Buried caches

[+Pirates of Prescott]

I am weighing in on this topic because I am disgusted by the actions of a cacher in my area. To the point where I think any cache with his logs should be deleted. Regardless of your opinion, you do not DESTROY another cachers hard work. Regardless of your opinion, you do not weigh in because you are PISSED OFF. Mind your own business and come up with another idea. I have run into this person at events and it disgusts me that they are any part of this game, sport or hobby...whatever you would like to call.

Did somebody report and/or remove your precious cache that violates a basic and core Geocaching.com guideline? Good for them.

Go right ahead and report it. But leave the cache owners cache alone. It is not your property to take and why cause a fight?

[+JohnnyVegas]

Team OV, what do your posts have to do with the topic of buried caches? Are the caches you are referring to being archived because of the buried caches guideline? We are missing your point because we are only getting glimpses of the story.

 

Regardless of whether it's a buried cache or some other problem, if a reviewer has a credible report that a cache does not meet the listing guidelines, we are obligated to take action. Sometimes it's an e-mail, sometimes it's disabling the listing while the problem's fixed, and sometimes it's archiving the listing.

 

Most of the reports I receive are from people I've never met. To the extent a reviewer gives extra attention to problems reported by a personal acquaintance, it's likely because the report has more credibility coming from a known source.

 

Conversely, it's safe to say that reviewers are generally more strict when deciding issues with a cache placed by a friend. That's in order to avoid the appearance of favoritism.

 

Refer to JohnnyVegas' pictures on the above thread at his interpretation of a buried cache. He complained and the cache was archieved prior to speaking with the cache owner. The cache he is picturing has upset him because he had a buried cache not get approved. There is not object used to dig up this cache. It was placed in a pre-exsisting box on the cache owners property. The lid is fully exposed above the ground. No digging was done to place the container. Favortism works both ways, I guess the wrong side got it this time. And I guess the fact that a grown man is destroying a cache based on his own hurt feelings should upset a few people and it is being condoned.

OK lets go at it. I did not report your cache to any reviewer. I just posted a photo of it in the forums.. From what I was told yesterday, the reviewer was out caching and he found your cache on his own. But like I said, IMO your cache was not hidden within the guidelines of grounspeak. You may have noticed that I did not include any information which cache it was that I photographed. I see Krypton mentioned he was told about the cache. BTW, reviewers do go out looking for caches. I also you have not replied to his posting. Are you too embarrassed?

Edited October 28, 2009 by JohnnyVegas

[+Team OV]

Sure...lets go at be more childish. I was not embarrassed. I let it go because the cache owner that watched you vandalize the cache and I spoke again and you were not worth the trouble it was causing. One cranky old cacher does not warrant any more than what was already said. I let it go...why don't you!!

 

By the way....this is not my cache so stop emailing me with your rude comments. The cache owner is the one who saw you and the cache owner and reviewer are the ones who stated you reported the cache. I merely inquired as to why it was archived and everything hit the fan. I am requesting in writting on a public forum that you do not contact me in anyway. You have stated your opinion and I do not care to continue the nasty name calling. This was resolved months ago.

 

Team OV, what do your posts have to do with the topic of buried caches? Are the caches you are referring to being archived because of the buried caches guideline? We are missing your point because we are only getting glimpses of the story.

 

Regardless of whether it's a buried cache or some other problem, if a reviewer has a credible report that a cache does not meet the listing guidelines, we are obligated to take action. Sometimes it's an e-mail, sometimes it's disabling the listing while the problem's fixed, and sometimes it's archiving the listing.

 

Most of the reports I receive are from people I've never met. To the extent a reviewer gives extra attention to problems reported by a personal acquaintance, it's likely because the report has more credibility coming from a known source.

 

Conversely, it's safe to say that reviewers are generally more strict when deciding issues with a cache placed by a friend. That's in order to avoid the appearance of favoritism.

 

Refer to JohnnyVegas' pictures on the above thread at his interpretation of a buried cache. He complained and the cache was archieved prior to speaking with the cache owner. The cache he is picturing has upset him because he had a buried cache not get approved. There is not object used to dig up this cache. It was placed in a pre-exsisting box on the cache owners property. The lid is fully exposed above the ground. No digging was done to place the container. Favortism works both ways, I guess the wrong side got it this time. And I guess the fact that a grown man is destroying a cache based on his own hurt feelings should upset a few people and it is being condoned.

OK lets go at it. I did not report your cache to any reviewer. I just posted a photo of it in the forums.. From what I was told yesterday, the reviewer was out caching and he found your cache on his own. But like I said, IMO your cache was not hidden within the guidelines of grounspeak. You may have noticed that I did not include any information which cache it was that I photographed. I see Krypton mentioned he was told about the cache. BTW, reviewers do go out looking for caches. I also you have not replied to his posting. Are you too embarrassed?

Edited October 28, 2009 by Team OV

[+JohnnyVegas]

Sure...lets go at be more childish. I was not embarrassed. I let it go because the cache owner that watched you vandalize the cache and I spoke again and you were not worth the trouble it was causing. One cranky old cacher does not warrant any more than what was already said. I let it go...why don't you!!

 

Team OV, what do your posts have to do with the topic of buried caches? Are the caches you are referring to being archived because of the buried caches guideline? We are missing your point because we are only getting glimpses of the story.

 

Regardless of whether it's a buried cache or some other problem, if a reviewer has a credible report that a cache does not meet the listing guidelines, we are obligated to take action. Sometimes it's an e-mail, sometimes it's disabling the listing while the problem's fixed, and sometimes it's archiving the listing.

 

Most of the reports I receive are from people I've never met. To the extent a reviewer gives extra attention to problems reported by a personal acquaintance, it's likely because the report has more credibility coming from a known source.

 

Conversely, it's safe to say that reviewers are generally more strict when deciding issues with a cache placed by a friend. That's in order to avoid the appearance of favoritism.

 

Refer to JohnnyVegas' pictures on the above thread at his interpretation of a buried cache. He complained and the cache was archieved prior to speaking with the cache owner. The cache he is picturing has upset him because he had a buried cache not get approved. There is not object used to dig up this cache. It was placed in a pre-exsisting box on the cache owners property. The lid is fully exposed above the ground. No digging was done to place the container. Favortism works both ways, I guess the wrong side got it this time. And I guess the fact that a grown man is destroying a cache based on his own hurt feelings should upset a few people and it is being condoned.

OK lets go at it. I did not report your cache to any reviewer. I just posted a photo of it in the forums.. From what I was told yesterday, the reviewer was out caching and he found your cache on his own. But like I said, IMO your cache was not hidden within the guidelines of grounspeak. You may have noticed that I did not include any information which cache it was that I photographed. I see Krypton mentioned he was told about the cache. BTW, reviewers do go out looking for caches. I also you have not replied to his posting. Are you too embarrassed?

I never vandelized any cache and if some says I did they are a liar.

[+Castle Mischief]

Drama. Awesome.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I guess I struck a nerve. It is interesting the no link has been posted regarding the cache in question. As far as Team OVs comment that "This was resolved months ago". I am not very active in caching anymore and I was only informed that I was being accused of something I did not do only two days ago.

As most forum regulars know in the past I would spend many hours every day in the geocaching forums. I just do not have all that much time for caching or the forums these days. Excuse me for being too involved with other interest.

 

"The cache owner is the one who saw you and the cache owner and reviewer are the ones who stated you reported the cache" these are both lies, who is the cache owner and who is the reviewer in questionl.

Edited October 28, 2009 by JohnnyVegas

[+JohnnyVegas]

THis is the cache in question

 

GC1V0PT

 

This is the URL

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

Edited October 28, 2009 by JohnnyVegas

[+Team OV]

Are we done yet...how about now....now??

 

These comments are made from discussing the cache with the owner and reviewer. Take their comments up with them. Pretty sure you know who they are since you referenced the cache.

 

Guess you did strike your own nerve since you are still going on and on about this.

 

Again, I am requesting you leave me out of this old topic. Regardless of your active status and other life.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Why did you reply? if you want to be left out do not reply.

[knowschad]

Why did you reply? if you want to be left out do not reply.

Just curious, but why don't we see a Found It log for you on that cache? Your caching buddy says that you were there with him, in his log. Did you delete it, or did the cache owner? Or neither? And is that irrelevant information?

[+Okiebryan]

A little something for everyone before the thread gets locked:

 

[+JohnnyVegas]

Why did you reply? if you want to be left out do not reply.

Just curious, but why don't we see a Found It log for you on that cache? Your caching buddy says that you were there with him, in his log. Did you delete it, or did the cache owner? Or neither? And is that irrelevant information?

It could be that I just forgot to log it. I thought I had.

 

Yumm! popcorn

[+TeamBlueHeeler]

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.Groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize.

 

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

Maybe Team OV should send Groundspeak the email she got from Johnny. Maybe the will clear this up. If some one is banned is by username or by IP address?

[Keystone]

Here are two applicable forum guidelines:

 

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

6. Private discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, we ask that you please use the Private Message feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general geocaching community.

Based mainly on #6, I am closing this thread. Continue the argument elsewhere. Better yet, drop it and move on.