4 ms·

Then they shouldn't have joined the group in the first place. If you don't want to wait for others, then find a different group or go hiking by yourself. This i

Then they shouldn't have joined the group in the first place. If you don't want to wait for others, then find a different group or go hiking by yourself. This isn't that complicated.

xenocratus 4y ago
I genuinely don't understand all these replies about "sTaY iN tHe GrOuP". Sure, if you keep stopping, waiting for others then going straight away that's kinda assholey, but so is demanding that others stop and carry on with you when they don't want to. Starting as a group shouldn't mean ending as a group. I mean, read what you just wrote. > If you don't want to wait for others, then ... go hiking by yourself. That's literally what's happening when you start with a group but don't want to wait for others........... If the others are slow and have no intent to speed up, you should be perfectly free to speed off, without judgement from the group. Otherwise it's just a frustrating experience for everyone.
- bbarn 4y ago
  Or just set expectations before you start. This entire debate is solved by mutual agreement of expectations. Communication solves these problems, and even if unexpected situational changes occur that might change the plan, communicating those changes helps everyone to help each other. This whole pseudo-philosophical debate can be boiled down to "discuss and be honest with each other and be willing to adapt"
- ARandumGuy 4y ago
  When participating in a group activity, there is the implicit assumption that the group will stick together. It is acceptable to split up a group if you all discuss and agree to it. But if you just run off on your own without warning, that makes you an asshole.
- amalcon 4y ago
  If you say "This pace isn't working for me, do you mind if I just go on ahead?", I've met very few hikers who would say no -- except of course cases where that would be dangerous. If you just blitz ahead without saying anything, that's going to bother people at a minimum.

Then they shouldn't have joined the group in the first place. If you don't want to wait for others, then find a different group or go hiking by yourself. This isn't that complicated.

xenocratus 4y ago

I genuinely don't understand all these replies about "sTaY iN tHe GrOuP". Sure, if you keep stopping, waiting for others then going straight away that's kinda assholey, but so is demanding that others stop and carry on with you when they don't want to. Starting as a group shouldn't mean ending as a group. I mean, read what you just wrote. > If you don't want to wait for others, then ... go hiking by yourself. That's literally what's happening when you start with a group but don't want to wait for others........... If the others are slow and have no intent to speed up, you should be perfectly free to speed off, without judgement from the group. Otherwise it's just a frustrating experience for everyone.

bbarn 4y ago
Or just set expectations before you start. This entire debate is solved by mutual agreement of expectations. Communication solves these problems, and even if unexpected situational changes occur that might change the plan, communicating those changes helps everyone to help each other. This whole pseudo-philosophical debate can be boiled down to "discuss and be honest with each other and be willing to adapt"
ARandumGuy 4y ago
When participating in a group activity, there is the implicit assumption that the group will stick together. It is acceptable to split up a group if you all discuss and agree to it. But if you just run off on your own without warning, that makes you an asshole.
amalcon 4y ago
If you say "This pace isn't working for me, do you mind if I just go on ahead?", I've met very few hikers who would say no -- except of course cases where that would be dangerous. If you just blitz ahead without saying anything, that's going to bother people at a minimum.