Sparky-Watts

Starting to sound a bit "confrontational"... I never stated that people were NOT allowed in a thread I started, I merely questioned the RELEVANCE of a cacher in Kansas (for instance) commenting on a Canadian issue, when they likely have no idea of the terrain, effort, distance, etc... Sorry, but if I read a thread about some guy in Botswana complaining about a cache or a reviewer, there is NO WAY that I would try sticking my nose into the fray when I have no idea about: a - The cacher's history b - The reviewer's history c - The cache itself d - The country where it is hidden e - The area it is hidden f - Any special rules or variances that may apply. But that's just "me".... I know you were simply using me as an example, and that's ok. But, in my defense, I commented in that thread not based on the region involved or the people involved. I read the first post, and the subsequent screenshots of the conversation, and my responses were justified and on-topic to that post. I didn't need to understand any of the topographic or demographic information regarding the cache or cacher. Nothing in my responses related to that. I responded to the issue itself and the discussion of the alleged "slights". That part of the issue had no bearing on location, or the people involved. That had nothing to do with it being a "Canadian" issue, and the terrain, distance, etc., had no relevance to the reasons for my replies. It would have been no different if it were in Canada, Kansas, or Botswana.

The detailed water holes and streams would be a benefit for me, but in Kansas, topo maps have two levels: flat and flatter......

NOt untill you submit to becoming the 51st state! What, you want the White House burnt down again!!! LOL It wouldn't bother me.....hey, those black helicopters are fast!

I've tried to remain on topic here, as I did in the other thread that brought so much angst (if I may borrow carleen's catch-word), but I must comment to this. I do it all the time, and I've never been moderated for posting to nearly every forum, if not most of the threads, on this board, so long as I do so on topic. That's all, I'm outta here!

Log it!!

But if they don't have the power to Approve them, it is a waste of time, energy and resources and becomes the "other level of bureaucracy" that nobody wants. Besides the fact that I don't really foresee anybody even using it if it's a voluntary thing.

I like the way you think!!!!!!!!

I tend to agree with this. MJDJ, you're actually on to something that could be helpful, but I think you're steering it the wrong way. Perhaps if there is such a demand for caches to be reviewed by local cachers, your "board" of reviews could be of some help. If I am to understand you correctly, you want the "board" in your region made of locals, yet with full approver powers. You will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. Ok, I get that part. Now, with what CT just said, I can see where that could create a major problem. I'm guessing that not everyone in your area is going to be happy with the approver that GC.com selects (and yes, gc.com will have the final say in the selection, I don't see any way around that). So, now half of BC is happy with the system, but the other half is bucking the system, complaining about biases in the approval system. What's the answer then? How far will the expansion have to go before everyone is happy? An approver for each individual cacher? (Yes that's extreme, but I hope you get the point.) Perhaps your local association could formulate a local advisory board that will review each cacher's submission (totally voluntary if the cacher wants them to review it), using gc.com's guidelines. If any immediate conflicts with the guidelines are noted, they can be addressed before the cache is actually submitted to gc.com. If there is a disagreement on the interpretation of the guidelines between the board and the cacher, they can have it reviewed by a local reviewer, one that is familiar with BC (this could be done by a system of simple emails between the board, the cacher, and the review board.) Sure, that's going to make for a longer approval time, but in most cases, is an immediate approval necessary? (I know there are times when it may be, but generally not, right?) Perhaps that will prevent some of the hard feelings between cachers and approvers, and prevent ugly scenes like we've seen so many times in the forums between cachers and the approvers. What do you think?

I used a similar method to Criminal's to create these: Wow! That is a nice camo job! I really like Renegades & yours the best. I'm going to try Renegades techniques this afternoon to see if I can get results like you both did. Those are great! BTW who camo'ed the cat? Very interesting pattern indeed! That's for all those people who are always asking "Who's watching my cache?"

Uh oh.

And for some reason, neither has "Igby's".....

Yup. We got a souvenir hunter here, too. Of the 4 YJTB's that I know of that got to the Wichita area, I found one and moved it along, a souvenir hunter cobbed another, and the person that brought all 4 of them gave one to a friend, and they are keeping them and using them as personal TB's, apparently.

There is no rule that says you can't. Is it proper etiquette? No. Nobody can tell me this changes anything or hurts anyone if a cacher logs a find on his own cache. So what? Big deal. If they want to do that, more power to them. Last I looked, there still was no prize for winning at geocaching. Perhaps they made an "oops' (I did when I hid my first one), or maybe they aren't aware that some folks are anal enough about it to throw a hissy fit, or maybe they just want to log their own cache. A simple note explaining it to them should suffice. If they don't want to change it, that's their business and nobody else's. Chill out, it's just a freakin' game.

I used a similar method to Criminal's to create these:

So your hobby was trespassing and you're annoyed that the landowners put a stop to it? And people wonder why rules are needed. Excellent insight, as usual, BS!!

That's all a good discussion, but it's off-topic to this thread. If you want to continue it, open a new thread in the "Geo Gear" Forum....oh, wait....Jeremy hasn't given us a GeoGear Forum yet.

Spoken like a true member of the "Sandbox". Oh, and that's "Sparky" Watts to you. Only my friends call me "Mr."

I don't think that is a good reason for being denied! That would eliminate thousands of urban caches! Hey, J5, I don't wanna come play with the "big boys". Keep your PM's to yourself, or I shall taunt you a second time!

My point exactly. I still don't see the alleged slanderous name-calling you keep referring to. You still don't see the point about cachers elsewhere responding to this thread. I don't think I could make it simple enough for you. You posted something in a public forum about how you are imagining the approver calling you a liar and slandering you and discriminating against you. Other cachers, members of this community that have respect for the site and for the approvers, responded to your post with a consensus that nothing, anywhere, in what you have posted shows anything even remotely close to being discriminatory, slanderous, or calling you a liar as you claim. Let's see if I can make this question simple enough for you to comprehend (understand): What do you want from this thread? What is your purpose in posting it? Was there something you want to achieve, aside from bashing the approver and other community members, and making yourself look like yet another disrespectful cacher on a temper tantrum? Tell us exactly what you had hoped to accomplish by posting this thread. No, as I have proven in post after post, I have a firm grasp of the situation here. I see things more clearly each time you hit the "submit" button. The only side of the story I have to work with is what you have provided. Are you saying there is another side to the story? Hmmm......seems that's always the case in this type of thread. Look around, there's a recurring pattern in nearly every "My cache wasn't approved, the approver is being mean to me" thread, and you're following the pattern pretty well. More than you know, this statement truly says a LOT more about you than it does me, however, it is off topic. As were a lot of the past several posts you have made. Can you stick to your own topic and make a point? Answer the questions, son, it's not that hard. Well? Let's hear the answers to those ON TOPIC questions I just asked.

It's been addressed. The consensus appears to be that there was no unjust discrimination against you by the approver. From what you've posted, the approver followed the guidelines, and you unjustly started spouting slanderous insults at the approver. I still see absolutely nothing in what you have posted that could be even slightly construed as being called a liar, being slandered, or being discriminated against. Nor have I seen any hypocrasy by the moderators. You're obviously missing (or more likely intentionally ignoring) their point in the discussions concerning other cachers.

Nope. I don't have a program to read that!

No emphasis on not moving the cache no matter what, otherwise the coordinates will be off for the next person. Sure there is. Well, not emphatic emphasis, but it does say so (my emphasis in bold).

No, that won't cover all the areas needed. If a cache is improperly placed on private property, or puts cachers at serious risk, maintanence isn't going to fix it. It "Should Be Archived".....like the sign says.

Here's a live link. What a maroon. Nope. Takes me to the forum board the link is posted on, but that link still gets me to the same "Error 404" message.

You make a pretty good point on the distance and population stats, Dino. Let me ask you this: if you had the same situation as Team MJDJ, would you have gone off on the approver and used the belittling terms he did, or would you have politely provided the reasoning you just used in this post? I'm hoping you would do that latter, and I'm betting the cache would have been approved. Honey and vinegar.