Suspended by Groundspeak - for logging a virtual with a group account

[+Hemal]

Hello

My friend has a personal account, and one family account (2 adults and 2 children). When his wife was travelling alone, she logged a virtual with a selfie. Later my friend wanted to add this cache to their family account, so he wrote a log and used the same selfie (of his wife).

The owner of the virtual deleted the log. My friend explained it was a family account, and logged again. The owner complained to Groundspeek. Then Groundspeak - with no warning - suspended my the family accound for 6 months. 

 

My friend wrote an appeal, and explained everything. Groundspeak did not answer, but they suspended his personal account!

I wrote to Groundspeak several times, explaining that this must be an error, but they say my friend must write himself. 

 

To me it seems like Groundspeak is a big organisation now, and nobody is there to take responsibility when something is wrong.

Has anyone else had similar problems?

[fendmar]

This begs more information.

[+humboldt flier]

1 hour ago, fendmar said:

This begs more information.

Indeed more information might clarify.  

 

Did a bunch of folks have "Bad Hair Days" resulting in a perfect storm??  

 

I am personally connected with a couple of cachers on the receiving end of "harsh responses" from the Lilly Pond and as you might imagine; they stomped off with a middle finger salute aimed in the general direction of Seattle.

 

The heat must have been considerable to result in a "Six Monther".

[+Max and 99]

2 hours ago, fendmar said:

This begs more information.

Sure does!! I suspect there is more to the story. 6 months is a big suspension! 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Max and 99

[+Max and 99]

6 hours ago, Hemal said:

When his wife was travelling alone, she logged a virtual with a selfie. Later my friend wanted to add this cache to their family account, so he wrote a log and used the same selfie (of his wife).

What account did the wife log a virtual with? 

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, Hemal said:

with no warning

 

I think that the suspension is the warning. Termination is the punishment.

 

6 hours ago, Hemal said:

but they suspended his personal account

 

Did they warn against arguing about this matter during the suspension period?

Edited December 1, 2021 by arisoft

[+GeoElmo6000]

6 hours ago, Hemal said:

The owner complained to Groundspeek. Then Groundspeak - with no warning - suspended my the family accound for 6 months. 

 

I'd be interested in seeing the text of the complaint.  There is some Seinfeld-esque "yada yada yada" we're missing.

[+humboldt flier]

1 hour ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

I'd be interested in seeing the text of the complaint.  There is some Seinfeld-esque "yada yada yada" we're missing.

Indeed

[+dprovan]

There was no reason to try to add the find to the group account, and it doesn't strike me as reasonable to claim a picture of one member of the group is proof for the group, especially when you're admitting the group wasn't there. So I don't think the find was valid to begin with, and while I can excuse giving it a try, anyway, I certainly think the correct reaction to the find being deleted was to immediately back off and forget about it. I've heard Groundspeak can be somewhat capricious in handing out suspensions, but it sounds like this is a case where the seeker kept arguing after the ruling was made, and it's exactly that behavior that causes many authorities in cases like this to not even explain a suspension for fear of opening the door to a debate.

[+ChriBli]

There was most certainly a reason to try to add the find to the group account, why would they otherwise have done it? Although the reasonable thing would have been to remove it from the wife's account at the same time. That was probably what the CO reacted to, a visit by a single person generating find logs on two different accounts.

 

Logging finds on group accounts even though not the whole group has been present is otherwise very common, at least in my area. It is of course also impossible for the CO to check. I think there are a lot of family or couple accounts out there where all but one member have more or less quit geocaching.

 

Groundspeak's reaction in this case seems unreasonable though, there most be circumstaces that are not mentioned here.

[Johannis10]

13 hours ago, Hemal said:

To me it seems like Groundspeak is a big organisation now, and nobody is there to take responsibility when something is wrong.

Has anyone else had similar problems?

Just my opinion and experience: The reactions of GS are sometimes excellent, but sometimes also in great need of improvement. With your example, I cannot evaluate that due to a lack of background knowledge. Greetings Johannis10

Edited December 1, 2021 by Johannis10

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, ChriBli said:

There was most certainly a reason to try to add the find to the group account, why would they otherwise have done it?

Of course they had a reason, I just think it wasn't a good one. The reason was that even though only one individual with their own individual account completely the virtual, they wanted to claim credit for the whole group even though nothing remotely resembling the whole group was there. Sure, I'm OK with couple having a joint account and pooling all their finds even when they aren't both there just so they don't have to maintain 2 accounts. But when you have a family account and individual accounts, I think you should maintain a distinction between the two. Specifically I would assume you only use the family account when multiple members of the family are there. (I'd also say they shouldn't log such group finds as individuals, too, but that's probably too much to ask.) You're stretching things to claim that when the individual makes an individual find logged to their individual account, that allows you can say the distinct entity of the family was also there. I just generally find it illogical, but if I were forced to make a concrete rule, it would be that one person finding a cache on their own can only result in a single find.

 

I wouldn't object to someone doing something else, but I also support a CO seeing that and rejecting it as invalid.

 

5 hours ago, ChriBli said:

Logging finds on group accounts even though not the whole group has been present is otherwise very common, at least in my area.

Family accounts are common, but I very rarely see anyone logging both as a family and as individuals for the same finds. Most families don't have individual accounts until the child starts caching on their own after which they no longer claim anything for the family.

 

5 hours ago, ChriBli said:

Groundspeak's reaction in this case seems unreasonable though, there most be circumstaces that are not mentioned here.

GS hates arguments. From what I've seen, they do whatever they can to avoid them, including viewing any further comments after a ruling has been made as inherently disrespectful. I don't, myself, think that's a good idea, but at the same time I recognize that they've had to deal with a lot of carp over the years, so they may have found that the only approach that works is to have a zero tolerance attitude towards people that don't accept a ruling, no matter how polite they are. These suspensions don't quite fit this theory, but they're close enough that I can imagine this being the approximate explanation given how little we know about what actually happened.

 

What has been explained to us is that the family account was suspended because the find was added again after the CO rejected it. I admit being surprised by the fact that that's a suspendable action all on its own, but my reaction is more "good to know so I don't make the same mistake" rather than thinking it's illogical. Relogging a rejected find is like starting a fist fight: someone's going to get hurt but nothing can possibly be resolved. I can see GS taking a dim view of that even as I recognize I didn't know that would lead to a suspension so it's reasonable to assume the person suspended didn't know they were committing a cardinal sin, either.

 

[+humboldt flier]

I have heard it said:  "Thems' with the gold makes the rules".  

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, dprovan said:

Relogging a rejected find is like starting a fist fight: someone's going to get hurt but nothing can possibly be resolved.

 

My friend had recently an over 2 years old find deleted by a CO because the signature was missing. It was obvious that one page was missing from the logbook but the CO didn't give permission to relog. Instead, the CO asked to appeal to HQ so my friend did so. The result was that HQ restored the original log. The reason for the ruling is not known because there was no feedback from the HQ.

 

This case is different. The wife thought that she is so entitled to hit two flies with one slap that she ignored the CO's opinion. Relogging without solving the dispute first seems to be the key point here.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

My friend had recently an over 2 years old find deleted by a CO because the signature was missing. It was obvious that one page was missing from the logbook but the CO didn't give permission to relog. Instead, the CO asked to appeal to HQ so my friend did so. The result was that HQ restored the original log. The reason for the ruling is not known because there was no feedback from the HQ.

Right. Once the CO rejects it, only an appeal could change the situation. It surprises me a little that they didn't get an "oops" for not realizing that's what they had to do, but perhaps they've been warned about this before or something.

 

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

This case is different. The wife thought that she is so entitled to hit two flies with one slap that she ignored the CO's opinion. Relogging without solving the dispute first seems to be the key point here.

Right again, although it wasn't the wife that tried to log the cache a second time. It was the husband who admits he wasn't involved in the find trying to log the find on the group account. Although the wife logging twice isn't great, the person that had nothing to do with the find is engaging in an armchair log, by definition. That strikes me as a little more unsuipportable.

[+baer2006]

6 hours ago, dprovan said:

Relogging a rejected find is like starting a fist fight: someone's going to get hurt but nothing can possibly be resolved.

It depends, I would say.

 

Not long ago, I had two of my find logs (same CO) deleted, without any comment or message to me whatsoever. In one of the logs, I had criticized the puzzle (along the lines of "ambiguous questions, lots of guesswork, etc."), the other one was in my view completely harmless. I wrote an e-mail to the CO to tell them why I think both logs are valid (and their content not violating guidelines or ToU), that I would re-post the logs, and that in case of another deletion I would appeal to GS. I didn't get any reaction to this mail either, and my re-logged finds still stand.

 

OTOH, if a CO deletes my log, and tells me why, then I totally agree that it doesn't make sense to just re-log the find. The only ways are a discussion with the CO (if that's possible), or an appeal to GS. Or, in exceptional circumstances , accepting the reasons for the log deletion.

[+schmittfamily]

16 hours ago, dprovan said:

Sure, I'm OK with couple having a joint account and pooling all their finds even when they aren't both there just so they don't have to maintain 2 accounts. But when you have a family account and individual accounts, I think you should maintain a distinction between the two. Specifically I would assume you only use the family account when multiple members of the family are there. (I'd also say they shouldn't log such group finds as individuals, too, but that's probably too much to ask.) You're stretching things to claim that when the individual makes an individual find logged to their individual account, that allows you can say the distinct entity of the family was also there. I just generally find it illogical, but if I were forced to make a concrete rule, it would be that one person finding a cache on their own can only result in a single find.

 

 

My first thought would be the whole point to having a family account and separate individual accounts is for the family account to be the superset of the individual ones.

That is actually interesting for a family to track.

Maintaining a family account to be a subset of the individual members finds doesn't seem interesting to track.

I wouldn't recommend creating a bunch of accounts to track subsets or supersets of finds though as there are landmines in the "Terms of Use" agreement.  

 

To the OP.

It's not really a surprise that your friend had a their personal account suspended when they wrote in to appeal the family account being suspended.

The "Terms of Use" agreement says suspensions apply to the person who owns the account and they can not access the services through other accounts while suspended.  

Writing in on one account you own to appeal a suspension for another account you own is just asking to get that account suspended as well.

 

 

[+Harry Dolphin]

My nephew has an EarthCache.  It is popular, and cachers enjoy the hands on efforts.  Two cachers found some caches in the park, and decided to log the EarthCache.  No answers were sent.  The cachers were asked for the answers to the questions.  No answer.  The logs were deleted.  One cacher let that be.  The other kept logging a 'found it', with no answers.  Logs were deleted.  The cacher sent an offensive and insulting e-mail to my nephew.  That was sent to Geocaching.com.  That cacher was banned from logging the EarthCache.  

[+thebruce0]

The other option for 'tracking' if there's a crossover between cachers and group accounts, is to just maintain a bookmark list of shared finds, or whatever may be the crossover situation. No potential issues with duplicate, sockpuppet, or fake accounts, and the lists can't be touched by COs anyway.

 

Maybe a guy and girl are dating and they have separate accounts but want to track what they find when together. Bookmark list. Creating a 3rd shared account to double-log shared finds could likely fall down the same line as the OP.

[+MNTA]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The other option for 'tracking' if there's a crossover between cachers and group accounts, is to just maintain a bookmark list of shared finds, or whatever may be the crossover situation. No potential issues with duplicate, sockpuppet, or fake accounts, and the lists can't be touched by COs anyway.

 

Maybe a guy and girl are dating and they have separate accounts but want to track what they find when together. Bookmark list. Creating a 3rd shared account to double-log shared finds could likely fall down the same line as the OP.

 

I log all my kids finds on a trackable

[+Mudfrog]

On 12/1/2021 at 11:19 AM, dprovan said:

There was no reason to try to add the find to the group account, and it doesn't strike me as reasonable to claim a picture of one member of the group is proof for the group, especially when you're admitting the group wasn't there. So I don't think the find was valid to begin with, and while I can excuse giving it a try, anyway, I certainly think the correct reaction to the find being deleted was to immediately back off and forget about it. I've heard Groundspeak can be somewhat capricious in handing out suspensions, but it sounds like this is a case where the seeker kept arguing after the ruling was made, and it's exactly that behavior that causes many authorities in cases like this to not even explain a suspension for fear of opening the door to a debate.

 

I agree. From what the OP stated below, 

Quote

When his wife was travelling alone, she logged a virtual with a selfie. Later my friend wanted to add this cache to their family account, so he wrote a log and used the same selfie (of his wife)

  

it's obvious that a "find" log was not in order. The rest of the family was not there when the virtual was discovered. The cache owner did the right thing deleting the false log.  

 

As far as the suspension, we don't have enough information to give a good opinion.

 

[+cerberus1]

7 hours ago, MNTA said:

I log all my kids finds on a trackable

 

Yep, many families we know use a trackable that represents each kid.    

Later, if they want their own account, each kid knows what caches they were present on.

[+Max and 99]

I'm a little surprised that after HQ got involved they're allowing the CO to still require a selfie.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

I'm a little surprised that after HQ got involved they're allowing the CO to still require a selfie.

 

Am I missing something? The cache in question is a virtual and a photo of the finder at the location is allowed as a logging task:

 

Quote

Acceptable logging tasks:

• Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.
• Tasks for the finder to fulfill at the location (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log).
• Photos of the geocacher at the location; a face cannot be required in the photo.
• Photos of a personal item at the location. Examples include a trackable or a piece of paper with the geocacher’s username.

 

[+Max and 99]

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Am I missing something? The cache in question is a virtual and a photo of the finder at the location is allowed as a logging task:

 

 

The virtual requires a selfie, but maybe I'm just misremembering the correct virtual. I've never taken a selfie but I always assumed it included your face. Maybe I got that totally wrong. 🤳

Edited December 3, 2021 by Max and 99

[+barefootjeff]

25 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

The virtual requires a selfie, but maybe I'm just misremembering the correct virtual. I've never taken a selfie but I always assumed it included your face. Maybe I got that totally wrong. 🤳

 

A quick online search for the meaning of "selfie" just says "a photograph that you take of yourself", no mention of faces.

[+Max and 99]

20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

A quick online search for the meaning of "selfie" just says "a photograph that you take of yourself", no mention of faces.

Thank you for clarifying.

[+frostengel]

On 12/1/2021 at 10:13 AM, Hemal said:

When his wife was travelling alone, she logged a virtual with a selfie. [...] he wrote a log

 

I can understand the virtual owner's problem with the log. If the wife logs the cache outside how can the husband write the log online? He does not know anything about the hunt so he can only tell that they found the cache (which is partially true). If a team account is used but only a part of the team visits a cache let this part log the cache online so that the story behind the hunt can be told there.

 

Jochen

[+dprovan]

On 12/2/2021 at 1:23 AM, baer2006 said:

It depends, I would say.

Welllll, no, not really. You could have just sent him your argument and ask him to reconsider, then just waited for him to give you permission to relog. Instead, you forced the situation by relogging without permission. That's still like starting a fist fight. The fact that he backed down by not deleting the relog as soon as you shook your fist is just a detail.

 

I don't mean to criticize what you did. It may have been the best approach. I don't know. What I'm pointing out is that the CO hadn't relented -- and, from your description, I have no way the dismiss that possibility -- then you and the CO would have been in a useless fist fight. In other words, you lucked out.

[+dprovan]

On 12/2/2021 at 11:36 AM, schmittfamily said:

My first thought would be the whole point to having a family account and separate individual accounts is for the family account to be the superset of the individual ones.

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me or not. I agree that's the point of a family account, but that's exactly why I draw the line between a single person finding a cache and "the family" -- i.e., more than just one of the family -- finding the cache.

 

On 12/2/2021 at 11:36 AM, schmittfamily said:

t's not really a surprise that your friend had a their personal account suspended when they wrote in to appeal the family account being suspended.

The "Terms of Use" agreement says suspensions apply to the person who owns the account and they can not access the services through other accounts while suspended.  

Writing in on one account you own to appeal a suspension for another account you own is just asking to get that account suspended as well.

On the other hand....I don't know what happens for a geocaching account suspension because, thankfully, I've never had my geocaching.com account suspended, but from what I've heard in other situations (and have myself experienced in various bulletin boards), a suspension often doesn't permit any way for the suspended party to discuss or appeal the suspension. You're suspended, and that *includes* the ability to communicate with anyone, *including* the people that suspended you. So absent any additional information, I would assume that he had to appeal through another account.

 

(Well, edit to add: He had to *object* to the suspension because there's no way to "appeal" though another account.)

Edited December 4, 2021 by dprovan

[+dprovan]

On 12/2/2021 at 8:07 PM, thebruce0 said:

Maybe a guy and girl are dating and they have separate accounts but want to track what they find when together. Bookmark list. Creating a 3rd shared account to double-log shared finds could likely fall down the same line as the OP.

Good example. While I've never had a group account, so I suppose I might not fully understand the idea, to me, if you have a group account in addition to individual accounts, it's because you want some finds credited to the group account while still being able to log *other* finds individually when the group isn't involved. It just seems completely wrong for me to think the group account should collect all finds that all the individual members of the group have found all by themselves. It seems to defeat the purpose of calling it a group account.

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

It just seems completely wrong for me to think the group account should collect all finds that all the individual members of the group have found all by themselves. It seems to defeat the purpose of calling it a group account.

 

My experience is that family group accounts like "Jester's Family" are mostly used by only one person and only sometimes other members of the family participates the hunt. Usually there is no separate accounts for individual members at all. This case is special because a single photo is used for two different accounts due to this special arrangement. I think that the CO is not speculating that all members didn't visit the cache but the CO has right to require an unique photo for every account if there is only one person visible in the image.

Edited December 4, 2021 by arisoft

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 12/2/2021 at 5:49 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

 The other kept logging a 'found it', with no answers.  Logs were deleted.  The cacher sent an offensive and insulting e-mail to my nephew.  That was sent to Geocaching.com.  That cacher was banned from logging the EarthCache.  

 

If someone logs an Earthcache, Virtual, or Challenge without providing the requirements, I delete the log and message them why. 

 

If they do it a second time I delete and advise them further such behavior will get them reported to Groundspeak.

 

Third log gets them reported as warned.

 

I've only gotten to step two once and never step three.

 

BTW situations like this the Message Center is really useful. Groundspeak can see the communication (or lack thereof). It's more work to forward the pertinent emails and they can be faked to some degree.

 

 

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

BTW situations like this the Message Center is really useful. Groundspeak can see the communication (or lack thereof).

 

Do they use this opportunity or have right to do so by law? It is a private communication channel. I suppose that they do not.

[+baer2006]

12 hours ago, dprovan said:

Welllll, no, not really. You could have just sent him your argument and ask him to reconsider, then just waited for him to give you permission to relog. Instead, you forced the situation by relogging without permission. That's still like starting a fist fight. The fact that he backed down by not deleting the relog as soon as you shook your fist is just a detail.

Ok, I definitely see your point, and you have valid arguments for it.

 

But after having thought about it, I think I'm sticking with my position. If someone gives me at least a one-liner, why they deleted my log, I will engage into a discussion before unilaterally relogging my find. But if there is no such message, I don't think I need permission to log a find. I already "earned" that permission by finding the cache and signing the log sheet. Anyway ... luckily, I don't have to think about that often . I've been geocaching for almost 14 years now, logged 20K+ finds, and I'm pretty sure that less than 10 of my logs have ever been deleted by a CO. So in the end ... it's not really an issue.

[Darwin473]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

Do they use this opportunity or have right to do so by law? It is a private communication channel. I suppose that they do not.

 

The forum / website is a business owned platform. They'd have at least the responsibility to be able to act on reports of bullying / harassment, and in order to do that then they'd need to be able to access "private" messages. It would be a requirement for moderators / staff / senior staff to be able to view those messages, though they shouldn't be allowed to just have poke around and read messages just because they're in the mood, or bored.

 

Anything someone wants to really keep private from outside eyes should be handled via a different platform, preferably encrypted. For what JL_HSTRE said (making sure GS can see the communication or attempts to) then it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[+arisoft]

8 hours ago, Unit473L said:

The forum / website is a business owned platform.

That means that this business must obey laws like other business do. I don't know how this is regulated in the State of Washington. If the law allows intercepting private communication then it is ok. Othervise it is not. Who knows?

 

[+KRON family]

I would like to know more information. It is definitely possible to get a ban for (maybe) unauthorized log. But...

More than ten years ago, there was a wap version of Geocaching.com. It contained some bugs, for example there was possible to archive geocaches of other owners. I misused this bug and archived one trail of geocaches in a protected landscape area. A few days ago, one player misused this bug for archiving Geocaching Headquarters (GCK25B). My account was suspended for 1 month, his account was suspended for 3 months. I can't believe that one (maybe) unauthorized log should take 6 months of suspended account. There must be much more behind. 

[+dprovan]

On 12/4/2021 at 11:58 AM, baer2006 said:

Ok, I definitely see your point, and you have valid arguments for it.

 

But after having thought about it, I think I'm sticking with my position. If someone gives me at least a one-liner, why they deleted my log, I will engage into a discussion before unilaterally relogging my find. But if there is no such message, I don't think I need permission to log a find. I already "earned" that permission by finding the cache and signing the log sheet.

Again, your analysis is ignoring the likely possibility of the CO just deleting your log a second time. If that happened, you'd be in a pointless fight. You had no reason whatsoever to think that wouldn't be the result.

 

On 12/4/2021 at 11:58 AM, baer2006 said:

I've been geocaching for almost 14 years now, logged 20K+ finds, and I'm pretty sure that less than 10 of my logs have ever been deleted by a CO. So in the end ... it's not really an issue.

That's exactly why you should have presented your argument and waited for permission -- or appealed -- instead of logging the find again with no reason at all to think your second log wouldn't be deleted as quickly as your first. You don't need that one find. Why risk getting in an endless and pointless fight with the CO to get it?

[+baer2006]

7 hours ago, dprovan said:

That's exactly why you should have presented your argument and waited for permission -- or appealed -- instead of logging the find again with no reason at all to think your second log wouldn't be deleted as quickly as your first. You don't need that one find. Why risk getting in an endless and pointless fight with the CO to get it?

To be clear: I did present my argument to the CO. And because I did so, I had at least some reason to think that they wouldn't just delete my log again: They might accept my argument. Also, the "fight" wouldn't have been "endless". Had my log been deleted again, I would have appealed to GS, and accepted whatever result came from this. As you said correctly, I don't need that one find.

 

Bottom line: Ne need (and no intention) for an "endless" fight. But also no need to play super-nice with some jerk who thinks they can delete logs as they see fit.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

On 12/5/2021 at 2:51 AM, arisoft said:

That means that this business must obey laws like other business do. I don't know how this is regulated in the State of Washington. If the law allows intercepting private communication then it is ok. Othervise it is not. Who knows?

 

 

Does it say anywhere, or is it implied that the MC is a 'private communications channel'?

 

I would never assume that. All it says is that it's a way of contacting other players.

 

Unless there's an explicit statement that it's 'private', I think it's silly to assume an 'expectation of privacy'.

 

So, I've heard of the GDPR in Europe, but I don't know what the requirements are there to have that be a valid assumption.

 

GDPR aside, GS owns the data here in the US. They can do whatever the heck they want with it. That's one of the most important lessons I've learned from my kids about today's online world; they've just grown up with NO expectation of privacy.

 

On the flip side, me and my aging 'peeps' (is that still a thing?) get all bent out of shape when we hear about "Browser History"!

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by TeamRabbitRun

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Does it say anywhere, or is it implied that the MC is a 'private communications channel'?

 

It is implied.

 

3 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

I would never assume that. All it says is that it's a way of contacting other players.

 

I must agree that the tool is used for contacting other players - it is like a phone but works with text.

[+dprovan]

13 hours ago, baer2006 said:

To be clear: I did present my argument to the CO.

I understood that. It's the fact that you then logged without permission that I was talking about. I should have said, "That's exactly why, after you presented your argument, you should have waited for permission..." Sorry for the poor phrasing.

 

13 hours ago, baer2006 said:

And because I did so, I had at least some reason to think that they wouldn't just delete my log again: They might accept my argument. Also, the "fight" wouldn't have been "endless". Had my log been deleted again, I would have appealed to GS, and accepted whatever result came from this. As you said correctly, I don't need that one find.

I'm sure you, personally, are perfectly reasonable and would have backed off in practice. I'm just pointing out that your original action was based on logic that would have made just as much sense after the log was deleted a second time. "Oh, he must not have understood my argument. I'll present it again, then relog again. Surely he'll accept it this time."

 

13 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Bottom line: Ne need (and no intention) for an "endless" fight. But also no need to play super-nice with some jerk who thinks they can delete logs as they see fit.

I was pretending that you were seriously assuming the CO would accept your arguments so you didn't need to wait. I feel foolish for thinking you kinda had a good point now that you're admitting that the reason you didn't wait was that you just assumed the CO was a jerk who would never listen to your argument so you were daring him to delete your log a second time.

[+baer2006]

 

11 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I feel foolish for thinking you kinda had a good point now that you're admitting that the reason you didn't wait was that you just assumed the CO was a jerk who would never listen to your argument so you were daring him to delete your log a second time.

Umm ... this seems to run in circles,  so I'm now stepping out of this discussion (which starts to feel a bit like an endless, and definitely needless, "fist fight"). You can check it off as a "win" for you, if you like. Good day to you, sir !

[+dprovan]

Thanks! I will.

[+Hemal]

On 12/1/2021 at 1:26 PM, fendmar said:

This begs more information.

Yes, if I only knew WHY he was suspended, it would be clearer. Groundspeak says it is because of "Harassment", but I am not sure what they mean by that.

[+Hemal]

On 12/1/2021 at 3:21 PM, humboldt flier said:

Indeed more information might clarify.  

 

Did a bunch of folks have "Bad Hair Days" resulting in a perfect storm??  

 

I am personally connected with a couple of cachers on the receiving end of "harsh responses" from the Lilly Pond and as you might imagine; they stomped off with a middle finger salute aimed in the general direction of Seattle.

 

The heat must have been considerable to result in a "Six Monther".

OK, this might indicate that we are not the only one. All I want is that possibly someone around HQ sees this, and can manage to create an "appeal" system that is better at clarifying the rules. 

[+Max and 99]

10 minutes ago, Hemal said:

Yes, if I only knew WHY he was suspended, it would be clearer. Groundspeak says it is because of "Harassment", but I am not sure what they mean by that.

I don't intend for this to sound mean, but this is about YOUR friend. So if you don't know, we certainly don't know!

[+Hemal]

On 12/1/2021 at 3:22 PM, Max and 99 said:

Sure does!! I suspect there is more to the story. 6 months is a big suspension! 

Yes, he has been suspended before. He has many caches, and has maybe tried to put caches in open, acessible areas (marinas, military woods, golf surroundings), and he argued for his opinions . Could also be other things that I do not know of. But anyhow - he should be treated fair in this single incident. 

 

Or is the suspension automaticly getting longer and longer each time, so any small error he does now will give him 6 months - or more?

[+Hemal]

On 12/1/2021 at 3:24 PM, Max and 99 said:

What account did the wife log a virtual with? 

The wife logged with her own personal account, and she has not gotten any problems.