The Hornet (Lactodorum as was)

[+studlyone]

 

It's the disparity with the forums and they way that certain individuals are treated that upsets me on here. Groundspeak are quick to react to a complaint even if it is only made by one person but they never seem to back down once they make a knee jerk reaction - like this one. As for the apeals process as I see it Groundspeak will always back up their lackies right or wrong.

 

 

There's only a disparity if you go looking for it, if you think that you can get away with more in another forum post there instead of crying that it's unfair

 

Personally I use the "view new posts" option to view the first page or two of recent posts across all the forums, read what I'm interested in and reply to some of those. If I wish to make a new post I check which forum it fits in and endeavour to post within the guidelines and ethos/practices of that forum.

 

We have a fairly diverse range of forums here. We can get on and use them, celebrate and enjoy them or seek out and rail againest perceived inequalities. I know which I'd rather do

 

Peter's ban was harsh, but the wording of his post suggests that he new it was outside the guidelines. Maybe that is why he got a ban?

 

Nice quote - you don't have to look for it as its mentioned in a lot of these posts and yes I am crying that its unfair because it was. If the rules that you like to refer to were followed a fellow cacher would not have had his posting abilities removed for three days.

 

It is all about getting along together and as far as I am concerned the mod in question overstepped the mark by acting outside of the rules. A ban should never have been issued, instead the offending post should have been edited or removed and the actions laid down in the rules should have been followed ie educate as to what the misdemeanor was not punish. We do seem to agree on one thing - the ban was harsh.

 

Edited: I need a speel chucker

Edited August 9, 2008 by studlyone

[+uktim]

 

FWIW I've just popped into the Geocoin forum for to see what it's like in there, and there's a big thread here which is about wooden nickel coins and many home made wooden coins (which are not trackable), which would seem to be clearly in breach of the primary guideline set out in the sticky at the top of the forum, namely:

 

This forum may be used for selling, trading or giving away of geocoins which are trackable on Geocaching.com.

(my emphasis)

 

Whereas the post for which TH was banned WAS about trading geocions. While you have previously said that you understood the guideline to mean trading geocoins for other geocoins that is NOT what the guideline says.

 

The guidelines also state that "Non-trackable coins may be posted for trade by individual coin owners". I would assume that wooden nickels could fall within this category. Sadly I can see nothing to indicate that calendars can be advertised for trade.

[+uktim]

 

Nice quote - you don't have to look for it as its mentioned in a lot of these posts and yes I am crying that its unfair because it was. If the rules that you like to refer to were followed a fellow cacher would not have had his posting abilities removed for three days.

 

It is all about getting along together and as far as I am concerned the mod in question overstepped the mark by acting outside of the rules. A ban should never have been issued, instead the offending post should have been edited or removed and the actions laid down in the rules should have been followed ie educate as to what the midesmeanor was not punish. We do seem to agree on one thing - the ban was harsh.

 

I'd have to look to see any disparity, sometimes I can't even see it when someone else points it out

[+studlyone]

I'd have to look to see any disparity, sometimes I can't even see it when someone else points it out

If that's the case you are obviously blessed with the ability to see what suits your argument. Anyway this topic seems to be veering of course again. The OP was concerned that a cacher got a ban for a forum infringement. I've not heard your take on the moderators rules uktim, I look forward to your enlightening opinion as to the reason why they were ignored and two bans issued for a first offence. It may be that as you can't see what most of the people in here obviosuly can that you have a unique insight into something we are all missing.

 

Edited: again for spelling - Ian hangs his head in shame.

Edited August 9, 2008 by studlyone

[+Us 4 and Jess]

My caching friends have gone caching how shocking

 

M

Edited August 9, 2008 by Us 4 and Jess

[+uktim]

I'd have to look to see any disparity, sometimes I can't even see it when someone else points it out

If that's the case you are obviously blessed with the ability to see what suits your argument. Anyway this topic seems to be veering of course again. The OP was concerned that a cacher got a ban for a forum infringement. I've not heard your take on the moderators rules uktim, I look forward to your enlightening opinion as to the reason why they were ignored and two bans issued for a first offence. It may be that as you can't see what most of the people in here obviosuly can that you have a unique insight into something we are all missing.

 

Edited: again for spelling - Ian hangs his head in shame.

 

Or maybe others are seeing stuff that supports a fallacious argument

 

I think you'll find that I have stated and agreed that the ban seemed harsh more than once on this thread, I don't have any insight beyond a suspicion that it could be rooted in past disagreements between moderators which few of us have very much knowledge of.

 

Surely the discussion of this should include the rules defining the infringement as well as the punishment imposed?

 

It's certainly true that others have posted about these rules as well as the ban itself?

 

My posts have been directed (but maybe misunderstood, maybe due to poor wording?) at the perception that the rules which defined the infringement itself are somehow unfair or unjust. The geocoin forum certainly has different guidelines, I suspect that these were created by GSP to allow publicity of coins bearing tracking numbers which I suspect generate a fair percentage of their income. Can we condemn for gaining a bit of publicity from forums that they host for us? It's a pretty minor perk

 

In my opinion there is a big difference between this and the claims that it sets a precedent that should allow local forum moderators to unilaterally instigate rules in national forums. IMO it's about different forums serving different purposes rather than different nationalities between treated unfairly.

 

The geocoin forum provides the same coin trading and selling opportunities to everyone regardless of where they live. The national/regional forums clearly serve a different purpose. It appears that some disagree with the guidelines that govern these forums, personally I'm happy with them. If it looked like the Americans were having more fun in their forums I'd choose to join in rather than complaining about the party

[+MartyBartfast]

The guidelines also state that "Non-trackable coins may be posted for trade by individual coin owners". I would assume that wooden nickels could fall within this category. Sadly I can see nothing to indicate that calendars can be advertised for trade.

 

So once again you're seeing what you want to see, and not what has been written. Regardless of your assumption there's nothing written that says wooden nickels (or the many similar homemade stuff on that thread) can be advertised, whereas trading coins is allowed and the TH post was about trading coins (albeit for non-trackable calendars).

[+studlyone]

The rules about buying, trading and selling geocoins in the geocoin forum are not at question here. Yes Groundspeak make $1.50 on every trackable geocoin made and its right that they should promot

 

oe their sales and posts about making them in a forum all by its self - its good business sense. However the fact that the post about the calendar was perceived to be against the rules, rules that as you have already said require certain assumptions is not really the issue, it is how the mod responded to what they perceived was a breach of the rules that I have a problem with

 

It seems obvious that the forum rules need re-writting if there is some abiguity regarding their use. If we as users don't have clear rules then lots of other people will fall into the 3 day ban trap. Mention should also be made as to how severe a slight infringement of the rules can be.

 

However moderators must also be made to stick to their own rules as well, otherwise how can they criticise others for breaking rules and act as moderators without putting themselves in an untenable position.

 

It seems that we are never going to agree and your counter argument to every argument has meant that at present we are the only ones posting on this thread and I for one have no wish to dominate this or any other thread. All I ask is that you look at and consider both sides of the argument.

 

If we are to abide by rules, make them clear and have the mods act likewise - seems like a reasonable request for the powers that be. There is obviously a need for a mechanism for banning people but it should be a ramped response starting with cautions and eventually for repeat offenders a ban.

Edited August 9, 2008 by studlyone

[SlytherinAlex]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this situation with regard to the Moderator who perpetrated this mess and cockney rhyming slang?????

[+studlyone]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this situation with regard to the Moderator who perpetrated this mess and cockney rhyming slang?????

LOL I'm feeling particularly confused today, not sure what you mean by that one, but its got me thinking.......

[AgentProvocateur]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this situation with regard to the Moderator who perpetrated this mess and cockney rhyming slang?????

rofl! be careful tho. if you can get banned for anagrams you might get banned for hinting at Ms Kitt's well known cock(oops)ney rhyming slang

[+studlyone]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this situation with regard to the Moderator who perpetrated this mess and cockney rhyming slang?????

rofl! be careful tho. if you can get banned for anagrams you might get banned for hinting at Ms Kitt's well known cock(oops)ney rhyming slang

OMG just got it LOL (you can call me flash - to bang)

[+Stuey]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this situation with regard to the Moderator who perpetrated this mess and cockney rhyming slang?????

 

lol Alex, I see what you are saying. It reminds me of a cache in Cornwall called Kit Hill

[+Us 4 and Jess]

I had to Google .............not being a cockney ...

[+uktim]

 

So once again you're seeing what you want to see, and not what has been written. Regardless of your assumption there's nothing written that says wooden nickels (or the many similar homemade stuff on that thread) can be advertised, whereas trading coins is allowed and the TH post was about trading coins (albeit for non-trackable calendars).

.

 

Pot calling kettle

 

You must be looking pretty hard to see any suggestion that the guidelines could be bent to allow The Hornets post balatantly advertising calendars?

 

Surely a wooden nickel is a "non-trackable coin" ?

 

It's pretty obvious that the calendars are not trackable and not coins!

 

If the moderators allowed folks to post any old tat that they hoped to trade for coins things would get very cluttered.

 

IMO the judgement was fair and entirely consistant with both the forum guidelines and accepted convention on the forum. The sentence appears harsh, but we can't really discuss it based on pure speculation as to why it was imposed so summarily. All we can do is agree that it seems harsh and hope that The Hornet is out having fun finding boxes.

[+Lost in Space]

I also find it slightly ironic that this thread is likely to be continuing long after Peter's "ban" is served........

[+Us 4 and Jess]

 

If the moderators allowed folks to post any old tat that they hoped to trade for coins things would get very cluttered.

 

 

Well excuse me for trying my best

 

Shall I cross you off my list for a calendar next year then

 

M

[+Us 4 and Jess]

I also find it slightly ironic that this thread is likely to be continuing long after Peter's "ban" is served........

 

Peter has already said there is a lot he would like to reply to, so please lets try to keep this thread civil and keep it open until he gets his posting "priviledges" back on Sunday evening, so he can have his say too.

 

M

[+uktim]

 

If the moderators allowed folks to post any old tat that they hoped to trade for coins things would get very cluttered.

 

 

Well excuse me for trying my best

 

Shall I cross you off my list for a calendar next year then

 

M

 

That wasn't aimed at you personally as I hope you know. I just wouldn't want the proliferation of any old junk that the precedent could lead to.

 

I have no issue with your efforts to raise money for the mega or the charitable causes you support. It's really good to see someone who cares enough to make such an effort.

 

I'm always happy to donate to charity BUT sadly I don't use wall calendars so it's more efficient for me to donate money direct to my chosen and not waste the resources involved in calendar production.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Pot calling kettle

 

 

That's my point, it's just as easy to interpret the guidelines the way I have as it is the way you have.

 

I do agree with you that the judgement was actually fair, but it's the punishment that was out of proportion.

[+Mad H@ter]

IMO the judgement was fair and entirely consistant with both the forum guidelines and accepted convention on the forum. The sentence appears harsh, but we can't really discuss it based on pure speculation as to why it was imposed so summarily. All we can do is agree that it seems harsh and hope that The Hornet is out having fun finding boxes.

Do you read what you post before clicking the button ?

 

TBH if your profile did not say different, I would have taken this (and most of your other posts on this thread) as coming from a sock puppet account belonging to a troll.

[+Lost in Space]

...Peter has already said there is a lot he would like to reply to..........

 

Let's just hope it's on a new thread, (with no anagrams),................

[+Us 4 and Jess]

...Peter has already said there is a lot he would like to reply to..........

 

Let's just hope it's on a new thread, (with no anagrams),................

 

If you dont behave your dad will spank you

[+Lost in Space]

Mea Culpa

Edited August 9, 2008 by Lost in Space

[+uktim]

IMO the judgement was fair and entirely consistant with both the forum guidelines and accepted convention on the forum. The sentence appears harsh, but we can't really discuss it based on pure speculation as to why it was imposed so summarily. All we can do is agree that it seems harsh and hope that The Hornet is out having fun finding boxes.

Do you read what you post before clicking the button ?

 

Did you read or consider what I posted before you jumped in with both feet? You might like to check up on the definitions of judgement and sentence

 

TBH if your profile did not say different, I would have taken this (and most of your other posts on this thread) as coming from a sock puppet account belonging to a troll.

 

Do you always make such sweeping judgements about people who express opinions that differ from your own?

 

It's exactly this attitude that I find alien in folks on this and other web forums. Create a "community" and if anyone doesn't conform to the "party line" and unthinkingly say "me too" dismiss them as a foreigner/troll/muggle/GS lackey (delete as appropiate)

 

Is it compulsory to jump onto random passing bandwaggons?

[+careygang]

I also find it slightly ironic that this thread is likely to be continuing long after Peter's "ban" is served........

 

Peter has already said there is a lot he would like to reply to, so please lets try to keep this thread civil and keep it open until he gets his posting "priviledges" back on Sunday evening, so he can have his say too.

 

M

 

You never know, perhaps Hornet has taken the opportunity to go out caching instead of sitting by his computer...

 

Perhaps its all a GSP Initiative to get people out, a bit like those campaigns to get kids away from their TVs and computers and outside playing (in this case with plastic boxes!!)

 

[+Lost in Space]

If you dont behave your dad will spank you

 

Frankie Howerd "Oooooooh!"

 

(Probably lost on our "cousins")

Edited August 9, 2008 by Lost in Space

[+John Stead]

I am now a fairly rare visitor to this forum, having previously at least read the latest offerings more than once a day - and having skimmed this topic am glad I am only occasionally here. I may not go so far as Moss Trooper and jack it in but am nearly there!

[+Mad H@ter]

Did you read or consider what I posted before you jumped in with both feet? You might like to check up on the definitions of judgement and sentence

Nope, but then that seems to be the way some people do things around here .

Do you always make such sweeping judgements about people who express opinions that differ from your own?

Nope, but then that seems to be the way some people do things around here .

Is it compulsory to jump onto random passing bandwaggons?

You would need to check on the T&Cs to answer that one, I'll leave that to you if you have no objections.

 

As to your inference, I really do not understand

[+Lost in Space]

....... and having skimmed this topic am glad I am only occasionally here. I may not go so far as Moss Trooper and jack it in but am nearly there!.....

 

But at least it is better, (more interesting), than the "What GPS?", "What PDA?", "Congratulations", "What do others?", threads.

 

[+uktim]

 

As to your inference, I really do not understand

 

It very often appears that people have some sort of conspiracy theory that GSP have an anti-UK or pro-US bias!

 

Haven't you noticed

 

It seemed pretty obvious when this thread turned to irrelevant discussions on how many US "lackeys" held passports right at start

Edited August 9, 2008 by uktim

[+John Stead]

....... and having skimmed this topic am glad I am only occasionally here. I may not go so far as Moss Trooper and jack it in but am nearly there!.....

 

But at least it is better, (more interesting), than the "What GPS?", "What PDA?", "Congratulations", "What do others?", threads.

 

 

But is it? Well yes maybe for "Congratulations" but lots of people come to forums for information and advice.

I appreciate the reason for the original post and am equally appalled at the attitude which started if but the way it has developed into a 4 page topic is what put me off.

[+uktim]

....... and having skimmed this topic am glad I am only occasionally here. I may not go so far as Moss Trooper and jack it in but am nearly there!.....

 

But at least it is better, (more interesting), than the "What GPS?", "What PDA?", "Congratulations", "What do others?", threads.

 

 

But is it? Well yes maybe for "Congratulations" but lots of people come to forums for information and advice.

I appreciate the reason for the original post and am equally appalled at the attitude which started if but the way it has developed into a 4 page topic is what put me off.

 

It could be worse.

 

It could be 4 pages of "me too" and "wot 'e sed"

[+Lost in Space]

Getting back to the original topic:-

 

Any predictions on tomorrow's Man U vs Portsmouth match?

[+John Stead]

....... and having skimmed this topic am glad I am only occasionally here. I may not go so far as Moss Trooper and jack it in but am nearly there!.....

 

But at least it is better, (more interesting), than the "What GPS?", "What PDA?", "Congratulations", "What do others?", threads.

 

 

But is it? Well yes maybe for "Congratulations" but lots of people come to forums for information and advice.

I appreciate the reason for the original post and am equally appalled at the attitude which started if but the way it has developed into a 4 page topic is what put me off.

 

It could be worse.

 

It could be 4 pages of "me too" and "wot 'e sed"

 

Too true!

[+studlyone]

It could be worse.

 

It could be 4 pages of "me too" and "wot 'e sed"

Too true!

OK I may be reading between the lines and have grabbed the wrong end of the stick (I hope this is the case) but I take it you mean that a thread that reaches four pages debating something that a lot of people think is injust is too long?

 

I take it what you mean is as long as its happended to someone else we should just turn the other cheek and walk on by then?

Edited August 9, 2008 by studlyone

[+arock&ahardplace]

Others have already said what I would like to say. At the risk of being accused of jumping "on random passing bandwagons" (which I am not, I am only speaking my own opinion on this subject), I will add my vote to amount of people who agree that this ban was far too harsh a punishment and most certainly did not fit the crime. The moderator should apologise, as this was completely out of line with the guidelines, including the unfair guidelines of her forum.

 

More likely, however, this will be ignored by the powers that be. This sort of thing has become rather frequent, and this is why I hardly visit this forum. I prefer local forums, where I can find some sanity (or some fun insanity, at least).

 

I am seriously considering cancelling my renewal for my Premium membership.

 

In the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I got to say about that."

[+Team Sieni]

But at least it is better, (more interesting), than the "What GPS?", "What PDA?", "Congratulations", "What do others?", threads.

You have a point there. What do you keep in your caching bag by the way?

[+Lost in Space]

You have a point there. What do you keep in your caching bag by the way?

 

A hip flask and a photo of The Hornet - to ward off muggles

 

[+uktim]

 

I take it what you mean is as long as its happended to someone else we should just turn the other cheek and walk on by then?

 

Where did that come from?

 

I think just about everyone has supported the idea that the ban was too harsh. A few of us also feel that the guidelines and the judgement that the post was outside the guidelines are fair.

 

Is that really turning the other cheek? A stubborn refusal to accept the posting guidelines because "we're British dammit" won't really help

 

I'm quite prepared to stand up and support the view that the ban was wrong, but I hope that doesn't mean that I have to suppress my opinion that the posting itself was also wrong.

[+Mad H@ter]

 

As to your inference, I really do not understand

 

It very often appears that people have some sort of conspiracy theory that GSP have an anti-UK or pro-US bias!

 

Haven't you noticed

 

It seemed pretty obvious when this thread turned to irrelevant discussions on how many US "lackeys" held passports right at start

Yes, I know exactly what you mean and also find that very annoying and unnecessary .

Unfortunately you seem intent on keeping this thread off topic despite the fact that there has been little/no jingoism for quite some time, almost as if you are trying to pour fuel on the fire. Do you have some hidden agenda?

[+studlyone]

 

I take it what you mean is as long as its happended to someone else we should just turn the other cheek and walk on by then?

 

Where did that come from?

 

I think just about everyone has supported the idea that the ban was too harsh. A few of us also feel that the guidelines and the judgement that the post was outside the guidelines are fair.

I'm glad I read too much into that and grabbed the wrong end of the stick. It seemed that you were complaining that this topic had managed to generate four pages. My apologies if I have offended anyone and I'm glad you are willing to stand up and be counted.

[+Dizzley]

This is the first time I've posted here since May 16th. No wonder.

 

[rant]

If the whole world and all our lives were run in such an anally retentive fashion as the main forums on Groundspeak.com then I would have jacked in this life thing long ago.

 

"Shoot first, ask questions later" is no way to run a "community". It does suit the INTJ types (Myers-Briggs personality types see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator) but they sometimes don't realise that there are at least as many people who disagree with them.

[/rant]

 

I'm guessing that INTJ is yet another simplistic tag that the lazy can use to pigeonhole their fellow man

 

Agreed, INTJ is simplistic but a useful tool. It suggests people with a preference for decision making based on lists and processes. {OT} However, understanding your own and other peoples preferences can be really useful. For example: it shows how some people are more prone to dictatorial decision making, and how others prefer an inclusive permissive approach.

 

Neither you nor I have a monopoly on how you would run a voluntary activity for the benefit of "the general community" - but it strikes me that people who are good with people would do it better. Some of the heated and frankly rude exchanges in forums have shown how poor some folk are at dealing with people.

 

Signing off for another few weeks...

 

Note to self - do not feed the trolls.

[+Stuey]

Getting back to the original topic:-

 

Any predictions on tomorrow's Man U vs Portsmouth match?

 

Man who? Never 'eard of 'em

[+Donmoore]

Unfortunately I had to go to work today. So I would appreciate if some one could summarise the thread since I last posted?

[+Stuey]

to summarise, we're still in the same place as yesterday. It's a clean discussion.... no uppercuts or body blows yet.

 

I'm keeping well out of it. The flames will start to die down soon and all will be forgotten and we can go caching again.

[+uktim]

 

I take it what you mean is as long as its happended to someone else we should just turn the other cheek and walk on by then?

 

Where did that come from?

 

I think just about everyone has supported the idea that the ban was too harsh. A few of us also feel that the guidelines and the judgement that the post was outside the guidelines are fair.

I'm glad I read too much into that and grabbed the wrong end of the stick. It seemed that you were complaining that this topic had managed to generate four pages. My apologies if I have offended anyone and I'm glad you are willing to stand up and be counted.

 

The complaint was someone elses. I merely attempted to inject a bit of (pssoibly misguided) humour by suggesting that it could be worse

[+Team Sieni]

Note to self - do not feed the trolls.

Trolls are one thing we don't have on this forum (so we have to make do with the mods it would get boring otherwise.)

 

Edited to add: At least I can't remember seeing any proper trolls - you know: "Geocaching iz rubbish UR all nerdz" ... We had that sock woman who claimed to drive a Ferrari or something a while ago, but that was just plain wierd.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Team Sieni

[+uktim]

 

As to your inference, I really do not understand

 

It very often appears that people have some sort of conspiracy theory that GSP have an anti-UK or pro-US bias!

 

Haven't you noticed

 

It seemed pretty obvious when this thread turned to irrelevant discussions on how many US "lackeys" held passports right at start

Yes, I know exactly what you mean and also find that very annoying and unnecessary .

Unfortunately you seem intent on keeping this thread off topic despite the fact that there has been little/no jingoism for quite some time, almost as if you are trying to pour fuel on the fire. Do you have some hidden agenda?

 

I'm slightly bemused that my posts, the majority of which relate to the guidelines that lead to the ban, are considered off-topic

[Moss Trooper]

I am now a fairly rare visitor to this forum, having previously at least read the latest offerings more than once a day - and having skimmed this topic am glad I am only occasionally here. I may not go so far as Moss Trooper and jack it in but am nearly there!

 

Just Jacking in the money side John..

 

My thoughts.. Rules & Regs.. Guidence of the wise obediance of fools.. Nuff said.. again..

 

MossT