Banning someone.

[+GEO WALKER]

I’m not too sure if this will answer your question?

It’s my understanding the reason Virtual Caches ended was that folks were approaching these w/a “just about anything goes attitude”. So, w/out controls you could have an over abundance of caches which simply ID the little tags left on telephone poles, just for the sake of “Numbers” either finds or creations. This helped support the argument, that “since a container was not involved it should not be considered a cache”. Apparently, the EC’s fell into this category and were later resurrected based on their educational importance thereby creating a separation from Groundspeak. Thus allowing for the entry of GSA I would assume to insert quality and responsibility into the EC Program. Many of us have run into news items involving law and emergency response issues over poorly placed geocaches. Anyone recall this happening to an EC?

[+fox-and-the-hound]

That seems like valid and reasonable process for placing a new cache to me. I'm more curious about how the responsibility of EC to approve a cache jumps beyond that to the scenario of banning someone or their caches which is a strictly Groundspeak territory. I've never heard of a Groundspeak cache reviewer having a problem with your traditional/multi/puzzle/etc.-cache and thereafter archiving every other similar cache you've created. Even that would make more sense because at least it would be a Groundspeak authority figure doing so though. Sounds like there's a whole lot more to this story than what's been said previously.

[+Renegade Knight]

That seems like valid and reasonable process for placing a new cache to me. I'm more curious about how the responsibility of EC to approve a cache jumps beyond that to the scenario of banning someone or their caches which is a strictly Groundspeak territory. I've never heard of a Groundspeak cache reviewer having a problem with your traditional/multi/puzzle/etc.-cache and thereafter archiving every other similar cache you've created. Even that would make more sense because at least it would be a Groundspeak authority figure doing so though. Sounds like there's a whole lot more to this story than what's been said previously.

 

I'm making all this up.

 

Picture a bunch of cache nuts with a new site that seems to be taking off. Along comes the EC guys who say "hey we have this idea we want to call it an Earth Cache where..." The PTB listen, like it better than the direction virtuals are going and ask "what about quality control?" The EC guys say "we will review the caches and make sure they meet a minimum stanard". So now TPTB have volunteers to handle the new cache and who know their Earth Science stuff better than they do not to mention the Volunteers". They do the hard work, this site lists some quality virtual type caches and it's win win.

 

Time passes, and a few issues crop up. If the EC guys have a brain (and I have no reason to think they are not sharp a tacks) they would propose a soltuion to the problem at the same time. TPTB and the EC guys come to an agreement and how to handle problem cachers for EC related items is given to the EC guys. The EC guys probably keep TPTB in the loop and as long as the communications are flowing it's a good workign relationship.

 

That's or something similar is how I see this evolving to what you see now. The EC guys have the same power that the Voluneer reviewers and mods have on top of having more control over the EC caches. If through being a doofie a Mod or Reviewer wants to ban you, TPTB generally back up their own. I've seen them back up their own even when they didn't agree entirly with the decision. It helps keeps the volunteers happy. No volunteer and this site would grind to a halt like Hollywood with a writers strike.