Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jomarac5

  1. quote: Bloencustoms wrote:I'm sure there are other features available to admin accounts. It makes sense to create a new account rather than try to modify an existing one. Bull. Aks Jeremy to set you up as an admin or an approver -- a few mouse clicks and it's done. Modifying an existing account is moot. It's easy. quote: Besides, many of the admins have the name of the state / area they approve in their user name. I think that serves to alleviate confusion.What confusion? Most of my caches (and caches of others who are known not to like the admin in question) are approved by approvers outside of our geographic area anyway. Why do the approvers need to hide behind an alias? *****
  2. quote: Bloencustoms wrote:If you already have associated both accounts with one person, why are we discussing this? A cacher is a cacher, and an approver is an approver. They are one and the same. And why are we discussing this? Because the person in question is still denying that they are an admin. GC is not listening to the complaints. We are discussing this because the system currently allows for a great deal of abuse. Now, before you go off about that being an eroneous remark, it certainly does not apply to all approvers, because many approvers DO use their own usernames. But there are those who are hiding behind an approver account name... *****
  3. quote: Bloencustoms wrote:I think that you can hold an approver accountable through their approver account. No actually, you can't. We have a local cacher here who causes a lot of problems with other cachers and is known to be an approver. By having the two identities, he is able to skirt issues by saying "it wasn't me". There is no need for the duality -- the person should be accountable for their actions regardless of whether they are caching or approving. Period. If they are using unsavory practices while caching, then why should they be able to hide behind an alias? *****
  4. quote: Renegade Knight wrote:They should go so far as to have a special Admin profile where you can see a spot that says "click here to report a problem" rather than the contact@Groundspeak. Well, I expressed our problem directly to the person in charge of approvers, and I've been ignored. *****
  5. quote: BrianSnat wrote:Because they want to separate their role as geocachers with their positions as approvers. I'm sure you can figure out why this might be necessary. No, actually I can't. Is there something that they need to hide? *****
  6. CYBret, your post does not explain WHY there is a need for secrecy. It is very important to know who they are -- they are representing our community and we don't know who they are because they hide behind aliases. Why? Where's the need? If they are doing the job in an admirable way, why do they need to hide who they are? We have person in our area who is also creating a lot of problems within the community -- it is well known that he was an admin and it is well known that he is still an admin. He is abusing his role as an admin. Groundspeak has been notified about this person, but refuses to address that there even is a problem or to do anything about it. Hiding behind a fake username or the apron strings of Groundspeak is not acceptable. Approvers need to be accountable to the community as they are the ones who are forging the direction of the game. *****
  7. quote: Hydee wrote:We encourage approver accounts so their functions as an approver do not interfere with their functions as a player. This is exactly why there should not be fake usernames -- and you've hedged the issue by not addressing it directly. If Jomarac5 was an approver, there should be no reason for Jomarac5 to use another account name -- doing so only increases the ability for abuse. What is there to hide? Why should a person who has great influence over a region have their identity masked? Should they not be accountable to members in their own region? quote: If there are issues about the actions of an approver, please send comments or concerns to contact@Groundspeak.com. Please give examples of what the issues are, and a member of Groundspeak will look into them.I sent a detailed e-mail to you a week ago regarding the problem in our area, as well as several mentions of the problem previously in other e-mails -- you opted not to reply, nor has anyone else from Groundspeak addressed these concerns (even after sending two follow-up e-mails inquiring about the first e-mail). Seems that this is a much better place to discuss matters -- at least I've received a reply here -- even if it does not address the problem. *****
  8. Since this topic is about virtual caches (and not 'virtual' approvers), I started a new topic to deal with the mysterious approver problem. Who are the Admin/Approvers?!? Back to the virtual cache problem... *****
  9. This topic has been brought up in a couple of threads and could probably be better suited for a thread all of its own. It belongs here instead of the regional forum because this is not an issue that applies to only our region. We're experiencing a problem in more than one location in Canada with unfair approvers and a lot of suspicious activities that point to approvers/admins. What is bothering many of us is that there seems to be some percieved need for secrecy amongst the approvers -- why is this? In every organization that I have belonged, where someone is in a position of authourity, there have been no clandestine overtones -- most likely because it helps keep these people honest, and after all, if they are being fair and on the level, then why the need to hide? I've asked the question of Who are the Admin/Approvers? in the past and it was never answered. Seems to me that now there are more reasons to know the answer. Who are the Admin/Approvers? And why do they hide behind fake accounts? ***** [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 20, 2003 at 07:43 PM.] [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 20, 2003 at 08:12 PM.]
  10. quote: BrainSnat wrote:Is this a Canadian thing? Actually, it's something that has been learned from Americans. quote: By the way, how do you expect the approvers there to trust the geocaching community if they admit that they lie? Seems to me that while it's important for approvers to trust cachers, the reverse is even more important. *****
  11. quote: BrianSnat wrote:If you are accusing a specific approver of abusing his position, be sure to bring it to the attention of TPTB. The last thing they want are approvers who are dishonest. Really? ***** *****
  12. One person didn't like it? Sounds like censorship to me. *****
  13. The person above me *gets* it. The person below me is wondering what happened... *****
  14. quote: majicman wrote:--majicman (MY new book is NOW AVAILABLE! Check it out: http://www.mcwj.com ) I thought that advertising in sig files was against the forum rules? *****
  15. quote: GrizzlyJohn wrote:You are the one that took **** *** and in your mind made it into something you then felt was unsuitable. Well, by your logic your ****** opinion doesn't mean *****. All kidding aside, if the words being used were not meant to be anything other than harmless, then why the need to use non-descript characters at all? It's obvious that the intent was there to make those words to appear exactly as I took them. In our society, we have come to recognize words with blanked out letters to be unsavory. My assumption was well founded (and most likely right on the mark). As far as the old ladies go, perhaps they were looking them up just to see if they were there. Back to the topic, it's important for any business to listen to it's customers. If they don't listen when customers are complaining (or offering suggestions for improvement), they will soon lose business and their customers will go elsewhere. That there is no elsewhere at this point in time is irrelevant -- it's inevitable that one day there will be a somewhere else and when that day comes, I hope that the owners of this site remember that they had their chance to listen to people's concerns but chose to ignore them. *****
  16. M-Class, the alt tags are working fine on my cache pages. Perhaps it is the square brackets that are causing your problem. I have noticed that the hspace tag is not functional. Is the hspace tag going to work again? *****
  17. quote: SombrePuppy Inc wrote:Does it really deserve its own topic? :-p No, it probably doesn't, but there was a similar thread in the general forum that seemed to go on for nearly a month (I sincerely hope that this one doesn't go for that long). *****
  18. quote: Chris&Cindy wrote:I don't think we should tolerate those that don't tolerate those that name call. Well something like that. *****
  19. Jomarac5


    Seneca, you forgot one: quote:"The sounder your argument, the more satisfaction you get out of it." -Edward W. Howe I'm very satisfied. *****
  20. quote: mtn-man wrote:I'm sorry, but I wish you guys would take the personal spat to a private topic or get over it Well, let's not make any bones about this anymore. I'm as fed up with it as the rest of you. I've made several mentions of letting it go but every time, the *other* guy keeps coming back for more. In addition he's sending very abusive e-mails to myself and a couple of others. Watch here and you'll see that he won't leave this alone either. The rest of you need to know that in our neck of the woods we have a couple of people, one of which is the *other* guy that you speak of, who are ruining a lot of the enjoyment of caching. And they are getting away with it because some who run this site, allow them to. If you'd prefer, I'd gladly start a new thread, either here or in the Canada forums to get this issue out in the open even though, I'm certain that there are those who don't want to see that happen. In fact, it has been brought up in these forums in the past and the management of this site brushed it under the carpet and refused to address the problem, which is unfortunate because it just festered more instead of being dealt with in the first place. Forget about a private topic to discuss this -- I'm fed up completely and refuse to play this stupid little game the way that this *other* guy wants. Either the *other* guy backs off, or things will get way worse than they already are. I'm fed up and I'm far from being the only one in our area who is. *****
  21. "an apology would be nice". You are correct. When can I expect one for the tone of your letter? CO Admin Nice reply. Perhaps CO Admin should smoke what was left in that cache -- maybe he'd chill out a bit. *****
  22. I assume that the narcissist reference was to CO Admin -- as he seems to like hearing himself barking commands and orders to others. Seems that it's not only moderating where CO Admin needs to learn some diplomacy. See this discussion regarding a cache that was archived. Nice reply to the cache owner. *****
  23. I'd like to complain about this: quote: Planet wrote:Super Alpha (or is that SuperDumb?) your post has been reported, we don't tolerate the intolerant here. Watch what you say and think twice before hitting send. I don't think we should be tolerating the name calling -- especially when it is done so blatantly. And what about that statement about not tolerating the intolerant -- wow, how narrow minded is that? And then to cap it all off with a threat. Sheesh. *****
  24. Thanks for your input Steeltown. Just to be clear about one thing though -- although much of it does appear to be bickering, it's not all entirely mindless. I've had enough of Zuuky. He's obviously bent on doing nothing more than inciting a few locals here and his opinions now have absolutely no merit, as was made evident in the Why? thread last night. He is not open to any sort of rational discussion. It's also obvious that his motives lie elsewhere than in the pleasant continuation of the sport in our local area. I will no longer engage him in the forums as it is indeed stupid -- it might be different if he were open to reason, but sadly that is not the case. Although I cannot tell anyone what to do, I would urge other local cachers to ignore his trolling as well. ***** edit: changed link [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 12, 2003 at 09:45 AM.]
  25. Jomarac5


    quote: RobertM wrote:Who says we want any controversy? I could take a guess, and it's not me or you. Does seem odd to me that if two people want everyone else to hide their conversations regarding caching at a local level, that something is not quite right. *****
  • Create New...