+Bundyrumandcoke Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 This discussion has been interesting, and more than a little disturbing. Lets hope its not a sign of the future. I recently noted some caches on my watchlist recieving reviewer notes requesting the owners check on them, as they had been disabled for quite a while (more than a month) This has happened a couple of times in the last year or so. It was done by an unknown to us, overseas reviewer. Australia only had 3 reviewers, and I am pretty sure one recently retired. I had a cache that for reasons that were unavoidable, I couldnt get replaced for a while. It had been disabled for about 2 months, but I had every intention of getting it back up and running. I got in first, placing a "Yes, it will be replaced" log before any reviewer note was posted. But what concerns me is, I have a 5/5 cache I co-own with another cacher. It has been found, but not successfully opened or logged. I hope it doesnt get archived because of all the DNFs, because I have a lot of time, and money, invested in the cache container. Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) yet I bet that dozens of easy to find caches are archived every year under questionable circumstances... I know you've been playing this game longer than I have, but I'm not seeing what you are claiming. In just under 5 years, every single Groundspeak based archival I've seen has been entirely supported by the guidelines. While I have seen a few unpopular archivals, such as some virts and some Ape caches, in each of those cases Groundspeak followed established protocol. Now it seems they've thrown protocol to the winds by supporting the archival of a cache with an active, guideline compliant owner. It certainly gives the impression that Groundspeak will defend their reviewers, even when they act unjustly. This is what I don't get about this whole thread. You just admitted here that Groundspeak has always seemed to be fair in the past. We all know that when someone comes in here and complains about other cachers or Groundspeak, 99% of the time there is something they've left out and/or are lying about. If that is the case, then I would tend to put my faith in believing that there are things going on here that I don't understand, and rather than believing some cacher that I've never heard of before, I'm going to believe Groundspeak, who have always held up their end. I'm not saying that everyone's perfect, and that Groundspeak doesn't make mistakes, but I'm going to go with what seems logical, given what they've shown in the past 9 years. I guess people are thinking in this case that nothing seems to have shown this person to be of questionable moral character, but that is a small factor at best. We still don't know the whole story, how long things may have been going on, and how many people in that community that may be upset. And Groundspeak shouldn't have to bring all that up. We should trust them when they infer that there is something more going on here, because we know their track record and we don't know this cacher's. No matter how many times in the past a thread like this has come up, and we've super-analyzed what the complainer said, and it seems like it's some horrible thing, all it takes is for one person to come in and tell the other side and suddenly it all comes clear and the seemingly unfixable complaint is made transparent. In this case, we're not hearing the other side, but it seems that there is one. If we have no idea what that other side is, but we're being assured that there is one by someone we've know to be overall fair in their dealings for 9 years, I will have to trust that they are being truthful. Otherwise, I'm not being logical and faithful, and siding with someone I don't know from Adam. I just don't get that. Groundspeak has always seemed to me to be run by people who love this game/sport/adventure, who try to be fair and do the best thing they can in each situation, and genuinely like and have fun with the cachers who share this site with them. Even if there's some things in this situation that seem odd, I'm going to have to believe that there are things going on that I don't know about, and as this is their site and they've decided that it isn't appropriate to share all the details, I feel that should be the end of that. And since this is an anomaly, compared to other archivals in the past, I don't get why people are running around saying the sky is falling and that the future is dire, etc. I've been quite surprised at some regular posters in here, who normally seem to be pretty clear thinkers, who are now throwing things out of proportion. Um, I think that everyone needs to take a deep breath, let it out, and then get outside in the fresh air and find a cache (I know that some of you have been caching during this whole thing, so please take that advice in the spirit that it was given) . edit: a couple words for clarity. Edited November 14, 2009 by Ambrosia Link to comment
+briansnat Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) This discussion has been interesting, and more than a little disturbing. Lets hope its not a sign of the future. I recently noted some caches on my watchlist recieving reviewer notes requesting the owners check on them, as they had been disabled for quite a while (more than a month) This has happened a couple of times in the last year or so. It was done by an unknown to us, overseas reviewer. Australia only had 3 reviewers, and I am pretty sure one recently retired. I had a cache that for reasons that were unavoidable, I couldnt get replaced for a while. It had been disabled for about 2 months, but I had every intention of getting it back up and running. I got in first, placing a "Yes, it will be replaced" log before any reviewer note was posted. But what concerns me is, I have a 5/5 cache I co-own with another cacher. It has been found, but not successfully opened or logged. I hope it doesnt get archived because of all the DNFs, because I have a lot of time, and money, invested in the cache container. Again,I don't get the Chicken Little mentality here. One instance does not make a trend. If many difficult to find caches were archived I'd see a reason for concern, but this is an isolated case with specific circumstances. It has been a long standing practice for reviewers to post notes requesting that owners check on caches that have been unfound for some time, or disabled for more than a few weeks. Some reviewers are more diligent about it than others, but there is nothing new about the practice. Edited November 14, 2009 by briansnat Link to comment
+nittany dave Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I agree with Ambrosia. In the instances that I recall, when the other side of the story, or the additional facts were finally presented, "suddenly it all comes clear and the seemingly unfixable complaint is made transparent". But in THIS case we're not getting the other side. I want to believe GS because I love this game. I don't like to think that they would archive a cache because it hasn't been found and/or local reviewers have a personal issue with a cacher, or are just backing a bad decision (we need instant replay!) but without the other side of the story, those of us without complete and unwavering faith in the lily pad are left wondering. Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) I agree with Ambrosia. In the instances that I recall, when the other side of the story, or the additional facts were finally presented, "suddenly it all comes clear and the seemingly unfixable complaint is made transparent". But in THIS case we're not getting the other side. I want to believe GS because I love this game. I don't like to think that they would archive a cache because it hasn't been found and/or local reviewers have a personal issue with a cacher, or are just backing a bad decision (we need instant replay!) but without the other side of the story, those of us without complete and unwavering faith in the lily pad are left wondering. Except, in most every case, the CO intentionally leaves out important info that GS happily discloses and the whole thing goes away. In this case, the CO discloses all that he says he has except what GS has asked him to keep private...the CO said they could disclose it and yet GS has not. Seems to me, they use the trump card when needed in those other cases, but hide behind protecting the CO when denying disclosure of this important info. Sure the CO could disclose it if he chose to, but that would likely be the end of his use of this site. And since GS has been given permission, they very well could disclose and put this fire out (assuming it gives the proof we desire)...and this would be in their best interest, so why haven't they? As has been said the onus is on GS, they made the public announcement that SF was lying, where's the proof. And no, they don't have to prove anything, but then we're right where we are now. Since I've noted at least one thread directly related to the concerns in this thread as well as a few cachers who have concern which could sway them to move to another site, maybe GS might decide to speak up? Losing business is bad no matter how many or few, and we all know that the few often speak out and then they turn into a few more and on down the road... Edited November 14, 2009 by Rockin Roddy Link to comment
+Col. Flagg Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 As has been said the onus is on GS, they made the public announcement that SF was lying, where's the proof. Can we get something straight, as this thread keeps heading down the tracks toward oblivion? Groundspeak never publicly called SuperFly a liar. SuperFly created that illusion when he posted the correspondence from Groundspeak, which incidentally, never used the word liar. It simply stated they believed there was never a cache placed in the location listed. You are perpetuating that illusion for whatever reasons or devices you so choose. Furthermore, we only have access to what SuperFly "says" he has. Who knows if the text of the documents he says he has are accurate? Only Groundspeak does, and we have no right to demand to see their information. The most troubling thing about this thread, is that all of you would rather be in here whining and moaning about a cache nowhere near you that had a non-precedent setting action taken against it. For 11 pages. Why don't you all get up, grab your GPS, and go get some caches? Or are you all having too much fun playing Chicken Little? /"The sky is falling the sky is falling!" Link to comment
+briansnat Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Except, in most every case, the CO intentionally leaves out important info that GS happily discloses and the whole thing goes away I've rarely seen Groundspeak step in to disclose information. Sometimes the reviewer involved does, but it is usually when he feels a need to address an attack on his integrity. As has been said the onus is on GS, they made the public announcement that SF was lying, where's the proof. I don't think it's possible for Groundspeak to prove the CO was lying, unless the CO told them he was. They made decision based on reasoning that they won't disclose, but considering that archiving this cache brought them no benefit (and quite a bit of flak), I have to believe they had the best interests of sport at heart when making their decision. The CO on the other hand has throughout this thread told contradictory stories, made wild accusations and some of his claims seem pretty far fetched. If anybody owes an explanation I think it might be the CO. Edited November 14, 2009 by briansnat Link to comment
+redsox_mark Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 You can call me naïve, but my starting position is to assume both sides have tried to do the right thing. - A reviewer/Groundspeak would not have taken this action unless they felt there was good reason to believe the cache wasn’t really there. - The cache owner actually did hide the cache, it was there. Now, none of us know for sure: - Did the reviewer/Groundspeak have “good enough” reason to take this action? As has been said, it is impossible to prove a cache doesn’t exist. If a CO was making a mockery of the system by posting fake caches, then it is right that reviewer/Groundspeak take action. (I am not saying the CO was doing this, but if one did…) We don’t know exactly what evidence they based their decision on, and probably never will. It appears there is some history with this CO and the local reviewers; this likely had influence on their decision. Whether it is right or wrong, I assume the Reviewer/Groundspeak must have had reasons not to trust the CO. - Did the cache exist? Again I would like to think that yes, it did. But it is possible that as a result of the “history” with the local reviewers that the CO purposely posted a cache that never existed. I see 2 main themes in this thread: 1. The testimony of the participants in this “case”, and our personal judgements (do we believe the CO or not?). If the CO did plant the cache, I feel bad for him. But nothing any of us can do about this. 2. Questions about the general process, and fear of precedent. Is it policy to archive caches just because they have not been found for a period of time? Or because of a number of DNFs? Again we don’t know for sure; but it seems to me there is no such policy. If a Reviewer believes a cache doesn’t exist, and the CO is acting maliciously, then they need to archive it. I don’t think this case means all good Cache Owners should fear their difficult caches being archived. I assume (hope) that cases of this kind are very rare. Link to comment
+KBI Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 They made decision based on reasoning that they won't disclose, but considering that archiving this cache brought them no benefit (and quite a bit of flak), I have to believe they had the best interests of sport at heart when making their decision. The CO on the other hand has throughout this thread told contradictory stories, made wild accusations and some of his claims seem pretty far fetched. If anybody owes an explanation I think it might be the CO. Exactly. Link to comment
+KBI Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Here is a question to all the conspiracy theorists out there: If Groundspeak is truly the bad guy here, and if TPTB have chosen to abandon fairness in order to protect their own, then why are they allowing this thread to remain open? Many clear violations of forum rule have been posted in this thread. Many threads in the past have been summarily shut down over lesser infractions. If Groundspeak has chosen favoritism and corruption over fairness and justice, as has been alleged, then it seems to me that it would be an easy thing for them to justify quashing this debate in the forums. So why haven’t they closed this thread? Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 So why haven’t they closed this thread? When you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything? Link to comment
+KBI Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Let's look at what we know for sure: (1) Groundspeak has a long and proven track record of being very fair, very evenhanded and very reasonable. I don’t thing you will find many experienced cachers, if any, who will debate this premise. (2) This is a unique, isolated incident. I agree with Briansnat here. Nobody seems to be arguing this point, and no similar incidents have been presented which might indicate a trend. (3) Groundspeak has taken a PR beating as a result of this scandal. The known details make it easy to interpret Groundspeak as having circled the wagons around a bad decision and hidden behind a veil of silence, as if anxiously hoping the controversy will go away. Many respected forum regulars are calling out TPTB and demanding explanations. Some newer members are re-thinking their decisions to become premium members, if their posts are to be believed. Groundspeak’s silence, in other words, is making Groundspeak look very, very bad. Given these premises it is my conclusion – or theory, if you prefer – that Groundspeak most likely did the right thing here, as usual, and they have further judged that the details of this particular case are of such a sensitive nature that the results of making them public would be worse than the potential cost to their well-established reputation for fairness. Why would they be worse? I don’t know – and neither does anyone else, which is apparently the point. All I know is that my theory is the only one which seems consistent with all the known data. Whenever any controversy has flared up in the past which might have at first caused Groundspeak, or its employees or volunteers, to appear to be unreasonable, it has, in my experience, always turned out that there was much more to the story. Once both sides were known, Groundspeak has always proven to have been consistently fair. What reason do we have to suspect that that is not the case here? Individual players are not always happy with Groundspeak’s actions of course, but that is to be expected. I am very happy with the consistent and equitable way in which this website has always been run. And I have seen no reason to cause me to question whether that is the case now. If I truly suspected otherwise I would be happy to say so. Those who are familiar with my postings know that I am not shy about expressing or defending a controversial opinion. I remain convinced – until I see compelling evidence to the contrary – that Groundspeak was very fair in the handling of this cache listing, and that they have chosen to risk a damaging knock to their reputation rather than take whatever risk they presumably see in releasing the relevant details. Edited November 14, 2009 by KBI Link to comment
+KBI Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 So why haven’t they closed this thread? When you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything? "Don't say anything" is what they are doing already, so that doesn't answer my question. My question: Why haven’t they closed this thread? Link to comment
+Team Cotati Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Yeah, where the reviewer is isn't a problem. The fact that the CO went out and checked on it as requested and the listing was archived anyway is a bit more unsettling. I'd be interested in hearing the whole story. Me too. "This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found." Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 My question: Why haven’t they closed this thread? Because that would produce the opportunity for someone to say something to the effect of "we were discussing why a popular cache would archived by an out-of-town reviewer when they just shut it down. Do they have something to hide?" Shutting the thread would be a no-win for them. They'd just rather let it go and hope the pro-Groundspeak side makes good arguments. Link to comment
+Team Cotati Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 My question: Why haven’t they closed this thread? Because that would produce the opportunity for someone to say something to the effect of "we were discussing why a popular cache would archived by an out-of-town reviewer when they just shut it down. Do they have something to hide?" Shutting the thread would be a no-win for them. They'd just rather let it go and hope the pro-Groundspeak side makes good arguments. Considering exactly who and what Groundspeak is, what is it that they are 'winning'? And further, why would such a 'win' be important to them, you know, in the grand scheme of things? Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Considering exactly who and what Groundspeak is, what is it that they are 'winning'? And further, why would such a 'win' be important to them, you know, in the grand scheme of things? I thought it was obvious, the best damage control is allow the thread to stay open, allow the CO to dug a deeper hole, and hope pro-Groundspeak folks argue better than the other side. If they had shut it down well before the CO had made certain statements it would have looked like GS was being heavy handed. Now, it doesn't hurt them in the least to allow it stay open. Link to comment
+Team Cotati Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Considering exactly who and what Groundspeak is, what is it that they are 'winning'? And further, why would such a 'win' be important to them, you know, in the grand scheme of things? I thought it was obvious, the best damage control is allow the thread to stay open, allow the CO to dug a deeper hole, and hope pro-Groundspeak folks argue better than the other side. If they had shut it down well before the CO had made certain statements it would have looked like GS was being heavy handed. Now, it doesn't hurt them in the least to allow it stay open. Groundspeak being affected or 'hurt' by closing this or any other thread is pure fanciful speculation with no basis in fact. That they would concern themselves to that degree is quite far fetched. And I for one simply do not believe it. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Here's another thing that has me curious. It most likely is because some caches are muggled before ever being found, I'm sure, but still curious. From Nomex's log: This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found. The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either replace it or archive it, after picking up any geo-litter. Why no possibility that it's still there? The only two choices that is allowed is replacement and archival. We've checked on some of our caches a few times when DNFs pop up and neither choice was proper as the cache was still there. However, he leaves the possibility that the cache did, at one time, exist when he suggests picking up any geo-litter. Is this simply a curious choice of wording or had Nomex come into the situation with the notion the cache was not in the wild? Link to comment
+KBI Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Considering exactly who and what Groundspeak is, what is it that they are 'winning'? And further, why would such a 'win' be important to them, you know, in the grand scheme of things? I thought it was obvious, the best damage control is allow the thread to stay open, allow the CO to dug a deeper hole, and hope pro-Groundspeak folks argue better than the other side. If they had shut it down well before the CO had made certain statements it would have looked like GS was being heavy handed. Now, it doesn't hurt them in the least to allow it stay open. My point exactly. They can lock down this debate whenever they please. The continued existence of this thread tells me that the website owners are confident in the appropriateness of their decision. And it tells me that there is no nervous cover-up circle-the-wagons secret conspiracy. Link to comment
+Wooden Cyclist Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 As has been said the onus is on GS, they made the public announcement that SF was lying, where's the proof. Can we get something straight, as this thread keeps heading down the tracks toward oblivion? Groundspeak never publicly called SuperFly a liar. SuperFly created that illusion when he posted the correspondence from Groundspeak, which incidentally, never used the word liar. It simply stated they believed there was never a cache placed in the location listed. You are perpetuating that illusion for whatever reasons or devices you so choose. Furthermore, we only have access to what SuperFly "says" he has. Who knows if the text of the documents he says he has are accurate? Only Groundspeak does, and we have no right to demand to see their information. The most troubling thing about this thread, is that all of you would rather be in here whining and moaning about a cache nowhere near you that had a non-precedent setting action taken against it. For 11 pages. Why don't you all get up, grab your GPS, and go get some caches? Or are you all having too much fun playing Chicken Little? /"The sky is falling the sky is falling!" You seem to be in here whining and moaning also. Try taking your own advice. /"Don't worry, all is well. Someone else is always looking out for my best interest"/ Link to comment
+uxorious Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Can we get something straight, as this thread keeps heading down the tracks toward oblivion? Groundspeak never publicly called SuperFly a liar. Let's get this straight, Nomex most certainly did, in effect, call SuperFly a liar in a public format. You do not have to use the word liar to call someone one. After SuperFly posted he had checked and the cache was still there, Nomex posted "As there's been no cache to find for months/years,". If he had not added the word "years' which is not in the standard form letter he used in other cache notes, I would just assume it was a mistake. However, by adding that word on this archival, Nomex did in fact tell the caching world he believed SuperFly to be a liar. To me this is the disturbing part of the matter. The reviewers should keep their personal opinion out of a place where others are not allowed to discuss them. Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Let's look at what we know for sure: (1) Groundspeak has a long and proven track record of being very fair, very evenhanded and very reasonable. I don’t thing you will find many experienced cachers, if any, who will debate this premise. The guidelines have a long and proven track record of being obtuse and difficult to parse. Groundspeak and the reviewers have a private forum where interpretation of the guidelines may be discussed. Often the first regular geocachers hear about some of these interpretations is when someone comes to the forum to complain their cache has been denied or archived. The reviewers tend to use canned notes when posting on the cache pages. Cache owners who are not familiar with the subtleties of the guidelines are often confused by these notes. They take the action they believe they are supposed to take the rectify the problem and often find out later this was not the action the reviewer intended. (2) This is a unique, isolated incident. I agree with Briansnat here. Nobody seems to be arguing this point, and no similar incidents have been presented which might indicate a trend. This is not a unique incident. Frequently people post to the forums complaining they haven't been treated fairly. We have no idea how many appeal without posting the forum or how many feel they were treated unfairly but decide not to appeal at all. The particular instance here (whether or not there was ever a cache to find) is likely pretty rare. So we probably haven't seen it come to the forum before. My guess is that in most other cases the owner contacted the reviewer and found out just what was required to prove the existence of the cache. In this case the cache owner (confused by an unclear reviewer note) simply posted that he checked on the cache and it was in place. That clearly didn't satisfy the reviewer. (3) Groundspeak has taken a PR beating as a result of this scandal. The known details make it easy to interpret Groundspeak as having circled the wagons around a bad decision and hidden behind a veil of silence, as if anxiously hoping the controversy will go away. Many respected forum regulars are calling out TPTB and demanding explanations. Some newer members are re-thinking their decisions to become premium members, if their posts are to be believed. Groundspeak’s silence, in other words, is making Groundspeak look very, very bad. Sometimes Groundspeak only finds out that the guidelines need clarification or that reviewer need guidance in handling certain cases when there is an outcry in the forums. I don't expect Groundspeak to comment on this specific case. I do expect there will be guideline changes or a clarification from MissJenn on how difficult caches that never get found are to be handled if there is a suspicion that there may not be a cache at all. Link to comment
+bittsen Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 KBI, I would doubt that the GS reviewers involved with straightening things out if they were in the wrong. It's too late for them to be able to say "oops, we made a mistake". They won't confirm or deny that they did anything wrong, and won't support their position with any facts. This leads me to believe that you are looking at GS with rose colored glasses. Just saying Briansnat. Unfortunately, your position as a member of the GS staff leads many to feel that you would back them up whether or not they are in the wrong. Because of this, your opinion to support their decision by continually stating that we may not know everything (ironic because that's what we all are saying) doesn't hold much in the way of satisfying our need to know the facts. We all know that the tendency to not bite the hand that feeds you is paramount to any unbiased opinion. It is exactly this type of situation that made me resign as a moderator on a forum I once belonged to. I would not fall in line with the forum owner taking personal issues with some of the forum members. When I thought a moderator (in this case it would be a reviewer) was in the wrong, I wouldn't support them. I was honest with the members and that was unacceptable. Again, although you might believe that GS didn't do anything wrong, the position you hold will cause your opinion to be dismissed. My issues with this situation are that a GS reviewer called the CO a liar, publicly. The reviewer said to check the cache "ASAP" which indicated an urgency for checking. Why so urgent? The says he checked the cache, per guidelines and requests, and all was OK with the cache. The cache was archived despite the assurances of the CO. This is the part that I want cleared up. If the CO says he checked the cache, why is he being called a liar? What crystal ball does Nomex, who is thousands of miles away, have to check that caches don't exist? Link to comment
+slumbersix Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) deleting. should not have gotten involved in this thread. Edited November 14, 2009 by slumbersix Link to comment
+bittsen Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Edited to remove a previous posters comments at the posters request. Edited November 14, 2009 by bittsen Link to comment
+firennice Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) All the other threads went poof... so this one should as well. Edited November 14, 2009 by firennice Link to comment
+slumbersix Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 And this proves?? Quite frankly, I have a very hard time following posts, or logs, with bad grammar, spelling, etc. Without a proper sentence structure, one has to guess at what the meaning is within the message. If I am reading the logs correctly, it looks "strange" bt possibly explainable. I've deleted my post, if you could edit your post to exclude my past reply, I would appreciate it. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Briansnat. Unfortunately, your position as a member of the GS staff leads many to feel that you would back them up whether or not they are in the wrong. I have disagreed with Groundspeak in these forums before and if I think they are in the wrong, will do so again. I'm a site volunteer, not a zombie. Link to comment
+Team Noodles Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Yeah, where the reviewer is isn't a problem. The fact that the CO went out and checked on it as requested and the listing was archived anyway is a bit more unsettling. I'd be interested in hearing the whole story. thats funny. Link to comment
+bittsen Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Briansnat, I did not mean to imply that you would not disagree, publicly or otherwise, with GS. I merely meant to imply that it could be seen that way. Edited November 14, 2009 by bittsen Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) As has been said the onus is on GS, they made the public announcement that SF was lying, where's the proof. Can we get something straight, as this thread keeps heading down the tracks toward oblivion? Groundspeak never publicly called SuperFly a liar. SuperFly created that illusion when he posted the correspondence from Groundspeak, which incidentally, never used the word liar. It simply stated they believed there was never a cache placed in the location listed. You are perpetuating that illusion for whatever reasons or devices you so choose. Furthermore, we only have access to what SuperFly "says" he has. Who knows if the text of the documents he says he has are accurate? Only Groundspeak does, and we have no right to demand to see their information. The most troubling thing about this thread, is that all of you would rather be in here whining and moaning about a cache nowhere near you that had a non-precedent setting action taken against it. For 11 pages. Why don't you all get up, grab your GPS, and go get some caches? Or are you all having too much fun playing Chicken Little? /"The sky is falling the sky is falling!" Yes, CAN we get one thing straight...they called him a liar in a public place, the cache page. Not one soul said they called him a liar in here. Is this as straight as you wanted? As for the sky falling part, if you don't wish to participate in this thread, the exit is pretty simple to find, please stop trying to derail. You might also take a look and note I am not far from the cache in question...where do you live?? Edited November 14, 2009 by Rockin Roddy Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 We all know that when someone comes in here and complains about other cachers or Groundspeak, 99% of the time there is something they've left out and/or are lying about. Hi Ambrisia! Excellent point. I brought it up earlier that there have been times when a cacher has come to the forums ranting and raving about how the "evil" Groundspeak refuses to publish their cache. Several posters side with the raver, bunches more side with Groundspeak, then a reviewer posts something to the effect of, "Your friendly local reviewer posted a note to your cache page telling you your hide is too close to an existing one." We all get a good chuckle at the raver's expense, and the thread dies a natural death. Under those circumstances, the privacy of the raver seems less important than the fact he was wrong, and he was besmirching Groundspeak. Why is this incident being treated differently than all the other ravers? Heck, in this incident, the CO waived any privacy concerns, giving Groundspeak the perfect opportunity to shut him up, if he was in the wrong. When this thread first started, that's what I expected to happen. But the wagons have been firmly circled, the troops are entrenched, and no one from on high is saying a thing. We should trust them when they infer that there is something more going on here, because we know their track record and we don't know this cacher's. Has Groundspeak made such an inference? Keystone mentioned that Super Fly didn't post the entire E-mail that Miss Jenn sent him in reply to his appeal. Is that the inference you are talking about? I'm not sure that equates that there is more going on here than meets the eye. Did Super Fly leave something telling out of the E-mail, or did he just cut off all the header/footer stuff? Either case could have resulted in Keystone mentioning that the E-mail was incomplete. Personally, under the circumstances, I think some clarification is warranted. Groundspeak has always seemed to me to be run by people who love this game/sport/adventure, who try to be fair and do the best thing they can in each situation, and genuinely like and have fun with the cachers who share this site with them. Agreed absolutely. Groundspeak management, its Lackeys and its volunteer reviewers work magic every day, so that the rest of us can play. As I am totally addicted to this game, I can't thank them enough for what they do. Does that mean that I think all of them are infallible? Of course not. With the possible exception of a few who have been described as angelic, I think that most of them are human, and at least somewhat capable of error. Judging by what Nomex posted to the cache page, it sure looks like an error may have been made. "This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found" Nomex cited the maintenance guideline. I've read the cited guideline. I even copy/pasted it into this thread. There is noting in the maintenance guideline that even suggests that a cache not being found requires a maintenance visit. From an outsider's perspective, it sure looks like Nomex went off the reservation on that one. Then he archived the cache after the CO did exactly what he asked him to do. Another trip off the reservation? Nomex's actions would make sense if he knew the CO lied. Did he know that? If so, how did he determine that? I realize that I am but a lowly player, and Groundspeak is in no way subject to my whims, but since Nomex decided to make a very public, very negative comment about the CO, it would sure ease my mind to know what is going on here. And since this is an anomaly, compared to other archivals in the past, I don't get why people are running around saying the sky is falling and that the future is dire, etc. I've been quite surprised at some regular posters in here, who normally seem to be pretty clear thinkers, who are now throwing things out of proportion. Because they are worried. Worried people sometimes act like that. From their perspective, Groundspeak archived an existing cache, hidden by an active and compliant hider. That's enough to worry even the most stalwart cacher. Most, (if not all), of the folks posting to this thread, on both sides of this issue, are active, compliant players. We recognize that what is done once can easily be done again. You mention that this is an anomaly, and you are right. It is. This is certainly not the norm. Could this be the start of a new trend? It has been a long standing practice for reviewers to post notes requesting that owners check on caches that have been unfound for some time, or disabled for more than a few weeks. Really? I wasn't aware of that. I know I've seen many reviewer notes posted to caches which have reported maintenance issues or have been disabled for a while, but I have never seen a reviewer note demanding a maintenance visit for the sole reason that a cache has not been found. Can you cite any examples of such a reviewer note being posted to an existing cache with no posted NMs or SBAs, just because it has not been found in some hypothetical and arbitrary time period? In the case of this cache, what would be the point? Obviously, Nomex was going to archive the listing no matter what Super Fly did, (as evidenced by the fact that his archival occurred after the CO did precisely what he was asked to do), so why bother posting the note? Just to make Super Fly waste his time, gas and effort? My intemperate thoughts: If I were a reviewer and I developed a belief that a cacher had lied to the community by submitting a cache that did not exist, I would disable the listing and ask that cacher to demonstrate their hide to me. If they refused, the cache would get archived. If they complied, the listing would immediately be reactivated. Was this done? It doesn't look like it. If I, as that local reviewer, were afraid that such action might result in the cacher targeting me, or my hides, I might very well ask for some outside assistance. If I were that outside assistance, after being briefed by the locals on what they believed, I would disable the listing, asking that the CO send me evidence that the cache existed. If they refused, the cache would get archived. If they complied, the listing would immediately be reactivated. Was this done? It doesn't look like it. From here in the cheap seats, it looks like the outside assistance asked that the CO check his cache. The CO checked his cache. Then it was archived anyway. Groundspeak never publicly called SuperFly a liar. I hope you are not arguing that someone must use the term "liar", to qualify as questioning someone's integrity. Super Fly said his cache was there. An agent of Groundspeak said it hasn't been there in months/years. Looks like they called him a liar to me. Groundspeak's decision not to use the term "liar" does not mean they didn't call SF a liar. Unless we're delving into Clintonesque definitions, such as what "Is" is? Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Here is a question to all the conspiracy theorists out there: If Groundspeak is truly the bad guy here, and if TPTB have chosen to abandon fairness in order to protect their own, then why are they allowing this thread to remain open? Many clear violations of forum rule have been posted in this thread. All I can offer are my observations/guesses: 1 ) I haven't seen any conspiracy theorists in this thread. I have seen several people posting what they believe to be legitimate concerns. 2 ) I haven't seen any TOU violations during this thread. Quite the contrary. Even those who adamantly disagree with Groundspeak have been pretty darn civil. The only people I've seen being slightly antagonistic are those who side with TPTB, making belittling comments such as: "The Sky Is Falling" and "Conspiracy Theorists" Perhaps the general civility of those who are questioning Groundspeak is the reason this one has stayed open? Link to comment
+SunshineGang Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Seriously some people really need to drop the whole Liar Claim. GC.com reviewer disputed SF's claim... It is a bit of a stretch to say that SF was called a liar For example If I post that the sun is green and Joe Cacher posts "No the sun is yellow" did Joe Cacher just called me a liar, or might you say that they simply disputed or disagreed with me. CONCLUSION GC.com (or it's representatives) DID NOT call SF a liar Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Nice dodge. If you post, as a fact, that the sun is green. Then I post, as a fact, that the sun is yellow, only one of us can be correct. If your posted "facts" are not factual, you have lied. If you posted your opinion that the sun was green and I opined it was yellow, that would be a dispute. Link to comment
+BadAndy Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Nice dodge. If you post, as a fact, that the sun is green. Then I post, as a fact, that the sun is yellow, only one of us can be correct. If your posted "facts" are not factual, you have lied. If you posted your opinion that the sun was green and I opined it was yellow, that would be a dispute. Actually... It can only be a lie is I knew my posted "fact" was untrue. If I were colorblind but believed the sun to be green and I am wrong...than I'm simply misinformed. Link to comment
+ace862 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Seriously some people really need to drop the whole Liar Claim. GC.com reviewer disputed SF's claim... It is a bit of a stretch to say that SF was called a liar For example If I post that the sun is green and Joe Cacher posts "No the sun is yellow" did Joe Cacher just called me a liar, or might you say that they simply disputed or disagreed with me. CONCLUSION GC.com (or it's representatives) DID NOT call SF a liar You're absolutely right. They never actually said SF was a liar. They did however certainly infer that he was lying. And when SF posted the email from Groundspeak, it certainly confirmed that that is what they were inferring. SF was asked to check on his cache. He said he did and that the cache was there and was all good. The reviewer then came back and said since there had not been a cache there for months/years, it was now archived. So why did the reviewer disagree with SF when he said there was a cache there? Did he simply think that SF was just mistaken or misinformed? Unfortunately the logical assumption is the reviewer believed SF was lying. Was there a cache there or wasn't there? At this point I don't think we'll ever know for sure. However I think the more diplomatic approach would have been to say, "Thank you for checking on your cache. Unfortunately I believe there may still be some issue with it. I am going to archive this cache until they can be resolved. Please contact me at ..." Had things gone that way, I don't think we would be reading this thread right now. Link to comment
+spektrum2 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Actually... It can only be a lie is I knew my posted "fact" was untrue. If I were colorblind but believed the sun to be green and I am wrong...than I'm simply misinformed. And that Dear ones is the loop that this thread is stuck in. Link to comment
knowschad Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Again,I don't get the Chicken Little mentality here. One instance does not make a trend. If many difficult to find caches were archived I'd see a reason for concern, but this is an isolated case with specific circumstances. It has been a long standing practice for reviewers to post notes requesting that owners check on caches that have been unfound for some time, or disabled for more than a few weeks. Some reviewers are more diligent about it than others, but there is nothing new about the practice. To paraprhase your post, Brian, Again,I don't get the Chicken Little mentality here. One instance does not make a trend. If many cache owners were portrayed as liars I'd see a reason for concern, but this is an isolated case with specific circumstances. It has been a long standing practice for reviewers to post notes requesting that owners check on caches that have been unfound for some time, or disabled for more than a few weeks, but this is the first time that we have seen one archived even after that was supposedly done. Link to comment
knowschad Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 My point exactly. They can lock down this debate whenever they please. Oh yeah... THAT would make it go away, now, wouldn't it? Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 If I were colorblind but believed the sun to be green and I am wrong...than I'm simply misinformed. And that Dear ones is the loop that this thread is stuck in. So... Nomex was misinformed? Link to comment
knowschad Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) Seriously some people really need to drop the whole Liar Claim. GC.com reviewer disputed SF's claim... It is a bit of a stretch to say that SF was called a liar For example If I post that the sun is green and Joe Cacher posts "No the sun is yellow" did Joe Cacher just called me a liar, or might you say that they simply disputed or disagreed with me. CONCLUSION GC.com (or it's representatives) DID NOT call SF a liar If you posted the sun, and checked up on it after Joe first staid that it was yellow, then yes, Joe Cacher... just called you a liar. Good grief! Edited November 15, 2009 by knowschad Link to comment
+BadAndy Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 If I were colorblind but believed the sun to be green and I am wrong...than I'm simply misinformed. And that Dear ones is the loop that this thread is stuck in. So... Nomex was misinformed? Nice try.... I was simply pointing out the error you made in your definition of a lie. My opinion of who may or may not have lied or been misinformed is my own...and I choose not to share. Link to comment
+Lil Devil Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Wow! Almost 13 pages. A thread hasn't gone this long since ALRs were outlawed. Is this really on the same scale? Link to comment
+B+L Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 It would be helpful if Groundspeak were to create a forum section for paranoid conspiracy theories. All the nontroversies could be gathered into one convenient location. Link to comment
+spektrum2 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) If I were colorblind but believed the sun to be green and I am wrong...than I'm simply misinformed. And that Dear ones is the loop that this thread is stuck in. So... Nomex was misinformed? Nope! I'm not saying that at all Clan.The truth is I,and I'm sure many have been swaying back and forth as this has unfolded and different parties have weighed in.The reference to the loop was just that,its looping now.I think I have been neutral because I've had to take pause so many times as its played out. As it stands now,I'm thinking "something" got settled hometown style....The only unknowns now are if the cache was there or SF got trumped by a card thats not in our members deck,thats where it starts to loop... I hate the thought of it either way. Edited November 15, 2009 by spektrum2 Link to comment
+Morning Dew Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) Wow! Almost 13 pages. A thread hasn't gone this long since ALRs were outlawed. Is this really on the same scale? Well, of course it is . . . -It's very clear here that a paying member was called a liar publicly by GS -They archived a cache without any reasonable explanation; i.e. check it please, I did, we're archiving it anyways. These are two items that I think concern a lot of people. And this is why the thread is so long. And you should also know, I don't side with the CO either and my consipiracy theory is as follows (and keep in mind I'm from the state of the cache in question so I have some background conspircay theories and rumors as well that I'm basing all my BS on). AGAIN this is JUST a THEORY with no PROOF just my THOUGHTS. 1. CO with a reputation of disliking easy finds, p&g, rail caches, etc. and a suspected history of caching disruptively. i.e. taking a 6 foot high tree hide (not their own) and making it a 35' tree hide (once they've logged it), leaving deregatory notes on cache pages, etc. You get the idea. Basically driving the reviewers in the area to drink from numerous problems they need to get invovled in that his name always seem to pop up in. Not necessarily a bad guy, but lots o' pot stirring. 2. Combine this with a caching "UNOFFICIAL club" that really isn't in to hard hides and difficult caches and generally are the types that feel if their "not found list" isn't clear for 20 mile radius, it makes them a loser, less of a person and basically drives them insane and they'll do ANYTHING to keep it clear; i.e. Phone a friend, email lists that provide solutions to puzzles once someone cracks it, etc. You get the idea of the cacher we're talking about, right? 3. CO publishes (but there is actually no container or log) a toughy. No big deal he has a reputation of this. Toughy goes unfound for 2 years. Rumors that it's not there start growing to a fevered pitch. (Hell, you'll get comments on some pages after 3 DNFs suggesting a cache might not be there). Lot's of emails to reviewers whining about the so called cache. 4. This is the part I'm unsure of ---- but perhaps a reviewer has some inside info that it might not be there. I'm not sure about this. 5. Reviewers don't want to just shut it down in fear of retaliation (based on past experiences with the CO). They contact GS, GS ships in a reviewer to do the dirty deed. 6. Nomex royally mucks it up, basically calling the guy a liar on a public forum instead of just simply asking for proof of a container. It's obvious he was shutting it down no matter what happened. The crowd goes wild, the place errupts and now you have a lot of posts. 7. CO royally mucks up by simply no relisting it (unless he couldn't because he's not telling us). How could he not relist it right? It had already been approved once, why not just relist it? Then, CO announces to the world "his dog ate it" and basically sealing his fate. So, in summary, here is what get's my goat. 1. I don't believe the reviewers when they claimed they called out for help because they were behind. I don't follow MI caching like a heartbeat but our reviewers are OVER THE TOP GOOD. They're beyond good. Unbelievably fast. If they were behind or struggling with their work load, it's news to quite a few cachers around here, who routinely have their caches posted within hours. I believe it was a planned sabotage or at the very least Nomex might have asked where should I start and they pointed right at one of their main problem childs. Again, I'm not saying the planned sabotage wasn't justified. I'm just saying it was handled poorly. That's all. 2. Plain and simple. GS called someone a liar for no reason that they have provided. I don't like this, not one bit. It's tastless and lacks class. Just my thoughts. I hope I'm wrong and I probably am. (EDITed for clarification) That is why I was one of the very first persons to ask to see a detailed pic of the container. Once, the "dog ate it" excuse flew, it pretty much confirmed my gut feeling that GS knew he was up to something and turned out to be right. Now the only thing left is how poorly GS has handled it. Edited November 15, 2009 by Morning Dew Link to comment
+bittsen Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 It would be helpful if Groundspeak were to create a forum section for paranoid conspiracy theories. All the nontroversies could be gathered into one convenient location. Not all conspiracy theories are wrong. Link to comment
+MickEMT Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 What this thread seems to be boining down to is two things. 1. The "Liar" part. No, no one from GC ever actually stated, in a public forum, that the CO was lying about the existence of the cache. However, The maintenance request and archival note do have the appearance of accusing the CO of being untruthful. Could the situation have been handled more tactfully? Yes. Add in the archiving reviewer adding "years" to the stock cut and paste note and it does give the appearance that the reviewer went too far. What should happen about this? Well, I'm certain that there is a segment of our population that would love to see the reviewer (or any reviewer for that matter) publicly flogged. Of course, that's not going to happen. At MOST, I think GS will have a private discussion with the involved parties about how this was handled. And IMHO, that's the way it should be. Did the CO "lie" about the cache? No one but the CO will ever know. Some have suggested that the CO could have simply resubmitted the cache and have it approved. Personally, I can't see that working. Why would any reviewer want to just restart the cycle? 2. There are valid concerns about the archiving of an existing cache that was highly challenging. It only takes one case to set a precedent. I'm sure many of us would like to know why an existing cache was archived when the CO complied with the reasonable request of a reviewer. Unfortunately, this "loops" back in to the "was the CO lying" part. Perhaps GS and the reviewers should create a guideline for handling caches such as this one. I think it's only reasonable that, after a certain period of time with no finds, that the CO provide proof of the containers existence (if it's a challenging hide) or the solution to the puzzle to either a staffer at GS, or a panel of cachers ( possibly not reviewers ) who then can discuss the cache and reach a verdict. Why exclude reviewers from the "court of appeals"? Simple. They already have more than enough to do, and they do it well. Also, it takes out the "well the reviewers stick up for each other" argument. Link to comment
Recommended Posts