Rogue Reviewer?

[+Team Noodles]

1000 yeahhhh !!!!

 

/thread

[+Rockin Roddy]

Without proof, or without offering proof to you? You do realize that they may have proof don't you? Under my scenario you seem to be completely ok with a CO publishing a non-existent practical joke. Where is your outrage for that. You seem very upset that the CO was "called" a liar.

 

Perhaps I could have worded that a little different. It wasn't without proof, but in a format where they couldn't offer the proof.

 

If the CO did publish a non-existent cache as a practical joke, I would be unhappy with that. I am still not sure if he did or didn't. I tend to believe he didn't, and without being privy to the inside information TPTB have I really don't know now do I?

 

I just find it hard to believe so many of you don't care what those with authority do if you believe the person they are doing it to is guilty.

 

Let's turn this around. What if it turned out Nomex was wrong, the information he had was not true. How would you feel about him then?

 

Two different points. Did the CO publish a practical joke? Did the reviewer indicate he was a liar when he archived the cache. They are separate as far as I am concerned, and I don't know about the first, but can read the second myself.

 

The reviewers have a certain amount of authority over the COs, and with that should be some amount of responsibility.

You tend to believe he didn't. You see this through that lens. Why do you tend to believe he didn't. I don't know the CO or anything about him. Without knowing anything about the CO I find it easy to believe that a person might think it was a good idea to publish a joke cache of this type. This does not seem way off the chart impossible. What seems more likely, a cacher would publish a joke cache, or TPTB and the reviewers would do what they have done for no good reason? From my knowledge TPTB and Nomex have no history of history of doing the "wrong" thing for no reason. My knowledge of the CO is blank. I weigh what I know about the CO against what I know about TPTB and Nomex to decide what I should tend to believe.

 

If the scenario I suggested was true, what would you suggest TPTB should have done? Just let it go? Archive the cache with no explanation? Archive the cache with a phony reason? Expose to the public every email and private communication involved? It seems that they stated what they believed were the facts, the cache was not and never has been real. What should they have said?

 

You're assuming that Nomex acted upon good info. I believe Nomex believes his "proof", however, I question whether his "proof" is valid or, this is possible, could it be that they acted in good faith upon bad info?

[+uxorious]

If the scenario I suggested was true, what would you suggest TPTB should have done? Just let it go? Archive the cache with no explanation? Archive the cache with a phony reason? Expose to the public every email and private communication involved? It seems that they stated what they believed were the facts, the cache was not and never has been real. What should they have said?

 

You really don't care what it is I am saying, you are not paying any attention at all or maybe I'm just not getting my point across.

 

I do not know if Superfly put this cache out as a practical joke or not, I do not know him. Several poster who know him say they believe him, are they all wrong? I don't know.

 

I do know when Nomex archived the cache he took a standard note that said the cache hasn't been there for months, (could still be considered calling SF out, but most people would not think twice about a standard form) and added the word years.

 

There was no call to do so in that format. If TPTB and Nomex felt they had reason to believe the cache was a practical joke, they should have just archived it. Editorializing was over the line. If he had not added his own feelings, but had just archived the cache, I would have been out of this thread by the second page.

[+Rockin Roddy]

One of the local reviewers sent this response to an email that I sent to him.

 

Thank you for your e-mail and for your concern. I understand how you and others may perceive Nomex's actions and find them hard to understand.

 

Yes, help from Groundspeak regarding maintenance was asked for. Nomex volunteered his services to help us take care of some abandoned/problem cache listings. Please remember, all caches are meant to be found.

 

Not jumping to conclusions is a good approach. Being a member of your local friendly Reviewing team, I can personally tell you that the amount of grief and complaining about this one particular cache far surpasses all others to date. Now, I have no way of knowing what correspondence has taken place between the CO and Nomex and most likely never will. Groundspeak is currently looking into the matter and I am sure will have it resolved soon.

 

Will Nomex's decision stand? I don't know. That is up to Groundspeak. I'm sure we will all find out at the same time.

 

In the meantime, please remember that this is a sensitive situation and that with as much as you can see on the cache page, there is far more information that is not there. Not every thing is in black and white, especially on a cache page.

 

Please feel free to contact us at any time with questions or concerns...

 

Not much new there. DeRock had already cleared up the fact that they had invited Nomex to look at some caches. It is obvious that Nomex archived this cache without letting the local reviewers know that he was going to do it or his reasons for archiving it.

 

Since the revewing team has had complaints about it I think Nomex was well within his rights to archive the cache. This should never have spilled into the forum the way it did. This is an issue between the CO and Nomex/Groundspeak. None of us posting here know all the facts so why are so many people getting so mad about it. It's things like this getting blown way out of proportion that spoil my (and many others) enjoyment of the game. I come on to the forums to read about other people's experiences and give help where I can. I do not come on here to read about people badmouthing GS and the reviewers without all the facts. It creates too much bad feeling in the middle of what is a worldwide community game. GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!

 

Wow, obviously this bothers you. I'm not even sure why you put yourself through it since you seem really bothered. Maybe instead of hitting the reply, you should be hitting the exit? Seriously, you have a choice!

Yes it bothers me that this thread has continued for so long for no good reason and I was making that point. You are right that I can click exit but then it would have been impossible for me register my opinion that all of this is unnecessary in the hope (that is obviously misplaced) that people will see reason.

 

Also, your reply just proves that the focus of this thread has moved away from the original issue and is now just an excuse for people to slag each other off or question their motives. This has gone beyond madness now. Give it up, move on and let's get on with the business of hiding and finding caches. After all, that is our common cause here. All of the bile that has been spewed on here has left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths and it's time to stop flogging the dead horse.

 

I, like many others who are truly interested in this thread, have stated my concerns, "slagging" wasn't in the lists I saw!

[pranayamamma]

I think the more interesting question is why the bald dude behind Signal is in his underwear while all around him are in coats and boots. Hmmm? Answer me that!

 

 

Hmmm...you've brought up a very good question. Anyone?

Not sure but maybe he's affiliated with the approaching bare foot on the left......

 

Whoa...you have a point there! It's a conspiracy!

Or possibly.......it's just Nudecacher approaching, luckily (or not luckily) there's not more than a foot (not talking measurement here, referring to anatomy) threatening to enter the frame.

[4wheelin_fool]

I think the more interesting question is why the bald dude behind Signal is in his underwear while all around him are in coats and boots. Hmmm? Answer me that!

 

 

Hmmm...you've brought up a very good question. Anyone?

Not sure but maybe he's affiliated with the approaching bare foot on the left......

 

Whoa...you have a point there! It's a conspiracy!

Or possibly.......it's just Nudecacher approaching, luckily (or not luckily) there's not more than a foot (not talking measurement here, referring to anatomy) threatening to enter the frame.

 

I just want to know if Signal goes commando!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I dunno, every time I look at the title of this thread, I still see "Rouge Reviewer". It's messing me up big time. Sounds like the title of a Mentalist episode.

The guy in his underwear may be the Rouge Reviewer?

 

Dang, went out geocaching with Alabama Allen and missed the 1K post. Geocaching, for those in here who have forgotten, is the act of getting out of the house and using a GPS to navigate to a set of given coordinates where you look for something hidden.

 

Edit to add: Sorry Smurf, I lied, there's not really a 1K prize.

Edited November 21, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[ao318]

I think the more interesting question is why the bald dude behind Signal is in his underwear while all around him are in coats and boots. Hmmm? Answer me that!

 

 

Hmmm...you've brought up a very good question. Anyone?

Not sure but maybe he's affiliated with the approaching bare foot on the left......

 

Whoa...you have a point there! It's a conspiracy!

Or possibly.......it's just Nudecacher approaching, luckily (or not luckily) there's not more than a foot (not talking measurement here, referring to anatomy) threatening to enter the frame.

 

I just want to know if Signal goes commando!

 

I'm thinking that was the previous signal. He didn't have a chance to get dressed after swapping out the costume.

[+KBI]

I think the more interesting question is why the bald dude behind Signal is in his underwear while all around him are in coats and boots. Hmmm? Answer me that!

 

Hmmm...you've brought up a very good question. Anyone?

Not sure but maybe he's affiliated with the approaching bare foot on the left......

Whoa...you have a point there! It's a conspiracy!

Or possibly.......it's just Nudecacher approaching, luckily (or not luckily) there's not more than a foot (not talking measurement here, referring to anatomy) threatening to enter the frame.

No need to measure anything off camera; the frog is clearly trying to tell us how long it is -- whatever "it" is.

[+sTeamTraen]

Having been present when that picture of Signal was taken, I can provide some details:

- The man with the bare leg has just been swimming in a lake near Salzburg, Austria, on the evening of the Mega Event held there last June.

- Other people are in coats because it had been raining for most of the day and it wasnt very warm.

- The lady inside Signal would be decent even if Signal fell off right there.

 

I apologise for continuing the off-topic side of the thread, although in fact the whole thread went off-topic once it was established that whatever the rights and wrongs of archiving the cache, Nomex was not "rogue".

 

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled speculative angst.

[+cheech gang]

I need Dramamine to counter the effects of the circles this thread is spinning in.

[+Team Cotati]

Having been present when that picture of Signal was taken, I can provide some details:

- The man with the bare leg has just been swimming in a lake near Salzburg, Austria, on the evening of the Mega Event held there last June.

- Other people are in coats because it had been raining for most of the day and it wasnt very warm.

- The lady inside Signal would be decent even if Signal fell off right there.

 

I apologise for continuing the off-topic side of the thread, although in fact the whole thread went off-topic once it was established that whatever the rights and wrongs of archiving the cache, Nomex was not "rogue".

 

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled speculative angst.

 

Thank you.

[+KBI]

And an FYI...convinced and being able to prove something are two different things. I am convinced that TPTB didn't do a thorough investigation...can I prove it?

If you believe Groundspeak didn't do an adequate investigation, you have every right to your opinion.

 

If, on the other hand, you wish to claim that Groundspeak didn't do an adequate investigation – and you wish to convince me, or anyone else, to join you in your belief – a then I would say the burden of proof is on you.

I feel no need to convince you of anything.

The fact that you keep responding to nearly everything I post tells me otherwise.

 

Being a person who OWNS a business, a golf course which deals with the public every day, I can tell you that calling someone a liar is NOT good business practice. I don't care if the person lied or otherwise. If the person did, you had better be ready to show proof if you already publically called them out OR you'd best not title them the liar at all. Since other customers will be taking note of how the situation is handled, you might want to make sure you do it right, or at least try to make it right afterwards should you have erred.

First, keep this little detail in mind: Nomex didn’t actually say "Superfly is a LIAR!!!" Nomex simply contradicted one of Superfly statements with a statement of his own.

 

And secondly ... be honest: Are you sure you can’t imagine ANY scenario in which contradicting a statement made by one of your customers might be the best option available? We already know that there is a lot more to this case that we haven’t been told. Think about it.

 

A golfer at your facility complains to you, right there in the pro shop where everyone can hear, that he was injured by one of your golf carts on September 31st. You answer back (also in a voice that everyone can hear) that that is impossible because your course does not supply (or even allow) golf carts -- and there is no September 31st on the calendar. You have now contradicted his statement. Or called him a liar, if you prefer. I ask you: Was that good or bad business practice on your part?

Apples and oranges...but I'm certain you know that.

Sorry, but I don’t see how it’s apples and oranges. Why don’t you explain it to me?

 

You seem convinced that calling a customer a liar is NEVER a good business practice. The folks at Groundspeak appear to disagree with you.

 

I gave you a hypothetical, based on your own business, and asked whether you thought contradicting the statement of that customer would be the right thing to do. If you’re not going to answer my question, then can you please at least tell my why you think my question is irrelevant?

[pranayamamma]

I think the more interesting question is why the bald dude behind Signal is in his underwear while all around him are in coats and boots. Hmmm? Answer me that!

 

Hmmm...you've brought up a very good question. Anyone?

Not sure but maybe he's affiliated with the approaching bare foot on the left......

Whoa...you have a point there! It's a conspiracy!

Or possibly.......it's just Nudecacher approaching, luckily (or not luckily) there's not more than a foot (not talking measurement here, referring to anatomy) threatening to enter the frame.

 

No need to measure anything off camera; the frog is clearly trying to tell us how long it is -- whatever "it" is.

 

Sorry, but that is toooo funny!!!!! Maybe there is a conspiracy, otherwise "it" would have made it into the pic. Or maybe it's just like those fishing stories....Or maybe the frog is explaining that it and the naked man are "this close."

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...Or maybe the frog is explaining that it and the naked man are "this close."

He's not naked, you said he is naked, but that's a dang LIE! Have you learned NOTHING from this thread?

[+Rockin Roddy]

And an FYI...convinced and being able to prove something are two different things. I am convinced that TPTB didn't do a thorough investigation...can I prove it?

If you believe Groundspeak didn't do an adequate investigation, you have every right to your opinion.

 

If, on the other hand, you wish to claim that Groundspeak didn't do an adequate investigation – and you wish to convince me, or anyone else, to join you in your belief – a then I would say the burden of proof is on you.

I feel no need to convince you of anything.

The fact that you keep responding to nearly everything I post tells me otherwise.

 

Being a person who OWNS a business, a golf course which deals with the public every day, I can tell you that calling someone a liar is NOT good business practice. I don't care if the person lied or otherwise. If the person did, you had better be ready to show proof if you already publically called them out OR you'd best not title them the liar at all. Since other customers will be taking note of how the situation is handled, you might want to make sure you do it right, or at least try to make it right afterwards should you have erred.

First, keep this little detail in mind: Nomex didn’t actually say "Superfly is a LIAR!!!" Nomex simply contradicted one of Superfly statements with a statement of his own.

 

And secondly ... be honest: Are you sure you can’t imagine ANY scenario in which contradicting a statement made by one of your customers might be the best option available? We already know that there is a lot more to this case that we haven’t been told. Think about it.

 

A golfer at your facility complains to you, right there in the pro shop where everyone can hear, that he was injured by one of your golf carts on September 31st. You answer back (also in a voice that everyone can hear) that that is impossible because your course does not supply (or even allow) golf carts -- and there is no September 31st on the calendar. You have now contradicted his statement. Or called him a liar, if you prefer. I ask you: Was that good or bad business practice on your part?

Apples and oranges...but I'm certain you know that.

Sorry, but I don’t see how it’s apples and oranges. Why don’t you explain it to me?

 

You seem convinced that calling a customer a liar is NEVER a good business practice. The folks at Groundspeak appear to disagree with you.

 

I gave you a hypothetical, based on your own business, and asked whether you thought contradicting the statement of that customer would be the right thing to do. If you’re not going to answer my question, then can you please at least tell my why you think my question is irrelevant?

 

No, don't flatter yourself, I could care less if you are convinced of ANYTHING.

[+traildad]

If the scenario I suggested was true, what would you suggest TPTB should have done? Just let it go? Archive the cache with no explanation? Archive the cache with a phony reason? Expose to the public every email and private communication involved? It seems that they stated what they believed were the facts, the cache was not and never has been real. What should they have said?

 

You really don't care what it is I am saying, you are not paying any attention at all or maybe I'm just not getting my point across.

 

I do not know if Superfly put this cache out as a practical joke or not, I do not know him. Several poster who know him say they believe him, are they all wrong? I don't know.

 

I do know when Nomex archived the cache he took a standard note that said the cache hasn't been there for months, (could still be considered calling SF out, but most people would not think twice about a standard form) and added the word years.

 

There was no call to do so in that format. If TPTB and Nomex felt they had reason to believe the cache was a practical joke, they should have just archived it. Editorializing was over the line. If he had not added his own feelings, but had just archived the cache, I would have been out of this thread by the second page.

I think we are gaining ground on this. I gather that your answer to my question of what should they have done is, "they should have just archived it. Editorializing was over the line."

 

"Nomex took a standard note that says the cache had not been there for months"? It does not look like a standard note to me. Is this a common thing that needs a standard note, no cache to find for several months? What causes you to "know" that this was a standard note that has been added onto? Do you really know it to be true?

 

I feel that if this was a practical joke cache that was never there, TPTB and Nomex did nothing wrong or excessive by saying the cache was archived because it hasn't been there for months or years. That is the reason, at least according them. I have no reason to call them liars. The cache was published by the CO in a public way. 5 public comments were made saying the cache was there or no hint was needed. If those were all lies made by a CO in a public way, then one mild response in the same public area seems perfectly fine.

 

If you think they should have archived it with no comment I have no great argument with that. I do however think this would have been just as long as a thread all about how this cache was archived with no comment.

[+Rockin Roddy]

If the scenario I suggested was true, what would you suggest TPTB should have done? Just let it go? Archive the cache with no explanation? Archive the cache with a phony reason? Expose to the public every email and private communication involved? It seems that they stated what they believed were the facts, the cache was not and never has been real. What should they have said?

 

You really don't care what it is I am saying, you are not paying any attention at all or maybe I'm just not getting my point across.

 

I do not know if Superfly put this cache out as a practical joke or not, I do not know him. Several poster who know him say they believe him, are they all wrong? I don't know.

 

I do know when Nomex archived the cache he took a standard note that said the cache hasn't been there for months, (could still be considered calling SF out, but most people would not think twice about a standard form) and added the word years.

 

There was no call to do so in that format. If TPTB and Nomex felt they had reason to believe the cache was a practical joke, they should have just archived it. Editorializing was over the line. If he had not added his own feelings, but had just archived the cache, I would have been out of this thread by the second page.

I think we are gaining ground on this. I gather that your answer to my question of what should they have done is, "they should have just archived it. Editorializing was over the line."

 

"Nomex took a standard note that says the cache had not been there for months"? It does not look like a standard note to me. Is this a common thing that needs a standard note, no cache to find for several months? What causes you to "know" that this was a standard note that has been added onto? Do you really know it to be true?

 

I feel that if this was a practical joke cache that was never there, TPTB and Nomex did nothing wrong or excessive by saying the cache was archived because it hasn't been there for months or years. That is the reason, at least according them. I have no reason to call them liars. The cache was published by the CO in a public way. 5 public comments were made saying the cache was there or no hint was needed. If those were all lies made by a CO in a public way, then one mild response in the same public area seems perfectly fine.

 

If you think they should have archived it with no comment I have no great argument with that. I do however think this would have been just as long as a thread all about how this cache was archived with no comment.

 

First, you have no idea whether the CO lied or not. Second, calling the CO a liar in public is not good business practice UNLESS you are prepared to back that statement...I've yet to see the statement backed.

 

But hey, that's been stated sooo many times, I'm sure most of us already know this??

Edited November 22, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[pranayamamma]

...Or maybe the frog is explaining that it and the naked man are "this close."

He's not naked, you said he is naked, but that's a dang LIE! Have you learned NOTHING from this thread?

THAT'S FUNNY TOO..but am I lying??? It's all in one's preception...I'm talking about the one on the left. He/she may be naked or may not. And to answer your question..."yes, I have learned something from this thread." I like to think (once in awhile) I have. I have learned that LONG after the horse is dead it can still be beaten for a long long time.

[+sbell111]

Its threads like these that make miss the days when 'TPTB' or 'Groundspeak' pretty much referred to Jeremy. Back then. if a CO pulled a fake hide and lied to everyone about it several times, Jeremy would probably have archived the cache with a scathing note on the cache page. If the CO still feigned innocence, he likely would have ended up banninated (with a nice refund of his prorated membership payment). There would be no double standard where it is OK for a cache owner to lie to the community over and over but not OK to call him on it.

 

Madness.

Edited November 22, 2009 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

It sure is funny how so many think this is a dead horse topic, yet are coming in, posting OFF-TOPIC and complaining we should let it die? Sounds like a LOT of people are paying attention to this thread even when saying it's not worth having here??

 

Seems if you wanted it to die, you'd not add to it...unless the new perception is that, if enough people post off-topic, the thread will get closed? I would hope the mods wouldn't allow this to happen.....

[+Rockin Roddy]

Its threads like these that make miss the days when 'TPTB' or 'Groundspeak' pretty much referred to Jeremy. Back then. if a CO pulled a fake hide and lied to everyone about it several times, Jeremy would probably have archived the cache with a scathing note on the cache page. If the CO still feigned innocence, he likely would have ended up banninated (with a nice refund of his prorated membership payment). There would be no double standard where it is OK for a cache owner to lie to the community over and over but not OK to call him on it.

 

Madness.

 

You have proof to back your blatent accusations, right? Otherwise, I see your post as in violation of guidelines. Name calling and defamation of character are good for a start?

[+sbell111]

It sure is funny how so many think this is a dead horse topic, yet are coming in, posting OFF-TOPIC and complaining we should let it die? Sounds like a LOT of people are paying attention to this thread even when saying it's not worth having here??

 

Seems if you wanted it to die, you'd not add to it...unless the new perception is that, if enough people post off-topic, the thread will get closed? I would hope the mods wouldn't allow this to happen.....

What's your plan? Keep posting to it until ...????

[+traildad]

 

First, you have no idea whether the CO lied or not. Second, calling the CO a liar in public is not good business practice UNLESS you are prepared to back that statement...I've yet to see the statement backed.

 

But hey, that's been stated sooo many times, I'm sure most of us already know this??

I think I have made it very clear that I am speculating, as are we all. What is your point for saying this. You have your opinion on what is good business practice... not everyone agrees with you. I suppose when all this is said and done the numbers on your side that have quit the site and caching, will tell the tale as to if what they said was good business practice or not. I don't think there is going to be a mass exodus.

Edited November 22, 2009 by traildad

[+KBI]

Second, calling the CO a liar in public is not good business practice UNLESS you are prepared to back that statement...I've yet to see the statement backed.

Yes you have seen it backed.

 

Keystone has explained repeatedly that the archival was handled properly. It should be clear by now that Groundspeak supports Nomex’s actions.

 

That leaves you to either (1) take Keystone at his word, or (2) call Keystone a liar.

 

(Or (3) stop commenting, which is an option in which you seem to have no interest.)

 

You are therefore calling Keystone a liar. Your insistence that the case was handled improperly is in direct contradiction with Keystone’s many posts; that, my friend, puts the burden of proof on you.

 

You are the one who keeps telling us it’s bad to call someone a liar UNLESS you are prepared to back it up. Are you prepared to back up your accusation? When can we expect to hear your specific evidence against Keystone?

[+sbell111]

Its threads like these that make miss the days when 'TPTB' or 'Groundspeak' pretty much referred to Jeremy. Back then. if a CO pulled a fake hide and lied to everyone about it several times, Jeremy would probably have archived the cache with a scathing note on the cache page. If the CO still feigned innocence, he likely would have ended up banninated (with a nice refund of his prorated membership payment). There would be no double standard where it is OK for a cache owner to lie to the community over and over but not OK to call him on it.

 

Madness.

 

You have proof to back your blatent accusations, right? Otherwise, I see your post as in violation of guidelines. Name calling and defamation of character are good for a start?

Please reference the guideline that I violated. While you are at it, who did I defame, call names, or accuse?

 

If anything, you just violated the guidelines.

[+thedeadpirate]

One thing I've forgotten and so have a number of other posters is that GC is run by a bunch of geeks.

 

Sbell's last post reminded me that we geeks don't necessarily do things like everyone else. He is right. A few years back, Jeremy would probably have reacted just that way.

 

It may be why Jeremy doesn't handle these kind of issues, but it's also good reason to cut Nomex a little slack.

 

I, for one, am very likely to call a spade a spade so I don't hold it against Nomex for doing so.

 

I still hope that lessons will be learned from this and applied to future situations of a similar nature.

[+KBI]

You have your opinion on what is good business practice... not everyone agrees with you. I suppose when all this is said and done the numbers on your side that have quit the site and caching, will tell the tale as to if what they said was good business practice or not. I don't think there is going to be a mass exodus.

This is an excellent point.

 

Traildad is right: Our debate here is moot. There is a substantially meaningful survey going on as we speak, a poll if you will, as to whether Nomex’s accusation – and Groundspeak’s support of that accusation – is 'good business practice' in this case.

 

It is the beauty of free market capitalism that customers of private businesses have the freedom to vote with their feet whenever they are dissatisfied.

 

This thread has been raging for two weeks now. How many Premium Members have quit their accounts in disgust?

 

Got any numbers, Roddy?

[+thedeadpirate]

Second, calling the CO a liar in public is not good business practice UNLESS you are prepared to back that statement...I've yet to see the statement backed.

Yes you have seen it backed.

 

Keystone has explained repeatedly that the archival was handled properly. It should be clear by now that Groundspeak supports Nomex’s actions.

 

That leaves you to either (1) take Keystone at his word, or (2) call Keystone a liar.

 

(Or (3) stop commenting, which is an option in which you seem to have no interest.)

 

You are therefore calling Keystone a liar. Your insistence that the case was handled improperly is in direct contradiction with Keystone’s many posts; that, my friend, puts the burden of proof on you.

 

You are the one who keeps telling us it’s bad to call someone a liar UNLESS you are prepared to back it up. Are you prepared to back up your accusation? When can we expect to hear your specific evidence against Keystone?

 

This is an example of a difference of opinion. RR happens to not agree that things were handled correctly where Keystone believes they were.

 

With the cach situation you have a cache owner claiming that the cache exists and a reviewer who basically says it does not. While you could interpret this as a difference of opinion, it's not quite the same thing.

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

First, you have no idea whether the CO lied or not. Second, calling the CO a liar in public is not good business practice UNLESS you are prepared to back that statement...I've yet to see the statement backed.

 

But hey, that's been stated sooo many times, I'm sure most of us already know this??

I think I have made it very clear that I am speculating, as are we all. What is your point for saying this. You have your opinion on what is good business practice... not everyone agrees with you. I suppose when all this is said and done the numbers on your side that have quit the site and caching, will tell the tale as to if what they said was good business practice or not. I don't think there is going to be a mass exodus.

 

So cut and dried? Maybe those of us who aren't happy about this can find other ways to express our disappointment...maybe? I can think of several ways I could simply cut back on the money I give to GS...

 

And you're right, not everyone DOES agree with me. I would have to guess that was obvious when we went past 5-6 pages? I guess that's the beauty of the forums, we can discuss it.

[+KBI]

Second, calling the CO a liar in public is not good business practice UNLESS you are prepared to back that statement...I've yet to see the statement backed.

Yes you have seen it backed.

 

Keystone has explained repeatedly that the archival was handled properly. It should be clear by now that Groundspeak supports Nomex’s actions.

 

That leaves you to either (1) take Keystone at his word, or (2) call Keystone a liar.

 

(Or (3) stop commenting, which is an option in which you seem to have no interest.)

 

You are therefore calling Keystone a liar. Your insistence that the case was handled improperly is in direct contradiction with Keystone’s many posts; that, my friend, puts the burden of proof on you.

 

You are the one who keeps telling us it’s bad to call someone a liar UNLESS you are prepared to back it up. Are you prepared to back up your accusation? When can we expect to hear your specific evidence against Keystone?

This is an example of a difference of opinion. RR happens to not agree that things were handled correctly where Keystone believes they were.

 

With the cache situation you have a cache owner claiming that the cache exists and a reviewer who basically says it does not. While you could interpret this as a difference of opinion, it's not quite the same thing.

I see what you mean, but I don’t agree.

 

Under what possible scenario would Groundspeak and Keystone support this archival without being dadgum sure the cache wasn’t there to begin with? Where would be the value in that? None. It would be all cost with no benefit. That tells me they have some reason, whatever it is, to be convinced waaaay beyond a reasonable doubt the cache wasn’t there. It doesn’t matter what the reason is; Groundspeak’s behavior tells us the reason exists.

 

Keystone’s posts explaining that the archival was handled properly therefore support the contention that the cache wasn’t there. This is not a question of one opinion versus another; this is a question of one version of facts versus another.

 

Anyone who challenges the properness of the archival is therefore challenging the honesty of Groundspeak and its representatives.

 

I’m not asking Roddy to do anything that shouldn’t be asked of me were this debate reversed. Groundspeak is effectively telling us the cache wasn’t there. If I were the one who didn’t believe Groundspeak it would be up to me to either put up or shut up.

[+thedeadpirate]

Second, calling the CO a liar in public is not good business practice UNLESS you are prepared to back that statement...I've yet to see the statement backed.

Yes you have seen it backed.

 

Keystone has explained repeatedly that the archival was handled properly. It should be clear by now that Groundspeak supports Nomex’s actions.

 

That leaves you to either (1) take Keystone at his word, or (2) call Keystone a liar.

 

(Or (3) stop commenting, which is an option in which you seem to have no interest.)

 

You are therefore calling Keystone a liar. Your insistence that the case was handled improperly is in direct contradiction with Keystone’s many posts; that, my friend, puts the burden of proof on you.

 

You are the one who keeps telling us it’s bad to call someone a liar UNLESS you are prepared to back it up. Are you prepared to back up your accusation? When can we expect to hear your specific evidence against Keystone?

This is an example of a difference of opinion. RR happens to not agree that things were handled correctly where Keystone believes they were.

 

With the cache situation you have a cache owner claiming that the cache exists and a reviewer who basically says it does not. While you could interpret this as a difference of opinion, it's not quite the same thing.

I see what you mean, but I don’t agree.

 

Under what possible scenario would Groundspeak and Keystone support this archival without being dadgum sure the cache wasn’t there to begin with? Where would be the value in that? None. It would be all cost with no benefit. That tells me they have some reason, whatever it is, to be convinced waaaay beyond a reasonable doubt the cache wasn’t there. It doesn’t matter what the reason is; Groundspeak’s behavior tells us the reason exists.

 

Keystone’s posts explaining that the archival was handled properly therefore support the contention that the cache wasn’t there. This is not a question of one opinion versus another; this is a question of one version of facts versus another.

 

Anyone who challenges the properness of the archival is therefore challenging the honesty of Groundspeak and its representatives.

 

I’m not asking Roddy to do anything that shouldn’t be asked of me were this debate reversed. Groundspeak is effectively telling us the cache wasn’t there. If I were the one who didn’t believe Groundspeak it would be up to me to either put up or shut up.

 

A lot of people are not happy with the WAY this went down. A lot of people have stated they don't know and really to them it doesn't matter if the cache existed. They don't feel it was handled properly.

 

I am one of those people. I have stated a number of times that I feel Nomex had to have good reason to archive the cache. I have GS' long track record to go by. I still don't agree with the WAY it went down.

 

However, as I just stated a few posts ago, geeks (of which I count myself one) don't always handle things like everyone else. That's why I am wiling to cut Nomex some slack on the WAY he handled the archiving.

 

I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.

[+Cardinal Red]

Some have decided that anyone that has not posted to this thread probably isn’t interested. I disagree, but before it’s too late, here are my thoughts.

 

Nomex called Super Fly a liar on the cache page. I can not be convinced otherwise.

 

Keystone said it was a simple matter of Nomex being caught up and helping out busy Michigan Reviewers. Keystone said Nomex simply applied his judgement to an unusual case. Not a big deal. That sounded totally disingenuous to me. Did I just call Keystone a liar? That doesn’t mean that I don’t respect his body of work for Groundspeak.

 

Several posts have claimed personal conviction of Nomex’s integrity. I seriously doubt this paragon of integrity acted in a vacuum. I think this was done by a loyal volunteer in full consultation with the Frog.

 

Miss Jenn seems to be less well known. I will personally vouch that there are many cachers who thought quite highly of her before her association with the Frog, and that has not changed. That does not mean that I think anyone is infallible.

 

This archival was handled badly. Some are saying improperly. Improperly does not mean that the result was wrong, but the method can still be questioned. This extended discussion won’t reverse what was done. I’m not convinced it should be reversed. I think past actions by Super Fly have made him his own worst enemy. Groundspeak decided this enemy needed to be dealt with, and it would go largely unnoticed. The Geocaching community was alerted and has decided the way this was handled is in fact a “big deal”. The only question now is how will they deal the cards next time.

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.

 

I have stated this several times now! I'm not out for Nomex's head, I don't need him "fired" or even chastised either in public or not. I do believe this was a good learning experience.

[+slumbersix]

If I am wrong, please link me to the place where Nomex used the word "liar"

 

I guess in your world a person must say "XXX is a liar, in order to call him one."

 

However, as far as I am concerned, Nomex took a standard form, and after saying the cache wasn't there for months, added the word YEARS. In my world, adding this word was deliberate and calls him a liar.

 

If you don't think that is calling him a liar, good for you. As far as I'm concerned it is.

 

maybe Nomex is just trying to say SF misrepresented the cache, not calling him a liar, just a misrepresenter.

[+thedeadpirate]

 

I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.

 

I have stated this several times now! I'm not out for Nomex's head, I don't need him "fired" or even chastised either in public or not. I do believe this was a good learning experience.

 

I still believe this whole thing can be salvaged if someone from headquarters (no disrespect to Keystone as I trust his opinion, but this needs to come from the top) would step up and assure everyone that this has been reviewed and steps have been taken to ensure things are handled better in the future.

[4wheelin_fool]

Second, calling the CO a liar in public is not good business practice UNLESS you are prepared to back that statement...I've yet to see the statement backed.

Yes you have seen it backed.

 

Keystone has explained repeatedly that the archival was handled properly. It should be clear by now that Groundspeak supports Nomex’s actions.

 

That leaves you to either (1) take Keystone at his word, or (2) call Keystone a liar.

 

(Or (3) stop commenting, which is an option in which you seem to have no interest.)

 

You are therefore calling Keystone a liar. Your insistence that the case was handled improperly is in direct contradiction with Keystone’s many posts; that, my friend, puts the burden of proof on you.

 

You are the one who keeps telling us it’s bad to call someone a liar UNLESS you are prepared to back it up. Are you prepared to back up your accusation? When can we expect to hear your specific evidence against Keystone?

 

It's quite apparent that RR knows much more about the cache than Keystone does.

 

1000 yeahhhh !!!!

 

1000 posts is nothing.

 

This thread is a little bit longer and more interesting..

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I still believe this whole thing can be salvaged if someone from headquarters (no disrespect to Keystone as I trust his opinion, but this needs to come from the top) would step up and assure everyone that this has been reviewed and steps have been taken to ensure things are handled better in the future.

Short of being named Irish or Roth I suspect that there IS no one more plugged in at the top of Groundspeak.

 

If I recall in one of his last posts he said that this has been reviewed by TPTB.

Edited November 22, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[Keystone]

Keystone said it was a simple matter of Nomex being caught up and helping out busy Michigan Reviewers. Keystone said Nomex simply applied his judgement to an unusual case. Not a big deal. That sounded totally disingenuous to me. Did I just call Keystone a liar? That doesn’t mean that I don’t respect his body of work for Groundspeak.

For the record, I thought your entire post was respectful, though I disagree with parts of it. This is a good example of proper forum conversation.

 

The public evidence supporting my statement includes (1) the presence of other reminder notes and archive logs left by Nomex on other Michigan caches as part of his "maintenance cleanup sweep" through Michigan caches, (2) his explanation in his form note placed on many caches, saying that he is helping out the local reviewers, and (3) the post to this thread from one of the Michigan reviewers.

[+JeremyR]

IMHO this thread is starting to make a mockery of the forum's moderation. It's been stuck in a loop going around and around in circles for hundreds of posts now. It's clear that Groundspeak are not going to respond beyond what they have already said so the people still arguing it out need to agree to disagree and let it go... For goodness' sake, it's just a game.

[+thedeadpirate]

I still believe this whole thing can be salvaged if someone from headquarters (no disrespect to Keystone as I trust his opinion, but this needs to come from the top) would step up and assure everyone that this has been reviewed and steps have been taken to ensure things are handled better in the future.

Short of being named Irish or Roth I suspect that there IS no one more plugged in at the top of Groundspeak.

 

If I recall in one of his last posts he said that this has been reviewed by TPTB.

 

And both he and MissJenn have only supported the archival, which frankly I have no problem with as information has come out. As stated a number of times, I think Nomex likely had probably cause to archive the cache.

 

He still didn't handle it properly or we would not be at 1000+ posts.

 

I would just like for some at HQ to assure us this won't happen in the future.

 

For that matter "I" would be happy with Keystone making that assurance. But I think most others would like to hear it from TPTB as well.

[+thedeadpirate]

IMHO this thread is starting to make a mockery of the forum's moderation. It's been stuck in a loop going around and around in circles for hundreds of posts now. It's clear that Groundspeak are not going to respond beyond what they have already said so the people still arguing it out need to agree to disagree and let it go... For goodness' sake, it's just a game.

 

I don't think it's making a mockery of the forum's moderation. But I do think it's stuck in a loop and there's only one way to break that loop and they are not going to respond.

 

I just happen to be stuck in a hotel room and have nothing better to do than refresh this thread while the Bulldogs beat Kentucky. But I think I am going to close the laptop and watch the game.

[Keystone]

IMHO this thread is starting to make a mockery of the forum's moderation. It's been stuck in a loop going around and around in circles for hundreds of posts now. It's clear that Groundspeak are not going to respond beyond what they have already said so the people still arguing it out need to agree to disagree and let it go... For goodness' sake, it's just a game.

I agree with all but your first sentence. Yes, it would be quite easy to close the thread due to repetitive speculation, disrespectful posts, etc. Heck, the "Rogue" thread title alone is a false attack against a Groundspeak volunteer.

 

But, experience has taught the moderating team that, in cases like this where a Groundspeak policy or an action by Groundspeak or one of its volunteers is at issue, closing the discussion only creates a backlash in the form of "censorship!" cries. Free discussion, conducted in accordance with the forum guidelines, is preferable to that. Individual violations of the forum guidelines can be dealt with, allowing others to continue the discussion.

 

Thank you, by the way, for your contribution to that discussion. Nice post.

[+sbell111]

I still believe this whole thing can be salvaged if someone from headquarters (no disrespect to Keystone as I trust his opinion, but this needs to come from the top) would step up and assure everyone that this has been reviewed and steps have been taken to ensure things are handled better in the future.

Short of being named Irish or Roth I suspect that there IS no one more plugged in at the top of Groundspeak.

 

If I recall in one of his last posts he said that this has been reviewed by TPTB.

And both he and MissJenn have only supported the archival, which frankly I have no problem with as information has come out. As stated a number of times, I think Nomex likely had probably cause to archive the cache.

 

He still didn't handle it properly or we would not be at 1000+ posts.

 

I would just like for some at HQ to assure us this won't happen in the future.

 

For that matter "I" would be happy with Keystone making that assurance. But I think most others would like to hear it from TPTB as well.

I really hope that in the future, if a reviewer receives evidence that a cache doesn't actually exist that he will archive the cache and post a note that reads something like:

Since this cache has not existed in years, if ever, I am archiving it so that those people who wish to hide actual caches in this location can do so. Continued shenanigans such as this may result in bannination. I only hope that those local cachers who have been lied to over the years regarding the existence of this cache can forgive the cache owner.

 

Alternatively, I would be pleased to see an immediate archival of these false caches along with the bannination of the so-called cache owners.

Edited November 22, 2009 by sbell111

[+ironman114]

IMHO this thread is starting to make a mockery of the forum's moderation. It's been stuck in a loop going around and around in circles for hundreds of posts now. It's clear that Groundspeak are not going to respond beyond what they have already said so the people still arguing it out need to agree to disagree and let it go... For goodness' sake, it's just a game.

I agree with all but your first sentence. Yes, it would be quite easy to close the thread due to repetitive speculation, disrespectful posts, etc. Heck, the "Rogue" thread title alone is a false attack against a Groundspeak volunteer.

 

But, experience has taught the moderating team that, in cases like this where a Groundspeak policy or an action by Groundspeak or one of its volunteers is at issue, closing the discussion only creates a backlash in the form of "censorship!" cries. Free discussion, conducted in accordance with the forum guidelines, is preferable to that. Individual violations of the forum guidelines can be dealt with, allowing others to continue the discussion.

 

Thank you, by the way, for your contribution to that discussion. Nice post.

 

Keystone,

 

Thank you for posting your comment and experience on moderating.

 

I am glad those posting in accordance to forum guidelines are being allowed to do so. Those that don't like the repetitive circle of this thread are free to not click on it and read like I have done with many threads previous to this one. I cannot understand why they feel it has to be closed because they don't like/want to read it.

 

Thank you for some insightful (not incite-ful ) moderation in a thread that could become quite heated.

[+uxorious]

"Nomex took a standard note that says the cache had not been there for months"? It does not look like a standard note to me. Is this a common thing that needs a standard note, no cache to find for several months? What causes you to "know" that this was a standard note that has been added onto? Do you really know it to be true?

 

Back on post #404 Keystone wrote; "Perhaps it helps to know that the archive note is a very common form letter used by many reviewers. Form letters help us do our work efficiently. Sometimes the wording of a form letter gets put under a magnifying glass, as has happened here."

 

A couple posts later Allenite added;

Although I know that many of these remarks are canned responses, there is some difference. Nomex did archive another cache that same night in the Grand Rapids area. I received both of these archive notices at 11:45 PM on 11/5/2009.

 

"For GC171MH: Super Fly #30 "Jiendo" (Archived) (Traditional Cache)

Location: Michigan, United States

9.7mi W (15.6km W)

Nomex archived Super Fly #30 "Jiendo" (Archived) (Traditional Cache) at 11/5/2009

 

Log Date: 11/5/2009

As there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. "

 

"For GCGWAM: Tango and Cache (Archived) (Traditional Cache)

Location: Michigan, United States

12.4mi SW (20km SW)

Nomex archived Tango and Cache (Archived) (Traditional Cache) at 11/5/2009

 

Log Date: 11/5/2009

As there's been no cache to find for months, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. "

 

I received the Jiendo notice first, followed by the notice for "Tango and Cache." "Tango and Cache" was disabled in June and had not been found since March. No response from the cache owner in between notices. In the case of Jiendo, he did add "/years" to the response. Although much of this response is a canned response, I feel the addition of years does seem uncalled for.

 

It does seem there was at least one other post showing this, but I can not find it now. However; this is enough to tell me Nomex was deliberate saying SF lied to him.

[+spektrum2]

experience has taught the moderating team that, in cases like this where a Groundspeak policy or an action by Groundspeak or one of its volunteers is at issue, closing the discussion only creates a backlash in the form of "censorship!" cries. Free discussion, conducted in accordance with the forum guidelines, is preferable to that. Individual violations of the forum guidelines can be dealt with, allowing others to continue the discussion.

 

I've been thinking this for days now and for what its worth it was the right decision.I for one one have actually learned alot from this thread regarding guidelines and what it takes to hold all this together.Actually I'm amazed how well it has gone,and how few times..as Moose Bob said so well..people had to be refocused

on beating the dead horse and not each other.There is a good group here at the end of the day.

[Mushtang]

I've been thinking this for days now and for what its worth it was the right decision.I for one one have actually learned alot from this thread regarding guidelines and what it takes to hold all this together.Actually I'm amazed how well it has gone,and how few times..as Moose Bob said so well..people had to be refocused on beating the dead horse and not each other.There is a good group here at the end of the day.

I agree. We're lucky to have Moose Bob and Keysteve both!

 

Edited November 22, 2009 by Mushtang

[+KBI]

I still believe this whole thing can be salvaged if someone from headquarters (no disrespect to Keystone as I trust his opinion, but this needs to come from the top) would step up and assure everyone that this has been reviewed and steps have been taken to ensure things are handled better in the future.

Short of being named Irish or Roth I suspect that there IS no one more plugged in at the top of Groundspeak.

 

If I recall in one of his last posts he said that this has been reviewed by TPTB.

And both he and MissJenn have only supported the archival, which frankly I have no problem with as information has come out. As stated a number of times, I think Nomex likely had probably cause to archive the cache.

 

He still didn't handle it properly or we would not be at 1000+ posts.

 

I would just like for some at HQ to assure us this won't happen in the future.

 

For that matter "I" would be happy with Keystone making that assurance. ...

Weren’t you happy with this?:

 

... While I'm not a lackey, just a volunteer, I can confirm that there is no existing or new guideline saying that reviewers ought to be seeking out difficult unfound caches and archiving them. There are several such caches in my review territory and I don't plan on taking any action just because they're unfound. As others have posted before, I don't see a need for hiders of other difficult caches to worry about their hides being archived. The cache discussed in this thread was handled under the existing framework of the Cache Maintenance guideline.

 

I can also confirm from personal experience that Groundspeak WILL overturn a reviewer's decision when they are wrong. It has happened to me several times over the years, most recently in late September. The same is true for other volunteers who are doing their best to exercise judgment, but sometimes miss the mark. The vast majority of these situations never spark forum threads.

 

In this regard, I would like to thank The Alabama Rambler for his post that spoke of his experience as a volunteer who was asked to step down. Wouldn't a "fired" volunteer be more likely to air dirty laundry or grind an axe? If you don't believe me, believe him. What a class act of a posting that was.

In other posts we have been reassured that SF's archival happened under uniquely special circumstances:

 

It's an unusual case.

I think StarBrand summed it up perfectly, "I suspect there is a bit more to the story."

One of the local reviewers sent this response to an email that I sent to him:

 

... Not jumping to conclusions is a good approach. Being a member of your local friendly Reviewing team, I can personally tell you that the amount of grief and complaining about this one particular cache far surpasses all others to date ...

 

... In the meantime, please remember that this is a sensitive situation and that with as much as you can see on the cache page, there is far more information that is not there. Not every thing is in black and white, especially on a cache page ...

I don’t know about you, but taking all of those messages together – along with the ambiguities presented in Superfly's logs and posts – tells me:

 

(1) There is MUCH more to this story, the details of which are really none of our business, and

 

(2) As far as the rest of us are concerned, this won't happen again in the future.

[+traildad]

 

I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.

What would you have preferred? Archive the cache and give no reason? Archive the cache and give a phony reason? Just let the "cache" remain? Archive the cache and reveal all communications between all involved? Archive the cache and give a reasonably respectful reason for the archival? If we are dealing with a phony cache, then the CO started this problem. It puts TPTB in a position to have to do something unpleasant. It is easy to blame TPTB, but they were just trying to deal with a problem created by someone else.

 

If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it?