This wasn't how I planned to spend my Sunday, but here we are. I was really hoping to enjoy this race this afternoon while enjoying a few cold ones, but I feel like this thread is asking for a reply from me directly, so I'll play.
First thing of note to anyone following along, I'm probably the single best person to factually respond to this thread aside from Keystone who (in my opinion) has provided ample details about the plans laid out and in place for these. Feel free to ask about my qualifications if you must, but I don't feel I need to list everything here at the moment.
With that being said, here are a few things that stick out to me:
The OP has made a significant number of assumptions and assertions throughout this thread.
I can tell you that only parts of this are true. There are also a few pieces of this that aren't correct. First being that there isn't a single "individual" here in this case, and second, that only one person accesses the account. There are multiple stakeholders involved in the project with access to the account and cache pages are being created and submitted both by those hiding them, as well as others who are being provided information by the local cache hiders to then submit the pages.
As mentioned before in this thread, this isn't a single cacher, and therefore the caches aren't being maintained by a single person. The caches clearly "are" being maintained. A total of 49 "owner maintenance" logs have been posted for a myriad of reasons by the DoctorAlien account since February, and those logs have been posted on caches in a number of various locations.
The last part of this is the most important part of this reply. "Adequate" is the key word here. In multiple cases, local reviewers have raised questions about the ability of the local hider/maintainer to effectively maintain the hide due to ongoing maintenance issues of their own hides. In some cases, these issues have been worked out by the local cacher which to me is a win (leading to better overall cache maintenance by cache owners), but in other cases the issues have been unable to be resolved and the caches were unable to be published. In those cases, the reviewers are thanked for all of their input, and the attempt to publish the cache is archived.
This is a very assumptive quote here. So to dissect it, first, isn't every cache hidden a "pad the numbers" gimmick by this definition then? There have been nearly 1000 properly maintained caches published around the world for cachers to find. I have yet to see where this isn't a benefit for the game and those that play it. Second, I don't know anything about "Team Sagebrush" so I can't add anything beneficial to that conversation, sorry. I can only speak to the standard that this player account is being held to, which in my opinion is quite high, and no different than the standard that my player account or likely anyone else's is held to. Lastly, yes, these caches were hidden as part of an activity for an event taking place in Ohio, and there is a connection made by having caches in Portugal. I can also assure you, that the reviewer that published those caches in Portugal is well aware of the connection as well as the plan for maintenance, and dialogue was had ahead of those caches being published which allowed for them to be published according to the guidelines.
This is the post I have the biggest problem with. Too many assumptions. One, again you're assuming that I (yes I know who you meant) am the one hiding, placing, submitting, and whatever else on this account, which as I mentioned before isn't true.
Secondly, I would caution you not to make assumptions about either the event team, reviewers, or anything else in this particular situation unless you're certain of what's going on. I can tell you for certain, that the distinction between event organizer and community volunteer reviewer is quite clear and well defined, and that line is held objectively with impartiality.
Two things here.
First, I would love to hear how you feel the reviewers are giving this account preferential treatment, especially considering the majority of these caches are being published by reviewers who have never met the people submitting them.
Second, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with any sort of comment stating the reviewers publishing these caches need to be "re-evaluated", especially in the absence of evidence of what you allege is taking place. The reviewers publishing these caches have maintained a very high OBJECTIVE standard, and have followed the guidelines as written without wavering. I've had the pleasure of "meeting" many great reviewers, and I would love to have my own personal caches reviewed by absolutely any one of the reviewers that have played a role in this. The game is stronger because of the work they do, and they represent the game well.
I'm glad you mentioned that no reviewer was threatened or abused in this process. That's one correct statement.
Midwest Geobash does not have a "lead organizer". The event is managed by committee with no one person above another.
As I mentioned before, a reviewer being involved in this committee has nothing to do with the caches being hidden. The vast majority of these caches have been reviewed and published completely objectively by reviewers with absolutely no stake in the mega event, with the largest number being from your local reviewer in Northeast Ohio.
I can also tell you that as a Mega event, our relationship with Geocaching HQ as a sponsor is very well laid out and defined, and this project has zero reliance upon that relationship.
This is the last thing I'm going to comment on, as I feel Keystone said his piece quite well.
I mentioned before the number of owner maintenance logs. I can also tell you that to this point only ONE (1) cache has been disabled by a local reviewer after a needs archived log was posted on it. The needs archived log was also posted (supposedly humorously - but mostly to flag the cache on the health score) by someone with access to the DoctorAlien account via their personal account. So even that cache was being maintained at the time. Zero caches in this series have been archived by a reviewer for lack of maintenance. Zero caches in this series have required a message to be sent to the cache owner OR local maintainer by a reviewer for any reason (the latter half to my knowledge, as I obviously can't see everyones private messages), although I appreciate the thought of doing so from Keystone.
"Aunt-Martha" isn't maintaining any of these caches. I can assure you of that.
The maintenance details are purposely hidden by those creating them for the express purpose of creating mystery and a bit of a story as to what these caches are for. The current plan is to reveal that story over time as part of the event.
If anyone has any remaining questions, please feel free to let me know. But I feel this should suffice as an adequate response to what's been laid out in this thread so far.