Banned Members

[+mc3cats]

How does one earn the dubious honor of being a banned member? Second question, if that member has placed caches, who maintains them?

[Mr.Yuck]

How does one earn the dubious honor of being a banned member? Second question, if that member has placed caches, who maintains them?

 

This question actually comes up a lot. I would have to say most bans happen right here in these forums, although I know of at least two that didn't happen here. Lets just say you really have to incur the wrath of The Frog.

 

Oh, I don't know who maintains them. If it seems like the ban will be forever, the reviewers will make a decision, eventually. I've seen one ban that seemed permanent, but was lifted after a year or so, and several of the caches (that were disabled by the reviewer) were returned to active status.

[+gof1]

Are you planning to make such an attempt? Possibly a geocide by moderator? That would be novel.

Edited May 24, 2009 by gof1

[jholly]

Oh, I don't know who maintains them. If it seems like the ban will be forever, the reviewers will make a decision, eventually. I've seen one ban that seemed permanent, but was lifted after a year or so, and several of the caches (that were disabled by the reviewer) were returned to active status.

 

No one. Not sure of the banned member still gets the logs or not, but if it is for a really long time I guess they just turn into geolitter and get archived.

 

Jim

[Mr.Yuck]

Oh, I don't know who maintains them. If it seems like the ban will be forever, the reviewers will make a decision, eventually. I've seen one ban that seemed permanent, but was lifted after a year or so, and several of the caches (that were disabled by the reviewer) were returned to active status.

 

No one. Not sure of the banned member still gets the logs or not, but if it is for a really long time I guess they just turn into geolitter and get archived.

 

Jim

 

Archived on this website, of course. I know of one banning in SW Pa. where all the caches are definitely, without doubt, still listed on a couple of other geocaching websites, and still exist. And they're some pretty good caches, if I don't say so myself.

[jholly]

Oh, I don't know who maintains them. If it seems like the ban will be forever, the reviewers will make a decision, eventually. I've seen one ban that seemed permanent, but was lifted after a year or so, and several of the caches (that were disabled by the reviewer) were returned to active status.

 

No one. Not sure of the banned member still gets the logs or not, but if it is for a really long time I guess they just turn into geolitter and get archived.

 

Jim

 

Archived on this website, of course. I know of one banning in SW Pa. where all the caches are definitely, without doubt, still listed on a couple of other geocaching websites, and still exist. And they're some pretty good caches, if I don't say so myself.

 

well, of course on this site. I don't think we have universal archiving in the geocache world yet. But if they are active on other sites and the owner is following and maintaining them they won't turn into geolitter and get a SBA log, now will they? Of course it might get the knickers in a bunch that folks from GC.com are finding and logging the caches and there is nothing they can do about it.

 

Jim

[+Klatch]

folks from GC.com are finding and logging the caches and there is nothing they can do about it.

 

Jim

What you mean is, they can't get their GC.com find count incremented. They can certainly log it as a find on the site on which it is still listed.

[+baloo&bd]

No one. Not sure of the banned member still gets the logs or not, but if it is for a really long time I guess they just turn into geolitter and get archived.

 

Is "banned" always more or less permanent, when it appears in a person profile or title, or is the term used to also refer to suspended players.

 

I always thought once "Banned" appeared, it's intent was permanent but reading this thread I am not so certain.

Edited May 24, 2009 by baloo&bd

[CoyoteRed]

I don't know what happens, but it seems to me that the cache listing should be archived, too. Not being able to maintain a cache is pretty much an automatic not-published situation. No longer able to be maintained should be, too. Therefore, if a member is no longer able to maintain the cache, whether the real or virtual world, then the listing should be archived.

 

BTW, there are differing levels of "banned." You can be banned from the forums and not from the main site, but that's not what was asked.

[+baloo&bd]

BTW, there are differing levels of "banned." You can be banned from the forums and not from the main site, but that's not what was asked.

 

My question is about the site, when it is listed in your profile. I understand users get timeouts all the time on the forums.

 

I too believe if they are banned on the site (not forums), and it intended to be a permanent situation, the caches should be archived sinc ethey may be listed elsewhere and forced adoptions are not allowed.

Edited May 24, 2009 by baloo&bd

[jholly]

BTW, there are differing levels of "banned." You can be banned from the forums and not from the main site, but that's not what was asked.

 

My question is about the site, when it is listed in your profile. I understand users get timeouts all the time on the forums.

 

I too believe if they are banned on the site (not forums), and it intended to be a permanent situation, the caches should be archived sinc ethey may be listed elsewhere and forced adoptions are not allowed.

 

not all banning is permanent. I was aware of one that recently was banned for a couple months. In the case of the short term ban I see no reason to archive the caches.

 

Jim

[CoyoteRed]

In the case of the short term ban I see no reason to archive the caches.

I agree as long as it is known before hand the ban was temporary. I'm not seeing that happening, though.

 

Besides, archived caches can be unarchived.

[+welch]

I don't know what happens, but it seems to me that the cache listing should be archived, too. Not being able to maintain a cache is pretty much an automatic not-published situation. No longer able to be maintained should be, too. Therefore, if a member is no longer able to maintain the cache, whether the real or virtual world, then the listing should be archived.

 

BTW, there are differing levels of "banned." You can be banned from the forums and not from the main site, but that's not what was asked.

What you say makes sense to me, but then caches whose owners have stopped visiting the site, sometimes for years do not have their listings archived automatically. It seems like the physical cache needs to be damaged without any action on the caches owner to that to happen. To me it seems like the same issue, that there is noone looking after the online side of the cache.

[Mr.Yuck]

Oh, I don't know who maintains them. If it seems like the ban will be forever, the reviewers will make a decision, eventually. I've seen one ban that seemed permanent, but was lifted after a year or so, and several of the caches (that were disabled by the reviewer) were returned to active status.

 

No one. Not sure of the banned member still gets the logs or not, but if it is for a really long time I guess they just turn into geolitter and get archived.

 

Jim

 

Archived on this website, of course. I know of one banning in SW Pa. where all the caches are definitely, without doubt, still listed on a couple of other geocaching websites, and still exist. And they're some pretty good caches, if I don't say so myself.

 

well, of course on this site. I don't think we have universal archiving in the geocache world yet. But if they are active on other sites and the owner is following and maintaining them they won't turn into geolitter and get a SBA log, now will they? Of course it might get the knickers in a bunch that folks from GC.com are finding and logging the caches and there is nothing they can do about it.

 

Jim

 

Oh, no offense JHolly. But I do believe that a banned member of Geocaching.com has a very high probability of having their caches still active, and listed on alternative Geocaching websites, as opposed to someone who just disappears from the game, and leaves their caches out there as Geolitter.

 

I will echo what other's have said. There are different levels of "banned members". Many from the forums only. Septictank and WH come to mind as banned from the forum members. They are missed, by the way.

[+J-Way]

folks from GC.com are finding and logging the caches and there is nothing they can do about it.

Jim

What you mean is, they can't get their GC.com find count incremented. They can certainly log it as a find on the site on which it is still listed.

It is possible to log a "find" on an archived cache. Therefore it is possible to log a find on a banned member's caches, whether they have been archived or not. Some of these caches are abandoned in place with an intact log book. Some remain in place but are re-listed on an alternate site. Some are removed, but people log them as finds anyway to boost numbers. Some so-called "cachers" even go to the trouble of searching for banned members and intentionally logging finds on all their archived caches.

 

The banned member DOES still get the log notification, assuming the email address is still valid. But because they can't log into the site, they can't delete the logs.