The End of an Era...We are Shutting Down the Messageboard
The messageboard is now in read-only mode and no new posts or topics can be created. We will leave the messageboard up for historical purposes, but you will not be able to make new posts or comment on existing ones.
We have started a Discord server and hope that you all will join us on there. Technology has changed over the years and maintaining the messageboard has become somewhat of a pain in the butt and Discord offers many features for users, the main one being a very polished mobile app.
We really hope you all will join us on Discord and think you will like the platform. Use the invite link below to join.
https://discord.gg/skisoutheast
The messageboard is now in read-only mode and no new posts or topics can be created. We will leave the messageboard up for historical purposes, but you will not be able to make new posts or comment on existing ones.
We have started a Discord server and hope that you all will join us on there. Technology has changed over the years and maintaining the messageboard has become somewhat of a pain in the butt and Discord offers many features for users, the main one being a very polished mobile app.
We really hope you all will join us on Discord and think you will like the platform. Use the invite link below to join.
https://discord.gg/skisoutheast
-
Peter Larkins
- Beginner
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 4:19 pm
- Contact:
i know i'm slow and repeating the same sentiments, but thanks, mike, for stickin it to sugar. i hope they feel dumb, but i agree with another poster, they are on another planet when it comes to PR/marketing. so they probably don't even care.
-
admin
I created an account after reading this site/ forum for two years just to say this:
I absolutely 110% support Sugar... I can't find the business case that says you work for a company (skinc/ skisoutheast) that has so actively pursued the issue of resorts "misrepresenting" ski reports. This situation is like telling someone they do a poor job, but then turning around and saying "lets work together."
All this does is deprive site visitors like myself that come to THIS website because it has the events listed. I can look at multiple resorts on one page. If anything, you have just now DRIVEN me to visit Sugar's website more often because that information will no longer be available here.
This entire community at times comes off as anti-sugar -- drop it.
I absolutely 110% support Sugar... I can't find the business case that says you work for a company (skinc/ skisoutheast) that has so actively pursued the issue of resorts "misrepresenting" ski reports. This situation is like telling someone they do a poor job, but then turning around and saying "lets work together."
All this does is deprive site visitors like myself that come to THIS website because it has the events listed. I can look at multiple resorts on one page. If anything, you have just now DRIVEN me to visit Sugar's website more often because that information will no longer be available here.
This entire community at times comes off as anti-sugar -- drop it.
-
admin
GreshamB wrote:
funny how many 1 time posters come out after the sugar debacle....
They are probably Sugar Mountain employees
funny how many 1 time posters come out after the sugar debacle....
They are probably Sugar Mountain employees
-
admin
dcasey wrote:
creegan wrote:
GreshamB wrote:
funny how many 1 time posters come out after the sugar debacle....
They are probably Sugar Mountain employees
I guess you're one too then? Oh sorry, you've posted 5 times in your lengthy membership. Why is this a "sticky" anyways?
No, I am SUGAR FREE.
Now, I have 6 posts.
Maybe admin wanted this to be a 'sticky'. Seems important enough to be a sticky.
creegan wrote:
GreshamB wrote:
funny how many 1 time posters come out after the sugar debacle....
They are probably Sugar Mountain employees
I guess you're one too then? Oh sorry, you've posted 5 times in your lengthy membership. Why is this a "sticky" anyways?
No, I am SUGAR FREE.
Now, I have 6 posts.
Maybe admin wanted this to be a 'sticky'. Seems important enough to be a sticky.
-
bowen567
- Beginner
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:12 am
CynicalGuy wrote:
This situation is like telling someone they do a poor job, but then turning around and saying "lets work together."quote]
not that i care a whole lot about this debate, cuz most of us simply vote with our wallets on the whole sugar thing and simply avoid the place, but businesses (and married people, for that matter) routinely point out substantive differences and then negotiate them to arrive at mutually beneficial resolutions. it's how the world works. if one party decides to take its ball and go home, then so be it. now can't we discuss the real issues? like the utah summit?
This situation is like telling someone they do a poor job, but then turning around and saying "lets work together."quote]
not that i care a whole lot about this debate, cuz most of us simply vote with our wallets on the whole sugar thing and simply avoid the place, but businesses (and married people, for that matter) routinely point out substantive differences and then negotiate them to arrive at mutually beneficial resolutions. it's how the world works. if one party decides to take its ball and go home, then so be it. now can't we discuss the real issues? like the utah summit?
-
admin
First of all I don't care who "CynicalGuy" is, whether he's a Sugar employee or Gunther himself...he actually makes a valid point, when he says,
Quote:
I can't find the business case that says you work for a company (skinc/ skisoutheast) that has so actively pursued the issue of resorts "misrepresenting" ski reports. This situation is like telling someone they do a poor job, but then turning around and saying "lets work together."
However like MANY people in MANY walks of life, and particularly in politics...while CynicalGuy makes a good point...the point is only good if WHAT HE SAID WAS TRUE.
First, we have been INVOLVED and INCLUDED in meetings wherein comments were made such as, "We all know that all resorts tell the truth in terms of base depths" - as a JOKE wherein all ski management in attendance LAUGHED. So "CynicalGuy" you call it what you want but I CALL THAT misrepresentation. HOWEVER what is important is that WE HAVE NEVER USED THAT TERMINOLOGY when reporting individual resort references.
What we HAVE done is call out rediculous posts...and that has been for many resorts.
Second point: I think it is telling that the ONLY resort that thinks we are critical is Sugar. ALL OTHERS WORK WITH US. What does that tell you. Sugar is wiser than ALL OTHERS?
The TRUTH is that when we make comments about conditions, THE OTHER resorts do their best to rectify their base quotes etc.
In reference to Sugar, we KNOW that we HAVE had an effect on their reporting as we have with all others. In years past they have ALWAYS over-reported natural snows. Not so this season. Every snowfall has been dead on the money. Just coincidence? Sorry, no.
The POWER is with the popularity and outreach. All of the other resorts recognize that and have WITNESSED increased popularity and direct contact with more interaction that ever before BECAUSE of what we do here. That is important to all others except one.
So when you make your claims regarding why you support Sugar, base it on reality and not on your perception of reality. We have never gotten on a soapbox claiming mirepresentation per se. We claim that they need to do better...and they ALL have, including Sugar. Seven to ten years ago, NOBODY claimed thin coverage and bare spots. NOBODY wanted cameras pointed at their slopes. WE AND OUR TRAFFIC are the reason that has changed. YOU PEOPLE MAKING YOURSELF SEEN are the reason.
So "CynicalGuy" I support your point, it's just in error.
We are not claiming perfection. WE TOO have some tweaking to do, but ALL of the other resorts support us. We think that is very telling. They ALL want to gain YOUR trust. That is working together.
As far as the comment about "All we are doing is forcing people to look beyond this website to Sugar's website to find the information you are looking for" - we supply 90% of the information needed for most visitors and as for the rest - isn't THAT the nature of the internet?
Quote:
I can't find the business case that says you work for a company (skinc/ skisoutheast) that has so actively pursued the issue of resorts "misrepresenting" ski reports. This situation is like telling someone they do a poor job, but then turning around and saying "lets work together."
However like MANY people in MANY walks of life, and particularly in politics...while CynicalGuy makes a good point...the point is only good if WHAT HE SAID WAS TRUE.
First, we have been INVOLVED and INCLUDED in meetings wherein comments were made such as, "We all know that all resorts tell the truth in terms of base depths" - as a JOKE wherein all ski management in attendance LAUGHED. So "CynicalGuy" you call it what you want but I CALL THAT misrepresentation. HOWEVER what is important is that WE HAVE NEVER USED THAT TERMINOLOGY when reporting individual resort references.
What we HAVE done is call out rediculous posts...and that has been for many resorts.
Second point: I think it is telling that the ONLY resort that thinks we are critical is Sugar. ALL OTHERS WORK WITH US. What does that tell you. Sugar is wiser than ALL OTHERS?
The TRUTH is that when we make comments about conditions, THE OTHER resorts do their best to rectify their base quotes etc.
In reference to Sugar, we KNOW that we HAVE had an effect on their reporting as we have with all others. In years past they have ALWAYS over-reported natural snows. Not so this season. Every snowfall has been dead on the money. Just coincidence? Sorry, no.
The POWER is with the popularity and outreach. All of the other resorts recognize that and have WITNESSED increased popularity and direct contact with more interaction that ever before BECAUSE of what we do here. That is important to all others except one.
So when you make your claims regarding why you support Sugar, base it on reality and not on your perception of reality. We have never gotten on a soapbox claiming mirepresentation per se. We claim that they need to do better...and they ALL have, including Sugar. Seven to ten years ago, NOBODY claimed thin coverage and bare spots. NOBODY wanted cameras pointed at their slopes. WE AND OUR TRAFFIC are the reason that has changed. YOU PEOPLE MAKING YOURSELF SEEN are the reason.
So "CynicalGuy" I support your point, it's just in error.
We are not claiming perfection. WE TOO have some tweaking to do, but ALL of the other resorts support us. We think that is very telling. They ALL want to gain YOUR trust. That is working together.
As far as the comment about "All we are doing is forcing people to look beyond this website to Sugar's website to find the information you are looking for" - we supply 90% of the information needed for most visitors and as for the rest - isn't THAT the nature of the internet?
-
admin
after the report from skinc, Sugar returns to false reporting:
from the morning update:
http://skinc.com/article.php?table=arti ... rticle=938
"Sugar is reporting an AVERAGE maximum base depth of 80” across all 20 trails this morning. Nope. Enough said. They have a lot of snow, but they do not have TWICE the amount of average maximum base than Ski Beech and they do not have 25” more than Appalachian. "
from the morning update:
http://skinc.com/article.php?table=arti ... rticle=938
"Sugar is reporting an AVERAGE maximum base depth of 80” across all 20 trails this morning. Nope. Enough said. They have a lot of snow, but they do not have TWICE the amount of average maximum base than Ski Beech and they do not have 25” more than Appalachian. "