The Royles

Thanks for the lucid and considered response, it is that kind of interaction which will get this forum a good name To clarify a few points: 1. Re Pups thread part of your reply was: "In future, if you feel that one of these GPS and Technology topics is sitting in the UK forum when it would be better off in the other one then please simply PM me the link, mention why you feel it should be moved and (after checking with my colleagues who know more about such things!) it will be dealt with appropriately." Now I do not feel that this or any of the other threads should be moved, so I will politely decline the offer. 2. "Camping thread locked because of mails sent outside of the thread." I was referring to the locking at post #83 as an example of over moderation, not when the OP requested the locking. I accept your answers and do understand that you lock threads when requested by the OP, but I am more aligned with uktim in that just because the OP has their answer it does not mean that the thread is "complete". Once again, thanks for the answers.

OK, I will bite Reviewers APPARENTLY making up rules "This is not a new cache, but the original one (archived) with original container and logbook. I am therefore archiving it." was the note left when archiving a cache. Oh and before gracky comes wading in again with his accusations I now realise that this statement was (for want of a better term) ecconomical with the facts so was misleading. Threads handled badly: Pups thread being moved with lots of others of a similar nature left Camping thread locked because of mails sent outside of the thread Banned subjects thread now locked with no answer given by the mods

The "Banned subjects" thread was closed without an answer to why the watered down statement was deemed unacceptable.

Graculus, People can only comment on the information they have, you seem to be of the opinion that no-one should ever offer an opinion (after all, when can you ever be sure that you have ALL the information). Now correct me if I am wrong, but was there not a statement that the cache was archived because it was not a new cache, but the original one (archived) with original container and logbook. It was this statement I commented on, and I find it rather sad that you are on here saying that that statement is incorrect. If you archive a cache and do not want the reasons to be seen, it would be better to say nothing than to make something up as THAT only serves to inflame the current 'Reviewer Bashing' posts.

I was reading this topic, and catching up on emails at the same time. I was thinking how the reviewers do get some unfair stick and that they do the best they can when up pops an email. In this mail I see a cache has been archived for being either: 1) A re-used box and log book 2) Hidden in the exact location of an archived cache 3) A combination of the two Now when I see rules being re-interpreted/re-invented like that I can see why some feel that the system is faulty. I can imagine how the cache setter feels about the reviewing process

We need a campaign, how about FREE THE AVATAR TWO

Booked in for Thurs Fri and Sat. Oh, and BUMP!

Unfortunately very true.

As there is a need for all to see Groundspeaks full point of view, here are the follow up points I raised along with the answers - questions in blue:

The ROYLES did not quote the full mail as the GS employee is not fond of his emails being published, I know because I asked him. Me quoting part of of an email to me (with you cc'd for your information) does not mean that you need to quote it in full unless you are of the opinion that I was being misleading. How would interacting with a employee of the campsite be the equivalent of attending a Geocaching event. Unless the employee is actually a Geocacher whose attending the event. I would say about the same as a cacher turning up, interacting with another cacher for 30 seconds and then going - both equally silly. But hey if that is how you need it, a cacher could be at reception with log book.

As I read it, it does answer the question. The answer is if your event cannot allow people to attend for a few seconds to get their smiley, then the event will not be listed - so you need to cater for this in some way. Sadly this goes against the spirit of events in general. I can forsee someone organising an event with lots of activities etc, only to find everyone does a "drive by" attend of it and no-one actually socialises at all !! I wonder what would be said if you put a log book at the camp site reception for an hour, and all that sign it are deemed to have attended the event.

I have had a reply from Groundspeak on this issue. The main point of the email is: So there we have it, we have gone from commercial issues, to open to all issues, and now time issues. Methinks some reviewer somewhere doesnt like camping edit to add more smilies

It was. Have some winky smileys: I only want winky smilies if i earnt them, and in any case I only claim one per post.

Sure you do! A broken Kinder egg toy. I am saving my points up for a McD toy (broken or incomplete)

I hope it is all about the numbers. Each cache I do brings me one nearer to earning the prize of ... err ... wait ..... so I dont win anything then ? For that reason I am out

Not sure if this was all tongue in cheek, but at a camping event there is so much more time and oppertunity to socialise with the other cachers. In the evenings all the cachers tend to congregate for anything from 3 to 8 hours, I think this qualifies as "standing together". Campers (or indeed tenters ) tend not to spend their time in their tents.

I took the route Deci suggested and mailed Groundspeak at reviewers@geocaching.com asking for the interpretation be reviewed. I am awaiting a reply. I do not consider this to be a complaint (which is Decis wording), rather I see it as a valid question that people would like an answer to.

I totally agree, this thread can be closed anytime the mods see fit, as my original question has been answered. Nice take on things Web Rat, it almost makes me sorry that I am not arguing on your side

Glad to hear that it is not because of the mails. I would hate to see someone driven off by some mindless fools.

Mandarin, many thanks for the clear answer, heres hoping that the cooling off period will give the senders of the offending mails time to consider their actions and to do the right thing and apologise.

Just to make it clear, when I said "I feel the decision to close the thread achieves nothing other than to stifle a debate" I was NOT saying that the thread was closed to stifle debate, I was saying that closing the thread had that effect. There was no criticism intended or present in my original post so if any offence was caused I wholeheartedly apologise.

I will add my condemnation of the senders of the mails. There is no place for abuse or threats, and I hope the recipient understands that the senders are not representative of the community, and is able to stand up to these bullies by continuing to post his/her views. Unfortunately the closing of the thread precluded this, and achieved what the senders of the mail wanted. The question of a new thread has gone unanswered, so I ask again, can a new thread be started or is the subject now taboo due to the actions of a very small minority who in no way reflect the views or actions of the majority of contributers to the thread ?

Have the mods any objections to someone starting a new thread regarding camping events. The thread was developing into a good exchange of views, with lots of well made points for discussion with all members behaving very well WITHIN the thread. I feel the decision to close the thread achieves nothing other than to stifle a debate. If there were abusive/threatening postings on the thread I could understand the stance taken, but to close the thread is to give in to the idiots that sent the emails. The action of closing the thread gives a big stick to the people who sent the mails as now, if they don’t like a thread all they have to do is send an anonymous mail to one of the participants and the thread will be locked (a bit like giving in to kidnappers). I cannot recall a thread being locked (on this or any other forum) for something that happened outside the thread, and think that it could set a very bad precedent.

If I remember correctly, Cachemate appears in the "unfiled" programs category.

It's probably useful to look at those events and work out where they differ from an event that is based at a single fee charging campsite Deci has stated on this thread that the commercial aspect of the camp sites was not the issue, so I fail to see where that would take us. I thought we were debating if a camping event is open to all or not - and these listings indicate that they are in America. Having said that, here is a quote from one of the event pages: "There is a fee to get into the park, in addition to your camping fee:". So not much doubt there that you will have to pay!