Invitation to join mps diversity and inclusion group

Why do people want to ruin things? Supertopo cost money to run, made zero profits and when people just threw constant hissy fits they closed it down. Just participate here if you want, try something different if you desire a different platform and feel there is demand for it. 

Kevin Beverly wrote:

The he should update the the Terms of Service and come clean on how he is going to turn this site into and actual community owned and operated site. 

why? i don't see any obligation on Nick's part to do any of those things. 

Kevin Beverly wrote:

The he should update the the Terms of Service and come clean on how he is going to turn this site into and actual community owned and operated site. 

Has anyone contacted him about these issues?

Jared Williswrote:

why? 

Well, coz Kevin wants to!

Kevin Beverly wrote:

Props to Mellisa for starting something new and actually saying up front that she will pay the people involved in the project. I hope she is successful it would be nice to see a honestly and ethically operated climbing database.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/climbing-guidebook-app-discovery-funding#/

Hold on though.  That page is just about funding an effort to do discovery on an app, and doesn't have any detail about the app itself.  How does this team propose that they are going to gather the tens or hundreds of thousands of routes that are going to need to go into this app to make it useful?  I feel like this is a really important question, before they spend a bunch of people's hard-earned money.  They can't copy anything out of the MP database, because then they would profiting from the exact same user-volunteered data.  They also certainly can't copy guidebooks, because that's copyright infringement.  And, after all of this talk about paying a fair wage, I hope they aren't expecting people to submit routes for free?

The average route probably takes a party of two 30 minutes to lead, follow/clean, and summarize in text.  Let's say we pay this pair $45/hr each (the lowest pay rate in that campaign).  That's $45 for every single route.  You'd need $50k-$100k to get route information for Smith Rock alone.  I don't see how this whole thing can pan out, financially.

I'd also be interested in OPs opinion on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia relies unpaid volunteers to submit their content, and yet pays a small team of people money to run the site (quite similar to MP).  Is Wikipedia problematic in the same way MP is?

Look, I'm not defending the racist route names (which we should abandon) nor the constant stream of racist, sexist, and clueless mouth diarrhea on the forums (which we should silence).  Those things need to get fixed.  But I seriously question how this new app project is going to significantly fix these problems, or even get off the ground sustainably in the first place.

Matthew Nolandwrote:

So I just want to make sure I'm understanding your message correctly...

If you are a person who struggles to find others to climb with that will accept your race/religion/identity/etc then simply don't go?

As unproductive and shortsighted as that may be, I do applaud you for admitting your role.

No, your reading too much into it, I want all types of people to quit climbing.  As for who I'd climb with, I'd even climb with you.  Not suprised you enjoy fly fishing too, did you get a sweet gravel bike yet?

Kevin, thanks for the reply.  If MP was to use a creative commons license, all of these criticisms would go away?  And, if this new app is to use one, then it would be ok for people to submit content for free?

I don't have a problem with this stance at all (I would love it if the MP content went that way, and would wholeheartedly support proposals to do so), but I don't see how this is aligned with the many passionate arguments made by Melissa (and others) about how it's unethical to have people submit content without financial compensation.

Dave K wrote:

Many of you may not be old enough to remember the dot-com boom. Much of it went like this: A brand new tech company is founded, they present their plan, people do some common-sense analysis as Kyle has done above, realize there's no way their plan can work, company sells their stock on the public markets anyway, lots of people buy the stock, price goes way up.

Maybe diversity and inclusion is the next investment craze? Buy! ... and sell! ...  before the bubble pops.

Or how about Google Plus ... it was going to replace Facebook, because it was better.

Oh I remember well. I put $20,000 into Concrete,com. They had a new and sustainable way to deliver 4 different types via the net and some automated drones. Looked great on paper.
That was the fastest I ever lost twenty grand except for THE weekend in Vegas! At least I got laid 8 times.
All of you who wish to toss this “person” some $$$ please Do So Now. Hopefully this new site will have a “Socially Responsible Forum” and we won’t have this nonsense to deal with. 

Nothing belongs to the MP community that created this site according to the existing Terms of Service.

Yet ironically those very same terms of service make the claim that the users are liable for their submissions. 

You alone are responsible for Your Content... and once published, it may not be possible to withdraw... You assume all risks associated with Your Content...

Pretty laughable, actually. You are responsible for the content but you no longer own it, can't freely edit and must beg for deletion. You get the liability, he gets the content. That content can be sold, without your permission. But you're still liable for it! 

Kyle Tarrywrote:

Look, I'm not defending the racism route names (which we should abandon) nor the constant stream of racist, sexist, and clueless mouth diarrhea on the forums (which we should silence).  

I’ve been coming to MP for years, strictly for the above content.  Can we assure that when this girl’s new app launches, that the pressure is off MP, and we can all just get back to the above?

If so, I’ll cut her a blank check tonight, to get that thing into production before the year is out. 

Wtf, why was my post deleted.

The only valuable asset here is the route database. 

True. The rest of MP is just entertainment, and it's a low quality program.

Auden.... he offends me because he is a coward. Joined MP weeks ago. Hides behind a avatar and slings off handed remarks. Nobody needs people like that around- stinking up the place. If that doesn’t offend you you’re a better person than I am. I can talk with anybody who is “real”. People hiding- I have less and less respect for them.

I’m out 

Dave K wrote:

What he did was the textbook definition of white saviour. The way he presented his offer suggested that certain people were not capable of starting on their own. And his offer was blatantly discriminatory.

People can definitely start outdoor climbing on their own!  The AAJ's Accidents in North American Mountaineering offers 100s of examples of people that have done so.

Dave K wrote:

I'd wager that there is no correlation between accident rates and how someone received their initial instruction.

I will take that bet!  You really think that self taught climbers don’t have more accidents than those with a proper mentorship or classes?

Otis Rock Skiwrote:

Does diversifying climbing include spreading the word to all the poor white trash kids growing up in trailer parks and shacks just miles from awesome crags (I’m thinking about the areas surrounding Rumney in particular). 

No, because something something privilege...

Dave K wrote:

The vast majority of accidents involve people that are skilled and experienced. ANAM is far from a catalog of noobs making mistakes.
...
- Accidents involving complete noobishness are a very small percentage of the total.
...
- Accidents involving serious climbers pushing their limits are the most common. Once they reach that point in their career it doesn't matter how they got there.

The ANAM data that says otherwise:

http://www.stephabegg.com/home/projects/accidentstats

• Zero/Little Experience: 24%
• 1-3 years experience: 22%
• Experienced: 26%
• Unknown: 28%

This clearly shows that the "vast majority" of accidents do not involve people who are "skilled and experienced" as you claim.  24% of them involve "complete noobishness," which is far more than a "small percentage."  26% of them are experienced climbers, which is not "most," and there is no data to support that these are primarily "pushing their limits" as you claim.  Only 15% of all accidents are due to "exceeding abilities," so there goes that claim too.

Of course, this thread has 6 pages of you and other people making assertions that are in direct conflict to established data, so I don't expect this to have a meaningful impact.

Dave K wrote:

The data in in those colorful charts includes hikers and peak baggers, not only technical climbing.  Many of the "no experience" incidents are situations like non-climbers that decided to hike a 14er.

Oh?  So, you have a source of more accurate data that backs up all of the claims you made?  Can you give us a link to that data so that we can check it out?  Thanks!

It seems weird that you are critiquing my use of the data from ANAM, when your original claim cited THAT EXACT DATA SET:

Dave K wrote:

ANAM is far from a catalog of noobs making mistakes

Maybe you meant a different ANAM?

Dave K wrote:

My main point was about how the climber received initial instruction. What percentages of accidents were caused because someone did not have a class or a mentor? Of course we can never know, but take a look at the reports in the accidents section here. How often do we come to the conclusion  "if they only had a mentor..." vs "any of us could have made that same mistake" ?  

Well, what this data counter is that statement you made:

The vast majority of accidents involve people that are skilled and experienced. ANAM is far from a catalog of noobs making mistakes.
...
- Accidents involving complete noobishness are a very small percentage of the total.
...
- Accidents involving serious climbers pushing their limits are the most common.

Which doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. Maybe the population covered by the data linked above is wider than our population of interest. That is a valid point. But that is still some data to suggest that you affirmation is wrong. In the meantime, you have only provide your own opinion to support it.