Jump to content

Banning of members


swhite7000

Recommended Posts

I understand that members can be banned through multiple loggings of caches that they didn't actually find but what else can you be banned for?

 

The only person that I've seen the "banned member" tag on was Joseph Duncan, who geocached a few times around here (North Dakota,) but is better known as the guy who killed a family in Idaho in order to kidnap, rape and kill their two preteen children. Some kooks that were self appointed "investigators" latched onto his participation (briefly) in caching and started questioning whether caching could be a pedophile's tool for hanging around playgrounds, schools, and the like. Duncan's account (which had been dormant for quite a while,) was banned right about then.

 

Lets hope that he's the last one with that reason for being banned.

Link to comment

Some kooks that were self appointed "investigators" latched onto his participation (briefly) in caching and started questioning whether caching could be a pedophile's tool for hanging around playgrounds, schools, and the like

Oh, yeah, that's where the LEO = "Law Enforcement Officer" thing came from! Awful, awful story, but reading the online detectives' "investigation" was highly amusing. They were especially interested in the way toys and trinkets are used to lure children, which are codenamed "caches".

Link to comment

I understand that members can be banned through multiple loggings of caches that they didn't actually find but what else can you be banned for?

 

I think you are mistaken.

 

To my knowledge Groundspeak does not regulate geocacher behavior, and leaves logging of caches up to the cache owner and geocachers.

 

Multiple logging of caches is just fine if the owner decides to allow it... If the owner does not allow it he deletes the logs.

 

Cheaters sometimes log things they have not found. The owners are expected to delete such logs when discovered.

 

Either wayGroundspeak is not involved.

Link to comment

To my knowledge Groundspeak does not regulate geocacher behavior, and leaves logging of caches up to the cache owner and geocachers.

 

Multiple logging of caches is just fine if the owner decides to allow it... If the owner does not allow it he deletes the logs.

 

Cheaters sometimes log things they have not found. The owners are expected to delete such logs when discovered.

 

Either wayGroundspeak is not involved.

In the past, I've seen accounts get locked and/or deleted after logging hundreds of obvious fakes all at once. But there have been several instances of that recently, and the reaction seems to have been what you describe. So the stance may have changed.

Link to comment

To my knowledge Groundspeak does not regulate geocacher behavior, and leaves logging of caches up to the cache owner and geocachers.

 

Multiple logging of caches is just fine if the owner decides to allow it... If the owner does not allow it he deletes the logs.

 

Cheaters sometimes log things they have not found. The owners are expected to delete such logs when discovered.

 

Either wayGroundspeak is not involved.

In the past, I've seen accounts get locked and/or deleted after logging hundreds of obvious fakes all at once. But there have been several instances of that recently, and the reaction seems to have been what you describe. So the stance may have changed.

Please see 'Pain in the butt' rule mentioned above. Sometimes, something's a pain, other times it just tickles.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

... Some kooks that were self appointed "investigators" latched onto his participation (briefly) in caching and started questioning whether caching could be a pedophile's tool for hanging around playgrounds, schools, and the like. Duncan's account (which had been dormant for quite a while,) was banned right about then.

 

Lets hope that he's the last one with that reason for being banned.

 

Caching won't make you look any less goofy in a playground than just hanging out. If anything caching would draw more attention to yourself which is counter productve in a sick sort of way.

Link to comment

... Some kooks that were self appointed "investigators" latched onto his participation (briefly) in caching and started questioning whether caching could be a pedophile's tool for hanging around playgrounds, schools, and the like. Duncan's account (which had been dormant for quite a while,) was banned right about then.

 

Lets hope that he's the last one with that reason for being banned.

 

Caching won't make you look any less goofy in a playground than just hanging out. If anything caching would draw more attention to yourself which is counter productve in a sick sort of way.

 

Well, logic didn't seem to be their strong suit. If memory serves, they believed that Travel Bugs were some sort of lure and/or transmission device, that pedophiles would create caches out in the woods and then attack children that came to find them (very patient pedophiles, I guess,) and that they would put dirty pictures in caches and then publish the cache on gc.com in order to pass them out to other pervs. And that made perfect sense.

 

Someone or another tried straightening them out, but whether any of it actually sunk in, that I don't remember.

Edited by adjensen
Link to comment

I have found that though you may be banned your caches won't be delisted. Take for instance the high number of caches hidden by one (now banned) member that have been on the disabled list in the 13901 zip code for sometime now <cricket chirps>..................(</cricket chirps> B) Well beyond a "few weeks" as stated in the blah, blah, blah. Kinda like we don't like the way you play, but we sure like your toys! :ph34r:

Link to comment

I have found that though you may be banned your caches won't be delisted. Take for instance the high number of caches hidden by one (now banned) member that have been on the disabled list in the 13901 zip code for sometime now <cricket chirps>..................(</cricket chirps> B) Well beyond a "few weeks" as stated in the blah, blah, blah. Kinda like we don't like the way you play, but we sure like your toys! :ph34r:

 

mm-hmm. Well it would be nice if banned members managed their caches after they were banned but usually they don't. Around here we try and make sure the caches don't turn into geolitter. It's work, but it's better than just ignoring it hoping someone else will clean it up.

 

(And before anyone says it, yes I know about caches being listed on other sites. And although I know of some who have moved over, those banned members are the exception. It's all part of the "making sure' thing I mentioned.)

Link to comment

I've seen it for .......

 

placing micros in woods, stuff like that.

 

:ph34r:B)

 

If you're looking for a check list of things to do to get banned you won't get one. Anyone abusing the web site or the members could potentially have their accounts locked - either temporarily or permanently.

 

Umm, yes, staying on topic now, I've never been personally banned. Sounds painful...

Link to comment

I understand that members can be banned through multiple loggings of caches that they didn't actually find but what else can you be banned for?

 

Unfortunately this, like so many other free sites on the Internet falls into the category of an unenforcable policy. It's a free site. You can have 10 accounts with no one the wiser if you're careful. If one get's banned, so what? 9 more bottles of beer on the wall... I myself only have one account, b/c I don't plan on being banned. If I did do something heinous and get banned, like for example, placing a large number of caches underneath lamposts, well then I'd just create a new account and air drop micros into the woods instead. It's a vicious circle...

 

--MGb

Link to comment

Did I mention that quoting Monty Python can get you banned?

 

...

 

It sure did get quiet in here.

 

 

She turned me into a newt!

 

 

...

 

 

I got better.

 

Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.

Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?

Peasant 1: Oh yeah.

Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?

Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!

Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?

Peasant 1: Bread.

Peasant 2: Apples.

Peasant 3: Very small rocks.

Peasant 1: Cider.

Peasant 2: Gravy.

Peasant 3: Cherries.

Peasant 1: Mud.

Peasant 2: Churches.

Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!

King Arthur: A Duck.

Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...

Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.

Sir Bedevere: And therefore...

Peasant 2: ...A witch!

Link to comment

Did I mention that quoting Monty Python can get you banned?

 

...

 

It sure did get quiet in here.

 

I hope you're kidding. Otherwise... We are now no longer the Knights who say Ni.

 

We are now the Knights who say..."Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-PTANG. Zoom-Boing. Z'nourrwringmm.

 

Edit: On topic... most (but not all) of the banning I've seen has resulted from misbehaving in the forums... OOPS!

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment

I have found that though you may be banned your caches won't be delisted. Take for instance the high number of caches hidden by one (now banned) member that have been on the disabled list in the 13901 zip code for sometime now <cricket chirps>..................(</cricket chirps> :laughing: Well beyond a "few weeks" as stated in the blah, blah, blah. Kinda like we don't like the way you play, but we sure like your toys! :laughing:

 

I think the caches owned by a banned member should all go up for adoption....if they are not adopted for a certian period of time, they are archived.

 

Same principle for kittys....I think the kittys owned by a kitty farm owner should all go up for adoption.....if they are not adopted for a certian period of time, they are put under! :unsure:

Link to comment

I have found that though you may be banned your caches won't be delisted. Take for instance the high number of caches hidden by one (now banned) member that have been on the disabled list in the 13901 zip code for sometime now <cricket chirps>..................(</cricket chirps> :laughing: Well beyond a "few weeks" as stated in the blah, blah, blah. Kinda like we don't like the way you play, but we sure like your toys! :laughing:

 

I think the caches owned by a banned member should all go up for adoption....if they are not adopted for a certian period of time, they are archived.

The danger with this is the possibility that the banned member moved to a different listing site, which happens regularly. It would be pretty confusing to have the same container owned by the original hider on BanninatedCacher.com, and by a new adoptive owner on Geocaching.com.

 

At a bare minimum in these circumstances, the normal rules for involuntary adoptions ought to apply, including a long waiting period (six months or more) and the requirement that there is something physically "wrong" with the cache such that owner action is required.

Link to comment

Individuals can get banninated for violations of the TOS or for being a complete pain in the butt.

 

I'm not sure what can get one banned, but being a pain in the butt must not be one of the things because I'm still here. :D <---I couldn't find an inflamed butt smiley. Heh, heh . . .He said butt smiley.

 

Actually, I think these forums are way too lenient, so I'm gonna buy Groundspeak off of Mr. Irish (Everyone has their price), and just start banning people because it sounds like fun. Of course I would unban them after a period of time just so I could ban them again.

 

On a serious note I would obliterate all trace of the sick freak mentioned in an earlier post even if it required a forum database and code edit. Wouldn't it be nice if there could be just one community of humans that had zero risk of such behaviors? Let's all be wise and stay safe.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...