Results Are IN!! Condorcet Poll Best Ski Resorts in NY, ME, NH & VT

[skiersleft]

No, snowboarder bans work well enough. It's not a perfect proxy, but it's good enough for me. Sort of like the Miranda warnings are like a good enough proxy to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Not perfect, but appropriate enough.

 

[Cannonball]

No, snowboarder bans work well enough. It's not a perfect proxy, but it's good enough for me. Sort of like the Miranda warnings are like a good enough proxy to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Not perfect, but appropriate enough.

Why do you need to invent a "proxy"? If the whole basis for your argument is that younger people tend to be more reckless, then why not just say "younger people tend to be more reckless"? Why invent a convoluted rationalization that since younger people tend to be more reckless, and some young people snowboard, therefore snowboarding is a problem? Actually those are all rhetorical questions, I already get it.

 

[skiersleft]

Why do you need to invent a "proxy"? If the whole basis for your argument is that younger people tend to be more reckless, then why not just say "younger people tend to be more reckless"? Why invent a convoluted rationalization that since younger people tend to be more reckless, and some young people snowboard, therefore snowboarding is a problem? Actually those are all rhetorical questions, I already get it.

You're just pissed that you can't ride MRG. Get over it. At least you can ski it. Go to Mountain Creek if you need to get your boarder fix.

 

[Cannonball]

You're just pissed that you can't ride MRG. Get over it. At least you can ski it. Go to Mountain Creek if you need to get your boarder fix.

HaHa, yup something like that!

I actually used to ski MRG a lot. Used to call it my favorite mountain. That was before I snowboarded...before anyone snowboarded. Now I'm just not interested in skiing there anymore. From a business perspective I completely agree with the ban. MRG needs something to set itself apart. It has identified that there is a market niche for skiers who are afraid of snowboarders. It's smart to capitalize on that niche. It's not the mountain I have a dislike for, it's their clientele. So I support the ban from a personal perspective as well as a from a business one. Keeping those folks together and away from the general skiing population makes the rest of the ski areas just a tiny bit better.

 

[deadheadskier]

I'm pretty sure the skiers only policy only adds to MRG's allure in the eyes of most AZoners. Including me, FWIW.

Not me. I don't like the policy. The allure for me is the terrain. A no snowboarding policy (whether it makes business sense or not) whether at MRG or anywhere else is lame sauce.

Pretty sure the world didn't end when Taos lifted their ban. I hope to see MRG follow suit someday. downhill, tele, snowboard, it don't matter. we're all in it for the same reason.

 

[BenedictGomez]

As a 43 year old boarder/skier, frankly I think this is BS.

His logic in that post was fairly sound.

And if you think it's BS, by definition you're calling the entire Automobile Insurance Industry BS as well, because it functions on the same assumption and data.

Not me. I don't like the policy. The allure for me is the terrain. A no snowboarding policy (whether it makes business sense or not) whether at MRG or anywhere else is lame sauce.

I like the historical aspect of the no snowboarder policy, as well as the single chair, as well as limited snowmaking, as well as more natural terrain. It's intentionally a museum of a ski resort.

It's also one place (font change, underline, bolded, color change, and italicized, for emphasis) on the east coast out of a zillion ski places on the east coast.

So I dont see the big deal, and when snowboarders cry out with bellicose rants of discrimination and bias, it always strikes me as "lamest sauce" in the world of faux-outrage.

 

[Puck it]

HaHa, yup something like that!

I actually used to ski MRG a lot. Used to call it my favorite mountain. That was before I snowboarded...before anyone snowboarded. Now I'm just not interested in skiing there anymore. From a business perspective I completely agree with the ban. MRG needs something to set itself apart. It has identified that there is a market niche for skiers who are afraid of snowboarders. It's smart to capitalize on that niche. It's not the mountain I have a dislike for, it's their clientele. So I support the ban from a personal perspective as well as a from a business one. Keeping those folks together and away from the general skiing population makes the rest of the ski areas just a tiny bit better.

I hate having to wait for snowboarder's lame asses on powder days while they get buckled in and the runs get tracked out!!!:beer:

 

[ScottySkis]

I hate having to wait for snowboarder's lame asses on powder days while they get bucklen in and the runs get tracked out!!!:beer:

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
No friends on a powder day, so why are you waiting lol.

 

[Smellytele]

I hate having to wait for snowboarder's lame asses on powder days while they get buckled in and the runs get tracked out!!!:beer:

Or on flats when they have to unbuckle.

 

[deadheadskier]

I like the historical aspect of the no snowboarder policy, as well as the single chair, as well as limited snowmaking, as well as more natural terrain. It's intentionally a museum of a ski resort.

We've been over this before, but MRG did for a brief time allow snowboarders.

There's no "historical aspect" to it because there hasn't always been a ban.

The rumors say Betsy and some boarders had a spat and that was that. The co-op maintaining that grudge all these years later is a weak reflection on their character IMO.

I personally could care less if it's a snowboarder or skier is ripping Paradise next to me. It would have zero influence on my enjoyment.

MRG can do what they want. I don't agree with the policy, but still love the place and will continue to ski there. Wish it was closer to home.

 

[Cannonball]

His logic in that post was fairly sound.

And if you think it's BS, by definition you're calling the entire Automobile Insurance Industry BS as well, because it functions on the same assumption and data.

The Auto Insurance Industry believes that younger people are more reckless....so they institute policies that prohibit or increase rates on younger people. They don't say: we need some proxy to control younger people, how about this....younger people are more reckless, and more younger people prefer bright-colored cars than older people, so we're going to institute policies on bright-colored cars. So, no, the logic isn't sound at all.