Banning of members

[swhite7000]

Of course I'm not looking to get banned! Geocaching is my new favourite hobby and I hope to continue participating for many years to come. I am just curious to why people spend their time logging hundreads of cache finds that they haven't even found. It just seems pointless, I mean what is the point...

[+ePeterso2]

It just seems pointless, I mean what is the point...

The point is to irritate people like you and me. They're just trolling for attention they can't seem to get otherwise.

 

My theory is that such people had parents that never took them to Broadway musicals when they were young.

[+sbell111]

Most parents, who don't live near Broadway, don't take there kids to Broadway musicals.

 

I'm actually thankful that my parents didn't take me to Broadway musicals.

[+ScoutingWV]

This thread gave me an idea for a new cache ...

 

Castle Anthrax!

Someone around here has already hidden a few along that theme.

 

Yeah - they're on my to-do list. Especially since I finished of the Quest for the Grail series (GCTT70)in my area.

 

To stay on topic, I know of a person who was recently banned in my area. Although I don't have (or necessarily want) the full background of the story, it would appear that this can happen for any activity or recurring activity that TPTB deem banishment necessary.

 

I have always found it quite interesting that someone can actually take a game like this and find something to do that would cause TPTB to ban them from the site. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen happen.

[+TMAACA]

This may be a little OT, but we had a cacher here banned a while back and some of that account's hides were archived and others were simply disabled. It looks like many of the disabled caches are still in place as people have logged recent finds on them. Would it be poor form of me to log the disabled ones as finds if they are still there? (one of these pops up as nearby to my work and it bugs me.)

[+sbell111]

This may be a little OT, but we had a cacher here banned a while back and some of that account's hides were archived and others were simply disabled. It looks like many of the disabled caches are still in place as people have logged recent finds on them. Would it be poor form of me to log the disabled ones as finds if they are still there? (one of these pops up as nearby to my work and it bugs me.)

You can put the cache on your ignore list.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Would it be poor form of me to log the disabled ones as finds if they are still there? (one of these pops up as nearby to my work and it bugs me.)

It depends on why it was disabled. If it's disabled so that nobody would seek the cache...then yes. If it's disabled from some other goofy reason that leaves the cache in place and doesn't prohibit people seeking the cache then sure.

[+TMAACA]

...Would it be poor form of me to log the disabled ones as finds if they are still there? (one of these pops up as nearby to my work and it bugs me.)

It depends on why it was disabled. If it's disabled so that nobody would seek the cache...then yes. If it's disabled from some other goofy reason that leaves the cache in place and doesn't prohibit people seeking the cache then sure.

That's the sticking point here. There is no explanation as to why they were disabled on the cache pages. One day they were active and the next they were disabled (but apparently still there and in good shape). I guess I'll wait to see what happens to them going forward, maybe the owner will try to get unbanned!

[+DavidMac]

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

 

...until they blacklist your IP address

[+mudsneaker]

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. <---I couldn't find an inflamed butt smiley. Heh, heh . . .He said butt smiley.

 

if your going to be a pain in the butt, ya gotta have your smilies

 

 

cacher_01: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Micro".

[Everyone gasps]

Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!

cacher_01: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Micro! Micro! Micro!

Official: I'm warning you! If you say "micro" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?

Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!

Official: Was it you?

Stoner: Yes.

Official: Right...

Stoner: Well you did say "Micro. "

[Crowd throws rocks at the stoner]

Official: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Micro. "

[Crowd stones the Official to death]

 

 

hope this wont lead to

[+D@nim@l]

...Would it be poor form of me to log the disabled ones as finds if they are still there? (one of these pops up as nearby to my work and it bugs me.)

It depends on why it was disabled. If it's disabled so that nobody would seek the cache...then yes. If it's disabled from some other goofy reason that leaves the cache in place and doesn't prohibit people seeking the cache then sure.

That's the sticking point here. There is no explanation as to why they were disabled on the cache pages. One day they were active and the next they were disabled (but apparently still there and in good shape). I guess I'll wait to see what happens to them going forward, maybe the owner will try to get unbanned!

 

The same for the caches in the 13901 zip code which are likely by the same banned member. The caches have been disabled (though the source is unknown) since before Thanksgiving. There is no explanation on the page from the hider or reviewers. I think it is a diservice and the adoption of such caches especially if listed on another site would be very tacky.

[+sbell111]

... I think it is a diservice and the adoption of such caches especially if listed on another site would be very tacky.

I thought I understood where you were going, but I guess not. What is a disservice, the absence of a note explaining what's going on or the suggestion that these caches be archived or adopted?

 

I think it's reasonable to give TPTB time to work this issue out and I have no need for specifics on the issue.

Edited January 5, 2007 by sbell111

[muttz]

. . . and I have no nead for specifics on the issue.

 

I hope I don't ever have any need for neads either.

 

One concept of community is the ability of the members of that community to either to continue to accept or to reject members if they step beyond the established social boundaries of the community. Sometimes it's tough to be a member of a community due to the nature of the social boundaries. This community is easy. But if someone is logging fake finds they should be archived.

[+D@nim@l]

... I think it is a diservice and the adoption of such caches especially if listed on another site would be very tacky.

I thought I understood where you were going, but I guess not. What is a disservice, the absence of a note explaining what's going on or the suggestion that these caches be archived or adopted?

 

I think it's reasonable to give TPTB time to work this issue out and I have no nead for specifics on the issue.

 

The said member has been banned since like what, July? His caches has been in limbo for 6 weeks or more and its not just a few caches, its DOZENS. So its a diservice to have caches of unknown status clogging the listings for weeks from someone who was banned over 6 months ago. The status of these caches may remain unknown since no one may go looking for them or if someone does they may waste their time and disturb things unecessarily if they are not there.

Edited January 5, 2007 by D@nim@l

[+sbell111]

Well, you could ignore them. Then they wouldn't bother you anymore. You could also send an email to your Reviewer. Perhaps they are looking for someone to adopt them, verify their presence, or trash them out.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

... I think it is a diservice and the adoption of such caches especially if listed on another site would be very tacky.

I thought I understood where you were going, but I guess not. What is a disservice, the absence of a note explaining what's going on or the suggestion that these caches be archived or adopted?

 

I think it's reasonable to give TPTB time to work this issue out and I have no nead for specifics on the issue.

 

The said member has been banned since like what, July? His caches has been in limbo for 6 weeks or more and its not just a few caches, its DOZENS. So its a diservice to have caches of unknown status clogging the listings for weeks from someone who was banned over 6 months ago. The status of these caches may remain unknown since no one may go looking for them or if someone does they may waste their time and disturb things unecessarily if they are not there.

 

The problem is that the banned member can not access his caches to archive them. Perhaps a change to allow the banned member something like 2 weeks in which he can access his account and only allow him to 'archive' the caches. After that time period the caches would automatically be archived.

 

John

[+Moose Mob]

Let's get back on track here folks. This thread is not about what to do with caches belonging to banned members (or quotes from Monty Python ),

 

This thread is about what actions will get a person banned.

 

Thanks

[+CheshireFrog]

Plan on making an attempt?

 

 

Would that make him guilty of conspiracy to commit multiple false cache logs?

[+sbell111]

Let's get back on track here folks. This thread is not about what to do with caches belonging to banned members (or quotes from Monty Python ),

 

This thread is about what actions will get a person banned.

 

Thanks

I apologize. It is certainly partly my fault. I thought that once Jeremy explained his position on bannination that the thread was automatically pythonable.

[+Moose Mob]

Let's get back on track here folks. This thread is not about what to do with caches belonging to banned members (or quotes from Monty Python ),

 

This thread is about what actions will get a person banned.

 

Thanks

I apologize. It is certainly partly my fault. I thought that once Jeremy explained his position on bannination that the thread was automatically pythonable.

 

Good point. First we need to establish if the OP's question was answered. Was he looking for a concise list of reasons? A vague list of reasons? Was it rhetorical? Was this a sock puppet? The lack of requests for clarification in his subsequent posts would suggest that there are no more clarifications desired and this thread can slip off to page 2. Pythonations are OK for the moment since they are not relevant. If folks have other questions or issues requiring serious responses (e.g. demise of caches) then those discussions should be addressed in their own threads where they can get the attention they deserve.

 

Thanks!

MM

[+CheshireFrog]

If I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

 

Oh, don't grovel! One thing I can't stand is people groveling! Every time I try to talk to someone, it's 'Sorry' this and 'Forgive me' that, and 'I'm not worthy'.

 

If there's two things I can't stand it's people who aren't tolerant of other cultures and THE BLOODY DUTCH!

 

Back on topic, I remember a couple of months back when someone compared Jeremy to members of a particular political party in Germany in the early- to mid-twentieth century, and shortly after that he was conspicuous only by his absence in the forums.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

My only bannination (so far) was 3 days off from the forums for suggesting that a moderator wasn't always fair!

[+BlueDeuce]

Back on topic, I remember a couple of months back when someone compared Jeremy to members of a particular political party in Germany in the early- to mid-twentieth century, and shortly after that he was conspicuous only by his absence in the forums.

 

And it was meant in jest, still got them a vacation.

 

Don't say it! Even if you think you are being funny!

[+D@nim@l]

Let's get back on track here folks. This thread is not about what to do with caches belonging to banned members (or quotes from Monty Python ),

 

This thread is about what actions will get a person banned.

 

Thanks

I apologize. It is certainly partly my fault. I thought that once Jeremy explained his position on bannination that the thread was automatically pythonable.

 

Pythonations are OK for the moment since they are not relevant. If folks have other questions or issues requiring serious responses (e.g. demise of caches) then those discussions should be addressed in their own threads where they can get the attention they deserve.

 

Thanks!

MM

 

Let me get this straight...Monty Python (way OT) are back to being OK for now even though though you just posted to get back on topic, but posts quasi-related to the subject of banned members and/or in response to question or clarification are not?

So getting back on topic, I being someone that has been banned 2x from the forums I can tell you that sometimes its arbitrary and hard to tell especially when there is conflicting information.

Edited January 5, 2007 by D@nim@l

[+mudsneaker]

My only bannination (so far) was 3 days off from the forums for suggesting that a moderator wasn't always fair!

 

were you informed that it was happening? I couldnt log into the forums awhile back and wondered if I was given a vacation without being told.

[Pto]

were you informed that it was happening? I couldnt log into the forums awhile back and wondered if I was given a vacation without being told.

 

When you try to log in, if youve been "vacationed" you would get a message saying "Your posting priviledges have been suspended until (date).

or something to that affect-

 

My one experience with it-a week long vacation- I was Never told what I posted that got me the posting vacation, or that I had been banned - but I was pretty sure I knew why.

I didnt notice until I tried to log in a couyple days later-

 

I agree tho- sometimes can be arbitrary....

Edited January 5, 2007 by Pto

[+Quiggle]

were you informed that it was happening? I couldnt log into the forums awhile back and wondered if I was given a vacation without being told.

You've got nothing to show on your account that this was the case, so no, you weren't given a vacation without being told. Unless there's some technical glitch (up to and including operator error), anyone given a vacation, whether temporary or permanent, is informed of such.

[Pto]

You've got nothing to show on your account that this was the case, so no, you weren't given a vacation without being told. Unless there's some technical glitch (up to and including operator error), anyone given a vacation, whether temporary or permanent, is informed of such.

 

Im 99.9% sure I made no operator errors, but I was never notified-

[+sbell111]

If I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

 

Oh, don't grovel! One thing I can't stand is people groveling! Every time I try to talk to someone, it's 'Sorry' this and 'Forgive me' that, and 'I'm not worthy'.

 

If there's two things I can't stand it's people who aren't tolerant of other cultures and THE BLOODY DUTCH!

 

Back on topic, I remember a couple of months back when someone compared Jeremy to members of a particular political party in Germany in the early- to mid-twentieth century, and shortly after that he was conspicuous only by his absence in the forums.

Did he call him a member of the KPD?

[+sbell111]

Let me get this straight...Monty Python (way OT) are back to being OK for now even though though you just posted to get back on topic, but posts quasi-related to the subject of banned members and/or in response to question or clarification are not?

So getting back on topic, I being someone that has been banned 2x from the forums I can tell you that sometimes its arbitrary and hard to tell.

Remember the 'pain in the butt' rule?

[+WolfTrekker]

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".

 

I'd love to read that thread, anyone got a link?

[Sadie]

Let me get this straight...Monty Python (way OT) are back to being OK for now even though though you just posted to get back on topic, but posts quasi-related to the subject of banned members and/or in response to question or clarification are not?

So getting back on topic, I being someone that has been banned 2x from the forums I can tell you that sometimes its arbitrary and hard to tell.

Remember the 'pain in the butt' rule?

I think the PITA concept kicks in about the time that folks forget that this is just a game. When people take it too seriously and/or too personally, then they can become irrational. If they don't figure out how to control it then they get in trouble.

[muttz]

In trying to imterpret some of the jargon used in this thread I was wondering if there is a glossary available somewhere for terms like "sock puppet." I think I know what the terms I saw mean, but then again . . .

[+TMAACA]

GeoLex

[+Klatch]

In trying to imterpret some of the jargon used in this thread I was wondering if there is a glossary available somewhere for terms like "sock puppet." I think I know what the terms I saw mean, but then again . . .

You can start here.

[+wimseyguy]

Bring out your banned!

[clang]

Bring out your banned!

[clang]

 

CUSTOMER: Here's one -- nine pence.

PITA PERSON: I'm not BANNED!

MODERATOR: What?

CUSTOMER: Nothing -- here's your nine pence.

DEAD PERSON: I'm not BANNED!

MODERATOR: Here -- he says he's not banned!

CUSTOMER: Yes, he is.

PITA PERSON: I'm not!

MODERATOR: He isn't.

CUSTOMER: Well, he will be soon, he's very annoying.

PITA PERSON: I'm behaving better!

CUSTOMER: No, you're not -- you'll be BANNED in a moment.

MODERATOR: Oh, I can't BAN him like that -- it's against regulations.

PITA PERSON: I don't want to go in the corner!

CUSTOMER: Oh, don't be such a baby.

MODERATOR: I can't ban him...

PITA PERSON: I'll be good!

CUSTOMER: Oh, do us all a favor...

MODERATOR: I can't.

CUSTOMER: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't

good for long.

 

....and that is really how you can be banned! :D

Edited January 5, 2007 by wimseyguy

[Mr.Yuck]

Let's get back on track here folks. This thread is not about what to do with caches belonging to banned members (or quotes from Monty Python ),

 

This thread is about what actions will get a person banned.

 

Thanks

 

Ah, you're really keeping the lid on this thread Moose Mob. Note: This does not mean you're not being fair. That particuliar situation with the banned user in question's caches is quite perplexing, and no one seems to have any answers (just lots o' rumors in these parts).

 

OK, here's my on-topic observation. I don't believe anyone has mentioned it. I think that the overwhelming majority of bannations are due to zany out of line antics right here in these forums. Not that there's anyone who has any banned user statistics, or anything.

[+ScoutingWV]

How do you nominate someone for banishment?

 

If (and ...if nominated, would they just have to answer three questions to avoid the punishment?)

[+Moose Mob]

Let's get back on track here folks. This thread is not about what to do with caches belonging to banned members (or quotes from Monty Python ),

 

This thread is about what actions will get a person banned.

 

Thanks

 

Ah, you're really keeping the lid on this thread Moose Mob. Note: This does not mean you're not being fair. That particuliar situation with the banned user in question's caches is quite perplexing, and no one seems to have any answers (just lots o' rumors in these parts).

 

OK, here's my on-topic observation. I don't believe anyone has mentioned it. I think that the overwhelming majority of bannations are due to zany out of line antics right here in these forums. Not that there's anyone who has any banned user statistics, or anything.

 

Did you miss this post?

 

Let's get back on track here folks. This thread is not about what to do with caches belonging to banned members (or quotes from Monty Python ),

 

This thread is about what actions will get a person banned.

 

Thanks

I apologize. It is certainly partly my fault. I thought that once Jeremy explained his position on bannination that the thread was automatically pythonable.

 

Good point. First we need to establish if the OP's question was answered. Was he looking for a concise list of reasons? A vague list of reasons? Was it rhetorical? Was this a sock puppet? The lack of requests for clarification in his subsequent posts would suggest that there are no more clarifications desired and this thread can slip off to page 2. Pythonations are OK for the moment since they are not relevant. If folks have other questions or issues requiring serious responses (e.g. demise of caches) then those discussions should be addressed in their own threads where they can get the attention they deserve.

 

Thanks!

MM

 

Where we are is in "stall mode". Perhaps the OP will come back and either acknowledge tht the question was answer, or ask additional questions to get further clarification.

[swhite7000]

I wasn't really looking for clarification, simply an insight into the banning of members and why people would want to waste their time creating multiple accounts and false found it loggings. To me it doesn't really make a difference if someone wants to mess about loggings thousands of finds but banning should be in place for this offence simply because it corrupts the system.

[+mgbmusic]

I wasn't really looking for clarification, simply an insight into the banning of members and why people would want to waste their time creating multiple accounts and false found it loggings. To me it doesn't really make a difference if someone wants to mess about loggings thousands of finds but banning should be in place for this offence simply because it corrupts the system.

 

I believe it has been answered that there is a system in place for banned given 1,000 of log entries, abuse of forums, etc. But I still want to know, what is the average air-speed velocity of a cocunut bearing swallow???

 

--MGb

[+Wadcutter]

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

 

...until they blacklist your IP address

I think what you're saying is if a person has 10 accounts and they only lop off 1 of those accounts "tis but a mere flesh wound". For them to get all 10 accounts would require using "the holy hand grenade".

[+Quest Master]

I got banned from the website for a month for writing a silly poem because it is supposed to have harassed somebody. I don't know how anybody is harrassed by a cache log unless it's their cache but that's the reason I was given. I think that there's more to it than that but TPTB just reply with a lot of vague innuendo whenever anybody has asked them about it. They got it wrong but it's not like you're going to get a fair trial if you offend one of their booster club members whether it was intended or not.

 

The banishment that I "endured" was actually really dumb. It was a "punishment" without teeth that served no useful purpose, IMO. It didn't come close to stop me from caching because my daily PQ's still came through and so did the notification emails. It was more to the detriment of other cachers than it was to me because I was unable to maintain my cache listings which is a serious problem that others have already alluded to. I was also unable to post logs to thank people for hiding stuff for me or contact other cachers with questions or concerns about my caches or theirs. I don't know if I was also banned from the forums because I didn't try to post anything. I was going to post to a thread asking about why I was banned but it was locked before I had a chance to do so. It boiled down to being a disservice to the local caching community. I never knew how many friends I had until this happened! When TPTB got tired of catching the crap, they charged that I was inciting people to harrass them and "locked" my account so that nobody could send me any more emails. The only thing that I took away from this experience is the knowledge that this website is petty and unreliable as a listing service. The content that I provide is worthless if I cannot maintain it. I have since cross-listed all of my good caches on another website where there's less politics. I will maintain them there if push comes to shove. My new hides will go there exclusively. I have come full circle from being a big supporter of this website to seeing it as a necessary evil. So they have accomplished that, at least. Maybe that's what they were shooting for.

 

The TOU say "[You agree not to] (a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity." which translates to "We can ban your butt anytime we feel like it and there's nothing you can do about it, so there!". So there's your answer...

 

[edit to add link]

Edited January 7, 2007 by Quest Master

[+sbell111]

... The banishment that I "endured" was actually really dumb. It was a "punishment" without teeth that served no useful purpose, IMO. It didn't come close to stop me from caching because my daily PQ's still came through and so did the notification emails. ...

So what you are saying is that future baninations should include the stoppage of PQ and notification emails. You should start a feature request thread for this in the GC.com forum. A lot of time TPTB miss feature requests that are included in 'geocaching topics' threads.

The TOU say "[You agree not to] (a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity." which translates to "We can ban your butt anytime we feel like it and there's nothing you can do about it, so there!". So there's your answer...

Isn't that the previously cited PITA rule?

[+Lj&Co]

Lets put it this way, you have to try real hard to get banned.

 

Not TRUE ~ My Nephew, H2Joe, has had his account locked. No reason was ever given. When he put a request asking why, received notification that it is in the queue, it has been over three months and still no response. Ever month or so he send a request in, using the original inquire number in the subject and is again notified it is in the queue. Can’t even get TPTB to say why his account is locked. He is not an avid cacner, 2 or 3 findes total. So please explain why his account was locked.

[+Mopar]

I got banned from the website for a month for writing a silly poem because it is supposed to have harassed somebody.

<snip>

The TOU say "[You agree not to] (a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity." which translates to "We can ban your butt anytime we feel like it and there's nothing you can do about it, so there!". So there's your answer...

 

[edit to add link]

 

So.... if TPTB thought that writing the poem was cause for being banned for a month; wouldn't it stand to reason that they would feel the same way about posting a link to the same poem in the forums a few months later?

 

Ya know, if ya tell a 5yr old not to touch a hot stove because he's going to get burned; he might not listen. There is a good chance he's still going to touch the stove and get burned. However, after he gets burned once, he learns from the experience and knows not to touch the hot stove again or he's going to get burned again, maybe even worse then the first time.

 

Some adults can learn a lot from kids.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Mopar

[Clan Riffster]

Not TRUE

LJ, you might be better off posting this question in the Geocaching.com forum. The Illustrious Potentates might not notice it in here. The problem might be some kind of glitch which could be fixed with the click of a rodent.

[+Quest Master]

I got banned from the website for a month for writing a silly poem because it is supposed to have harassed somebody.

<snip>

The TOU say "[You agree not to] (a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity." which translates to "We can ban your butt anytime we feel like it and there's nothing you can do about it, so there!". So there's your answer...

 

[edit to add link]

 

So.... if TPTB thought that writing the poem was cause for being banned for a month; wouldn't it stand to reason that they would feel the same way about posting a link to the same poem in the forums a few months later?

 

Ya know, if ya tell a 5yr old not to touch a hot stove because he's going to get burned; he might not listen. There is a good chance he's still going to touch the stove and get burned. However, after he gets burned once, he learns from the experience and knows not to touch the hot stove again or he's going to get burned again, maybe even worse then the first time.

 

Some adults can learn a lot from kids.

 

I had not thought of that. I think they would have deleted it if they didn't want anybody to link to it. Thanks a whole bunch for encouraging them to repeat the previous folly, though. We need that around here like we need a hole in the head.

 

If one touches a hot stove and it just tickles, one is unlikely to consider the possiblility of getting burned. If the stove blows up in fiery rage for no good reason, one is likely to entertain the possibility that the stove might be defective and consider getting a new one. One might even be concerned about the buns that they left unattended in the oven when they had to run from the flames and hope like heck that they won't be served up to unsuspecting neighbors by the firemen.

 

All adults can learn a lot from kids. We all live with the consequences of banishments and act accordingly to how they affect us individually. The reaction of an individual to a site ban is never going to be pretty. I question the effectiveness of site bans and who they actually punish. I suppose that depends on the who and the what but I don't see that the website eliminating its PIAs is necessarily going to be good for the rest of us. The booster club won't get that until it affects them directly which is something that will probably never happen.

[+sbell111]

... The reaction of an individual to a site ban is never going to be pretty. I question the effectiveness of site bans and who they actually punish. I suppose that depends on the who and the what but I don't see that the website eliminating its PIAs is necessarily going to be good for the rest of us. The booster club won't get that until it affects them directly which is something that will probably never happen.

Other than the obvious fact that you have an almost unbelievable self esteem that some may even suggest borders on narcissism, what does all this have to do with coffee beans?

[Clan Riffster]

I question the effectiveness of site bans and who they actually punish.

No question about it from me. If I got banned, I would be the one punished. Somehow I think Groundspeak, and the gazillion or so cachers out in the world would survive just fine if I went away. I, on the other hand, would not fare so well. I recognize my geocaching addiction, and feed it regularly. If I had to go "cold turkey", I would undoubtedly be found wandering aimlessly, muttering "Found It", over and over.

Edit to add: I enjoyed the poem! (apparently somebody else didn't) That's life in the Arts!

Edited January 8, 2007 by Clan Riffster