My Apology

February 15, 2004

I want to apologize to any one that I have offended by asking for help with my Wheelchair cache database. I will not be posting on this board any more, as I have been been given a warning and told that I'm spamming the board. I will not call any names, but here is the message I got from a moderator.

"Forum spamming

While your efforts with your wheelchair accessible cache list is commendable, it really is not necessary to spam each and every forum every week or so with it. <br>From the forum guidelines:<br>"Posting Messages: Posting the same message to many topics or boards is considered spam. Duplicate messages will be deleted or consolidated by our moderators. Please do your best to post new topics to the appropriate forum board, moderators will move topics that are posted inappropriately." "

Again I'm sorry that I offended this board.

Roger

1.3k · February 15, 2004

While I understand the rules against spamming, I think what you are doing is great. It's wonderful that you are making an effort to help people that many people think are not good for anything. So you can get some firsthand satisfaction, here is a link to a thread that was just started by a person in a wheelchair. You page has been shown to them, and will undoubtedly help them out a lot.

Great Job!

I have noticed that your threads have popped up quite a bit, but it hasnt bothered me at all. I think we should all have some patience with this and realize that the reason you are posting a lot, is to get as many people help you with your great service. Obviously, firsthand experience with the cache is necessary, so you have to ask the cachers.

Anyways, keep it up. There is no need to apologize to me, and thank you anyways!

:unsure:

February 15, 2004

Please don't let a little discipline stop you from enjoying these forums. It seems obvious to me that you are trying to perform a great service, but may have mis-understood the rules.

You have just learned a boundary, that's all. Keep coming back. And don't give up with your work.

I have cookies turned on so that I can spot new posts each time I visit the board(and I assume many others do the same). And while I don't acctually read every new post, I do skim each new thread. I'm sure if you keep one open thread, it will get just as much reading as if you tried to open a new one each day.

<<Fatboy Slim puts $0.02 on the table and walks away>>

3.8k · February 15, 2004

This thread proves your database is still needed.

Even if the amount of times we hear about it is not. :unsure:

February 15, 2004

I didn't really mind them at all. Just remember, 99.9% of the total people on regional boards visit this board also, so you really only have to post once here, and then keep bumping the topic :unsure:

Edit: Forgot the word "you"...doh!

Edited February 15, 2004 by Odwolda

38.2k · February 15, 2004

I didn't consider what you were doing to be spamming at all. Shame on the moderator who accused you of it. This is an example of someone going by the book and not being flexible when its obviously called for.

Edited February 15, 2004 by briansnat

February 15, 2004

I didn't consider what you were doing to be spamming at all. Shame on the moderator who accused you of it. This is an example of someone going by the book and not being flexible when its obviously called for.

I have to disagree. No matter how good the cause or how worthy the post, there is no need to cross-post everywhere.

February 15, 2004

Couldn't the notice/request for wheelchair access information be one of the "pinned" threads?

RichardMoore

1.1k · February 15, 2004

Couldn't the notice/request for wheelchair access information be one of the "pinned" threads?

RichardMoore

This is a lose lose situation for the mods. If they choose to follow the rules they are to harsh. If they choose to do the 'nice' thing they are opening themselves to criticism from the people here who can't consistently see reality.

Boss I had along time ago had a saying "There is doing things right, and there is doing the right thing, they don't always match." As an employee I knew that he meant sometimes bending the rules is ok, if done for the right reasons. Pinning the topic sounds like a great idea to me.

February 15, 2004

The guy who told warned you should be flammed, record his/her name and the next time your at an area event point at this lunitic and say HEY HE HATES PEOPLE THAT ARE HANDICAPED!!

Seriously, post this persons name here, since you have stated your leaving it won't really matter to you and we will all take fun in messing with him/her.

You could always just fight the system, examples:

topic treads...

help the handicap access

wheelchair info needed

non-two leged help

mobility chalaged assistance

By changing the name your not spamming.

38.2k · February 15, 2004

I have to disagree. No matter how good the cause or how worthy the post, there is no need to cross-post everywhere.

Maybe so, but I think it may have been naivity, or ignorance of forum etiquitte on the part of Rldill. A politely worded note from an admin pointing out his relatively minor breach of forum etiquitte would have been enough. To accuse the guy of being a spammer was a bit over the top. Spamming is a pretty serious charge in the online world and spammers are not looked upon kindly. I know I'd certainly be offended if I were similarly accused.

Edited February 15, 2004 by briansnat

3.1k · February 15, 2004

I appreciate the enthusiasm that this thread was posted and it is a very important topic regardless.

February 15, 2004

To accuse the guy of being a spammer was a bit over the top. Spamming is a pretty serious charge in the online world and spammers are not looked upon kindly. If I were accused of spamming, I'd certainly be offended.

I agree totally with briansnat they could have simply offered to pin the thread or work with him to get the word out about his efforts. It's not like it is a commercial site he has spent his own time to provide a useful service. I hate to say that I never even thought about wheelchair accessible caches until I saw his post. :unsure: I am now planning on finding some suitable locations to hide a few.

1.3k · February 15, 2004

To accuse the guy of being a spammer was a bit over the top.

Is there some other word that would have been more appropriate? While I'll agree it was harsh, it was also the most accurate term for what he did.

Click on his profile and click "See the forum posts for this user" and tell me what word you would have used to describe this behavior. Be sure to note all the sections of the forum the post appears in.

3.1k · February 15, 2004

To accuse the guy of being a spammer was a bit over the top.

Is there some other word that would have been more appropriate? While I'll agree it was harsh, it was also the most accurate term for what he did.

Click on his profile and click "See the forum posts for this user" and tell me what word you would have used to describe this behavior. Be sure to note all the sections of the forum the post appears in.

I think that he has admitted to spamming and in this particular case spamming isn't quite as evil as some make it out. This is a worthwhile cause and I believe he honestly didn't know it was going to be a big deal. He got a warning issued and has moved forward.

I say we just move on.

38.2k · February 15, 2004

Click on his profile and click "See the forum posts for this user" and tell me what word you would have used to describe this behavior. Be sure to note all the sections of the forum the post appears in.

I'd hardly call 22 posts over a two week period spamming. His only "crime" was crossposting in several forums, which probably came from his eagerness to make sure his (very important) message was seen. Was that OK under forum etiquitte? Of course not. Did it warrant that kind of response from a mod? I really don't think so. What's difference between this and the person who bumps his post about an upcoming CITO event every day? The latter seems to be an acceptable practice and I find it to be far more annoying than crossposting.

Edited February 15, 2004 by briansnat

February 15, 2004

I like the idea of pinning a bit about wheelchair accessible caches, too. Simple solution.

I've made one wc cache, and I'd love to have more folks visit it. My cache is on the wc list and I really appreciate that.

February 15, 2004

Here's a vote for pinning!

4k · February 15, 2004

While this is a very valid topic, I agree that what he did was a violation of the forum guidelines. He wasn't banned. He was warned. Take the warning for what it means....you have been warned not to do it again. A warning of 10% doesn't mean anything, and by no means would anyone have known you were warned if you hadn't said so. Let it go, post your message once, and move on. In the literal sense of the word, yes, you were spamming and cross-posting, which goes against the guidelines. You can be banned for both, so therefore, I'd take a warning as a good thing.

February 15, 2004

Sparky-Watts Posted: Feb 15 2004, 10:21 AM so therefore, I'd take a warning as a good thing

is that comming from someone thats been warned........... more then once lol <_<

3.9k · February 15, 2004

I personally know rldill and I know what he is trying to accomplish is a worthy goal. He and I have discussed it a few times. I don't believe he was spamming the boards, just making an effort to get the message out the best way he knew how. You will never meet a nicer or more dedicated cacher than Roger.

I also believe that GC should do everything possible to identify handicap accessible caches. As to the warning from the Moderator, I think he/she could have used a little more tact, but I understand where they are coming from.

With all that being said...lets all make an effort to help Roger identify these caches.

El Diablo

February 15, 2004

Hey . . . Don't sweat the warning . . . Jeez, I got a warning for the second post I ever made on this forum <_< ! Accept the little slap on the wrist, promise not to do it again, and get over it. This is supposed to be fun!! Remember??!!?? :blink: :blink: :blink:

Just my $0.02

3.1k · February 15, 2004

I'd hardly call 22 posts over a two week period spamming.

Agreed. I would like a single post about wheelchair caches pinned myself. It's a great idea. We've had "Lamer" posts pinned.

4k · February 15, 2004

Sparky-Watts Posted: Feb 15 2004, 10:21 AM so therefore, I'd take a warning as a good thing

is that comming from someone thats been warned........... more then once lol

Ummm....well, I've spent most of my forum life with at least 10%, so yeah! :blink:

Add them all up, and I think it would total 60 or 70%.......not bad for 3 1/2 months, eh? :blink:

February 15, 2004

We've had "Lamer" posts pinned.

I agree does "Who are the lurkers" carry so much weight that it should be pinned. Even the "Second Annual Cache In Trash Out Day!" while I think CITO is a good thing the community is doing, does it need to be pinned in the geocaching topics forum when their is a whole forum dedicated specifically to CITO?

Edited February 15, 2004 by IMLost

4k · February 15, 2004

We've had "Lamer" posts pinned.

I agree does "Who are the lurkers" carry so much weight that it should be pinned. Even the "Second Annual Cache In Trash Out Day!" while I think CITO is a good thing the community is doing, does it need to be pinned in the geocaching topics forum when their is a whole forum dedicated specifically to CITO?

If you're not a lurker, don't post in that thread....I got warned for posting there...... <_<

3.1k · February 15, 2004

For posting in CITO?

February 15, 2004

If you're not a lurker, don't post in that thread....I got warned for posting there......

Harsh!!! <_<

1.3k · February 15, 2004

Haha. thats funny. I've never had a warning. Maybe I should post in there to see what happens. I want to be a rebel too!

2.3k · February 15, 2004

This thread has drifted a long way from its topic in the first post. If you are going to post in this thread lets keep it on topic please.

February 15, 2004

Here's a vote for pinning!

Agreed <_<

1.3k · February 15, 2004

Yes. I agree to pin this also. Maybe CO Admin could help us out? <_<

3.1k · February 15, 2004

This thread has drifted a long way from its topic in the first post. If you are going to post in this thread lets keep it on topic please.

The original topic was apologizing for posting a lot about wheelchair or handicapped caches and his website which features them.

That's something worth pinning.

February 16, 2004

This thread has drifted a long way from its topic in the first post. If you are going to post in this thread lets keep it on topic please.

CO Admin,

Thanks for knocking this thread back into line. However, since we now know that you're out there listening <_< , can this subject be pinned?

RichardMoore

7.2k · February 16, 2004

Since this is an apology topic and does not actually contain the link to his web page, pinning this topic would serve no purpose. The topic in Getting Started that SBPhishy links above in the second post on this topic where Corps of Discovery actually gives the link to the wheelchair accesable page would be more like at topic that would need pinning and Getting Started may be the best place for it.

Click here to see the topic that needs pinning if any one does.

Edited February 16, 2004 by mtn-man

7.2k · February 16, 2004

I have posted a message in the pinned FAQ topic.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...ndpost&p=811854

That is really where it needs to be anyway.

3.1k · February 16, 2004

I have posted a message in the pinned FAQ topic.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...ndpost&p=811854

That is really where it needs to be anyway.

thank you

7.2k · February 16, 2004

I have posted a message in the pinned FAQ topic.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...ndpost&p=811854

That is really where it needs to be anyway.

thank you

<_<

I was surprised it wasn't there!

4k · February 16, 2004

Ok...so now that we've gotten that taken care of, would the thread starter like to close the thread? Your apology wasn't needed, as I really don't think anyone was all that offended. Your warning was aptly explained, and a solution was acheived (thanks, Mtn-man)....not bad for a short, one page thread! <_<

3.1k · February 16, 2004

deal is the wheelchair topic got pinned in a thread which isn't about handicapped caches, it's a general post information here thread. I think his thread needs it's own pinning.

4.5k · February 16, 2004

While we're all discussing about either pinning or not, how about sending some of the wheelchair accessible caches to him so he can post them on his database. <_<

Alan

2.3k · February 16, 2004

In support of rldill and meaning no offence to anyone else:

Can anyone else here say they have done such a wortwhile thing with so FEW posts? I would hardly call that spamming.

February 16, 2004

Hello;

I am the wife of rldill. I have stood by as he worked all night on numerous nights trying to get his web site up and running. I always wondered why Geocaching did not offer such a service. It is now apparent that they do not want handicapped people using their site. You may say otherwise, but do they have any method for handicapped people to identify geocaches that are accessible to them? No, the one terrain rating is not it. That rating was defaulted to a one, until rldill suggested it be required that you make a choice.

Geocaching tried to stop his efforts on his project by telling him he was spamming the forums. The mod. that said he was spamming did it in a way as to hide his identity, and has not even responded to his apology. Some of the other mods. have tried to smooth things over by hiding a link to his site at the bottom of a thread that is never read.

Geocaching should identify the caches that are handicap accessible on their own. If they are not going to do that they should at least be willing to help rldill. The request for accessible caches could be pinned at the top of the general forum. The approvers could send the caches that are accessible to him as they are approved. There are several other ways Geocaching to help out with this, but they want it stopped.

Thank you.

Melinda

38.2k · February 16, 2004

t is now apparent that they do not want handicapped people using their site.

That's a ridiculious thing to say and totally uncalled for.

Geocaching tried to stop his efforts on his project by telling him he was spamming the forums. The mod. that said he was spamming did it in a way as to hide his identity, and has not even responded to his apology. Some of the other mods. have tried to smooth things over by hiding a link to his site at the bottom of a thread that is never read.

They did not try to stop it. They only asked him to comply with standard forum etiquitte and not cross post in every forum. The mod who sent the message was a bit heavy handed with his e-mail, but I think we can all assume that he meant no ill towards your husband and his project.

Geocaching should identify the caches that are handicap accessible on their own.

With over 70,000 caches out there, that would be a tall order. It should be up to the individual cache owner to identify his cache as handicap accessable. The 1 star terrain rating is supposed to do this, but is not followed by some. This is the fault of the cache owners, not GC.COM. They can't send someone out to every cache to make sure the terrain rating is appropriate. There are also handicap accessable icons available here.

Your husband's project is a worthy one. So one moderator offended him. It doesn't help matters by spewing invectives at the people who run this site. Try working with them instead.

Edited February 16, 2004 by briansnat

1.2k · February 16, 2004

Hello;

I am the wife of rldill. I have stood by as he worked all night on numerous nights trying to get his web site up and running. I always wondered why Geocaching did not offer such a service. It is now apparent that they do not want handicapped people using their site. You may say otherwise, but do they have any method for handicapped people to identify geocaches that are accessible to them? No, the one terrain rating is not it. That rating was defaulted to a one, until rldill suggested it be required that you make a choice.

Geocaching tried to stop his efforts on his project by telling him he was spamming the forums. The mod. that said he was spamming did it in a way as to hide his identity, and has not even responded to his apology. Some of the other mods. have tried to smooth things over by hiding a link to his site at the bottom of a thread that is never read.

Geocaching should identify the caches that are handicap accessible on their own. If they are not going to do that they should at least be willing to help rldill. The request for accessible caches could be pinned at the top of the general forum. The approvers could send the caches that are accessible to him as they are approved. There are several other ways Geocaching to help out with this, but they want it stopped.

Thank you.

Melinda

Ok, I have stayed out of this as long as I can.

I am a handicapped cacher. A point that I do not go out of my way to make known. I will add to this a piece of information that I very rarely share. My wife uses a wheelchair and has for over 25 years.

Having said that I wish to respond to a few of the comments above.

First: Neither I nor my wife want any special treatment when it comes to caches and caching. Either I can do a cache or I cant. it is MY choice to decide. I have done 1/1's and tried some 3's also. I didn't complete the 3's but thats my problem not the cache owners or Groundspeak, Inc. I do not need someone else feeling sorry for me and having to create some list of caches that may or may not really be accessible. I ask no special consideration of cache owners or the owners of this site. I don't need any either. I survive on MY ability's or lack thereof.

Second:

It is now apparent that they do not want handicapped people using their site.

Well since that must be true (its on the Internet it has to be true). I guess I'm going to have to resign as a cache approver and a forum moderator. (For those who don't know, I'm CO Admin) Gee it will be a surprise to hydee that she doesn't want handicapped people using the site because when she recruited me she knew exactly what was wrong with me. my limitations, my ability's, everything was known to her before I was asked to be an approver. It will also come as a shock to mtn-man whom I have a feeling had something to do with recommending me for the position, that Geocaching.com doesn't want me using their site. And I guess Jeremy and Bryan and the rest of the gang at lily pad central is going to be upset to learn that they don't want me either. The most interesting part is that since Geocaching.com doesn't want me using this site (remember it must be true since it was written here) than all the hard work I did approving caches, like the 60 or so I did today was wasted effort. All the time I put into creating and running The Colorado Association of Cache Hunting Enthusiasts (C.A.C.H.E.) for the last 18 months must not have meant anything because Geocaching.com hates handicapped people. When I was in that hospital last month and one of the Groundspeak, Inc. people called me to make sure I was going to survive that too must have been a lie because Geocaching.com hates handicapped people. Thanks for letting me know that Geocaching.com does not want me using their site. The one thing a handicapped person does not want to be is different. Thanks for pointing out that I am different in spite of all my efforts to be just like everyone else.

Third: Don't you dare EVER feel sorry for me because I cant do a 5 terrain cache. you have a limited number of hard caches. To me they are all hard and that makes them that much more fun. I have to plan a lot longer to look for a cache so I get that much more fun out of finding it. When I go caching I take additional O2 tanks. Cell phones, I have been known to take my doctor with me. I take my Son Scott or my Daughter Kelly. Both are trained on how to keep dad alive until the paramedics arrive. I gave a class to our local fire fighters teaching them how to use lat/lon to locate addresses and nearest roads just so I was sure they could come save my A** if needed. Take a look at this cache Navajo Park Cache this was the last cache I found. read my log please. At the end of my log you will see edits from several approvers, and Groundspeak, Inc. personnel. That was their way of patting me on the back for finding my first traditional cache in over a year. You may never know the joy I had when I found that cache. A simple find for most but to me it was a victory of monumental proportions.

In closing, Geocaching.com doesn't hate handicapped people and not want them to use the site. Geocaching.com wants people to use the site. ALL PEOPLE. To make a statement like the ones in the post i quoted is just plain silly. It is also offensive to those of us who are handicapped and don't want to be treated differently. mtn-man did a good thing by posting the link in the FAQ. Thats where it belongs. What better place to look than the FAQ. Not everyone shares a passion for handicapped caches. I know I don't. Please make your site for those that want it. But don't get upset if it doesn't get the "respect" you think it should. Not all of us see it as that big of a deal.

Edited February 16, 2004 by Lapaglia

2.7k · February 16, 2004

Lapaglia/CO Admin, I salute you. You got kahonees I can only wish for!

*salutes*

<---Lazy scared of the cold SOB

3k · February 16, 2004

LAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<_<

Edited for one too many exclamation points!

Oh and PS, I have one cache on the wheelchair accessable web page. It is Look! Up in the Sky! It's a Bird! in RI. 3 miles of wheelchair friendly trail. I hope to find a few places to put more in the area soon. There should be more.

Edited February 16, 2004 by Planet

1.3k · February 16, 2004

First, let me bow down and wash the horseshoes of CO Admin for that one....

------

Geocaching should identify the caches that are handicap accessible on their own.

With over 70,000 caches out there, that would be a tall order. It should be up to the individual cache owner to identify his cache as handicap accessable. The 1 star terrain rating is supposed to do this, but is not followed by some. This is the fault of the cache owners, not GC.COM. They can't send someone out to every cache to make sure the terrain rating is appropriate.

Second, since I've been around wheelchairs and have more than a few friends that are handicapped let me assure you that I have NO IDEA what the heck it means when it comes to geocaching.

I know one person who qualifies as handicapped who did my 1.5 multi easily simply because the terrain was pretty much family friendly. However this cache couldn't have been done by someone in a wheelchair. It may have been doable by a blind friend of mine if she had her dog. 2 of the 4 stages, definately and the other 2 with difficulty. (Then again she does things I think are impossible all the time..)

I don't know how the rest of you manage, but I don't have a wheelchair to test if my cache is wheelchair accessable with when I make my listing. And that's just one of many handicapps a future geocacher could make. On the other hand, if you are handicapped you can e-mail me about any one of the caches I know the location of and I'll try to help you decide if that cache is right for you. Better yet, log on to any of your local organization's forums or go to their meetings and people will be happy to direct you to the best caches that are suitable for you. (Cache ratings and accessability all in one location!)

I'm sorry, but I see that site as a way of separating the handicapped cachers from everyone else and I don't see that as a good solution.

1.4k · February 16, 2004

I never saw the threads too often. Sounds like a boredom warning.

38.2k · February 16, 2004

Another issue is that all handicaps are different. Someone doesn't have the use of their arms and legs faces different challenges than someone who uses a wheelchair most of the time, but can get out of it for very short periods (like someone I know with CP). The former can get to a cache, but has no prayer of reaching it, even if its inches away from them, while the latter may be able to get out of their wheelchair and make their way behind a nearby stump to search.

And not all handicapped people use wheel chairs. There are people with bad hearts, severe arthritis, emphysema, bad knees and a host of other problems that are handicaps and each present different challenges for that individual.

So in reality. the idea of saying xxxxx cache is handicap accessable doesn't mean it is for everyone with a handicap. I'm not saying the designation is useless, but

the terrain rating is as good a guide as we're going to get. I just wish more people would be realistic when rating their caches.

My Apology

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment