Jump to content

Bans


Recommended Posts

The reviewers will know that members get banned from time to time. Quite often, it seems!

I have no view of the full story in each of these cases, but from what I can glean it seems to be mostly down to reviewers wanting to teach people a lesson after receiving harsh criticism. But there could be more to it.

 

This causes quite a bit of inconvenience to cachers in the area of a banned member. A common thread is that the cacher involved tends to place unusual and interesting caches and have strong views on caching.

 

I'm certainly not going to mention names or give examples, and it might well be that the cachers in question deserve a severe ticking-off for their comments and other behaviour. I would like to point out, however, that we end up with cache listings that can't be maintained (so could become misleading), and people seeking caches and being unable to log their comments (so cache owners are unaware of some finds and DNFs). Also, the ban seems to extend to the forums, so (as we've seen recently) a thread dries up in mid-flow due to a member being unable to post; and said member cannot answer to correct erroneous posts. All very awkward for everyone.

 

On top of that, people could be discouraged from the game altogether and valuable caches archived. I've even heard tell of friends and associates having caches refused or archived as an extra punishment; whether that's true or not it seems certain that some cachers have archived caches as a protest against someone else receiving a ban.

As I mentioned, these people seem to be the types that set really good caches. Perhaps it's coincidence, or perhaps feisty people tend to think more creatively than the average.

 

In summary, a ban often punishes many people; most of whom are not even aware of what has been said (let alone care).

 

Anyway, my question is to clarify how these bans are executed. Presumably they are normally initiated by a reviewer, but are other reviewers then consulted after being presented with the evidence? Does it then go to Groundspeak, along with comments from the geocacher? Is there an appeal? Are there guidelines as to how long a ban should be? Is there a list of offences, along with a suggested tariff? Can another cacher receive punishment for being associated with (or showing sympathy with) the offender? If it's a GB cache, does the GAGB get to see the evidence first to ensure that the ban has been issued with impartiality and is justified?

 

And can we come up with a better system, where the geocacher involved learns a lesson without having to cause bad feeling all round and a nuisance to others?

 

Please don't use this thread as a platform for slinging mud. I just want to hear the official line, as I don't think that the guidelines for issuing bans are publicly available. Now that the ban appears to be a commonly-used weapon, surely we deserve to know how the system works.

Link to comment
Please don't use this thread as a platform for slinging mud. I just want to hear the official line, as I don't think that the guidelines for issuing bans are publicly available. Now that the ban appears to be a commonly-used weapon, surely we deserve to know how the system works.

 

Some commentary on this:

 

"I just want to hear the official line" - you'll almost certainly need to email to contact@geocaching.com for this. A thread in the public forums is just going to get comments from other users. As only Groundspeak Lackeys have the power to ban, they're the only people who can explain the guidelines.

The Knowledge Books article Status Types in a Profile Page offers some insight.

 

I think it's going to be tough for the thread not to go down a road of "slinging mud". You've characterized user bans as a "commonly-used weapon""down to reviewers wanting to teach people a lesson after receiving harsh criticism".

Bans are not common. Reviewers receive harsh criticism on a regular basis. Far far more often then anyone gets banned.

 

To specifics - a cacher can be banned from the forums, but not from the Geocaching.com site. I don't think anyone is ever banned from Geocaching.com and not banned from the forums.

 

A banned cacher's listings can be logged. Sometimes individual listings are locked, but this is unusual and often temporary.

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

Thanks for the comments, Karst.

I think that this is the place to hear the official policy. After all, why would it be kept secret? If I e-mail Groundspeak then I'm only going to publicise the results on here, so it might as well be from the horse's mouth direct. The reviewers presumably know the process, or at least part of it. AFAIK only one of these bans was because of violating the ToU, and that was so debatable that the terms had to be amended.

 

As for it being common, well without trying I've come across three bans in recent months. That seems quite a lot to encounter, when you consider I've been to no events and had little contact with others except via the UK forum. Tip of the iceberg? I know that a banned user's caches can be logged, but the listing is as it was when the ban started. I don't think that such a user can amend the listing or add notes (such as, "I'll fix this cache as soon as I get back") and it can cause a little inconvenience.

Link to comment

HH

 

Bans may start with an issue being raised to GS by a reviewer but that is where our involvement (and knowledge) ends. We can't give you the answer you seek but the guys monitoring contact@geocaching.com will be the best people to ask.

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer & Forum Mod - geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php

Link to comment

Suspensions from Geocaching.com might occur if the behavior of a cacher has violated our site's Terms of Use. A geocacher may actively try to circumvent the Geocaching.com cache placement guidelines, and this has at times resulted in a site suspension. A geocacher may violate the forum guidelines, which has at times resulted in site suspension.

 

Reports of behavior come from members of the geocaching community, volunteers, organizations external to Groundspeak, such as land managers, and lackeys. Each case is assessed and decided on its own merits, and after careful consideration. Suspension length is part of this consideration. All correspondence between Groundspeak and a geocacher who has been suspended is considered confidential.

Link to comment

And can we come up with a better system, where the geocacher involved learns a lesson without having to cause bad feeling all round and a nuisance to others?

Sandy has given most of the answer HH needs, but I'd like to add a couple of things.

 

Although I don't know the details of any ban, it does appear to me that they have been imposed only where the behaviour of which Groundspeak disapprove is persistent, i.e. the cacher is asked to desist, and banned only if they ignore that request. And contrary to "it seems to be mostly down to reviewers wanting to teach people a lesson after receiving harsh criticism", from what I've seen, none of the bans appear to have been due to criticising reviewers.

 

Like it or not, the site is Groundspeak's ball game, and as long as they operate within relevant laws, they can choose to run it how they wish. As users we can discuss their rules, but we have agreed not to ignore them. If we dislike their rules so much that we can't accept them, the only recourse is not to use the site. There are alternative sites (though listing a comparitively insignificant number of caches), but it should be clear that they have rules too, many of which are similar, and those who persistently and deliberately break their rules are no more welcome there than they would be here.

 

Finally, the bans I've seen have been short enough not to have inconvenienced other cachers.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

Although I don't know the details of any ban, it does appear to me that they have been imposed only where the behaviour of which Groundspeak disapprove is persistent, i.e. the cacher is asked to desist, and banned only if they ignore that request. And contrary to "it seems to be mostly down to reviewers wanting to teach people a lesson after receiving harsh criticism", from what I've seen, none of the bans appear to have been due to criticising reviewers.

I hope that this is more common than the bans I've seen. Clearly, one tends to see only one side of the argument anyway so I'm not getting carried away with any ban that appears unfair; even though a couple seem to lie outside of being persistent and deliberate circumvention of the guidelines.

But thanks to Sandy for the clarification.

 

(Edited to add) If a mod would care to close this topic now. It's been discussed in a reasonable manner but the subject has the potential to get heated. As I think the question has been answered as well as can be expected, it's probably a good moment to lock the thread before anyone succumbs to temptation and posts something less civilised!

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...