Incidents & Speculation

[JohnRich 4]

A common type of comment from the Incidents forum:

"Please have a little respect people. Your conversation has little to do with the incident at hand and it is stretching outside of it's own topic already. Please take this elsewhere. Keep discussions to what happened..."

We keep seeing this kind of tug-of-war over and over again in the Incidents forum, where speculation runs wild, and people in-the-know get offended. Then you end up with bad feelings on both sides, with some trying to protect the facts and their friends, while others insist that speculation is necessary to learn from the incident.

So how about a new Incidents forum policy:

1) Postings in Incidents are limited to known facts and circumstances.

2) A "duplicate" thread can be started in the Safety forum to discuss the generic aspects of what happened, to include speculation "what if's", but would avoid mention of the person's name, particular drop zone, etc.

This way, both sides of this contentious issue could have their way.

How about it, whatcha' think?

P.S. Oh yeah, and: 3) You need a third thread for condolences...

[feuergnom 29]

i can see where you are coming from in this. but i'll add my euro-cents to this:

Quote

1) Postings in Incidents are limited to known facts and circumstances.

sometimes we have to speculate for the facts are not clear or known. sometimes speculations add vital points. so i don't think this would be practical

Quote

A "duplicate" thread can be started in the Safety forum to discuss the generic aspects of what happened, to include speculation "what if's", but would avoid mention of the person's name, particular drop zone, etc.

well that is something i would wisch dz.commers would do on their own more often. but most of these off-spins have already been covered many times and most inhabitants of this website seem to be unwilling/unable/or to dim-witted to use the search function

Quote

3) You need a third thread for condolences...

i would propose a ban on posters posting condolences in the incidents thread. seems far more practical and would eliminate this kind of "noise" in no time

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[ChrisD 0]

There is a value to speculation. Many of these incidents are so similar in nature, no one really needs the specific facts.

I have seen all too often the idea of waiting for the facts, although well intentioned, turn into blaming the victim as the final result anyways....

I realize that I am promoting a bigger picture, the systemic view and many have a problem understanding what I am talking about. But the bottom line is that there are factors which are not only difficult to fully understand, they are that more difficult to explain.

I have often also promoted the view that via this dialog and speculation many people are working out their grief and trying to make some sense and bring comprehension to the un comprehensible. Although this important fact is often overlooked, there may be more value to this process, in the long run, than limiting the comments and sensoring some of the BS that ensues in the incidents section.

The mods want us to keep to the facts to the specific incident, I don't always agree with this.

It takes a certain amount of time to repost in other threads as well as we all loose the benefit of a complete discussion in one central location. We loose information jumping between different categories, train of thoughts get lost...

I always take the time to point out my concern about some family member reading some of the wild speculation concerning their loved one, but this happens anyways regardless of the truth or if it's speculation or whatever...

Who are we protecting?

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[billvon 3,064]

>I have often also promoted the view that via this dialog and speculation many people
>are working out their grief and trying to make some sense and bring comprehension to
>the un comprehensible. Although this important fact is often overlooked, there may be
>more value to this process, in the long run

Agreed that there is great value to this. We have created a forum - "Blue Skies" - specifically for this.

>It takes a certain amount of time to repost in other threads as well as we all loose the
>benefit of a complete discussion in one central location. We loose information jumping
>between different categories,

The other side of that is that we lose coherency when a discussion of a low cutaway turns into two people arguing that their gear is better than the other poster's gear. That's why we move such discussions to (say) Gear and Rigging - because by that time you're no longer talking about the incident, other than very indirectly.

[ChrisD 0]

billvon

>I have often also promoted the view that via this dialog and speculation many people
>are working out their grief and trying to make some sense and bring comprehension to
>the un comprehensible. Although this important fact is often overlooked, there may be
>more value to this process, in the long run

Agreed that there is great value to this. We have created a forum - "Blue Skies" - specifically for this.

>It takes a certain amount of time to repost in other threads as well as we all loose the
>benefit of a complete discussion in one central location. We loose information jumping
>between different categories,

The other side of that is that we lose coherency when a discussion of a low cutaway turns into two people arguing that their gear is better than the other poster's gear. That's why we move such discussions to (say) Gear and Rigging - because by that time you're no longer talking about the incident, other than very indirectly.

Agreed.


Ya think they could police themselves?

Perhaps there is some kind of balance?

C

Keep up the good fight, and thanks!!!!

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."