+Quest Master Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 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! My point is that a site ban doesn't really stop anyone from caching. They can lock your account and maybe block your IP address but there's still plenty of ways that you can get coordinates and go caching. They can make it difficult or impossible for somebody to hide anything or log caches online but who does that hurt? We're less one member of the online community (which can be good or bad) but that doesn't mean that this somebody is out of the game. You can't count on everyone wandering aimlessly and muttering to themselves. I recall a few instances where disgruntled cachers became a menace after getting banned. I already have enough problems with "lurkers" tampering with my caches, not rehiding them properly, and kidnapping the trackables, etc. We don't need more of that! Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 My point is that a site ban doesn't really stop anyone from caching. They can lock your account and maybe block your IP address but there's still plenty of ways that you can get coordinates and go caching. They can make it difficult or impossible for somebody to hide anything or log caches online but who does that hurt? We're less one member of the online community (which can be good or bad) but that doesn't mean that this somebody is out of the game. You can't count on everyone wandering aimlessly and muttering to themselves. I recall a few instances where disgruntled cachers became a menace after getting banned. I already have enough problems with "lurkers" tampering with my caches, not rehiding them properly, and kidnapping the trackables, etc. We don't need more of that! How would you fix it? How would you make a ban that has more teeth to it? Quote Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I certainly wouldn't hesitate to ban someone for fear that they would get mad and muggle caches! In fact if I thought a cacher was that unstable it might be a good basis to go ahead and ban them! If someone tells the judge "If you prosecute me I will bomb your house" we'd put them in jail right away and the original prosecution would be the least of their worries! Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I recall a few instances where disgruntled cachers became a menace after getting banned. I already have enough problems with "lurkers" tampering with my caches, not rehiding them properly, and kidnapping the trackables, etc. We don't need more of that! Are you seriously suggesting that no action should be taken against an undesirable member of a society because the society might suffer the wrath of the punished person? Our jails would sure be empty with folks who harbor that belief on the jury. Can you offer an alternative resolution that accomplishes both goals, I.e; stopping undesirable behavior whilst giving warm fuzzies to the miscreant? Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Banning is pretty darn effective. If it wasn't, we wouldn't do it. So don't do something that will get you banned. And no, being a PIA in general won't get you banned. Violating the TOS or the forum guidelines might. There are plenty of PIA that post freely in these forums without being banninated so that isn't really a valid complaint. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I recall a few instances where disgruntled cachers became a menace after getting banned. I already have enough problems with "lurkers" tampering with my caches, not rehiding them properly, and kidnapping the trackables, etc. We don't need more of that! Are you seriously suggesting that no action should be taken against an undesirable member of a society because the society might suffer the wrath of the punished person? Our jails would sure be empty with folks who harbor that belief on the jury. Can you offer an alternative resolution that accomplishes both goals, I.e; stopping undesirable behavior whilst giving warm fuzzies to the miscreant? You mean he isn't advocating for tougher penalties? Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 ... There are plenty of PIA that post freely in these forums without being banninated so that isn't really a valid complaint. Dude, I'm right here. Your going to hurt my feelings. Quote Link to comment
+Quiggle Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 ... There are plenty of PIA that post freely in these forums without being banninated so that isn't really a valid complaint. Dude, I'm right here. Your going to hurt my feelings. If you keep changing your avatar, how are we supposed to keep up with you? Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 ... There are plenty of PIA that post freely in these forums without being banninated so that isn't really a valid complaint. Dude, I'm right here. Your going to hurt my feelings. If you keep changing your avatar, how are we supposed to keep up with you? One step ahead of the law! Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) ... There are plenty of PIA that post freely in these forums without being banninated so that isn't really a valid complaint. Dude, I'm right here. Your going to hurt my feelings. If you keep changing your avatar, how are we supposed to keep up with you? The funny thing is, when I pop back into an interesting thread, I often just scroll up to my last post and start reading from there. Letely, I've missed myself a few times because I forgot to look for the hungry puppy instead of my old avatar. (Edited to add that the dog in my avatar is not eating the cat, to the disbelief of some angry emailers.) Edited January 8, 2007 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+Quest Master Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 My point is that a site ban doesn't really stop anyone from caching. They can lock your account and maybe block your IP address but there's still plenty of ways that you can get coordinates and go caching. They can make it difficult or impossible for somebody to hide anything or log caches online but who does that hurt? We're less one member of the online community (which can be good or bad) but that doesn't mean that this somebody is out of the game. You can't count on everyone wandering aimlessly and muttering to themselves. I recall a few instances where disgruntled cachers became a menace after getting banned. I already have enough problems with "lurkers" tampering with my caches, not rehiding them properly, and kidnapping the trackables, etc. We don't need more of that! How would you fix it? How would you make a ban that has more teeth to it? I wouldn't. Banishment is ultimately futile if the goal is to keep somebody from caching. If the goal is to keep crap off of the website, it already accomplishes that very effectively in its present form. I don't see the point of being more punitive. That's petty. Quote Link to comment
+Quest Master Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I certainly wouldn't hesitate to ban someone for fear that they would get mad and muggle caches! In fact if I thought a cacher was that unstable it might be a good basis to go ahead and ban them! If someone tells the judge "If you prosecute me I will bomb your house" we'd put them in jail right away and the original prosecution would be the least of their worries! I agree with you on the first point but not on the second. Banning an unstable person isn't going to stop them from destroying caches. It will only encourage them. The difference here is that banishment isn't the same as putting somebody in jail. No, I'm not saying that "no action should be taken against an undesirable member of a society because the society might suffer the wrath of the punished person". I'm saying that "banninations" should be a last resort and not be used as punishment. Except, of course, in the case of people who hide too many micros in the woods and people who change their avatars too often. Quote Link to comment
+Team BCBG Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think people who "LOOT" caches, and don't log taking anything should be hanged, oh yeah, and banned too. I just placed my first Cache, It's near my work, so I checked it after the weekend, and all the good stuff had been taken and NOT logged. Quote Link to comment
Earleheart° Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Banning is pretty darn effective. If it wasn't, we wouldn't do it. So don't do something that will get you banned. And no, being a PIA in general won't get you banned. Violating the TOS or the forum guidelines might. There are plenty of PIA that post freely in these forums without being banninated so that isn't really a valid complaint. Escuse me Jeremy, but I hAve a very close friend who (respectfully) says you're just wrong. Sept1c_tank was baned about a year ago for just being a PIyourA. Officialy the site baned him for using a so ck puppet but he didn't. I know this for a fact. He didn't really do anything but he admits he was a paine in your A. You guys were just upset because he calld you about your sofamoric dealing a out putting Dave Ulmer out of your history. Now that you and hime have kissed and made up, you should let sept1c and his daughter back in the forums. She didn't do anything wron either. You are the ones who did wrong and you can't denie it. I like this site a lot so please don't ban me to for beign a pain in your A. Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) There is always more to a story than meets the eye. When people come in here and say that they were banned for no reason, I know that there is most likely more going on than what they are saying. Over and over that's shown to be true. Edited January 9, 2007 by Ambrosia Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 ... There are plenty of PIA that post freely in these forums without being banninated so that isn't really a valid complaint. Dude, I'm right here. Your going to hurt my feelings. If you keep changing your avatar, how are we supposed to keep up with you? One step ahead of the law! It's aaalll making sense now.... Quote Link to comment
Mushtang Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 (Edited to add that the dog in my avatar is not eating the cat, to the disbelief of some angry emailers.) So THAT'S what that is. I see it now. But up until I read that I would see it and think to myself, "What the heck is that thing? They should ban him for having an avatar that strange looking". Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.