thebruce0

tl;dr. Ok maybe I did, after responding to the relevant points below... :: Reviewer: We've covered this haven't we? Is there an echo in here? Yes, there does seem to be. :: Reviewer: If every Archived cache was Unarchived to allow folks to adopt them... that would kinda make the "Archived caches cannot be adopted" thing kinda redundant, wouldn't it? We're not asking for every archived cache to be unarchived for adoption. We are only asking for this one, because there is no rule that states it cannot be done or is out of the power of reviewers to do so. :: Player: I'm all ears! Anything that gets me what I want! See previous comments. This is obviously a given. #snark :: Reviewer : Has the cache owner contacted Appeals and asked for their cache to be Unarchived so that it can be adopted? :: Player : That's not the point. The point is, you have the ability to unarchive this cache, and you have decided not to. Whether the owner has actually written to appeals for the request is being looked into. Regardless, his intention was made known on the cache listing, and blatantly shut down. :: Reviewer: When the Listing Guidelines say "Archived caches cannot be adopted", I interpret THAT guideline as saying it cannot be done. Exactly. Only active caches can be adopted. This one was archived. It's either permanent as described in the guidelines, or it can be undone by a reviewer as described in the guidelines. Oh yes, that latter one is indeed an allowable action, even though an exception. :: Player: Until I see it written in plain English that "Archived caches cannot be unarchived for adoption", I won't be happy. At least you got that player's sentiment accurate. :: Reviewer: The cache was archived. Archived caches cannot be adopted. Think of a big red stamp going on to the cache that says "THIS CANNOT BE ADOPTED". I don't see a big red stamp on the cache that says that. Are you seeing something we are not seeing? :: Reviewer: Yup. Sure, I might be able to Unarchive the cache... but the red inky stamp saying "THIS CANNOT BE ADOPTED" is still there. Where? :: Reviewer: I imagine a big red rubber stamp on the GC code that says "CANNOT BE ADOPTED". Ah I guess you do see something we do not see. :: Reviewer: You could also visit Geocaching.com and post feedback to indicate that you think that Listing Guideline needs to be clarified. Good idea. Hey I guess that's another constructive outcome to this thread! yay! Maybe I'll do that after we hear back from appeals. :: Reviewer: I disagree. I've been overruled by Appeals on many occasions! :: Player : Well, I don't see it that way. Irrelevant here. Also, have you been reading things we haven't seen here as well? :: Reviewer: So, at the risk of being told definitively "No", you are going to keep asking the person who assertively said "No". Gotcha. Nope. I have myself admitted to the fact that it is essentially a futile battle at this point to change any reviewer mind on the matter (though it would be a pleasant surprise!). That was one of the 5 reasons I posted earlier about ranting discussing here knocked off the list. Now, ignoring what you "imagine seeing"... Eh? Where is that a rule, or even a guideline? Precisely why I've said it's a matter of subjective interpretation, it's not clear, it's a cause for confusion and frustration, and why I'd prefer to see either an exception granted (by whoever) given the strong argument for one here, or clarity on the matter as a rule from TPTB. Argument ad populum? You shouldn't be making a decision based on how many people agree with you, not that you are of course, because reviewers shouldn't be swayed by popular opinion. Nonetheless, once again it's a matter of interpretation (quite unlike, eg, "caches cannot be placed on private property without permission"). Most indeed. Where's that "funny" animated gif again...? No really, thank you for your concern and understanding, it's very much appreciated. :: Reviewer: A decision was made, based on a Reviewer interpretation of the Listing Guidelines. Reviewers make mistakes. And that is why Appeals exists. :: Player : You sound like a broken record. :: Reviewer: Your horse was dead. I figured we should stop beating it. That's good, the neighbours were complaining about the repetitive thudding. :: Player: That doesn't get me what I want, now. Who is this "Player" you're talking to anyway? :: Reviewer: No. And there will always be decisions that a Reviewer makes that won't be accepted by 100% of the people. This is one of those decisions. Indeed. Maybe we should discuss it. I hear there's a forum thread for that. :: Reviewer: Are we just debating things now for the sake of it. Easily rectified by a click of a button. :: Reviewer : <Looking longingly towards a window> Shouldn't we be out there caching? ...or working. I really should be working. But man, isn't this thread just so exciting? Ok, I'm all sarcasticked out. I need to relax. Hey CacheShadow, want to go caching? For all I know you're in the next building over.

Exactly! Although technically it's not even a policy. It seems to be a generally accepted hidden rule among reviewers. I linked to the related guidelines that are publicly available which I could find, and none are completely relevant to this specific situation. 1. Archival is permanent, but reviewers may choose to grant an exception for unarchival. 2. Archived caches cannot be adopted Those are the policies... the requested exception is to guideline #1, so that #2 is no longer an issue. But somewhere the guidelines are being interpreted to mean that "archived caches can't be unarchived for the purposes of adoption". Still haven't seen a rule to that effect (still willing to see it officially). Sure, if one considers the potential for setting precedent then granting this exception could start a painful chain reaction. But we know quite clearly from every level of judgement that precedents aren't set. And there's definitely no 'playground rules' about not letting the kid who took his ball to another court come back to leave the ball for the others to play with, even though they could just get another ball.

What about having a category flag option for challenges? If you want to, you can up/down vote, or you can flag "spam", "agenda", "adventure", "fun", "serious", "charitable", "offensive", "inappropriate" (rule-breaking, the flag for archival), etc... whatever the list may be. I can imagine coming to a challenge, and seeing a small coloured bar graph on the side listing the votes people gave, positive and negative, allowing me to decide what to think of it, or even do an advanced search for higher ratios of whatever category I want, like attributes. eg If I want to do an adventurous challenge, I could easily pull up a highly rated adventurous challenge. Another suggestion is just to remove thumbs down and keep thumbs up like favorite points. One of the problems that I foresee with worldwide voting up/down/flagging and community-based moderation is that what someone thinks is inappropriate in one country or culture may not be in another, or even in different cities. Ultimately no cache is safe from being archived by someone across the world even though the local challengeers thought it appropriate and worth keeping. There definitely needs to be a better rating/issues system in place, whether it's tighter categorization or localization or whatever... there's already been a wide variety of opinions about what is acceptable and not just in this thread.

I'm not sure that would be best, as there may be challenges requiring different tasks though at the same/nearby location. Perhaps more relevant would be to provide a short list of the closest challenges next to the flag option (perhaps specifically a 'duplicate' flag?), so that one can compare with nearby challenges and decide if it's a similar or duplicate task before clicking the flag? Agreed!

Check earlier in the thread as to why there's ample desire to have this cache re-instated. A new cache is not out of the question, no one said it was. Be by far the favourite resolution (and point of the 'parade') is to have this cache re-instated and adopted.

Oh yes. I forgot about that. I have been absent from forum drama for quite some time. But it looks like a number of the big players have come out for this little debacle. Hey, at least I get to be a part of the ruckus that helped bring y'all together in agreement it seems, no?

Yep. That's my frustration with the system, but them's the Facts. Not surprised

What does that matter? I'd think "tossing it on someone else's plate" is a GOOD thing, both for geocachers and geocaching. "We don't like him any more, so we don't care if if he made a mistake or not, or wants to help other cachers or not"? Who's having the hissy fit again? This is why it's an exception. Obviously you don't unarchive a cache knowing the owner has abandoned it, with no intentions of maintaining it. The exception is based on the spoken word that another person will adopt it, therefore it will not be abandoned. I don't see why saying you'd like to unarchive it so someone else can take it over is a reason in itself to NOT allow it, especially so soon after it was archived (under the impression it could still be adopted!).

Thank you for that informative overview, re-iterating the obvious with a touch of condescension. Speaking for myself, everyone must know by now that my only interest in this feud is personal gratification, and a selfish desire to win and log this cache just because I want to, while simultaneously ruining the reputation of the reviewers by blaming them for everything. Please. Who cares what the motivation of original owner of the cache was? If he's gone it doesn't matter. "Good riddance", for some it seems. We're not trying to unarchive and save all of his caches. This particular cache was the goal and motivation of a number of cachers who have been working on this challenge (and still are) for up to a year. It's not a quick challenge. It requires time and dedication. Other challenges, regardless of difficulty, can be done very very quick with enough effort. This requires 365 days. People from across the continent have come, and may have been planning to come, to log this 5/5 challenge cache. Read back in the thread for other proposed resolutions and why they may or may not be viable, and why we'd still like this cache adopted. There is ample reason for exception in this case, in my opinion. Nothing's going to change my mind until a rule is written by Groundspeak that archived caches cannot be unarchived for the purpose of adoption. There is no such rule. There are guidelines (read: allowable exceptions on the judgement of reviewers), which can be interpreted to imply that it's frowned upon. Make it a rule. Then I'll drop it. I still see no reason why it's disallowed. The cache is not illegal, it is not unsafe, it is friendly, it follows all rules and guidelines for placement, it's even physically still there. A strong case has been put forth for its continued existence under the ownership of another cacher, and a volunteer even stepped forth to adopt it. Why is this still an issue? Because the previous owner had a fit and took his ball to play somewhere else? So, stick it to the rest of the cachers and tell them to blame the original CO? Hell has frozen over? *PFF*

You're missing the point of an "exception". Whether it was a mistake or not, the argument for granting an exception in this specific case is strong. But that clearly holds no weight. And no, while archival may not have been a mistake, he thought it could still be adopted.

Nope. Wrong again. There's nothing here about consistency or lack of it. This is simply a decision against a very, very simple request, that ultimately is being turned down because "I said so." Consistency is good. As is recognizing the ability to grant exceptions to requests that have a solid case. Of course, the final word on exceptions is with the reviewer, so yep, "No" can easily mean "No". This is not personal. This is not about reviewer consistency. This is simply a non-sensical (ymmv) decision on a simple matter that can't be altered by simple (nor enthusiastic) persuasion.

Hey, you've got to throw a hissy fit express legitimate concerns and criticisms somewhere, right? Sorry, we thought perhaps due to the very, very simple nature of the request, having a few more voices express agreement might help change a mind. Seems it got "funny" and sour right quick. Hey it's not like we're trying to steal something from the store or anything after having told the clerk what we plan to do, and then piling on the clerk for saying we can't do that. We're legitimately upset because a very, very simple request had been emphatically (and snarkily) denied, for no good reason. You can't blame us for wanting to "rally" for support on the issue, whether or not the goal at that point is to change a mind. As I said before, this is not about The Reviewer. This is about this specific request, and (now, once again, for me at least) the review process that's prompted this sort of "mob mentality", which has occurred more in recent months, and prompted 'geocide' from other long-time geocachers. No one said it wouldn't be taken upstairs. I don't know if it already has. But will it happen by me? In this case no - not as an admission that unarchival is no longer a request, but because it's a challenge cache which I am in the middle of doing, and so to be 'ethically sound', I'm not going to adopt it and own it and then log it found. Thus, I'm not the one to appeal for the exception and adoption. But I can certainly attempt to make a case here as to why it's worthy of an exception, which I believe I have, along with a few others... though I've also probably ruined my case due to my now bitter, sour attitude towards these very, very simple requests, and why I said I give up on this case. And yep, it's a stalemate with advantage reviewer, which is why it's like a bystander opting to give in and settle out of court under the pressure of a corporate law team, rather than pay the cost of going to court. It's a very, very simple request, but at this point it would do more harm to the reviewer to change their mind than to simply take hands-off and pass all further work and effort off to the geocacher. So, that's point #5 off the table. Obviously no mind is going to be changed. But that still leaves points 1-4 as to why the discussion is still happening. As it stands, I'm only now returning when I think the thread's gone off on a tangent, or a comment is made that I think needs a response. That's it. I'd love an exception to be granted in this case, and I'd be extremely grateful, as would many others. So once again, I'm out, and back to lurking.

So have I. Like being told effectively "the reviewer has made their decision, and provided alternate means of (insert supposed goal here), so we recommend you do that. We can do nothing further". It's a safe presumption that that is precisely the stance that they'll take in this situation. I already said I wasn't going to commit geocide. I already said I would encourage someone else to appeal - I won't be adopting it, so it's better the person who is willing to adopt it appeal the decision directly. Discussion happens here because this is a great, and optimal, venue to 1) find out how other people feel, 2) use as a speaker's corner to express concern and critique, 3) have discussion in an open, public environment for the record and for reference, 4) to flesh out solid points in a debate or disagreement, and 5) hopefully come to a consensus, to settle, without having to take it upstairs. Especially on a very, very, simple request.

Nope, because like I said, past examples don't set a precedent. One reviewer can make a decision one day, and decide differently the next without needing to defend the choice. One reviewer can make a decision, and another can decide otherwise, and there's no grounds to have either changed. This is the nature of the review process that's in place. Every decision is independent and unaffected by others in similar circumstances. As for "pleading for mercy", I can only speak for myself - I have only "plead for mercy" in situations that are 'grey' (ymmv, obviously) when it comes to the guidelines. Common sense denials are, of course, common sense. I'm not going to appeal a cache denied publishing due to being on private property without permission. Would others? Maybe. But all the reviewer needs to say is "Nope", and leave it. It's circumstances like this Ironman cache where the 'grey'ness of the guidelines leaves the situation open to interpretation and common sense, and ultimately the highly subjective, but all-powerful, decision of the reviewer. And there's nothing anyone can do about it. Except going over their heads to appeals. But of course, when dealing with exceptions, there's nothing appeals can do, because the decision is not an 'error' on the part of a reviewer. One can't lobby against a reviewer for an exception. I learned that earlier this year as well. Granting an exception is purely and solely up to the reviewer's will. Just going to re-iterate and echo what dfx just said above, as well as this sentiment from Frank (regardless of reviewer)...

Nope. All they have to do is what they've done in the past... Just say "No", then link to that funny youtube video that was linked earlier in this thread. They're all too good at saying no, once they've made a decision. No extra work or thought required.

Nope! Precedents are not set by reviewer decision. That is a Fact that has been pointed out clearly and repeatedly. You can't have it both ways. If past actions don't set a precedent for future cases, then you can't use concern for future cases as an excuse/reason for your immediate decision.

I'm not at home, which is why I've been quietly watching this unfold today. I'm sorry CD, no this is not about "being difficult", or trying to prove the reviewers wrong. I think the intent of raising this concern is once again specifically about issue at hand - an interpretation of guidelines being held to what some consider draconian levels, over a very simple, single request that many of us consider a 'grey' area. Once again, alternative solutions have been acknowledged - including the reasons why we're still opting to seek out the original solution. I frankly don't care what decisions the reviewers make on a daily basis - they do a good, unenviable job of managing many regions of activity encompassing thousands of cachers and endless more caches. For free. No, I for one am not out on some vengeful spree of battling with reviewers. I am only here trying to understand the reasoning for why another plea for an exception to the decisions made by a reviewer are insufficient. If it simply comes down to "I don't want to allow it" (ignoring the "nyah nyah" joking attitude expressed earlier), then as much as I, personally, detest that decision, then I'm resigned to accept that choice, along with the detest I have for it. I'm just getting too tired of this... it just feels like a futile effort to put forth a feasible argument in the hopes of appealing to a reviewer's better side after they've made a decision. And I'm positive my souring attitude in situations like this is simply not going to help the situation at all. I'm done. Giving up on this. Wasted effort. I'm going to encourage someone else to appeal for the unarchival and adoption, and probably not going to be putting out any more caches. I enjoy the game, and I'm not going to take my caches away from others for finding. But cache ownership has just prompted way too drama recently, so the less I have to deal with the review process the better. I have to decide if I'm still going to lay my next legitimately creative cache after this. Whatever.

This. Also This is precisely the issue. The reviewer(s) won't unarchive it. Based on the reasoning that it's supposedly against the rules to unarchive for the purpose of adoption. That "rule" hasn't been shown anywhere. So. Why can the cache not be unarchived, then transferred to a new owner?

Then... what's the point of ANY challenge cache being in existence? Yes, there is value in completing a challenge and logging the goal cache as found. Obviously anyone can set up whatever personal challenge they want for themselves, and be happy when it's completed. But when one begins the challenge with the goal of logging the challenge cache as complete, that is the intended reward. You can't simply shrug of challenge caches as frivolous. While the removal of the ability to log any challenge cache itself shouldn't make the accomplishment of said challenge any less something to be proud of, it's like taking away the Gold Medal for someone who finishes the race, while they're running the race. I'll also requote sargents here: Obviously they can re-log, in theory, providing the owner's requirements are identical, but once again it comes down to the principle of the thing: IMO, I haven't seen a reason why this should not be granted an exception and adopted, other than "it could make more work for reviewers in the future". You're forgetting - no precedent is set by exceptions, no more responsibility is given for reviewers to have to make complex judgements. We're just looking at this situation; that's the benefit of not having to consider setting a precedent is it not? And, off topic - CacheDrone, as much as you think that was funny here, in context - what the hell? Is it just me or are more and more locals being vindicated in dropping Groundspeak's Geocaching all together?

Actually, having just done a bit of looking up on the rules (the point about adopting unarchived cached not actually being linked above), I do have a comment. (emphasis mine) 1. Permanent Removal: Archiving a Cache 2. Unarchiving a Cache 3. Adopting or Transferring a Cache Unless I missed something, I found nothing that states 'an archived cache cannot be unarchived for the purposes of adoption' - and I've searched the guidelines for keywords archive, unarchive, adoption, and their variants. Please link me if I missed this key 'rule'. What I did read is that an archived cache can't have its ownership transferred - it must be active, not archived (see the page in point #3 for more detailed instruction). In which case, an exception can indeed be granted, it is not a hard and fast rule, so that the cache may be unarchived and transferred to a new owner. Now while that's by a reading in the letter of the law, obviously the "exception" for unarchival is still based on the opinion of the reviewers and may or may not be granted. So this is just to hopefully raise the point that it is (as far as I'm concerned) up to the judgement of the reviewers, not a rule they are restricted from circumventing. So once again, I ask that the reviewers reconsider the proposal to have this special and lengthy challenge cache adopted by another willing cacher.

I'm not going to add anything, necessarily to this discussion, but as spoken by Sargents and confirmed by CacheDrone, the forum is better place for discussion, so I'm copying the logs posted to the cache page here for perpetuity, and for review by other forum members. This is regarding GC280PA I'll only say this: This cache should prompt an exception for adoption. If only because of all the work cachers have put into completing it, and those who may have been working on this high-effort task for up to a full year. It is only fair. Anyhow, here is the progress of discussion since gg's archival (his reasoning will remain out of it - talk to him about that). The following comments were posted as logs on the cache page (but for some reason there's a max quote limit in the forum) ---- gg I give up on Geocaching.com. I may move this listing to a competitors site. Goodbye. Thanks all for stopping by. I know some of you were looking forward to finding this cache however I will not maintain it. If you wish to hide a similar challenge cache in the area go for it. ---- philfyboy So sorry to see this one go, my wife and I were coming in early October to complete the cache. This is the cache I pointed to during my streak to keep my wife happy and a trip to Canada was something she was excited about. ---- gg If any of the local finders would like to adopt this cache let me know. ---- carnigrewal The idea behind this cache is awesome, and I can honestly say that I was sad to get the archive notice. I really do hope its gets adopted. ---- thebruce0 Not giving on the daily caching. Hopefully this will be revived or adopted... ---- gg The Sargents will adopt this cache. ---- dfx Too bad you can't adopt archived caches... ---- CacheDrone As was correctly pointed out, it is our policy to not unarchive a geocache for the purposes of adoption. As such if someone else wants to create their own version of this listing then they are free to so as long as they meet the conditions listed under (visit link) ---- gg Oh well this one is now dead. Not sure why that policy would be in place. If I just said un-archive it because I will tend to it then transferred it a few weeks later it results in the same thing. Maybe the policy needs to be revised! If someone wants to make Ironman 2, the container is already on site and it's ready to go. ---- thebruce0 If there's one thing I've learned over the past couple of months, it's that the rules aren't rules - they're guidelines that the reviewers vehemently adhere to, though given the rights to make exceptions based on their own judgement on a case by case basis as they see fit, knowing that the exception does not set a precedent for future cases. I would hope in this case that an exception is feasible as there are people who have been watching and working on this challenge cache - across the continent and up to a full year as of now. Having this cache now resigned to forever be archived simply because it's "not allowed" to be adopted once archived is... well I'll just stop there. Of course someone could just re-publish an Ironman 2 at the same coordinates using the same container, but that does seem so very redundant and unnecessary. Just unarchive and allow adoption. Please. I hope a decision can be made, or an appeal on principle, to allow this cache to remain for those who are working on it, or desire to work on it. *sigh* ---- sargents Note sent to CacheDrone I was hoping that you would please review your decision on unarchiving GC280PA (Ironman Cache a Day Challenge). I was the one who volunteered to take over the cache.If this were a normal cache I would not ask and would have no qualms about posting a new cache.I believe that this is a somewhat unique situation and requires a bit of thought and made a stretching or bending of the normal practices. As this is a challenge cache where the requirement is to complete 365 continuous days of caching it is not an easy cache to get. People from many areas have come to get this cache and there are many who are (were) working hard to achieve the requirements so that they can come here to record their completion. I would like the people that have already accomplished the challenge and log the cache would have to return and re-logged to still be included without having to return and re-log a new cache. I also think that re-logging a new cache with an old achievement diminishes the true spirit of this cache. Thanks for talking the time to look at this Sargents ---- CacheDrone Listing will now be locked as this is not the place for a forum discussion. This cache page will not be unarchived as the original cache owner has indicated that it would be for the purposes of adoption. There is currently little if anything that prevents others from creating their own version of this challenge cache under their own account. There are other factors to be considered for challenge cache ownership. ----

(Not sure how that's relevant to my reply, but ok:) Of course. Everything in the guidelines is vague. Everything is "should", "may", "generally", "usually" and "likely". Almost nothing reads "must" or "must not". It's quite convenient, really. I wish that would apply to unarchiving a cache for the purpose adoption... *cough*

I've now passed 1000 finds, and I use an iPhone 3GS exclusively (save of course when in groups and others have GPSrs). I've cached in forests with thick canopies and out in a desert. There are so many factors involved in how well you can cache (find and hide) with a smartphone, and as rightly mentioned above many with handhelds can also have errant coordinates and whatnot. In my opinion, yes, you can go caching just fine with an iPhone 3GS. I recommend, highly, using the satellite imagery, comparing your surroundings with what you see around you, and keep moving around until your location settles sufficiently. I find that even though the 'accuracy' at best hits 47m, maybe 16, the average location of the center of that accuracy is typically accurate (comparing environmental imagery). Is a smartphone as good as a GPSr? It can be slower, and generally speaking yes you'll be more accurate and have an easier time (and a longer battery life) with a GPSr. But the other benefits of a smartphone, IMO, outweigh the drawbacks A smartphone is just as usable and powerful when coupled with imagery and a thorough checking of coordinates. Beyond that, you have trust that the CO of a cache you're finding has made sure their coordinates are accurate, regardless of the device they used to hide it . Also, for urban caching with unavoidable GPS bounce, for the imagery reason I mentioned, I'd say smartphones have a one-up on handhelds

Of course it doesn't mean it's less of an accomplishment. But it doesn't mean that suddenly by completing the grid you are thereby awarded completion status for each and every grid challenge that is currently available in the GC database. If the CO puts out a challenge cache with a date restriction, that doesn't degrade anyone's find accomplishment, it only puts an added challenge on completing that cache's requirements - which, once again, is not a cache that every person is required to find; only by their own choice. But again, the decision for any challenge cache as to whether it's fair or not is ultimately up to the CO. So in your cache, you're perfectly in your right to retire your own caches for that reason. But to imply that any challenge cache with a date restriction is unfair to geocachers in general is a broad and presumptuous statement that's only going to inflame debates and emotions (as has been demonstrated). You want your caches to be as accessible to everyone as possible - that's great. Putting other CO's or caches down for having date restrictions (even saying they are unfair) is a step too far. I haven't looked at the replacement cache yet, but I'm sure I will soon enough, and likely log it next time I'm in the area - if indeed it is "more fair" than the previous, I've likely already qualified. =P PS. Sulphur Mountain is an amazing cache! Beautiful! I logged it this summer as well.