Please let Ken back

^^^^^ +1

Dumb question: Ken is K.T., right?

on some days Ken is K. T.

he has figured out how to change his name : )

Just returned from the Sierra.  WOW, a lot has transpired in the interim!  Let me add my voice to the upwelling of support for Ken.  He has long been the voice of the community, so let us hope his conversation with Mr. Jordan is a dialogue, and not a monologue.  If that turns out to be the case, there may yet be hope for long overdue solutions to a backlog of festering problems.

WE WANT KEN! WE WANT KEN!

There does seem to have been a pretty severe drop-off of participation on this site, so any one loss is felt more acutely. I never found Ken to be offensive.

In defense of BPL, as a newbie to another well-known Sierra-centric site I posted a link to a trip report that got attacked by the moderator as “inappropriate” as I had not acquired sufficient posting rights as determined by the moderator god, and was accused of wanting to “siphon off” readership. In this light I think that BPL has light touch and is generally pretty tolerant.

I have no idea what caused Ken’s ban from this site. Nevertheless I must say that it is a concerning thing to happen that doesn’t reflect well on this site. Ken has contributed immensely to the community. Not just with organizing the GGG and bringing people together – often in a very unselfish manner (meaning against his own interest and idea of an ideal backpacking weekend), but also by speaking up when he thought things are not as they should be — like the issues around Lifetime Memberships and perceived promises that were not met in his opinion. I can see how his very frank style could be annoying or worse to some people, but  – in my humble opinion – that is not a reason to exclude him. My opinion might not count a lot – I’m not even a paying member any longer as I have decided after certain events to contribute with trip reports and not money. As Casey pointed out writing these trip reports might not any longer be worth it if this community is becoming close-minded and banning members – especially members who have contributed so much. So in the interest of the wider community I would like to ask Ryan hereby kindly to put all disagreement with Ken aside and re-instate Ken’s member privileges.

It seems to me a lot of the problem is that BPL doesn’t know what perks to give lifetime members to make their status special, so has resorted to making them privy to information that ought to be shared with all paying members. Ken took it upon himself to play the role of Prometheus and reposted some of this information, thus incurring the wrath of the gods. Besides deleting all responses to what he shared, Ken is now chained to a rock somewhere suffering eternal torment for challenging their will. Of course, when asked about his actions he probably shot off his mouth, but that is Ken.

Kind of a silly reason to ban someone, as if he had signed a nondisclosure agreement ; ). I was banned from the old bpl yahoo group in abouts 2003 for joking around..hehe. What a stiff bunch of moderators that was.

Hello everyone – I’d like to urge you not to insinuate or assume anything, and be careful before hitting the post button. There are a number of things people have posted in this thread that are based on assumptions, not facts. As such, it results in the propagation of ideas and actions that have no factual basis. Then, after a period of time, it is then assumed that these untruths are actually truths.

I understand that moderation and banning are extremely sensitive issues. Real people are involved. Please filter your assumptions and collect your facts prior to posting by contacting people directly, and privately.

Please also know that if false assumptions are made, especially regarding issues that are confidential between BPL and any user, I will not address those in a public forum. I will address them privately, to the extent that I am still able to protect the confidentiality of a user. So if you’d like to collect facts, you’re welcome to PM me or email me at publisher@backpackinglight.com prior to posting.

Ryan, that seems entirely reasonable. Rumors never help.

Thanks, Ryan.  Your above response seems to set out pretty much what’s already clearly stated in the Forum Guidelines, including the confidentiality maintained in resolving forum issues with a member.

It’s unfortunate that it’s necessary to reiterate the Guidelines that do provide context & perspective that are instructive — as well as constructive so that unwarranted speculation does not appear to be ignored or, worse yet, become self-validating thru absence of any response.

Are we to believe that Mr. Jordan is the sole source of facts, facts which will not be divulged publically, and thus cannot be tested against facts obtained from other sources?  Seriously, Mr. J, why not lay the facts out for the community in the forum, let others also present their facts, and engage in a round table discussion in an attempt to arrive at the truth from the totality of facts before us.  If I interpret your post correctly, you are implying that none of us are privy to the facts and are posting based on assumptions and hearsay, yet you refuse to make the facts public.  I have obtained a few facts from various sources off line, and would love to have the opportunity to compare them with your facts.  Where there are discrepancies, perhaps open discussion would help us all understand the situation better.  As things stand, all is smoke and mirrors, insinuations and assumptions, and the truth is elusive.  It is an atmosphere that does not bring us together at a time when this community is in need of togetherness.

Worth a try?

Personally, I wouldn’t want to insert myself or the community into the middle of a confidential discussion between the parties at this point. I don’t know all of the particulars, but the broad outlines seem apparent. Confidentiality means something. “My facts vs. your facts” doesn’t seem like a way towards togetherness.

In the end, this is a small dispute that seems easily and privately resolvable, with a bit of backing off on both sides, probably. Escalation might just result in a lot of huffing and puffing and bad feelings, or worse.

Tom, I’d give you a thumbs up if the function hadn’t been removed. While Ken has been silenced, BPL doesn’t get to hear his side of the argument. So we are supposed to take Ryan’s word as gospel. My understanding is that a Lifetime Member called out the owner of the website for some non-transparent behaviour, and earned himself a suspension of his membership. I have no idea what conversations have happened offline, but I am not sure the critique has been taken on board by Ryan. His last missive sounded rather tone deaf to me. Ryan, are we your customers, or are our writings the product that helps you get more advertisers on board?

BPL hopes Ryan gets this right.

Ryan,

I get and respect that you are (presumably) sole owner of this website and enjoy executive privilege over how it’s run.  As a life member and active participant in this community, my concern here is that when comments and entire posts are deleted without explanation, and members who have invested hundreds of hours into this community both online and into GGGs are banned, that there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of where the real value of this community actually comes from.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but BPL only published three articles in September 2016.  No offense to these authors or their contributions, but the drastic decline in editorial content is concerning.  As things stand right now, the single best source of information on gear and technique comes from other members in the forums and not from BPL’s editorial content.  Again, I’m not slighting these authors, just the lack of content.

What truly concerns me is that I’m left to wonder if you understand or appreciate this.  Again, I do understand that it’s your job to keep the books in the black, but this would simply be impossible without the active members who not only pay membership dues, but add to the perceived value of this website for advertisers.

We collectively need to establish a relationship of mutual respect for the roles we all play in this community.  Much of this can be achieved through communication.  The conversations between you and Ken are none of my business.  I never invested in your Kickstarter campaigns, so all of that is none of my business.  But, when you and the moderators delete commentary and entire threads without explanation,  lock threads to prevent further conversation without explanation, and outright ban contributing members who add real value to this website, a website that I’ve paid cash money for, that is my business since there is absolutely nothing else of value for me here outside of the forums and my friends here.

I won’t complain without offering a solution.  I’ve suggested these before but I think they are worth mentioning again:

• Please reinstate Ken as a member who can participate in these forums.  You may not care for him but he is a dear friend to dozens (hundreds?) of us and this community is not the same without him.
• Increase editorial content publications to, at a minimum, two articles per week
• Create a senate of sorts from the membership who represent various regions (eg California, PNW, East Coast, Midwest, Southeast).  Meet with them periodically online and in person for an annual conference (on a trail?) to brainstorm ideas on how to improve the content on these forums and increase membership engagement
• Become involved in the various GGGs.
• Don’t remove commentary or delete/lock a thread without offering an explanation as to why it was removed.

i agree with everything mr discopants very eloquently wrote.

well put Ian

I appreciate that Ken encouraged me to go to GGG.  Nice group of people.  I suppose it doesn’t have that much to do with BPL…

Ryan said,

Hello everyone – I’d like to urge you not to insinuate or assume anything, and be careful before hitting the post button. There are a number of things people have posted in this thread that are based on assumptions, not facts.

I went back and read through the posts. Mostly I read that people want Ken back. He is a valuable member who sometimes expresses his opinions. I didn’t see much in the way of “insinuations and and assumptions.”

The overall tone of the thread was quite positive and supportive of Ken, unlike the tone is a similar thread when Bob Gross left — there were people who were happy that Bob was no longer a participant (I was not one of those people),

Now, after your last post, the tone has turned negative. The longer this plays out the more negative the perception of your customers wil be about the issue at hand and the overall feeling about BPL in general. This is the Voice of the Customer.

The Voice of the Customer can be a powerful phenomenon. It can hurt a business. On the other hand, customer concerns that are proactively and quickly addressed, and resolved in a timely manner often results in unhappy or dissatisfied customers becoming completely satisfied customers and advocates for the business. It is much easier and less expensive to retain a customer than to attract a new one. This doesn’t mean all customers are right. Sometimes it is best to fire a bad customer. This is not the case with Ken as the support for him has shown — at least in the eyes of your other BPL customers.

I have never met Ken. He sounds like a good person, someone who genuinely interested in keeping BPL prosperous and a fun place to visit. He could again become that completely satisfied customer and BPL advocate. But letting the issue of banning him drag out is not leaving a good feeling with many of your other customers.

P.S. What happened to the thumbs up button? This thread would have been a good one to gauge the customer base’s feelings.

As the owner of several small successful businesses who has worked with the public and retail customers for 45 years and is a lifetime member here I concur with Ian and Nick.  The sooner the situation is remedied the better off for all concerned.  Remember when your Mom ripped the bandaid off fast?

It happens rarely so when  Tom, Nick and Ian all agree on something… it’s worth considering, imo.

+1 on the “helpful” button.

+1 on the vast majority of this thread having been a polite request.

“It happens rarely so when  Tom, Nick and Ian all agree on something… it’s worth considering, imo.”

Truth is truth.

Homework assignment, everyone should re-watch Enemy Mine this weekend.

It’s not going to solve anything but it’s a good movie.

I don’t know why Ken has been banned.

I could speculate, but I won’t.  That’s between Ryan and Ken.

I don’t know — actually know, not heard about from some source or another, or even from one side but not the other — what discussions have occurred between Ryan & Ken regarding the ban.

I could speculate, but I won’t. That’s between Ryan and Ken.

I do know that, if there have been discussions between Ryan and Ken about resolving the ban, it takes two to tango.

But again, if there have discussions between Ryan & Ken, I don’t know which (if either one — Ryan or Ken) is being just plain stubborn & don’t wanna dance at all ‘cept to his own tune, not the tango.

I could speculate, but I won’t.  That’s between Ryan and Ken.

So +1 to: “This thread is not meant to rehash or cause problems, just requesting that Ken be allowed back” — with the addendum that the two of ’em end up dancin’ the tango together be the reason for the resolution, and not the result of coercion based speculation for or against either side by anyone.

“It happens rarely so when  Tom, Nick and Ian all agree on something… it’s worth considering, imo.”

and Jerry : )

and Kat : )