Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)

[nutwood]

I can see the motivation for banning him but, as with most internet enforcement, it appears to be a pointless exercise. I seriously doubt they can prevent him rejoining under another identity so all they've achieved is to make an enemy and publicise the fact. Depending how determined he is, it now remains to be seen how much damage he can do to geocaching before getting bored with it all.
Much better to educate than aggravate.

[roundcircle]

I fail to see how terms & conditions can apply to the entire internet. They just can't. Geocaching.com are not the internet police. He should not have been banned.

He hasn't been banned from the internet, just GC.com

[budgietas]

I can see the motivation for banning him but, as with most internet enforcement, it appears to be a pointless exercise. I seriously doubt they can prevent him rejoining under another identity so all they've achieved is to make an enemy and publicise the fact. Depending how determined he is, it now remains to be seen how much damage he can do to geocaching before getting bored with it all.
Much better to educate than aggravate.

Totally Agree.... This was the point I was trying to get across before, just put I lot better than I could.

[lemmykc]

I fail to see how terms & conditions can apply to the entire internet. They just can't. Geocaching.com are not the internet police. He should not have been banned.

He hasn't been banned from the internet, just GC.com

I think Devar was talking about how the terms and conditions state that you may not publish any spoilers on caches into any form of Media. He is absolutely right though: they can't apply to the whole internet.

I think that one thing that has come from this is just how snarky, mean and self centred the Groundspeak Lackeys have become. Their response to the Challenges anarchy was bad enough, but now this......

[Philipp]

I think that one thing that has come from this is just how snarky, mean and self centred the Groundspeak Lackeys have become. Their response to the Challenges anarchy was bad enough, but now this......

I absolutely disagree: He chose to violate the TOU so he got banned. Of course he can sign up again but just because the consequences are minor it doesn't mean they are random and not rectified.

[caughtatwork]

He did not breach the TOU.
http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize. To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian.

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

...

(m) Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

He did not use "the site" to publish his videos, therefore he is not in breach of the ToU.

[FarmerFrentzen]

He did not breach the TOU.
http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize. To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian.

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

...

(m) Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

He did not use "the site" to publish his videos, therefore he is not in breach of the ToU.

Agreed. Item (m) should not be read in isolation. Section 4 relates to use of the Groundspeak Website and Forums.

[Big Matt and Shell]

Can anyone else see the irony in this thread?

[caughtatwork]

Can anyone else see the irony in this thread?

Nope. My irony meter must be malfunctioning.

[SamCarter]

Can anyone else see the irony in this thread?

Nope. My irony meter must be malfunctioning.

I'm a liberated woman. I don't do irony. I just fold the clothes neatly after they've dried.

[ruzzelz]

Can anyone else see the irony in this thread?

[winterdragon]

Can anyone else see the irony in this thread?

Nope. Couldn't spot it. I've checked for hidden text, converted text to numbers, performed a frequency analysis on the text looking for encryption or steganography, and checked the EXIF tags on the images. It's well hidden - what's the difficulty rating on this puzzle?

[belken]

I think it may be that Groundspeak is attempting to protect a cache owners "rights" and we complain they don't protect a cache owners "rights".

However I have never seen a benevolence in Groundspeak(That is in the last 6 years). My impression is that they will do things that benefit them. I must admit I can't see how this benefits them but why pick this fight. There is something in this fight that is different..

Or it maybe just a return to the good old days of when the development team listened to the community and worked with them to progress the game.

Oink oink flutter flutter

[Richary]

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize.

Which adds a different issue, does Groundspeak "publicize" any changes to the Agreement, or am I just expected to read it every time I log on? I don't recall seeing any changes to it flagged in the weekly emails, and I don't regularly follow their forums.

[MtnLioness]

Which adds a different issue, does Groundspeak "publicize" any changes to the Agreement,

As if they'd bother, judging by their behaviour considering the careless attitude regarding the challenges and all the other changes that didn't go down so well lately I don't think they give two hoots about what we think nor about letting us know what they're about to do/have done. They do something, don't care what we think and justify it with blockading and dismissing and expect us to all suck it up.
Just like they expect this guy to do.