Reviewer Who

I'm struggling to see the logic there, but sticking with your analogy: If you buy a ticket for the Vikings game then you have a right to complain that the seats in the stadium are uncomfortable. This would be like buying a Vikings ticket on free t-shirt day, and complaining that the place to get your free shirt is on the opposite side of the stadium from the gate that you came in.

Yes. And you may want to double check your emails that you've saved up. One of them mentions that as a condition of having your listing unarchived (after you modified it post-publication to indicate that it would be traveling around), was that virtual logs would not be tolerated and could lead to your cache being archived again, which is exactly what happened. That was sent to us after it was republished, when you mentioned that it was on GS level and we said we were not going to delete the logs because they were not in violation by any definition of GS's Laws. I had no idea that a Lackey could say that, because in their mind it "goes against the spirit of geocaching". So it was archived for not being in violation of the guidelines. We were also never deceptive and explained to you the mixup with the listing (which I have mentioned earlier in this thread). That email was dated 10/10. Your cache was republished on 10/23. So no, it was not sent to you after your cache was republished.

Yes. And you may want to double check your emails that you've saved up. One of them mentions that as a condition of having your listing unarchived (after you modified it post-publication to indicate that it would be traveling around), was that virtual logs would not be tolerated and could lead to your cache being archived again, which is exactly what happened.

There's nothing in the description which alludes to looking for a specific cache. I see mention of it in a log though. Well they obviously didn't tell the reviewer if that was the real intent. Of course there's nothing in the description that alludes to looking for a specific cache! The event host knows better! All of that talk was done on FB. Every person who attended knew why the event was at that GZ! There is mention of the true intent in almost all of the logs. Thing is, this was an important/historical event that was used as a cover. It's a common way to get around the guideline and from my standpoint as a reviewer, perfectly fine. I publish any event that conforms to the guidelines according to the description on the page. What people actually do when they get there is out of my control and really none of my business. Where I live a common practice is to have a "donuts and coffee" event. Most locals know they are thinly disguised gatherings meant to hunt caches. They are usually held at a trail head parking lot and last about 30 minutes to an hour. The cache hunt aspect is discussed among potential attendees via emails, Facebook, forums, etc., but all the reviewer is concerned about is whether the coffee and donuts event complies with the guidelines as it is written up. As the reviewer who published the event, all I have to say is "This". The event listing page conforms to Groundspeak's event guidelines, so it was published.

Not according to Keystone: Once again, Groundspeak has completely reversed their stance on something without any "official" notice to the masses. Yeah, yeah, "no precedence", but a major change in policy like this warrants some sort of announcement. B. Aren't those quotes the same thing? No mention of GSAK in the cache name, but it's okay to make a non-promotional mention of it in the description.

My thoughts are like Keystone's: Think of it as how you would set up a regular event cache. You can't name your event "Come Get Crabs at Bob's House of Seafood!" but you can certainly mention in the cache description that your event is being held at Bob's so everyone knows where to go. Similarly, you can't name your event "GSAK 101", but at the existing event at Bob's, you can say in the description, "We're going to have a couple laptops available and if you'd like to learn how to use GSAK, stop on by." GSAK is mentioned, but not in a promotional way.

^Grounds for immediate disable or archive. Don't do it. QFT

If you update your coordinates and move within 528' of an existing cache, you may find your cache temporarily disabled. Your local reviewer will then likely give you some time to readjust the location of your cache so that it's far enough away from other caches. If you have a cache which is initially disabled for being too close to another cache then subsequently published after you submit new coordinates for it, you may find your listing retracted if a) you immediately update the coordinates back to the original location, or you keep the updated coordinates but never actually moved the container to that spot and are directing finders to "search 40 feet to the east".