|
rrrADAM
Mar 22, 2004, 9:19 PM
Post #26 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
3 for and 3 against... Still even.
|
|
|
|
|
mackavus
Mar 22, 2004, 9:23 PM
Post #27 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 322
|
This is a praise post to just about everyone in this topic.
Usually I will use all my will power not to post in most of the forums on this site for a simple reason: most of these topics, even the silly ones have good intentions however only seem to last 3 or 4 posts on average before they are taken of by morons and then the bitch-fests start. I cant seem to bring myself to post anywhere sometimes because I refuse to take part in the stupidity.
However, everyone in here seems to have a brain, and although this is an argument, it is a really good one with wicked good points from both sides. A full on debate and you guys still remain to sound smart. :P Kudos to all.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
delarig
Mar 22, 2004, 9:44 PM
Post #28 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 167
|
CLIMBING IS UNSAFE BEHAVIOR - DELETE EVERYTHING
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Mar 22, 2004, 10:07 PM
Post #29 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: 3 for and 3 against... Still even.
Yikes. There should be 6 in favor of getting a qualified legal opinion. IMO, you're on dicey ground deciding what's safe and what's not. I'd feel a lot better if I were you just disclaiming any responsibility for the content of the posts. Now it looks like you're policing them to make sure the advice given is "safe". Ok, free soloing I go! I'm leaving directions for my survivors to sue you. :P
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
usaclimbing
Mar 22, 2004, 10:26 PM
Post #30 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2004
Posts: 28
|
In reply to: Find something else to b---- about people... I'm not gonna leave a post up that infers that cfalling on key chains is safe. Get over it. Look for something else to whine about, like maybe some of the bolting bans, access issues, or the new camping fees in JTree. You really could put your b---- to much better use, than b---- about the deletion of a thread that implies that climbing on key chains is safe. Sheesh. :roll:
i would then like to point out several safety concerns, any thread dealing with these issues should be deleted ASAP:
Several items currently on sale in local climbing stores around the world do not meet current CE standard and thus maybe not be safe to climb on:
any thread related to the use of these is potentially supplying dangerous information to "newby noob" climbings:
oval carabiners,
many ropes (do not meet current CE standards),
the use of a gri-gri for ascending (not approved by man)
gribs ascender for rope soling.
and many other things i dont care to try and remember at the moment.
actually i believe the discussion of any gear or safety technique should be banned as there is no way to make sure those posting it are an authority on the topic and that the advice given is 100% correct.
GET OVER IT, he wasn't saying that key chain carabiners were safe to use, but rather that they were stronger than he thought. he conduction a somewhat scientific experiment and posted the results online. does this mean that the next chem lab i do would be innapporiate to post online as someone could potentially kill themselves by trying to conduct themselves?
|
|
|
|
|
abock33
Mar 22, 2004, 11:13 PM
Post #32 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2004
Posts: 131
|
Holy crap!!! I didn't want to start a baddle over Safe and Unsafe climbing advice. All I wanted to know was where it went. Personally I thought it was a good thread. I know that the use of gear not roted for climbing is very dangerous, I was just trying to find out more details on the subject. rrrADAM, I apoligise for any trouble I caused.
If it has to be deleted then it is to be.
But if you're taking votes then add another one to bring it back.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Mar 22, 2004, 11:29 PM
Post #33 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
No worries... Some just like a good controvercy.
Current votes (among the Mods & Admins) as asked for:
5 for removal
3 for bring it back
|
|
|
|
|
bsignorelli
Mar 22, 2004, 11:38 PM
Post #34 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 415
|
In reply to: By censoring "unsafe" posts, aren't you implying that, if the post remains uncensored, it's guaranteed by rc.com management to be advocating a safe technique?
That is what the hiking/backpacking club I was in discovered.
We had started to 'qualify' people to go on long hikes out of state. The goal was to weed our n00bs who we felt wouldn't be comfortable hiking XX miles per day at altitude over many PUDS (pointless up and downs).
Several members (2 lawyers and a judge) decided to look into the issue and their opinion was that by 'qualifying' people to go on a hike (ie we think YOU have he ability to do this hike safely) we were setting ourselve up.
What happens if someone gets hurt?
We qualified them as ok to go so they shoulda been ok. But they weren't.
So the advice we were given was to not qualify people based on what we percieved their abilites to be.
The went on to add that a lot of "advice" a trip leader might give (how much water to bring, food to bring, etc) would put that person in the position of authority and if the advice proved faulty (not enough water for the person who you gave advice to) then the trip leader may be held accountable for that since they were setting themselves up to the the authority on that hike.
I have also heard that the owners of a computer message system would have a hard time being held accountable for stuff posted to teh message board if they don't have a policy of weeding out "bad" info. But if the board starts to weed out bad info (ie unsafe climbing advice) then they have set themselves up to be an authority of "good info" (ie safe practices).
So the comments about taking out the humerous keychain biner thread while leaving other "unsafe" info (solo anything, using gear as the manufacturer never intended, etc) standing says that RC.com thinks those other unsafe practices are OK.
And the disclaimer on this website is total bunk until it goes to court. Yes climbing is dangerous. But if someone gets hurt after reading a post on how to Free Solo that they read on RC.com that may create some liability since by leaving the Free Solo post up (after taking down other unsafe info) RC.com has potentially "endorsed" that activity.
Anyways, IANAL so pay no attention to me...
Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Mar 22, 2004, 11:40 PM
Post #35 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
count me in for bring it back.
not only does deleting the post make you semiquasisortamaybe responsible for the posts that remain, by extension/default you are endorsing them as not unsafe, but it also deletes important "how not to climb" info for some people who may not know better.
if you begin to delete information that you feel denoptes unsafe climbing or otherwise behavior, then we do not have access to that.
i'm not saying i'm gonna go and lead fall on a keychain, but wouldn't a better approach be to state your position as a moderator, and state how unsafe you think the practice is? it's pretty obvious that (even marginally) stupd or unsafe practices are pointed out by numerous posters and moderators, making it clear to anyone that at least some people think this thing (keychain climbing, sharpies on rope, bolt sizes etc) is some degree of unsafe, or not the best way to do things.
don't delete unsafe or questionable posts, just point them out as unsafe or questionable. maybe even a whole other board...? you could put all the threads about stupid behavior into that board, and then to access that board, there was this extra disclaimer or something.
whatever, i feel that more information is better.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 22, 2004, 11:42 PM
Post #36 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I thought the original post was amusing, and not really that dangerous. Come on, 10 foot falls onto a junk carabiner, with another draw 3 feet away?
What's next, telling people not to sport climb unless they know the history of every bolt on every route?
These guys were bored and conducted a safe experiment in a controlled environment. No big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
abock33
Mar 23, 2004, 12:39 AM
Post #37 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2004
Posts: 131
|
In reply to: I thought the original post was amusing, and not really that dangerous. Come on, 10 foot falls onto a junk carabiner, with another draw 3 feet away?
and then he said
In reply to: These guys were bored and conducted a safe experiment in a controlled environment. No big deal.
I totally agree. Besides even if the biner did break it would be just like falling while missing a clip.
Instead of deleting it completely why don't you just add it to the archives and slap a !For Entertainment Purpose Only! title on it. That way anyone who wants to view it knows that it isn't climbing advice.
My guess is that there are alot of threads that go through this. So why not make a Forum strictly for threads like the one I was wondering about. That would solve most of the problems.
you could even put a disclaimer at the top to cover the site's Butt.
|
|
|
|
|
pk
Mar 23, 2004, 12:51 AM
Post #38 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 459
|
In reply to: In reply to: I thought the original post was amusing, and not really that dangerous. Come on, 10 foot falls onto a junk carabiner, with another draw 3 feet away? and then he said In reply to: These guys were bored and conducted a safe experiment in a controlled environment. No big deal. I totally agree. Besides even if the biner did break it would be just like falling while missing a clip. Instead of deleting it completely why don't you just add it to the archives and slap a !For Entertainment Purpose Only! title on it. That way anyone who wants to view it knows that it isn't climbing advice. My guess is that there are alot of threads that go through this. So why not make a Forum strictly for threads like the one I was wondering about. That would solve most of the problems. you could even put a disclaimer at the top to cover the site's Butt.
I'm going to conduct a completely safe test and I need 4 volunteers. First volunteer will be hit by a car at 5 miles an hour next at 10 etc up to 20 miles an hour.
Now this is a completely safe test in a controlled environment just for entertainment, would you like to join in on my tests?
P.K.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 23, 2004, 12:59 AM
Post #39 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
pk, if you can't tell the difference between falling 10 feet +3 more onto good gear, and being hit by a car, I can't explain it to you. :P
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Mar 23, 2004, 1:31 AM
Post #40 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
If it's up to a vote, how about making a poll? "Should RC.COM moderators remove posts which might advocate an unsafe practice?" I predict that the "Fuck no!" option wins in a landslide.
I definitely vote bring it back. This sort of censorship---based on the idea of protecting people from themselves--is simply retarded. If someone wants to replace all their draws with keychain karabiners that say "NOT FOR CLIMBING" right on the side, just because of something they read from a single individual's post on this site, then they deserve to get hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Mar 23, 2004, 1:43 AM
Post #41 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
For those too lazy to read the entire thread...
It was asked that the Staff (Moderators & Admins) discuss it, so those are the votes being shown. Gotta figure that they are at least willing to read the entire thread before casting their vote, unlike some in here... If you had read the entire thread you would have realized that. :roll:
BTW... Votes now are:
6 delete
3 bring back
You may also wish to read the replies in the "legal..." thread in this same forum about this, as it was replied to by our resident attorney... Very funny as well as insightfull. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
moabbeth
Mar 23, 2004, 1:54 AM
Post #42 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 1786
|
Adam - it should be brought if for only this one reason.....
It was a brilliant entry for the Gumby of the Year nominations thread that's going on over in community. Without idea's like his, where would all the fun in that thread come from :roll: :P ?
And fyi....if any newbie is REALLY that clueless that they see one poster put something stupid like that up, watch 90 pct of the following posts tell him how idiotic and dangerous it is, and said newbie STILL thinks it's something he wants to try, then that person is gonna be meeting an early demise one way or another without our having anything to do with it. Darwinism at work. That newb will probably end up having more interest in hanging with the guys who think backclipping was a really great idea (another great GOTY nominee!! :lol: :lol: ).
And just my 2 cents, I think the mods voting for removal are treading very lightly when trying to babysit new people here. I give newer climbers a lot more credit for reading and realizing what's laughable horseplop and what's real and safe. Hell, I was a newer climber when I started on this site and I'm still alive :roll: .
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Mar 23, 2004, 1:59 AM
Post #43 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
7 delete
4 bring it back
Beth, as stated above... I agreed to allow the Staff to discuss bringing it back. This was the compromise met. Either way it goes, we will not make everybidy happy.
Also as stated, while I use the Darwin phrase often, it is all fun and games till someone gets hurt. Nobody deserves to get hurt or die, even if they are stupid.
Please... If anyone wants to reply, do so, but at least do so informed by taking the time to read all of the replies in both threads so we don't have to repeat ourselves for those who don't want to take the time to read. Fair enough ???
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Mar 23, 2004, 2:04 AM
Post #44 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I also think Mike Reardon's post in the "Legal issues..." thread started about this one, is a must read. :lol:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=55516&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=45
|
|
|
|
|
moabbeth
Mar 23, 2004, 2:16 AM
Post #45 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 1786
|
In reply to: Also as stated, while I use the Darwin phrase often, it is all fun and games till someone gets hurt. Nobody deserves to get hurt or die, even if they are stupid.
Yeah, but if someone is so stupid as to read that thread and all of the negative comments that followed and STILL think the one original guy was right, he's gonna be buying it early on without any of our assistance.
Hey mods, think of it from THIS perspective:
Some of the BEST and most useful safety information I've seen put on this site comes 80% of the time from the initally stupid gumby posts. Safe, talented climbers who know what they're doing come along with enough facts and information that I end up learning something SAFE in the reaction posts from every gumbaloid thread. So believe it or not, they are a blessing in disguise. If someone is SO stupid as to look and see someone like John Long chime in about why backclipping is a BAD thing and read his explanation why and still think "hey, I think backclipping sounds like a great idea".....you cannot save some people from themselves. :evil:
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Mar 23, 2004, 2:19 AM
Post #46 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Good point Beth. And in a perfect world where everyone reads all the replies in a thread, that would work, and I would never even think of removing it.
Would it be a fair statement that since some of the "enlightened" people who have replied to this thread have failed to read all of the replies, that it would also hold true that many of the less enlightened n00bs would also fail to read all of said threads ???
This is not a perfect world.
|
|
|
|
|
abock33
Mar 23, 2004, 9:30 AM
Post #47 of 47
(5025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2004
Posts: 131
|
In reply to: I'm going to conduct a completely safe test and I need 4 volunteers. First volunteer will be hit by a car at 5 miles an hour next at 10 etc up to 20 miles an hour. Now this is a completely safe test in a controlled environment just for entertainment, would you like to join in on my tests? P.K.
Gladley as long as I'm driving :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
|
