What happened to the Millbrook, Gunks page

Seems to me that the real offense here is that an area that's meant to be kept quiet has just been massively publicized.

The ostensible point of posting all of these lines was to preserve the nature and ethics of the area, but I gather the area was not in any danger of being overrun or bolted. The effect of putting it on MP is to accomplish the opposite by publicizing it--jeopardizing access by advertising its existence.

Consequently, it appears that the poster's purported motive is specious. That leaves us to hypothesize a different motive--namely ego. That suspicion is supported by the unconventional claiming of TR FAs. A TR FA may or may not be legit, but the volume of spray seems to support a theory that this was all about ego, and very little about preservation and ethics.

While IME most TR-only climbs don't credit an FA, there are plenty of TR-only crags and lines that do. For example:

mountainproject.com/v/bagat…
mountainproject.com/v/acid-…
mountainproject.com/v/rubbe…
mountainproject.com/v/shipl…
mountainproject.com/v/sterl…

That's not a problem per se. The problem appears to be that these are ego-driven, and inconsistent with the low-profile of the area.

Add to that the fact that the views about climbing that Mr. Perry has expressed here on this thread have been narrow-minded, dogmatic and fairly incoherent, and the whole thing really stinks of ego, or at the least, very poor judgment.

Kyle Tarry wrote: Then why are there a ton of bomb, 1-star, and 2-star routes that you added? mountainproject.com/v/next-… mountainproject.com/v/-ladd… mountainproject.com/v/the-s… mountainproject.com/v/abram… mountainproject.com/v/after… mountainproject.com/v/north… mountainproject.com/v/parou… mountainproject.com/v/worth…

The subject of the thread is Millbrook TR FA's not my Trapps and Near Trapps aid climbs. Not my 5.2 and 5.3 climbs. Those have to do with something you can up star after you do them. They are dangerous. On the other hand these Millbrook climbs are down stared by trolls, just ignore it them. The trolls are actually doing us all a favor, the results of down staring means that they do not get advertising on the front page. I think we all would prefer that including myself.

FFS please learn the definition of internet troll.

What's the point of adding a 4th-class access descent, with a bomb rating, if the whole idea is to preserve the ethics of the area? And then claiming an FA too?

mountainproject.com/v/north…

Adding it just tells people how to access the area. Nobody is bolting that; there's no risk that someone is going to damage it. The only reason to post it is so that Donald Perry can write his name on it and shout to the whole world about how special he is.

Kyle Tarry wrote: (Emphasis added) Any chance that you might have had of convincing people to understand your position has been ruined by your continued ranting about bolts, especially given that you can't seem to comprehend the fact that different areas have different ethics. The fact that you continue to call people who happen to have a different opinion than you "stupid," "hillbilly," and other labels you've used in other posts is pretty indicative of your character and attitude. Rumney and The New are sport climbing areas. Some people enjoy sport climbing, and prefer it to toproping for a variety of reasons. Just because you don't, doesn't make anybody who does wrong or stupid, that's an incredibly ignorant point of view. The routes in those areas are consistent with their history and the local ethics and style. If you want to toprope, that's fine. However, it doesn't make you "better" or "smarter" that people who like to lead on bolts. Nobody is threatening to bolt routes at Millbrook, and other areas have their own unique ethics and style and you can't just go applying your philosophy across the board.

So you think that there are different solutions to any given problem based on location and circomstances. You believe that different groups of people should be allowed to all have confused and different evolving opinions, even when it has no basis on the cliff itself. And this in spite of the fact that there is no way to undo a bolt holes and chipping rock.

Do you think this kind of thinking could be applied to other like final solutions such as mathematics or rocket science? That solutions are flexible. No. Then why should I believe you here?, because it might hurt my popularity? I'm trying to be clear and straight forward. There is no other way to say it. You guys drilled a lot of needless holes and made a sport out of it rather then just climb. Then you want to insist it's ground up. Let me ask you this. Have you ever done a second ascent of a bolted climb, and if so how? And how are these things lead with a bolt drill?

donald perry wrote:The subject of the thread is Millbrook TR FA's not my Trapps and Near Trapps aid climbs. Not my 5.2 and 5.3 climbs.

These "Millbrook TR's" are not "your" climbs. They're not yours to name or to dictate the possible future bolting (or not bolting) of... These are stretches of rock you threw a rope down over and climbed out on. If you intended to headpoint them, I'm sure the local community would gladly grant you the courtesy of plenty of time to try them and even accept "working names" for the routes, but the fact of the matter is you have no intentions to ever lead them, yet you lay claim to them - putting yourself in the same league as Romano, McCarthy, Kraus, Clune, etc - as if you deserve some sort of special respect for what amounts to nothing more than a 40 minute hike, setting up an anchor, and doing some mini-traxing. There is nothing special or significant about that whatsoever.

On the other hand, Redirectionalism and your other 5.2 and 5.3 ascents are certainly worthy of respect and inclusion in the database, but these TR's are not.

donald perry wrote: On the other hand these Millbrook climbs are down stared by trolls, just ignore it them. The trolls are actually doing us all a favor, the results of down staring means that they do not get advertising on the front page. I think we all would prefer that including myself.

If you don't want them advertised on the front page, why did you post them to begin with? And why give them four stars yourself?

The only person who downgraded them was Josh Janes, who bombed all of your TR FAs. Assuming he has not climbed them and does not genuinely believe that these are awful climbs, then I do agree his actions were unwarranted. Presumably, he believes that your designation claiming an FA on TR is false, since FAs are generally considered ground-up; to combat this he has added his own, somewhat unrelated false information. This just adds to the confusion and misinformation on the site. It does nothing to remedy the perceived flaw in the original posting.

EDIT:

Josh Janes wrote: These "Millbrook TR's" are not "your" climbs. They're not yours to name or to dictate the possible future bolting (or not bolting) of... These are stretches of rock you threw a rope down over and climbed out on. If you intended to headpoint them, I'm sure the local community would gladly grant you the courtesy of plenty of time to try them and even accept a "working name" for the routes, but the fact of the matter is you have no intentions to ever lead them, yet you lay claim to them - putting yourself in the same league as Romano and Clune and those guys - as if you deserve some sort of special respect for what amounts to nothing more than a 40 minute hike, setting up an anchor, and doing some mini-traxing. There is nothing special or significant about that whatsoever. On the other hand, Redirectionalism and your other 5.2 and 5.3 ascents are certainly worthy of respect and inclusion in the database, but these TR's are not.

Josh, it seems to me maybe there are better solutions, especially since you're an admin.

donald perry wrote: So you think that there are different solutions to any given problem based on location and circomstances. You believe that different groups of people should be allowed to all have confused and different evolving opinions, even when it has no basis on the cliff itself. ... Do you think this kind of thinking could be applied to other like final solutions such as mathematics or rocket science? That solutions are flexible. No.

Rigid, dogmatic thinking. Clearly, there are many "problems" that have different "solutions" depending on the time and place. This applies to bolts in rock, just as it applies to the laws of physics.

donald perry wrote: And this in spite of the fact that there is no way to undo a bolt holes and chipping rock. ... There is no other way to say it. You guys drilled a lot of needless holes and made a sport out of it rather then just climb. Then you want to insist it's ground up. Let me ask you this. Have you ever done a second ascent of a bolted climb, and if so how? And how are these things lead with a bolt drill?

By all accounts, absolutely nobody was threatening to bolt or chip at Millbrook. This is a red herring.

"...faiEly incoherent"

Can you please provide some examples. Thanks.

n00b,

There is an ongoing discussion about this amongst the admins as well. How it will all pan out I do not know - I am only one voice. Obviously, I have opinions about this and am making them known, but I fully admit that they belong to me and me alone and don't represent the views of Mountain Project.

I actually bombed the routes simply to reduce visual clutter when I personally look at the Millbrook page - the page had suddenly become a sea of four-star routes and since users only see their own ratings and not consensus ratings, by bombing them I made them effectively disappear into the background when I looked at the page. However, you're correct that, no, I haven't climbed these routes and cannot actually comment on their quality (only speculate) and bombing them could be seen as malicious. This was not my intent and for that reason I've retracted my ratings.

Marc801 wrote:FFS please learn the definition of internet troll.

Rating climbs you never been on is not trolling in your opinion? Yes or no.

donald perry wrote:"...faiEly incoherent" Can you please provide some examples. Thanks.

Well, one, it's incoherent to argue that rocket science is somehow analogous to rock climbing, and that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to every problem.

Second, you keep employing red herring arguments about bolting which, all evidence suggests, is not a concern at Millbrook.

Third, your purported motive for posting these routes is inconsistent with the actual likely effects.

Among other things.

n00b wrote:What's the point of adding a 4th-class access descent, with a bomb rating, if the whole idea is to preserve the ethics of the area? And then claiming an FA too? mountainproject.com/v/north… Adding it just tells people how to access the area. Nobody is bolting that; there's no risk that someone is going to damage it. The only reason to post it is so that Donald Perry can write his name on it and shout to the whole world about how special he is.

So now your argument is that I need to make sure I don't invade your safe space because I did the first accent of a class 4 before you knew about it? I'm not going to argue about my ego, weather it's involved or not because that's irrelevant to the argument. The argument is and the reason for the thread is, what's the problem with quality TR. Your posts are off topic.

Josh Janes wrote:n00b, There is an ongoing discussion about this amongst the admins as well. How it will all pan out I do not know - I am only one voice. Obviously, I have opinions about this and am making them known, but I fully admit that they belong to me and me alone and don't represent the views of Mountain Project. I actually bombed the routes simply to reduce visual clutter when I personally look at the Millbrook page - the page had suddenly become a sea of four-star routes and since users only see their own ratings and not consensus ratings, by bombing them I made them effectively disappear into the background when I looked at the page. However, you're correct that, no, I haven't climbed these routes and cannot actually comment on their quality (only speculate) and bombing them could be seen as malicious. This was not my intent and for that reason I've retracted my ratings.

Fair enough. If it were me, I'd just clean them all up, leave the "FA" claims in place, and perhaps erase or block Donald's star ratings for other, more objective users to replace.

donald perry wrote: So now your argument is that I need to make sure I don't invade your safe space because I did the first accent of a class 4 before you knew about it? I'm not going to argue about my ego, weather it's involved or not because that's irrelevant to the argument. The argument is and the reason for the thread is, what's the problem with FA TR. Your posta are off topic.

No. I made no such argument. I don't know what "safe spaces" have to do with anything I have written, and I certainly don't care about your FA of an approach gulley. Your non-sequiter here is one more example of the incoherence of your positions.

What I did say was that your actions are inconsistent with what you claim to be your purposes. You claim you are posting only "classics," with the purpose of preserving the historical ethic and character of Millbrook.

But your actions tell a different story. You are posting 4th class scrambles that you-yourself are rating as a bomb. The effects of posting all of this about Millbrook is to publicize it, which is more likely to change its historical character and ethic, and I gather may threaten access if it becomes a more trafficked crag.

Josh Janes wrote:n00b, There is an ongoing discussion about this amongst the admins as well. How it will all pan out I do not know - I am only one voice. Obviously, I have opinions about this and am making them known, but I fully admit that they belong to me and me alone and don't represent the views of Mountain Project. I actually bombed the routes simply to reduce visual clutter when I personally look at the Millbrook page - the page had suddenly become a sea of four-star routes and since users only see their own ratings and not consensus ratings, by bombing them I made them effectively disappear into the background when I looked at the page. However, you're correct that, no, I haven't climbed these routes and cannot actually comment on their quality (only speculate) and bombing them could be seen as malicious. This was not my intent and for that reason I've retracted my ratings.

Thank you for doing that, I would have done that myself if I did not have to justify the presence for the routes in the first place. They don't need to be that visable. I would like to bomb them all myself and in the description 5 star them if you think that would be acceptable.

n00b wrote: Fair enough. If it were me, I'd just clean them all up, leave the "FA" claims in place, and perhaps erase or block Donald's star ratings for other, more objective users to replace.

Agreed ... I'll bomb them now or no star and 5 star them in the description. Good idea. This will reduce the viability at Millbrook.

donald perry wrote:This will reduce the viability at Millbrook.

Their viability is already extremely questionable. Now if only we could reduce their visibility.

donald perry wrote: Agreed ... I'll bomb them now or no star and 5 star them in the description. Good idea. This will reduce the viability at Millbrook.

Removing all of your four-star ratings is a good start.

When I wrote "if it were me," I was speaking to an admin.

If I were you I'd remove my name from the "FA" slot. That would allow the debate to focus on the merits of whether these climbs should be posted at all, instead of this silly distraction about claiming credit for an FA.

One thing I will say, I appreciate that you seem to be willing to listen to criticism and compromise on some points.

donald perry wrote: Have you ever done a second ascent of a bolted climb, and if so how? And how are these things lead with a bolt drill?

What? Really?