Jump to content

Locked User = Disabled then Archived Caches?


JL_HSTRE

Recommended Posts

A local cacher got a 30 day ban from Groundspeak during which time their account is Locked.

 

At the same time their account was locked, the Geocaching HQ account Disabled all of the user's caches. Then a week later the Geocaching HQ Archived all the user's caches.

 

Is this standard procedure and if so what is the reason for it? (If not then maybe there is more to the story and that is the reason for the archiving.)

 

I understand perhaps disabling Earthcaches because of the nature of the logging requirements. However, unless the ban was related to the caches themselves (to my knowledge it wasn't) this seems like a bad idea. Those caches are sitting out there ready to be found, but are now archived. If the CO returns after their ban then they could request they all be unarchived, but this seems to put alot of extra work on the local Reviewer. Worse, if the CO doesn't return or doesn't want to bother going through the process of having dozens of caches unarchived then they will remain as geotrash.

Link to comment

Generally on a short term ban the members caches are disabled. Once the ban is over the member can re-enable the caches and also revalidate their email so they can again get notifications on the cache. If the caches have been archived then I think that means the temporary ban has become permanent. They must have done something to upset the frog. Yeah, I doubt the banned member will do much to clean up the geolitter.

Link to comment

A local cacher got a 30 day ban from Groundspeak...

Holy Mackerel, Batman! The most I've ever managed were ever increasing forum bans, for saying really dumb things. I can't imagine someone being so bad that they are banned from the entire process, even as a temporary measure. Perhaps this hobby is not for them? As to their caches, if they are the sort of ilk who would even consider leaving them out in the wild after a full ban, then they definitely don't belong in this sand box. Hopefully, that's not the case, and any caches which don't get reactivated will get picked up by them.

 

On a related note, if we could get them to join DGS, we could start a new bashing thread. <_<

Link to comment

Maybe burned a few bridges while the temp ban was in place.

 

Possible. I would suspect that they possibly got frustrated by the ban and asked for them to be archived.

 

Or they could have ranted and raved, and got really nasty with Groundspeak HQ during correspondence about the ban, and really did themselves in. I guess we'll never know. :)

Link to comment

Maybe burned a few bridges while the temp ban was in place.

 

Possible. I would suspect that they possibly got frustrated by the ban and asked for them to be archived.

 

Or they could have ranted and raved, and got really nasty with Groundspeak HQ during correspondence about the ban, and really did themselves in. I guess we'll never know. :)

 

Right. One must never ever ever ever NEVER question Groundspeak or TPTB.

Link to comment

Looks like the Archival was due to the 30 day ban being upgraded.

 

Although I still wonder whether auto-archiving is a good idea since the containers will often still be in place.

By upgraded I assume you mean permanent. I guess they could be left active, and slowly rot away and finally the soggy moldy geotrash could be eventually archived. Or they can be archived right off the bat and rot away in peace. What do you propose should be done? One of the problems with someone going out an picking them up there is an outside chance they are now in play on some other site. Which, of course, means they will rot away in peace.

Link to comment

Looks like the Archival was due to the 30 day ban being upgraded.

 

Although I still wonder whether auto-archiving is a good idea since the containers will often still be in place.

 

Well, they always could be moved to another Geocaching website run by a major GPS manufacturer. I think it's safe to say that a different Geocaching website with a very similar name won't be contacted to list them. Cryptic as that is and all. :)

Link to comment

Something like that happened a few years ago in Orlando. A geocacher upset TPTB so much that his caches were locked and archived. Some of his friends adopted the caches, but the reviewers would not allow them to be re-listed unless all traces of the original owner were removed from the cache description.

Link to comment

Maybe burned a few bridges while the temp ban was in place.

 

Possible. I would suspect that they possibly got frustrated by the ban and asked for them to be archived.

 

Or they could have ranted and raved, and got really nasty with Groundspeak HQ during correspondence about the ban, and really did themselves in. I guess we'll never know. :)

 

Right. One must never ever ever ever NEVER question Groundspeak or TPTB.

 

Lot's of people question and criticize Groundspeak or TPTB all the time but don't get banned.

 

 

Link to comment

Right. One must never ever ever ever NEVER question Groundspeak or TPTB.

 

I have never seen a ban on a cacher that was not well-deserved. Think about it -- there are people who behave badly in all other areas of life; why would geocaching be any different?

 

If someone were truly banned inappropriately you can be certain that we would hear about it. In this case, I would argue that absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

Link to comment

Right. One must never ever ever ever NEVER question Groundspeak or TPTB.

 

I have never seen a ban on a cacher that was not well-deserved. Think about it -- there are people who behave badly in all other areas of life; why would geocaching be any different?

 

If someone were truly banned inappropriately you can be certain that we would hear about it. In this case, I would argue that absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

 

Did we hear about the 30 day ban handed out to the late Sven, GeoVlogger? Yes we did. We could still debate that one, but take a look if you haven't lately, and see how many Geocaching Vlogger's are on YouTube right now. He paved the way for that, you know. :)

 

This guy, on the other hand, had a well deserved ban, trust me. No one out there in their right mind could come up with anything remotely resembling an excuse for his behavior.

Link to comment

Right. One must never ever ever ever NEVER question Groundspeak or TPTB.

 

I have never seen a ban on a cacher that was not well-deserved. Think about it -- there are people who behave badly in all other areas of life; why would geocaching be any different?

 

If someone were truly banned inappropriately you can be certain that we would hear about it. In this case, I would argue that absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

 

If someone is permanently banned from this site he had to work really hard at it.

 

The idea that you can't question Groundspeak is absurd. I'm a volunteer and I sometimes criticized Groundspeak before I became one and have done so since. It's all a matter of how you approach it. If your criticism is reasoned and respectful it is welcome here. If you rant and call names then you might encounter issues.

Link to comment

The idea that you can't question Groundspeak is absurd.

Exactly. I am a huge fan of Groundspeak, and I love the product that they produce. However, that doesn't mean I agree with every policy they've cranked out over the years. Some of these policies I have disputed loudly and often, and will likely keep complaining about them. It's just my nature. As long as my whining doesn't escalate past the standards set by the Terms of Use, I can't imagine getting banninated permanently.

Link to comment

Right. One must never ever ever ever NEVER question Groundspeak or TPTB.

 

I have never seen a ban on a cacher that was not well-deserved. Think about it -- there are people who behave badly in all other areas of life; why would geocaching be any different?

 

If someone were truly banned inappropriately you can be certain that we would hear about it. In this case, I would argue that absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

 

Did we hear about the 30 day ban handed out to the late Sven, GeoVlogger? Yes we did. We could still debate that one, but take a look if you haven't lately, and see how many Geocaching Vlogger's are on YouTube right now. He paved the way for that, you know. :)

 

This guy, on the other hand, had a well deserved ban, trust me. No one out there in their right mind could come up with anything remotely resembling an excuse for his behavior.

 

Sven, while being perhaps the most well known geocaching vlogger, was not the first one. ;)

Link to comment

Right. One must never ever ever ever NEVER question Groundspeak or TPTB.

 

I have never seen a ban on a cacher that was not well-deserved. Think about it -- there are people who behave badly in all other areas of life; why would geocaching be any different?

 

If someone were truly banned inappropriately you can be certain that we would hear about it. In this case, I would argue that absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

 

Did we hear about the 30 day ban handed out to the late Sven, GeoVlogger? Yes we did. We could still debate that one, but take a look if you haven't lately, and see how many Geocaching Vlogger's are on YouTube right now. He paved the way for that, you know. :)

 

This guy, on the other hand, had a well deserved ban, trust me. No one out there in their right mind could come up with anything remotely resembling an excuse for his behavior.

 

Sven, while being perhaps the most well known geocaching vlogger, was not the first one. ;)

 

Sorry, didn't mean to go off topic. :lol: I was responding to a direct quote from Fizzy, "If someone were truly banned inappropriately you can be certain that we would hear about it." (also seen above). Point being enough people thought Sven's ban was unfair that it was actually lifted early.

 

Heck, I'll bet BrianSnat was uploading Geocaching related videos by 2003! I'm not so sure there were any regular, weekly dedicated Geocaching Vloggers before Sven. I could be wrong though. Lord knows there's about 1,000 abandoned Geoaching Blogs, and about 100 abandoned Geocaching podcasts out there. :P

Link to comment

Right. One must never ever ever ever NEVER question Groundspeak or TPTB.

 

I have never seen a ban on a cacher that was not well-deserved. Think about it -- there are people who behave badly in all other areas of life; why would geocaching be any different?

 

If someone were truly banned inappropriately you can be certain that we would hear about it. In this case, I would argue that absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

 

If someone is permanently banned from this site he had to work really hard at it.

 

The idea that you can't question Groundspeak is absurd. I'm a volunteer and I sometimes criticized Groundspeak before I became one and have done so since. It's all a matter of how you approach it. If your criticism is reasoned and respectful it is welcome here. If you rant and call names then you might encounter issues.

 

They probably requested the return of Virtuals one too many times. :anibad:

Link to comment

Looks like the Archival was due to the 30 day ban being upgraded.

 

Although I still wonder whether auto-archiving is a good idea since the containers will often still be in place.

Maybe TPTB should send out the area reviewer to pick up the trash that they archived. I'm sure the CO isn't going to pick them up. So TPTB locked them out and leave the trash in place to rot. Doesn't make sense to me.

Link to comment

Looks like the Archival was due to the 30 day ban being upgraded.

 

Although I still wonder whether auto-archiving is a good idea since the containers will often still be in place.

Maybe TPTB should send out the area reviewer to pick up the trash that they archived. I'm sure the CO isn't going to pick them up. So TPTB locked them out and leave the trash in place to rot. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Not a good idea as its their property whether or not it eventually becomes trash. They may list them on another website, or someone else may list them with their permission. A geocache still has an owner despite it's listing status. These are locked as well.

 

I thought the 30 day ban was rather lenient, as 6 months is more of what I would expect. Since it has been extended indefinitely, I suppose they did not handle it well.

Link to comment

now you got me curious. What on earth could possibly get me banned for life? I feel like I'm missing out on a whole other side of the game !!

 

Touchstone gave a good example earlier. A blatant violation of the Terms of Use would do it. Specifically, the Restrictions section identifies some specific behaviors that could get someone banned.

 

  • Restrictions. Permission to use our services is subject to the following restrictions. Whether these restrictions have been violated shall be determined in our sole discretion. You agree not to:
    • Use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access our services for any purpose without our express written permission.
    • Frame our websites or any portion of our sites on another website or mobile application without our written permission.
    • Use our services, including GPX files, for any purpose other than your personal use without our written permission.
    • Take any action that imposes, or may impose in our sole discretion an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure.
    • Abuse or exploit bugs, undocumented features, design errors or problems in our services.
    • Interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of our services or any activities conducted on through our services or other measures we may use to prevent or restrict access to our services.
    • Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute (including by emailing us) any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, profane, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, harmful to minors, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.
    • Impersonate any person or entity, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with any person or entity.
    • Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute any content that you do not have a right to under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationship or for which you have not obtained required consent from third parties.
    • Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute any content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual property or proprietary rights of any person, including without limitation under any privacy or publicity rights.
    • Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, junk mail, spam, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or any other form of unauthorized solicitation.
    • Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute any content that contains viruses or any other computer code, files or programs which interrupt, destroy, limit the functionality of, or cause damage to our services or any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment.
    • Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue in our forums or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges.
    • Interfere with or disrupt our services or servers or networks connected to the services, or fail to comply with any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the services.
    • Reverse engineer, decompile, or attempt to extract the source code of the software associated with our services.
    • Violate any applicable local, state, national or international law.
    • Violate any of the guidelines or policies associated with our services.
    • Interfere with the ability of others to enjoy our services.
    • Stalk, harass, or otherwise harm another user of our services, Groundspeak employee or third party.
    • Collect, store or distribute personal data about other users of our services.
    • Promote, distribute or provide instructional information about illegal activities
    • Promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual or property damage.
    • Publish on our websites the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the geocache owner.
    • Misrepresent the location or legality of a geocache you have submitted through our services.

 

Link to comment

It looks like only the cool kids know what's going on here.

 

Agreed. I sure don't. Sounds like an interesting story, and perhaps would be a valuable lesson in what not to do?

 

The extended ban is 90 days, up from 30. Not permanent. I'd rather not delve into the ban itself, which is a separate issue (and not terribly interesting IMO). The thread is about how Groundspeak handles the cache listings of banned COs; lets stick to that.

Link to comment

It looks like only the cool kids know what's going on here.

 

Agreed. I sure don't. Sounds like an interesting story, and perhaps would be a valuable lesson in what not to do?

 

The extended ban is 90 days, up from 30. Not permanent. I'd rather not delve into the ban itself, which is a separate issue (and not terribly interesting IMO). The thread is about how Groundspeak handles the cache listings of banned COs; lets stick to that.

 

It was already discussed in the Dirtbag thread anyhow.

Link to comment

now you got me curious. What on earth could possibly get me banned for life? I feel like I'm missing out on a whole other side of the game !!

 

Touchstone gave a good example earlier. A blatant violation of the Terms of Use would do it. Specifically, the Restrictions section identifies some specific behaviors that could get someone banned.

 

  • Restrictions. Permission to use our services is subject to the following restrictions. Whether these restrictions have been violated shall be determined in our sole discretion. You agree not to:
    • Use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access our services for any purpose without our express written permission.
    • Frame our websites or any portion of our sites on another website or mobile application without our written permission.
    • Use our services, including GPX files, for any purpose other than your personal use without our written permission.
    • Take any action that imposes, or may impose in our sole discretion an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure.
    • Abuse or exploit bugs, undocumented features, design errors or problems in our services.
    • Interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of our services or any activities conducted on through our services or other measures we may use to prevent or restrict access to our services.
    • Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute (including by emailing us) any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, profane, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, harmful to minors, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.
    • Impersonate any person or entity, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with any person or entity.
    • Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute any content that you do not have a right to under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationship or for which you have not obtained required consent from third parties.
    • Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute any content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual property or proprietary rights of any person, including without limitation under any privacy or publicity rights.
    • Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, junk mail, spam, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or any other form of unauthorized solicitation.
    • Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute any content that contains viruses or any other computer code, files or programs which interrupt, destroy, limit the functionality of, or cause damage to our services or any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment.
    • Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue in our forums or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges.
    • Interfere with or disrupt our services or servers or networks connected to the services, or fail to comply with any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the services.
    • Reverse engineer, decompile, or attempt to extract the source code of the software associated with our services.
    • Violate any applicable local, state, national or international law.
    • Violate any of the guidelines or policies associated with our services.
    • Interfere with the ability of others to enjoy our services.
    • Stalk, harass, or otherwise harm another user of our services, Groundspeak employee or third party.
    • Collect, store or distribute personal data about other users of our services.
    • Promote, distribute or provide instructional information about illegal activities
    • Promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual or property damage.
    • Publish on our websites the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the geocache owner.
    • Misrepresent the location or legality of a geocache you have submitted through our services.

 

And in most of the above cases there will be a warning or two or more, before a ban. As I said, you need to work really hard at it.

Link to comment

Looks like the Archival was due to the 30 day ban being upgraded.

 

Although I still wonder whether auto-archiving is a good idea since the containers will often still be in place.

Maybe TPTB should send out the area reviewer to pick up the trash that they archived. I'm sure the CO isn't going to pick them up. So TPTB locked them out and leave the trash in place to rot. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

The CO is banned from being a member of geocaching.com, not from being a cache owner. Does banning someone also cause memory loss so that they can't remember where they placed their own caches? If they are a responsible person, they'll go retrieve the cache.

Link to comment

Looks like the Archival was due to the 30 day ban being upgraded.

 

Although I still wonder whether auto-archiving is a good idea since the containers will often still be in place.

Maybe TPTB should send out the area reviewer to pick up the trash that they archived. I'm sure the CO isn't going to pick them up. So TPTB locked them out and leave the trash in place to rot. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

The CO is banned from being a member of geocaching.com, not from being a cache owner. Does banning someone also cause memory loss so that they can't remember where they placed their own caches? If they are a responsible person, they'll go retrieve the cache.

I really doubt someone that was banned from a game is going to go out and pick up their game pieces. I realize there are other GPS games that hide containers as well and could post those caches on their sites but I doubt they would. I could be wrong though. So now the containers will sit as litter until the containers break down and the contents just blow away in the wind.

Link to comment

I can think of one real-life example in my home area where the cache owner was banned permanently and his listings on Geocaching.com were archived and locked, but the caches remain viable years later on other listing sites.

 

We are talking about the listings, not the caches, being archived. When someone misbehaves so profoundly as to earn a 30 day website ban, then engages in additional egregious behavior so as to justify the addition of three more months on top of that, it should not surprise anyone for the listing site to say "we don't want to list your caches here anymore."

 

And in any event, this takes place at the Groundspeak level - not the volunteer cache reviewer level. I have no responsibility to go "clean up" the caches in my area that are owned by a banned member, and wouldn't do that even if you paid me. It's their cache. Get upset with them for being silly enough to bring a ban down upon themselves, depriving you of the chance to find their caches here on Geocaching.com.

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

Yeah, I'm a bit unclear about how this thread devolved into blaming a Reviewer, for a potential future decision of a cache hider. As a self ordained tree hugger, I do not like litter. What for most will be a 4 hour paddle, will take me 8 hours, because I stop so often to pick up trash. This pattern holds true for hikes and bike rides as well. Given that attitude, if Groundspeak were to finally get fed up with me, and boot me to the curb, there is no way I'd leave my caches out there. But, for argument's sake, let's pretend that I decide to place my ego above my love of Nature, and I do leave my caches behind in a fit of pique. Would that be a Reviewer's fault? Would it be Groundspeak's fault? Why is it so hard to put blame where it belongs? If BillyBobNosePicker gets banninated, and leaves geo-litter behind, that's on him.

Link to comment

Right. One must never ever ever ever NEVER question Groundspeak or TPTB.

 

I have never seen a ban on a cacher that was not well-deserved. Think about it -- there are people who behave badly in all other areas of life; why would geocaching be any different?

 

If someone were truly banned inappropriately you can be certain that we would hear about it. In this case, I would argue that absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

"cough"

In my case I may have been bad but it was a 2 way street. I don't think I should have been the only one "restricted" and marked with a scarlet letter. And they didn't disable mine and I still cached but had to wait til it was over to get on my account and log all the finds. When it happened to me is about when they changed it from "Banned" to "Restricted". In this cachers case, being banned I guess was the next step if you don't cooperate. They were even kind enough not to allow any of my caches to be archived due to my absense.

Link to comment

I really doubt someone that was banned from a game is going to go out and pick up their game pieces.

Then they're a slob who left their garbage out in the woods. Being banned has nothing to do with it. That cache would lay there until the end of time because the CO is a slob, not because of anything Groundspeak did.

 

So now the containers will sit as litter until the containers break down and the contents just blow away in the wind.

 

See my response above. Banning someone does not automatically turn them from a responsible cache owner into a slob.

Link to comment

I really doubt someone that was banned from a game is going to go out and pick up their game pieces.

Then they're a slob who left their garbage out in the woods. Being banned has nothing to do with it. That cache would lay there until the end of time because the CO is a slob, not because of anything Groundspeak did.

 

So now the containers will sit as litter until the containers break down and the contents just blow away in the wind.

 

See my response above. Banning someone does not automatically turn them from a responsible cache owner into a slob.

OK the reviewer idea was a horrible one. :laughing:

Link to comment

Maybe burned a few bridges while the temp ban was in place.

 

Possible. I would suspect that they possibly got frustrated by the ban and asked for them to be archived.

 

Or they could have ranted and raved, and got really nasty with Groundspeak HQ during correspondence about the ban, and really did themselves in. I guess we'll never know. :)

Unless one of the insiders tells us - either directly or through a sock puppet account. :grin:

 

Inquiring minds want to know - so please tell us.

Link to comment

It looks like only the cool kids know what's going on here.

 

Agreed. I sure don't. Sounds like an interesting story, and perhaps would be a valuable lesson in what not to do?

 

The extended ban is 90 days, up from 30. Not permanent. I'd rather not delve into the ban itself, which is a separate issue (and not terribly interesting IMO).

Yes, it would be useful for members.

 

Just tell us the info - or if it's so ultra-top-secret, give examples of past problems.

 

GS has been criticized for not enough transparency - are you going to prove or disprove the critics?! :huh:

Link to comment

Maybe burned a few bridges while the temp ban was in place.

 

Possible. I would suspect that they possibly got frustrated by the ban and asked for them to be archived.

 

Or they could have ranted and raved, and got really nasty with Groundspeak HQ during correspondence about the ban, and really did themselves in. I guess we'll never know. :)

Unless one of the insiders tells us - either directly or through a sock puppet account. :grin:

 

Inquiring minds want to know - so please tell us.

 

Post #31 may help you solve this riddle wrapped in an mystery, inside of a enigma. rolleyes:

Link to comment

It looks like only the cool kids know what's going on here.

 

Agreed. I sure don't. Sounds like an interesting story, and perhaps would be a valuable lesson in what not to do?

 

The extended ban is 90 days, up from 30. Not permanent. I'd rather not delve into the ban itself, which is a separate issue (and not terribly interesting IMO).

GS has been criticized for not enough transparency - are you going to prove or disprove the critics?! :huh:

 

I have since been able to piece together the story. I disagree that it is not interesting or useful as an object lesson. From what I have been able to determine, the individual in this case got peeved at a TB owner who did not want logs on a TB that had disappeared. The cacher in question then made thousands of fraudulent logs on the TB page using a sock-puppet account.

 

Sure seems like the ban was well-deserved.

Link to comment
I have since been able to piece together the story. I disagree that it is not interesting or useful as an object lesson. From what I have been able to determine, the individual in this case got peeved at a TB owner who did not want logs on a TB that had disappeared. The cacher in question then made thousands of fraudulent logs on the TB page using a sock-puppet account.

 

Sure seems like the ban was well-deserved.

 

But if a cacher receives a ban for an incident like that should all their caches be disabled or archived? Whether the CO is still playing (by their choice or due to punishment from Groundspeak) doesn't change whether their geocache containers are still physically present and findable. There are plenty of active listings where the CO hasn't found a geocache or logged in for years, but the cache page is still active and the container still in play. And I would bet that more often than not a ban results in the containers NOT being picked up by the CO.

 

If the reason for a ban involved cache placements that severely violated Guidelines then I could see all of the CO's hides being archived as well under the assumption that other hides have unreported issues. And for other bans I could at least understand Earthcaches since answers are supposed to be sent to the CO which can't happen when an account is banned/locked. Probably also Virtuals and perhaps even Challenge Caches because of similar verification issues. If it's a communication issue between COs and Groundspeak and/or other geocachers through their profile then having your address become unverifiable should automatically trigger disabling your cache listings (and goodbye some old Virtuals as a result).

 

To repeat something I said before: this thread is about how cache listings of a CO who is banned are handled by Groundspeak. The particular ban that inspired this thread may be interesting to some, but seems off-topic. Any ban could have triggered this question. "Things that will get you banned" or "Was this ban deserved?" seem like questions for a separate thread.

Link to comment

But if a cacher receives a ban for an incident like that should all their caches be disabled or archived? Whether the CO is still playing (by their choice or due to punishment from Groundspeak) doesn't change whether their geocache containers are still physically present and findable. There are plenty of active listings where the CO hasn't found a geocache or logged in for years, but the cache page is still active and the container still in play. And I would bet that more often than not a ban results in the containers NOT being picked up by the CO.

According to the official Groundspeak line, the cache owner is responsible for maintaining his caches. I would imagine that a cacher who's been banned will no longer receive notifications from Groundspeak, including Needs Maintenance logs. Even if he were in any mood for maintaining his caches (and I can't imagine he would be), he would have no way to know they need maintenance.

 

I'm not a big fan of expecting the caching community to maintain caches that have been abandoned by cache owners. I vote for archiving the caches and hoping the banned member will at least pick up his geolitter.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

Maybe burned a few bridges while the temp ban was in place.

 

Possible. I would suspect that they possibly got frustrated by the ban and asked for them to be archived.

 

Or they could have ranted and raved, and got really nasty with Groundspeak HQ during correspondence about the ban, and really did themselves in. I guess we'll never know. :)

Unless one of the insiders tells us - either directly or through a sock puppet account. :grin:

 

Inquiring minds want to know - so please tell us.

Post #31 may help you solve this riddle wrapped in an mystery, inside of a enigma. rolleyes:

Yes, posts 29 & 31 were helpful. Post 43 is most helpful, though. Thanks!

 

I think I'll roll my eyes too, just for fun! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

It looks like only the cool kids know what's going on here.

 

Agreed. I sure don't. Sounds like an interesting story, and perhaps would be a valuable lesson in what not to do?

 

The extended ban is 90 days, up from 30. Not permanent. I'd rather not delve into the ban itself, which is a separate issue (and not terribly interesting IMO).

GS has been criticized for not enough transparency - are you going to prove or disprove the critics?! :huh:

 

I have since been able to piece together the story. I disagree that it is not interesting or useful as an object lesson. From what I have been able to determine, the individual in this case got peeved at a TB owner who did not want logs on a TB that had disappeared. The cacher in question then made thousands of fraudulent logs on the TB page using a sock-puppet account.

 

Sure seems like the ban was well-deserved.

Yes, it is useful & interesting. Thanks!

Link to comment

But if a cacher receives a ban for an incident like that should all their caches be disabled or archived? Whether the CO is still playing (by their choice or due to punishment from Groundspeak) doesn't change whether their geocache containers are still physically present and findable. There are plenty of active listings where the CO hasn't found a geocache or logged in for years, but the cache page is still active and the container still in play. And I would bet that more often than not a ban results in the containers NOT being picked up by the CO.

According to the official Groundspeak line, the cache owner is responsible for maintaining his caches. I would imagine that a cacher who's been banned will no longer receive notifications from Groundspeak, including Needs Maintenance logs. Even if he were in any mood for maintaining his caches (and I can't imagine he would be), he would have no way to know they need maintenance.

 

I'm not a big fan of expecting the caching community to maintain caches that have been abandoned by cache owners. I vote for archiving the caches and hoping the banned member will at least pick up his geolitter.

 

--Larry

 

I've run into a few instances of cachers being banned forever. (One must really work hard to irritate the frog that much!) In some cases, I've been able to put together what seems to have happened. In others, I have no idea.

But once the cacher is gone forever, that cacher would be unable to maintain the cache page. (Reactivate inactive caches. Delete bogus logs. &c.) That cache page is dead. Archive and lock seems the best answer. Smack the Frog, and you deserve what you get!

No. I see no problem with archiving and locking cache pages of owners who are permanently banned. Cacher gone: caches gone.

(Though I would love to log the locked virtual next to one of my hides. Oh, well.)

Two-Day wonders, cachers who have disappeared, or are unable to cache at this time, have the opportunity to return and take care of their caches. Not that it happens a lot. But cachers who work hard to get permanently banned deserve to get their caches archived and locked.

Link to comment

If a cacher receives a ban, should all their caches be archived?

Absolutely. A ban requires a significant amount of effort from the person receiving the ban. It is, by no means, a simple process. You've got to really work on it. Once a cacher crosses that line, the ban says, in essence, that Groundspeak does not want to do business with that person anymore. They obviously don't play well with others, and they need a serious wake up call if there is any chance of redeeming them and turning them into productive members of this hobby.

 

Your premise that these archived caches might end up becoming litter actually works against your argument. If someone gets banned, and they are the type of person who is capable of leaving their caches as litter, this hobby is probably better off without them.

 

If they do grow up and learn to play nice, their caches can be reinstated once the ban is lifted.

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...