Temporarily Naming Unnamed New Routes

David, language that like serves no purpose other than to aggravate the situation. It would be far more constructive for you to express your thoughts without resorting to foul language. I've spoken to Eric personally about some of these issues, and found him to be open to thoughtful exchange. Judging by my personal experience with direct communication with Eric, and his non-reactive response to your post, I think he would be open to listening to your thoughts.

As RyanF pointed out, there is much subtext that is necessary to understand before making a judgment. Like most climbing communities, southern Arizona’s is storied and has seen much controversy and conflict. The issue raised in this thread is only one of many that are part of a much larger context. In an effort to create accountability, and provide support for the possibility of a resolution, the following paragraphs attempt to provide basic and essential context, though they are certainly not exhaustive.

It should be known, and is known to many southern Arizona climbers, that Eric has a long-standing personal feud with Scott Ayers, the first ascentionist he refers to in this thread. Eric has been one of the primary orchestrators of an online bullying campaign using Mountain Project as a platform. After several years of this, the wealth of evidence, in Mountain Project forums and route comments, is so great that it is simply invalid to deny this.

In fact, Eric’s waging of his vendetta is a primary reason Scott no longer uses Mountain Project. Scott used to contribute to Mountain Project, as evidenced by his high-quality route descriptions for the Troll Wall, one of Mt. Lemmon’s very best crags. Mountain Project’s passive stance in the face of a long campaign of bullying implies tacit approval, as the vendetta has gone on entirely unchecked. Pleading ignorance is not a valid excuse, as I have brought it to the attention, in plain and clears terms, of website administration only to be quickly dismissed. In light of Mountain Project’s abject failure to moderate, it is absurd to think that Scott would again contribute to the website that has served as a weapon in the defamation campaign. Criticism of Scott for not contributing his most recent routes to Mountain Project can only be attributed to two possibilities: the first is the result of being misinformed or uninformed in these details, as is the case with most users. Lack of full disclosure and liberal use of hearsay intentionally sabotages meaningful debate and seeks to maximize polarization in attitudes and opinions. The second is harboring personal resentment of Scott, as is the case with Eric, as well as a handful of verbose detractors. This tiny sample of the southern Arizona climbing community has monopolized the online dialogue, and thrives on Mountain Project’s failure to moderate.

Beyond the online world, Scott Ayers has recently, personally and directly reached out to Eric in an effort to end their feud. Eric was initially non-receptive and uninterested, and only agreed to meet when Scott provided a long list of reasons that detail why it would be mutually beneficial to meet. The fact that Eric needs convincing to meet with Scott to find a solution to their conflict is, by itself, rather troubling. Aside from personal reasons, the collateral damage to the community should be more than enough to provide inspiration. The fact that Eric continues to antagonize the conflict by feigning interest in Mountain Project user opinions of Scott’s unwillingness to contribute, illustrates a cognitive dissonance. That is, a lack of recognition of the incompatibility of continued aggression and the desired goal of working towards resolution. At the very least, Eric could refrain from posting about Scott before the meeting takes place. This simple act of good faith would help foster positive, progressive attitudes, instead of a perpetuating the status quo of hostility. Sadly, this approach may be an indication of Eric’s resistance to being open to the diminishing of this conflict.

After nearly two decades of an atmosphere of a splintered climbing community, a positive vision of the southern Arizona climbing community must first be conceived in our imagination before it can come to fruition. The potential to create this reality is within grasp. This is not a simple task that can be accomplished overnight, but requires a commitment grounded in the time-tested methods of conflict resolution. To accomplish this requires both parties to step outside of their comfort zones. There must first be an agreement, as a matter of principal, to work towards a just compromise. The use of an impartial mediator is vital to the success of any conflict resolution. The onus that lies on the shoulders of both Eric and Scott is surely heavy, though this is the responsibility that they assumed as they have positioned themselves at the forefront of the southern Arizona climbing community over the past few decades.

In a very positive telephone conversation with Eric over a year ago, one of the conclusions that we came to was that Eric would not use Scott’s name on Mountain Project. Indeed, Eric gave me his word that he would not do that. When I asked him how we could have accountability, he told me that he is true to his word. He maintained his word for a time, though that did not last. Since then, he has indirectly and directly referred to Scott in this thread and other venues on Mountain Project. In the case of this thread, I think the appropriate course of action to maximize the potential of a just resolution in Scott and Eric’s upcoming meeting, would be for Eric to issue a mea culpa on this thread, and honor his word that he leave Scott’s name from any threads, posts or comments on Mountain Project.

Dan Cohen wrote: Eric has been one of the primary orchestrators of an online bullying campaign using Mountain Project as a platform...... Mountain Project’s passive stance in the face of a long campaign of bullying implies tacit approval, as the vendetta has gone on entirely unchecked.

Good God what a load of crap. Tell Scott to put on his big boy pants would ya? You Arizona boys have to turn everything into a soap opera? It's just rock climbing, get over yourselves already. No I'm not a local but I've read enough of these Az. wacko threads to see a pattern here.

Dan Cohen wrote:David, language that like serves no purpose other than to aggravate the situation. It would be far more constructive for you to express your thoughts without resorting to foul language. I've spoken to Eric personally about some of these issues, and found him to be open to thoughtful exchange. Judging by my personal experience with direct communication with Eric, and his non-reactive response to your post, I think he would be open to listening to your thoughts. As RyanF pointed out, there is much subtext that is necessary to understand before making a judgment. Like most climbing communities, southern Arizona’s is storied and has seen much controversy and conflict. The issue raised in this thread is only one of many that are part of a much larger context. In an effort to create accountability, and provide support for the possibility of a resolution, the following paragraphs attempt to provide basic and essential context, though they are certainly not exhaustive. It should be known, and is known to many southern Arizona climbers, that Eric has a long-standing personal feud with Scott Ayers, the first ascentionist he refers to in this thread. Eric has been one of the primary orchestrators of an online bullying campaign using Mountain Project as a platform. After several years of this, the wealth of evidence, in Mountain Project forums and route comments, is so great that it is simply invalid to deny this. In fact, Eric’s waging of his vendetta is a primary reason Scott no longer uses Mountain Project. Scott used to contribute to Mountain Project, as evidenced by his high-quality route descriptions for the Troll Wall, one of Mt. Lemmon’s very best crags. Mountain Project’s passive stance in the face of a long campaign of bullying implies tacit approval, as the vendetta has gone on entirely unchecked. Pleading ignorance is not a valid excuse, as I have brought it to the attention, in plain and clears terms, of website administration only to be quickly dismissed. In light of Mountain Project’s abject failure to moderate, it is absurd to think that Scott would again contribute to the website that has served as a weapon in the defamation campaign. Criticism of Scott for not contributing his most recent routes to Mountain Project can only be attributed to two possibilities: the first is the result of being misinformed or uninformed in these details, as is the case with most users. Lack of full disclosure and liberal use of hearsay intentionally sabotages meaningful debate and seeks to maximize polarization in attitudes and opinions. The second is harboring personal resentment of Scott, as is the case with Eric, as well as a handful of verbose detractors. This tiny sample of the southern Arizona climbing community has monopolized the online dialogue, and thrives on Mountain Project’s failure to moderate. Beyond the online world, Scott Ayers has recently, personally and directly reached out to Eric in an effort to end their feud. Eric was initially non-receptive and uninterested, and only agreed to meet when Scott provided a long list of reasons that detail why it would be mutually beneficial to meet. The fact that Eric needs convincing to meet with Scott to find a solution to their conflict is, by itself, rather troubling. Aside from personal reasons, the collateral damage to the community should be more than enough to provide inspiration. The fact that Eric continues to antagonize the conflict by feigning interest in Mountain Project user opinions of Scott’s unwillingness to contribute, illustrates a cognitive dissonance. That is, a lack of recognition of the incompatibility of continued aggression and the desired goal of working towards resolution. At the very least, Eric could refrain from posting about Scott before the meeting takes place. This simple act of good faith would help foster positive, progressive attitudes, instead of a perpetuating the status quo of hostility. Sadly, this approach may be an indication of Eric’s resistance to being open to the diminishing of this conflict. After nearly two decades of an atmosphere of a splintered climbing community, a positive vision of the southern Arizona climbing community must first be conceived in our imagination before it can come to fruition. The potential to create this reality is within grasp. This is not a simple task that can be accomplished overnight, but requires a commitment grounded in the time-tested methods of conflict resolution. To accomplish this requires both parties to step outside of their comfort zones. There must first be an agreement, as a matter of principal, to work towards a just compromise. The use of an impartial mediator is vital to the success of any conflict resolution. The onus that lies on the shoulders of both Eric and Scott is surely heavy, though this is the responsibility that they assumed as they have positioned themselves at the forefront of the southern Arizona climbing community over the past few decades. In a very positive telephone conversation with Eric over a year ago, one of the conclusions that we came to was that Eric would not use Scott’s name on Mountain Project. Indeed, Eric gave me his word that he would not do that. When I asked him how we could have accountability, he told me that he is true to his word. He maintained his word for a time, though that did not last. Since then, he has indirectly and directly referred to Scott in this thread and other venues on Mountain Project. In the case of this thread, I think the appropriate course of action to maximize the potential of a just resolution in Scott and Eric’s upcoming meeting, would be for Eric to issue a mea culpa on this thread, and honor his word that he leave Scott’s name from any threads, posts or comments on Mountain Project.

Posting to confirm MP.com is indeed an essay publishing venue.
Alternatively,
Holy textwall, Batman!
etc etc

Thanks Dan. You are correct about my promise not to talk shit about...
I must disagree on one point. As I say above I said I would not talk shit about...
I didn't say I wouldn't use his name. This is the second time you have twisted my words. But we both prove shit happens.

This is what is great about the internet. People can be held accountable. So I will apologize to you for not being good to my word. Please be good to yours and try not to twist my words.
I will endeavor to do better in the future.

Sorry Glenn, I hate to give this more space but I try to take responsibility for my actions even if it makes me look like an asshat.

Dan, It should have been a Cry for Help!

I'm getting ready to make my annual snowbird/climber trip this year and I was giving email heads up to my all peeps. This is part of a email I got back. Although it out of context and the sender will still meet me at the crag, it also reflect my feelings.

"I certainly don't know the history between Scott and Ricard, but it seems to me that it's followed them from Tucson. I prefer to stay as far away from that as possible. It's a shame that it has to find it's way to the 'stead."

Eric and I just might have started off on the wrong foot years ago, about nothing more than the stars I added to a new route on MP. I also thought we had gotten past that in recent months thru light comments on MP.

After your long but very insightful post and Eric responses. It's have become clear, at least to me, that Eric has stalked Scott to the Homestead, where he rages this battle with Scott now. If this battle goes on unchecked, the Homestead and you and I are going to be the loser, when one developer thinks he can do that ever he wants and you cant stop him. It might take more than just one of you locals with a voice as brave as yours to take down this Bully.

I've climb out at the Homestead once a year for the last 7 years. Some years it's only a week or two, last year it was seven. During all those trips I was hoping that I might have got to meet Eric face/face but this year...I'm hoping I don't.

wow. is it really that difficult and time consuming to name a route? If its that hard, perhaps the routes don't have much soul...

Eric,

I appreciate your openness in the public spotlight. I do not remember the exact words that were used, but I will take your word for it. So if you are correct, I apologize for misrepresenting you.

However, I think there is an important distinction to be made between following ‘the letter of the law’ and respecting the ‘intent of the law.’ Simply not using Scott’s name does not necessarily equate to not antagonizing, or talking shit. The numerous thinly veiled references to Scott have been no less detrimental to the situation than direct references.

In this thread, without direct reference, you proposed that Scott is a douche for not posting his routes. That is a violation of the intent of your word.

In this recent comment, you use misinformation that you know to be false. Namely that Scott does not contribute route information to Mountain Project because of access concern. As I explained in my previous post, Scott does not post because of the superficial and reactionary tendencies of unmoderated online discourse, which has allowed the bullying campaign to thrive. In the same comment, you use the same misinformation to attempt to drive a wedge between Scott and others who climb at the Homestead. Again, this only serves to antagonize the situation.

Both of these examples are only the most recent episodes in a long list. From the variations to Endgame over a decade ago, about which you told me “I did it to fuck with him,” to the multi-year online bullying campaign, the intent to antagonize has been the same. Since our conversation and your pledge to not talk shit, the intent has not changed, only the means to doing so has. In short, you have not lived up to your word.

I hope you understand that there is much to be gained in abstaining from continued attacks. Lowering the level of acrimony and tension allows calmer thoughts and more rational approaches to manifest. Your and Scott’s upcoming meeting will have a much greater chance of setting a positive and constructive precedent in how you relate to each other. As we are now seeing, your and Scott’s relationship and willingness to compromise has a direct and visible impact on the emerging Homestead climbing community.

In an effort to keep each post from being so lengthy, I am refraining from the level of detail as my previous post. If there is any misunderstanding or anything requires clarification, I am happy to do so.

Dan Cohen wrote:Eric, I appreciate your openness in the public spotlight. I do not remember the exact words that were used, but I will take your word for it. So if you are correct, I apologize for misrepresenting you. However, I think there is an important distinction to be made between following ‘the letter of the law’ and respecting the ‘intent of the law.’ Simply not using Scott’s name does not necessarily equate to not antagonizing, or talking shit. The numerous thinly veiled references to Scott have been no less detrimental to the situation than direct references. In this thread, without direct reference, you proposed that Scott is a douche for not posting his routes. That is a violation of the intent of your word. In this recent comment, you use misinformation that you know to be false. Namely that Scott does not contribute route information to Mountain Project because of access concern. As I explained in my previous post, Scott does not post because of the superficial and reactionary tendencies of unmoderated online discourse, which has allowed the bullying campaign to thrive. In the same comment, you use the same misinformation to attempt to drive a wedge between Scott and others who climb at the Homestead. Again, this only serves to antagonize the situation. Both of these examples are only the most recent episodes in a long list. From the variations to Endgame over a decade ago, about which you told me “I did it to fuck with him,” to the multi-year online bullying campaign, the intent to antagonize has been the same. Since our conversation and your pledge to not talk shit, the intent has not changed, only the means to doing so has. In short, you have not lived up to your word. I hope you understand that there is much to be gained in abstaining from continued attacks. Lowering the level of acrimony and tension allows calmer thoughts and more rational approaches to manifest. Your and Scott’s upcoming meeting will have a much greater chance of setting a positive and constructive precedent in how you relate to each other. As we are now seeing, your and Scott’s relationship and willingness to compromise has a direct and visible impact on the emerging Homestead climbing community. In an effort to keep each post from being so lengthy, I am refraining from the level detail as my previous post. If there is any misunderstanding or anything requires clarification, I am happy to do so.

The irony Dan is that you make me want to antagonize you right now because of your nonsensical rants.

Thank you for your unsolicited airing of Arizona's climbing related personal problems.

Your effort to keep your post from being too lengthy was a failure.

On topic:

Fact: if you don't give a route a name a name will be given to that route for you

David,

Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on these issues.

I understand your frustration that your vacation climbing spot is being tainted by a local’s feud. I can only imagine that must be especially aggravating after several seasons of enjoying virgin rock in a serene and beautiful desert canyon that you surely look forward to visiting every year.

I want to clarify that I do not intend to bring anyone “down.” My aim is to create accountability, encourage honesty, and introspection. I do not wish to demonize Eric and I hope that you understand my greater intention.

To me, the great irony of Scott and Eric’s conflict is that it is not a clash of ethics, use of bolts, or any of the typical sources of controversy in the climbing world. Rather, it is a simple clash of personalities that many southern Arizona climbers have sadly become complacent and apathetic towards. The dynamic of the Homestead puts a fresh light on Eric and Scott’s conflict and renews the onus to work towards resolution. This is why I am hopeful about their upcoming meeting. If both Scott and Eric are willing to compromise, I think their energies can be directed in a way that enriches the Homestead instead of detracts from its unique splendor. With this in mind, there is great potential for a lasting resolution to heal the rift that has plagued the southern Arizona climbing community.

I hope that when you feel the desire to express yourself in regards to these issues, you are comfortable doing so in a constructive manner. In that spirit, I encourage you to open a direct line of communication with Eric.

If a poet decides to leave a work untitled do you feel that you are entitled to name that poem? To think that some people are egotistical enough to take it upon themselves to name something that they had no hand in creating is troubling to me.

Peter Rakowitz wrote:If a poet decides to leave a work untitled do you feel that you are entitled to name that poem? To think that some people are egotistical enough to take it upon themselves to name something that they had no hand in creating is troubling to me.

Well yes I do. I will make up a name for the unnamed poem because people think in terms of words and we use such words to describe people places and things. Those are called nouns. We use nouns to keep track of past events and plan future ones. If I call the route the easy 5.12, or the climb to the right of my old project, or the unnamed piece of shit, it doesn't really matter. No matter what I will refer to the climb with a name. That is how humans work. Even "the unnamed route" is a name. Are you following me here?

If someone wants me to refer to a climb with a specific name they had better give it one. Not naming a route and then complaining about it when someone names it for you is a form of douchebagery as well. If your going to get your panties in a twist over the name of a climb stop being a lazy fuck and just give the dam thing a name.

To think that someone gets bent out of shape over the name of a climb is much more troubling to me. That someone would intentionally not name a climb and then complain when someone makes one up for them is a great example of what makes us humans so great: our egotistically driven emotional insanity. .

Your comparison of a poem to a climb is something else that is confused in your logic. Humans are 100% responsible for a poem's creation. They can even own the intellectual property rights of a poem. Need I say more?

Your staunch ethical constitution must keep you up at night. Important shit indeed.

"Haven't a lot of old climbs put up in the day before climbs were named been given a names? I guess they got the FA teams name. Chouinard/Herbert, Steck/Salathe, etc. Maybe that is what should be done. Of course it would be annoying to see ten Steck/Salathe routes. "

theoretical clip- up area unnamed:

north buttress .10c/d
standard route .11a
dog route .10d
Becky route 5.4 X
original line .10d
west ridge .12a
downclimb .13c (ok I'm getting bored, but you get the point).

Seems like a lot of stuff at our local boulder area got renamed and it all stuck. Whatever.

Steve

... and there are the two sides. And though the OP was directed more at mp - published routes but I think it's worth pointing out that the grand majority of faux/placeholder naming isn't malicious. At least not in regards to slang-naming routes. As JQ pointed out, it's just easier to talk about Elm St. vice that street between Kruger Way and Freddy Lane. As a scenario: you have a campfire discussion going on with an unknown route being mentioned a dozen or so times as "the fist pocket route everyone tapes up for". It's only a matter of time before someone pipes up with "glove box" or something clever and now it has a campfire name. Then it's only a matter of time before it gets written or recorded as such and that's when the feathers ruffle.

Anyone remember what climbing was like before the Interwebz?

Peter Rakowitz wrote:If a poet decides to leave a work untitled do you feel that you are entitled to name that poem? To think that some people are egotistical enough to take it upon themselves to name something that they had no hand in creating is troubling to me.

Untitled poems (worth referring to) are refered to by the first line of the poem.

So even in anarchic world of poetry, the unwashed hippies have agreed to assign names when none are given.

"Do Not Go Gentle Into That Night" -Dylan Thomas; originally untitled.

"Song of Myself" -Walt Whitman; originally untitled.

"A Narrow Fellow in the Grass" - Emily Dickenson; originally untitled.

...

News Flash!!!

Unless you are some higher power, NONE of you had a "hand in creating" that route. Its formed naturally, you just happened to stumble upon it first. Given the fact that nature isnt labeled, whoever wants to name it, name the damn thing and who cares about the rest. Its one route in a world of millions. Who gives a s*%t

"Who gives a s*%t"
Uhhh Duh... those that climb the routes.

Johny Q wrote: Important shit indeed.

Exactly, first world problems full of sniffling and whinning. Anyone who takes such trivialties seriously when there are real things happening on earth and in life is an idiot, simple.

Its a decent question but nothing to CARE about

Locker wrote:I have quite a few that are intentionally un named and will remain that way.

Yeah, we named all of those.

Red wrote:"Who gives a s*%t" Uhhh Duh... those that climb the routes.

Then I think those who climb the routes need to start focusing on what matters. The name of the route, is not one of those things. Its strictly an identifier. Nothing more. Naming a chimney something "crazy" like "Climbers Coffin", doesnt really mean that its a life threatening 5.3. Or naming a 5.14b "A walk in the park"....doesnt mean crap to someone who isnt at that level.

Guess its just me. I rarely even remember the name of a route. If I climbed it....I remember it as that...That I climbed it. I dunno.