Red's Student Season Pass Price- Are You Serious?

Hey Red, guess what. College students are not by any means wealthy. Guess what else? They DO NOT have time to ski as much as an average 40 hour/wk working person. Remember how there's a thing called homework? Whose ass was your student season pass price yanked from? It's 15% higher than Silver Star's (663 to 565) which is a comparable mountain (think location) with almost the same regular pass price. There is NO reason to have such an unfair price, even regardless of what Silver is doing. Do you want to earn some of my money or none of it? Maybe you think it's just economics and you'll make up for selling fewer student passes with higher prices. All you will accomplish is PISSING PEOPLE OFF.

Comments

The Telegraph Apologizes...

A serious error was made in these pages last week. In replying to a blog about Red Mountain's pricing, reporter Andrew Zwicker used the Telegraph's software to express negative sentiments toward the owners of the mountain that were unacceptable for two reasons. First, we can not endorse anonymous comments made by someone on our team. Second, the comments themselves went beyond fair criticism and could be construed as libellous. The comment was made without the knowledge or support of the Telegraph's publisher or editor. 

The post has been removed, the reporter has apologized and sorely regrets his actions. We would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Red Mountain and to our readers for a very regrettable error that goes against everything the Telegraph has aspired to stand for. We take our responsibilities as Rossland's newspaper of record very seriously. Painful lessons have been learned and it won't happen again. You have our word on that. 

--Adrian Barnes and David Livingstone

When you are doing something

When you are doing something for the first time it is inevitable that you will make mistakes. Everyone does it. We likely always will. When you’re doing something for the first time and you have success greater than you imagined early in a project’s lifespan, the inevitable early stage mistakes become amplified and are seen by a much greater audience.

As with any mistake there is always a margin of regret. A mistake that deserves punishment is one that goes unlearned from. A mistake that deserves tolerance, patience and compassion is one which is humbling, remorseful and that we learn from, grow from and ultimately prosper from.

This past week I was the author behind the comment posted to tfloods blog regarding Red Resort and their relationship with the people of Rossland and the surrounding area. While I feel that my criticisms had merit, I went too far and crossed a line. I made a critical error in the way I presented them. The proper method would have been to dial back the volume a bit, and present the issues as I viewed them with less emotion and more tact. I also regret the way I delivered my message which was not intended to be malicious, but rather to act as a challenge to Red to improve. Since my time moving to Rossland I have developed a passion for this city, the people, the environment and the resort. I let this passion get the best of me through harsh words directed at Red. For that I apologize and retract the original comment.

Also at hand through this comment was the issue of anonymity. The Telegraph upon input from a variety of stakeholders and persons of authority on the subject and after other early stage project mistakes which we learned, grew and prospered from developed a policy of not allowing anonymous posts on the site. To enforce it we required all posters and comments to register and provide full name and e-mail address.

This past week my posting anonymously as Rosslander uncovered a deficiency in our policy which had worked well the previous 6 months. I as a writer and partner in the Telegraph overstepped my boundaries in posting the anonymous post and for this also I apologize deeply.

The proper fashion would have been for me to submit my post to the editor signed with my full name for review and possible publishing as an editorial or commentary. For posting anonymously violating the Telegraph's policies I sincerely apologize. I overstepped the boundaries of my position and have learned an important lesson from the experience.

I personally and the Telegraph as a company value Red Resort as a key player in our community and wish the best for them as well as the community. We will still challenge Red and others to be the best they can be, however an incident such as this will not happen again and all future commentaries or editorials posted to the Telegraph will be strictly edited and screened to eliminate anonymous and malicious posts.

For feelings hurt, and any images potentially damaged by my post I apologize and look forward to continuing forward together and to continue to foster positive discussion and discourse in Rossland through the Telegraph.
 

Apologies...

Did Red feel threatened by public statement of truth? Truth demands no apology and we should commend those who speak it. Honouring truth is the only route to bringing purely positive change. Thanks to lawyers, truth, it seems, often has an inverse relationship with keeping one's livelihood.

Truth and truth

 There's a difference, legally (and for good reason) between the plain expression of an sincerely-held critical opinion and an attack. The two things may share the same core belief, but the attack attempts to create bad feeling where the fair opinion merely states facts and may or may not result in a bad opinion.

The comment in question, we believe, crossed the line and coloured the facts in a negative way. That is why we apologized. This doesn't mean we won't speak the truth about Red, good and bad, in the future. It just means that legitimate public discourse has to start from a place of unbiased facts and transparency.--ed.

Truth and assumptions

Facts are fair; opinions based on facts are fair; but opinions based on assumptions about someone else's motives are often not fair. Here's a simple guideline when contemplating a set of facts -- or a "Rossland Rumour": ASSUME INNOCENCE; REMAIN CURIOUS. Or, to express the same thing with more words, do not assume (and tell everyone) that someone is ill-intentioned, stupid, or morally lacking simply because they do not agree with you on an issue. Remain curious; talk to them with an open mind, to discover why they think as they do. Be prepared to listen without animosity. You may find that their underlying values and interests are very close to yours. And if not, you will still have a more complete understanding of why they think as they do. (I'm trying to live up to this ... because of humanity's close genetic links with chimpanzees, it isn't always easy!)