Jump to content

slumbersix

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by slumbersix

  1. I suspect they have the power to do whatever they want... and that's the point. For ~10 years they have used their power fairly to do good and build this game and community. Folks get banned from the forum but I can't remember anyone being banned from listing caches. No doubt it has happened, but I think that you'd have to be a seriously bad actor for them to do it. Actually, I was banned completely from the site at one point for supporting the idea of the illegal alien geocoin....
  2. Why would you think that? I believe that everyone involved in this thread has stated they have nothing but the highest respect for Miss Jenn, and the rest of the Lackeys at Groundspeak. Once again you choose obfuscation. No one is complaining that an agent of Groundspeak archived a cache without proof. Heck, they do that every day. That's part of their job. However, publicly humiliating their customers is probably not in their posted job descriptions. No one is complaining about Groundspeak hiding what data was used to accomplish this objective. What some are complaining about is that an agent, acting under their authority, opted to besmirch a customer, in a very public manner, completely ignoring any possible privacy concerns. Then they hid behind claims of privacy concerns when brought to task. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. If you insist on furthering this argument, could you at least try and stay focused on what the real argument is? I realize that your belief structure feels threatened, because someone had the temerity to accuse the Friar of having his hands in the cookie jar, but that's no reason to get off track. If you can focus on the real issue at hand, rather than your continued desperate attempts to twist this into something unrecognizable, we might each reach a point where we are satisfied. Actually this thread has been so far off topic almost from the get-go. Here was the OPs original question -- "Has anyone else had any experience with a reviewer meddling with the caches in another state?"
  3. I don't agree with most all of this statement. I also say that you need to read my posts better if this was aimed at me! I don't think this was "aimed" at anyone in particular. It is my take on these discussions. I've read your posts and am still trying to figure out exactly what is bothering you about what Nomex and Groundspeak did. Frankly you have not made it clear what the issue is here and any attempt to address one issue is brushed aside with comments like thie one above. I'll repeat my opinion. The reviewers and Grounspeak do not have to blindly trust the word of any cache owner. This is not bad customer relations as the issues they suspect with a cache can do much more harm to geocaching then the problem of getting one cache owner and a handful of forum participants upset. The cache owner is given plenty of opportunity to present his side of the story with evidence to back it up. So nobody's caches are being unfairly archived. Yes, caches are being unfairly archived.
  4. By the time you got to court, you would most likely have at least a hint that the complaint was for you not having a license. This clue would probably come in the form of what was written on the ticket at the initial encounter, to whit; "No Drivers License". A more accurate comparison would be you getting a ticket for a dead tail light, then fixing it and bringing proof of the repair to court. Then having the judge find you guilty for not bringing proof that you fixed your headlight. Actually, your first part sounds pretty accurate as to what has happened. The reviewer archived the cache stating that there has been no cache there(written on the ticket as no drivers license). He then goes to dispute the charge with GS(going to court and bring evidence) except he never brings any proof that his cache has existed.
  5. If you claim to check the cache, and witnesses say you were never there, you might have a problem. I think this might be what happened. SF was asked to check the cache and posted that he did on the same day he was asked. If the ground zero was being scoured by cachers all day they would have seen him. No real cache check means no real cache. That's making quite the leap, can you back that? How do you know that the owner was certain such checking was not needed since the cache has been in place for two years without problem of falling off and no one had visited it, so no chance of muggles? Sure, the CO could have lied about checking, that doesn't mean the cache wasn't there... If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar. And?? So what? Does that prove the cache was never there? If I say I have a green and purple Monkey and you say I don't the burden of proof is on me. You do not have to prove green and purple monkeys don't exist, me failing to prove I have one is sufficient proof they don't. I know you Roddy, you are stretching way to much here, time to shake hands and walk away, you are only making yourself look bad at this point with your continuing stubbornness. It doesn't matter at this point whether it was real, he failed to prove it so case closed. Truly, my friend, I am not even here to prove or sidprove anything...as I have said many times over. In fact, I want to THANK everyone for keeping this at the top, which has been my main posting reason for several pages now. I have also stated I am more than happy to debate as long as anyone else would like, that's what you see here. And personally, not one person in here has given me even a hint of evidence which proves the CO lied about the cache being in place. You can tell me that it's on the CO all you wish, but I believe GS made the accusation, the burden is on them. Just like in the court of law, innocent until proven otherwise. So no, the CO should not have to clear their name for an accusation someone cannot back. That's like saying the rape victim has to prove they were raped. So you're saying a rape victim doesn't have to have a rape kit to help their claim of rape?
  6. If you claim to check the cache, and witnesses say you were never there, you might have a problem. I think this might be what happened. SF was asked to check the cache and posted that he did on the same day he was asked. If the ground zero was being scoured by cachers all day they would have seen him. No real cache check means no real cache. That's making quite the leap, can you back that? How do you know that the owner was certain such checking was not needed since the cache has been in place for two years without problem of falling off and no one had visited it, so no chance of muggles? Sure, the CO could have lied about checking, that doesn't mean the cache wasn't there... If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar.
  7. I question the existence of the cache. However, had SF taken a picture of the cache and submitted it to GS as proof, I have no doubt that they would have accepted it as such. Heck, I even would concede the cache existed if there was a picture of it. So don't go claiming that a picture would not satisfy anyone.
  8. There is a big difference between directly calling someone "a liar", and implying that someone is lying. "A liar" means that the person tells numerous lies, and cannot be believed. To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal. I just determined through a very special process that everyone is a liar, and it's not really that bad, is it? Am not!!!!!! Did that just boost me up to 5%? Let's be HONEST here. The frog has to take some of the heat...see post 1009 The frog in that picture is not lying, but clearly standing up. The greatest liar of all times was Abe Lincoln, whose election campaign promise was to not abolish slavery, but to simply prevent it from spreading to the new northwest territories. If he had told the truth, he would not have been elected. If he had allowed it to continue, the consequences would have been much worse. Most slaveowners at the time pointed at the biblical Abraham as an example to justify their evil wrongdoing. It took another "Abraham" to peel the label off, and put a stop to it. However, it is really unknown if the biblical Abraham actually had "slaves", or rather people who rather worked in exchange for food and shelter instead. He most likely just didn't pay them money. The label "slave" was used, but did not match what had arisen out of it. Perhaps this arrangement eventually caused dependency. Out of dependency comes abuse... Label abuse is the spinning of meanings applied to labels, and technically under close inspection everyone is guilty, and "a liar"... My true aploogies. I am guilty and indeed "a liar." The frog is indeed standing. However, we can not say the frog does not lie because we can not verify that from the facts presented. Geez I gotta be up to 6% by now!! However you also cannot say that the frog does lie because we cannot verify that from the facts presented.
  9. I have to respectfully disagree. Lie once, and you are a liar. Steal once, and you are a thief. No! Thats label abuse. When I was 7 I stole a pencil off of a teacher's desk. I am not "a thief"! But you were a thief at one point!
  10. NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! If we do, all the hard caches will be archived. We must, for the sake of difficult caches, keep this thread alive and well. If not, all hard caches will disappear and be archived. Oh brother....sad to see this type of posting from someone I thought was above this. Sorry Rod, I was just trying to have some fun in the thread for once. Figured I'd go all paranoid. Sorry if I disappointed you.
  11. NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! If we do, all the hard caches will be archived. We must, for the sake of difficult caches, keep this thread alive and well. If not, all hard caches will disappear and be archived.
  12. No, I don’t. It is not my intent to stop you from posting. And I would like to further point out that such strawman arguments are counterproductive. I thought my intent was clear: I simply asked you a question. You did not answer the question. You chose instead to obfuscate, to insult me, to belittle my post, to challenge my right to post my opinion, and to sprinkle in a few strawman arguments for added flavor. I would prefer that you address what I thought was a very reasonable question. I agree. So why, then, have you filled this thread with opinion and accusation and debate based on hearsay, and information you know to be incomplete? Then please consider this as a hypothetical: (1) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might fully agree that the archival was necessary, and that it was handled in the best way available. (2) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might understand why the additional details were not made public. These two statements represent my own admittedly unprovable assumptions about this case, as they fit the few facts given in this thread and on the cache page, and because they are consistent with the statements (and reputations) of all the parties involved. I recommend that you at least consider those two possibilities, and that you do so with an open mind. Doing so might make it easier to put yourself in the shoes of those you keep ranting against. Groundspeak is going to archive all difficult to find caches? Oh noooesss!!! We must debate this matter. The SF cache was archived unjustly!
  13. Never in my hiding "career" lol, would I have thought "hey, I'd better take pics of this hide since it's sooo devious...someone might not believe it's there". Now, I may take a pic out of pride, but not because I feel the burden of proof is on me if someone can't find the hide. Sad that, after this, some of us feel this is a necessary step. Maybe not, but he did state that he worked on it over a year and a half period. If it was that darn good, I think I would be pretty proud and take some pictures of it...
  14. Not following you on the first comment, not sure where you're going there... As for the second comment, if it has happened in the past, it could happen again. What if it's your cache next? What if you put hundreds of $$$ and several months of work and prep into the hide? Someone complains, GS hears them and archives. It may not be the "norm" but it sure sends a message.... Now, hard to tell if this cache was there or not. I've seen some interesting details which could mean anything really, nothing that is proof...either way. GS may have acted in good faith, they may have done the right thing the wrong way or they may have done the wrong thing the wrong way...we'll never know. But lets hope this doesn't get more common and we now have to fight to keep our hard caches! It is refreshing to hear Keystone tell us there's no new guidelines, but I don't think there was when the Indiana, Pennsylvania and now this cache were archived either...were all three of these fake caches?? Were ANY of them? We'll never know save some have said that at least one did exist! Another thing I did learn...GS has got to be the most forgiving group I've ever heard of. IF the things went down as GS has said, then the CO lied to us, lied to them, lied to them some more and then came in here and lied lied lied. All while defending a cache which GS says never existed? Very forgiving of GS to allow this CO to continue on...if this was the case. My first comment meant SF was told that GS believed his cache never existed. It may not have been told to him at the get go. However, at the archival he was told that they believed his cache never existed. So rather than appealing it with proof that it exists, he destroys a cache that he worked on for over a year. That seems really fishy. As for hiding very difficult caches, if I ever hid one so devious and evil that people couldn't find it, I would be more than willing to contact a reviewer and explain to them the hide, regardless if they "required" it of me or not. And once again, even if this is the third time this has happened, that's what kind of a percentage of unjust cache archival? That's .0003% of currently active caches that have been archived due to too high of difficulty. Though I suspect there's more to the story than that.
  15. By this argument cache owners should never archive their own cache just because they think it is missing. But cache owners do this every day. Some do it simply based on the cache getting several DNFs - they don't even try to check to see if the cache is there. Are cache owners any different than a reviewer who sees evidence that a cache has gone missing or may have never even been there and archives it? The only difference is that when a reviewer archives a cache, the cache owner can present evidence that the cache is there and get it unarchived. The difference is, the owner has a CHOICE whether they want to archive unlike in this situation. The difference is that the owner has a CHOICE whether to provide evidence to the reviewer that there really is a cache. Or the owner could just get angry, take the cache and throw it away. But I was just responding to Coyote Red's claim that you can never prove a cache is missing. I can see that Nomex's note would be confusing for a cache owner who believed that is only ask him to check on the cache. He did and when he reported it was there, that didn't seem to be enough for the reviewer who wen and archived the cache anyhow. Now with a second opportunity to offer evidence that there was a cache to find, the owner provides only the fact that it was a custom built container and that depending on the river can be difficult to access. Miss Jenn responds that after some investigation Groundspeak believes there is no cache to find and uphold the archive decision. At this point instead of offering to show pictures of how the cache was hidden or offer to show the cache to a local reviewer, SF makes a 2 AM run to remove the cache and throws it away. Now it seems that some are angry because Nomex and later Groundspeak did not explicitly ask the cache owner to provide them evidence the cache existed. I believe this was because they had additional information beyond the DNFs that led to believe there was no cache. Rather than telling someone who was listing a hoax cache exactly what he needed to do to continue his hoax, they left it for him to decide. If the was a hoax, the cache owner might eventually slink away and not challenge the archival since there was no proof he could give that there was a cache. If it was really a difficult cache, the cache owner might eventually realize what needed to be done to show that cache existed. There is a small chance left that we had an actual cache but the cache owner's temperament led hid to destroy any evidence he could have used to show this. Anything's possible Toz! I just hope everyone learned something from this!! Personally, I learned that we had better be able to prove we hid a chace if it's hard to find. I learned that GS may not ask for what they want, you need to read between the lines. I learned that some in here don't think GS could do wrong. In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good! So after being told that GS doesn't think the cache exists, instead of providing proof you would just go out and destroy your cache? You also forget that GS says they have some other information on why they believe it's not there. So it's not that it's just a hard to find cache. And this is only the second or third case out of how many difficult caches for this to happen to? It's not like it's normal operating procedure. That's what people seem to forget.
  16. It's still hearsay. If past experience couple with hearsay leads to archival, this is bad bad bad....sure, watch more closely, but don't jump to conclusions! The fact remains that there was a container. I know some of the details of Krypto and it sounds to me like there's more to that story....a personal cache type thing? However, it's apples and oranges from this situation IMHO. It's not hearsay if it came from one of the cache owners. Hearsay is - Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony Now if a member of SF sent an email out with information that the cache never existed, is it hearsay? Rod, you're wrong. The fact remains that SF claims there was a container. There's no proof of it. Unless you have proof that there is one. As for Krypto, you can check out the MiGo forums about it. There was a nice long topic about it. It's not really apples to oranges. Sure, the cache existed. Sure it was findable. However, when someone did find it he said "sorry, I archived it and placed a new cache before you found it"... Basically, he screwed cachers over with that one too. Sure it's hearsay UNLESS the team member has full knowledge. Do you know something we don't? Just because they're a team member, they know everything?? Come on! If the team member was with the CO when he didn't hide the cache (hahaha), then it isn't hearsay. If the member saw the CO remove the cache, then it's not hearsay. If the member hears the cache isn't there, THAT'S hearsay...even if hearing from the CO himself. Could be he was pulling their leg? SS, you're wrong. The fact remains the GS staff claims there was no container...got proof?? And who's to say she doesn't have full knowledge. She is part of the team. That's why they combined. I would suspect that she would have knowledge. If they came up with a scheme to do something like that, then they would both know. Rod, we're just running around in circles here. We both know that. You feel it was wrongly archived. I don't. You're right and wrong on the last point. GS claims there was no cache but SF claims there was a cache. GS feels they have enough evidence to backup their claim. Evidence they feel needs not be released. SF now has no proof his cache existed(as he claims he threw it away), if it existed in the first place(check my logs, I've questioned it once before in the cache page).
  17. It's still hearsay. If past experience couple with hearsay leads to archival, this is bad bad bad....sure, watch more closely, but don't jump to conclusions! The fact remains that there was a container. I know some of the details of Krypto and it sounds to me like there's more to that story....a personal cache type thing? However, it's apples and oranges from this situation IMHO. It's not hearsay if it came from one of the cache owners. Hearsay is - Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony Now if a member of SF sent an email out with information that the cache never existed, is it hearsay? Rod, you're wrong. The fact remains that SF claims there was a container. There's no proof of it. Unless you have proof that there is one. As for Krypto, you can check out the MiGo forums about it. There was a nice long topic about it. It's not really apples to oranges. Sure, the cache existed. Sure it was findable. However, when someone did find it he said "sorry, I archived it and placed a new cache before you found it"... Basically, he screwed cachers over with that one too.
  18. That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT. Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough? My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! I'm fairly confident that they would have believed a photo. What gives you the idea that a photo would not have been enough? Sadly, if the cache really existed and SF is telling the truth, it no longer exists. They could if a member of the team gave out the information. Well, I'd like to believe so as well, but the way they dismissed the word of the owner leaves doubt. Are you saying Mrs SF might have dropped a dime? I suppose anything is possible, but it surely is doubtful! Maybe because after previous actions of the owner(don't know if you remember the Kryptonite cache ordeal) his word might not mean much. I'm just throwing out possibilities. Maybe Mrs SF or kid SF could have let something slip. Anything is possible, but then, we're still talking about hearsay! And I would hope that past experience isn't the leading factor...nor even a tiny factor. btw...the Krypto cache, didn't that actually have a container? It's hearsay if one of the cache members states that the cache is not there? Why shouldn't past experience play into some sort of determination? If your past experience with someone tells you that they've screwed people over in the past, I'd be watching them more closely. Krypto did have a container. However, one person solved it and sent TDE and email asking for confirmation. Before the cacher got the confirmation he correctly solved it, he headed out to find it. He found the cache, seen the cache had been logged previously(never online though), and signed the log. The cacher got home to find the cache had been archived but decided to log his find anyways. The log is then deleted telling him he didn't find Krpytonite, he found the new cache that had been placed. He could log the new one but not Krpyto.
  19. That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT. Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough? My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! I'm fairly confident that they would have believed a photo. What gives you the idea that a photo would not have been enough? Sadly, if the cache really existed and SF is telling the truth, it no longer exists. They could if a member of the team gave out the information. Well, I'd like to believe so as well, but the way they dismissed the word of the owner leaves doubt. Are you saying Mrs SF might have dropped a dime? I suppose anything is possible, but it surely is doubtful! Maybe because after previous actions of the owner(don't know if you remember the Kryptonite cache ordeal) his word might not mean much. I'm just throwing out possibilities. Maybe Mrs SF or kid SF could have let something slip.
  20. That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT. Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough? My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! I'm fairly confident that they would have believed a photo. What gives you the idea that a photo would not have been enough? Sadly, if the cache really existed and SF is telling the truth, it no longer exists. They could if a member of the team gave out the information.
  21. That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT. It doesn't have to be indisputable. It just has to be enough that they felt that the cache wasn't there. To top it all off, the only one that could "prove" it was there "threw the cache away"... I guess I could claim I want proof that the cache was there as I spent so much of my time looking for it. I want proof. Please show me the proof it was there! I need proof to show that I just couldn't find it! All I have is the word of the CO. Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough?
  22. It doesn't take real skill to create a cache that can be found only after extreme effort. People toss nanos in the woods all the time. It may take extreme effort to find but it's not a great cache. It's just a needle in a haystack. I will agree though, a great cache typically does have an AHA moment.
  23. What would you have preferred? Archive the cache and give no reason? Archive the cache and give a phony reason? Just let the "cache" remain? Archive the cache and reveal all communications between all involved? Archive the cache and give a reasonably respectful reason for the archival? If we are dealing with a phony cache, then the CO started this problem. It puts TPTB in a position to have to do something unpleasant. It is easy to blame TPTB, but they were just trying to deal with a problem created by someone else. If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it? How about archive the cache, email the CO and give a private explanation? Since so many here believe the reason for archival was none of our business, why was it made public in the first place? I mean, if you wonder how better to handle it, would not that have been much better? If you're going to make a public statement that you believe the owner is a liar, you had better back the statement with proof. Maybe it's more so the fact that the proof is none of our business. If the cache was not there, I would like to know it was not there. The way they found out about it is none of my business. I've got some pretty good theories on how they came to their conclusion, but it bothers me not. They say they feel the cache wasn't there, they say that they have more information than is being provided to the general public. It's enough for me, maybe not for you... Maybe the only thing Nomex could've done to make it a better archiving was to have worded it like this "As we believe(or as our information has led us to believe) there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. " Wouldn't simply archiving with just the note that this was investigated and we have decided to archive been good enough? That phrasing may have been better, but i think people would still be asking why it was archived. I've spent well over 5 hours searching that bridge and came up empty. With the time that was invested, I'm glad to know that the reason is(as Groundspeak believes) the cache was never there. I really think there's a lot more going on with this cache than meets the eye.
  24. What would you have preferred? Archive the cache and give no reason? Archive the cache and give a phony reason? Just let the "cache" remain? Archive the cache and reveal all communications between all involved? Archive the cache and give a reasonably respectful reason for the archival? If we are dealing with a phony cache, then the CO started this problem. It puts TPTB in a position to have to do something unpleasant. It is easy to blame TPTB, but they were just trying to deal with a problem created by someone else. If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it? How about archive the cache, email the CO and give a private explanation? Since so many here believe the reason for archival was none of our business, why was it made public in the first place? I mean, if you wonder how better to handle it, would not that have been much better? If you're going to make a public statement that you believe the owner is a liar, you had better back the statement with proof. Maybe it's more so the fact that the proof is none of our business. If the cache was not there, I would like to know it was not there. The way they found out about it is none of my business. I've got some pretty good theories on how they came to their conclusion, but it bothers me not. They say they feel the cache wasn't there, they say that they have more information than is being provided to the general public. It's enough for me, maybe not for you... Maybe the only thing Nomex could've done to make it a better archiving was to have worded it like this "As we believe(or as our information has led us to believe) there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. "
  25. I guess in your world a person must say "XXX is a liar, in order to call him one." However, as far as I am concerned, Nomex took a standard form, and after saying the cache wasn't there for months, added the word YEARS. In my world, adding this word was deliberate and calls him a liar. If you don't think that is calling him a liar, good for you. As far as I'm concerned it is. maybe Nomex is just trying to say SF misrepresented the cache, not calling him a liar, just a misrepresenter.
×
×
  • Create New...