Appropriate discussion around mountaineering accidents

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.

What sorts of discussion are INAPPROPRIATE in a thread about a specific climbing incident?

Well-wishes, condolences, remembrances
8
3%
Links to SAR update / News articles
6
2%
First-hand accounts
6
2%
Second-hand requests for first-hand information
24
8%
Second-hand speculation about causes / factors that can't be verified
60
21%
General climbing safety questions / advice
27
10%
Respectful debate over accident discussion guidelines
47
17%
Disrespect / personal insults / flame wars
105
37%
 
Total votes: 283
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 781
Joined: 10/14/2009
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 777 76
Trip Reports (40)
 

Re: Appropriate discussion around mountaineering accidents

Post by Boggy B »

I actually think it's a worthwhile topic by Jared in response to the Capitol thread which, more than any other accident discussion in my recent memory, turned to cancer pretty spectacularly.

If we can guide triage and speculation naturally into its own subforum, where it can be sought by those who wish to learn or indulge, and keep the initial and ongoing reporting, well-wishes, and condolences free of the kind of analysis that may or may not be accurate, helpful, or comforting to anyone, we might not need to have this talk again.
User avatar
daway8
Posts: 1314
Joined: 8/24/2017
14ers: 58  24 
13ers: 155 29
Trip Reports (70)
 

Re: Appropriate discussion around mountaineering accidents

Post by daway8 »

Seems like many of the recent examples of analysis focus on trip reports and or face-to-face discussions, both of which are very different than what's been objected to the most - namely second hand speculation following hot on the heels of, or sometimes during an ongoing incident.

Trip reports are always written after the event has been fully resolved and a first hand witness/participant voluntarily relates the actual facts of what really happened (as best as they know). Many of us agree these reports are often very valuable and even those who don't find them useful don't seem to get overly emotional that someone posts them (except for false claims and a few other exceptions...)

Face-to-face discussions, which may include educated guesses/speculation are a different beast since it's just a couple people privately discussing an issue with the ability to read facial expressions/body language and quickly head off any misunderstandings before they explode.

As I see it, the biggest problem with the various threads over the past several months - and something that both the poll and the responses seem to highlight as an issue for roughly half the community - is the flood of secondhand speculation immediately after (or sometimes even during) an incident. It kind of comes across sometimes like a pack of vultures swarming in to pluck the bones of someone's loved one and criticize their every mistake. Obviously, it's been clarified by many that this is of course not their intent but nonetheless roughly half the community still sees it as in poor taste.

The suggestions earlier to at least delay the flood of speculation until after the incident is fully resolved and the final SAR report is issued would alleviate a portion of the issue. Telling people to just leave the thread isn't a good option if people are monitoring it to hear the facts (not speculation) of the incident and find if anyone they know was involved.

But I'll conclude by reiterating that the titles of the subsections on the forum (analysis vs. memorial, etc) aren't currently a useful distinction since on a mobile device those are:
100% invisible in the news feed
100% invisible when you first click on a topic
100% invisible when you advance to the next page

In fact most people on mobile devices may never see those headings at all since the only time they show up is if you decide to scroll all the way to the top of the page (the pages automatically load already scrolled down) and then hunt for the tiny font heading buried up near the top.

Yes, you can find that heading if you want, but it's so well hidden that changing the names will be meaningless unless you also change the site so that those headings will actually be seen by someone not going out of their way to find them (this is very different from the interface where you click "enter the forum" and see the "Board index" where everything is divided exclusively by headings - I never use that interface and so I generally never even see what category a given thread is filed under)
User avatar
Conor
Posts: 1112
Joined: 9/2/2014
14ers: 41  6  6 
13ers: 51 1 1
Trip Reports (7)
 

Re: Appropriate discussion around mountaineering accidents

Post by Conor »

We all cope, process, and handle things differently. Any "speculation" here has for the most part been "healthy." The only people who object to it are the ones who are in the "any speculation is bad" camp. But, for some people, it may be their outlet. Just like posting the minute you have cell service that a helicopter is circling could be someone's outlet.

I naturally wonder what the issue was - just like I always wonder what happened when there is an airplane crash or a police officer gets shot. There are always decisions people could have made differently, and maybe there is some takeaway for me, regardless if it is based in what actually happened or not. Maybe the takeaway is a stark reminder of the risk people put themselves in.

For the hiking community here, it appears to me, it's a small minority making a mountain out of a mole hill, as all I've ever read is healthy discussion. I don't read everything though.

Like Scott, if my number ever gets called while I'm hiking or climbing, feel free to analyze, speculate, discuss - it won't bother me or my family.
User avatar
daway8
Posts: 1314
Joined: 8/24/2017
14ers: 58  24 
13ers: 155 29
Trip Reports (70)
 

Re: Appropriate discussion around mountaineering accidents

Post by daway8 »

Conor wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 12:10 pm The only people who object to it are the ones who are in the "any speculation is bad" camp.
As with all generalizations this one too is false (see what I did there :lol: )

The nature and timing of the speculation does matter (objecting to having too much speculation too soon is not the same as objecting to any speculation ever).
User avatar
JaredJohnson
Posts: 419
Joined: 8/27/2014
14ers: 28  5 
13ers: 13
Trip Reports (3)
 
Contact:

Re: Appropriate discussion around mountaineering accidents

Post by JaredJohnson »

daway8 wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 11:32 am The suggestions earlier to at least delay the flood of speculation until after the incident is fully resolved and the final SAR report is issued would alleviate a portion of the issue.
Might want to make sure the distinction is clear between the stuff you're talking about vs. some types of speculation from a small subset of people, which could actually be life-saving if given while an incident is still ongoing. I don't claim to be this type but certain folks have really good understanding of certain areas and routes, for example. It almost goes without saying and these guys know who they are and should probably be calling SAR themselves. But just putting it out there.

Also I think a lot of people who arguably don't have such value to add, still wind up thinking out loud in a situation like this with the thought that it could steer the discussion to a place that actually helps SAR find someone. This is probably overly optimistic but what do I know. "What could have happened?" is a much more important question to take shots at (even clumsy ones), when somebody might still be lying alive at the bottom of a gully and people are trying to decide which gullies to check.
User avatar
daway8
Posts: 1314
Joined: 8/24/2017
14ers: 58  24 
13ers: 155 29
Trip Reports (70)
 

Re: Appropriate discussion around mountaineering accidents

Post by daway8 »

JaredJohnson wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:41 pm
daway8 wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 11:32 am The suggestions earlier to at least delay the flood of speculation until after the incident is fully resolved and the final SAR report is issued would alleviate a portion of the issue.
Might want to make sure the distinction is clear between... some types of speculation... which could actually be life-saving if given while an incident is still ongoing... when somebody might still be lying alive at the bottom of a gully and people are trying to decide which gullies to check.
I agree with that as a theoretical concept, to the extent that such a thing might ever actually happen but I'm skeptical that SAR teams spend much time browsing the forum to direct their search vs. relying on their own expertise and knowledge of the area together with direct observations from any one actually on the mountain at the time.

However, if someone in SAR confirms that such online speculations have helped save lives before then I'd of course be in favor of such "useful" speculation.

It's the stuff fits more under the category of "well let's dissect what this dummy did wrong" type of comment (even if it's phrased more politely than that) that fits under the "too much too soon" category in my opinion and many people seem to feel that for that analysis it's better to wait until all the facts have come out and you're not running that on top of the same thread people are monitoring to get word if a loved one is still alive or if a friend they haven't been able to contact might have been involved.

Of course some have expressed that they never feel such analysis is appropriate (I think Steve G. made some really good points about that) but others have made it clear that learning from these situations is fine but it needs to be done considerately and respectfully. Agreeing on what counts as respectful is one of the key issues here as different people clearly have different standards/opinions.

Thanks by the way for steering the discussion over this into calmer, more respectful territory.
User avatar
speth
Posts: 684
Joined: 4/16/2010
14ers: 58  5 
13ers: 44
Trip Reports (3)
 

Re: Appropriate discussion around mountaineering accidents

Post by speth »

daway8 wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 11:32 am Seems like many of the recent examples of analysis focus on trip reports and or face-to-face discussions, both of which are very different than what's been objected to the most - namely second hand speculation following hot on the heels of, or sometimes during an ongoing incident.

Face-to-face discussions, which may include educated guesses/speculation are a different beast since it's just a couple people privately discussing an issue with the ability to read facial expressions/body language and quickly head off any misunderstandings before they explode.

As I see it, the biggest problem with the various threads over the past several months - and something that both the poll and the responses seem to highlight as an issue for roughly half the community - is the flood of secondhand speculation immediately after (or sometimes even during) an incident. It kind of comes across sometimes like a pack of vultures swarming in to pluck the bones of someone's loved one and criticize their every mistake. Obviously, it's been clarified by many that this is of course not their intent but nonetheless roughly half the community still sees it as in poor taste.

The suggestions earlier to at least delay the flood of speculation until after the incident is fully resolved and the final SAR report is issued would alleviate a portion of the issue. Telling people to just leave the thread isn't a good option if people are monitoring it to hear the facts (not speculation) of the incident and find if anyone they know was involved.
You get it.

This isn't the entire problem, but it's about 90% of it.

All I want is to just have fun, live my life like a son of a gun
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sarcasm or not, it's not even funny to post something like this. Not at this time. Reported.
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 781
Joined: 10/14/2009
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 777 76
Trip Reports (40)
 

Re: Appropriate discussion around mountaineering accidents

Post by Boggy B »

Good point, I never really see the subforum either on desktop.
From light googling it appears phpBB supports either topic tags/prefixes or hooks into topic creation that would allow you to automatically inject a tag into the subject of all new topics (in a given subforum), like "[ANALYSIS] Accident wherever".
Maybe not worth the effort, but on the other hand it might save Bill having to administratively extinguish special kinds of dumpster fires.
Post Reply