Reading the thread in Accidents and Injuries about the tragic death of Mr. Forrester, I had a thought:
Would it be appropriate, in cases where a member of RC.com dies, to put a little blurb on their profile:
"RC.com member JohnSmith died tragically on Jan 1st, 2006, while climbing at Road Cut Cliffs. He leaves behind a wife and two children. He was loved by friends and family, as well as climbing partners. The climbing community has noted his passing here, and all of us at RC.com mourn his loss."
Or something like that? (BTW, the "noted his passing here" part would be a link to a thread, if there is one.)
I don't know how well this would be viewed by the users or family, so I wanted to run it past y'all. We also don't want to deal with accusations of "Profile editing Nazi Mods!" or other such BS. This is a chance for the users to speak up and decide an issue.
Vote, and let your voice be heard.
(This post was edited by reno on Dec 4, 2006, 6:14 PM)
IMHO, this would be a great feature. i believe it was also discussed at some time on the old rc.com (or i just wanted to suggest it and never got around to do it).
anyway, another nice thing would be that upon a confirmed death of a rc.coms user, their profile would be locked and thus wouldnt be deleted for lack of use.
I agree. If the family wants something up there, they can talk to the owners/mods and have that done.
I think it would be a nice idea, but the family's perspective is indeed important. I say rather than wait for them to contact you, how bout - if you have a way to reach them - you contact them. I think it's a nice gesture, and if nothing else, it is a chance to offer personal condolences on behalf of the site/community even if the family declines on the note being added to the profile.
(This post was edited by htotsu on Dec 5, 2006, 4:50 AM)
I think contacting the family first is also a good idea, but I don't know how I'd go about that. Cold-calling someone after the death of their son/daughter/husband/wife/etc. seems kinda... well, cold. And family's e-mails aren't listed in a profile. And it wouldn't be good juju to ask for a "next of kin" box when signing up for an account. And so forth...
I like the idea, just not sure how to do it. If you have suggestions, PM me.
I don't think it's the business of the site. Just let the profile fade into obscurity.
I agree. If the family wants something up there, they can talk to the owners/mods and have that done.
I agree, too. I think the sentiment is commendable, but here's the thing... Every new policy or initiative has the potential to cause problems. In most cases, those problems are worth dealing with, but for this... Any such problems would likely be extremely messy and highly traumatic. I had to vote no, though, for the record, I would feel honored by such a distinction.
Dec 5, 2006, 9:10 PM
Post #12 of 99
(5407 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
Re: [atpeaceinbozeman] In memoriam: TO READ, PLEASE REGISTER!!!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
atpeaceinbozeman wrote:
To view the 'Injuries & Accidents' forum, you have to be a logged in as a RC.com user.
Family and friends have to register if they want to see the thread on thier love one who passed. LAME
Really? On the old site, I&A was one of the many forums viewable to guests. And knowing this, mods would constantly be reminding users to keep their flames and suppositions to themselves. Family and friends WOULD have to register to post to said threads but anybody could read them. I'll post this then sign out to see if that's the current case, though.
Anyway, reno's heart is in the right place, but yeah, this really isn't what the site is here for. Still, with keeping reno's line of work in mind, I am sure he had only the best intentions with this idea.
Dec 5, 2006, 9:14 PM
Post #13 of 99
(5402 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
Re: [climbsomething] In memoriam: TO READ, PLEASE REGISTER!!!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Huh, you're right, bozeman. Yeah, I&A does require you to be a registered user to even lurk.
If the logic was to protect family and friends from seeing gory or unpleasant posts about their loved one's passing, then I can see it. But if the choss in Community is visible (esp. when it didn't used to be), it comes off as a tad arbitrary.
Did I miss an announcement where this was made or input sought from users?
Dec 6, 2006, 7:50 PM
Post #15 of 99
(5347 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 2304
Re: [atpeaceinbozeman] In memoriam: TO READ, PLEASE REGISTER!!!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Hi everyone,
Regarding the requirement to be logged in to view the Accidents and Injuries forum:
It was not done on a whim. The rationale for this requirement was to prevent (or at least make it harder) for the general media to converge on the forum like vultures every time there is an accident or fatality. As soon as the contents of this forum shows up in Google's search results, they'll come. They will directly quote users, even out of context, all in the name of a sensational story. And unfortunately, in our sport there all too frequently is something to manufacture a sensational story about.
The requirement to be logged on to view another user's profiles is to prevent every second internet bot to crawl your profiles and glean personal information.
Both these strategies are far from watertight, but at least puts up some level of "resistance" if you will. I'll be interesting to get your thoughts on our rationale.
I think that having to log into the site before accessing A&I is better as well as looking at profiles. I think ddt's reasons are valid. I for one would like to see it stay non-public.
It was not done on a whim. The rationale for this requirement was to prevent (or at least make it harder) for the general media to converge on the forum like vultures every time there is an accident or fatality. As soon as the contents of this forum shows up in Google's search results, they'll come. They will directly quote users, even out of context, all in the name of a sensational story. And unfortunately, in our sport there all too frequently is something to manufacture a sensational story about.
While I ultimately appreciate your reasoning, I think this is a pretty silly assumption and an insult to responsible media- which is actually the vast majority. If you could supply me with one or two or three examples of a reporter at the Podunk Daily Star quoting an rc.com accident thread out of context, I'd stand corrected (and actually be quite peeved at my brethren for doing such a thing). Did you have a nasty experience like this over on DZ?
I can say, as a member of the media (and one who specializes in public safety issues), that I wouldn't use something written on an online message board in a serious story.* For one thing, so many posts are anonymous anyway, and we limit use of anonymous sources. A gory rubbernecking post about a climber's serious or fatal injury is not one of those uses.
I might log in and personally contact somebody for a quote or interview, disclosing my position, if I found a particularly interesting post that I wanted to follow up on, and maintain an "offline" private discussion from there. Online communities are certainly a viable tool for researchers and reporters if used properly.
*Actually, in the interests of disclosure and never saying "never," I have used a well-written post from a known, named expert posting to the access forum in a climbing magazine news story, and it was used fully in context and with his knowledge (in fact, it was his idea). But way more often than not, what is thrown out in forums like these is simply not solid enough to grab off the net and use in a story, and I cannot fathom a real journalist carelessly using that tack. Though... stranger things happen every day I guess.
Your reasoning for keeping profiles private to guests is good though. Before, profiles were somewhat limited to guests but this extra security step only cinches that up. I don't have a problem with that.
(This post was edited by climbsomething on Dec 7, 2006, 4:30 AM)
While we're on the topic of forums you need to be logged in to see, for the record I really, really think Community should be one of those. I hate that the first thing people see is that, which has nothing to do with climbing.
Whether it stays on top for those who are logged in is a separate matter (and I do think it should be on the bottom once it is seen), but for those who are just browsing the site, I feel strongly that the first thing they see should be climbing-related.
Hil didn't something like that happen with Ambers thing? I have a feeling that might be where the no-guest policy came from
However i do think the forum title should be visible and with an error when guests hit it saying "please log in to view blah blah' so at least family members who arent RC members can see there is a place where a thread might be and then they can make an account.
from the original topic.. i think retiring a user name when someone dies would be a good thing.. how weird would it be if someone with ____ posts has an accident and then months/years later someone used their name . The comments in their profile i'd say would be up to the family if they wanted anything there or not.
Hil didn't something like that happen with Ambers thing? I have a feeling that might be where the no-guest policy came from
I don't know if that's where the no-guest policy came from. But I did speak with Amber personally about that flap, and I am pretty confident that the quotes in the NYT (or was it LAT?) story were not taken from posts. I believe the reporter read the posts (I don't know if she had an account or was lurking- if she had an account this whole point really is moot), then privately contacted Tim and took his offline quotes out of context. But the thread, per se, was not what was abused. So, close, but no cigar.
Dec 7, 2006, 5:48 AM
Post #23 of 99
(5292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
Re: [climbsomething] In memoriam: TO READ, PLEASE REGISTER!!!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Climbsomething:
Points well made, but (you just knew there was gonna be a "but", didn't ya?) I have trepidations about journalists. Color me cynical, but as a whole, I don't trust 'em. Been burned more than once, and there's that whole "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me" mentality.
I've been on calls and situations with the media where, looking back, if I didn't know they were talking about the same event, I'd'a swore they were talking about something else.
So, while I admire your personal integrity and your backing of your profession, I'm saddened to say that not everyone in your line of work has the same code of ethics. There ARE, sadly, people who call themselves "journalists" who will stoop to the lowest possible levels just to get a scoop. Sucks, but there you have it.
There ARE, sadly, people who call themselves "journalists" who will stoop to the lowest possible levels just to get a scoop. Sucks, but there you have it.
Oh, I know. And there have been far more dismaying examples of journalists behaving badly (like the reporter who fabricated the story of a 10-year-old heroin junkie and had to give back her Pulitzer). It just seems like citing rc.com the way ddt envisions is just out there... or something one of the kids at the college paper would do...
Dec 7, 2006, 3:01 PM
Post #25 of 99
(5274 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2003
Posts: 304
Re: [climbsomething] In memoriam: TO READ, PLEASE REGISTER!!!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
climbsomething wrote:
While I ultimately appreciate your reasoning, I think this is a pretty silly assumption and an insult to responsible media- which is actually the vast majority. If you could supply me with one or two or three examples of a reporter at the Podunk Daily Star quoting an rc.com accident thread out of context, I'd stand corrected (and actually be quite peeved at my brethren for doing such a thing). Did you have a nasty experience like this over on DZ?
Hillary,
Like Reno I too think it's great that you're standing up for your profession. Unfortunately your claims above are simply not a reflection of reality at all. While we will reach out to anyone who makes a bona fide attempt to find the facts and report on an incident, our responsibility on this site is first and foremost to the climbing community and the families of those involved, not to the media.
On Dropzone.com, due to the nature of our sport, it is not uncommon to say "good bye" to a friend every weekend. Our experience with the media for more than ten years has shown us that while there are responsible journalists like those at the Podunk Daily Star out there, they are unfortunately outnumbered by those looking to put a body to a story with a headline like:
"Skydiver plummets to death in front of family" "Skydivers living in fear for the killer in their midst" "Father of 3 dies in final death leap."
We have many examples of this. I did a quick search in the DZ.com fatalities forum and unfortunately (fortunately?) most newspaper articles seem to expire or get archived after a while so there are many broken links. By that time that happens, the damage is done. Below are a few threads for you to take a look at. Even a poor researcher with a little more available time than I have, will find a myriad of other examples. If anything, they show that the media do in fact use message boards as "sources" for their stories. How they end up positioning the actual content is anyone's guess. Have a look:
Believe me there was no communication between that poster and the media. I know her personally and I had to deal with the fall-out from this.
Due to the fact that we deal with so many fatal incidents and because the true facts are often compromised for the benefit of circulation numbers, our relationship with the media has evolved to a point where the journalists and writers in our midst (just like you here) has set out and written some guidelines for both the media to consider, as well as for skydivers when they talk to the media.
Christy West who wrote these two articles is a journalist and gold/silver skydiving medalist with over 1,800 jumps at the time of writing.
For all I know this level of consideration comes naturally for your team at the Podunk Daily Star, but I can assure you the need for these articles weren't born out of a "pretty silly assumption and an insult to responsible media".
We're not as naive as to think that reporters won't find what is written here if we require registration to view the Incidents forum. We're simply putting up barrier to entry that will ensure that it's not as easy as a quick Google search for the irresponsible journalist sitting somewhere trying to punch out a few words to meet a deadline. The responsible ones will take their time, find this forum, find the facts and hopefully report on the incident in a way that will not see this community and the families of the deceased cringe, but honor the memory of our friend.
(This post was edited by sangiro on Dec 7, 2006, 4:30 PM)
18 /
60%
1
