Jump to content

Geocide In A Fit. Wants To Come Back


Jeremy
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

I'm a firm believer of firing your worst customers, as some will attest. Howver, there have been various circumstances where folks have committed geocide - left in a huff over some issue. But other times they do what is similar to seagull management - fly in, squawk and crap over everything, and leave.

 

In many cases after a cool down period they want to come back. In some circumstances we will let them back but occasionally the squawking and crapping takes on almost legendary proportions. Yet they still want to come back.

 

So the question is: should there be forgiveness, or should there be forgiveness but some requirement to return to the community. Or, if you quit you quit? You used your last man, in game speak.

 

Is there redemption? Should the user wear sackcloth and crawl 10 miles through broken glass?

Link to comment

Second chances are encouraged and forgivness is a must. However, compliance with the rules and guidelines by the geocider is a very strict requirement during round two. No time frame, no double secret probation, no sackcloth and crawling. Just the chance to prove otherwise.

 

Third chances are frowned upon.

 

Scoob

Link to comment

Ok. I'll add to it. What if the person repeatedly harrassed you through the site's email system, and continued directly after they obtained your email address? Used foul language and called you some really awful things?

 

(clarification: I wasn't harrassed. My armor is pretty flame resistant at this point. I'm talking about you getting harrassed)

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment

It highly depends on how much you (as admin) want to deal with.

 

I think there should be an undefined "parole" period where the administration pretty much watches the hourly/daily activity of that person on the site. It should be undefined so that the person doesn't just "wait you out" to act out again if their contrition is only a front.

 

If after the time you determine to be reasonable based on their past actions has lapsed without fault, then hopefully they'll prove to be a member in good standing again.

 

Otherwise, it's back out the door and no third chances.

 

A single, second chance will allow even the dumbest actions to get a "do-over", but is not enough to give someone the idea that they have "a few chances" to act out without any *real* harm done to their account.

Link to comment

OK, that's a bit different than just quitting. Did the person harass you in a public forum? Or was it simply through email? The reason I ask is because if it was a private encounter between YOU and the HARASSER, then you and you alone are the one that can/should decide if forgiveness/reinstatement is in order.

 

On the other hand, if the offender offended in the forums or at a public event like a get-together, well then that's another story - they've insulted the entire community in that case.

Link to comment

To address the added info:

 

E-mail harrassment is hardly murder. I believe if there were some sort of "levels" of punishment, then the line for "no way jose" should be drawn somewhere around hacking attempts and disruption of the website on a grand scale (DoS, for example)...something that affects everyone. Problems with a user against a single other user are more than likely single case affairs that given time will resolve themselves among rational people.

 

The irrational will quickly fall prey to the parole period I described and only get 1 more chance to harass. Again, this depends on how much work you want to do at forgiving, since you'll have to answer another abuse complaint and/or directly monitor those on "parole".

Link to comment
OK, that's a bit different than just quitting. Did the person harass you in a public forum? Or was it simply through email? The reason I ask is because if it was a private encounter between YOU and the HARASSER, then you and you alone are the one that can/should decide if forgiveness/reinstatement is in order.

So I should ask the person who was harrassed (or persons in this case) if they want to forgive the user? Interesting idea.

 

Again, it wasn't me. I have brought folks back online when I truly thought they had cleaned up their act. However many of these folks have a flaw in their character that ends up getting them in trouble again.

 

I don't want to take the role of warden, but we do have to break up fights on occasion. It's an amazing insight into the human condition.

Link to comment
E-mail harrassment is hardly murder.

Death threats are close. It didn't happen in this specific case but imagine your mother getting one of these kinds of emails. We have many mothers and grandmothers here.

 

The "sticks and stones" argument is generally crap, no offense. Words do hurt. Try being on the receiving end of a crying mother because of a hurtful email and tell me it doesn't hurt.

Link to comment
OK, that's a bit different than just quitting.  Did the person harass you in a public forum?  Or was it simply through email?  The reason I ask is because if it was a private encounter between YOU and the HARASSER, then you and you alone are the one that can/should decide if forgiveness/reinstatement is in order.

So I should ask the person who was harrassed (or persons in this case) if they want to forgive the user? Interesting idea.

 

Again, it wasn't me. I have brought folks back online when I truly thought they had cleaned up their act. However many of these folks have a flaw in their character that ends up getting them in trouble again.

 

I don't want to take the role of warden, but we do have to break up fights on occasion. It's an amazing insight into the human condition.

Ah, sorry about that, I should really learn to read better - I just assumed you were the victim in this case.

 

On the other hand, maybe that's not such a bad idea. If it was a one-on-one encounter, maybe ask the victim if the issue has been resolved to their satisfaction - i.e. did the offender apologize / make restitution / whatever.

 

That's not without precedent - even in our legal system, sentencing is often influenced by how much remorse the offender exhibits for their activities.

Link to comment

So I should ask the person who was harrassed (or persons in this case) if they want to forgive the user? Interesting idea.

I don't think that's a good idea. It's hardly ever the case where the victim goes to the parole board and says "sure, let him out!". In the meantime, parolees can often reform and be a good member of the community again.

 

It will also encourage the *reformed* jailbird to bother the victim with pleas of reform and innocence if their ability to reaccess the site is hinged upon the victim's thumbs-up/thumbs-down. That could easily be perceived as "more harassment" when it's really just pleas of being a changed person.

Link to comment

E-mail harassment of another member should not be tolerated. We provide our e-mails on here with the assumption that we will provide others a means of communicating with us regarding geocaching or our caches. If a user started to harass me via that same e-mail that I provided to Groundspeak, I would feel violated and even more so if TPTB knew about it, banned that person, and then allowed them to come back to the site...

 

Do people really change? Don't know...but from experience usually they eventually rear their ugly heads again

 

Besides...there is little to stop them from "starting over" and coming back on under another user name...

Link to comment
Ok. I'll add to it. What if the person repeatedly harrassed you through the site's email system, and continued directly after they obtained your email address? Used foul language and called you some really awful things?

 

(clarification: I wasn't harrassed. My armor is pretty flame resistant at this point. I'm talking about you getting harrassed)

Still being an advocate of forgivness, as long as the offending party was not threatening the other cacher, I'm still for second chances. However, at first we were talking about someone who commited geocide, people who get Das Boot for creating a situation where someone else felt threatened......that's a duck with a different quack.

 

I also think it's an interesting idea to consult the offended party prior to reinstatement. There are way to many different case scenario's here to lay down a cut and dry rule.

 

Scoob

Link to comment

First, I think geocide is childish. Taking your toys and going home is not a mature way to deal with differences. Not, mind you, that I am claiming to be particularly mature myself in how I deal with things! But geocide is beyond what I would do.

 

I'd give a geocider a single chance to return. Make it clear that the next geocide will be the last one, and that adherence to the rules is required. If the person in question has a history of email harrassment, one of those rules should be to not contact the harrassee through the site.

Link to comment
E-mail harrassment is hardly murder.

Death threats are close. It didn't happen in this specific case but imagine your mother getting one of these kinds of emails. We have many mothers and grandmothers here.

 

The "sticks and stones" argument is generally crap, no offense. Words do hurt. Try being on the receiving end of a crying mother because of a hurtful email and tell me it doesn't hurt.

Death threats are illegal. That is a different plane of discussion for the police to get involved in and out of your hands.

 

If my mother received a truly harassing e-mail and the person has since changed their tune, I would let them be given that they don't reapproach my mother.

 

The hurt of words goes away as soon as the words are put behind you. Just because some victims can not overcome the situation they were forced into doesn't mean that the offender shouldn't get a chance at rehabilitation.

Link to comment

You might just consider going to a more automated system so you don't have to sweat the details on a case by case basis.

 

Have 2 categories of bans, permanent and timed. Somebody trying to hack the site would be a permanent ban, someone who explodes and says some rotten stuff gets a temporary ban of say 30 days. After that their account is automatically reinstated.

 

Set a policy on the number of temp bans before it becomes a permanent ban.

 

This makes it a very impartial and impersonal affair. I mean if you let one person back in, but not another and their offenses were similar that is showing a prejudice (even if none exists). With the automated system it is cold, impersonal and totally fair.

Link to comment

I'm a believer in giving 2nd chances on a case by case basis. I also think that harrassing or threatening people through email is a serious offense. Especially if it was done through the GC email system.

 

If it was an exchange of emails that was being done in the heat of the moment I would probably give them a 2nd chance with the understanding that any...and I mean any controversary they would be forever banned.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

Forgive? Sure. Forget? How? (Selective amnesia doesn't count as forgetting)

 

I say a signed written statement be a requirement for reinstatement, along with any other reasonable suggestions people come up with. Since it has to be mailed, there should be enough time lapsed for an unavoidable cooling off period. If the Geocider is serious enough to remedy his or her own behavior and want to return to the sport, then this should not be a major barrier of entry at all.

 

E-mails are not good enough in my opinion, too frivolous.

 

Now, if you get more of these mails than junk mails in your mailbox, there's a societal problem bigger than Geocide to deal with. :D

Link to comment

Depending on the circumstances, forgiveness and second chances should be a viable option. I do think the person in question should be required to perform "geo-community service" this can be as simple as attending and participating in several CITO events. They could also prove their worth, by actively contributing to the sport, by hiding quality caches.

 

In short, second chances should be based on how much this person wants to give back in order to be allowed to participate again.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

I'm a big believer in Forgive and Forget. But I also believe that some folks should be watched carefully for lapses.

Forgive, Forget, but put on moderated posting and e-mailing. Make sure before reinstating them that the geocide understands that they are on the threshold- in or out is very easy at this point. After a few months they can return to being treated like most of us perhaps. But a period of watchfullness is what I'd recommend. And regular checkups. And don't forget to have them wax your Vespa regurly, as well as the company helicopter.

 

Don't let them change name though, the old forum hands should know who they are conversing with if someone well known gets to come back.

-J

Link to comment

How was he/she as a cacher; were their logs family friendly & respectful to property?

~ Restrict the membership to remain non-premium for a probational period.

 

For squaking in the forums:

~ Restrict full use of the forums for a probational period = to avoid any tempation.

~ Geocaching is, after all, an addiction :D

 

The victim(s) must be alerted, and allowed the choice to avoid him/her at local events.

 

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." ~Gandhi.

 

Peace :D

Link to comment

Jeremy,

 

As both a Mother & a Granny, I would want to be able to 'BLOCK' someone who had sent me a nasty E-Mail through this site - just as I can do with my regular E-Mail.

 

Is this a feature that we have any control over? Or is there any other option for the person that was harassed?

 

I understand that in the real world - some people just use foul language on a regular basis & is it not meant to be construed as *harassment* by that user. I do not particularly like this type of foul language but, I do understand when someone goes off & gets angry, but anger is no excuse. They have to realize this is not the accepted type of behavior for society in general.

 

I think the first question that I have is - 'Did this person apologize to the victim that he E-Mailed?'

Second - 'Can E-Mailing & PMing privileges be curtailed in any way?'

 

I am a firm believer in giving someone a second chance - but, ONLY after some form of apology is issued & a promise by said person that he will not repeat the 'Same crime again'. It is, after all is said & done, just like dealing with children. - "We ALL are in some stage of growing up, some of us just need some extra guidance along the way."

 

Mom & Granny Shirley~

Link to comment
Jeremy,

 

As both a Mother & a Granny, I would want to be able to 'BLOCK' someone who had sent me a nasty E-Mail through this site - just as I can do with my regular E-Mail.

 

Is this a feature that we have any control over? Or is there any other option for the person that was harassed?

 

I understand that in the real world - some people just use foul language on a regular basis & is it not meant to be construed as *harassment* by that user. I do not particularly like this type of foul language but, I do understand when someone goes off & gets angry, but anger is no excuse. They have to realize this is not the accepted type of behavior for society in general.

 

I think the first question that I have is - 'Did this person apologize to the victim  that he E-Mailed?'

Second - 'Can E-Mailing & PMing privileges be curtailed in any way?'

 

I am a firm believer in giving someone a second chance - but, ONLY after some form of apology is issued & a promise by said person that he will not repeat the 'Same crime again'. It is, after all is said & done, just like dealing with children. - "We ALL are in some stage of growing up, some of us just need some extra guidance along the way."

 

Mom & Granny Shirley~

Since the gecaching system puts the name contacting you in the email, you should still be able to set your email to block them. I have blocked a person from here before using my own email settings. You can also block forum PMs.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
Jeremy,

 

As both a Mother & a Granny, I would want to be able to 'BLOCK' someone who had sent me a nasty E-Mail through this site - just as I can do with my regular E-Mail.

 

Is this a feature that we have any control over? Or is there any other option for the person that was harassed?

 

I understand that in the real world - some people just use foul language on a regular basis & is it not meant to be construed as *harassment* by that user. I do not particularly like this type of foul language but, I do understand when someone goes off & gets angry, but anger is no excuse. They have to realize this is not the accepted type of behavior for society in general.

 

I think the first question that I have is - 'Did this person apologize to the victim  that he E-Mailed?'

Second - 'Can E-Mailing & PMing privileges be curtailed in any way?'

 

I am a firm believer in giving someone a second chance - but, ONLY after some form of apology is issued & a promise by said person that he will not repeat the 'Same crime again'. It is, after all is said & done, just like dealing with children. - "We ALL are in some stage of growing up, some of us just need some extra guidance along the way."

 

Mom & Granny Shirley~

Since the gecaching system puts the name contacting you in the email, you should still be able to set your email to block them. I have blocked a person from here before using my own email settings. You can also block forum PMs.

 

Thank you for easing my mind on that score. I thought that since the E-Mail comes from this site...if you would 'block sender' it would block all E-Mail. So the only question that remains - Did they made any kind of apology?

 

Thank again carleenp for the quick response.

 

Shirley~

Link to comment

My free opinion.

 

Kicked once.... ok.. let em back in.. no reprieve for second round. Out they go.

 

IF a person is being "harrased" especially thru the email system out out out dadgum spot. No reprieves.

 

Messing with the teacup by carpping in it.. well can be washed once. The break the thing into thousand of pieces.

Link to comment
Thank you for easing my mind on that score. I thought that since the E-Mail comes from this site...if you would 'block sender' it would block all E-Mail. So the only question that remains - Did they made any kind of apology?

 

Thank again carleenp for the quick response.

 

I suppose it could depend on your email. Mine allowed to block by the name that the program shows instead of blocking the bot that sends the mail. On my work computer I just asked the IT person to block it, and it worked without blocking all GC.com mail.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment

Forgivness is how you cope, it lets you put the past behind you and move on. It doesn't mean you will let them into your house again.

 

It really depends on the transgression. If they really wanted to come back a change of ISP and a new name and you are in. The question to me is can they come back and get their old account back. With better information I can give you a better opinion for this specific case.

 

Trust once lost is hard to regain. That's why some people who have burned their friends find it easier to move and start over than go through the trials and tribulations it's going to take to make it back in. Odds are they are going to have a hard time even if they walk the tight and narrow.

Link to comment

I would agree with some form of dual-stage or tri-stage ban, especially if it could be set up at least semi-automated. Minor infractions (extreme flaming on message boards, violations of guidlines, etc) could be punished by a brief suspension from the forums for a cool-down, more offensive infractions resulting in loss of member services (inability to log finds, view forums, reduced or no access to premium features if premium member) for a slightly longer period (20-30 days) and the strongest offenses (threatening another geocacher, website attacks, repeat offenders) would result in account termination and IP blocking if possible.

 

The system could be setup such that you get two minor infractions and the third is automatically a major, and your second major results in account termination. This way, people are definitely given their fair chance to straighten up and play nice with everyone and they can't say they weren't warned.

 

A tip gc.com could possibly pick up from one of my favorite online communication forms (AOL IM) is once your warning level gets so high, you can only send a message every so often. I'm not sure how the warning levels we have here work, I've only heard them mentioned a couple times, but once someone heats up to a certain point, only allow them 2 posts/hr, or maybe 4-6 per day, or a sliding scale based on their current warning level.

Link to comment

We are talking about people who leave on their own accord here aren't we? Or does this include people who have been booted off?

 

I can think of an instance of someone who was booted off and I would be be hate to see them have the opportunity to come back after the threats they made. (Not to me).

 

You can see what happens when the State lets a person out of jail and they turnaround and victimize another innocent person.

 

I would say there is a difference on how we treat them if it was walking off on their own versus being booted off.

Link to comment

It's nice to see everyone being extremely fair to this unknown person. I think there are some good suggestions in here and I'll add that mine would be a summary of the above.

  • A public apology is a must.
  • Anyone who was harrassed by this person should be warned ahead of time.
  • Restricted access as much as the site software will allow for a period of time.
  • A clear understanding that he/she had better be a model geocacher or the ban will be reinstated.

 

I'm am unsure about the name change issue. That is a tough one and I see pros/cons on both sides of that issue. Yes we should know who we are dealing with, but would that knowledge make it impossible for the community to accept that this person has changed?? If they came back with a new GeoNick that might give us time to see a change before discovering their true identity, but will people who were harrassed by this person feel duped by Geocaching.com?? I don't have the answer to that right now.

Link to comment

It's hard to have an honest opinion without specifics.

I'm all for a second chance, but in 4yrs of geocaching I can't really think of an instance where someone was banned from the site for a first offense. From what I've seen, there are usually second, third and fourth chances before someone gets da boot around here.

Has this specific person already had a second chance in the past?

Link to comment

This is just a cache listing site. When a member is banned, he's only banned from using this cache listing site, he's not excluded from the community. The rules of this site are the rules of this cache listing site, not the rules of the geocaching community. Let's not get ridiculous by trying to create a complex judiciary system. It's just a website. The admins should decide on a case by case basis what they do.

Link to comment

I'm fairly new to these forums, so I don't have a firm grasp of either the rules or the "personality" of the board. But I'm what you might think of as the "Jeremy equivalent" on another multi-forum board (not related to geocaching).

 

We do not allow personal attacks whatsoever. One violation and you are on probation (and the thread either edited and locked or deleted entirely if editing is impractical). We discuss such events in a Moderator's Only forum that regular members cannot see.

 

Heated discusiions happen on all boards. On ours, the Moderator of that forum will attempt to ameliorate the heat. Failing that, one of the super-Mods will take action up to and including banning. If a person is banned, we block not only that board pseudonym, but the sender's ISP as well - no sneaky re-joining under another alias.

 

If a person stalks off in a huff, we take no action at all. Sometimes they come back, tail between their legs, and reform their act. Sometimes not.

 

In short, some acts are forgiveable, some aren't. If someone wants and is eligible for forgiveness, they should get it with a smile and a virtual handshake. But if the offense is egregious, the official board reaction should be in proportion, to include permanent banning.

Link to comment

Jeremy, I think that you should clarify. I see so many seperate issues here:

 

Someone comes in and says a lot of things in the forum and upsets people.

 

Someone comes in the forum, gets upset themselves, and commits geocide.

 

Someone gets banned from the forums/gc.com in general.

 

Someone is sending nasty emails, either through gc.com, or to private emails.

 

So, which is that you are asking us to help you with? Just one of these? Or a person that has done all of these? Or any of these scenarios in general? :D

 

Thanks. I think that your input would help this discussion tremendously. :D

Link to comment

Just my $.02

I rarely forgive and almost never forget (but I am having 'pre-senior' moments). Having said that, unless someone has made death threats to me or worse yet my family , I'd give them a second chance on the board. However personally I would keep them at arms length from myself and family.

Link to comment

I dunno. Whoever this former cacher is/was, did they receive warnings from the Mod? Or did they just kiln over? If they received warnings from the Mod's and then kilned over because they were off their meds, whose gonna be the parole officer? If warnings were issued, I'd ask the Mod who issued the warning for their input. Ask the Mod's anyway. They're the guys who'll have to deal.

 

:D

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...