Cpt.Blackbeard

I know that company. They acquired the retailer I used to work for (Galyan's), and because I was too highly-paid and knowledgeable, they forced me out. They'd rather hire minimum wage shelf stockers than someone who knows a thing or two about outdoor gear. Anyway, this sort of behavior is par for the course. You could raise a stink about it to them, but they won't care. The ad was a way for them to pitch two high tech (high margin) items. Win-win as far as they care. Made no sense to me. I loved Galyans, my first choice anytime I needed outdoor gear, but Dicks bought them out and closed the stores, and they don't even carry most of the gear Galyans had. Galyans had equipment for outdoorsmen, Dicks has Sporting goods, big Difference. Dicks will never get a Dime of my money, I buy from Gander Mountain and Cabellas now. Dicks is only in it for the money, no matter what it takes to get it.

Hummmm....seems I have been every year for the last 30 years. I'd have to say your statement is incorrect. I know where you are coming from but sbell is right, an owner cannot be laid off from his business, just ask your state unemployment office. You would be better described, perhaps, as an Owner in name, until, as The Rambler pointed out, you have the deed in your name. When my Dad passed away I got the family farm, but it was not Legally mine until the deed was in my name, until then even though everyone around here considered me the owner, in the view of the state I was not.

But Roddy, the defender's only hope of getting this thread shut down is to obfuscate the issues, constantly bringing up stuff that is irrelevant to the course this discussion has taken. Those who believe in the Almighty sanctity of the Church, will never accept that their Friar might have erred. As such, they must come up with any defense possible, in the hopes of pushing the detractors over the edge of reasonable conversation. No matter how many times you point out your concerns, someone will post something that has nothing to do with your concern. I know, but if I don't take the time to correct them (regardless if they already know and understand or not), I lose a great chance to take this up to the top! I have enjoyed many of your posts, my friend. Well said and thought out. I sure wish I had your patience and level-headedness! btw, some not only try to derail, some even go to such antics as trying to discredit and defame...sad if you ask me, but it happens! So it seem that the issue is that Nomex did not believe SF claim that he had checked on the cache an all was in order. This is good. It was hard to argue when sometimes this was problem and sometime the problem was that a cache could be archived just because nobody had found it. I don't think it should surprise anyone that the reviewers don't take everybody's word when it come to publishing or archiving caches. If this were the case we would not need reviewers. Since we all check the box on the submission form saying we have read and understood the guidelines why doe Groundspeak need reviewers? Are they calling all of us liars? The reviewers look at the cache page for certain guideline issues. The primary one they can check is proximity to an existing cache. But they also look for commercialism, agendas, caches neer railroad tracks, schools, highway bridges, etc. Frankly I'm shocked that they do this. I checked I read and understood the guidelines but I guess they would rather call me a liar and see for themselves. Some guidelines can't be checked by looking at the cache page. In this case, the reviewers do trust me and they go ahead and publish the cache. But suppose later on they get information that the cache is buried or that it is on private property that is posted "No Trespassing". What do they do then? They usually will believe this new information - no matter what its source is - instead of trusting that I told them the truth when I check that box. They might even archive the cache immediately if they think it could cause a problem with a land owner or manager. Or they might disable the cache and ask me to fix the issues. Now it does seem that in some situations, a simple note on the cache page that I've done the maintenance is sufficient. In other cases, the reviewers will ask that I provide addition information that might not go on the cache page. For example, if there is a permission issue they might want the name of the person who gave permission so they can contact them and verify this. The case of a missing cache is probably one of the harder situations to handle. First of all the information that cache is missing (or was not there in the first place) is often circumstantial. An easy cache that had many finds and is now getting DNFs or the case where someone finds swag and a geocaching note spread out over an area but no container make it easier for the reviewer to ask for the cache owner to check the cache and replace the container (or remove the geo-litter and archive the cache). In this case we had a difficult cache that had never been found. We may like to believe that simply the fact the cache was never found would not be enough to archive it. It seems there must have been some other evidence in this case that the cache was not there. TPTB have decided not to share this with us, which is a shame only because those who believe the cache was wrongly archived are not going to change their minds without knowing what this was. Whatever the evidence, Nomex believed there was no cache. He used the form response he generally used for a missing cache. Understandably, SF assumed that he simply needed to visit his cache and verify it was there. We don't know whether or not he actually did this, we have only his word. In a normal "cache is missing" case, a cache owner would post that he replaced the cache or that he found some other problem (such as cache migration) that caused the cache to be DNF'd. If the note that was posted seemed a reasonable explanation, the reviewer is going to believe it. (Of course if this happens a few times and nobody is finding the cache they may reach other conclusions). In this case however, the reviewer thought the the cache was a hoax. SF's response was clearly not going to change the reviewer's mind, so the archival was done. Note that SF still has an opportunity to get his cache unarchived. He now knows that the issue is that the reviewer believes there has been no cache to find for years. Instead of putting together evidence of a cache for his appeal, he simply says that the reviewers have treated him unfairly. Groundspeak upholds the decision to archive since there is no new evidence beyond that which Nomex had. SF destroys what evidence he may have had in a huff so there is no proof a cache ever existed. So now we have the people who believe that Groundspeak should always take the cache owner's word unless they are willing to put forth evidence to the contrary versus those that think Groundspeak should act even on weak evidence and that it is up to the cache owner to present evidence to overturn the decision. 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! Actually he summed it up perfectly. Best post in the thread.

Difference is credibility. Groundspeak has it, you do not. Second is believability. If something sounds fishy it probably is. SF sounds fishy, his own posts work against his credibility, and TSD's post is very believable as it matches the image SF has created of himself. At this point it's apparent that those who followed this thread with an open mind and made a decision based on the available evidence have concluded GS acted appropriately. Those who will believe nothing that doesn't match their preconceived idea of the situation continue to demand ever more proof they will not accept. As I said in my first post Roddy, you are only hurting your own credibility here now, so say what you want about CF, no one will believe it.

And that should be the final nail in the coffin. Groundspeak was right, the Archiving was properly done, and all this angst has been wasted. Great job Groundspeak, keep it up.

I disagree. They say they did a complete investigation, I say they went off of hearsay. Everything I 've heard points in that direction. Do I believe GS believes in that hearsay? Sure, I would call it pretty convincing...but not PROOF. The ONLY way GS could prove this was a hoax would be if the CO admitted it or they actually physically checked....I somehow doubt either of these were done. Now, when saying you have that proof and you call the owner a liar in public, you should be ready to back that proof or some customers might not be happy. Sbell would like you yo believe I am against GS, that I have called Keystone a liar etc etc, good attempts to discredit me...but far from the truth. I happen to admire and appreciate the GS crew, volunteers to lackeys. I often can be seen standing behind them, recently in threads such as the ALR debate, I tend to agree with them in most every case. Sorry, I don't think everyone is perfect though, and I see this to be a case in point! Why am I keeping this up at the top? Simple really, I don't like how this seemed to be swept under the rug and just allowed to fester and die here without even a simple acknowledgement that things could be done better and they have learned from this just as I'm sure many of us here have. And I know, some of you will say I don't have to like it, that complaining over and over won't change it. I bet this thread is being watched more than by just us, I would guess the message is getting through. Sbell would also like you to believe I refuse to discuss the issues. What have I been doing then? It is true I do refuse to play the games that some seem to enjoy....played in enough in this thread already. If all the post is for is to lead in circles, I'll bow out and let you play that game all by yourself. At the end of the day, I appreciate and respect Nomex, Miss Jenn, Keystone and all the others, even if I do feel Keystone owes me two apologies now! And, while some will try to tell you you have to vote with your feet or some other form of "if you don't like it..." remark, I don't feel I'd leave the caching world I love over a simpe mishandling (IMHO) of a situation...nor do I believe anyone who suggests this takes their own advice seriously. Again, what you think is irrelevant. They have done all that is required and more. They have no obligation to provide you with proof of any kind, and in fact would be foolish to do so.

Roddy has made it completely clear that he really has no interest in the discussion. His only goal is to keep the thread bumped. Either you can't read or you're purposely misleading everyone who would believe what you type. I would happily link where you've stated basically that, but we have a little one that is about to get cranked if we don't get her down. Anyone who cares can simply glance through your posts for teh last few pages. I'm quite certain that they will easily find the relevent statements. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4140981 To Quote: You did say it.

This thread has been very curious in part because it is not just the people whom I see over and over insist that Groundspeak can do no wrong who have take the side the the cache was justly archived. And it not just the people who alway bash GS that have questioned this cache being archived (or at least the way it was archived). The only thing I think you are having trouble seeing, is this idea that the burden of proof is on GS or the reviewer when a cache is archived. The reviewer sees whatever evidence he sees and reaches a conclusion that the cache should be archived. GS realizes that only in a few cases will the reviewer have absolute proof that a cache is in violation of guidelines. Reviewers routinely archive caches and leave notes indicating that a cache owner can still provide evidence that the cache is compliant with guidelines and get it unarchived. If the reviewers where to be required to have incontrovertible proof before archiving a cache, there job would be impossible. They are permitted by Groundspeak to use some judgment and make a decision based on what evidence is available. It is up to cache owners who feel there cache is unjustly being archived to provide evidence to change the reviewer's mind (or to get the ruling overruled on appeal). For many people, the fact that SF did not provide this evidence (and instead claims to have destroyed what evidence he might have had), says a lot more about whether there was a cache in the first place than any secret evidence that Groundspeak may hold. Toz, when the PTB not only archive, but call the owner a liar, they surely had ought to back that up. I think they've done far more then required, some people will never be satisfied, the wise company does not stoop to hashing it out in public.

I do know we're not in a court of law, doesn't change my belief that the burden is GS. They made the claim, they need to back it. They believe they have done enough. Their belief is the one that counts.

This is not a court of law, it is a privately run game. Big difference there. Their game, their right to demand proof, their right to archive if they don't believe it's there. Community pressure will keep them honest or expose dishonesty, debate is goor. But all the useful debate here ended many days ago. Continue if you wish, I will continue to read.

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.

That has to be about the most selfish, self centered post I've even seen.

I agree it is on the cacher as far as the law and GC is concerned. Perception will be what it is though, there will always be people who make bad choices, it's just up to the rest to overshadow the bad with good.

Possibly they feel better thinking all future log readers will believe it wasn't their fault they couldn't find it, lot of that mentality in the world today. "Not my Fault"

Agreed, if I felt I had to reach a number by a certain date it would become work, not fun.

I Will Survive at Shrader Weaver Haven't made it there yet but old growth forest sounds good, and I do share my last name with it, Shrader (Note the lack of a "C" in Shrader, that is not a misprint)

Deleting a log for no reason is not common. You may not know why the owner deletes it but they have a reason, good or not.

I will respond as I am the one who personally found the cache and I did not receive any notice of this cache being buried. I have archived two within the last month that were placed the same and the other cache was at the trail head of a hiking trail in a public park. To help keep down copycat placements such as the one in the park (the CO told me he was copying another placement) I felt to deal with it quickly and swiftly was the thing to do. It was referred to appeals and that is all I will say on the matter. Which shows why the hider should have made it clear to the original reviewer exactly what the hide style was and received explicit approval for his "buried" cache then, an once of prevention beats a pound of cure.

False! So what am I waiting for? The next cacher has over 100 hides.

I predict there will be plenty of volunteers for the Cheerleader job.

Yep, that's what I did with my Bent Tree cache, GCZ7D2 My nephew helped with the hide and named it so I included him as co hider, but only I get the notifications about it.

Within the guidelines or not, those hides wouldn't be very fun to hunt! Around here if you dropped it in a groundhog hole it will stop about twenty feet down.

Wow, I don't think I've been in here for a year and i come back to find all this Angst! I hope everyone is happy now. As the saying goes it takes two to argue so if you really don't want to find yourself in an online argument just stop replying, hard as that can be to do sometimes. Let the other person have the last word and think they won, why should you care anyway? (Directed at no one, just general advice for those who wish it.)

I think the Guidelines are pretty clear, but anytime you are unsure you can contact the Local reviewer and let them decide. As for Private property, I can bury 100 caches on my own place if I want to, but I can't make Groundspeak list them. Again, if I wanted to place a buried cache here I would first contact my Local reviewers and discuss it with them. If my reasons were good enough they might approve it, they might not, but by being upfront about it I would never have to wonder if I was right to place it.

I've only been to one but since I'm planning to hit Geowoodstock this year and Geobash was moved farther away to Ohio I don't see how I could make it.