nthacker66

Let us also realize here what being banned from forums really means - many times, yes, it is merited as clan has pointed out, and sometimes it is not (depends on the mood of a moderator that day or the nature of the subject) but does a forum ban make a person just an awful human being? does it merit an entire group to be labled as horrible people because they won't come in here and apologize for the actions of 1 or even 5 of their own people? should they even have to? we are supposed to be adults and know better through the education of history - knowing that the actions of a few in a group of people does not always represent that entire group nor does the inaction of the entire group to the behaviors of a few mean they support it. but none of these words really matter do they? because this was never a discussion from the first post - minds were already made up. let me ask this question - if the DGS was replaced by "lackeys" or "reviewers" or "moga" would this thread still be going on?

i guess some people are simply this good at fooling themselves....

Bingo and amen. They are, as long as you conduct yourself as a mature, even-keeled and respectable individual. So bashing DGS is considered "mature" "even keeled" and "respectable" ???

This would be a perfect opportunity for members of DGS to come in into the forums to make a statement that the actions of the DGS member that was banned is not condoned by their group. A public declaration that they actually practice what they preach. But, they won't...because they are above that sort of thing. right. because the forums have proven to be a fair, equal and forgiving place all these years.

I said my piece - it is just wrong to sit here bashing a group on rumors, hear say and things that not only happened years ago now, but things that other cachers have done long prior to DGS ever existing.

so than why does Groundspeak allow this "negative posting" of DGS to continue where they quickly banish postings like this on anyone and anything else? I am guessing this is a "lets look the other way" on the forum guidelines because of the subject,,,,

and you can all say what you will but, to me, there is a high level of honor that DGS won't come into these forums to defend themselves - because they are above it. (For me however, I am not DGS and dont represent them, but will defend them because they are incredibly nice people).

I believe that some outlaw MC (e.g. Hell's Angels) do this too as they hope it will give them some positive PR and draw attention away from the otherwise negative aspects of their group. LOL. And I am not laughing because I thin the statement is funny. But the sheer absurdity of it. Comparing a caching group with criminal elements. Explain to me what "negative aspects" of DGS have you personally ever experienced outside of the hear-say you read on here or as Brian is so quick to point out "Well, I read their facebook posts" - please, you and anyone else enlighten me on how DGS has hurt you or or the game you play in any way shape or form?

I also want to et it be known another dirtbag is looking to possibly take up a collection for abused foster kids to give them a christmas this year....I think it is important to counter this ridiculous thread with many of the good stories I know of these people. I suspect people go by web and facebook pages and form conclusions on people and groups quite often when they should be getting away from their computer and simply go meet these folks.

What I find particularly sad about tis entire thread - is the raw hypocrisy. I have been banned several times from the forums for preceived "bashing" of moderators, lackeys, Groundspeak, reviewers, etc. (Still not sure how I bashed them when I was just critical of the practices, but whatever) - yet this thread and others persist - not only by regular members, but by moderators as well - I fail to see how this thread is productive or positive, much less a constructive discussion of the community. But guess it is ok to bash a group because gorundspeak doesn't like them making it open season. Whatever, people who want to bash DGS without getting to know them are probably not folks I would not want to be around. As I said before, all of my interactions with DGS have been nothing but positive and rewarding. I have yet to see them destroy a cache - as a matter of fact at a cito several weeks ago, two DGS members along that trail were being cache angles to missing micros in a series. They didn't say they were going to do it and did not take credit for it.

Possible. I would suspect that they possibly got frustrated by the ban and asked for them to be archived. Or they could have ranted and raved, and got really nasty with Groundspeak HQ during correspondence about the ban, and really did themselves in. I guess we'll never know. Right. One must never ever ever ever NEVER question Groundspeak or TPTB.

It would be nice if you all could add an LPC attribute and a Pill Bottle on a Guard Rail attribute - this way I can ignore these types of caches in my PQ. Thanks.

My favorites... the bison tube in a thick stand of pines, with the following hint: "near the base of a pice tree". And of the you are right about the lamp skirt micro... i.e. "let's appear to be up to no good, and at the same time let's reach around and try to find the cache before the black window" I do miss a good box in the woods. I found a cache in a decent spot today, a bison tube hanging from a tree. It could easily been a small lock and lock or a small jar instead... but they went for the micro. Its not even thats so much as the double standard of "bad quality virtual caches" coming out of the one side of a mouth and then the jumping up and down, rah rah yay numbers games of power trails that are pill bottles on guard rails. If you are going to cite quality, don't pick and choose which TYPES of caches it applies to. I would gaurntee there are a heck of a lot more bad quality traditionalS than there ever were virtuals total. I.E. for every "road kill virtual" or "sneakers on a wire" virt - i bet there are 500 lamp post skirts.

again that was how long ago? read the polices. http://www.appalachiantrail.org/docs/trail-management-policies/geocaching-2008.pdf-if you receive a nastgram AFTER this policy than the person or persons informing you were grossly misinformed about their own policies. Which, is a human error and it happens. I find that whenever I talk to local land managers about caching and they cite old rules or their own personal feelings, I politely copy them on the governing policies. And every time I have done so, I have gotten "Wow, we didnt realize that, thank you for bringing that to our attention" - as is the cae where many park superintendents aren't delivered this information by blaring trumpets by one of the king's heralds. Imagine that, the government not communicating well with its own people. That is why, we, as users of these lands need to do so - and as I said you will find these folks more than willing to play ball. I can tell you so many happy stories about local land managers who not only welcome geocaching, but have begged for cachers to come hide caches, hold events, and use the park. Human error? It is obvious that you weren't involved in Geocaching in this area at the time or have a very selective memory. This "human error" was handled with the finesse of a crazed bull. The only error was allowing someone like this to work for our government in a capacity that required interaction with the public. Except the ATC isn't a government organization.

also with the work ranger fox and markcase have done in the uwharrie, i think nc is making great progress with the nps forestry people....making those kinds of connections is wonderful.

I agree, and this needs to be revisited. But again, I place this at the feet of local cachers rather than directly with Groundspeak. i am trying via a good gesture of cleaning up dragons tooth first...

Agreed. However, a state wide organization..community... can do this. I'd rather it was handled by local cachers than a Washington-based company. To your example, I would argue that had VA a state organization with a mandate to act quickly and verbalize the issues to the VA DOT there might have been some compromise. I don't think a company based across the country would have helped. Groundspeak sets and evolves the global guidelines; reviewers filter on these; the local community then facilitates and sets it's own quality. please read again...i didnt say Groundspeak should handle it all...i said they can partner with state/local organizations, or even individuals. instead, when one of their most vocal and longest tenured volunteer publically bashes a entity like appalachian trial association, this doesnt bode well for fostering good relationships. and that is exactly what this game needs. good, long lasting partnerships between the flagship listing service, state/local caching groups and land managers. yes, it is happening, but at a very slow pace and the only press you ever really see is local news reports of bomb squads. there is just so much potential Groundspeak can bring to the table of land conservancy and land use (i still say, cachers are the cleanest people i know when it comes to leave no trace) - take advantage of it. there is no reason for this to be a clandestine activity anymore....2 million plus caches, geotrails sponsered by stage entities - its time for Groundspeak to really be a player with all of these entities via partnerships.

No... I didn't say that, I said that reviewers review according to the guidelines and current land policies. You don't see what isn't published as, well, it isn't published. My point was that there is a lot of active stewardship going on before it's listed. If things are missed, then the community can help by pointing issues out, or even "vote with their feet" and find / place things only they would like to find. No black helicopters. i am not sure about microdot, but i hardly think there were black helis and men in black vans lol. there has to be involvement for that to happen. I think Groundspeak could do so much more and refine those guidelines if they just had more involvement with land managing entities at federal and state levels. honestly, it is har to point things out, as you say, when one gets dismissed. i tried to point out that the old way the ATC handled the "at purge of 2008" was not only wrong, but their policy has changed and in fact, they are a lot more open and accepting to cachers. instead, i was insulted.

please dont misresd me - overall, i applaud the job the reviewers do. it isnt easy to juggle between whiney folks like me and groundspeaks ever sliding guidelines plus trying to figure out what land managers are thinking (trust me, when i was on some older rails to trals projects and oother trail conservancy projects, i know what a pain land managers can be.) i just still think Groundspeak needs to help reviewers out in this sense, especially since this game is growing so large and rapidly. above all, the last thing we need is someone fighting these types of entities.

Not really, cases like that should be managed locally, not in a thread about caching in general. I'm sure every Reviewer tries their best, but they are human. I was replying to Microdot who took the global view that Groundspeak doesn't steward the game. and that is the problem. Groundspeak has more resources and expertise (or can hire the expertise) to be partners in land stewardship, but instead play possum when something bad goes down and takes credit for the good things that happens. reviewers are human but they also are representative of Groundspeak whether they like it or not - and a comment made by keystone yesterday in another thread was dreadfully unprofessional and downright immature. holding 5 year long grudges against entities that have worked tirelessly to protect natural resources and even in the face of an updated policy continues to stomp their feet and fold their arms like a child, in my opinion, is not high standards. this isnt a game like it was 10 or even 5 years ago. volunteers are not always the appropriate folks to handle land management laison issues on a large scale. even if their intentions are pure and good. it makes me wonder, had Groundspeak been involved as a business, in virginia, they would still allow some form of road side caching. as i continue to say - this game is one major issue away from being banned on a large scale because Groundspeak for whatever reason, isnt more involved with land management.

Inner Sanctum ? The Guidelines aren't hidden from view. huh? didmt you just say 4 or 5 posts up that we dont see how much goes on behind the scenes? i am confused..the process is not opened to all when defneding it, but it is open to all when not defending it?

..and you only see caches published as the result of review, where such things are considered and the guidelines evolve. You have no clue what things are pushed back and never listed which do harm the environment, are in areas which are clearly offlimits, areas that would otherwise be far too cache dense and environmentally damaging, or line highways (now oflfimits), or need permits... nor are these cases discussed publicly in respect to the CO. There is a LOT of stewardship that you simply never get to see. The review process is a great asset that we can offer to land managers. And yet many reviewers are not entirely sure of land management guidelines. If I need to provide an example, I gladly will.

Since the intent of such carefully crafted wordsmithing is to demonstrate to any who can read that the owner has no intention of performing the maintenance they agreed to perform when they submitted the cache page for review, that seems like grounds for not just archival, but locking as well, since, presumably, the cache owner changed the listing post publication. Assuming that the cache owner changed the listing post publication such that it violates maintenance guidelines it's up to the geocaching community to notify the reviewer that the listing is no longer in compliance with the guidelines. The problem is that there are too many cachers which place a higher value on getting a find (and incrementing their find count) than having a cache listing which complies with the guidelines so the listing remains as it is. and there are too many reviewers willing to allow guidelines to slip in terms of publishing these power trails. i have seen 400 feet between container placements.

How? Granted, arrangements could be made quicker, not that quicker would mean more people attending. Many, besides the social draw of events, want that smiley for attending. - Something they wouldn't be given with a meet-up on a social site. i dont see what is so wrong with awanting the smiley aspect of the social event...if people are that hard up for smileys, just look for a wal mart - you will find a smiley in any given lamp post ;-)

Geocaching.com will probably loose some points if people find that using other media is more quick/comfortable way to arrange meetings then to announce events at the website itself. Also there are still many cachers who don't use social media to communicate gatherings. I don't have an issue with eh 2 weeks, personally (it keeps people from deciding to run over an event who are just trying to be mean) but Iwouldn't mind seeing exceptions given for good reason (like the one mentioned by the OP). It is also not of use using a social media outlet to organizing a caching event if, well, you don't know anyone in that general area. The whole point of events is not just to have a gathering of people you know, but people you don't know, sharing in a a comment interest. I think events like that are awesome when someone is traveling on business and hosts a meet and greet at a local establishment.