Mountain Project Logo

The Erik Sloan ethics thread

Satchel Friedman · · Berkeley, ca · Joined May 2015 · Points: 0

You all need to take a course in critical thinking. The amount of logical fallacies in this thread is over the top. See slippery slope, appeal to authority, poisoning the well, and personal attacks. It is shameful for a group of adults to act so illogically.

Kent Richards · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2009 · Points: 81
TSluiter wrote:Sure. There's one. Easy to demonize by going to the extreme. Sloan is nothing but evil and does anything he wants, total sociopath. Right? Bah. Overactive imagination. Hyperbole is useless.
You exhibit the same fallacy here, something along the lines of "accusers are saying he has repeated disregard for mores & conventions, therefore they are calling him a total sociopath and demon."

As far as I have seen, no one is calling him a demon, and I haven't seen anyone call him a total sociopath. From reading the various threads, my take is that people simply want him to stop altering routes without due process, and if he's doing large-scale tree-trimming that threatens climber access, to stop that as well.

But back do the meta debate:

Do you think it's a fallacious slippery slope argument to say that allowing one person to alter routes at their own personal discretion and without due process sets a precedent that it's OK for others to do the same?

If you do, please illustrate where it's fallacious (i.e., point out the missing middle ground).
FrankPS · · Atascadero, CA · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 276

When the author made the plug for his guidebook on MP, he opened himself up to this. He has been asked, repeatedly, about the alleged retrobolting. And has not replied to it.

Seems like he would, to keep a good name in the climbing community and to sell more books.

I think asking him about the retrobolting is reasonable, if the questions are posed in a civil manner.

I don't view this as a "witch hunt." Some posters may not ask properly, but I still think it is a reasonable question. And it's reasonable to ask on the Internet, where he posted. "You want some guidebook help with photos and such? Tell us about this, first."

Kent Richards · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2009 · Points: 81
FrankPS wrote:When the author made the plug for his guidebook on MP, he opened himself up to this. He has been asked, repeatedly, about the alleged retrobolting. And has not replied to it. Seems like he would, to keep a good name in the climbing community and to sell more books.
He has made some replies to it, mostly on the supertopo threads.
Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
TSluiter wrote: I got the gist but not enough to come to a conclusion. Other than that , I know nothing!
OK, did you get the gist of it that Erik retrobolted anchors into the middle of a climb, and added bolts to others? Did you get the gist of it that he personally wrote that if the anchors were removed he'd go replace them?
Did you get the gist that he said he'd take up a side of a bolt war that HE started?

It takes a lot to know that and still know nothing.

Since I can already hear the "2 to tango" argument coming, let me ask you this. Is the following a passive position:
"Damn right I pushed you down, and if you stand back up, I'll push you down again."
An aggressor bears the burden of fault in conflict, both legally and morally.
don'tchuffonme · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2014 · Points: 26
JCM wrote:This sort of public witch hunt makes me ashamed of the climbing community. Those posting in these threads, for the most part, do not know the person in question, have not seen the bolts in question, and have no direct knowledge or involvement in the situation. They are simply reacting to internet hearsay, based on a set of dogmatic principles that someone told them to beleive in. This adds nothing constructive to the nuanced questions of fixed anchors and climbing resource management at hand. If you are an active member of the Yosemite community, have encountered the bolts in question, and have reasonable objections to how they were placed, then you should voice an opinion, but public shaming on an internet forum is not the way to do this. Call up the bolter, go out for a beer, and discuss the issue to try to come up with a reasonable solution. This is the way to deal with these questions in a productive manner. If you are not sufficiently involved in the issue to address it in this direct and personal way, should you really be screaming about it on the internet for the world to see? This type of witch hunt does no good, and a lot of harm. Because the vast majority of those involved in the internet screaming are outsiders with not direct involvement in the situation, it does nothing to help move toward a reasonable, local solution. It does, however, damage the climbing community by airing our dirty laundry in front of land managers. It also defames, without evidence or nuance, an active contributor to the climbing community. This is not to say that all those bolts are appropriate. They may or may not be. But this type of thread is not an appropriate way to deal with it. Those involved, please cease and desist. Stop, please, just stop. I would also encourage the moderators of this forum to lock and/or delete this thread; it is unproductive and directly damaging to the community.
Holy Christ on a cross. First, people have tried approaching things in a "productive manner". They're met, quite literally, with ignorance. By that, I mean they have been ignored completely, or been told by ES that any action they take will be summarily rejected and reversed. It's not a witch hunt. A witch hunt is something that can't be corroborated. You know, like a woman being an actual witch. Hence the term.

As far as the only people being able to have an opinion being those inside the community of Yosemite, that's the most ludicrous thing I've read yet. I guess no one can have an opinion on anything outside of their immediate area? I can't have an opinion on pot in Colorado, murder in Baltimore, or bolting against accepted ethics practices in Yosemite. I guess we should all just live in a bubble.

When you decry the outrage that, incidentally, has been echoed by members of the community in question, and the ASCA, and Yosemite rangers, essentially you are supporting ES.

Let me break it down in simplistic Barney terms for you.

If you would get pissed if someone added bolts to a route that you spent blood sweat and tears developing, just because they felt the right to because they replaced aging hardware, then you are against ES. If you wouldn't and think it's nbd, and are grateful that for his maintenance, and think that grants him the right to add additional bolts that did not exist before, then you're for him.

If you think drawing negative attention from rangers to the climbing community by hacking up vegetation for some reason that still has not been made clear, to an excess degree is unacceptable, then you are against ES. If you think negative attention to climbers and the community in general is nbd, then you're for him.

The most hilarious thing I've read so far regarding any of this is:

" I got the gist but not enough to come to a conclusion."

Essentially saying that even though he's admitted to these things, I still don't know. Even though these things are corroborated facts, I still don't know. Despite the fact that I don't know, I lean a particular way. I'm not very informed, despite all the corroborated evidence AND statements from the perpetrator himself, you still don't know.

And since you don't know, or are incapable of forming an opinion one way or another, then why are you even here spraying? Because you don't like the way I type? That's the way it looks. "I don't have a dog in the fight, I just don't like your attitude so I'll take a stance against you."

NONSENSE.
GTS · · SoCal · Joined Sep 2008 · Points: 0
JCM wrote:This sort of public witch hunt makes me ashamed of the climbing community. Those posting in these threads, for the most part, do not know the person in question, have not seen the bolts in question, and have no direct knowledge or involvement in the situation. They are simply reacting to internet hearsay, based on a set of dogmatic principles that someone told them to beleive in. This adds nothing constructive to the nuanced questions of fixed anchors and climbing resource management at hand. If you are an active member of the Yosemite community, have encountered the bolts in question, and have reasonable objections to how they were placed, then you should voice an opinion, but public shaming on an internet forum is not the way to do this. Call up the bolter, go out for a beer, and discuss the issue to try to come up with a reasonable solution. This is the way to deal with these questions in a productive manner. If you are not sufficiently involved in the issue to address it in this direct and personal way, should you really be screaming about it on the internet for the world to see? This type of witch hunt does no good, and a lot of harm. Because the vast majority of those involved in the internet screaming are outsiders with not direct involvement in the situation, it does nothing to help move toward a reasonable, local solution. It does, however, damage the climbing community by airing our dirty laundry in front of land managers. It also defames, without evidence or nuance, an active contributor to the climbing community. This is not to say that all those bolts are appropriate. They may or may not be. But this type of thread is not an appropriate way to deal with it. Those involved, please cease and desist. Stop, please, just stop. I would also encourage the moderators of this forum to lock and/or delete this thread; it is unproductive and directly damaging to the community.
This is all fine and good, except that Erik has refused to change/modify his ways even though people have tried talking with him like you suggest. This has been going on for over a decade now. Just look at how he interacts on the threads. People ask him very simple and direct questions and he completely ignores them. His standard response is "sorry been away, haven't read the whole thread, blah, blah, blah, hey my guidebook, blah, blah, everyone loves my bolts, .....".

You worry about the damage to the climbing community and drawing the attention of land managers. Well, its too late for that. The rangers are well aware of what Erik has done over the years. The easiest way to avoid any more damage is for Erik to stop sawing off tree branches, stop bolting around crux pitches, stop putting in anchors mid-pitch, and stop guiding for "donations".
K Weber · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2011 · Points: 15
GTS wrote: The rangers are well aware of what Erik has done over the years. The easiest way to avoid any more damage is for Erik to stop sawing off tree branches, stop bolting around crux pitches, stop putting in anchors mid-pitch, and stop guiding for "donations".
If their was truth to this ES would have been arrested and charged.
Has he? With all this internet evidence you should be in jail.

I you hasn't even been picked on some probable cause then I have a hard time believing that ES has been on a rampage for a decade.

Yosemite Rangers love this kind of shit. They would have been all over it, surveillance and all that cop crap. They did it to others.
eli poss · · Durango, CO · Joined May 2014 · Points: 525
JCM wrote:This sort of public witch hunt makes me ashamed of the climbing community.
In a witch hunt, perpetrators are denied the opportunity to voice their opinion and defend themselves. This opportunity has been offered many times, as this thread can illustrate, and Eric has yet to take this opportunity to defend himself and has instead chosen spray about his guidebook.

Could people be a bit nicer? Sure, but this is the internet and the local ethic on the internet is to be the biggest asshole conceivably possible. If you want to see people act calmly in disputes you probably shouldn't be on mountain project.
GTS · · SoCal · Joined Sep 2008 · Points: 0

K Weber,
Erik posted a TR to Quarter Dome where he admitted trimming the trail. There is even a picture at their base camp with a saw laying next to their gear. He has admitted to guiding for "donations" in the current threads going on. He posted a TR on The Great Slab Route with pictures of his bolting around two pitches. He admitted to the BOR mid-pitch anchors. What more evidence do you need?

don'tchuffonme · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2014 · Points: 26
K Weber wrote: If their was truth to this ES would have been arrested and charged. Has he? With all this internet evidence you should be in jail. I you hasn't even been picked on some probable cause then I have a hard time believing that ES has been on a rampage for a decade. Yosemite Rangers love this kind of shit. They would have been all over it, surveillance and all that cop crap. They did it to others.
This is the most- and probably the only valid point in his defense. You know what would trump this? If he would actually FUCKING RESPOND.
Greg Davis · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2008 · Points: 10

I firmly believe the greatest mistake Sloan made is in his lack of subtlety. Plenty of others have done far worse, just under the radar...

TSluiter · · Holland, VT · Joined May 2013 · Points: 314
Kent Richards wrote: You exhibit the same fallacy here
I did, you're very right. Good catch.

Kent Richards wrote: Do you think it's a fallacious slippery slope argument to say that allowing one person to alter routes at their own personal discretion and without due process sets a precedent that it's OK for others to do the same?.
No, I don't think it is fallacious. Obviously, there is nuance (i.e. analogous to gravity, is there a natural tendency for one-dimensional development towards the ends? hard to say) but no, I don't think that is that bad of an argument.

FrankPS wrote:Some posters may not ask properly, but I still think it is a reasonable question
Absolutely. Certainly a conversation worth having, hopefully with some decency. And from I've gathered so far, you are right that Erik Sloan has yet to respond to a some of the accusations. I can see why he might shy away from it, with some poster's attitudes, but I do not understand why he wouldn't why to defend himself to those asking formally.

Tony B wrote:It takes a lot to know that and still know nothing.
Yet I'm sure there is a ton of information that I still am not aware of (hell, I've never met the guy or seen his work). Again, I'm not going to pretend I know things I do not. How you could get on someones case for reserving judgment when all he has is some threads on the internet is interesting.

don'tchuffonme wrote: NONSENSE
Yes, I will call you out for making asinine arguments, even if I'm not 100% sure where I stand on a topic. Of course I will. Why shouldn't I? I'm not sure when I see a fetus as a distinct human life but I'm still gonna call bullshit on bullshit arguments. Your argument was silly and I want you to do better next time. Not just for me or you but for everyone reading.

I'd much rather see a decent argument than vitriol. But then like Eli Poss said, maybe internet forums aren't the place to be for that!
Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
TSluiter wrote: How you could get on someones case for reserving judgment when all he has is some threads on the internet is interesting. Yes, I will call you out for making asinine arguments, even if I'm not 100% sure where I stand on a topic.
And there in lies the crux.
I'm cool with you reserving judgement, but you're also telling other people that their judgement is faulted or invalid.
You said:
TSluiter wrote: I got the gist but not enough to come to a conclusion.
You assert that there is too little information from which to draw a conclusion.
And that I will argue with you about. And I won't be wrong.
You can say you have not drawn a conclusion, but it isn't like there is no information.

The irony here is that you defend the right to your own conclusion while seemingly saying others can not draw one.
Or did you mean that his admitted acts and defense of them is inadequate for YOU to draw a conclusion?
Stagg54 Taggart · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2006 · Points: 10
JCM wrote:This sort of public witch hunt makes me ashamed of the climbing community. Those posting in these threads, for the most part, do not know the person in question, have not seen the bolts in question, and have no direct knowledge or involvement in the situation. They are simply reacting to internet hearsay, based on a set of dogmatic principles that someone told them to beleive in. This adds nothing constructive to the nuanced questions of fixed anchors and climbing resource management at hand. If you are an active member of the Yosemite community, have encountered the bolts in question, and have reasonable objections to how they were placed, then you should voice an opinion, but public shaming on an internet forum is not the way to do this. Call up the bolter, go out for a beer, and discuss the issue to try to come up with a reasonable solution. This is the way to deal with these questions in a productive manner. If you are not sufficiently involved in the issue to address it in this direct and personal way, should you really be screaming about it on the internet for the world to see? This type of witch hunt does no good, and a lot of harm. Because the vast majority of those involved in the internet screaming are outsiders with not direct involvement in the situation, it does nothing to help move toward a reasonable, local solution. It does, however, damage the climbing community by airing our dirty laundry in front of land managers. It also defames, without evidence or nuance, an active contributor to the climbing community. This is not to say that all those bolts are appropriate. They may or may not be. But this type of thread is not an appropriate way to deal with it. Those involved, please cease and desist. Stop, please, just stop. I would also encourage the moderators of this forum to lock and/or delete this thread; it is unproductive and directly damaging to the community.
You are on of the few adults on this page.
Thomas Stryker · · Chatham, NH · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 250

I don't think it's internet heresay when the guy has posted pics of his crux avoiding short-cuts, trimmed trees and threatens to replace the mid pitch anchors he placed if removed.

Your Hitler-esque attempt to stifle the conversation is amusing though.

Jonas Salk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2008 · Points: 10
Tom Stryker wrote: Your Hitler-esque attempt to stifle the conversation is amusing though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

"There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."
Thomas Stryker · · Chatham, NH · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 250

Your reply is entirely predictable. Would you feel better if I changed it to some more recent attempt to stifle dissent?

Stagg54 Taggart · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2006 · Points: 10
Tom Stryker wrote:I don't think it's internet heresay when the guy has posted pics of his crux avoiding short-cuts, trimmed trees and threatens to replace the mid pitch anchors he placed if removed. Your Hitler-esque attempt to stifle the conversation is amusing though.
So wait, let me get this straight. You are saying that being opposed to public shaming on the internet is somehow comparable to Hitler? I didn't know he was also opposed to public shaming on the internet... In fact if I remember my history books correctly, Al Gore wasn't even born yet when Hitler was around ( and we all know Al Gore invented the internet)

Please enlighten us all with your well-thought out logical argument as to how opposing public shaming on the internet is connected to Hitler?
Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
Stagg54 wrote: Please enlighten us all with your well-thought out logical argument as to how opposing public shaming on the internet is connected to Hitler?
If Hitler had been broadly and publicly shamed, perhaps he would have been forced by some pressure to stop what he was doing...
Wait, that's not what the argument was about, was it?

This topic is locked and closed to new replies.

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.