Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
DeRock  & The Psychic Cacher

EarthCache Owner Banned

Recommended Posts

I recently came across a very unique situation for me that has me perplexed.

 

While logging my cache finds from a recent trip I attempted to send the answers to the required EarthCache questions and encountered a problem. On the EarthCache owners profile page it says this: The "send message" feature is disabled because this user is currently banned. There isn't any other contact information on the page that I can see.

 

My questions are these:

 

1. How long should I reasonably keep the information required to answer the questions? (Given the fact that it's not my fault that the owner can't be contacted and that I've logged the find and uploaded the required picture).

 

2. Has anybody else encountered a situation like this and what did you do about it?

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

Share this post


Link to post

yikes - I would just go ahead and log it, meeting any photo and logging requirements that you can do without contacting the owner. Maybe keep the info handy for a few months just in case, but i dont anticipate a problem.

Share this post


Link to post

You could put the information in the log and encrypt it. That might force them to send you an e-mail hopefuly providing thier e-mail.

 

To be certain, you can't loose the informtion till you get an ok back from the owner. The CO could later come and delete the logs anytime in the future once thier ban is lifted.

Share this post


Link to post

Encountered same situation. Posted requested pics, and made a note in our GSAK database RE the info needed for email. We're assuming the owner will make contact when back in circulation if they're truly inteested in getting the info, at which time will be glad to supply.

Share this post


Link to post

If it is CavScout which I am sure it is. Just be sure to log a photo with your log and just meet the requirements and all will be fine. If you need his email me, just email me and I will supply you with it. If Groundspeak lifts the ban like they should it will be toward the end of May.

Share this post


Link to post

You could put the information in the log and encrypt it. That might force them to send you an e-mail hopefuly providing thier e-mail.

 

To be certain, you can't loose the informtion till you get an ok back from the owner. The CO could later come and delete the logs anytime in the future once thier ban is lifted.

 

I would not put the information encrypted in the log, it will just give all the arm chair cachers all the info that they need. I'm sure it would be a quick way to get your smilie deleted which would not be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post

I recently came across a very unique situation for me that has me perplexed.

 

While logging my cache finds from a recent trip I attempted to send the answers to the required EarthCache questions and encountered a problem. On the EarthCache owners profile page it says this: The "send message" feature is disabled because this user is currently banned. There isn't any other contact information on the page that I can see.

 

My questions are these:

 

1. How long should I reasonably keep the information required to answer the questions? (Given the fact that it's not my fault that the owner can't be contacted and that I've logged the find and uploaded the required picture).

 

2. Has anybody else encountered a situation like this and what did you do about it?

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

As I understand it, the cache owner got involved in a dispute with some reviewers (traditional cache types, not ECs) and guess who loses in a fight with City Hall?

Groundspeak, in their wisdom, didn't realize that they were penalizing/inconveniencing those of us who had nothing to do with the dispute when they did the ban or should I say how they did the ban! You would think they could have withheld some privileges of the cache(s) owner but not cut off the email. The caches remain to be found but we cannot complete the logging requirements with the email block. If I were you, I would post the find and the picture, if required, and and say something like "email will be sent when email is enabled!"

I was told the ban was for 3 months and will be up the last of May. Then you can send all the emails to the owner.

So to specifically answer your questions: 1. I would keep the info for as long as necessary (end of May) and 2. yes, I have encountered a situation like this (this same situation) and did nothing about it but log the caches.

I believe the cache owner knows most of us are honest enough and are not involved any games so as to fake finding his caches so he, unlike some folks, is not going to rush to any log deletions! I know some geocachers who delete logs just because they don't like the logging geocacher. They are misguided and are poor representatives of geocaching, but this cache owner is a far cry from them!

P.S. I also would not log the encrypted info. Just hold onto it.

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

You could put the information in the log and encrypt it. That might force them to send you an e-mail hopefuly providing thier e-mail.

 

To be certain, you can't loose the informtion till you get an ok back from the owner. The CO could later come and delete the logs anytime in the future once thier ban is lifted.

 

I would not put the information encrypted in the log, it will just give all the arm chair cachers all the info that they need. I'm sure it would be a quick way to get your smilie deleted which would not be a good thing.

Good advice on the encryption as I would expect it to be deleted. Hopefully then you would have gotten the e-mail address through the deletion action, but now that I think about it, the owner e-mail wouldn't come through then either.

Share this post


Link to post

You could put the information in the log and encrypt it. That might force them to send you an e-mail hopefuly providing thier e-mail.

 

To be certain, you can't loose the informtion till you get an ok back from the owner. The CO could later come and delete the logs anytime in the future once thier ban is lifted.

 

I would not put the information encrypted in the log, it will just give all the arm chair cachers all the info that they need. I'm sure it would be a quick way to get your smilie deleted which would not be a good thing.

Good advice on the encryption as I would expect it to be deleted. Hopefully then you would have gotten the e-mail address through the deletion action, but now that I think about it, the owner e-mail wouldn't come through then either.

 

It couldn't be deleted until after the ban was up anyways.

Share this post


Link to post

If it is CavScout which I am sure it is. Just be sure to log a photo with your log and just meet the requirements and all will be fine. If you need his email me, just email me and I will supply you with it. ...

 

Good solution to an artificial problem. If they let him keep his caches (and they should since they are his) they should let him maintain them.

Share this post


Link to post

If it is CavScout which I am sure it is. Just be sure to log a photo with your log and just meet the requirements and all will be fine. If you need his email me, just email me and I will supply you with it. ...

 

Good solution to an artificial problem. If they let him keep his caches (and they should since they are his) they should let him maintain them.

 

I don't see anything artificial about this problem. It looks pretty real to me.

Share this post


Link to post

If it is CavScout which I am sure it is. Just be sure to log a photo with your log and just meet the requirements and all will be fine. If you need his email me, just email me and I will supply you with it. ...

 

Good solution to an artificial problem. If they let him keep his caches (and they should since they are his) they should let him maintain them.

 

I don't see anything artificial about this problem. It looks pretty real to me.

 

I agree with both of the above statements except the artificial label. To the cache(s) owner I'm sure there is nothing artificial about the problem.

On the other hand, while there may be nothing artificial about the whole mess, unless it is the intent of the OP?

When I think about it, common sense dictates what one would do when you cannot fulfill the logging requirements. Have any of the caches in question had logs deleted from them because emails cannot go through? I don't think so.

Is some one doing a little trolling or rubbing someone's nose in the dirt? If not, you have my apology if so, shame on you!

I believe enough has been said on this issue and the thread should be closed!;)

Share this post


Link to post

If it is CavScout which I am sure it is. Just be sure to log a photo with your log and just meet the requirements and all will be fine. If you need his email me, just email me and I will supply you with it. ...

 

Good solution to an artificial problem. If they let him keep his caches (and they should since they are his) they should let him maintain them.

 

I don't see anything artificial about this problem. It looks pretty real to me.

 

I agree with both of the above statements except the artificial label. To the cache(s) owner I'm sure there is nothing artificial about the problem.

On the other hand, while there may be nothing artificial about the whole mess, unless it is the intent of the OP?

When I think about it, common sense dictates what one would do when you cannot fulfill the logging requirements. Have any of the caches in question had logs deleted from them because emails cannot go through? I don't think so.

Is someone doing a little trolling or rubbing someone elses nose in the dirt? If not, you have my apology if so, shame on you!

I believe enough has been said on this issue and the thread should be closed!;)

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

I recently came across a very unique situation for me that has me perplexed.

 

While logging my cache finds from a recent trip I attempted to send the answers to the required EarthCache questions and encountered a problem. On the EarthCache owners profile page it says this: The "send message" feature is disabled because this user is currently banned. There isn't any other contact information on the page that I can see.

 

My questions are these:

 

1. How long should I reasonably keep the information required to answer the questions? (Given the fact that it's not my fault that the owner can't be contacted and that I've logged the find and uploaded the required picture).

 

2. Has anybody else encountered a situation like this and what did you do about it?

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

After looking at your earthcache stops in the plast few weeks I did see that the only banned cacher was the one that I brought up. I would of thought for sure I would have gotten a email for his email address. Maybe you aren't too worried about it after all?

Share this post


Link to post

After looking at your earthcache stops in the plast few weeks I did see that the only banned cacher was the one that I brought up. I would of thought for sure I would have gotten a email for his email address. Maybe you aren't too worried about it after all?

 

You've got it right, I'm not worried about my single find at all. After hearing the advice of others I will keep the answers to the educational questions in case they are needed at a latter date after the suspension is lifted.

 

Joranda- thank you for sending me the email address of the EarthCache owner. But I'm going to respect Groundspeak's desires and not have any contact until after the suspension is over.

 

I agree with both of the above statements except the artificial label. To the cache(s) owner I'm sure there is nothing artificial about the problem.

On the other hand, while there may be nothing artificial about the whole mess, unless it is the intent of the OP?

When I think about it, common sense dictates what one would do when you cannot fulfill the logging requirements. Have any of the caches in question had logs deleted from them because emails cannot go through? I don't think so.

Is some one doing a little trolling or rubbing someone's nose in the dirt? If not, you have my apology if so, shame on you!

I believe enough has been said on this issue and the thread should be closed!:lol:

 

Nothing artificial, no trolling, or rubbing of noses in the dirt intended with my original post.

 

I didn't call anyone out or name any names. I asked two simple questions.

 

I'll share with you now why I asked those questions:

 

1st: What about the finders of the banned EarthCache owners 354 EarthCaches? What should they do?

 

If we have trouble reasoning out what to do (and in my opinion it's not common sense) then what will the majority of the finders think to do? Will they log the cache and hold onto the answers? Will they not log it because they can't send the answers? Will they delete their find because they can't send the answers? Will they just give up? Will this discourage them from seeking other EarthCaches in the future?

 

If we hypothesize that each of the 354 EarthCaches will have an average of 5 finders (that actually do log) during the suspension then there will be a total of 1,770 finds that will need to be verified.

 

2nd: If this is a problem that has occurred before then I think either Groundspeak or EarthCachers as a group ought to address the problem and seek a solution.

 

This last concern not only applies to banned members but could also be relevant for members who have lost interest in geocaching and don't participate anymore and for members who die or who are sick for for extended periods of time.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

Share this post


Link to post

After looking at your earthcache stops in the plast few weeks I did see that the only banned cacher was the one that I brought up. I would of thought for sure I would have gotten a email for his email address. Maybe you aren't too worried about it after all?

 

You've got it right, I'm not worried about my single find at all. After hearing the advice of others I will keep the answers to the educational questions in case they are needed at a latter date after the suspension is lifted.

 

Joranda- thank you for sending me the email address of the EarthCache owner. But I'm going to respect Groundspeak's desires and not have any contact until after the suspension is over.

 

I agree with both of the above statements except the artificial label. To the cache(s) owner I'm sure there is nothing artificial about the problem.

On the other hand, while there may be nothing artificial about the whole mess, unless it is the intent of the OP?

When I think about it, common sense dictates what one would do when you cannot fulfill the logging requirements. Have any of the caches in question had logs deleted from them because emails cannot go through? I don't think so.

Is some one doing a little trolling or rubbing someone's nose in the dirt? If not, you have my apology if so, shame on you!

I believe enough has been said on this issue and the thread should be closed!:lol:

 

Nothing artificial, no trolling, or rubbing of noses in the dirt intended with my original post.

 

I didn't call anyone out or name any names. I asked two simple questions.

 

I'll share with you now why I asked those questions:

 

1st: What about the finders of the banned EarthCache owners 354 EarthCaches? What should they do?

 

If we have trouble reasoning out what to do (and in my opinion it's not common sense) then what will the majority of the finders think to do? Will they log the cache and hold onto the answers? Will they not log it because they can't send the answers? Will they delete their find because they can't send the answers? Will they just give up? Will this discourage them from seeking other EarthCaches in the future?

 

If we hypothesize that each of the 354 EarthCaches will have an average of 5 finders (that actually do log) during the suspension then there will be a total of 1,770 finds that will need to be verified.

 

2nd: If this is a problem that has occurred before then I think either Groundspeak or EarthCachers as a group ought to address the problem and seek a solution.

 

This last concern not only applies to banned members but could also be relevant for members who have lost interest in geocaching and don't participate anymore and for members who die or who are sick for for extended periods of time.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

OK, I'll be man enough to give you the benefit of a doubt and I apologize. I will accept that your post was in earnest and not intending of pouring more coals on the cache owner's fire.

Now, I would suggest that your inquiry be taken up with Groundspeak since how (stopping emails) they did the ban was not the choice of the cache owner or any of us. Groundspeak, in all haste to impose some penalty, chose the method and we somehow didn't figure in the equation. You mentioned 354 ECs. Don't you think Groundspeak knew this and by your calculation there would be 1770 finds to be logged so did they make any allowance for us the non-owners? NO!

Groundspeak splashed the ban message all over the owner's profile page so couldn't have they typed a little further and suggested how to handle logs? After all, they said the caches remain active whatever that means. I dare say there was a rush to judgement and the carrying out of the sentence was done with all of the finesse of __________countrie's (fill in the blank) firing squad! Unfortunately, the firing squad was circular and some of the bullets went between members and struck us!

P.S. You mentioned that your last concern applies not only to banned member(s) (how many do we know?) but to other members who are non participating or die. I seriously doubt a non-participating member much less a dead member will delete your log!

I guess I'm back to my original premise. Groundspeak took the action, left the caches "active" therefore they should create the solution!:)

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

anyone tried emailing this particular individual to see if they want to chime in on it? (someone must have their email address!)

Share this post


Link to post

anyone tried emailing this particular individual to see if they want to chime in on it? (someone must have their email address!)

 

Let's see here, oh that's right, he is banned right now so he is not aloud to chime in until the end of May. I talk to him all the time and he can't wait to get this behind him and get back to the caching that he enjoys. He, along with myself and many others, wish that this had never happened and I'm sure Groundspeak thinks they did the right thing but after hearing what I hear, I think this was a big he said she said mess that never had to go this far. I seen the emails that lead up to this and it doesn't really make for a good reason for a person to get banned. There again, that's my two cents. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

After looking at your earthcache stops in the plast few weeks I did see that the only banned cacher was the one that I brought up. I would of thought for sure I would have gotten a email for his email address. Maybe you aren't too worried about it after all?

 

You've got it right, I'm not worried about my single find at all. After hearing the advice of others I will keep the answers to the educational questions in case they are needed at a latter date after the suspension is lifted.

 

Joranda- thank you for sending me the email address of the EarthCache owner. But I'm going to respect Groundspeak's desires and not have any contact until after the suspension is over.

 

I agree with both of the above statements except the artificial label. To the cache(s) owner I'm sure there is nothing artificial about the problem.

On the other hand, while there may be nothing artificial about the whole mess, unless it is the intent of the OP?

When I think about it, common sense dictates what one would do when you cannot fulfill the logging requirements. Have any of the caches in question had logs deleted from them because emails cannot go through? I don't think so.

Is some one doing a little trolling or rubbing someone's nose in the dirt? If not, you have my apology if so, shame on you!

I believe enough has been said on this issue and the thread should be closed!:lol:

 

Nothing artificial, no trolling, or rubbing of noses in the dirt intended with my original post.

 

I didn't call anyone out or name any names. I asked two simple questions.

 

I'll share with you now why I asked those questions:

 

1st: What about the finders of the banned EarthCache owners 354 EarthCaches? What should they do?

 

If we have trouble reasoning out what to do (and in my opinion it's not common sense) then what will the majority of the finders think to do? Will they log the cache and hold onto the answers? Will they not log it because they can't send the answers? Will they delete their find because they can't send the answers? Will they just give up? Will this discourage them from seeking other EarthCaches in the future?

 

If we hypothesize that each of the 354 EarthCaches will have an average of 5 finders (that actually do log) during the suspension then there will be a total of 1,770 finds that will need to be verified.

 

2nd: If this is a problem that has occurred before then I think either Groundspeak or EarthCachers as a group ought to address the problem and seek a solution.

 

This last concern not only applies to banned members but could also be relevant for members who have lost interest in geocaching and don't participate anymore and for members who die or who are sick for for extended periods of time.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

OK, I'll be man enough to give you the benefit of a doubt and I apologize. I will accept that your post was in earnest and not intending of pouring more coals on the cache owner's fire.

Now, I would suggest that your inquiry be taken up with Groundspeak since how (stopping emails) they did the ban was not the choice of the cache owner or any of us. Groundspeak, in all haste to impose some penalty, chose the method and we somehow didn't figure in the equation. You mentioned 354 ECs. Don't you think Groundspeak knew this and by your calculation there would be 1770 finds to be logged so did they make any allowance for us the non-owners? NO!

Groundspeak splashed the ban message all over the owner's profile page so couldn't have they typed a little further and suggested how to handle logs? After all, they said the caches remain active whatever that means. I dare say there was a rush to judgement and the carrying out of the sentence was done with all of the finesse of __________countrie's (fill in the blank) firing squad! Unfortunately, the firing squad was circular and some of the bullets went between members and struck us!

P.S. You mentioned that your last concern applies not only to banned member(s) (how many do we know?) but to other members who are non participating or die. I seriously doubt a non-participating member much less a dead member will delete your log!

I guess I'm back to my original premise. Groundspeak took the action, left the caches "active" therefore they should create the solution!:)

 

I don't care about the why or how of the ban, but I do find your post disturbing. The fact you think the CO should be given a bit of leniency (the ability to maintain his caches) just because he's the owner of a lot of caches...well, I find fault with that logic! As you said yourself, common sense (or a bit of asking) can clear up the logging issues finders might have at this time, no need to soften the penalty, no need to suggest that GS doesn't have a grasp on reality either. I don't think anyone should be above reproach. I also like how you suggest the cachers are being punished along with the CO....really? Can you explain how this temporary ban hurts others? The finders can log their finds still....right? It's not like GS shut down every cache he owns, is it?

 

I also like how you jump to the conclusion that DeRock was trolling for asking this question....lighten up a bit!

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

. Groundspeak took the action, left the caches "active" therefore they should create the solution!:lol:

 

"I don't care about the why or how of the ban, but I do find your post disturbing. The fact you think the CO should be given a bit of leniency (the ability to maintain his caches) just because he's the owner of a lot of caches...well, I find fault with that logic! As you said yourself, common sense (or a bit of asking) can clear up the logging issues finders might have at this time, no need to soften the penalty, no need to suggest that GS doesn't have a grasp on reality either. I don't think anyone should be above reproach. I also like how you suggest the cachers are being punished along with the CO....really? Can you explain how this temporary ban hurts others? The finders can log their finds still....right? It's not like GS shut down every cache he owns, is it?

 

I also like how you jump to the conclusion that DeRock was trolling for asking this question....lighten up a bit!"

 

I am so sorry that you "find fault with my logic"and was disturbed by my answer.

The title of this thread seems to be a bit provacative and could have been "lighter". "Earthcache Owner Banned"????????

Just where did I request leniency just because the CO has a lot of caches? If there was any leniency requested, it was for the finders convenience not the COs.

I also don't believe that I suggested GS doesn't have a grasp on reality. By the way, that term is usually reserved for those who need psychological counseling. I certainly didn't imply that when I said GS should have considered the cachers obligation to log the cache. None of my responses implied there was a problem with GS's collective mental health! The problem/question I have, did GS take into account the impact of the ban on us?

The question form DeRock was what to do with the on line log requirement.

The "temporary ban must have hurt others" or in this case at least one "other" was the reason for the questions presented by DeRock? I granted to DeRock that if no ill will was intended toward the CO with the questions, then it is a legitimate question and should have been addressed by GS. Remember, I didn't ask the question, DeRock did.

You also said, "The finders can log their finds still....right?" Did you read my statement, "I seriously doubt a non-participating member much less a dead member will delete your log!" I am not worried about other finders logging their finds. I wasn't worried about me logging the finds. That problem was presented by DeRock, not me!

The reason for the ban remains a mystery therefore I and all of the rest of us cannot pass judgment as the the reason for the ban. The "why and how" of the ban cannot be addressed by you or me but we can and did address the result and that was the subject that DeRock brought up, not me!

Now back to my original thesis, non-participating cachers and dead cachers don't delete logs they do not/cannot read and my advise was to wait until the email function of the CO was restored! I didn't think any of it was a big deal but just one more reminder, I didn't ask the questions!

I believe your advise to "lighten up" should be self administered!

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

. Groundspeak took the action, left the caches "active" therefore they should create the solution!:D

 

"I don't care about the why or how of the ban, but I do find your post disturbing. The fact you think the CO should be given a bit of leniency (the ability to maintain his caches) just because he's the owner of a lot of caches...well, I find fault with that logic! As you said yourself, common sense (or a bit of asking) can clear up the logging issues finders might have at this time, no need to soften the penalty, no need to suggest that GS doesn't have a grasp on reality either. I don't think anyone should be above reproach. I also like how you suggest the cachers are being punished along with the CO....really? Can you explain how this temporary ban hurts others? The finders can log their finds still....right? It's not like GS shut down every cache he owns, is it?

 

I also like how you jump to the conclusion that DeRock was trolling for asking this question....lighten up a bit!"

 

I am so sorry that you "find fault with my logic"and was disturbed by my answer.

The title of this thread seems to be a bit provacative and could have been "lighter". "Earthcache Owner Banned"????????

Just where did I request leniency just because the CO has a lot of caches? If there was any leniency requested, it was for the finders convenience not the COs.

I also don't believe that I suggested GS doesn't have a grasp on reality. By the way, that term is usually reserved for those who need psychological counseling. I certainly didn't imply that when I said GS should have considered the cachers obligation to log the cache. None of my responses implied there was a problem with GS's collective mental health! The problem/question I have, did GS take into account the impact of the ban on us?

The question form DeRock was what to do with the on line log requirement.

The "temporary ban must have hurt others" or in this case at least one "other" was the reason for the questions presented by DeRock? I granted to DeRock that if no ill will was intended toward the CO with the questions, then it is a legitimate question and should have been addressed by GS. Remember, I didn't ask the question, DeRock did.

You also said, "The finders can log their finds still....right?" Did you read my statement, "I seriously doubt a non-participating member much less a dead member will delete your log!" I am not worried about other finders logging their finds. I wasn't worried about me logging the finds. That problem was presented by DeRock, not me!

The reason for the ban remains a mystery therefore I and all of the rest of us cannot pass judgment as the the reason for the ban. The "why and how" of the ban cannot be addressed by you or me but we can and did address the result and that was the subject that DeRock brought up, not me!

Now back to my original thesis, non-participating cachers and dead cachers don't delete logs they do not/cannot read and my advise was to wait until the email function of the CO was restored! I didn't think any of it was a big deal but just one more reminder, I didn't ask the questions!

I believe your advise to "lighten up" should be self administered!

 

Nice tap dance, well done! I believe you understood full well what I said, but i could be wrong.... :D:P

Share this post


Link to post

"Nice tap dance, well done! I believe you understood full well what I said, but i could be wrong"

 

Thank you for the compliment. Yes, I did fully understand what you said and responded appropriately. There is an old saying in Kentucky, "if the shoe fits, wear it!"

No I cannot look into your heart nor look into the heart of the OP, but to an uninvolved observer, it sure looks like you have significant issues with the CO.

If not, then why the thread title? BANNED! That reads right from the front page of the National Inquirer! Was it because "informed people want to know?"

Why the question regarding log deletions from someone that couldn't do it in the first place? Oh I forgot, all was simply an innocent inquiry and you felt compelled to defend it. Great! :D

 

I honestly believe that this thread has more than out lived it's usefulness. Please archive it. Thanks.

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

I have more that I'd like to chime in about. Just to share the forwarded emails that I got about the whole reason behind the ban would even make you wonder why it even happened. Like I said before, it looked like alot of he said she said BS which finally ended up in a bad way. All I know is that my brother wants to just get this behind him and to get back to the joy of earth and geocaching once the ban is over in the end of the month. It is just too funny for us to see different people trying to stur the pot in the forums. Just don't throw rocks and not expect them to be thrown back.

Share this post


Link to post

"Nice tap dance, well done! I believe you understood full well what I said, but i could be wrong"

 

Thank you for the compliment. Yes, I did fully understand what you said and responded appropriately. There is an old saying in Kentucky, "if the shoe fits, wear it!"

No I cannot look into your heart nor look into the heart of the OP, but to an uninvolved observer, it sure looks like you have significant issues with the CO.

If not, then why the thread title? BANNED! That reads right from the front page of the National Inquirer! Was it because "informed people want to know?"

Why the question regarding log deletions from someone that couldn't do it in the first place? Oh I forgot, all was simply an innocent inquiry and you felt compelled to defend it. Great! :D

 

I honestly believe that this thread has more than out lived it's usefulness. Please archive it. Thanks.

 

Can't look into my heart, but you can surely put words in my mouth...where do you see me having significant issues with the CO? I believe I said I didn't care about the how or why?? What would you like the OP to have named the thread, he was asking about a banned cacher! And, how does the OP's choice of words make me instantly have issues with the CO?

 

Maybe if you could get your facts straight, this thread would actually have a purpose?

 

My comment was not against ANYONE but you and your railing against GS for what you believe to be a bad way to "punish" the CO. If this then extends to me having issues with the CO, could you please point it out so it's as obvious to me as it is to you?? You cried that the CO's punishment was actually punishing all cachers, I said you were really stretching that a LOT! And, I used your own argument to point this out....are you now on the same page as I am?? :P:D GREAT!

Share this post


Link to post

I have more that I'd like to chime in about. Just to share the forwarded emails that I got about the whole reason behind the ban would even make you wonder why it even happened. Like I said before, it looked like alot of he said she said BS which finally ended up in a bad way. All I know is that my brother wants to just get this behind him and to get back to the joy of earth and geocaching once the ban is over in the end of the month. It is just too funny for us to see different people trying to stur the pot in the forums. Just don't throw rocks and not expect them to be thrown back.

 

Joranda, I don't know nor care about the why and how of the ban, I don't think this thread is about that either. I also don't see where anyone is stirring any pot, but maybe you're seeing it far differently than I? I will say though, I doubt highly that GS made a rash decision...

 

Now, this doesn't mean I'm stirring the pot, dissing your brother or whatever....just making ab observation from the info I have collected here and elsewhere! Realize, not every comment is an attack against someone!! :D

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is going nowhere. It's obvious that there are undercurrents and a past that I don't want to keep swimming in and out. Those problems and/or grudges between cachers should be taken up via emails and not presented here!

I have requested that Keystone close this thread and while he agrees that "we" have gone far, far astray, the OP should make the request.

Would DeRock please make the request?

Thanks. :D

P.S. As for me, I am very sorry to be drawn into this mess and if possible I would delete all (most anyway) of my posts. I have emailed the OP with a request that the thread be closed. Let's back up and wait.

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

In answer to DeRock's question, I would do as you did DeRock and log the find(s) while saving all info in case the CO wants it if/when the suspension is lifted. While I wouldn't have worried about it much, I might also have brought up the topic as you did, just to make sure I did the right thing...which it looks like you have!

Share this post


Link to post

If it is CavScout which I am sure it is. Just be sure to log a photo with your log and just meet the requirements and all will be fine. If you need his email me, just email me and I will supply you with it. ...

 

Good solution to an artificial problem. If they let him keep his caches (and they should since they are his) they should let him maintain them.

 

I don't see anything artificial about this problem. It looks pretty real to me.

 

By artificial I mean an artificialy created problem that didn't have to exist.

Share this post


Link to post

If it is CavScout which I am sure it is. Just be sure to log a photo with your log and just meet the requirements and all will be fine. If you need his email me, just email me and I will supply you with it. ...

 

Good solution to an artificial problem. If they let him keep his caches (and they should since they are his) they should let him maintain them.

 

I don't see anything artificial about this problem. It looks pretty real to me.

 

I agree with both of the above statements except the artificial label. To the cache(s) owner I'm sure there is nothing artificial about the problem. ...

 

I bump into artifical problems all the time in my world. These are problems that exist that don't need to exist. Hence why I call them artificial. The ban created an artificial problem with the cache maintance. Not a fake problem or a problems that wasn't real. Merely A problem that didn't need to exist at all. That's why I call it artifical. Given two people didn't understand that, I need to expalin it better next time.

 

I also have anothe phrase I use at work. "Artificial complexity" as in "why the heck are you making the rules worse than they really are?"

Share this post


Link to post

I recently came across a very unique situation for me that has me perplexed.

 

While logging my cache finds from a recent trip I attempted to send the answers to the required EarthCache questions and encountered a problem. On the EarthCache owners profile page it says this: The "send message" feature is disabled because this user is currently banned. There isn't any other contact information on the page that I can see.

 

My questions are these:

 

1. How long should I reasonably keep the information required to answer the questions? (Given the fact that it's not my fault that the owner can't be contacted and that I've logged the find and uploaded the required picture).

 

2. Has anybody else encountered a situation like this and what did you do about it?

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

As I understand it, the cache owner got involved in a dispute with some reviewers (traditional cache types, not ECs) and guess who loses in a fight with City Hall?

Groundspeak, in their wisdom, didn't realize that they were penalizing/inconveniencing those of us who had nothing to do with the dispute when they did the ban or should I say how they did the ban! You would think they could have withheld some privileges of the cache(s) owner but not cut off the email. The caches remain to be found but we cannot complete the logging requirements with the email block. If I were you, I would post the find and the picture, if required, and and say something like "email will be sent when email is enabled!"

I was told the ban was for 3 months and will be up the last of May. Then you can send all the emails to the owner.

So to specifically answer your questions: 1. I would keep the info for as long as necessary (end of May) and 2. yes, I have encountered a situation like this (this same situation) and did nothing about it but log the caches.

I believe the cache owner knows most of us are honest enough and are not involved any games so as to fake finding his caches so he, unlike some folks, is not going to rush to any log deletions! I know some geocachers who delete logs just because they don't like the logging geocacher. They are misguided and are poor representatives of geocaching, but this cache owner is a far cry from them!

P.S. I also would not log the encrypted info. Just hold onto it.

 

It would appear to me that here is where the derailment began, funny how you also complain about it and ask for the closure of this thread since you are the one who not only started it but also brought in discussion not needed to be aired publically.

 

In response to RK

 

I disagree that the situation is an artificial problem though, t's really no problem at all. People can log the finds, the CO can maintain his caches as soon as he's allowed to return...no problem at all! Had GS shuttered all his caches, I would then see a problem being made, but only a miniscule one since I'm certain there are plenty of other caches to find out there! The only problems i can think of would be for those who downloaded a batch of caches prior to the shuttering or out of towners who really wanted to visit those caches...THANKFULLY, GS had sense to not go that far, I commend them for their work!

Share this post


Link to post

I have more that I'd like to chime in about. Just to share the forwarded emails that I got about the whole reason behind the ban would even make you wonder why it even happened. Like I said before, it looked like alot of he said she said BS which finally ended up in a bad way. All I know is that my brother wants to just get this behind him and to get back to the joy of earth and geocaching once the ban is over in the end of the month. It is just too funny for us to see different people trying to stur the pot in the forums. Just don't throw rocks and not expect them to be thrown back.

 

Joranda, I don't know nor care about the why and how of the ban, I don't think this thread is about that either. I also don't see where anyone is stirring any pot, but maybe you're seeing it far differently than I? I will say though, I doubt highly that GS made a rash decision...

 

Now, this doesn't mean I'm stirring the pot, dissing your brother or whatever....just making ab observation from the info I have collected here and elsewhere! Realize, not every comment is an attack against someone!! :D

 

I didn't mean this thread started sturring the pot but there was a couple other threads that had started that was pointed right at him. I in know means was pointing a finger at you, I would hope you would know better than that. :D

Share this post


Link to post

If it is CavScout which I am sure it is. Just be sure to log a photo with your log and just meet the requirements and all will be fine. If you need his email me, just email me and I will supply you with it. ...

 

Good solution to an artificial problem. If they let him keep his caches (and they should since they are his) they should let him maintain them.

 

I don't see anything artificial about this problem. It looks pretty real to me.

 

I agree with both of the above statements except the artificial label. To the cache(s) owner I'm sure there is nothing artificial about the problem. ...

 

I bump into artifical problems all the time in my world. These are problems that exist that don't need to exist. Hence why I call them artificial. The ban created an artificial problem with the cache maintance. Not a fake problem or a problems that wasn't real. Merely A problem that didn't need to exist at all. That's why I call it artifical. Given two people didn't understand that, I need to expalin it better next time.

 

I also have anothe phrase I use at work. "Artificial complexity" as in "why the heck are you making the rules worse than they really are?"

 

Very true, now that you say it that way, I see it alot too.

Share this post


Link to post

I have more that I'd like to chime in about. Just to share the forwarded emails that I got about the whole reason behind the ban would even make you wonder why it even happened. Like I said before, it looked like alot of he said she said BS which finally ended up in a bad way. All I know is that my brother wants to just get this behind him and to get back to the joy of earth and geocaching once the ban is over in the end of the month. It is just too funny for us to see different people trying to stur the pot in the forums. Just don't throw rocks and not expect them to be thrown back.

 

Joranda, I don't know nor care about the why and how of the ban, I don't think this thread is about that either. I also don't see where anyone is stirring any pot, but maybe you're seeing it far differently than I? I will say though, I doubt highly that GS made a rash decision...

 

Now, this doesn't mean I'm stirring the pot, dissing your brother or whatever....just making ab observation from the info I have collected here and elsewhere! Realize, not every comment is an attack against someone!! :D

 

I didn't mean this thread started sturring the pot but there was a couple other threads that had started that was pointed right at him. I in know means was pointing a finger at you, I would hope you would know better than that. :D

 

:D:huh:

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is going nowhere. It's obvious that there are undercurrents and a past that I don't want to keep swimming in and out. Those problems and/or grudges between cachers should be taken up via emails and not presented here!

I have requested that Keystone close this thread and while he agrees that "we" have gone far, far astray, the OP should make the request.

Would DeRock please make the request?

Thanks. :D

P.S. As for me, I am very sorry to be drawn into this mess and if possible I would delete all (most anyway) of my posts. I have emailed the OP with a request that the thread be closed. Let's back up and wait.

 

While I too agree with Keystone that the thread has wandered off course, I'm not going to request that it be closed. Everyone concerned is going to have to learn to control themselves.

 

I'll try and drag it back on topic with this question:

 

Do you think it would be a good idea for EarthCache developers to include their email address on the cache page? On my recent trip I noticed that another EarthCache developer has done just this. It made it easy to email him without having to visit his profile.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

Share this post


Link to post

I'll try and drag it back on topic with this question:

 

Do you think it would be a good idea for EarthCache developers to include their email address on the cache page? On my recent trip I noticed that another EarthCache developer has done just this. It made it easy to email him without having to visit his profile.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

To answer your question about the e-mail on the page I would say, and this is my personal opinion, that I would rather get a a "trusted" e-mail via Groundspeak than a mail from someone I know nothing about. I tried that once and even though I specifically asked that in the subject line be included the ref and name of the cache, few did it. I was then faced with mails from people I didn't know with the added fact that they could be bogus.

People who log my EC's either log founds subject to verification and possible deletion of their found or they wait patiently until I can get to a terminal where I can log on and answer them.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Do you think it would be a good idea for EarthCache developers to include their email address on the cache page? On my recent trip I noticed that another EarthCache developer has done just this. It made it easy to email him without having to visit his profile.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

Web bots also troll for such pages with e-mails to sent junk mail.

Share this post


Link to post

...Do you think it would be a good idea for EarthCache developers to include their email address on the cache page? On my recent trip I noticed that another EarthCache developer has done just this. It made it easy to email him without having to visit his profile. ...

 

It would be bad business. Spambots grab emails and then you lose the address to spam overload. I like that you can contact folks via their profile and keep your email address out of the loop. After having seen the abuse that some cachers get from some other cachers I strongly support that Groundspeak implemented contacts the way they did.

 

That said there is a real problem created by how this ban was handled. If it's truly worth banning someone from their account for a "time out", then they may as well take the time to suspend their caches as well for that duration to minimize the disruption the punishment is going to cause everone else.

Share this post


Link to post

...Do you think it would be a good idea for EarthCache developers to include their email address on the cache page? On my recent trip I noticed that another EarthCache developer has done just this. It made it easy to email him without having to visit his profile. ...

 

It would be bad business. Spambots grab emails and then you lose the address to spam overload. I like that you can contact folks via their profile and keep your email address out of the loop. After having seen the abuse that some cachers get from some other cachers I strongly support that Groundspeak implemented contacts the way they did.

 

That said there is a real problem created by how this ban was handled. If it's truly worth banning someone from their account for a "time out", then they may as well take the time to suspend their caches as well for that duration to minimize the disruption the punishment is going to cause everone else.

 

RK, you are exactly right on both points!

 

Most don't want their email addresses made public. Even though we (KK & M) list our email address on the profile page, we are probably not wise in doing so for all the reasons you mentioned. Another reason to keep emails on GS's system is if there are abuses, GS can take action. Your ip address is used each time you send an email from GS's system therefore traceable.

Regarding your thoughts with the "time out" ban, score another one for you. That's what I was trying to say when I mentioned that GS did not take everyone else into consideration with the punishment. It was that thought that triggered the claim that I thought GS collectively lost their sanity. No, they are not insane, just a wee bit guilty of overlooking the impact on others. As an example: download GPSr info OK, download cache page OK, gear up and find cache OK, take pics OK, write notes to answer questions OK, go home and upload log............whoops not OK!

 

"That said there is a real problem created by how this ban was handled." RK

 

Now that we have established that, here is a summary of what the majority has said:

 

1. Just sit tight and wait until said ban is lifted, then email (log) away. 2. Most don't want public emails therefore refer to point no. 1! :P

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

...Do you think it would be a good idea for EarthCache developers to include their email address on the cache page? On my recent trip I noticed that another EarthCache developer has done just this. It made it easy to email him without having to visit his profile. ...

 

It would be bad business. Spambots grab emails and then you lose the address to spam overload. I like that you can contact folks via their profile and keep your email address out of the loop. After having seen the abuse that some cachers get from some other cachers I strongly support that Groundspeak implemented contacts the way they did.

 

That said there is a real problem created by how this ban was handled. If it's truly worth banning someone from their account for a "time out", then they may as well take the time to suspend their caches as well for that duration to minimize the disruption the punishment is going to cause everone else.

It was that thought that triggered the claim that I thought GS collectively lost their sanity. No, they are not insane, just a wee bit guilty of overlooking the impact on others. As an example: download GPSr info OK, download cache page OK, gear up and find cache OK, take pics OK, write notes to answer questions OK, go home and upload log............whoops not OK!

 

"That said there is a real problem created by how this ban was handled." RK

 

Now that we have established that, here is a summary of what the majority has said:

 

1. Just sit tight and wait until said ban is lifted, then email (log) away. 2. Most don't want public emails therefore refer to point no. 1! :D

 

Please, sensationalize a bit more.... :P:( I guess, in your mind, the comment I made about grasping reality can only mean sanity...WOW!

 

As for the problem...WHAT PROBLEM???????? Log the find and go on about your life. How does the ban stop you from doing this? If you did all you were required to do, nothing changes. If not, well, it took a bit longer to find out, but the outcome is still the same! Where's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post

The only caches even remotely affected by banning somebody seem to be those that require some type of info to be emailed back - which is now limited to ECs, I believe, with the demise of ALRs. It would be interesting to see what percentage of all cache hides are ECs (thus affected) - perhaps GS considered that in their overall policy-making, and determined it to be a small enough percentage that "the good of the many outweighed the good of the few" when balanced against the resources and time/mechanics needed to seletively disable selected caches or caches en masse...a very common, and unfortunately necessary feature of most policy decisions. Leaving owned caches active during a temporary ban seems appropriate, as for the vast majority of cache/cacher combinations, the greater good is thus served in that only the offender, not the remaining caching communty, is penalized. Dunno, but that seems a possible force at work.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Please, sensationalize a bit more.... :P:( I guess, in your mind, the comment I made about grasping reality can only mean sanity...WOW!

 

As for the problem...WHAT PROBLEM???????? Log the find and go on about your life. How does the ban stop you from doing this? If you did all you were required to do, nothing changes. If not, well, it took a bit longer to find out, but the outcome is still the same! Where's the problem?

 

Well this has gone full circle.

I never had the "problem" in the first place. I didn't post the "problem". You didn't post the "problem". I didn't cause the "problem". The OP didn't cause the "problem", but he had the "problem" or he/she wouldn't have posted the "problem". GS may have overlooked us, but they didn't really cause the "problem". If the "problem" was caused by GS's method of instituting the ban it is so minor that can be resolved by just waiting (as in waiting until the ban is up)! This has been suggested several times before. In other words...........for once we agree, there is no problem!

P.S. I have actually found some of the banned cachers ECs within the last week and they didn't pose a "problem" for me! :D

Share this post


Link to post

I recently came across a very unique situation for me that has me perplexed.

 

While logging my cache finds from a recent trip I attempted to send the answers to the required EarthCache questions and encountered a problem. On the EarthCache owners profile page it says this: The "send message" feature is disabled because this user is currently banned. There isn't any other contact information on the page that I can see.

 

My questions are these:

 

1. How long should I reasonably keep the information required to answer the questions? (Given the fact that it's not my fault that the owner can't be contacted and that I've logged the find and uploaded the required picture).

 

2. Has anybody else encountered a situation like this and what did you do about it?

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

As I understand it, the cache owner got involved in a dispute with some reviewers (traditional cache types, not ECs) and guess who loses in a fight with City Hall?

Groundspeak, in their wisdom, didn't realize that they were penalizing/inconveniencing those of us who had nothing to do with the dispute when they did the ban or should I say how they did the ban! You would think they could have withheld some privileges of the cache(s) owner but not cut off the email. The caches remain to be found but we cannot complete the logging requirements with the email block. If I were you, I would post the find and the picture, if required, and and say something like "email will be sent when email is enabled!"

I was told the ban was for 3 months and will be up the last of May. Then you can send all the emails to the owner.

So to specifically answer your questions: 1. I would keep the info for as long as necessary (end of May) and 2. yes, I have encountered a situation like this (this same situation) and did nothing about it but log the caches.

I believe the cache owner knows most of us are honest enough and are not involved any games so as to fake finding his caches so he, unlike some folks, is not going to rush to any log deletions! I know some geocachers who delete logs just because they don't like the logging geocacher. They are misguided and are poor representatives of geocaching, but this cache owner is a far cry from them!

P.S. I also would not log the encrypted info. Just hold onto it.

I agree, it is minor....non-existent really, but you seem to think differently here?

 

Now, I would suggest that your inquiry be taken up with Groundspeak since how (stopping emails) they did the ban was not the choice of the cache owner or any of us. Groundspeak, in all haste to impose some penalty, chose the method and we somehow didn't figure in the equation. You mentioned 354 ECs. Don't you think Groundspeak knew this and by your calculation there would be 1770 finds to be logged so did they make any allowance for us the non-owners? NO!

Groundspeak splashed the ban message all over the owner's profile page so couldn't have they typed a little further and suggested how to handle logs? After all, they said the caches remain active whatever that means. I dare say there was a rush to judgement and the carrying out of the sentence was done with all of the finesse of __________countrie's (fill in the blank) firing squad! Unfortunately, the firing squad was circular and some of the bullets went between members and struck us!

P.S. You mentioned that your last concern applies not only to banned member(s) (how many do we know?) but to other members who are non participating or die. I seriously doubt a non-participating member much less a dead member will delete your log!

I guess I'm back to my original premise. Groundspeak took the action, left the caches "active" therefore they should create the solution!:P

 

You also seem to think there's a problem here where you blame GS for not thinking of the finders in one of your first posts here

 

As I understand it, the cache owner got involved in a dispute with some reviewers (traditional cache types, not ECs) and guess who loses in a fight with City Hall?

Groundspeak, in their wisdom, didn't realize that they were penalizing/inconveniencing those of us who had nothing to do with the dispute when they did the ban or should I say how they did the ban! You would think they could have withheld some privileges of the cache(s) owner but not cut off the email. The caches remain to be found but we cannot complete the logging requirements with the email block

 

but if you're now saying you don't see a problem and you aren't blaming GS and you don't think the CO should have been given leniency (email privileges as you suggested)...well, OK then, maybe I just didn't read your comments right?

 

I stand by my reply to the OP, you did it right! I now see that adding your contact info might not be best for the cache page, THANKS to some good replies for showing me the errors in my thinking there!

Share this post


Link to post

"I was told the ban was for 3 months and will be up the last of May. Then you can send all the emails to the owner.

So to specifically answer your questions: 1. I would keep the info for as long as necessary (end of May) and 2. yes, I have encountered a situation like this (this same situation) and did nothing about it but log the caches."

 

Just what do you and the OP want? Is it to reclaim some sort of soap box or to solve the OP's "problem".

Yes GS did create the question when they left the caches open but no notice on how to log them. But, while

most of us thought they (GS) overlooked the implication of how they did the ban it really didn't create 'the problem".

Common sense dictates WAIT and that's all! "The "problem" is solved!

The whole topic was probably to announce to the World that a cacher got banned because you even admit there is "no problem".

I am sure you will want the last word so have at it. I'll not respond and participate any further in this nonsense. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Why not just include in the log something like "...To the CO, if you would contact me at your earliest convenience, I'll be happy to provide the additional information..."

 

Seems simple, really.

Share this post


Link to post

Why not just include in the log something like "...To the CO, if you would contact me at your earliest convenience, I'll be happy to provide the additional information..."

 

Seems simple, really.

 

I don't think the CO gets the emails while banned! But it is simple, just log them and go on about your life! Save the info and wait to see if it's needed!

 

To Konnarock....a bit paranoid? You've been told there was not malice intended, yet you continue that route, glad you won't be responding as it's not productive! And, what soapbox are you talking about? Did I come in in the middle of something I know nothing about? :) I don't know and won't talk for the OP, but your insinuations toward me sure make me laugh!! :):blink::P

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I am bad, but I have never fufilled the e-mail requirements. I just take a pic of me, and upload it. That is it. Does a CO realy want 30 e-mails a month after 2 or 3 years of owning a EC? And does it realy matter about what size the rock is, or how far the spring runs befor flowing into the sewer? The pic of me standing in the spring, or infront of the rock should realy be enough shouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I am bad, but I have never fufilled the e-mail requirements. I just take a pic of me, and upload it. That is it. Does a CO realy want 30 e-mails a month after 2 or 3 years of owning a EC? And does it realy matter about what size the rock is, or how far the spring runs befor flowing into the sewer? The pic of me standing in the spring, or infront of the rock should realy be enough shouldn't it?

 

No it isn't enough. An earthcache is designed to teach you something. You can get the picture without learning anything or even spending more than 15 seconds at a site.

Share this post


Link to post
I just take a pic of me, and upload it.

 

Sounds like you have Finding Earthcaches confused with Waymarking :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...