Rockin Roddy

The precedent was set the first time a cache was ever archived by a reviewer. That reviewer received some evidence that the cache was not in compliance with the guidelines and archived/disabled it. The cache owner never presented evidence that the cache was in compliance or brought into compliance so the reviewers ruling stood. This is the way it has always worked. This cache was not an exception. The only thing one can complain about is that the way Nomex's note was written when he disabled the cache could be read as only asking for the cache owner to do a maintenance visit. When the CO reenabled the cache he said he did a maintenance visit. This turned out to not be what Nomex's was looking for. Perhaps reviewer notes can be made clearer. What we should all take away is that we the cache owner can ask if he/she doesn't understand what the issue with the cache is. I learned that some people will make assumptions based on inadequate information, and then never let go of their belief. Oh, wait... I already knew that. Not hardly. Show me, other than the three here, where a presumed active cache was archived even after insistance from the CO that it was there? Sure, we see GS archive caches when owners don't answer or tke the time to bring the cache back to compliance, that's not the case here at all. Nope, that's apples and oranges.

Never in my hiding "career" lol, would I have thought "hey, I'd better take pics of this hide since it's sooo devious...someone might not believe it's there". Now, I may take a pic out of pride, but not because I feel the burden of proof is on me if someone can't find the hide. Sad that, after this, some of us feel this is a necessary step. Maybe not, but he did state that he worked on it over a year and a half period. If it was that darn good, I think I would be pretty proud and take some pictures of it... My pride wouldn't be such that I'd even consider proving my case to GS. Look, they already asked a different reviewer to come in. They then asked the CO to "check" his cache...he did (we're told). They then archive even after he did what was asked. Upon appeals, the PTB do nothing more than ask the reviewer (as it appears, not saying this to be fact, just how it could have been perceived by the CO) and then uphold the archival. Do "I" as the CO, having a bad attitude anyway, believe I'd get a fair shake regardless?? Not likely. But hey, I'm a suspecting soul anyway, I trust no one. Some of us are like that... So, why jump through their hoops even knowing I'm not going to get a fair shake? You've rewritten history just a bit. You are ignoring the fact that SF/TDE appeal was lacking, so it was denied. You are also forgetting that, during an appeal, the burdon of proof is on the cache owner. Since his cache was denied because it was not believed to exist, he should have shown evidence of it's existence. He did not, so his appeal could only be denied. You're ignoring the fact that, even with the archival, nothing was said that TPTB wanted photo proof. How are we to know that we need to prove something with a photo? Ever heard that before? Was the CO asked for this proof? So, again, we need to be mind readers... Shouldn't have needed an appeal. Either GS KNEW they had the proof and should have confronted the owner with such OR they guessed they had the proof and should have done a BETTER investigation. Closing the cache down without either seems backwards to me.

Never in my hiding "career" lol, would I have thought "hey, I'd better take pics of this hide since it's sooo devious...someone might not believe it's there". Now, I may take a pic out of pride, but not because I feel the burden of proof is on me if someone can't find the hide. Sad that, after this, some of us feel this is a necessary step. Maybe not, but he did state that he worked on it over a year and a half period. If it was that darn good, I think I would be pretty proud and take some pictures of it... My pride wouldn't be such that I'd even consider proving my case to GS. Look, they already asked a different reviewer to come in. They then asked the CO to "check" his cache...he did (we're told). They then archive even after he did what was asked. Upon appeals, the PTB do nothing more than ask the reviewer (as it appears, not saying this to be fact, just how it could have been perceived by the CO) and then uphold the archival. Do "I" as the CO, having a bad attitude anyway, believe I'd get a fair shake regardless?? Not likely. But hey, I'm a suspecting soul anyway, I trust no one. Some of us are like that... So, why jump through their hoops even knowing I'm not going to get a fair shake?

Not following you on the first comment, not sure where you're going there... As for the second comment, if it has happened in the past, it could happen again. What if it's your cache next? What if you put hundreds of $$$ and several months of work and prep into the hide? Someone complains, GS hears them and archives. It may not be the "norm" but it sure sends a message.... Now, hard to tell if this cache was there or not. I've seen some interesting details which could mean anything really, nothing that is proof...either way. GS may have acted in good faith, they may have done the right thing the wrong way or they may have done the wrong thing the wrong way...we'll never know. But lets hope this doesn't get more common and we now have to fight to keep our hard caches! It is refreshing to hear Keystone tell us there's no new guidelines, but I don't think there was when the Indiana, Pennsylvania and now this cache were archived either...were all three of these fake caches?? Were ANY of them? We'll never know save some have said that at least one did exist! Another thing I did learn...GS has got to be the most forgiving group I've ever heard of. IF the things went down as GS has said, then the CO lied to us, lied to them, lied to them some more and then came in here and lied lied lied. All while defending a cache which GS says never existed? Very forgiving of GS to allow this CO to continue on...if this was the case. My first comment meant SF was told that GS believed his cache never existed. It may not have been told to him at the get go. However, at the archival he was told that they believed his cache never existed. So rather than appealing it with proof that it exists, he destroys a cache that he worked on for over a year. That seems really fishy. As for hiding very difficult caches, if I ever hid one so devious and evil that people couldn't find it, I would be more than willing to contact a reviewer and explain to them the hide, regardless if they "required" it of me or not. And once again, even if this is the third time this has happened, that's what kind of a percentage of unjust cache archival? That's .0003% of currently active caches that have been archived due to too high of difficulty. Though I suspect there's more to the story than that. So, you'd know to contact GS and inform them that your hide is super tough...after how many DNFs? I mean, if they merely asked you to check to make sure the hide was still there, you would automatically know you'd better provide proof? May seem fishy to you, bt some of us work differently than others, I would maybe handle it slightly different, but I'd likely not send them a pic even after they archived. I'd likely show my work to several of my friends and tell the tale so they can make a big noice if they please, but I'd not give GS the satisfaction...I shouldn't have to prove I'm a man of my word to them. I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.

Never in my hiding "career" lol, would I have thought "hey, I'd better take pics of this hide since it's sooo devious...someone might not believe it's there". Now, I may take a pic out of pride, but not because I feel the burden of proof is on me if someone can't find the hide. Sad that, after this, some of us feel this is a necessary step.

Not following you on the first comment, not sure where you're going there... As for the second comment, if it has happened in the past, it could happen again. What if it's your cache next? What if you put hundreds of $$$ and several months of work and prep into the hide? Someone complains, GS hears them and archives. It may not be the "norm" but it sure sends a message.... Now, hard to tell if this cache was there or not. I've seen some interesting details which could mean anything really, nothing that is proof...either way. GS may have acted in good faith, they may have done the right thing the wrong way or they may have done the wrong thing the wrong way...we'll never know. But lets hope this doesn't get more common and we now have to fight to keep our hard caches! It is refreshing to hear Keystone tell us there's no new guidelines, but I don't think there was when the Indiana, Pennsylvania and now this cache were archived either...were all three of these fake caches?? Were ANY of them? We'll never know save some have said that at least one did exist! Another thing I did learn...GS has got to be the most forgiving group I've ever heard of. IF the things went down as GS has said, then the CO lied to us, lied to them, lied to them some more and then came in here and lied lied lied. All while defending a cache which GS says never existed? Very forgiving of GS to allow this CO to continue on...if this was the case.

By this argument cache owners should never archive their own cache just because they think it is missing. But cache owners do this every day. Some do it simply based on the cache getting several DNFs - they don't even try to check to see if the cache is there. Are cache owners any different than a reviewer who sees evidence that a cache has gone missing or may have never even been there and archives it? The only difference is that when a reviewer archives a cache, the cache owner can present evidence that the cache is there and get it unarchived. The difference is, the owner has a CHOICE whether they want to archive unlike in this situation. The difference is that the owner has a CHOICE whether to provide evidence to the reviewer that there really is a cache. Or the owner could just get angry, take the cache and throw it away. But I was just responding to Coyote Red's claim that you can never prove a cache is missing. I can see that Nomex's note would be confusing for a cache owner who believed that is only ask him to check on the cache. He did and when he reported it was there, that didn't seem to be enough for the reviewer who wen and archived the cache anyhow. Now with a second opportunity to offer evidence that there was a cache to find, the owner provides only the fact that it was a custom built container and that depending on the river can be difficult to access. Miss Jenn responds that after some investigation Groundspeak believes there is no cache to find and uphold the archive decision. At this point instead of offering to show pictures of how the cache was hidden or offer to show the cache to a local reviewer, SF makes a 2 AM run to remove the cache and throws it away. Now it seems that some are angry because Nomex and later Groundspeak did not explicitly ask the cache owner to provide them evidence the cache existed. I believe this was because they had additional information beyond the DNFs that led to believe there was no cache. Rather than telling someone who was listing a hoax cache exactly what he needed to do to continue his hoax, they left it for him to decide. If the was a hoax, the cache owner might eventually slink away and not challenge the archival since there was no proof he could give that there was a cache. If it was really a difficult cache, the cache owner might eventually realize what needed to be done to show that cache existed. There is a small chance left that we had an actual cache but the cache owner's temperament led hid to destroy any evidence he could have used to show this. Anything's possible Toz! I just hope everyone learned something from this!! Personally, I learned that we had better be able to prove we hid a chace if it's hard to find. I learned that GS may not ask for what they want, you need to read between the lines. I learned that some in here don't think GS could do wrong. In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good!

THANKS for updating everyone, good to see movement on many coins!! The more they travel, the more the word is spread!!

Loaded it, will need to load a few PQs so I can see what it does?

Yellow etrex...not the best, but will get you where you want to go. You can buy a cable for about $30 at most outdoor stores such as REI or Cabela's. You can also load the caches by hand simply by pushing the mark button and editing the coords. The screen with the circles and numbers won't mean much to you at first, it's your sat lock screen and shows the satellites you have locked on (how many birds your unit can see and how accurate your unit is). On the side (not sure which side) is a button that cycles through the screens, one will have a compass looking screen which is where you'll spend much of your time while caching. Enter the coords, go to the compass screen and follow the arrow!! This unit is as basic as they get, when you become a bit more experienced, you may want to upgrade...we'll be waiting for your topic lol :)

SWEET!!

I don't recall saying that either.

OUCH!! Glad it turned out OK...I hate those danged horns too, don't those people realize how much they make us jump?

Can it be with an unactivated coin from our personal collections? Sorry, let me clarify...it must be an activated and released/ready to release Todie's Wild Ride coin. It can be from the first release to the present, but it has to be a mission coin!! Sorry about that!!

I don't necessarily think it was wrongly archived, more that it was archived wrongly!

Personally, I'd think this is a no-brainer...the OR. You can get free maps from several sources, it routes well and has many features the 60 doesn't. I believe the unit is as accurate as the 60...or most other units on the market these days!! Best bet would be to go and check out both units at a store if possible though!!

If I were a CO up there, and I got this kind of a log coming through, wouldn't I be able to delete the log, citing it as a bogus log? I know he had already found it once, but isn't he know basically getting smiley's under a name that never actually found the cache, nor is on the log book? Something to ponder... Not quite, the PTB have allowed name changes and we all know this is the same cacher.

Wouldn't you like to know..... Not really, I saw your legs waaay back when...lolol Geez, I just outed my age a bit!! One thought...shave!!

This is a promising unit, hopefully they can get it ironed out!! Well, and lower the price on those maps...OUCH!

Oh, if it were just that the kitten were attacking for no reason...I tend to tease and pick!! I have a scar from my ey doown to my mouth from a cat that didn't like what I was doing when I was about 7, but I understand that was my fault... And yes, if it weren't for this kitten, I wouldn't have anyone to keep me company all day long while KAboom is at school and then at his friends' houses!! If only I could teach her that her teeth are sharp...OUCH!! I get a LOT of joy from her, I laugh often these days!! Don't forget that you can get an a free entry for the MICKEY DIVER simply by taking a picture with a Todie's Wild Ride coin...ANY TWR!!!

Even easier for GSAK users.. continuously scheduled PQs covering a 100 mile radius come in automatically or one click via email, no need to unzip. Set your day's center point, filter if/how you want, one click export to the unit with solved puzzle co-ordinates (can't get in regular PQs), 15-20+ log entries (more than the allowed 5 past logs / PQ), all past finds as POI and other icon customizations. Quick to set up, and then two click heaven . Obviously this process is device independent...so Garmin, Magellan, Lowrance and Delorme people are invited to this party! Yep...if you can figure out how to get GSAK set up....not for the tech illiterate!! Guess who that rules out. Oh, but it also isn't a concern to me since I don't do puzzles! If I do the send to, I also have all the logs, but I don't see how that's helpful really. Maybe on a very very rare occassion? I've not seen that occassion as yet!!

My friend, I am FAR from upset, I'm not even excited! I may not use the emoticons as much as I should and I probably could learn to use italics and other tools, but this is far from upsetting to me. No worries, I have been known to show when I'm upset! Take my word on this, I'm not even close t bent out of shape...just a lot out of shape...darned junk food!

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now. Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court. If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time. I'm not trying to convince ANYONE of anything. I am telling how I feel. If that convinces you, fine, if not, who cares? I believe I have said many times the problem was in the handling...I believe I accepted that from the start? GS has every right to withhold whatever....does that make them right? Should we believe them simply because they say so? If you really truly believe the cache was fake, please provide proof. Otherwise you're just rambling on to prove a point. Whether the CO agrees it's a waste of time or not, I don't think that comes into bearing with the posts I make, does it? And you want to bet there's more than just me still concerned? Prove it! I'm not trying to prove anything really, other than pointing out how circular and pointless this whole argument has become. You're doing a fine job proving my point for me. Seems you're happy to go circles with me? Never was much of a dancer, so that's all I can do. I'm so bad I have 3 left feet! I guess, for me at least, I can see the willingness to discuss this issue. I really do. It's a great part of this sport that I really enjoy. However, I cannot get the willingness that some folks exhibit here of letting their knickers get all bunched up over this. Some here make is sound as if the end is nigh, when the truth is farther from that assumption. Handled badly? Check. A PR semi-blunder? Maybe. The end of caching as we know it? Nawww.... In the end, both sides can learn something from this debate. Question is, who will use it best? I could say the same about hthe other side. Some have expressed concern that the fake hides would become the norm? Yep, the end of caching if they don't nix it and nix it fast... 3 left feet? Wow, I bet that's darned sexy under a dress??

Darn, Godwined again! And I had a really witty picture to go with this, and thought better of it. Of all the luck! I believe the mods have stated this thread would continue, I believe you're merely posting off-topic for naught!

It's still hearsay. If past experience couple with hearsay leads to archival, this is bad bad bad....sure, watch more closely, but don't jump to conclusions! The fact remains that there was a container. I know some of the details of Krypto and it sounds to me like there's more to that story....a personal cache type thing? However, it's apples and oranges from this situation IMHO. It's not hearsay if it came from one of the cache owners. Hearsay is - Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony Now if a member of SF sent an email out with information that the cache never existed, is it hearsay? Rod, you're wrong. The fact remains that SF claims there was a container. There's no proof of it. Unless you have proof that there is one. As for Krypto, you can check out the MiGo forums about it. There was a nice long topic about it. It's not really apples to oranges. Sure, the cache existed. Sure it was findable. However, when someone did find it he said "sorry, I archived it and placed a new cache before you found it"... Basically, he screwed cachers over with that one too. Sure it's hearsay UNLESS the team member has full knowledge. Do you know something we don't? Just because they're a team member, they know everything?? Come on! If the team member was with the CO when he didn't hide the cache (hahaha), then it isn't hearsay. If the member saw the CO remove the cache, then it's not hearsay. If the member hears the cache isn't there, THAT'S hearsay...even if hearing from the CO himself. Could be he was pulling their leg? SS, you're wrong. The fact remains the GS staff claims there was no container...got proof??