Jump to content

Trinity's Crew

Members
  • Posts

    1282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Trinity's Crew

  1. Ok, it's now April 2nd. Roman! it's time (past time actually) for you to post "APRIL FOOL!!". Roman!?...Roman!?...
  2. We believe the 'backdoor' is an important element of family geocaching (caching with friends too) and have no plans to eliminate it. Rather, I think we need to do a better job of setting clear expectations for PM only caches in the guidelines. While PMO caches should not appear in searches by basic members, if a basic member participates in a geocaching excursion with a PM and finds a PMO cache, signs the logbook, etc, we believe they should be able to get credit for the find. That was the original purpose of the backdoor and will continue to be the purpose. At the same time, to be fair to PMs, we need to set expectations properly and we, admittedly, haven't done a great job of this historically. I'd also like to point out that GS allowed ONE abusive CO to reverse a policy that's been in place for YEARS! I'd suggest you send him a refund and let the logs stand. If you'd like I'll send you the money for the lost revenue. Alternatively, I will re-iterate my offer to gift deskdata one year membership if you will re-instate his logs.
  3. We believe the 'backdoor' is an important element of family geocaching (caching with friends too) and have no plans to eliminate it. Rather, I think we need to do a better job of setting clear expectations for PM only caches in the guidelines. While PMO caches should not appear in searches by basic members, if a basic member participates in a geocaching excursion with a PM and finds a PMO cache, signs the logbook, etc, we believe they should be able to get credit for the find. That was the original purpose of the backdoor and will continue to be the purpose. At the same time, to be fair to PMs, we need to set expectations properly and we, admittedly, haven't done a great job of this historically. This is good news. While you may not be able to re-instate deskdata's logs due to a cacher that I consider to be a (insert appropriate descriptive term here) I'd hope you would delete the notes from the CO referring to deskdata as a "cheater" and a "hacker". As NYlimb pointed out these notes violate your rules as well. I am hopeful you will be able to convey your intentions for non-PMs to be able to log PM caches in the future. I'd also suggest you do it ASAP. It probably won't be long before other COs want to delete logs for this very same reason.
  4. I think we should frangellate the glortum glimmo and postantulate the aponypeous. As a group, of course.
  5. Everyone continue to log PMO caches? You mean everyone but deskdata, right?
  6. Well if Groundspeak will agree to re-instate deskdata's original logs on these caches if they become a premium member I will personally gift deskdata a one year membership subscription. I'd like an explanation for the flip-flopping but I won't make it a requirement for gifting the membership.
  7. If the correspondence is accurate it appears that GS initially determined the logs were valid and re-instated and locked them. Then a month later they did an about-face and deleted the logs?? Even if they are planning a change or have just made a change to the back-door PMO cache logging policy they shouldn't have reversed their initial decision on these caches.
  8. <snip> I agree. "Giant" stories have been done to death, but if you could somehow work in the two kids WITH the giant... Sort of "Hansel and Grettel Meet Jack and the Beanstalk" treatment then maybe we've got something. Now on topic... It's obvious that you've let this cacher get under your skin. It isn't worth the angst. Let it go. The cache that got archived deserved to be archived. The need for special tools got addressed shortly after you posted your log. Seriously, you should try to relax and enjoy the hobby. It's not worth getting upset over any of this.
  9. If the puzzle hole is truly the problem portrayed, I would prefer to see traditionals increased to 0.2 proximity rather than puzzle proximity reduced below 0.1. And archive active caches that are currently 0.1 mile apart?
  10. What will happen if you place a cache too close to another?? Real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
  11. Seriously? August? Jellis did you report it in August and bring it here to get some action on it? If not, what prompted you to report it now? Apparently she didn't want to make a big deal out of it, or be known as the bad guy and figured an e-mail to the reviewer would be sufficient. Since he basically ignored her e-mails, and with the guideline violation being glaringly obvious, she is left wondering why. Sometimes we are told in these situations that this is a "private" matter between the CO and the reviewer which is rather silly, as the hide is publically listed for all geocachers to find and imitate, and does not have any permission information listed on the page whatsoever. If it is so "private", it should be archived and available for invitation only. With the amount of hides which violate the guidelines that are being listed, it is only fair to conclude that a few reviewers knowingly are quietly allowing it. Thanks for that answer but I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on the information I've read in this thread. I wasn't able to determine when Jellis actually reported the cache, which is why I asked. Which post(s) state that she reported it in August?
  12. Seriously? August? Jellis did you report it in August and bring it here to get some action on it? If not, what prompted you to report it now?
  13. [Don McLean] A long, long time ago...[/DonMcLean]
  14. Even after the Beach Boys wrote that great song about it?
  15. When I go to your profile, I can see 71 pages of "found it" logs there, going back to 2010. If you want to see ALL the logs you've posted, go to http://www.geocaching.com/my/default.aspx and click the "Geocaches" link under the area that says "Your Logs (Last 30 Days) Show all logs for: Geocaches, Trackable Items, or Benchmarks" B. I know that it looks like I started in 2010. But I did start in 2001 but I did no caching for about seven years from 2003-2010. And the caches before that is just gone from my finds. I'm just curious. You started caching again in 2010. Did the old cache finds disappear recently, were they missing when you started back up or you aren't sure and just noticed it? Edited to put the question at the bottom rather than up in someone elses quote. OOPS!
  16. You and Mr. Yuck are right. I was reacting more to the thread title than the meat of the complaint. I also didn't initially notice that this was Redants first post. So I apologize for my misplaced attempt at humor.
  17. This thread will likely be moved to geocaching topics but this topic has been discussed to death, reanimated, discussed again, had a stake driven through its heart, revived again, killed again, and then resurrected as a zombie. I wish you well in your quest.
  18. Seriously. Where is this coming from? The OP never even hinted at hoping for a massive archival. They simpley wondered if it might happen.
  19. As most have surmised here you appear to be dealing with a kid or a 'tween. Why do you believe him when he says he took it home but totally dismiss his assertion that he brought it back? From my perspective this makes no sense. Edited to remove snarky comment.
  20. Agreed. I would do exactly as you have done. If you cannot verify a find by the logbook, it can (and should) be deleted. The solution is simple: kid shows you the cache, with his signature in the logbook, you allow a find. All the rest is just forum nonsense. So i suppose he should delete all of the logs he hasn't been able to verify due to the missing log? Talk about forum nonsense.
  21. As someone already said, you take him at his word that he took it home but refuse to believe he brought it back. It would appear that you are dealing with a child or a 'tween here. It is entirely possible he was observered returning it and it was taken within minutes of its return. You assume he logged it immediatley after returning it. I doubt that. And as someone else already pointed out, if he took it why would he log it that way? I think you are off base on this. Just my humble opinion.
  22. They're being a jerk. Just re-log it 'TFTC', and consider using the same for any more of their caches you might visit. EDITED to mention: Nano caches deserve nano logs! Which is why the appropriate nano log is simply a ".". I prefer this one... ( ! ) It kind of looks like what I think the CO was being.
  23. Why do we want an exploding membership? I can see why Groundspeak might, but I'd kind of like to see fewer, myself. Can I give exploding memberships as gifts? A couple of people come to mind...
×
×
  • Create New...