limit is incredibly satisfying. 

However risk also matters. 

I've done bold routes and felt sickened afterwards at how close it was; at how much I'd risked; and for what?

I want to play this game for a long time, and not cripple myself. So I'm prepared to occasionally sacrifice style. Not often, and always honestly. I don't feel bad about it. I don't need total commitment every time I go out. 

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Or you could always sacrifice odd E point instead

Lovely little article.

In reply to Robert Durran:

True. Although once you've climbed a lot in an area options get more limited. I might get more from a tainted flash of an inspirational E5 than onsighting a rarely climbed, dirty and dangerous one star E2. 

 

 

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Yes, I'd be more inclined to compromise on local crags too for the same reason.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Good article. At the end of the day, style is a personal choice, dependent on motivations, abilities and conditions. What matters far more is honesty with yourself and others. I like to think that most climbers are honest about what style they have climbed a route in. Some styles are better than others but as long as people are honest they can climb in whatever style they can or like. 

In reply to Andy Hardy:

15.05 the next day and we have 18 possible children now. Its almost like they think Tom thinks he is superior to UKC regulars... how dare he?. Does he see himself as that special?? Anyway it all helps my campaigning view: the dislike button needs to go and you don't need to do a survey any more to prove the points that Alan made in support of the button are clearly proving very wrong. Just to be fair here: I think Alan's original line on the button was worthy and optimistic, its just that the children have let him down (as they always will).

Forum style matters: make the critics speak and be known

(Thanks for the article Tom and UKC)

 

In reply to Offwidth:

The Like button is pretty meaningless without the possible option of using the opposite. 

In reply to Offwidth:

My one dislike in this thread was for the original article. While agreeing with the substance of the article, even though it is not original, I find the writing itself lacking in style. Having re-read it several times, I still find it somewhat disjointed and unstructured; there is also, for my taste, too much which borders on pathos and, yes, self-praise.

 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Thats not what the research shows and why Facebook dumped the idea.

In reply to McHeath:

Thanks for the explanation but do you seriously think we could deduce that from your pressing of the button. Why just not write what you just did?

In reply to Offwidth:

I suppose it would have seemed too much like nit-picking at the time. Glad I've put it on the record now though.

 

In reply to Offwidth:

Surely Facebook dumped the idea (if they ever seriously considered it) because they wanted a nice friendly place where everyone can seek approval and applaud each other. 

In reply to Offwidth:

Although I agree with you broadly speaking I'd venture that it's a bit more ambiguous than you're suggesting. A lot depends on the context - the type of site, its user base, and the functionality. The closer to the personal (as with UKC) the more likely it is that dislikes will become problematic. If the dislikes are for something with no personal (or group) association then they don't have the same capacity for offence  - people are disliking something, not someone. On this basis Facebook were right to avoid a 'dislike' button. 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I don't think that is true in any way. Their relationship is not at all symmetrical.

The dislike button undermines good discussion. I would happily see it replaced with an "offensive" button, so that nastiness is called out, but simple disagreement has to be explained.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The relationship may not be symmetrical, but like answering a questionnaire, I generally like to be given more than one option. I don't see why the only click choice other than not doing so at all is bland approval - it gives a false indication of how a post may be perceived, and what does it achieve anyway?

I disagree about a dislike button significantly undermining discussion. If someone feels strongly enough about something or has something to add other than an indication of disapproval, they will do so.   

In reply to Michael Gordon:

But do you not find it slightly frustrating, having read Tom's article, not to know why 20 people "disliked" it? Probably a bit frustrating for Tom too! And no way of discussing it with them when you don't know what the issues are. 

 

In reply to Bob Kemp:

I agree its ambiguous and that not everyone misuses the button but Facebook felt from there extensive and expensive look at the subject that negativity is problematic to deal with in many ways and was bad for business. Even so, you can get add-ons from elsewhere and dislike in Facebook if you want (eg through Firefox).

People are not as in control of their views as most think:.all sorts of social influences and cognitive biases affect the way we view things and negative herd mentality can be especially dangerous to some vulnerable users. The evidence of damage from negative views on young is well known (passive cyber bullying) and in the more extreme cases can lead to serious mental health problems. Some people do take extreme negative reactions to others on the internet and deliberately oppose and sometimes troll or even stalk people that annoy them and anonymous dislikes are a very useful tool for such problem users (even likes can be, if someone else says something nasty about the person). Most people when being negative online will be more aggressive if they were talking face to face.

Alan gave his reasons for why dislikes might help the site and for a while arguments about this occurred with no real evidence. Hence I surveyed all threads (except the pub) with mulitple dislikes during a quiet period for me one Xmas (around a hundred from memory). Some multiple dislikes happened on straight  useful information posts (notably some safety posts from Jim Titt!?), and on more posts with clear positive or friendly intent. Most were on tit for tat stuff, esp politics. In fact the only examples of mass dislikes for sensible looking reasons, might have been regarded as cyberbullying as the person posting was clearly clueless and probably vulnerable  (esp  Savas). People from time to time explain why they dislike something and they often completely surprise me with the subtlety that is completely lost by the button (if the reason is subtle, write it down ffs)

The best solution is to avoid dislikes altogether but if you must have something like it, make it attributed at least and better still ask for a reason (as per the negative karma on UKB). Dislike use also needs monitoring: I'd ban the handful of idiots who at one point seemed to cyberstalk Lemming for instance and I would like to see public graphs/top40 lists on the main dislikers to act as a disincentive to overuse. I'd also remove dislikes from Starting Out initial posts.

 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

The need you describe for a dislike button is pretty much logically removed when there is a like button. Someone makes a clear and honest expression of disagreement, empathy or whatever other weird and wonderful reason people use dislikes for, and that post can be liked. This has the benefit that everyone then knows exactly what is being 'disliked'. Research shows internet negativity has many risks and the tiny inconvenience to dislike this way seems a sensible safer route to me.

In reply to Offwidth:

Interesting little mini-study there... I agree about avoiding the Dislike button. I don't think it adds much genuine value on a site like this - not enough to outweigh the possible negatives. I tried using it for a while and found that it seemed to encourage a splenetic knee-jerking streak within me that I didn't really want!

In reply to Robert Durran & Offwidth:

OK, Robert, I'll bite...

Because it's pretentious, trite and didactic?  Largely trotting out vacuous nonsense purporting to be some kind of purist manifesto?

"These are the rewards we should aim for as we pursue the ephemeral 'perfect style.' We should look for the views with nobody else in sight, and chase the blood-red sunset. We should remember the silence as darkness settles"

Should, should, should - says who? OK, it's an opinion piece, but most people have little time for being told how they SHOULD climb. Many climb to get away from that kind of arrogant, judgemental sermonising. Alpinism has a long history of false prophets who spent their youth telling everyone how it should be done, only to f*ck up and die because they weren't as clever as they thought they were, or become cranky old hypocrites, or slide silently into mid-life softened - and improved - by the truer joys of family, home and friends. Tom's enthusiasm is genuine but that doesn't automatically mean it's better.

"the remoteness of the Karakoram Himalaya" - there is no such thing as the 'Karakoram Himalaya'. It's one or the other, and Tom was in the former.

"Style is embodied in adventure of the unknown." - eh? Did he copy that from Instagram?

"sending shivers down my spine - and not just from the cold." - ooh, I see what you did there!

The article really could have done with an editor, who would have tightened up the vague banalities, corrected the geography, and generally lopped off at least 30% of the whole thing.

And then of course there is the point that this has come from someone who recently climbed a mountain in such a way that very obviously avoided the 'purest' expression of alpinism - an ascent of the north ridge of Latok - and took a practical, wandering line mainly in order to reach the summit, because they seemed to be under the misguided illusion that being the first to climb the mountain 'from the north' was somehow more significant than climbing the stunning line of the famous ridge. He then publicly criticises the Russians who did in fact climb the line of the ridge - and then comes home and pens a lecture about purity of style!

So, Robert, there you have it, at least my take on it. You did ask for it. How many times have we been told in online arguments "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"? And here you are outright asking for trouble. I was perfectly happy to keep my opinions to myself and remain silent, content to hit the Dislike button instead. I'm sure Tom is a very nice bloke and is clearly a talented and dedicated climber, much better than I ever could have been, and clearly passionate and caring about our sport, so I have no desire to be an armchair asshole to him, but you and Offwidth asked, hung up on your dislike of the Dislike, so there you go...

Happy now?

 

 

In reply to Damo:

Well I'm happy you posted that and it rather illustrates my point that a dislike often hides important complexity and intent. In the same way that you have complex arguments behind your dislike, Robert and I have complex arguments why the site would be better off without the button. I think its better the complexity is out there to discuss.

In reply to Damo:

Thanks for the full and frank clarification. I can accept some of your points but not others. As far as I know, they never pretended their line on Latok was anything it wasn't and they climbed it in extremely pure style. I think any other impression was caused by premature, not fully informed or speculative reporting by others. 

As for the thing about not saying anything unless it is nice, the same could be said about not clicking on a button unless it is a nice one!

In reply to Robert Durran:

In the spirt of showing how bad things can be on a masive web platform when you get carried away with free speech (and 'let the lunatics run the asylum'):

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/23/reddit-charlottesville-w...

UKC is a pretty good forum by any measure, my view on changes are really positve tweeks that seek to make the site friendlier, and increase traffic  without diluting debate (and so make UKC a bit more money that it can invest for its user base)

In reply to Robert Durran:

Not at all. I think that people can be against what someone says but knowing their views may well be unpopular and they may even be ostracised for them, they would rather not post them. Hence they wouldn't have aired the views anyway, so no discussion is lost with the presence of the dislike button. At the same time, having both options available gives a simple impression of how a post is received. 

I think those getting hot and bothered about a few dislikes need to justify the presence of the Like button. What is it there for? The only use I can see is getting a general impression of what people think, something which can only be assessed fairly with more than one option available.   

In reply to Offwidth:

I just can't understand why folk need to know the reason for a dislike appearing. Why not question the likes? A lot of which in any one thread I might think are completely unjustified, but accept that people can think what they like, pun intended!   

In reply to Robert Durran:

From what you say about discussion, I imagine you are against this popular phrase? As for the latter point, why exactly? Why does everyone only have to be 'nice' and positive? I might make the point that people often 'dislike' things simply as a form of disagreement, and it is tricky to infer or dish out nastiness simply by a click of a button.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Style only matters if important to the individual, for personal reasons or to be compared to others. Other than that, be respectful, but do what you want how you want. "We should..." is not appropriate.

 

 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I agree. I didn't like the article but I don't feel I should have to justify my position or explain why, particularly since I know beforehand that the outcome of doing so would be an argument with some of the 'usual suspects' which frankly I have no time for. A dislike is a much more time - efficient way to get my opinion across whilst avoiding unnecessary angst. 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

No. In the sense that there is nothing wrong with being critical or disagreeing, though this doesn't mean it is ok to be "not nice" in an unpleasant way.

They don't (see above).

Of course, and sometimes that could be all it could mean, but more often it could mean various things (as about Tom's article here).

I think quite a bit of that probably goes on here; the serial dislikers of a poster for example. Yesterday I started a thread in the photography forum simply requesting views on a particular camera that a number of people on here use and I got  dislike for it..... oh dear......

 

In reply to Si dH:

So in actual fact you couldn't be bothered to express (and therefore get across) your opinion, so you lazily hit the "dislike" button instead of engaging in discussion on a discussion forum.

Your post sums up perfectly all that is wrong with the "dislike button". Thankyou.

 

In reply to UKC Articles:

If only the like / dislike buttons cut out some of the drivel on here.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

It's digital heroin - you get a little dopamine hit every time you get liked. It's there to keep you hooked and thus make money. 

 

In reply to UKC Articles:

Good article, I reckon I’ve met very few, if any, longer term climbers who don’t value style.

And I think both the like and dislke buttons should go personally....

In reply to UKC Articles:

To hop on the like / dislike button bandwagon that the discussion on this article has descended into, can we have a 'meh' / I don't care button please?

Only the most vanilla / inoffensive articles and comments don't get a dislike, so why care?

As for the article (a.k.a. what this thread should be discussing), overall I'd give it a like as I find I also get the most out of onsighting stuff at my limit in the mountains - though just small, non-icy and snowy ones! Yes, it could be interpreted as preachy or elitist (i.e. repeated use of 'should', and what he describes as his first hard onsight being an E7), but overall I think he is just probably waxing lyrical rather than telling everyone they should climb like him.

Perhaps a good follow up article would be examples where people have lied about the style in which they climbed things!

 

In reply to Martin Bagshaw:

Absolutely.

In reply to Martin Bagshaw:

33 dislikes now Martin. You think this is normal? If so why this article more than any other I can think of. There is plenty of non-vanilla stuff published here that ends up with a tiny number of likes and dislikes. It's looks very much like childish negative herd mentality, and a reaction to that, aside from a few posters who explained why they hit a button. Its discussed because this happens here from time to time and some of us do care and don't like it.

In reply to Offwidth:

I just hit the dislike button because I find the article pretentious rubbish and do not like to be preached at about which style I should climb in. No need to rehash the points made more eloquently above, but I just came back from an alpine epic where I had more than my required dose of adventure. Unlike the author I don't revel in the experience, though, instead I am annoyed at my bad judgement that had caused me to take too much risk. As the saying goes, there are old climbers and bold climbers, but no old, bold climbers.

That said, the bonus point is that I get to buy a new rope...

CB

In reply to Offwidth:

You're a hoot. With your considered observations about online behaviour, you might be less dismissive of all who have chosen to use the forum tools differently to you.

Above, you said this:

Take a look at Damo's post above. It has more likes than the article has dislikes. But yeah, you're right, it's probably just 'childish herd mentality'.

In reply to Andy Moles:

No, I think it probably means they agree with him. By somebody actually saying what they "dislike" about the article and lots of people agreeing, we now know what the objection to it is, which we didn't know from all the initial lazy dislikes. It in fact illustrates yet again why the "like" button works but the "dislike" one doesn't.

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

2 + 2 = Fish 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I disagree, both like and dislike buttons need implied context. Does the person pressing the button like/dislike the facts or opinion presented in a post or the style of this presentation? No way to tell, you must make additional assumptions if you want to make sense of either, but this is a price you have to pay for reducing comments to one click. 

The much bigger problem is that having only like button bears the danger of creating feedback bubbles, which can be highly addictive and self reinforcing. This is precisely why Facebook and their ilk are economically successful and a danger for our democracies.

In fact, I would propose banning social websites from having like buttons only.

CB

In reply to Andy Moles:

I've already said some childish herd mentality can apply to both buttons and where someone is mass liked when being negative, exactly the same problems occurs as when being mass disliked.  This is an international problem that many researchers have looked seriously at from the social protection side of avoiding cyberbullying to the commercial side of making money . In Facebook's case they chose to avoid the button because of this, despite a large minority of users who said they wanted it..

https://www.wired.com/2015/09/facebook-dislike-button/

Negative behaviour just doesn't help build an internet community, has real risks, and it worries advertisers. It's very problematic in the face of vulnerable people, especially teenagers and kids: a huge international worry. So I find it strange that individuals fail to see this big picture and because they feel they behave OK, most everyone else must. The internet is full of trolls, stalkers, clear hate and passive aggresive attacks and as Bob bravely admits the later can  happen to the best of us, especially after a bad day, at night after a few too many drinks, and where anonymity means there is no comeback.

Damo's post is in my view OK in its negativity, as it highlights what he sees as real issues we can discuss and mostly avoids problems with being over emotive and doesn't play the man. There are clear site rules to denote the border of  acceptability on such posts. Sadly this thread as a whole is losing the real story to a different one: what I see as herd mentality. It's not logical looking at similar past articles that this one gets so much like and dislike traffic and it sure looks just like what the Psychology expects us to see when herd mentality kicks in (including the denial from some who voted, for good or bad reasons) . I've had the same arguments with individuals, since the dislike button arrived. "I only use it in the way the site intended" was a common position. This didn't stack up with many post votes I viewed, so I did some research and looked at all multiple disliked posts.  Hardly anywhere was the button doing what we were told it would, apart from cyberbullying the likes of Savas; good straight information too often got multiple dislikes. There was no visible community benefit I could see anywhere in terms of clear exposing of trolls and unfair negative behaviour, empathy on sad news or whatever... Feel free to try it again and prove me wrong: I went down the full list of recent posts in all retained forums (so not The Pub), and it was just after Xmas, where people might have been being more kind than usual.

In reply to Offwidth:

Alternative interpretation: many of the same people who liked Damo's post did so for the same reasons they disliked the original post, not because of 'herd mentality' but because it reflected what they actually thought.

The existence of herd mentality and cognitive biases does not make every case of mass (dis)liking an example of them per se. 

Is calling people 'children' on the  basis of this assumption any way constructive? I don't find that people are often persuaded by ridicule.

In reply to jezb1:

I propose four buttons - 'Like', 'Dislike', 'Brexit' and 'What have they done on grit?'.

In reply to Andy Moles:

Well being overly polite didn't work and as I said the behaviour of a lot of people caught up in mass dislikes according to the research is childish. We have the capacity to be better.

I agree there are many possible explanations for why an individual thread might have likes and dislikes but not so for mass dislikes.  When you look at the big picture (all the research) and something is said to be clearly wrong in such circumstances,  I'd always suspect that on any individual thread with large dislike traffic (and no massively obvious reason for that) over more innocent explanations. Even on this specific post, how would you explain other similar non-vanilla articles with similar view counts getting much less like/dislke attention?

I still think Lemming has one of the largest counts of dislikes on any individual thread where he outright attacked the button (and he pretty certainly was stalked by a few morons for a while afterwards who dislked everything he posted). Some of my earlier  posts which were calmer positions, pointing out the research problems highlighted for dislike buttons, were not too far behind. Ignoring evidence of real problems and playing rhetorical whataboutery is an old game, even more common on new media but also not a particularly adult response: we should face problems, not kid ourselves they don't exist.

In reply to Andy Moles:

I'm not clear what you mean by this.

However, the bottom line is that until Damo and then later a couple of others were finally prompted by this "like/dislike" discussion to actually say what their objection to the article was, there was nothing to reply to and so have a discussion about the article's merit or lack of merit, which ought to be one of the purposes of this thread; in other words, the use of the "dislike" button was killing discussion, and I can't see how that can possibly be desirable on a discussion forum.

I found Damo's post interesting with some valid points but also some highly disputable ones. I replied to the most obvious one earlier and might give a fuller reply later if I have time. 

In reply to Offwidth:

To answer that, I would have to go and read those articles. Speaking to this particular case, you appear to have this anti-dislike agenda at the front of your mind, and I think your points are valid - but I also have no difficulty seeing why there is a strong reaction against the article (though in Tom's defence, it was probably quite rushed in his short layoff between expeditions).

 

In reply to Andy Moles:

It's disproportionately the strongest reaction to any article I can remember on UKC and you seriously think it's nothing to do with the dislike arguments?

In reply to Offwidth:

I honestly don't know - I haven't been following those arguments. 

In reply to cb294:

Sure risk taking in the young is higher but I know plenty of old bold climbers. Soloing is one of their main games and often,, when warmed up, surprisingly close to their technical limits, albeit usually on routes they know. Tom's arguments don't just apply to young men.

If you want to look at risk reduction as a primary requirement it might be no one would ever climb on alpine or greater range  routes as objective risk is often unavoidable.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes; five of us have given concrete reasons for our dislike, and I refuse to believe that the remaining 33 who pressed "dislike" are childish and of a herd mentality. To repeatedly label them as such is simply insulting in my view.

 

In reply to Offwidth:

"Disproportionately"? Not sure what you mean.

Tom's article is currently 39+ / 38- That's pretty proportionate.

This article, for example, had only 12+ / 24- : https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/climbing_and_social_fears-683717

In both cases, I approached the articles quite positively and was disappointed with what I found. I'd hazard a guess others felt the same way, rather than any great proportion of them simply hitting the Dislike button for the hell of it.

As mentioned above, you seem to have a real thing about this issue and I wonder if it's skewing your judgement. In a post above you say:

"I'd always suspect that on any individual thread with large dislike traffic (and no massively obvious reason for that) over more innocent explanations"

but just because you see no such reason for the Dislikes doesn't mean others think the same. You ascribe this mismatch to internet trolldom when perhaps it's just your personal judgement that is off-kilter here? Or your personal preferences are at odds with a significant number of UKC users?

You also say above "Sadly this thread as a whole is losing the real story to a different one: what I see as herd mentality." but I respectfully suggest Offwidth, that it is you and really only you that has derailed the thread from comments on Tom's article to broader issues of damaging online activity. You seem to be a hammer looking for a nail.

Maybe this thread is a nail - but maybe not.

 

In reply to Offwidth:

TL is of course a much better climber than I ever was or or will be, but how does that make him an arbiter of style?

Ironically, I even agree with him that enjoying oneself in the mountains is more important than reaching the summit. However, I would argue that doing so safely is essential if you want to do that in the long term. There is nothing intrinsically "better" in an onsight attempt vs. a redpoint climb, and in the Alps I have no problem with short aid sections. Why would that lessen my enjoyment?  

As for the risk taking, we should e.g. have left the route we tried last week for next spring, when the bit we got into (minor) trouble would have been a nice ice couloir line rather than  a vertical choss pile, forcing us off into rocks on the side that were not much better.

As you say, some risk cannot be avoided if you want to go mountainineering at all, but that extra risk was completely avoidable and did not add anything to our enjoyment, we should simply have picked the adjacent mountain. 

In rock climbing terms, why would solo something I could also protect (unless it is so far below my limit that I am certain I will not fall)?

CB

In reply to Offwidth:

But it is also a rather badly written article with a premise that always had a good chance to annoy people: Questions of style are always personal. I think you see a witch hunt where there is none, unlike the unfortunate Lemming stalking.

This has nothing to do with my respect for TL's climbing feats, the Latok climb looks spectacular, and  from my POV that is not diminished at all by choosing a safer route rather than following the full ridge. In fact, I am almost more impressed by climbers who adjust their aims according to circumstances, seems the wiser thing to do.

CB

In reply to UKC Articles:

it's great when it's neck and neck, and your vote tips the balance

(should have had a live totaliser for the brexit vote; oh well..... could-have-been n all that)

In reply to daWalt:

Dislike for you my friend, for being willing grist to Offwidth's mill!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Again, I honestly can't see why. How do you know why people hit the Like button? Or if you don't know, then why does a dislike need a reason but not a like?

In contrast to what Offwidth says, I think an argument can be made that a dislike button reduces negativity as people can simply choose to object to a post in a mild and inoffensive manner rather than lay out in great detail an unavoidably 'negative' objection.

In reply to Damo:

I meant its disproportionate in respect of the number of dislikes compared to other theads on any other articles that I can remember and some that looked to me far more controversial. The problem with dislikes was never fair use that people could back up with sensible reasoning as in your case, it is many of the others. I've never said all dislikes are childish. The research on dislike buttons indicate there is herd mentality behind large numbers and this can be a real problem for community spirit and for commercial income. I'd add as we ramped up the dislike discussion the score went from 34, 25 ish to its current 39, 43.

I'm genuinely glad you and the 3 others replied but that wasn't until after the dislikes were already called out as being excessive. Like Robert I don't agree with everything you say and might reply in detail why later.

On the subject of old bold climbers they solo because they still can and enjoy it and are confident on their ability to remain focussed and be OK Just visited one today in his mid 70s who nearly always solos outdoors these days and often pretty close to his technical limit. He would find the idea he should protect something because he can rather laughable.

The 'nail' to me is the existance of a dislike button. Research shows they are a bad idea for a site. The rest of UKC is doing really well and growing in size  but the climbing forums are pretty moribund. Quite a few experienced climbers who used to make positive contributions  tell me the childish and ignorant attitudes demonstrated here are the main reason they no longer post. Getting rid of the dislike button is one of several things the site could do to help. If you are campaigning you don't ignore obvious opportunities.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

You can't always tell why someone "likes" a post, but, to make my point again, it is disagreement rather than agreement which drives discussion, so the option of lazy "dislikes" is bad for discussion.

I'm not against "negativity" if it is justified criticism or thoughtful disagreement rather than just unpleasantmess. I'm all for people properly laying out their "negativity" in this sense rather than pressing the "dislike" button since, as I have said, I'm all for discussion.

I think you may be muddling mine and Offwidth's cases - I think his is more about fighting unpleasantness, whereas mine is about promoting good discussion.

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

In the end improving quality and volume of discussion here is my real aim. Removing the dislike button would just be a good step on the way. 

In reply to Offwidth:

The thing is, some of us have got better things to do than post 50 posts a week to UKC, as much as it might add to the conversation mix. Also, some rubbish just isn't worth the time and effort to respond to, for which the dislike button serves an excellent function. 

In reply to Mr. Lee:

I know plenty of climbers who have made the top 40 who have incredibly busy and complex lives and still found time. You might not want to always but other useful contibuters would if the site improved. Dislike buttons lead to damage to sites and some people using them so may be tempting and convenient but are counter-productive.

The best way to deal with rubbish on the internet is ignoring it.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

So don't then.

No, just a lazy and unconstructive option.

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I would usually click dislike there since I disagree, but instead I shall say:

"I disagree"

Much more useful and constructive!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Not really. I made two points and I don't know which bit you dislike/disagree with.

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

In that case I think this proves that a dislike button doesn't kill debate.

In reply to Offwidth:

Would you then say the dislike button is rubbish?

In reply to wintertree:

No, a dislike button is a site function that can have malign consequences. In any case I was really talking ahout single rubbish posts. Nasty trolls and childish jokers rely on the hot air of publicity and hate to be ignored (obviously not all trolls or jokers are in these categories). If a post is seriously wrong or nasty I'd say it needs a reply. Equally, if rubbish becomes a trend its good to challenge it.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I actually think this is a non-preaching article about style. Tom discusses his attitude to style and where he makes his decisions, if you make different ones who cares, you only have to  justify them to yourself. Maybe if you are disliking this and feeling that there is some moral superiority in Toms words you are silently questioning your own style shortcomings.

Personally I have no problems that when on Via Feratta I use the wire, I've pulled on pitons on mountain routes to save working a complex sequence and the time taken, I've also redpointed trad and received beta. I know that without beta I probably wouldn't have climbed past some plateaus and now I onsight harder, less pure but I'm comfortable with it.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Nonsense. Obviously really.....

It proves that it undermines debate. If you had said what you disagreed with, I could have replied appropriately.

 

In reply to JohnBson:

I see climbing writing as important and much of the best writing in the genre interlinks climbing game styles and risk, so its incredibly hard to be original or to approach the very best in this area. I don't see much at all that is wrong with this as an article, and it has a few very nice touches, like setting the scene for Marco's words. The emotion and reasoning seems genuine to me. The critical words in this thread are way too harsh and it certainly never deserved 50 dislikes and counting. Even in the unlikly event that they were all genuine it would indicate to me the users of the site are losing their way in terms of the history and validity of alpine climbing games and the reasons why people take on such risks.

People who are seriously interested in when alpinist motivations and experiences allow them drift into the possible edges of irresponsibility, or beyond, should maybe try a better critique: " On the Ridge between Life and Death" David Roberts

http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/On-the-Ridge-Between-Life-and-Death/D...

In reply to Offwidth:

It's called "bathos":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathos

Glinting glasses, spinning motes of dust in the beam of light cutting through the dark room, a theatrical pause ... if Marko had then said: "So I stood on the peg", I'd have been hooked; as the passage stands, it's pure anticlimax, and that as a scene setter.

David Roberts - yes! Now there's a stylish climbing author for you.

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

But I chose to reply instead of using the dislike button and you were still none the wiser as to my thoughts. So it isn't the button per se. 

In reply to Offwidth:

Looking at this article just now there were 4849 views and 50 dislikes.  It's surely not that hard to believe that about 10% of the people who read it genuinely disliked it in some way.

For the record I was one, and I consider my reasons to be perfectly genuine i.e. it was badly written, lacked editing and came across as preaching, even if I largely share TLs views on what is good style.  As you say, there is a lot of high quality literature on style and risk but that probably means anything written on it is held to a higher standard.  Nothing wrong with that.  Once the reasons for a dislike of the article are expressed though (as they have been by several others further up thread) there doesn't seem much point in repeating them, hence a click to register support for a viewpoint is a pretty reasonable option to have.   

You seem determined to be the arbiter of what people should think and how they should behave on this thread though - those who disagree with you are either are acting like children or losing their way in their understanding of alpinism.   It's not really helping your goal of improving quality of discussion...

 

 

In reply to Offwidth:

Tom's passion comes across for sure, but the writing here is very poor compared to anything else I have seen written by him. Even the setting the scene that you cite as a highlight, adds nothing to the article as a whole for me - it amounts to little more than some trite axioms, propped by some irrelevant imagery (what do the floating dust particles, of which he takes no notice, bring to the story?).

Now, you can disagree with that all you want and that's fine, it's a matter of opinion, but maybe a lot of other people have had similar thoughts to me, and the negative reaction to the article is nothing more insidious than people simply not liking it. Consider it possible.

I personally did not want to add any criticism, because I know it feels exposing to put personal thoughts out there in writing, and it can be hurtful to get negative feedback when you have not asked for it. But since you have dragged this into a meta-debate over the dislike function, you have created a situation where the only way to justify the negative response is to be quite outspokenly harsh.

 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yes, the button is equivalent to a rubbish, ambiuous post. Thanks for persisting in demonstrating my case for me.

In reply to richgac:

I'm an arbiter of nothing. I just have an opinion, that I make public, based on the best evidence I can find. As an example of that, I think that if you compare it to at least equivalently well written articles on UKC with more views you will always find many fewer dislikes.. I guess I should be glad you haven't been forced to be mean to Tom, because of my 'meta debate'.

I recognise it 'could be me'. A  truely special multi-problematic article, given that it goes over my head just where these faults are even where their nature is explained (except the Himalaya bit, that has now gone).

The research indicates a good deal of  childishness in dislikes and denial in the population making them. The use of dislkes  here on UKC seem to me to agree with that, when I surveyed it: dislikes, simply don't correlate well with lack of quality.  The posts some users make often show an ignorance of alpinist motivations and risk in climbing in general. They remain  the most likely cause of such an unusual number of dislikes on such a UKC article.

In reply to Offwidth:

In fact it is some of the writings of Roberts, on top of my own experience, that influenced my thoughts writing my post above. Dave questions the worn literary and cultural pillars of alpinism as sharply as anyone and in that very book you suggest he moves away from these high falutin' pseudo-spiritual ideas about transcendence and whatnot. Right near the end he asks "Is it worth the risk?" and in the context of the passage just before it with Gabe's sister, it's hard not to conclude he's feeling that "No, it's not worth it." Roberts then goes on to describe counter-moments of joy, but concludes "...there are more important things in life than joy."

And in his most recent book 'Limits of the Known' he sharpens his view even finer:

"Messner swore in book after book, in order to dig deep into his own soul to find out who and what he really was ... the inestimable treasure of self-understanding. The trouble is that Messner never goes on to define the self that he went to such desperate lengths to excavate." 

None of these alpine prophets ever bring back any great insight or revelation of actual value. It's a con, to add a veneer of worthiness to a meaningless pursuit fueled by ego and insecurity.

Roberts goes on to detail how he finally got more self-discovery out of proper psychotherapy than adventure.

It would be unfair to criticise Tom Livingstone for not having the hard-won perspective of David Roberts, nor the eloquence and literary pedigree. But what Dave's work, even before but certainly now, highlights is how trite and shallow so much climbing writing is, dishonest even, and certainly lacking in true insight. I'd like to think that over time we can improve, and part of that is calling out writing that is of a standard and style that we should no longer praise as representative of our sport and all that underpins it.

 

 

In reply to Damo:

Thats more like it !

I'd have to write and ask David but I suspect he wouldn't be anything like as hard on these other writers as you are.  People write about what they experience most strongly. What I liked about the book was the acknowledgement that the gains felt real and gave genuine motivation but the risks didn't factor as much as they should. His critique was fairly grounded. In any case when we look at Tom's article, it is explicit about the need to compromise, about failure, fear and risk.

Back to the meta argument,  I found this thread which had similar views and was much more likely in my opinion  to see dislikes (some editing issues, nothing special in wrting quality, very long and based on someone claiming to be a master of something that amounts to bs). Yet only made 24 (very highfor a UKC article).

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/climbing_and_social_fears-683717

I liked the comments made by Rocksteady and Mick Ward (a UKC hero) on the influence on others who might be considering to write for UKC, pretty much at the end.

In reply to Offwidth:

But see, you've done it again, just chosen the bit you agree with and ignore the comment in there with them from jon: "There's only usually negativity when they're full of bullshit and wankery."

 

In reply to Damo:

So where exactly is the 'bullshit and wankery' here. Quote and explain please and ensure you don't miss the surrounding context. Otherwise I'm  left feeling It must be some horrible blindness I have, given it gets double the number of dislikes of a thread that has quackery in the introduction.

Jon's would be a useful informed comparative view.

In reply to Offwidth and Damo:

Excellent! Now that people are posting thoughtfully, prompted by Tom's article, about things which go right to the heart of the mountaineering experience, rather than just mindlessly hitting "dislike" and "like " buttons, this could potentially develop into one of the most interesting and worthwhile UKC threads in ages. Plenty of food for thought already...........

I'll definitely be ordering those David Roberts books (I thought his Mountain of My Fear amongst the very finest mountaineering books I've read).

 

In reply to Offwidth:

Sarcasm aside, you have a point - I didn't have to say anything. In fact I'm irritated with myself for getting drawn in. No one changes their mind in these online exchanges, we just try to win arguments.

 

In reply to Andy Moles:

I don't know. I see these things more like sparring than fights. I  obviously do care about this subject and would dearly like to see the back of the button (but recognise my annoyance with people convinced of something, in the face of what I see as evidence and logic.... something with such firm views on both sides that it will nearly always prove to remain unresolved... will often look arrogant on my part). However, these threads often kick off other interesting and more positive points. I certainly respect people who try to argue fairly and honestly rather than bullshit using rhetoric to achieve dishonest ends (winning is an end but the style of the journey matters too!)  even when on the opposite side of the argument. I see anonymous dislikes as a threat to such honest exchanges, as poor style.

In reply to UKC Articles:

***Thread hijack*** We have an upcoming interview with David Roberts for a 'Reading Between the Lines' piece. Any questions you'd like me to pass on - email them to me!

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

Have ten likes for that

In reply to Offwidth:

My work here is done.

 

 

In reply to Damo:

Yet many of us would rank our experiences among the mountains as somehow among the richest and most fulfilling of our lives. Maybe these writers are, with varying success, just trying to get a handle on that very real feeling - should we expect them to actually be able to provide any real insights or revelations?

 

In reply to Damo:

Ok, so will I.

I Just reread your earlier post again and quite frankly I found this bit quite out of order:

So they turned up on a glacier and climbed the mountain in pure alpine style by the safest line of least resisance from that glacier - if that is not the purest expression of alpinism then I don't know what is. You could even make a case for it being purer than searching out contrived difficulty by following the "true" crest of a ridge. In fact I think both are equally pure in their own way.

I assume you can direct me to where they claimed that their ascent was more significant than climbing the famous ridge. Can you? I think you'll find they actually went out of their way to say that the true challenge of the ridge remained.

As for criticising the Russians, I read it as no more than a considered assessment that he was not prepared to push things so hard and so riskily. In the light of the Russian death, I do see that it might have come across as insensitive and that the Russian response was therefore understandable in the circumstances.

 

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

"Our priority was climbing the mountain from the north side, doing that via the ridge was the second priority." - https://www.thebmc.co.uk/tom-livingstone

Maybe the term 'significant' was not the best one, maybe 'important' would be better, but I meant it in terms of their choices and planning, not a judgement in hindsight. They seemed to think that making any 'ascent from the north' was more important than climbing the ridge. Given the reputation and obvious attraction of the ridge line, I find this a strange priority, and certainly not 'pure'*.

 

 

*I find the terms 'pure' and 'purity' to be irrelevant and inappropriate to alpinism or expedition climbing and just further examples of the trite, hackneyed language still infecting climbing writing.

 

 

In reply to Damo:

Sorry but you just seem to come across as backtracking from what certainly came across as a quite unwarranted attack on Tom and his companions and which really has no relevance to a legitimate critique of his article.

 

 

In reply to Damo:

So, to take an extreme example, do you think it is meaningless in mountaineering terms to say that Messner's solo of Everest (arguably still the only true solo) was purer than a modern guided ascent on fixed ropes from bottom to top?

In reply to Robert Durran:

No need to be sorry, Robert. I stand by everything I said in my original post.

and which really has no relevance to a legitimate critique of his article.

Seriously? This from you, who derailed the thread in numerous posts about the bloody Dislike button. Get a mirror.

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, because the term 'purer' is bullshit.

Messner's climb was, in my view, better, more impressive, more important to climbing and to understanding of human ability than a bottled and jumared haul up Everest.

'Pure' is just romanticizing for effect something that is not really that romantic and actually pretty crude, harsh and dumb, as many of us who have plodded over 7000m will admit.

In reply to Damo:

In which case you should be ashamed of yourself. In order to score a cheap point in the "dislike" debate you chose to make a quite unnecessarily over the top attack on Tom's article as if to say "look, the alternative to pressing the button is to be unpleasant" - well no, you could have made your criticisms (to which your are certainly entitled) in a much more measured way. Plenty of us just see the article as a sort of personal credo with the "shoulds" as nothing more than a stylistic device (if that is the right phrase) and not really preachy at all by the way.

And then that paragraph about the Latok climb was way, way below the belt - I expect you actually know that.

Anyway, I hope you got a nice, warm, fuzzy dopamine glow from all those "likes" you got for your trouble.

Good grief! There are two discussions going on here: a discussion about the article and a spin off discussion about the "dislike" button - there is nothing wrong with that. Your cheap below the belt comments in the former are in no way comparable to anyone's contributions on either side to the latter.

 

In reply to Damo:

I'm not sure why you get so upset about the word. I think most people understand it in mountaineering terms as more or less synonymous with the way you have used "better" about Messner's solo. In fact I think it is preferable to "better" as it is less likely to be interpreted as meaning superior in a sort of moral way.

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I don't see how someone giving their considered opinion is "below the belt"? His comments are by their very nature critical, but in no way amount to a personal attack. You ask people to be more specific with their criticisms, then complain when they do just that!  

In reply to Michael Gordon:

The insinuations and untruths in his paragraph about the Latok climb were inexcusable.

As I said, he could have been far more measured and less over the top in making his criticisms. He clearly went over the top just to make a cheap point in the "dislike" debate at Tom's expense - in fact he more or less admitted this. I thought his post pretty disgusting to be honest.

I'm not complaining about the specific criticisms - just the manner in which he chose to make them. 

Anyway, all this is a shame because I'd always in the past considered Damo one of the better informed posters on here. 

 

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Is this the sort of debate you want more of? It seems pretty unedifying to me. 

In reply to Damo:

Significant and important in mountaineering terms are almost exactly the same thing. I don't think they have said anywhere (and very much doubt they think this) that an ascent from the north is more important than an ascent of the ridge. They simply chose an easier, less risky but logical and yes, significant objective. The reasons for doing so are obvious - so they could achieve a FA with more chance of success. And there is nothing at all wrong with that.

In reply to Phil Anderson:

No, of course not, but sometimes people really do need calling out when they are out of order.

 

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

such as blanket accusing everyone who uses the like / dislike buttons of doing so mindlessly?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I can't find any specific untruths in his post. Differences in opinion seem to perhaps relate to the climbers' motivation for the ascent which is impossible to prove either way. I think, as usual, that both the desire for a fantastic experience, and of course ego, played their part, as is the case for nearly every difficult ascent anyone has ever made.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It's certainly a very logical line for an ascent from the north. I do wish people wouldn't say it isn't the "true crest" or a "ridge integral" which seem to imply their line as being almost the ridge, when really it is nowhere near. 

I too see nothing wrong with the word 'pure'. As regards this ascent, it could perhaps be described as a very pure style ascent of a not very pure line? 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

"They seemed to be under the misguided illusion that being the first to climb the mountain 'from the north' was somehow more significant* than climbing the stunning line of the famous ridge."

There is absolutely no evidence that this was the case. The fact that they chose to attempt an easier, safer line pretty well confirms that they considered the ridge the bigger, more significant prize. As Tom said in the BMC interview, "The ridge itself remains a challenge for the future".

*Damo later said that "important might have been a better word". I don't think that makes any difference really.

 

In reply to Michael Gordon: 

As I said earlier, I think a line of least resistance to a summit or up a face could be described as "pure" by its very nature. Would you consider the '38 Route or the Japanese Direct on the Eiger to be "purer"? Really just different kinds of pure maybe.

 

In reply to daWalt

"Mindless" is possibly not the best word. But certainly acting in a way which avoids any effort to bring anything of value to the discussion.

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I suspect you have the wrong end of the stick there, and I very much agree with Damo (or at least with what I think is the point he is trying to make): Even though I above commended their decision to switch to a safer line, and applaud their great ascent, Damo is right that this decision on Latok (which I am sure he also completely agrees with) directly contradict the gist of the article. Following the logic of the argument presented they should have tried to stick to the ridge and failed, rather than trying to find an alternative. 

The target of the criticism, at least by me, is not at all the climb on Latok, but that their decisions in real life expose the climbing "ethics" peddled in the article as so much pretentious bullshit.

Break it down to a smaller scale, and there is nothing "better" in "saving" a single pitch sports climb for an eventual onsight than redpointing it right away.

CB

 

In reply to cb294:

I completely disagree with that. Style is not about what route you choose to climb, but how you choose to try to climb it. It seems they considered the Ridge too hard or dangerous, so they went for an objective with a greater chance of success for themselves, leaving the ridge for better or bolder climbers in the future - how anyone could criticise that decision is beyond me; just because Tom advocates good style does not mean he considers himself capable of climbing the hardest objectives.

Again, I completely disagree. They went and climbed a hard and huge route in impeccable style - precisely the way Tom advocates in the article.

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I guess we are still arguing cross purposes: Yes, I absolutely agree what they did was the most sensible thing, and the climb and example of extremely good "style".

However, as I read it the article (which is the only target of criticism) appears to argue otherwise.

CB

In reply to cb294:

Where do you think the article appears to argue otherwise?

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Style is not about what route you choose to climb, but how you choose to try to climb it

Couldn't agree more.  But in his article Tom is confused on this point with references to the choice of route being an aspect of style  ".. the cleanest style is obviously onsight; preferably near your limit, on a classic route...".   It's part of what irked me about the article, how he mixes up the definition of style with route choice, difficulty and risk.

He also goes on at some length about the greater the challenge, the greater the rewards and how a guaranteed route holds no appeal for him etc etc.  He asks if we take the easy way and by implication lessen our style.   The clear connection to Latok here is that on their expedition by choosing an easier route with a higher probability of success than the main historic challenge it is fair to point out that he hasn't quite lived up to the ideals he espouses.   That is fine, none of us do all the time, but if he is going to write quite forcefully about what we should all aim for then he should also have the self-awareness to sense how his writing could be perceived in the context of his own climbs.    In some ways it's a shame he hasn't held off on writing this article until able to have a bit more perspective - doing it badly now has brought a fantastic ascent and experience of his into a fairly negative debate.

 

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

This is just from the armchair for me, so you may have a better idea. I would tend to view the '38 route as a great line and best route on the face, but a 'pure' line to me is a direct one. This is totally different to a 'pure' style which is more likely to be achieved on a least resistance line!

In reply to Offwidth:

I will point out something else that I think has drawn dislike for this article, very much playing the ball this time.

Style matters...the cleanest style is obviously onsight...we pursue the ephemeral perfect style...etc.

Tom presents these as though they are revelations, hard won from experience. To me, they represent exactly the opposite. I internalised these principles very early in my climbing career, when I could barely build a belay - now, they read like platitudes, a tired old orthodoxy.

I don't think Brits need telling that style matters - it seems to me that people's experience of climbing is hampered often enough as it is because they're 'saving it for the onsight' or climbing like a breadstick because they are so anxious about 'blowing the onsight', or feeling like some sort of confessional is due because they were red-lining it and stood on a peg.

Misha put it nice and succinctly way back up near the top:

In reply to richgac:

I think the article centres around the assertion that attempting something in good style is more likely to give a more powerful, satisfying experience, indeed that is the main reason for doing so. When he says "preferably near your limit, on a classic route" he is talking about what for him often gives a great experience when rock climbing. OK he isn't totally clear on this, but it seems obvious to me that that's what he means. He then goes on to talk about alpine routes.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

OK, we differ on that, not that it really matters. To me a contrived direct line lacks purity,

This is totally different to a 'pure' style.

Yes, they are obviously separate things.

 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I actually think it is explicit clear!

 

In reply to Andy Moles:

I obviously need to say again that I never thought everyone misuses the button but even for those who don't, we have no idea on motivations until someone puts it in words. Evidence said: childishness tends to be most obvious when bandwaggoning happens.  Pretty strong evidence here given the number of dislikes is much higher than any thread on any article that I can remember and double that other thread I link that starts with some pure bs "A Master Practitioner of Neuro Linguistic Programming and hypnotherapy". This clearly defines the sort of thing Jon felt was 'bullshit and wankery" ... so where exactly is the equivalent here? I respect your mountain skills and damos but when you look at buttons on websites a different skill set is needed. Researchers in the Psychology and Business field looked at such buttons they found what they found. Dislikes can have damaging effects, can bandwagon childishly, increase passive cyberbullying and can damage the earning capacity of a site from advertising. They also found a large minority of users really wanted them even in the face of such concerns. Such human behaviour issues remind me of government safety changes in the face of similar howls of protest, like smoking bans (albeit obviously with much less bad consequencies in the case os a button).

Back to the article now. Its an article, its not an essay or a poem or an excerpt from a larger work. It does not deserve to be deconstructed word by word and implied meanings added that the author did not intend. Yes its cliched but thats because of the motivations behind alpine climbing, not Tom. In his laying out of style he seems to me to clearly acknowledge that it is an ideal and that he doesn't always follow things himself, including a self description of some very unstylish practice full of fear. I could go through damos arguments point by point (no time now) and show there is no causal links in what he says. You start with ideals and you do what you can to meet those. David Roberts reminds us that too many mountaineers get this wrong in the pursuit of style and that style needs watching lest it pushes risk, underwatched, to very high levels. Yet even the most cautious climber in the high ranges can just be unlucky, it's what we face when climbing there. If you try to remove risk from climbing the whole activity unravells. The essence of many games is the feelings induced by the activity when mastering risk as David acknowledged. Another recent favorite of mine "The alchemy of action" by Doug Robinson looks at what might be going on in our brain when these feelings are induced.

http://movingoverstone.com/books/

In reply to richgac:

I think that's debatable. Most expeditions fail to climb anything in the Karakoram, and, given this was his first trip to the Greater Ranges, I'd imagine it probably felt close enough to the limit as one would want to go via the route they took.

Practically speaking, they probably estimated as an ascent/descent in so many days, and then realised at some point later that the full ridge would take too long due to technical difficulties. There's no point pushing up a route that you know you don't have the means to finish. With this knowledge maybe another team in the future will try the full ridge in a less lightweight style. Then we can moan about the purer line being climbed in less pure style. 

The way I interpreted the article was that it's good to apply alpine approaches to climbing in other disciplines like trad. I'm a very average climber but I like to try and onsight rock regularly that's hard for me because I feel it develops more skills needed for alpine. Obviously Alpine stuff is not practical to practice, and maybe a little more courage is needed to overcome fears.

That said, I've crags close to my house where I've climbed everything at onsight grade, so my challenge is now to redpoint/headpoint what I can, although hopefully that is helping to develop technique that will improve my future onsights. Some crags local to me I treat like outdoor climbing walls. I hate climbing indoors if it can be avoided! 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

You are probably right about the articles main assertion, but lack of clarity is an issue.  He's flitting in and out of rock climbing / alpine climbing ethics and examples; later on talking about the rewards of alpine climbing and then using a trad climbing experience (onsighting Surgical Lust) to illustrate it.  It's not terrible, it's just not particularly good, certainly not as good as some of his other writing that I've enjoyed.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

Which illustrates different people can take different things from the article. This doesn't deny that damo felt the way he did but its not the only way the article can be read. Your point on time to climb the route is very practical and pertinent.

Its an article for climbers in general on a climbing site. The skill levels and risk weighing are beyond my familarity and I've done a lot of winter climbing to V and alpine rock to TD- and talked to many alpinists, listened to their talks and read many books on the subject. Most UKC site users are much less experienced. If he was presenting to a room full of alpinists I'm sure Tom would be far less cliched and willing to answer questions to clarify issues where needed.

In reply to Offwidth:

Why doesn't it deserve to be deconstructed word by word?  What are we here to discuss if not the words that are written and their meaning?

In reply to richgac:

If you stuck to saying you didn't enjoy it as much as his other writing I could have accepted that. Saying it isn't very good is a absolute value judgement. I think what you may really mean is it isn't anything like as good as his other writing in your opinion.

Personally I 'got' what he was saying as he moved between games. Things could have been more explicit but thats a tricky business in the space to write in. If it was laboured enough to avoid all possible misunderstanding that could then have been accused of being patronising. In a book I would expect him to work harder. This is a UKC article.

Now some of the honest dislikers have spoken we at least have a discussion and in the end thats what you want in the forums from at least some articles on UKC. It would be pretty boring if all articles were on receive only.

In reply to richgac:

Deconstruction is for where construction was careful enough to justify it. If he called it an essay fair enough. Its an article. 

In reply to Offwidth:

Absolutely. And if only a few of the "dislikers" had actually told us right at the start what their criticisms were, the other "dislikers" could have simply "liked" their posts and a sensible discussion based around those criticisms could have followed straight away without those of us who liked the article having to prise the criticism from the "dislikers" by starting a meta debate about "dislikes" which resulted in all the unnecessary aggro.

But that's UKC for you I suppose...........

 

In reply to Mr. Lee:

Philosophically I don't think its debatable that they chose an easier line to improve the chances of sucess, and that that is not what the article expounds as the ideal.  Practically, I don't have the skills or experience to judge or criticise their choices on the mountain though.  For what it's worth, and having had an interesting discussion with a dark horse work colleague who made an early attempt on the ridge line, it sounds like the best option in the time frame they had.   I gave a hearty 'like' to the original news story!

 

 

In reply to richgac:

Sorry, but where in the article do you think it says that? It certainly says that failure should be a possibility in adventure, and it certainly would have been very much a possibility on the line they tried. But it does not say you have to attempt the hardest route to be climbing in good style - that would be absurd.

 

 

In reply to Offwidth:

It's not terrible, it's just not particularly good in my opinion, certainly not as good as some of his other writing that I've enjoyed 

Just for you.  

I would have thought that it was obvious that this was an opinion, but since I was in the process of deconstructing the writing of others I take your point

Essay - article - whatever, its published writing from someone who makes it part of their trade.  I reserve the right to justify my dislikes (or likes).

In reply to Robert Durran:

I want the aggro. You can't campaign without it. The site made the decision to use the button and were aware at that time of the points I still make here. Sometimes giving the noisy people what they want isn't good for a site in terms of its effects on users or site income. UKC has expanded and improved massively in all areas except the climbing forums. There is loads more to talk about than there was: news, articles, gear, one of the best logbook facilities in the world and ditto for the site photographs (one where you can remain private and another where you can sensibly disable voting). Yet across all forums you can often get in the top 10 with just posts in the thirties in a week (look at the top 40 thread). Its nearly the same as when things started taking off here, when overall site users were a much smaller number. Many good climbers who used to post informative and/or funny stuff have given up, citing quality. People who used to avidly read the forums tell me they only pop in when they see something interesting (there are still quite a few fabulous threads.. esp some of the obits). I take the point on users being in flux all the time  but the posting numbers on forums really are very dissapointing.

In reply to Robert Durran:

No, he doesn't say that one has to attempt the hardest line to achieve good style, but by my reading he does promote throughout that the greater rewards, the greater enjoyment for him, the experiences that he values highest come from the greater unknowns, the more sustained routes, the less guaranteed routes with a higher likelihood of failure.  

In reply to richgac:

Yet as I see it he took the best line he could in those terms in the time he had.

In reply to Robert Durran:

...except of course that (a) everyone could have got along fine without knowing the reason for a like or dislike, and (b) that no-one 'has' to "prise" this information out. There is no necessity to know the reason for everyone's motivation for clicking a button. 

In reply to richgac:

Yes, but you want some chance of success and I imagine they reckoned they had no chance of climbing the ridge without risks they considered unjustifiable (hence Tom's comments elsewhere about the tragic Russian attempt which they witnessed and which upset the Russians). They chose what was still a truly massive undertaking with, I would have thought, plenty of uncertainty; in fact a route totally in line with his ideals but with a chance of success without total recklessness.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

That is fine as long as you are happy to see discussion killed off in what is meant to be a discussion forum. Which would seem to me a rather odd view.

 

In reply to Offwidth:

Irrespective of quality, is encouraging people to spend more time quibbling on the internet really a good thing? Maybe all those who aren't spending hours of their day writing posts on here are finding better ways to spend their time.

In reply to Andy Moles:

UKC (Rocktalk) was more than this once. It wasn't about quibbling it was more about (mostly) friendly discourse and fun from those who shared the passion of climbing. It was always going to change as UKC grew but I'm optimistic we could still get some of that back. When I meet groups of climbers in real life its still more often than not like that.

In reply to Offwidth:

Take the word quibbling out of my question then...

In reply to Andy Moles:

It's what got me hooked. We had a community. There were meets, fringe events at Kendal. Even a book. It was the sort of thing you would spend time on gladly. 

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/premier_posts/the_owl+the_cragrat__poetry...

In reply to Offwidth:

Fair enough. Beyond their obvious practical uses as a hivemind to answer questions, I usually think of internet forums as popcorn for the bored - tempting, but unwholesome. Even the better exchanges are a poor relation to real face-to-face interaction. But I hadn't much considered how much of a positive impact they might have on some people.

In reply to Andy Moles:

I have lifelong friends from that time. Reading that huge thread brings back great memories (silly for sure but the climbing threads were as fun and as animated as well).  Going to formally help af Facelift showed how the Californian commumities links were still strong via supertopo and MP. UKB also manages it. We have become atomised and unfriendly here but it can change.