Archival of cache due to GAY social agenda?

[+ArcherDragoon]

Definitely a loophole in the agenda policy. But unless this site is going to start regulating opinion there's not much one can do.

Well, I suppose that someone could edit all the archive logs to simply say "Archived," and then lock the cache pages to future logs. Me, I haven't the time to do that. I'm really upset about the proposed bailout of the domestic automobile industry, so I'm going to drown my hamsters.

Thanks...now I have coffee all over my keyboard and monitor...

[+Team Black-Cat]

Definitely a loophole in the agenda policy. But unless this site is going to start regulating opinion there's not much one can do.

Well, I suppose that someone could edit all the archive logs to simply say "Archived," and then lock the cache pages to future logs. Me, I haven't the time to do that. I'm really upset about the proposed bailout of the domestic automobile industry, so I'm going to drown my hamsters.

 

That seems a bit harsh, not to mention somewhat non sequitur. Couldn't they just be adopted?

 

Regarding the CO archiving caches to make a point; it seems a bit like a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

OMGZ THE GAYZ R IN GEOCACHING?!?!? ONOZ!!!

 

Hehehe.

 

Like others have said, people can archive their hides for whatever reason they want. The only thing that's not allowed along this vein is if the cache owner redid the hide to support an agenda.

 

With that said, I don't think A Day Without Gay is effective activism. I understand the concept and strongly support the message it's meant to convey, but I think about the Homophobes and that what they want, at any cost, is a day without gay. They don't want gay people to exist... or to hide their homosexuality and force themselves to be people that they're not. Homophobes are willing to pay the price of any detriments and negatives results from the gaps caused in gay people disappearing for a day (or more). They see it as an opportunity to bring in people who agree with them and live like them to assume the space that gay people have taken.

 

I'd prefer A Day Without Hate ... but how does one remove hate, even for a day? How do you even get people to acknowledge that their screwed up views are based in hate? In this thread, people have jeered this guy, talked about how they suffer as straight, cisgendered men, and immediately sought to assume the space that was left by placing new caches in those exact spots. My favourite, the person who was glad they didn't call in sick yesterday. Because people thinking you're gay is, like, the worst thing ever, amirite? That's just this thread... not even close to the crud people experience in reality.

 

I am happy that my friends did not agree with this activism and did not participate. How could an Episcopal Priest not serve God for a day based on the flaws of Man to accept good people? It just doesn't work that way. I'm still so disgusted over CA's Prop H8 and FL's Article 2 that I don't want my friends to go into hiding or show people what life would be like without them. The reality is that they are here and they don't need to hide who they are.

 

On the other hand...

 

Would we ever know someone was gay in Geocaching? No. But knowing makes people face reality.

 

You did notice the Archive and you posted about it so now several people know about it. So while this activism does not make a large or entirely positive footprint, it did have a footprint. There are plenty of people who claim they don't care if people are gay or straight, but you have to wonder if they say this because they treat all people equally or because they subscribe to a "don't ask, don't tell" prejudice. Awareness of the oppression gay people experience is important and this person managed to bring a little bit of awareness to this corner. That's cool.

[+trainlove]

With that said, I don't think A Day Without Gay is effective activism.

I'd call for a 'Forever Without Happy' and be gay with that.

[+KJcachers]

I really would like "A Day Without DNF's"

[+Rockin Roddy]

It seems to me the archival did get some attention and has served the purpose the CO had, so I applaud him/her for taking a stance which they feel so strongly about! I do wish they'd have used a better venue for their stance, but I am all for people living happily no matter WHAT makes them happy (within the law of course)!

[+sbell111]

It seems to me the archival did get some attention and has served the purpose the CO had, so I applaud him/her for taking a stance which they feel so strongly about! I do wish they'd have used a better venue for their stance, but I am all for people living happily no matter WHAT makes them happy (within the law of course)!

On the other hand, their actions had the desired effect (stimulate discussion) and was within the guidelines.

[+Rockin Roddy]

It seems to me the archival did get some attention and has served the purpose the CO had, so I applaud him/her for taking a stance which they feel so strongly about! I do wish they'd have used a better venue for their stance, but I am all for people living happily no matter WHAT makes them happy (within the law of course)!

On the other hand, their actions had the desired effect (stimulate discussion) and was within the guidelines.

 

I think that's what I said....

[+Renegade Knight]

A cache owner can choose to remove their cache listings for whatever reason they'd like....

 

Exactly. A cache can be archived for any reason. If they are archived for an agenda...at worst the agenda would have caused them to be archived.

 

The social agenda kicks in when they are listed.

If after his protest is over he wants to relist them to grab public attention for his favorite fetish then odds are they would not be re-listed because of the agenda.

[+sbell111]

It seems to me the archival did get some attention and has served the purpose the CO had, so I applaud him/her for taking a stance which they feel so strongly about! I do wish they'd have used a better venue for their stance, but I am all for people living happily no matter WHAT makes them happy (within the law of course)!

On the other hand, their actions had the desired effect (stimulate discussion) and was within the guidelines.

 

I think that's what I said....

I highlighted the part of your post that I was referring to. It could be argued that the venue was perfect, since discussions about the issue have been spawned.

[+Rockin Roddy]

It seems to me the archival did get some attention and has served the purpose the CO had, so I applaud him/her for taking a stance which they feel so strongly about! I do wish they'd have used a better venue for their stance, but I am all for people living happily no matter WHAT makes them happy (within the law of course)!

On the other hand, their actions had the desired effect (stimulate discussion) and was within the guidelines.

 

I think that's what I said....

I highlighted the part of your post that I was referring to. It could be argued that the venue was perfect, since discussions about the issue have been spawned.

 

Yep, that was meant to say that I would have hoped they'd have chosen a more appropriate course of action. Archiving a cache or several (not sure how many were archived here) might make it tougher for them to place a cache in the future for reasons pointed out by our mods. While within guidelines, I wonder if the CO thought it fully through!

[+Wenniget]

I don't get it. Is he punishing cachers for something? I would understand if he hid a cache and then stated that onlygay people were welcome to find it and then got upset if nobody went or something, but I don't see what him being gay as to do with anything common with caching. Appears that he had a good hide and a lot of people had fun finding it. Looks like a case of cutting off your nose to spite......well, you get it.

[+briansnat]

What are your opinions and thoughts on this situation?

 

Two words come to mind.

 

The first word is "sneaky". It's a way to slip an agenda onto a website that has gone through great lengths and taken a lot of hits because of their sometimes unpopular, anti-agenda stance.

 

C'mon now, should we really believe that this site has an "anti-agenda stance"? I mean, go search for caches called SUPPORT OUR TROOPS and see how many are out there that have not been archived. These shouldn't have been allowed to begin with. Matter of fact, some have been denied publication for that very agenda. Yet others are allowed to stay, and even some new ones pop up.

 

It's this site's policy in most cases to grandfather caches that aren't in compliance after a guideline change or clarification. That's why there are so many "Support Our Troops" caches out there. Fact of the matter is that it is an agenda and is no longer allowed. Groundspeak took a lot of heat for this stance.

Edited December 11, 2008 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

I don't get it. Is he punishing cachers for something? I would understand if he hid a cache and then stated that onlygay people were welcome to find it and then got upset if nobody went or something, but I don't see what him being gay as to do with anything common with caching. Appears that he had a good hide and a lot of people had fun finding it. Looks like a case of cutting off your nose to spite......well, you get it.

As I understand it, the logic behind the 'day without gay' thing is that by taking note of the absence, one is supposed to consider how much is lost without their contribution.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I don't get it. Is he punishing cachers for something? I would understand if he hid a cache and then stated that onlygay people were welcome to find it and then got upset if nobody went or something, but I don't see what him being gay as to do with anything common with caching. Appears that he had a good hide and a lot of people had fun finding it. Looks like a case of cutting off your nose to spite......well, you get it.

It is a political statement...a way to get, in the very least, conversation going...

.

.

.

Based on what has taken place here...it has doen just that...

[Dinoprophet]

I don't get it. Is he punishing cachers for something? I would understand if he hid a cache and then stated that onlygay people were welcome to find it and then got upset if nobody went or something, but I don't see what him being gay as to do with anything common with caching. Appears that he had a good hide and a lot of people had fun finding it. Looks like a case of cutting off your nose to spite......well, you get it.

As I understand it, the logic behind the 'day without gay' thing is that by taking note of the absence, one is supposed to consider how much is lost without their contribution.

The thing is, that made sense when it was "Day Without an Immigrant". That was about certain people being here or not. This isn't. It's a nonsequitur, like drowning hamsters.

 

By the way, Keystone, drowning them in ArcherDragoon's coffee in post #51 was just rude. Why would you do that?

Edited December 11, 2008 by Dinoprophet

[+ArcherDragoon]

I don't get it. Is he punishing cachers for something? I would understand if he hid a cache and then stated that onlygay people were welcome to find it and then got upset if nobody went or something, but I don't see what him being gay as to do with anything common with caching. Appears that he had a good hide and a lot of people had fun finding it. Looks like a case of cutting off your nose to spite......well, you get it.

As I understand it, the logic behind the 'day without gay' thing is that by taking note of the absence, one is supposed to consider how much is lost without their contribution.

The thing is, that made sense when it was "Day Without an Immigrant". That was about certain people being here or not. This isn't. It's a nonsequitur, like drowning hamsters.

 

By the way, Keystone, drowning them in ArcherDragoon's coffee was just rude. Why would you do that?

Now...that explains why the coffee tasted...off...

.

.

.

Oh...man...I just realized what I thought was a raisin...was, in fact, not a raisin...

Edited December 11, 2008 by ArcherDragoon

[+TrailGators]

I don't get it. Is he punishing cachers for something? I would understand if he hid a cache and then stated that onlygay people were welcome to find it and then got upset if nobody went or something, but I don't see what him being gay as to do with anything common with caching. Appears that he had a good hide and a lot of people had fun finding it. Looks like a case of cutting off your nose to spite......well, you get it.

As I understand it, the logic behind the 'day without gay' thing is that by taking note of the absence, one is supposed to consider how much is lost without their contribution.

The thing is, that made sense when it was "Day Without an Immigrant". That was about certain people being here or not. This isn't. It's a nonsequitur, like drowning hamsters.

 

By the way, Keystone, drowning them in ArcherDragoon's coffee was just rude. Why would you do that?

Now...that explains why the coffee tasted...off...

.

.

.

Oh...man...I just realized what I thought was a raisin...was, in fact, not a raisin...

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Oh...man...I just realized what I thought was a raisin...was, in fact, not a raisin...

 

Why, do you normally put raisins in your coffee?

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

With that said, I don't think A Day Without Gay is effective activism.

I'd call for a 'Forever Without Happy' and be gay with that.

 

It seems like you already have "forever without happy".

I won't do without happy or gay. I need them both in my life... and it's FAAAABULOUSSSSS!!!!

 

[Clan Riffster]

While I support the cache owner's right to archive their cache, and I happen to agree with their beliefs as noted on the archival note, I gotta just shake my head at their choice of protest media. It's like donning a placard promoting your particular agenda, then locking yourself in your house so only a miniscule amount of folks will know about it.

 

"Ooh, I'll show you guys! I'll archive a bunch of my caches! Ha!"

 

What a waste.

[+Juicepig]

Archiving a cache for an agenda or religious reasons is fine - but creating one isn't.. go figure

 

 

But as it is just a DAY without a gay.. shouldn't he just disable the cache for a day rather then archive? i donno, guess IMHO..

Edited December 11, 2008 by Juicepig

[+sbell111]

Archiving a cache for an agenda or religious reasons is fine - but creating one isn't.. go figure

It's a listing requirement, not a 'delisting' requirement. Like most people I have a cache page that will never be submitted for listing. I can type whatever nonsense I want to on that page and it will never, ever be affected by the guidelines.

But as it is just a DAY without a gay.. shouldn't he just disable the cache for a day rather then archive? i donno, guess IMHO..

Lot's of people archive when they really mean to disable.

[+JeremyR]

Those that say that archiving caches with a politically motivated log is a poor means to promote your cause should prehaps note that the result is two 70+ post threads about it on a forum viewed by thousands of people every day.

[+team moxiepup]

I think that a person should be able to archive a cache for whatever reason suits them.

 

On the one hand, via this forum, this cacher did bring about a discussion on a very important issue. Discussions are a healthy way for people to learn about issues. I'm sure this cacher felt very strongly about gay rights and this seemed an appropriate step to them. Gay rights include not just marriage, but also other rights that most folks take for granted. For example, we're considering going to GeoWoodstock this year. It is in Tennesee, which historically is not known for being gay friendly. I worry that if we were in an accident, and one of us were taken to the hospital, if the other of us would have visitation rights. These are the things that keep me awake at night.

 

On the other hand, if I were in California, I would have taken the day off, and you can bet that I would have been caching! It would have been ironic to say the least, if I had wanted to search for one of these caches!

[+BBI Dragon]

Archiving ones own caches over any agenda not directly related to geocaching is pointless.

 

It is not pointless to the individual. Sometimes the ONLY point that one can make is personal, sometimes the very act of standing up and making a point, even just to themselves, or to a very small group, is all that can be made.

 

That being said, I think it is within the realm of human behaviour to do something like this, and I don't see why Groundspeak should make an issue of it.

 

It really comes down to; "so what, big deal."

Edited December 12, 2008 by BBI Dragon

[+TrailGators]

Hey, if it's good for a day, then it's great for a year or more. Why stop? Maybe we could help them with a Millenium Without A Gay concept.

You guys have to admit that was funny....

[+Rockin Roddy]

Hey, if it's good for a day, then it's great for a year or more. Why stop? Maybe we could help them with a Millenium Without A Gay concept.

You guys have to admit that was funny....

 

Actually, I found it tasteless and kind of rude. Just MHO though.

[+TrailGators]

Hey, if it's good for a day, then it's great for a year or more. Why stop? Maybe we could help them with a Millenium Without A Gay concept.

You guys have to admit that was funny....

Actually, I found it tasteless and kind of rude. Just MHO though.

It was just a joke. Sometimes a little lighthearted humor can lighten things up. It gets really intense in here sometimes....

[Mushtang]

Hey, if it's good for a day, then it's great for a year or more. Why stop? Maybe we could help them with a Millenium Without A Gay concept.

You guys have to admit that was funny....

Actually, I found it tasteless and kind of rude. Just MHO though.

Yup. I found it not funny at all, but I did find it very intolerant, narrow-minded, and hateful.

[+team moxiepup]

Hey, if it's good for a day, then it's great for a year or more. Why stop? Maybe we could help them with a Millenium Without A Gay concept.

You guys have to admit that was funny....

Actually, I found it tasteless and kind of rude. Just MHO though.

It was just a joke. Sometimes a little lighthearted humor can lighten things up. It gets really intense in here sometimes....

 

Too bad it wasn't humorous.

 

To me it sounded like the poster of the "joke" wanted to see Gays gone for a millenium. Gone. Not funny, just rude, crude, tasteless and twisted.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Hey, if it's good for a day, then it's great for a year or more. Why stop? Maybe we could help them with a Millenium Without A Gay concept.

You guys have to admit that was funny....

Actually, I found it tasteless and kind of rude. Just MHO though.

It was just a joke. Sometimes a little lighthearted humor can lighten things up. It gets really intense in here sometimes....

 

Too bad it wasn't humorous.

 

To me it sounded like the poster of the "joke" wanted to see Gays gone for a millenium. Gone. Not funny, just rude, crude, tasteless and twisted.

 

I'm all for the funny but I gotta agree that it wasn't a funny joke at all. Not everybody's Don Rickles.

[+KJcachers]

well since this topic has been picked cleaner than a turkey carcass on Thanksgiving, I say it's time for a lock down. Besides the original few posts, what else has anything to do with caching?

[+BlueDeuce]

well since this topic has been picked cleaner than a turkey carcass on Thanksgiving, I say it's time for a lock down. Besides the original few posts, what else has anything to do with caching?

 

I cast my vote for caching related responses.

[+TrailGators]

Hey, if it's good for a day, then it's great for a year or more. Why stop? Maybe we could help them with a Millenium Without A Gay concept.

You guys have to admit that was funny....

Actually, I found it tasteless and kind of rude. Just MHO though.

It was just a joke. Sometimes a little lighthearted humor can lighten things up. It gets really intense in here sometimes....

 

Too bad it wasn't humorous.

 

To me it sounded like the poster of the "joke" wanted to see Gays gone for a millenium. Gone. Not funny, just rude, crude, tasteless and twisted.

 

I'm all for the funny but I gotta agree that it wasn't a funny joke at all. Not everybody's Don Rickles.

 

Rickles was the master of those kind of jokes because you knew he wasn't serious. I bet Rickles could have pulled that joke off.

 

I don't think archiving caches helps an agenda. People archive caches for all kinds of reasons. There is nothing TPTB can or would do about it anyhow....

Edited December 12, 2008 by TrailGators

[+DiamondDaveG]

It appears that MissJenn posted this in the wrong thread. Her response to this thread is post #11.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Hey, if it's good for a day, then it's great for a year or more. Why stop? Maybe we could help them with a Millenium Without A Gay concept.

You guys have to admit that was funny....

Actually, I found it tasteless and kind of rude. Just MHO though.

It was just a joke. Sometimes a little lighthearted humor can lighten things up. It gets really intense in here sometimes....

 

Too bad it wasn't humorous.

 

To me it sounded like the poster of the "joke" wanted to see Gays gone for a millenium. Gone. Not funny, just rude, crude, tasteless and twisted.

I cannot believe that I am posting to this inane thread, but I must admit that I too found the post in question humorless and tasteless, and, to me, it did not sound like a joke, no matter how hard I tried to see it as one.

[+TrailGators]

Enough already. The horse is dead.....

[+wavector]

I cannot believe that I am posting to this inane thread, but I must admit that I too found the post in question humorless and tasteless, and, to me, it did not sound like a joke, no matter how hard I tried to see it as one.

 

I agree, that was classless and way uncool, the sunglass icon has been irreparably damaged.

 

It isn't that hard to be fair. This site has no rules at all about archiving caches.

Is anyone aware of any rule, stated or implied, that deals with archiving caches?

The logs contain no profanity and they offer a clear explanation of why the caches are being archived.

 

I really think that the geocacher archiving the caches was trying to make a statement to the local geocachers rather seeking a wider public audience, that is my opinion but only the cache owner really knows.

 

When I check that profile I see a dedicated and apparently knowledgeable geocacher.

It isn't hard to imagine that the cache owner felt that they were making a private statement that would be seen by members of their local geocaching community. I can also imagine that geocaching and geocaches are important to the cache owner and by archiving the caches they were demonstrating commitment to principles felt to be fair.

 

I was surprised to see one site moderator characterizing the archiving as "sneaky" and another characterizing the archiving as "rash", those reactions seem far more like like knee jerks than the cache owners actions, those characterizations don't offer insight into the mind of the cache owner.

 

I suspect that the cache owner has no intention of asking the reviewers to unarchive the caches.

[+wavector]

It's this site's policy in most cases to grandfather caches that aren't in compliance after a guideline change or clarification. That's why there are so many "Support Our Troops" caches out there. Fact of the matter is that it is an agenda and is no longer allowed. Groundspeak took a lot of heat for this stance.

 

That thread you linked is from April.

This cache was created in September. Support Our Troops

Can a cache created in September be grandfathered in April?

 

Fact of the matter is briansnat - you are wrong.

Apparently they are allowed.

 

Would it be OK to fill a cache with items that support gay pride (Gay Pride stickers etc..) and get a cache published called "Support Gay Pride"?

[+Snoogans]

I really think that the geocacher archiving the caches was trying to make a statement to the local geocachers rather seeking a wider public audience, that is my opinion but only the cache owner really knows.

 

Maybe we'll find out. I tend to invite the parties being talked about in open forum in case they are unaware.

 

I sent the CO in question an email about 4 hours ago inviting them to BOTH threads that have been sparked by their cache archival.

 

Did anyone else beat me to it?

[+sbell111]

Hey, if it's good for a day, then it's great for a year or more. Why stop? Maybe we could help them with a Millenium Without A Gay concept.

You guys have to admit that was funny....

 

Actually, I found it tasteless and kind of rude. Just MHO though.

I have to go with Roddy on this one.

[Keystone]

Fact of the matter is briansnat - you are wrong.

Apparently they are allowed.

No, Brian's correct. The guidelines do not allow caches that solicit to promote an agenda. Groundspeak has told the cache reviewers specifically not to publish caches with the "Support Our Troops" theme. This one was published. There's several reasons why that could happen, ranging from the cache owner making changes after publication, to the reviewer being overworked and forgetting about the guidance, to the reviewer missing the guidance, etc. That doesn't mean that the guidance doesn't exist. With more than 100 volunteer reviewers looking at thousands of caches every year, it's no surprise at all that some non-compliant caches get published. Try getting 100 *paid* employees to decision every judgment call the exact same way, every time.

 

Would it be OK to fill a cache with items that support gay pride (Gay Pride stickers etc..) and get a cache published called "Support Gay Pride"?

Ummm, no. That sounds like an agenda to me. Substitute "Christians" or "Breast Cancer Research" or "Labor Party Candidates" and you get the same result.

 

But you know what? I bet we could find some caches that *do* support a Gay Pride agenda. See above. That is why the guidelines say that the publication of any one cache does not serve as precedent justifiying the publication of any other cache.

 

Let's try to stick with the social agenda described in the OP. Discussion of the Support Our Troops agenda in this thread only serves the objectives of the banned sock puppet poster, who wished to stir the pot.

[+DonB]

Today I received notification from Geocaching.com of multiple caches that were archived.

 

Upon further examination it became quite apparent that this cacher "KG6EAR", deliberately archived his caches to ENDORSE; a personal, political, moral, sexual and religious agenda.

 

The commentary consisted of;

"To celebrate a "day with out a gay" I thought I would eliminate some of my geocaches to call attention to the contributions made by gays in our society. I deserve to marry whom I please. I would never wish to control anybody else's ability to marry. It's a sad statement on society that anyone should even have to make statements like this. We clearly haven't completely reached a total state of enlightenment. Miles from it."

 

 

What are your opinions and thoughts on this situation?

 

 

A couple of example caches...

 

The Secret of the Secret Garden

 

Event

Other then you making a statement, I don't think it will make much difference.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Enough already. The horse is dead.....

 

Oh hey, in case you didn't know, it wasn't funny!!

You know... if it hasn't been mentioned yet...

[+wavector]

That doesn't mean that the guidance doesn't exist. With more than 100 volunteer reviewers looking at thousands of caches every year, it's no surprise at all that some non-compliant caches get published. Try getting 100 *paid* employees to decision every judgment call the exact same way, every time.

....

Let's try to stick with the social agenda described in the OP. Discussion of the Support Our Troops agenda in this thread only serves the objectives of the banned sock puppet poster, who wished to stir the pot.

 

When a cache is published post guideline clarification that clearly supports an agenda shouldn't the reviewers archive that cache?

Post-publish editing doesn't seem like an honest way to promote an agenda yet you seem to be saying that the cache I identified is there since the owner may have edited it after the fact?

That cache I pointed out was published in September so clearly it could not have been grandfathered could it?

It is an example of a cache listing that directly promotes an AGENDA, this discussion is about a cache log (the archiving log) that directly supports an AGENDA. As long as AGENDA is the subject I would think that any cache that promotes an agenda is fair game for the discussion.

 

If a cacher pointed a cache published after April that directly supported the Gay Pride agenda then I think most geocachers would expect it to be archived and if it was listed prior to April then it would be allowed to stay as a grandfathered cache, is that correct?

 

I am not sure the AGENDA being supported is salient to the discussion whether it be "Support our Troops", "Gay Pride" or "PETA" but I can understand that some people may not be comfortable with discussions that deal with homosexuality.

Public forums tend to be brain dumps, it is quite difficult to not let your basic posture come across when posting. Sometimes it is something very simple that demonstrates the depth of prejudice that is hidden within an otherwise normal facade.

[+sbell111]

... With more than 100 volunteer reviewers looking at thousands of caches every year, ...

Wow. I didn't imagine that there were that many flunkies slaves nutjobs reviewers. My how times change.

 

Sorry about the off topic post.

[+KJcachers]

Enough already. The horse is dead.....

 

Oh hey, in case you didn't know, it wasn't funny!!

You know... if it hasn't been mentioned yet...

 

now if he had said Lawyers or Politicians...that would have been funny!

Edited December 12, 2008 by KJcachers

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I do not usually post information like this but in this case I think it needs to be said:

 

CachinTheNightAway was found to be a sock puppet account, looking to cause trouble and hiding behind what they thought was anonymity. Both the sock puppet and the original accounts have been banned per our Forum Guidelines.

First, I am glad that the account mentioned above was handled appropriately; the comments of that poster were starting to get on my nerves, and I was repeatedly forced, each time that I read his/her posts, to then drink a liter of highly radioactive water, rich in radon and radon progeny, from my radium water dispenser in order to soothe my jangled nerves.

 

And now, for the important issue: I cannot figure out the identity of the original account, that is, the puppeteer account. And, for some odd reason, I find that the moderators will not answer my insistent whiny gossipy prying questions regarding that matter. sigh...! So, can anyone here venture an educated guess about the identity of the original account? Personally, I am rather clueless regarding this matter. (Oh no... just had a thought... what it was the dreaded Man in Stripes account attempting to resurrect once again via yet one more sock puppet?)

 

Finally, to be sure that my post remains on topic, I suspect that the cache owner likely meant to only disable his/her caches, rather than archive them; that would have made more sense. And, I do not have any particular problem with the cache owner having chosen to archive the caches, as that is simply their right, but it does seem a bit rash in light of the permanence of archived status and what the archival takes from the entire geo community.

[+trainlove]

It appears that MissJenn posted this in the wrong thread. Her response to this thread is post #11.

 

Yes, but it also applies to this topic. (posts 24, 29 & 50 were from that sock puppet account)

 

Why can she delete her posts and none of us can delete 9other then blank out) our own posts?

 

But back to the topic at hane.

Is there going to be a revamp of the archiving policy?

Are there going to be no allowance to reenable an archived cache?

That's what the policy of archiving seems to suggest.

Should a dark and imposing warning appear when someone goes to archive his cache?

Should there be deffening wording spelling out juast what archiving and disabling is on the form where they appear?

 

Is the reviewer who went along with the abusing of the archiving rules going to get archived from being a reviewer LOL?

Edited December 12, 2008 by trainlove