Tradiban Redacted?

Alas, poor Tradi . . . Where be your gibes now?

Todd Berlier wrote:

im sure that would violate the conditions of his parole and he would be too scared to forever lose his access to his primary source of entertainment.

Pretty sure the account that got banned most recently was in response to a previous banned account…though I could be wildly off with that 

He'll get another chance despite the couple naysayers here ... if he wants to come back.

#freetradiban

Was thinking about an incongruity that appears evident from some of the responses here…

• Tradi, apparently from years back, rubbed some the wrong way and they didn’t want to read his stuff.  Fair enough. 
• I assume those select few knew about the “ignore” feature within MP

Thus the mystery.   If all the people who disliked the posting habits of the Tradiban were ignoring him, who was reading his posts and flagging them?  

Can only conclude that;

1.  Either people aren’t aware of the ignore feature, 

or…

2.  even those who do “ignore”, just can’t help themselves and have to look, and that is perhaps what irritates them the most. Lol. 

Fess up if you override the ignore feature

I have never flagged Tradiban (that I can remember). I may have flagged other users who have threatened violence of some sort to other users on this site or people who exist by name in the real world. I believe that is a reasonable use of the "Flag" feature, despite any well-meaning but flawed free speech auditors of the MP.  

If I'm following a topic I want to see the entire conversation. To ignore a specific poster is like skipping bolts. 

philip bone wrote:

If I'm following a topic I want to see the entire conversation. To ignore a specific poster is like skipping bolts. 

Some bolts are meant to be skipped…

Mark Pilate wrote:

Was thinking about an incongruity that appears evident from some of the responses here … Can only conclude that;

1.  Either people aren’t aware of the ignore feature, 

or…

2.  even those who do “ignore”, just can’t help themselves and have to look, and that is perhaps what irritates them the most. Lol. 

Mark, you are missing the point.
These people want to control what other people think and write.

Yury wrote:

Mark, you are missing the point.
These people want to control what other people think and write.

WOW that is awesome

Long Ranger wrote:

I may have flagged other users who have threatened violence of some sort to other users on this site or people who exist by name in the real world. I believe that is a reasonable use of the "Flag" feature, despite any well-meaning but flawed free speech auditors of the MP.  

Honestly, that is probably a higher standard than I have. I’m probably not far below a dozen flags in however long the flag option has been available.  And I must be totally off base as I have never seen any admin action on posts that I flagged - excepting the two I flagged in this thread with a comment to instead #freetradiban.

My intuition is also that Tradiban’s ban was indeed from a “well-meaning” but mistaken admin. 

Still, there are many posts in this thread cheering on the ban. 2 + 2 isn’t adding up to 4. So, yeah, what do folks think about Mark’s question?

Bill Lawry wrote:

... So, yeah, what do folks think about Mark’s question?

I agree with him that people take the Proj forums way too seriously. It's always been a place for the climbing community to come together and talk smack if they choose

Bruno Schull wrote:

Hi Grug G--I know you are a big fan of mine from the dog threads, so I'm happy to respond to you here. 

What's an example of a useful perspective Tradi provided?  Well, just to use the example you cite, he wasn't advocating for tossing rocks on tourists, he was reminding everybody what when you go out in the world, you are responsible for your own safety, a sentiment that most of us would support. That was his basic claim.

In the great majority of his posts, no matter how ridiculous they seemed, there was a grain of truth.  

After reading through all 12 pages (not worth it), this comment sticks out to me as a reason we will not see eye to eye.

I am part of the camp that believes that telling a hiker if they get domed by a rock they were irresponsible with their own safety is completely useless in a forum, especially one where land managers and government agencies can read.

Tradibans humanity and helpful comments were long ago swallowed up by a wave of, at best, unhelpful and, at worst, malicious posts and comments. 

I fully believe others who say he is a great person and climbing partner in real life, his court jester "behold, a man" schtick just doesn't work for most people online.

M A wrote:

 court jester "behold, a man" schtick just doesn't work for most people online.

lol, “Ecce homo” words uttered by my great ancestor, Pontius.  Since the parallel has been made….

And are we saying that if thoughts or words “don’t work for me” , then it’s appropriate to remove and ban?     The real issue for me, is the relative benign nature of what and who gets removed.  

Mark Pilate wrote:

lol, “Ecce homo” words uttered by my great ancestor, Pontius.  Since the parallel has been made….

can Tradiban ever be restored in the eyes of the MP Sanhedrin?

And are we saying that if thoughts or words “don’t work for me” , then it’s appropriate to remove and ban?     The real issue for me, is the relative benign nature of what and who gets removed.  

I was going for a Diogenes reference, but botched the landing.

I think a company who's users feel that way has every right. If I'm at a bar and the bartender kicks out the obnoxious drunk I'm not going to protest for the relatively benign nature of their shouts, I'm going to enjoy having a conversation with the regular patrons. 

My post was to point out why many people do not lament his ban. Free speech absolutism is perhaps the most "discussed" topic online and holds very little interest for most people. In tradibans style, just because it holds a little, tiny, microscopic nugget of truth does not mean we want to get hit over the head with it for 12 pages.

M A wrote:

In tradibans style, just because it holds a little, tiny, microscopic nugget of truth does not mean we want to get hit over the head with it for 12 pages.

So what's your justification for banning him instead of just ignoring?
Who forced you to read these 12 pages?

Yury wrote:

So what's your justification for banning him instead of just ignoring?
Who forced you to read these 12 pages?

Brother, I'm not. I chose to read them. The admins chose to ban him. My explanation is that he was bad for business.

My whole point, also in my post above, is that many users won't be so sad he's gone. I also think that many users have no interest in the free speech debate, it's an online forum about climbing rocks, it's not that big a deal.

The universe exists for me.

It's becoming a forum about climbing rocks... lol. It use to be so much more.

Even I am not interested in a 1A debate.  That is akin to a Godwin’s law thing and is boring.  And as stated many times before, not applicable here.  The interesting thing is the underlying psychology and philosophies at play here  (and on campuses and in schools and in congress as we speak) where the right and left are trying to out virtue signal each other

I’d agree with the business case argument— if it were accurate.  I’d love to see the data, but anyone who has been around this site can see that traffic is down (forums that is).  Perhaps that is by design.  But if the forum doesn’t add to the overall value of this website, then why have it all?  What’s the data or precedent that says heavy moderation is a recipe for success?

The drunk at a bar analogy that several have made  is hollow.  There you have no means of avoiding it.  Here in an online forum, you have multiple ways for it to pass by without notice should you choose that option.   

I agree with Ben Franklin…people get the forum (and government) they deserve.    Of course Tradiban and a climbing forum are not a big deal in the scheme of things.   But the frog also thought the last few degrees weren’t a big deal and scoffed.  until it hit 212.  

So who is this Russ guy people keep mentioning? Life has lately been too busy for me to follow the drama here much.

Mark Pilate wrote:

I’d agree with the business case argument— if it were accurate.  I’d love to see the data, but anyone who has been around this site can see that traffic is down (forums that is).  Perhaps that is by design.  But if the forum doesn’t add to the overall value of this website, then why have it all?  What’s the data or precedent that says heavy moderation is a recipe for success?

Heavy moderation killed Summitpost forums. They typically have only several posts per month.
However Summitpost is still up and running and according to rumors has a positive cash flow from their large collection of previously created route descriptions.

Similarly, Mountainproject should survive with dead forums or even without forums.
Its large collection of betas should provide modest positive cash flow for years.