Should there be a new "incidents" forum?

[cocheese 0]

Would it be better if each incident had a seperate link to the forum where only witnesses' posts and relevent information were posted?

Would it be better if each post there was held for review before it was posted?

How should the noise and clutter of the current incidents forum be reduced? Could we put facts and relevent information posts into a different font color or something to help make sifting throught the noise easier?

[AggieDave 6]

Break the incidents forum down into a singular post edited/updated by a moderator with a near-NTSB style dry report of what/how/why/when/where. Discussions/flame wars of the incident could be taken to General.

Reduce the clutter and leave the facts.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Would it be better if each post there was held for review before it was posted?

That would probably work, but would be a lot of work for the mod(s).

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[nigel99 616]

Quote

Break the incidents forum down into a singular post edited/updated by a moderator with a near-NTSB style dry report of what/how/why/when/where. Discussions/flame wars of the incident could be taken to General.

Reduce the clutter and leave the facts.

Aren't there already proper outlets for that kind of report? Actually the fatalities database here on dz.com does pretty much that exact function come to think of it.

This website is largely a discussion forum and while it appears that the same argument is had many times over that is only partially true. Each time the same "stupid" question is raised it is normally by a new person so someone else has the opportunity to learn.

Often it is possible to learn from the so called speculation. Old salts pass on reasons why such and such was a good/bad idea etc.

I wouldn't mind if the posting rules were tightened up and it was possible to be banned or censored from posting for people who habitually post stupid comments.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Aren't there already proper outlets for that kind of report? Actually the fatalities database here on dz.com does pretty much that exact function come to think of it.

Aren't there already proper outlets for that kind of report? Actually the fatalities database here on dz.com does pretty much that exact function come to think of it.

This website is largely a discussion forum and while it appears that the same argument is had many times over that is only partially true. Each time the same "stupid" question is raised it is normally by a new person so someone else has the opportunity to learn.

Often it is possible to learn from the so called speculation. Old salts pass on reasons why such and such was a good/bad idea etc.

I agree completely. The Incidents forum is not a mere database; it is by nature a dynamic forum. As any police officer knows, eyewitness reports can sometimes be sketchy, incomplete, sometimes conflicting, sometimes wrong. A great deal of what takes place in the Forum is forensic analysis by group discussion, even if very messy and sometimes amateurish - because the experts in here also chime in, and that's very valuable. It would be an unpardonable shame to diminish that, IMO.

Quote

I wouldn't mind if the posting rules were tightened up

From what I see, the moderating in Incidents is already pretty tight. It's pretty common to see an Incidents thread with "gaps" in between certain posts - those "gaps" are posts that have been hidden by the moderator who's trying hard to filter the noise from the signal.

[Muffie 0]

As someone very new to the sport, I think the back and forth discussion is invaluable. Sometimes it makes me wish I had some serious migraine medication at hand reading through it all, but I learn ten times as much from the discussions as I would from a dry summary of the incident. Not to mention that very rarely is there a true, solid, complete, and accurate summary of any incident available.

What might be nice is if after a reasonable period of time one of the moderators could come through and provide a summary at the very end of the incident with name, jump numbers, equipment, and what it appears happened or at least what has been agreed to and what is still conjecture/debate. And then maybe lock the thread barring new info.

[billvon 3,111]

>Break the incidents forum down into a singular post edited/updated by a
>moderator with a near-NTSB style dry report of what/how/why/when/where.

We have that:

http://www.dropzone.com/safety/

Click on a year to see the fatality reports for that year.

[yoink 321]

No.

More can be learnt from discussing possible suspected failures as finding out the actual cause of an event.

A thread discussing a fatality caused by a baglock could conceivably cover gear matching, packing issues, gear maintainance, deployment techniques and much more. Conversations can naturally spring from each of these.


A report stlye would say "Baglock caused by misrouted bridle in pull-out rig". It's a much less valuable resource.

[airdvr 210]

I see the problem as alot of folks expect an official incident report in the incidents section. It rarely comes down that way. Innuendos and half-truths rule the day in there. Somebody knows something but doesn't want to say so they hint around at it. It's kind of like group therapy. If you're not at the meeting you're the one who gets talked about.

That's not to say there isn't much to be learned by discussing things. But I've not expected a factual report in those threads for a long time.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[pchapman 279]

It is hard to make perfect categories, but it would be nice to some how have incident threads split into information about the incident, vs. discussion of issues from the incident.

Basically every incident thread gets into discussion of issues resulting from the incident. So every incident should have two sections to the thread or two threads. (Naturally some programming would be required for an elegant solution.)

And we would still have the option to start a new thread about a particular issue in another forum.

So for example in the incident thread itself one might have:
"I heard she was wearing heavy gloves." or "But I was told she was used to wearing heavy gloves."

The discussion section or thread based on the incident would then have posts like this:
"She shouldn't have been wearing heavy gloves." or "We have to do it all the time up north; but they can't be too bulky."

One could still make a post in another forum about, say, "What gloves do you use when it is cold?"