Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
The Magna Defender

Block function like on facebook

Recommended Posts

The feature exists on social media and is a godsend when ignoring troublesome keyboard warriors?

The function is implemented in the Messenger Centre, but is it a possibility to incorporate it into the website.

There are particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches and just leave criticism after criticism. I have requested them to ignore my caches, but they are so intent on their futile FTF stats they still carry on willy nilly. 

The only way to eliminate contact with them would be to have a block function to stop them looking for and commenting on my caches.

Any thoughts? I'm at the end of my tether with these two.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

Any thoughts? I'm at the end of my tether with these two.

I have seen this type of harassment which led to the banning of the CO. My advice is to be careful.

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:
16 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

There are particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches and just leave criticism after criticism. I have requested them to ignore my caches, but they are so intent on their futile FTF stats they still carry on willy nilly. 

The only way to eliminate contact with them would be to have a block function to stop them looking for and commenting on my caches.

Any thoughts?

1. I would strongly disapprove of any mechanism which allowed  a CO to selectively choose who can see their caches, this would inevitably lead to private geocaching circles, and some areas would become even more cliquey than they are at the moment, and I don't see Groundspeak ever implementing such a thing.

2. If they are genuinely abusing and harassing you then report it to Groundspeak via the Contact Us link, and let them deal with it.

Concur on both points.  To add to #1, apart from the given restrictions that are already available to cache owners (terrain and difficulty rating, premium member only caches), there is no way to screen who may find one's caches.

Perhaps call for a truce and a summit meeting down the pub?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

1. I would strongly disapprove of any mechanism which allowed  a CO to selectively choose who can see their caches, this would inevitably lead to private geocaching circles, and some areas would become even more cliquey than they are at the moment, and I don't see Groundspeak ever implementing such a thing.

2. If they are genuinely abusing and harassing you then report it to Groundspeak via the Contact Us link, and let them deal with it.

Agreed.  We're already seeing cliques in certain areas, and other than pmo, a function that would exclude others IIRC won't be allowed by Groundspeak.  And thank goodness.  Continued harassment, a report on TOU issues to the site is the proper step.  :)

Share this post


Link to post

Another thing to consider Jack is that I'm pretty sure from other discussions I've seen that there are  more than  just these 2  cachers who have a beef with you (and you with them), so if such a feature was introduced they could easily team up to litter caches around the North West, and all block you  - that could leave you with swathes of territory where you can't cache and where you can't place any caches 'cos you can't see where the existing ones are hidden, then you'd be complaining about them harassing you by blocking you.

Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it ;)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

As a practical matter, if Blocked Cacher A and Blocked Cacher B go on a geocaching trip with Neutral Cacher A and Neutral Cacher B, and everyone finds caches owned by Blocking Owner, what happens? Can Blocked Cacher A and Blocked Cacher B log their finds? After all, basic members have several ways to log their finds on PMO caches.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

The feature exists on social media and is a godsend when ignoring troublesome keyboard warriors?

Sorry - but I have to chuckle at the idea of sitting behind a keyboard using an online forum to attack troublesome keyboard warriors :lol::lol::lol:

This forum though does have an ignore feature ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

Another thing to consider Jack is that I'm pretty sure from other discussions I've seen that there are  more than  just these 2  cachers who have a beef with you (and you with them), so if such a feature was introduced they could easily team up to litter caches around the North West, and all block you  - that could leave you with swathes of territory where you can't cache and where you can't place any caches 'cos you can't see where the existing ones are hidden, then you'd be complaining about them harassing you by blocking you.

Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it ;)

Yep, based on past discussions, the OP's area seems like it could best be described as a toxic caching community. Having a way to restrict caches would probably escalate that area into something akin to a warzone, with warring factions fighting over 161-metre-radius circular territories, shattered plastic littering the ground, and FTF claims being fought over to the last cacher.

Maybe you should all get together and try to just be friends instead of trying to find new ways to mess with each other?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Rather than a "block" function (akin to building a wall to keep out those you don't like), perhaps it would be better to have an "ignore" function (akin to walking away from someone you don't like).

Share this post


Link to post

I really do understand where the OP is coming from.  A few years in particular I dearly wished for a block function. 

But as others have intimated, in reality it is just not feasible.  Caches and logs need to be seen by everyone (including NM and NA logs). 

The "share a beer" solution with said troublesome mob is a good idea.  Indeed, I have personally done this successfully.  But in reality it just is not always possible for everyone to be everyone else's friend.  There are many (clashing) personalities in the geocaching world - especially these days.

I have sort of got around the lack of block function by using filters in my email.  Outta mind, outta sight.

I know it's tough and sounds a bit cliche - but just ignore those that seek to upset you.  Don't retaliate in any way, shape or form.  Ignoring them and their actions is the best way to frustrate their efforts.  Hopefully, they will eventually get bored with it.

Personally, I would like to see is the ability to block people from clicking on my caching name and seeing the recent caches I've found.  My name would still appear in the logs of caches I did.  I fail to see the harm in that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Fangsoki said:

Personally, I would like to see is the ability to block people from clicking on my caching name and seeing the recent caches I've found.  My name would still appear in the logs of caches I did.  I fail to see the harm in that.

Curious what you feel it would accomplish.  I don't believe anyone who feels sort of this way would log in real time.  It's the history of the cache, and you entered that find online.  Guess I don't understand (and have seen this in a couple others) why some folks are a bit wary of past logs, but think nothing of posting pictures of themselves and others in those same areas.    :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Fangsoki said:

I really do understand where the OP is coming from.  A few years in particular I dearly wished for a block function. 

Of course we're assuming here that the OP is innocent in all of this - which may not be the case. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/6/2018 at 10:24 PM, The A-Team said:

Yep, based on past discussions, the OP's area seems like it could best be described as a toxic caching community. Having a way to restrict caches would probably escalate that area into something akin to a warzone, with warring factions fighting over 161-metre-radius circular territories, shattered plastic littering the ground, and FTF claims being fought over to the last cacher.

Maybe you should all get together and try to just be friends instead of trying to find new ways to mess with each other?

It's not his *area* which is toxic...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:
17 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

It's not his *area* which is toxic...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Are you being smutty Marty? <_<

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/03/2018 at 10:15 AM, Team Microdot said:
On 11/03/2018 at 6:10 PM, MartyBartfast said:
On 11/03/2018 at 5:20 PM, LFC4eva said:

It's not his *area* which is toxic...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Are you being smutty Marty? <_<

I'll take that as a yes then ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I tried to put aside all negativity a few years ago, we had a bit of a calm where we didn't really push each other's buttons. Then someone started bad mouthing me on a forum and it got ugly again. :wacko: I'd like to see the end of it and perhaps a block function would just be the solution. They won't see my caches or my logs and that would eliminate the problem. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

I tried to put aside all negativity a few years ago, we had a bit of a calm where we didn't really push each other's buttons. Then someone started bad mouthing me on a forum and it got ugly again. :wacko: I'd like to see the end of it and perhaps a block function would just be the solution. They won't see my caches or my logs and that would eliminate the problem. 

What is it about your caches or your logs that causes the problem?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 06/03/2018 at 1:06 AM, The Magna Defender said:

There are particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches and just leave criticism after criticism. I have requested them to ignore my caches, but they are so intent on their futile FTF stats they still carry on willy nilly. 

The only way to eliminate contact with them would be to have a block function to stop them looking for and commenting on my caches.

Any thoughts? I'm at the end of my tether with these two.

Can you give some examples of the *abuse* and criticism you have received from them on your caches?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Let's not turn a feature request into a forum for airing specific grievances.  Let's keep the discussion focused on whether having the feature is a good idea or a bad idea.  Assume that the OP's problem statement accurately states that there are "particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Let's imagine for a second that I was determined to drive some other local cachers out of the game - or at least inconvenience them - for whatever reason.

A block function would help to facilitate that.

Once I have that in place all I'd need to do is carpet-bomb the local area with caches that the block prevents them from finding and hey-presto, they have nothing to find locally and either have to travel extensively to geocache or quit.

Meanwhile, anyone I class, for the moment, as outside the set of particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches and just leave criticism after criticism does not have this limitation inflicted on them. Unless I change my mind.

Sounds like an agenda which, I believe, Groundspeak wants to keep out of geocaching.

And that's why it's a bad idea.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Once I have that in place all I'd need to do is carpet-bomb the local area with caches that the block prevents them from finding and hey-presto, they have nothing to find locally and either have to travel extensively to geocache or quit.

To be a devil's advocate for a moment...

If such a person puts out those caches and is wililng to maintain them as per their owner responsibility, then what does it matter the reason for the person publishing them? Let's assume this issue is perfectly covert and private between these two people, and neither talks about it to anyone else.  How is that particular situation of any concern to anyone? (other than the effect of taking over an entire region for the local community, but that's no longer specific to this situation)

Let's say one of them shares about the quarrel, and it's a bad one - eventually it's reported to a reviewer or HQ because someone is causing problems. They could then make a judgement as to whether this now-obligated-to-maintain cache owner is abusing the system or not.

At this point the theoretical circumstance I'd estimate would be an extremely rare one.

 

I don't think the threat of 'carpet bombing' to remove an area of possible publishing for a geocacher with whom the co has a quarrel is really a feasible reason, in and of itself, to not implement a block feature.  The chances of a 'perfect storm' where the blocked user is unfairly and with no viable reported complaint hindered from placing caches by a CO due to an act of placing and sufficiently maintaining a region-wide set of caches, seems to me extremely unlikely at best.

Badly maintained or no intent to maintain? Escalate, or it's a short lived blanket. Quarrel beyond mere land blocking? Escalate for possible TOU violation or a problematic user.  Basically, a bad apple in the community can get escalated one way or another, otherwise, all we have a very active cache owner being the first to place a whole load of caches over a region, and that happens quite often.

 

That said, I'm not defending the idea of a block feature, I just don't see 'carpet bombing' out of spite as a viable potential concern and criticism against the idea.

ETA: I don't think GS would want to judge (or have reviewers judge) whether a CO publishing 2 or more caches is doing so out of spite against someone else; whether or not there's a block feature in play.  But, if there is sufficient complaint or reporting about a user, that's a different matter.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Badly maintained or no intent to maintain? Escalate, or it's a short lived blanket. Quarrel beyond mere land blocking? Escalate for possible TOU violation or a problematic user.  Basically, a bad apple in the community can get escalated one way or another, otherwise, all we have a very active cache owner being the first to place a whole load of caches over a region, and that happens quite often.

How would the blocked cacher report caches they were blocked from seeing?

And why are you assuming they will badly maintained or not maintained or why anyone would complain when doing so would place them in the set of particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches and just leave criticism after criticism?

 

20 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That said, I'm not defending the idea of a block feature, I just don't see 'carpet bombing' out of spite as a viable potential concern and criticism against the idea.

I wish I shared your optimism.

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

How would the blocked cacher report caches they were blocked from seeing?

They wouldn't. But if they know one CO is doing it, and it's worth reporting (likely on the basis of being a user causing problems in the community, moreso than "I don't like them" or vice versa), they can still report the user, not the caches. Or someone else who can see the problem can report on their behalf perhaps. Then it becomes a reported situation (by whomever reports it) and GS can jduge whether it's an abuse worth addressing or not. As now, GS wouldn't want to be in the business of adjudicating a quarrel, unless they deem there's an abuse or violation (which is addressed above).

Again, point being, GS wouldn't to add another discernment for reviewers, "is this CO intentionally trying to take away publishable ground from another user without them knowing simply out of spite" as a reason to deny a listing. If the CO is publishing a large series, the reason for doing so should not be the reviewer's concern (as currently), unless there's a guideline abuse beyond a two-person disagreement going on. So, if the CO has blocked someone, I'm sure it wouldn't be a publish-deniable act if it seemed they were deciding to publish a large number of caches. Unless an abuse were reported and HQ decided that the set of caches shouldn't be published for another reason.  As currently, typically that would come down to land, permission, other guideline issues, CO demonstration of responsibility, or on the rare occasion if the CO is on a 'time out' from publishing.

Point, again: Strictly related to concern for a person blanket-publishing a high count of caches merely to block a region from another cacher publishing, with no other reason to deny such a set from being published (ie merely to the point of a two-user quarrel), isn't sufficient criticism of the 'block' feature, imo, since that's ultimately what the block function would be for.  If they're otherwise good caches that others can find, no reason not to publish. If there's no other reason to deny publishing, then they'd get published.

 

However, I certainly don't personally think that it's good for the community, or general 'geocaching health' to have HQ condone drawing lines and partitions in community; and allowing one person to disallow another from seeing a cache in any way poses other possible issues.  Plus, apart from Premium Members Only option, GS has demonstrated repeatedly that they like people to find caches, certainly not enable people to stop other people from finding caches (which they could otherwise find, or choose to attempt or not) due to quarrelling.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

They wouldn't. But if they know one CO is doing it, and it's worth reporting (likely on the basis of being a user causing problems in the community, moreso than "I don't like them" or vice versa), they can still report the user, not the caches. Or someone else who can see the problem can report on their behalf perhaps. Then it becomes a reported situation (by whomever reports it) and GS can jduge whether it's an abuse worth addressing or not. As now, GS wouldn't want to be in the business of adjudicating a quarrel, unless they deem there's an abuse or violation (which is addressed above).

Again, point being, GS wouldn't to add another discernment for reviewers, "is this CO intentionally trying to take away publishable ground from another user without them knowing simply out of spite" as a reason to deny a listing. If the CO is publishing a large series, the reason for doing so should not be the reviewer's concern (as currently), unless there's a guideline abuse beyond a two-person disagreement going on. So, if the CO has blocked someone, I'm sure it wouldn't be a publish-deniable act if it seemed they were deciding to publish a large number of caches. Unless an abuse were reported and HQ decided that the set of caches shouldn't be published for another reason.  As currently, typically that would come down to land, permission, other guideline issues, CO demonstration of responsibility, or on the rare occasion if the CO is on a 'time out' from publishing.

Point, again: Strictly related to concern for a person blanket-publishing a high count of caches merely to block a region from another cacher publishing, with no other reason to deny such a set from being published (ie merely to the point of a two-user quarrel), isn't sufficient criticism of the 'block' feature, imo.  If they're otherwise good caches that others can find, no reason not to publish. If there's no other reason to deny publishing, then they'd get published.

 

However, I don't personally think that it's good for the community, however, or general 'geocaching health' to have HQ condone drawing lines and partitions in community; and allowing one person to disallow another from seeing a cache in any way poses other possible issues.  Plus, apart from Premium Members Only option, GS has demonstrated repeatedly that they like people to find caches, certainly not enable people to stop other people from finding caches (which they could otherwise find, or choose to attempt or not) due to quarrelling.

So...

I've managed to convince Groundspeak to allow me to block cachers I class as troublesome keyboard warriors,  particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches and just leave criticism after criticism, on the basis that I have requested them to ignore my caches, but they are so intent on their futile FTF stats they still carry on willy nilly.

That was easy enough - none of that language is in any way combative after all...

I've blocked those cachers I described earlier - they can't see my caches, can't log my caches and so from this point on they've no idea what I'm up to. Yet somehow they undermine Groundspeak's decision to allow me to block them in the first place and manage to contact Groundspeak about my unseen activities and convince them that the rationale under which the block feature was granted was fundamentally incorrect.

Groundspeak now makes a massive u-turn, yes?

Remember that at no point have I mentioned either party's goal being to prevent the other party from publishing caches - you seem to have added that yourself from nowhere, so you're perfectly welcome to claim that as (not) sufficient criticism of the 'block' feature if you feel that way inclined but I fail to see what it has to do with the discussion thus far.

For the avoidance of doubt - in this imagined scenario I'm not using my right to block other cachers as a means to stop them placing caches - only as a means to prevent them from finding my caches and from being troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches and just leave criticism after criticism.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

For the avoidance of doubt - in this imagined scenario I'm not using my right to block other cachers as a means to stop them placing caches - only as a means to prevent them from finding my caches

Well then that's not the situation I was addressing. I was responding to users who were intentionally blanketing an area to stop someone they blocked from placing caches. So if that's not your context, then ...

 

... Going back to re-read the post I was responding to...

3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Let's imagine for a second that I was determined to drive some other local cachers out of the game - or at least inconvenience them - for whatever reason.

A block function would help to facilitate that.

Once I have that in place all I'd need to do is carpet-bomb the local area with caches that the block prevents them from finding and hey-presto, they have nothing to find locally and either have to travel extensively to geocache or quit.

Alright, I misread the post. My fault - I was addressing prevention of publishing, something different to which you weren't making the point.

See, I can admit error :P:ph34r:.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Alright, I misread the post. My fault - I was addressing prevention of publishing, something different to which you weren't making the point.

See, I can admit error :P:ph34r:.

In fairness you may have registered this theme from earlier in the thread where martybartfast suggested it as a possibility by which the OP might end up hoist by his own petard.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Keystone said:

Let's not turn a feature request into a forum for airing specific grievances...

I wasn't expecting specific grievances.. or even identifying those responsible.. I was merely asking for *examples* of the kind of abuse the OP is talking about.  The same CO made the same feature request back in 2015 and on that occasion, the worst of the *abuse* was simply "bleating about wet logs / container size / driveby's etc."

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/336240-cache-blocking/#comment-5551941

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/336240-cache-blocking/&do=findComment&comment=5553030
5 hours ago, Keystone said:

Let's keep the discussion focused on whether having the feature is a good idea or a bad idea.  Assume that the OP's problem statement accurately states that there are "particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches."

OK.. for the purpose of this thread,  I will pretend to believe that there really is an issue with ""particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches."

IMHO it would be a bad idea for the simple reason that it would be open to abuse and some cachers would be blocked for silly reasons - like commenting that a log is wet, expressing disappointment about the size or state of the cache, posting a NM or a NA log even though it is deserved, writing TFTC instead of a glowing essay about how wonderful their cache is - even though in truth, it is a soggy mess, beating someone in a race to be FTF.


 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

OK.. for the purpose of this thread,  I will pretend to believe that there really is an issue with ""particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches."

I do not have to pretend because I have witnessed such a behaviour. Random ban for arbitrary selected participant seems to work as a deterrent.

I do not believe that this kind of blocking will ever be implemented but it should be executed by administrators, not by players, and the block should work both ways. Player A can not see caches and logs by player B and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:
3 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

OK.. for the purpose of this thread,  I will pretend to believe that there really is an issue with ""particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches."

I do not have to pretend because I have witnessed such a behaviour. Random ban for arbitrary selected participant seems to work as a deterrent.

I do not believe that this kind of blocking will ever be implemented but it should be executed by administrators, not by players, and the block should work both ways. Player A can not see caches and logs by player B and vice versa.

A random ban for an arbitrary selected participant?

How would that work? Put the names of every cacher into a hat and draw one at random? Regardless of whether they had any involvement in any 'situation'?

Unsurprisingly, I don't see that going down very well.

Reviewers putting us on the naughty step?

I don't see that working either - if only because reviewers, in my admittedly limited experience, want nothing whatsoever to do with geocacher disputes.

Share this post


Link to post

If any blocking feature were to be created beyond the blocking functionality already available to TPTB, then I agree with this from arisoft's post:

58 minutes ago, arisoft said:

...it should be executed by administrators, not by players...

Leaving it up to the players would allow for far too much abuse and could potentially degrade this hobby into a series of private caches with no sense of community.

If there are any cases of harassment or other conduct that violates the Terms of Use, feel free to report the perpetrators. Otherwise, either accept that caches can be found by anyone or pick up your ball and go home.

To be clear, I'm not in favour of a heavy-handed feature like arbitrarily blocking members from viewing a cache.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Reviewers putting us on the naughty step?

"Administrators" in this case would refer to the Lackeys. They're already the ones who can ban accounts entirely, so it makes sense that they would be in charge of running a theoretical ban-from-viewing-a-cache feature. I agree that the reviewers wouldn't want to be involved and I don't see any reason for them to be.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

"Administrators" in this case would refer to the Lackeys. They're already the ones who can ban accounts entirely, so it makes sense that they would be in charge of running a theoretical ban-from-viewing-a-cache feature. I agree that the reviewers wouldn't want to be involved and I don't see any reason for them to be.

I don't think that would satisfy the OP's craving for power.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

Why do I want a block function? ----- ^^^^^ stuff like this.

Fortunately, the forums do have an Ignore User function. Just hover the pointer over the name or avatar of the person you want to ignore, and the popup will include an Ignore User button.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

How would that work?

The ban prevents communication (private messaging from the system) in both directions so you need to ban only one participant. It does not matter whether the bully or the victim is banned. In many cases it is not possible to determine which is which because things are complicated. If there are many bullies then it is easier to ban the one they are bullying. This technique seems to work perfectly in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

The ban prevents communication (private messaging from the system) in both directions so you need to ban only one participant. It does not matter whether the bully or the victim is banned. In many cases it is not possible to determine which is which because things are complicated. If there are many bullies then it is easier to ban the one they are bullying. This technique seems to work perfectly in practice.

Ah, ok, so not a random ban for an arbitrary selected participant. A targeted ban of a deliberately selected participant. Thanks for clearing that up :)

You're right about things being complicated though when people who threaten to prise open caches with screwdrivers or to sort out the local meathead who happens to be a landowner who objects to caches on his land without permission are then claiming they are being bullied because someone mentions that the logbook in their cache is wet or the cache is missing.

ETA:

The OP isn't asking though for the ability to block communication via the message centre - that facility already exists - as pointed out by the OP in the OP.

The OP is asking for the ability to block what he considers troublesome keyboard warriors and particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches and just leave criticism after criticism from being able to see / comment on all of his caches.

Edited by Team Microdot
Additional comment

Share this post


Link to post

 

10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't think that would satisfy the OP's craving for power.

 

9 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

Why do I want a block function? ----- ^^^^^ stuff like this.

He rests his case?

There is already a block function on social media so you can't see them and they can't see you..
you can block folk on your phone / email and on the messaging feature on geocaching.com so they can't contact you..
there is an ignore feature on this forum so you don't need to see their posts..
there is an *ignore caches* button so you don't need to suffer the enjoyment of finding decent, well maintained caches.. or the opposite if that is the case..
 
but it's not enough!
 
Some cachers want total control so they can dictate what others can see and do as well.

EXACTLY the reason why having such a feature would be a BAD idea.
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, The A-Team said:

either accept that caches can be found by anyone or pick up your ball and go home.

This

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

The OP is asking for the ability to block what he considers troublesome keyboard warriors and particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches and just leave criticism after criticism from being able to see / comment on all of his caches.

Yes that is what the OP is wanting, especially when the troublesome individuals go through his listed caches looking for faults just so they can log an Needs Maintenance on a cache they haven't visited or will probably ever visit.

For example, this earthcache GC667A7 that they haven't visited, yet they believe is factually incorrect even though the 86 people who have logged the earthcache have never found a problem. They then report it to the reviewer and have it archived for being incorrect.... even though they haven't visited GZ. 

A block function would be useful to prevent my harassment by these individuals who I have requested time and time again just not to look at or log my caches if they have nothing positive to say. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, niraD said:

Fortunately, the forums do have an Ignore User function. Just hover the pointer over the name or avatar of the person you want to ignore, and the popup will include an Ignore User button.

I'd like to ignore them but when I know they are slandering my name all day every day, I really can't afford to sit back to be honest.... 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Magna Defender said:

Yes that is what the OP is wanting, especially when the troublesome individuals go through his listed caches looking for faults just so they can log an Needs Maintenance on a cache they haven't visited or will probably ever visit.

For example, this earthcache GC667A7 that they haven't visited, yet they believe is factually incorrect even though the 86 people who have logged the earthcache have never found a problem. They then report it to the reviewer and have it archived for being incorrect.... even though they haven't visited GZ. 

A block function would be useful to prevent my harassment by these individuals who I have requested time and time again just not to look at or log my caches if they have nothing positive to say. 

The people I feel most sorry for here are the 86 people who were given a duff Earth Science Lesson.

I remember, when I first started setting Earthcaches that I screwed up badly on a couple due to too much enthusiasm and not enough actual knowledge. A couple of local cachers took great delight in absolutely pulling those Earthcaches to pieces. They certainly said what they thought and didn't pull any punches.

I could have cried harassment then, the logs were very unfriendly indeed but instead I took it on the chin. I archived them. Since then I've worked harder to make sure that I don't waste people's time by teaching them stuff which isn't true.

I wouldn't want to block anyone from seeing my EC's. I'd much rather have them on show so that if I have made a mistake somewhere, someone can point it out for me before I mis-educate dozens of people.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Magna Defender said:
14 hours ago, niraD said:

Fortunately, the forums do have an Ignore User function. Just hover the pointer over the name or avatar of the person you want to ignore, and the popup will include an Ignore User button.

I'd like to ignore them but when I know they are slandering my name all day every day, I really can't afford to sit back to be honest....

Always remember, it's only slander if the stuff they are saying isn't true.

Court cases for slander where the facts match the claims being made I expect could get quite costly :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

For example, this earthcache GC667A7 that they haven't visited, yet they believe is factually incorrect even though the 86 people who have logged the earthcache have never found a problem. They then report it to the reviewer and have it archived for being incorrect.... even though they haven't visited GZ.

Not taking sides here, but since you mentioned your own earthcache, I visited the page. 

First, a reviewer didn't archive the earthcache; you did.

618578ae-ffe0-43bd-8518-47e7c8ad3ae8.jpg

Second, I'm not a geologist, nor was I a contractor on the Redcar Esplanade project.  So I don't know the source of the stone you used.  But I do know that fossils are not often found in metamorphic stone, because the metamorphic process normally obliterates organic material like oyster shells and coral. 

Plus a quick image search for Carlow Blue limestone pulls up this example:

Fossil-4-web-1830x780.jpg

which very closely resembles photos of the "black marble" from your earthcache's gallery.

0d801e31-f68b-4502-a9a2-c3333213132d.jpg

c4bcbaff-2b12-4029-9e3f-c91767771618.jpg

While you may disagree with the means by which the issue was raised, and you may ascribe some other motive behind it, the fact is that...yeah, it looks like you had a factually incorrect earthcache, and rather than do some research and correct the errors, you archived it.

As far as your statement that 86 geocachers didn't have an issue with it, consider that may be because they weren't geologists and they trusted you to have your facts straight.

I'm sure you have other examples of not getting along with team microdot, and they you, but this one wasn't exactly a smoking gun of ill will.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 8:44 AM, Keystone said:

Let's not turn a feature request into a forum for airing specific grievances.  Let's keep the discussion focused on whether having the feature is a good idea or a bad idea.  Assume that the OP's problem statement accurately states that there are "particularly troublesome local and abusive finders who harass COs about their caches."

Despite the prior moderator post, this thread continues to function more as a forum for the airing of grievances than for the discussion of the merits for a new feature request (is it a good idea, how would it work, etc.).  Since several of the active participants continue to post off-topic, I am closing this thread. The OP is advised not to open a new forum thread on the same subject. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×