+briansnat Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. From owner's 11/5/2009 log: I think that the decision to archive this cache is wrong. I would like for anyone to point me to the rules of geocaching that state the length of time a cache has been unfound before it is archived. Now I need to pull this one out and find a new home for it. He does seem to have a hard time keeping his story straight. Hmmmm. Link to comment
+Super Fly Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I try to keep my mouth shut and my fingers from typing but a picture or the cache ups'ed or fedex'ed to someone for a visual inspection would still not change anyones mind. The fact remains that the reviewers have made statements about me that are wrong and they just dont like me. I had a cache submitted for review - I waited 4 days before I sent a message out asking why other caches were being approved and yet nothing was done with mine. I got no responce except for a note placed on the cache page. August 16 by -Tiki- (0 found) Greetings, I apologize for the delay in the publication of this cache listing. At this time, there is another listing that is blocking this cache from being published. I have contacted the other owner and I am awaiting their response. As soon as I have more information, I will pass that along to you or publish your cache accordingly. Thank you for placing a cache, -Tiki- Geocaching.com - Volunteer Reviewer ReviewerTiki@gmail.com Please reference the cache name, or GC number when emailing. [view this log] August 12 by Super Fly (2100 found) Original Cache Location:N 42° 58.930 W 085° 50.100 [view/edit logs/images] [upload an image for this log] Cache submitted aug 12 and then finaly aug 16 after I had to ask why mine was not being looked at while others were being approved this is what I got. Once again pushed asside and forgetten about.....or should I say Ignored. There are other cachers out there that know that my words here are true, I hope some of them will step foreward and let everyone else know different things that have been said against me and the backroom dealings that happen here in west michigan against me to make me look bad to Groundspeak. Link to comment
+GeoGeeBee Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Without naming names here this is the reason that my cache was archived, the reviewers in michigan do not like me Link to comment
+Super Fly Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. From owner's 11/5/2009 log: I think that the decision to archive this cache is wrong. I would like for anyone to point me to the rules of geocaching that state the length of time a cache has been unfound before it is archived. Now I need to pull this one out and find a new home for it. He does seem to have a hard time keeping his story straight. Hmmmm. The new home for the cache that I was refering to was the trash and thats exactly where it went. Link to comment
+bittsen Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The new home for the cache that I was refering to was the trash and thats exactly where it went. How unfortunate. I had little doubt that the cache existed until this statement. Unfortunately, you have presented the entire following of this thread with the reality that nobody ever could confirm that the cache existed. We are all now left with only your word. Also, unfortunately, your words seem to be those of someone who would list a non-existant cache (whether or not you did isn't the issue at this point in my comments). I would have liked to have believed you all the way but you introduced doubt. Nevertheless, I am still of the opinion that the reviewers have done nothing to help alleviate the concerns of those who pay to keep this site running. Link to comment
knowschad Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I try to keep my mouth shut and my fingers from typing but a picture or the cache ups'ed or fedex'ed to someone for a visual inspection would still not change anyones mind. Try us. Please. Link to comment
knowschad Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. From owner's 11/5/2009 log: I think that the decision to archive this cache is wrong. I would like for anyone to point me to the rules of geocaching that state the length of time a cache has been unfound before it is archived. Now I need to pull this one out and find a new home for it. He does seem to have a hard time keeping his story straight. Hmmmm. The new home for the cache that I was refering to was the trash and thats exactly where it went. I was on your side, my friend, but now I have to call "bull". You're losing us. Quickly. You spent a year and a half constructing this cache (of which I am rather skeptical after having done some pretty good "in front of your nose" caches myself that took no more than a couple of weeks), and then you trashed it, just like that, and have NO pictures of it that you could post here? Dude... I don't know how much you know about these forums, but I am agreeing with Bittsen here. Buy a lottery ticket. I really wanted to believe you. In fact, I DID believe you. Edited November 12, 2009 by knowschad Link to comment
+Super Fly Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Here must be an example of me ripping off another cache Link to comment
+briansnat Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) The reviewers in michigan do not like me - they dont like my puzzles - they dont like my hides. Why would the local review team single you out? They are geocachers too. I'm sure they enjoy great caches regardless of who placed them. There are probably thousands of individual cache owners in your state, some who place easy caches and some who place difficult ones, yet the review team chose you out of all those cache owners to pick on because they don't like YOUR puzzles and hides? I'm starting to sense a bit of a persecution complex here. there are other cachers out there that know that my words here are true, I hope some of them will step foreward and let everyone else know different things that have been said against me and the backroom dealings that happen here in west michigan against me to make me look bad to Groundspeak. Now I know there is a persecution complex here. Keep posting. In the beginning I was sympathetic with your situation and thought a mistake might have been made, but the more you've posted, the more I'm convinced that Nomex and Groundspeak were right on the money. Edited November 12, 2009 by briansnat Link to comment
+thedeadpirate Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Without naming names here this is the reason that my cache was archived, the reviewers in michigan do not like me - they dont like my puzzles - they dont like my hides. So any chance they can get to shut one of my caches down or to upset me in any way they will jump at. Our reviewers are supposed to be unbiased in there decisions, yet here in west michigan that is not the case. This clearly shows why an outside reviewer was brought in. It makes complete sense that the local reviewers would want a third party to take a look at this cache. GeoBain, I understand why you don't want to post a photo as proof. You have stated that you called a reviewer on the phone. why not just invite a reviewer to the cache site and show him or her the cache. No spoiler, and 100% positive proof of the existance of the cache. Not my cache, not my place to provide any proof. I think you meant to address Super Fly rather than me. I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. From owner's 11/5/2009 log: I think that the decision to archive this cache is wrong. I would like for anyone to point me to the rules of geocaching that state the length of time a cache has been unfound before it is archived. Now I need to pull this one out and find a new home for it. He does seem to have a hard time keeping his story straight. Hmmmm. The new home for the cache that I was refering to was the trash and thats exactly where it went. I'm afraid you've just pushed me off the fence. I was pondering in my head how you could plan to use a cache that was custom made from an imprint of a particular brick in another location. But I'm afraid that I (can't speak for anyone else) cannot buy the argument that you meant the new location was the trash. And, as the question of the actual archival note has been addressed to my satisfaction, I think I am finished with this thread. Link to comment
+bittsen Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Dude... I don't know how much you know about these forums, but I am agreeing with Bittsen here. I knew you would come around eventually. Everyone does, sooner or later. Link to comment
Chumpo Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 When I clicked on this thread way back at the beginning, I just knew that it would not end well. I could tell from post number one that there would be some names dragged through the mud, and it seems like it's beginning to happen now. Why don't we all just give it a rest, let bygones be bygones and call it a draw? Nothing good can happen from here on out. I hear flask's neighbor has a cat. Link to comment
+Super Fly Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. From owner's 11/5/2009 log: I think that the decision to archive this cache is wrong. I would like for anyone to point me to the rules of geocaching that state the length of time a cache has been unfound before it is archived. Now I need to pull this one out and find a new home for it. He does seem to have a hard time keeping his story straight. Hmmmm. The new home for the cache that I was refering to was the trash and thats exactly where it went. I was on your side, my friend, but now I have to call "bull". You're losing us. If I had known the future and seen that this would come up in the forums I would have taken steps to protect the cache for later proof. However at the time a was furious about this and knew that I would not sway Groundspeak or any of the reviewers decision so I pitched it out of discust for the situation.. Also if a picture had been asked for before hand or a reviewer had asked to be shown the cache I would shown them. Little did I know that this would even make the forums. Most local cachers know me and know that I am not out to get anyone with a false cache. The DNF's on the cache page are made by some of my closest caching friends. I have even gone out to see If it is found while cachers are in the process of looking so that I could congradulate them on the find. As I said before, if you dont beleive me, I dont realy care any more, even a picture would have been picked apart and said to be a fake. The fact that someone expected me to take a picture at 2am, and thinks that they could see anything from a dark picture shows me that there is not much that I can do anymore. However the fact remains that I can build another one but I beleive that since everyone knows what to look for now - it would not be much of a challenge but more of a P&G cache. Taking a mold of an object is quite a simple task and I am not sure where the doubt comes in as to whether or not it was done. I had lost my job prior to this and used the time to complete this cache. Also I was not aware that I would need a film crew to document this cache for future support of the placement of this cache. How many of you all take pictures of your caches to prove that they are there? All along I had expected this cache to have been found and thats why I made checks to see if it had fallen off whenever the question arose to its still being there. Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. From owner's 11/5/2009 log: I think that the decision to archive this cache is wrong. I would like for anyone to point me to the rules of geocaching that state the length of time a cache has been unfound before it is archived. Now I need to pull this one out and find a new home for it. He does seem to have a hard time keeping his story straight. Hmmmm. The new home for the cache that I was refering to was the trash and thats exactly where it went. I was on your side, my friend, but now I have to call "bull". You're losing us. Quickly. You spent a year and a half constructing this cache (of which I am rather skeptical after having done some pretty good "in front of your nose" caches myself that took no more than a couple of weeks), and then you trashed it, just like that, and have NO pictures of it that you could post here? Dude... I don't know how much you know about these forums, but I am agreeing with Bittsen here. Buy a lottery ticket. I really wanted to believe you. In fact, I DID believe you. I continue to believe there was a cache and that this was all a communication issue, but this matches my sentiments at this point. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Yeah, I'm starting to get a sense of being played. A custom cache wrongfully archived and tossed in the trash? Nah, I don't think so. Two other sites on which to list the cache, a way to thumb your nose at archiving, and a private listing, all ways to continue the cache. A custom-made brick cache is not so unique or secret as to not pull from the trash and post photos, yet continue to post in this thread. The argument could be settled way too easy. Sorry, I'm now starting to think the folks who looked for that cache, and those that believed the story, are the ones wronged. Link to comment
knowschad Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Dude... I don't know how much you know about these forums, but I am agreeing with Bittsen here. I knew you would come around eventually. Everyone does, sooner or later. Don't make me disagree with you already!!! Link to comment
knowschad Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. From owner's 11/5/2009 log: I think that the decision to archive this cache is wrong. I would like for anyone to point me to the rules of geocaching that state the length of time a cache has been unfound before it is archived. Now I need to pull this one out and find a new home for it. He does seem to have a hard time keeping his story straight. Hmmmm. The new home for the cache that I was refering to was the trash and thats exactly where it went. I was on your side, my friend, but now I have to call "bull". You're losing us. If I had known the future and seen that this would come up in the forums I would have taken steps to protect the cache for later proof. However at the time a was furious about this and knew that I would not sway Groundspeak or any of the reviewers decision so I pitched it out of discust for the situation.. Also if a picture had been asked for before hand or a reviewer had asked to be shown the cache I would shown them. Little did I know that this would even make the forums. Most local cachers know me and know that I am not out to get anyone with a false cache. The DNF's on the cache page are made by some of my closest caching friends. I have even gone out to see If it is found while cachers are in the process of looking so that I could congradulate them on the find. As I said before, if you dont beleive me, I dont realy care any more, even a picture would have been picked apart and said to be a fake. The fact that someone expected me to take a picture at 2am, and thinks that they could see anything from a dark picture shows me that there is not much that I can do anymore. However the fact remains that I can build another one but I beleive that since everyone knows what to look for now - it would not be much of a challenge but more of a P&G cache. Taking a mold of an object is quite a simple task and I am not sure where the doubt comes in as to whether or not it was done. I had lost my job prior to this and used the time to complete this cache. Also I was not aware that I would need a film crew to document this cache for future support of the placement of this cache. How many of you all take pictures of your caches to prove that they are there? All along I had expected this cache to have been found and thats why I made checks to see if it had fallen off whenever the question arose to its still being there. I have a friend (at least one) that found your mega ammo box. I do know what you are capable of, and I do also have the experience to know that the cache in question is certainly possible, and an excellent idea (and in an excellent location ,BTW) I'm just not believing that you went out at 2 am, picked the cache up, and trashed it after spending 1 1/2 years on it. The PTB may not have requested a picture, but unless you are stubborn to a fault, you would have supplied one, if such a photo existed. Sorry... you had me... but you've lost me, and apparently quite a few others. I would still like to know what intel the reviewers had that we do not, though. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 ...even a picture would have been picked apart and said to be a fake. More folks would believe your side. You're not going to get 100%. You don't need 100%. BTW, Sissy has a cache that has been voted "Best Camo" here in SC every year since the start of the contests. It's hard to find if you don't think outside the box and are not observant. If it had not been found right off the bat I'm sure she would have been in the same boat. I wouldn't hesitate to post pictures in order to keep it alive. Even if she said right on the cache page how to find it, it still wouldn't be a P&G simply because of the coolness of it. It's better as a surprise, but better a possible spoiled surprise than no surprise at all. BTW, this cache has stumped quite a few. No telling how many haven't logged their DNFs. Eventually most find it, after all, how hard can finding a S.A.W. ammo can with dead-on coords be? Link to comment
knowschad Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) This (the thread of the cache that I'm linking to) took me maybe two or three weeks to build. I mentioned it previously in this thread. I felt I had enough energy invested to take some photos after it was archived even though that was for reasons out of my control, and I was very angry about it. I didn't even consider trashing it... I had far too much time invested. A bit less than the year and a half that you had invested. Of course, that's just me. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4014581 Edited November 12, 2009 by knowschad Link to comment
+brslk Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 My opinion has completely changed. Link to comment
+Super Fly Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 If Groundspeak has a way of tracking when people log on, or the searches that people do in the search bar, they will see that I did a search for the cache name and the cache GC number before tossing it out, no discussions started either in the michigan forums or the Groundspeak forums. I figured that no one cared if the cache was archived or not, so it got tossed. To me this cache was not that important to keep around to prove that it was real, to me it was just another archived cache not worth keeping because it would not fit anywhere else. If an attempt was made before hand to verify the placement of this cache, or this thread had been started already, I would have obliged any reviewer and suppied a picture or a trip to the location, or simply kept it around for proof of placement. Since none of the above happened and the ruling to have the cache archived was supported by Groundspeak I assumed that this was a done deal. I was bitter about the ruling - went and yanked it out - and tossed it. Call it a hasty decision, yes, but hindsite is always 20/20. The fact remains that I did not try to deceive anyone. I listed the cache as unknown- if I listed it as a regular size based in the dimensions then cachers would assume it could fit a travel bug, but when found they would see that the small ziplock was not big enough for even a geocoin to fit. If I listed it as a micro, cachers would be looking for a micro when in fact the size of the camoflaged portin was larger than a micro. Thus the decision to list it as an unknown. The difficulty and terrain were also accuratly listed so that cachers knew before hand that they were in for a challenging find. The fact that no hint was posted was a decision made after thinking about what kind of a hint could I use to not give the cache completely away -- no hint would help without giving the cache away. Earlier in the spring of this year I was contacted by a cacher from washington state asking me what the cache was so that they could duplicate it, my responce was that I would be tight lipped about the cache except to tell them that it was custom built for the location and that it was a year and a half build to get it done. If this was just a last minute story made up by me then we should get that cacher involved and ask them if they remember the e-mails exchanged at that time. Nothing I did here was done with the intention of cachers not to find the cache. Link to comment
+geodarts Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) I understand that a person could have a reaction similar to the cache owner, and other people might have done it differently. But I never thought that whether a cache was there could be settled on this forum so to me it has been (and still is) an issue about how the cache was archived or investigated. Edited November 12, 2009 by Erickson Link to comment
knowschad Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 My opinion has completely changed. A'Yup. The tide is going out, ain't it? Link to comment
knowschad Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 If Groundspeak has a way of tracking when people log on, or the searches that people do in the search bar, they will see that I did a search for the cache name and the cache GC number before tossing it out, no discussions started either in the michigan forums or the Groundspeak forums. I figured that no one cared if the cache was archived or not, so it got tossed. To me this cache was not that important to keep around to prove that it was real, to me it was just another archived cache not worth keeping because it would not fit anywhere else. If an attempt was made before hand to verify the placement of this cache, or this thread had been started already, I would have obliged any reviewer and suppied a picture or a trip to the location, or simply kept it around for proof of placement.Since none of the above happened and the ruling to have the cache archived was supported by Groundspeak I assumed that this was a done deal. I was bitter about the ruling - went and yanked it out - and tossed it. Call it a hasty decision, yes, but hindsite is always 20/20. The fact remains that I did not try to deceive anyone. I listed the cache as unknown- if I listed it as a regular size based in the dimensions then cachers would assume it could fit a travel bug, but when found they would see that the small ziplock was not big enough for even a geocoin to fit. If I listed it as a micro, cachers would be looking for a micro when in fact the size of the camoflaged portin was larger than a micro. Thus the decision to list it as an unknown. The difficulty and terrain were also accuratly listed so that cachers knew before hand that they were in for a challenging find. The fact that no hint was posted was a decision made after thinking about what kind of a hint could I use to not give the cache completely away -- no hint would help without giving the cache away. Earlier in the spring of this year I was contacted by a cacher from washington state asking me what the cache was so that they could duplicate it, my responce was that I would be tight lipped about the cache except to tell them that it was custom built for the location and that it was a year and a half build to get it done. If this was just a last minute story made up by me then we should get that cacher involved and ask them if they remember the e-mails exchanged at that time. Nothing I did here was done with the intention of cachers not to find the cache. I want so much to believe you. Really, I do, even if that doesn't matter to you. The hide concept is not unbelievable (although the year and a half is bit of a stretch by my own experiences) but I just can't buy the idea that you trashed it without as much as one photo. Link to comment
+Super Fly Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. From owner's 11/5/2009 log: I think that the decision to archive this cache is wrong. I would like for anyone to point me to the rules of geocaching that state the length of time a cache has been unfound before it is archived. Now I need to pull this one out and find a new home for it. He does seem to have a hard time keeping his story straight. Hmmmm. The new home for the cache that I was refering to was the trash and thats exactly where it went. I was on your side, my friend, but now I have to call "bull". You're losing us. If I had known the future and seen that this would come up in the forums I would have taken steps to protect the cache for later proof. However at the time a was furious about this and knew that I would not sway Groundspeak or any of the reviewers decision so I pitched it out of discust for the situation.. Also if a picture had been asked for before hand or a reviewer had asked to be shown the cache I would shown them. Little did I know that this would even make the forums. Most local cachers know me and know that I am not out to get anyone with a false cache. The DNF's on the cache page are made by some of my closest caching friends. I have even gone out to see If it is found while cachers are in the process of looking so that I could congradulate them on the find. As I said before, if you dont beleive me, I dont realy care any more, even a picture would have been picked apart and said to be a fake. The fact that someone expected me to take a picture at 2am, and thinks that they could see anything from a dark picture shows me that there is not much that I can do anymore. However the fact remains that I can build another one but I beleive that since everyone knows what to look for now - it would not be much of a challenge but more of a P&G cache. Taking a mold of an object is quite a simple task and I am not sure where the doubt comes in as to whether or not it was done. I had lost my job prior to this and used the time to complete this cache. Also I was not aware that I would need a film crew to document this cache for future support of the placement of this cache. How many of you all take pictures of your caches to prove that they are there? All along I had expected this cache to have been found and thats why I made checks to see if it had fallen off whenever the question arose to its still being there. I have a friend (at least one) that found your mega ammo box. I do know what you are capable of, and I do also have the experience to know that the cache in question is certainly possible, and an excellent idea (and in an excellent location ,BTW) I'm just not believing that you went out at 2 am, picked the cache up, and trashed it after spending 1 1/2 years on it. The PTB may not have requested a picture, but unless you are stubborn to a fault, you would have supplied one, if such a photo existed. Sorry... you had me... but you've lost me, and apparently quite a few others. I would still like to know what intel the reviewers had that we do not, though. Simply put after trying to argue with Groundspeak about a previous issue, and not getting anywhere I figured it was a dead issue. I do admit to blindly tossing something that would be a huge help to prove that it was there, this is my fault. Rest assured that this type of mistake will not happen in the future. Also the 1.5 years that I have stated is not a continual effort but mearly the length of time from idea to finished product, with a few broken prototypes along the way. Link to comment
+Morning Dew Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) I'm assumming this is a violation of the TOA. I'm not reading it and you can't make me . You have 6 caches published but state that you haven't and won't read the TOA... yet to get each cache published you had to check a box stating that you had read, understand and will abide by it. So are you saying that 6 times you have lied to your Reviewer to get a cache published? Five of those are adopted. The one I placed on my own, I skimmed the parts pertaining to hiding pretty throughly as well as doing quite a bit of reading. So far it's still doing great and going strong. Keep your fingers crossed. So technically on that one I lied. But don't tell them Edited November 12, 2009 by Morning Dew Link to comment
+Super Fly Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The morning that I pulled the cache and tossed it I spoke with two different cachers from around the area, I told them both that I had pulled the cache and tossed it out. After this thread got started I spoke with them again either sunday or monday both time I stated how I wished I had not tossed out the cache because I would love to rub this in their face now. However I could not go back and retrieve the cache, so now I am stuck trying to defend myself but - at the same time not to bothered by the disbelief either. I must admit that given the same set of circumstanses I probably would wonder myself if the cache ever realy existed. All I can say is that if an attempt was made before hand by local reviewers to go out and verify the cache I would have obliged. If Groundspeak had asked to see a photo of the cache, I would have obliged. Live and learn I guess, I just wish more comunication was made to me by all the parties involved in this cache. It was just such a blindside that I was upset and being upset at the situation did not help my judgement especialy stewing on the fact that it was archived while working friday night I could not wait to get out there and yank the cache. I kind of had this bad attitude about the whole caching business at the time, which did come back to bite me. I should have taken a step back and waited a few days before making a hasty decision. In fact I would love to show all of you the cache (it was pretty cool and turned out great) but thats just my rushing headlong into something without thinking ahead. Link to comment
+Nozzletime Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 My opinion has completely changed. A'Yup. The tide is going out, ain't it? The issue for me is the way the cache was archived, and Groundspeak's response to the appeal. A simple response that it was a form letter, would have nipped this in the bud, or perhaps "Whoops maybe I hit the archive button to fast". Then the letter from Jenn calling him a liar again, and not offering up how she came to this decision. Here is the second responce I got: Super Fly, Hello again. After some investigation, Groundspeak does believe that there is no cache container to be found at all. This cache listing will remain archived and locked. Obviously, your "fun" of listing a cache that is not really there at all is not the way the game of geocaching is supposed to go. Any further antics of this sort from you - under ANY username - will result in a long term loss of site privileges. Regards, ----- Jenn Seva Groundspeak, Inc. The Language of Location http://www.Groundspeak.com I would like to know how Groundspeak came to that decision, and a threat of being banned for appealing the cache being archived. I don't appreciate, Groundspeak calling anyone a liar, and not backing up the claim. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I would like to know how Groundspeak came to that decision... Yep, I'd like to know how they're proving a negative without the admission of the person who didn't place the cache. Link to comment
+Col. Flagg Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I would like to know how Groundspeak came to that decision... Yep, I'd like to know how they're proving a negative without the admission of the person who didn't place the cache. I read that 5 times, and by the end of the 5th, my head hurt so bad i needed two aspirin. I guess it really is time for me to go to bed. Link to comment
+sTeamTraen Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I would like to know how Groundspeak came to that decision...Yep, I'd like to know how they're proving a negative without the admission of the person who didn't place the cache. I think they're going for the balance of probabilities. As others have noted, this is not a legal system, although there are plenty of legal systems where "balance of probabilities" is sufficient to make a decision - not everything, everywhere has to be "beyond a reasonable doubt". (For example, OJ Simpson lost his civil suit for wrongful death on the basis of "balance of probabilities".) When you're running a business and you have customers giving you problems, there comes a time when you have to cut bait. Heck, this isn't even about Groundspeak doing something really drastic like banning the CO. He could replace the cache, take a photo, and either ask for it to be unarchived, or submit another listing. Instead, he's chosen to wallow in the injustice. Even if the cache was indeed there, his reaction has been way out of proportion - he can limit the damage to "my cache was unavailable for ten days due to Groundspeak's actions", and walk away with an "I was wronged by Groundspeak" badge of honour, by resubmitting the cache. If he chooses not to do that, we have to draw our own conclusions. Short of flying the Groundspeak LearJet out to Michigan, they're going to have to go on the placer's past history and information from the local reviewers - whom Groundspeak trust, because they have to. I guess it's possible that 2 or 3 reviewers got together for no good reason and picked on Super Fly because his caches are so fiendish. But if Groundspeak's recruitment procedure for reviewers is so flawed that such a situation were possible, I suspect they'd have a whole lot of other issues coming up, which we're not seeing. Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Anyone can call me a liar anytime they want to. Kewl! I reckon that makes you the most tolerant person I've ever met. Am I free to call you other hateful, slanderous names? (forum guidelines aside, naturally) Or is "Liar" the only vitriolic insult you are willing to accept? Assuming you are being honest, and not just trying to further your argument, do you think that because you are the most tolerant person on the planet that everybody else should adopt your stance on proper etiquette when verbally attacked by a company they support financially? I really hope you're not making the argument that it's OK for Groundspeak to call people liars... When a reviewer has to act on complaints like these, it is truly a delicate situation. Keystone, thank you for your input. Of everyone involved in this game, from the noob seeker lifting his first lamp post kilt, to Jeremy himself, I think the volunteer reviewers have the toughest job. While the rest of us don't get to see all the hustle & bustle that goes on behind the scenes, you guys, (and gals!), are tasked with resolving stuff like this. It can't be pretty. However, I would like to opine that claiming Nomex didn't call Super Fly a liar seems like a dodge. While it's true he didn't use the word "liar", the context of his message was crystal clear. Super Fly says the cache is fine. Nomex says there's been no cache there for months or years. If it walks like a duck... Brother, you know I respect you, and I have nothing but the highest regard for the Lackeys at the Lily Pad who make this game possible, but I gotta disagree with your assessment this time. Nomex called him a liar. As to his comment being a form letter, in your opinion, is that really the case here? With jobs like the Reviewers have, form letters would surely come in handy. I've even seen a few myself over the years. The ones I've seen have all been pretty wordy, conveying volumes of information. At the very least, they've been several sentences long. I imagine that an experienced reviewer probably has several form letters on hand, pretyped, to cover a large number of situations which may come up in their day to day duties. If that's the case, I would think it'd take more time to sort through the form letters, hunting the one you needed, then it would to type out the very brief message Nomex left. If that was a form letter, it seemed pretty tactless under the circumstances. I'm really wanting to believe Groundspeak's side in this issue. While my reply might appear argumentative, allow me to thank you for your calming, effective communication skills. Your demeanor through this has certainly shown me that Groundspeak chose well when they picked you. Don't bother to call me a chicken But I can still call you a liar, right? (Sorry for the O/T... It just struck me as funny) Instead he had hoped that owner contact him with evidence that there was a cache to find. Communication can be a tricky thing. If Nomex wanted proof that the cache was in place, wouldn't it make sense for him to say so in his October 4th disabled cache note? Instead, Nomex starts off by saying this: "This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found." That was the part that first had me scratching my head. Because a cache is not found, a maintenance visit is required? I must've missed that part of the guidelines. Nomex then stated this: "The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either replace it or archive it". Not withstanding the three maintenance visits Super Fly made prior to this incident, (showing that he's a conscientious cache owner), he took time out of his schedule to do exactly what Nomex asked him to do. He checked on his cache. Since it was there, in place, there was no need for him to replace it or archive it. At no point in the post did Nomex even hint that Super Fly should be providing proof that the cache was real. In fact, the only mention of correspondence was a suggestion that Super Fly e-mail him via the link in his profile if he had any questions. Super Fly didn't have any questions, so there would be no need for him to e-mail Nomex. Super Fly was told to check on his cache. Super Fly did just that, based on the only side of this story we're getting. Then his cache was archived. If Nomex really hoped that Super Fly would contact him with proof, why didn't tell him to? He could replace the cache, take a photo, and either ask for it to be unarchived, or submit another listing. You are correct. Knowing the process involved, I imagine Super Fly could replicate this cache in short order. However, it would no longer be a 5/4, which is what he wanted to present to the community. Since he has described, in detail, exactly how the cache was made and hidden, his replicant would be a 1/2 at best. I'm working on what should be a 5/5 by the time it's done. I don't expect it to get a lot of finds. I certainly would not be complacent with any suggestions indicating I should make it a 1/1. Do you own any challenging hides? Would you be willing to dumb them down just to satisfy the curiosity of folks in the forums? Link to comment
+the pooks Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The thought that comes to mind is that it is quite easy to resolve something if all the parties involved WANT to resolve it. One can spend a awful lot of time on technicalities of who should take the initiative towards conciliation, but if it were my cache, I would have taken the intiative and necessary steps to clear the air, not cloud it. I think GS was correct in having suspicions, with all the DNFs. Their archiving does seem a bit harsh and hasty, but as far as I understand archiving always goes with a note (implied or otherwise) that if the owner sorts out the problem then it can always be unarchived. The cache owner had ample opportunity to rectify the situation, but what does he do - he removes all evidence (the cache) in the middle of the night, without any other evidence (photographs, witnesses etc). Now everything he did is technically possible and feasible and allowable but it should not be surprising that the situation has become a lot more dubious and cloudy. I get the impression thre has been too much LOOKING for trouble and conflict instead of LOOKING for solutions. If you look hard enough for trouble, you will find it. Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Communication can be a tricky thing. If Nomex wanted proof that the cache was in place, wouldn't it make sense for him to say so in his October 4th disabled cache note? Instead, Nomex starts off by saying this: "This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found." That was the part that first had me scratching my head. Because a cache is not found, a maintenance visit is required? I must've missed that part of the guidelines. Nomex then stated this: "The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either replace it or archive it". Not withstanding the three maintenance visits Super Fly made prior to this incident, (showing that he's a conscientious cache owner), he took time out of his schedule to do exactly what Nomex asked him to do. He checked on his cache. Since it was there, in place, there was no need for him to replace it or archive it. At no point in the post did Nomex even hint that Super Fly should be providing proof that the cache was real. In fact, the only mention of correspondence was a suggestion that Super Fly e-mail him via the link in his profile if he had any questions. Super Fly didn't have any questions, so there would be no need for him to e-mail Nomex. Super Fly was told to check on his cache. Super Fly did just that, based on the only side of this story we're getting. Then his cache was archived. If Nomex really hoped that Super Fly would contact him with proof, why didn't tell him to? And this is why it's such a hot issue. GS should be able to answer this in a general sense: if someone gets one of these "too many DNFs" reviewer notes on their cache, is a maintenance visit enough or is it implicit that proof needs to be provided? This is relevant and important for us to know, regardless of whether this cache ever existed. Edited November 12, 2009 by Dinoprophet Link to comment
+the pooks Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 <snip> GS should be able to answer this in a general sense: if someone gets one of these "too many DNFs" reviewer notes on their cache, is a maintenance visit enough or is it implicit that proof needs to be provided? This is relevant and important for us to know, regardless of whether this cache ever existed. Good point. Link to comment
+MickEMT Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 GeoBain, I understand why you don't want to post a photo as proof. You have stated that you called a reviewer on the phone. why not just invite a reviewer to the cache site and show him or her the cache. No spoiler, and 100% positive proof of the existance of the cache. Not my cache, not my place to provide any proof. I think you meant to address Super Fly rather than me. Yep, my bad there........................ Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The thought that comes to mind is that it is quite easy to resolve something if all the parties involved WANT to resolve it. One can spend a awful lot of time on technicalities of who should take the initiative towards conciliation, but if it were my cache, I would have taken the intiative and necessary steps to clear the air, not cloud it. I think GS was correct in having suspicions, with all the DNFs. Their archiving does seem a bit harsh and hasty, but as far as I understand archiving always goes with a note (implied or otherwise) that if the owner sorts out the problem then it can always be unarchived. The cache owner had ample opportunity to rectify the situation, but what does he do - he removes all evidence (the cache) in the middle of the night, without any other evidence (photographs, witnesses etc). Now everything he did is technically possible and feasible and allowable but it should not be surprising that the situation has become a lot more dubious and cloudy. I get the impression thre has been too much LOOKING for trouble and conflict instead of LOOKING for solutions. If you look hard enough for trouble, you will find it. You know what, I grow tired of all this "I woulda" crud. You woulda done differently...so what? Do you know what the CO woulda done? I suspect it's what the CO DID. Stop saying that, just because YOU would have done things differently, that is proof the CO is lying...it isn't and has no bearing whatsoever. I say that with all the respect due. If it comes off as harsh, well, look at how your comments come off (and your here doesn't directly speak to the post or poster I chose to make this comment toward). Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I get the impression thre has been too much LOOKING for trouble and conflict instead of LOOKING for solutions. If you look hard enough for trouble, you will find it. I agree. GS could have stomped out this fire with a quick and early response. They could have easily told us why they chose to stand behind someone who called a cacher a liar...and done so without disclosing info which, btw, the CO has already given his permission to disclose (you'll recall someone presumably from GS asked the info be kept secret). All they have done is say they circled the wagons and won't say what proof they have. They haven't even made a complete investigation OR there'd be NO doubt from anyone whether the cache was there or not. Instead, they called him a liar and told him he was on thin ice...and publically at that. To me, an in-deepth investigation would have been to ask a local reviewer to have the CO hold his hand and lead him to the cache...was this done? Then HOW do the PTB KNOW this cache never existed? I wouldn't have asked for pics since pics can be doctored, but having a reviwere visually check would be indisputable...and simple! Now if you think the CO should have taken steps to difuse the situation, how? Obviously, he feels he and his tough hides are being singled out, do you think he has a feeling that he'll get a fair shake in the deal? Whether his perceived "singling out" is true or not, he obviously feels it is so. Now, I don't know whether there ever as a cache or not, that's neither here nor there. I DO know the PTB called him a liar publically and archived a cache for not being found. That's a mighty slippery slope they just stepped onto...isn't it? Link to comment
+the pooks Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 <snip> You know what, I grow tired of all this "I woulda" crud. You woulda done differently...so what? Do you know what the CO woulda done? I suspect it's what the CO DID. Stop saying that, just because YOU would have done things differently, that is proof the CO is lying...it isn't and has no bearing whatsoever. I say that with all the respect due. If it comes off as harsh, well, look at how your comments come off (and your here doesn't directly speak to the post or poster I chose to make this comment toward). As far as I understand people post to these forums to get and give opinions as to what the community thinks about things. The topic was started because someone was dissatisfied with an archiving and he/she wanted to hear what the community thinks. It is on that basis that I gave my opinion. Link to comment
+rovers3 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 CoyoteRed BTW, Sissy has a cache that has been voted "Best Camo" here in SC every year since the start of the contests. It's hard to find if you don't think outside the box and are not observant. If it had not been found right off the bat I'm sure she would have been in the same boat. I wouldn't hesitate to post pictures in order to keep it alive. Even if she said right on the cache page how to find it, it still wouldn't be a P&G simply because of the coolness of it. It's better as a surprise, but better a possible spoiled surprise than no surprise at all. BTW, this cache has stumped quite a few. No telling how many haven't logged their DNFs. Eventually most find it, after all, how hard can finding a S.A.W. ammo can with dead-on coords be? And the one you refer to is a 2.0/1.5 and the one placed by Superfly is a 5.0/4.0 so how much more difficult could it be to find? Link to comment
+alicephilippa Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The forums were better when all analogies were about beans. Yeah, vanilla beans. Don't you mean vanilla pods? Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 <snip> You know what, I grow tired of all this "I woulda" crud. You woulda done differently...so what? Do you know what the CO woulda done? I suspect it's what the CO DID. Stop saying that, just because YOU would have done things differently, that is proof the CO is lying...it isn't and has no bearing whatsoever. I say that with all the respect due. If it comes off as harsh, well, look at how your comments come off (and your here doesn't directly speak to the post or poster I chose to make this comment toward). As far as I understand people post to these forums to get and give opinions as to what the community thinks about things. The topic was started because someone was dissatisfied with an archiving and he/she wanted to hear what the community thinks. It is on that basis that I gave my opinion. As I said, I'm not singling you you, just erferencing the whole "woulda shoulda" with your post. I agree, people should give their opinion, however, many are condemning the CO because they say THEY would have done differently...this is wrong. What you would have done has no bearing on whether the CO is lying or not and should not be a condemnation. Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Is this off-topic post helpful? If you're not enjoying the view, a change is as easy as not opening this thread, my friend! When the person(s) possibly wrong happen to be those who hold the leash AND the issue affects others, people tend to need to discuss the matter. Edited November 12, 2009 by Rockin Roddy Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. From owner's 11/5/2009 log: I think that the decision to archive this cache is wrong. I would like for anyone to point me to the rules of geocaching that state the length of time a cache has been unfound before it is archived. Now I need to pull this one out and find a new home for it. He does seem to have a hard time keeping his story straight. Hmmmm. The new home for the cache that I was refering to was the trash and thats exactly where it went. I was on your side, my friend, but now I have to call "bull". You're losing us. Quickly. You spent a year and a half constructing this cache (of which I am rather skeptical after having done some pretty good "in front of your nose" caches myself that took no more than a couple of weeks), and then you trashed it, just like that, and have NO pictures of it that you could post here? Dude... I don't know how much you know about these forums, but I am agreeing with Bittsen here. Buy a lottery ticket. I really wanted to believe you. In fact, I DID believe you. This entire thread only merely strengthens my devout belief that Groundspeak uses the services of remote viewers to list caches. Edited November 12, 2009 by 4wheelin_fool Link to comment
+geodarts Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I know we have been reminded that it is not a matter of criminal law, but sometimes the analogy can be useful. The issue at this point is not one of guilt or innocence. I know that guilt is the sexy issue that people want to resolve, but that decision was already made by Groundspeak. We might all have different opinions about it, but it will not be resolved on this forum. The cache cannot be replaced without completely changing the nature of the hide. We do not have to agree on whether the cache was there or whether the owner is a nice guy or if he is a person who tends to react hastily and say things off the top of his head. As a post-conviction attorney, I would frame the issue in terms of due process. That is the one issue that could be resolved by Groundspeak through this forum. The CO states that he was never contacted by Groundspeak with their specific concerns. We have received one posting by Miss Jenn, which did not say that they contacted the cache owner with their questions and that he either ignored them or wrote back an angry response that contained no further information. That kind of information can be provided without implicating any privacy interest, which has been waived here in any event. The question remains whether Groundspeak archived and investigated the issue without providing the cache owner any more information than what has been posted here. If they did not, then I do not know how they could have reached a decision and Groundspeak should revise its policy to require communication with the cache owner in these situations. If they did, then the issue is settled and we can all go back to finding caches. Link to comment
Motorcycle_Mama Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 But they did provide information on the cache page with a note indicating that the cache owner could go through the appeal process if they cache owner wished. At this point, the information would have been exchanged between the cache owner and Groundspeak. It seems that the cache owner chose not to avail himself of that process. Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 But they did provide information on the cache page with a note indicating that the cache owner could go through the appeal process if they cache owner wished. At this point, the information would have been exchanged between the cache owner and Groundspeak. It seems that the cache owner chose not to avail himself of that process. Sorry, I thought I read the owner DID go through the appeals process? Are you meaning before or after Miss Jenn's note which also slapped his wrist while backing the liar claim? Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) But they did provide information on the cache page with a note indicating that the cache owner could go through the appeal process if they cache owner wished. At this point, the information would have been exchanged between the cache owner and Groundspeak. It seems that the cache owner chose not to avail himself of that process. I don't see that note, unless Geo-Trails is a reviewer (I don't know). In any case, according to posts 86-88, Super Fly did follow this process. He stopped after Jenn's note. So the question remains: what is a cacher supposed to do upon getting one of these reviewer notes? Edited November 12, 2009 by Dinoprophet Link to comment
Recommended Posts