+keehotee Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Without taking either side in this..... I seriously doubt GS would act like this unless they had insider info. By that I do not mean a string of DNFs by however many world class cache finders, but real evidence that there might not have been a cache there. And the only thing I can think of that would fit the bill is communication from the CO to somebody else that there was no cache to find. So the question is, did the CO tell anybody else - however trusted - that there was no cache there? Link to comment
+bittsen 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. I don't think anyone wants to see any serious action against the reviewer. I think a large percentage, of those with an opinion about the matter, want to see the reviewer(s) and/or Groundspeak themselves come up with enough intestinal fortitude to publicly address the matter. If they were in the wrong, come clean about it. If they had extra information, let them come out and say they had extra information. Whatever the reason, I think people just want to know how the reviewer(s) came to the absolute conclusion that SuperFly was untruthful about the existance of his cache. By the way. I don't know if anyone knows if it is possible to enter a maintenance log and back date it. If it is possible then it is also possible that SuperFly backdated his maintenance log after the cache was archived to make it look like he did the check the day before it was archived. Additionally it is possible that someone was staking out the location after the request for maintenance to see whether or not SuperFly actually did check on his cache. Though I find it HIGHLY improbable, it's possible. Way too many open possibilities. Only one is the truth though. I think most just want to know the whole truth and for the reviewer(s) to keep shut is deceptive, at best. Link to comment
+Wooden Cyclist Posted November 15, 2009 Author 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 Your example does not address the issue at hand. Try this. If I post that the sun is green. Then another cacher says that I said that the sun is red and demands that my post be deleted because of my actions. The other poster lied about me. Link to comment
+slumbersix Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 but real evidence that there might not have been a cache there. And the only thing I can think of that would fit the bill is communication from the CO to somebody else that there was no cache to find. Conspiracy theory here, but what if the reviewers or someone else set up a recorder at the cache location to see if he actually visited the site after the needs maintenance logs\? Link to comment
+two much fun Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Another question I have is the CO says it took him more than a year and a half to make this cache. The cache was placed in October of 2007. The CO joined in April of 2007. So he would have been working on this cache for more than a year before becoming a geocacher? Why? That is something I also dont understand. It was briefly mentioned earlier in the thread that Superfly previously cached under a different name, TEAM DESERT EAGLE. (Member Since: Thursday, November 25, 2004) edit: to add join date I would like to change my user name, caching name. Do you have to start a new subscription under the new name and lose all your finds?? Link to comment
+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I would like to change my user name, caching name. Do you have to start a new subscription under the new name and lose all your finds?? Nah, nothing so drastic. The process is simple. Check it out here: Username Change See. One of the reviewers involved has finally posted to the thread! Deane AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI Link to comment
+Wooden Cyclist Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 I would like to change my user name, caching name. Do you have to start a new subscription under the new name and lose all your finds?? Nah, nothing so drastic. The process is simple. Check it out here: Username Change See. One of the reviewers involved has finally posted to the thread! Deane AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI Thanks DeRock. Feels good to post here doesn't it? More please? Link to comment
+the pooks Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I can see this making sense. GC gets an inkling that the cache might be a hoax (previous experience with the cacher, local knowledge, # of DNF's etc). They do not have the manpower, or the motivation to conduct a full-scale legally compliant investigation - it was not part of their self developed mission statement. They have no way of determining whether the maintenance logs are real or not. Best thing to do - archive the cache and leave it to the CO to prove otherwise (they did do it a little undiplomatically, I would concede, but nothing that could not be rectified with dialogue). So what does the CO do - it a fit of frustration and indignation he goes out in the middle of the night and throws all evidence away. The CO has all by himself shot himself in the foot. So they have left the geocaching community to excercise their legal argument skills (still all at no cost) and they sit on the sidelines observing. If we as a geocachers want to keep the game free we had better not bother the system with legal requirements. That is just going to add to the cost of running the site (or any similar site) and the cost has to be recouped from somewhere. As far as I understand the reviewers offer thir services at no cost. I have no idea how they do it - many of them must spend a couple of hours a day on the internet (yeah i know - i spend a couple of hours a day on the internet and I'm not even a reviewer...) I must say, if I were in their shoes I would also not comment. Link to comment
CoyoteRed 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? It might show that ALRs weren't that popular after all. Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I can see this making sense. GC gets an inkling that the cache might be a hoax (previous experience with the cacher, local knowledge, # of DNF's etc). They do not have the manpower, or the motivation to conduct a full-scale legally compliant investigation - it was not part of their self developed mission statement. They have no way of determining whether the maintenance logs are real or not. Best thing to do - archive the cache and leave it to the CO to prove otherwise (they did do it a little undiplomatically, I would concede, but nothing that could not be rectified with dialogue). So what does the CO do - it a fit of frustration and indignation he goes out in the middle of the night and throws all evidence away. The CO has all by himself shot himself in the foot. So they have left the geocaching community to excercise their legal argument skills (still all at no cost) and they sit on the sidelines observing. If we as a geocachers want to keep the game free we had better not bother the system with legal requirements. That is just going to add to the cost of running the site (or any similar site) and the cost has to be recouped from somewhere. As far as I understand the reviewers offer thir services at no cost. I have no idea how they do it - many of them must spend a couple of hours a day on the internet (yeah i know - i spend a couple of hours a day on the internet and I'm not even a reviewer...) I must say, if I were in their shoes I would also not comment. I don't see the CO shooting himself in the foot at all. It isn't up to the CO to prove or disporve what GS has stated, that's on GS! They published the cache and then, two years later decided he was lying. They even state that there was never a cache (the years comment) and chastised him stating if he pulls another such stunt, they'd be taking further action. If you're able to publically call someone a liar, you surely had better be able to publically defend that ability. As for the "legal" requirements...not sure how you can use legal for any part of a game. More like following guidelines set in place. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 They even state that there was never a cache (the years comment) and chastised him stating if he pulls another such stunt, they'd be taking further action. This might be what bothers me the most. Say, I list a cache that no one can find. I get accused of never placing the cache in the first place and they archive it. I get ticked and simply toss the cache in the trash. Then I'm going to be scrutinized from now on as to whether any of my hard caches even exist? Why should I bother? How is it my fault that seekers aren't smart enough to find one of my caches? What if I place a cache that gets muggled before anyone can find it? Will I stand accused again? Should I have a documentary film crew follow me around as I place caches? Link to comment
+KBI Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 They even state that there was never a cache (the years comment) and chastised him stating if he pulls another such stunt, they'd be taking further action. This might be what bothers me the most. Say, I list a cache that no one can find. I get accused of never placing the cache in the first place and they archive it. I get ticked and simply toss the cache in the trash. Then I'm going to be scrutinized from now on as to whether any of my hard caches even exist? Why should I bother? How is it my fault that seekers aren't smart enough to find one of my caches? What if I place a cache that gets muggled before anyone can find it? Will I stand accused again? Should I have a documentary film crew follow me around as I place caches? I agree with you that that would be utterly ridiculous and completely unreasonable. ... which is what tells me intuitively that there is much more to this particular story, and that this story would make much more sense to us if we were made aware of all the details. ... which is apparently not going to happen, so I’m not going to worry about it. It's really none of my business. Neither am I going to worry about your scenario. I see no reason why you should either, but that’s up to you. Link to comment
+Mudfrog Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 They even state that there was never a cache (the years comment) and chastised him stating if he pulls another such stunt, they'd be taking further action. This might be what bothers me the most. Say, I list a cache that no one can find. I get accused of never placing the cache in the first place and they archive it. I get ticked and simply toss the cache in the trash. Then I'm going to be scrutinized from now on as to whether any of my hard caches even exist? Why should I bother? How is it my fault that seekers aren't smart enough to find one of my caches? What if I place a cache that gets muggled before anyone can find it? Will I stand accused again? Should I have a documentary film crew follow me around as I place caches? When i first saw this thread, i thought to myself that this was one of those things that shouldn't concern me or anyone else. It was between GS and the CO. But, now that i see how much of a turmoil it is causing among the caching community, i have to say that i've also grown curious as to what all is going on here. I'm not sure what it is but you can bet that they know more than we do. They didn't just decide to pick on this CO without cause. I figure there's more to this story and it'll come out before long! Link to comment
+Sol seaker Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Too bad it turned out the so-called Rogue Reviewer was asked to help. I love the idea of a rogue reviewer dashing about the country, archiving caches or publishing caches none other would publish. Nationwide manhunt for the reviewer going about moving travel bugs in the opposite direction of where they are supposed to go, moving caches, swapping containers between caches, publishing outlaw caches that are against the rules, like caches at police stations and on private property when it was an interesting site, and otherwise generally wreaking havoc. Oh my God he's in Texas now! Suddenly every traffic circle in Huston suddenly has a cache on it!! Oh no! 32 micros have just been published on the statue of liberty!!! What will he stop at? Has he no sense of decency!! He must be stopped!! Sigh. No, it turned out boring. He was asked to help. Link to comment
+genegene Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 The only thing I would ask is that the coordinates be checked to make sure that they are accurate. 2 things strike me odd though in the listing: It says look at the picture for the location of the cache, and then it says that the cache is NEAR the river. How can a cache be NEAR the river, yet on an island IN the river. I wonder if anyone of the cachers that were hunting for it ever caught on to that. It sounds to me that if the cache is on the "island", then its a nanno up on the stone pillar or on the metal above it. Most of the listings that don't have a cache size and have a "D" rating that high usually tell me its a nanno. Anyone else think that might be the container. Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Conspiracy theory- After placing it on the bridge someone took it, but he left it listed, and watched the audit log carefully to try to figure out who was responsible. One of his e-mails to a DNFer was intercepted by an FBI operative working for Groundspeak (who knows what he did last summer) and read as "don't bother looking for it". Paranoid theory- Same as Conspiracy theory, only that it actually fell into the river on it's own.. Entitlement theory- Cache hider made a difficult cache and it fell into the river as he was placing it, but he listed it anyway because he felt he deserved to. Frustrated theory- The reviewer was out in a boat with several other people all day looking for it, and after photographing and videotaping all of ground zero, he climbed back into his car and placed a note for the owner to check on it, and 15 minutes later just as he was leaving the area the cache hider posted that he checked on it, making it seem unlikely. The cache hider had actually checked on it 30 minutes before anyone had arrived that day. Nontruthteller theory- All of the Ohio cachers that live in the immediate area of the cache were told about it's nonexistence, and someone looking for it from out of state found out and told GS. Media theory- It was done for "a show", and the hider is currently concerned about being hit with a felony charge of "Attempting to influence a Groundspeak servant", or a possible a misdemeanor charge of "False reporting of a cache to geocachers". Honest theory- The cache was there all along, but the hider never photographed it. He threw it away and did not release this info at the initial time of questioning only because he wanted the mystery to continue. (despite the testimony of Ethel VanBuren who has worked at the StoneCreations plant for 42 years and insists that the goo was for indoor use and would not have held up) Most Logical theory- A wormhole from a parallel universe opened up and a visitor from another planet abducted the cache and Superfly at the same time and placed him under hypnosis to believe and tell everyone that it was there, as part of a 10,000 year old experiment on human behaviour to see if we are more like animals or plants. The question is: Do we have a spirit, or are we completely controlled by our environment whereas information can be easily "planted" into out subconscious.. This entire thread is nothing but speculation, based on the theory that Groundspeak was speculating correctly, or if they were speculating at all. Link to comment
+niraD Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I figure there's more to this story and it'll come out before long!I'm sure there's a lot more to the story, but if it comes out, then it won't come from Groundspeak:It is Groundspeak’s policy to protect the privacy of the individual geocacher, regardless of who they are or what they may have done. That is the reason why I have not posted here with any additional details, such as contents of private email messages. That said, I will emphasize that each reviewer involved in this issue has acted appropriately and I support their decisions. No one has gone "rogue." Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) They even state that there was never a cache (the years comment) and chastised him stating if he pulls another such stunt, they'd be taking further action. This might be what bothers me the most. Say, I list a cache that no one can find. I get accused of never placing the cache in the first place and they archive it. I get ticked and simply toss the cache in the trash. Then I'm going to be scrutinized from now on as to whether any of my hard caches even exist? Why should I bother? How is it my fault that seekers aren't smart enough to find one of my caches? What if I place a cache that gets muggled before anyone can find it? Will I stand accused again? Should I have a documentary film crew follow me around as I place caches? I thought this was settled in several previous posts to this topic. Level heads have already confirmed that the sky is not going to fall. Folks, this is a unique situation, one way or another, no matter whom you believe to be at fault. 1. There is more to the story. 2. We will likely never know the details. 3. There will not be a new policy requiring the archiving hard to find caches. Edited November 16, 2009 by Team Sagefox Link to comment
+ironman114 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 The only thing I would ask is that the coordinates be checked to make sure that they are accurate. 2 things strike me odd though in the listing: It says look at the picture for the location of the cache, and then it says that the cache is NEAR the river. How can a cache be NEAR the river, yet on an island IN the river. I wonder if anyone of the cachers that were hunting for it ever caught on to that. It sounds to me that if the cache is on the "island", then its a nanno up on the stone pillar or on the metal above it. Most of the listings that don't have a cache size and have a "D" rating that high usually tell me its a nanno. Anyone else think that might be the container. How can you check to see if the coordinates are accurate unless you have found the cache? The CO has already stated the container was a baggie behind a false brick facade stuck to a real brick. Link to comment
+bittsen Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 It is Groundspeak’s policy to protect the privacy of the individual geocacher, regardless of who they are or what they may have done. That is the reason why I have not posted here with any additional details, such as contents of private email messages. That said, I will emphasize that each reviewer involved in this issue has acted appropriately and I support their decisions. No one has gone "rogue." I love this MissJenn post because it completely demands that we trust the GS reviewers when they say they didn't do anything wrong. It's like asking someone if they are guilty and then taking their word for it when they say "no". Wouldn't the justice system be wonderful if only those sorts of statements were good enough and completely believable? Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) It is Groundspeak’s policy to protect the privacy of the individual geocacher, regardless of who they are or what they may have done. That is the reason why I have not posted here with any additional details, such as contents of private email messages. That said, I will emphasize that each reviewer involved in this issue has acted appropriately and I support their decisions. No one has gone "rogue." I love this MissJenn post because it completely demands that we trust the GS reviewers when they say they didn't do anything wrong. It's like asking someone if they are guilty and then taking their word for it when they say "no". Wouldn't the justice system be wonderful if only those sorts of statements were good enough and completely believable? Groundspeak, including MissJenn, has long ago earned the trust of the geocaching community. If you insist on questioning their integrity perhaps you need to find another playground. Frankly, your paranoia that there's something underhanded going on is calling them a liar by inference... the same thing that started this whole thing you protest! Edited November 15, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler Link to comment
+bittsen Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 It is Groundspeak’s policy to protect the privacy of the individual geocacher, regardless of who they are or what they may have done. That is the reason why I have not posted here with any additional details, such as contents of private email messages. That said, I will emphasize that each reviewer involved in this issue has acted appropriately and I support their decisions. No one has gone "rogue." I love this MissJenn post because it completely demands that we trust the GS reviewers when they say they didn't do anything wrong. It's like asking someone if they are guilty and then taking their word for it when they say "no". Wouldn't the justice system be wonderful if only those sorts of statements were good enough and completely believable? Groundspeak, including MissJenn, has long ago earned the trust of the geocaching community. If you insist on questioning their integrity perhaps you need to find another playground. I didn't question anyones integrity but on that subject, I don't know her, or you, or most of the geocaching community. My respect comes from the position they hold and not much more criteria than that. I do not know what criteria you use to trust someone without question but, imho, there is nobody on this thread that has earned that with me. Furthermore, my example of people who are (for lack of a better term) on trial would never be allowed to get away with a simple "I didn't do anything wrong" simply because of their reputation. Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I love this MissJenn post because it completely demands that we trust the GS reviewers when they say they didn't do anything wrong. It works for me. Link to comment
+sTeamTraen Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I love this MissJenn post because it completely demands that we trust the GS reviewers when they say they didn't do anything wrong.It's like asking someone if they are guilty and then taking their word for it when they say "no". I take it to mean simply that if there is any fault here from the reviewer/GS side, it's not caused by a "rogue" reviewer, but that Groundspeak entirely backs the action taken. So in your analogy, it's as if the cops have carted your neighbour off to jail and you don't know what he did wrong; when you call police HQ, they tell you "yes, your neighbour was arrested by Officer X, and we back his action in so doing". That doesn't mean that the action taken was right (I think it probably was, you think it probably wasn't), but it at least means that you have confirmation from Groundspeak that the action was not taken unilaterally by the reviewer. Of course, it could be that MissJenn is a rogue lackey. But then maybe Groundspeak is a rogue company which has come up with an evil mastermind plan to destroy Geocaching. Bwahahahaha. Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I love this MissJenn post because it completely demands that we trust the GS reviewers when they say they didn't do anything wrong.It's like asking someone if they are guilty and then taking their word for it when they say "no". I take it to mean simply that if there is any fault here from the reviewer/GS side, it's not caused by a "rogue" reviewer, but that Groundspeak entirely backs the action taken. So in your analogy, it's as if the cops have carted your neighbour off to jail and you don't know what he did wrong; when you call police HQ, they tell you "yes, your neighbour was arrested by Officer X, and we back his action in so doing". That doesn't mean that the action taken was right (I think it probably was, you think it probably wasn't), but it at least means that you have confirmation from Groundspeak that the action was not taken unilaterally by the reviewer. Interesting analogy. If GS invites Nomex and Super Fly to a Beer Summit, I volunteer as the token second Michigander a la Joe Biden. Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Of course MissJenn is a rogue lackey. But then Groundspeak is a rogue company which has come up with an evil mastermind plan to destroy Geocaching. Bwahahahaha. I knew it! Link to comment
+Team Cotati Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 "If you insist on questioning their integrity perhaps you need to find another playground." What it always comes down to. Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 "If you insist on questioning their integrity perhaps you need to find another playground." What it always comes down to. It is, and should be. If the vast majority of geocachers are happy with Groundspeak, and they appear to be, but a few are discontent and believe Groundspeak et al to be evil unfair and oppressive then those few should indeed go play where they can be happy. I don't think it's going too far to say that the majority of us who are happy with Groundspeak are sick of the whining of the few who aren't. Link to comment
+Wooden Cyclist Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 "If you insist on questioning their integrity perhaps you need to find another playground." What it always comes down to. It is, and should be. If the vast majority of geocachers are happy with Groundspeak, and they appear to be, but a few are discontent and believe Groundspeak et al to be evil unfair and oppressive then those few should indeed go play where they can be happy. I don't think it's going too far to say that the majority of us who are happy with Groundspeak are sick of the whining of the few who aren't. Then why do you keep reading the posts that contain the "whining"? Link to comment
ao318 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Wow. According to the GC.com home page, there are 941,344 active geocaches around the world. Let's just round that number up to 1,000,000, it's pretty close if you really think about it. This cache equals 0.000001% of all caches around the world. How many caches are we talking about in this posting? Just this one that, as some people say, was unjustly archived. Why oh why did this happen? I am starting to see a pattern here. GS does not want us to hit the million cache mark and this is there way of doing it. They are looking for all the caches that have not been found within a reasonable amount of time, no matter what the circumstances are, and are archiving them. Maybe we need to have some friends just log a find on them and keep the secret to prevent them from getting archived. Maybe we need to hold "DNF Events" at caches that haven't been found and attack them from as many sides as possible with as many people as possible to verify their existence. Let's invite the CO's so they can tell us when were getting warmer, warmer, colder, warmer, hotter, and then red hot to let us know when to start looking. I am not one to take things lightly, if it warrants it. This, in my opinion, does not warrant this much attention. This is, and always be, an issue between the CO, the Reviewers, and GS. I am having a hard time understanding why people are jumping all over each other about this posting. Everyone is enabled to an opinion and just let those people that don't agree with you post theirs without all the quoting, validating, and rantings about the injustices that they perceive are going to happen because this one cache has been archived. Everyone that hides caches and then tries to publish them follow the same rules. This cache, just like every cache, is not and was not verified for existence by a reviewer when and if it was placed. What happened in the time frame from when it was placed to when it was archived is none of our concern, but some feel that it is. That's fine, because everyone is entitled to an opinion and this is mine. Link to comment
+brslk Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 "If you insist on questioning their integrity perhaps you need to find another playground." What it always comes down to. It is, and should be. If the vast majority of geocachers are happy with Groundspeak, and they appear to be, but a few are discontent and believe Groundspeak et al to be evil unfair and oppressive then those few should indeed go play where they can be happy. I don't think it's going too far to say that the majority of us who are happy with Groundspeak are sick of the whining of the few who aren't. You speak for or have polled the "vast majority" of geocachers on this subject? or are you just projecting your opinion? I don't believe ANYONE used the word "oppressive" or even implied it (you really should look up the meaning of the word). If you are so sick of the whining, then DON'T keep reading it. 'go play where you can be happy'. I really have no problem with Groundspeak but as with any ruling body, they must be kept in check by the people they represent. Some people are leaders, some people question leaders.... others are sheep... It really involves a lot less thinking to be a sheep. That's why they are so easily led to be sheared or slaughtered. Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 "If you insist on questioning their integrity perhaps you need to find another playground." What it always comes down to. It is, and should be. If the vast majority of geocachers are happy with Groundspeak, and they appear to be, but a few are discontent and believe Groundspeak et al to be evil unfair and oppressive then those few should indeed go play where they can be happy. I don't think it's going too far to say that the majority of us who are happy with Groundspeak are sick of the whining of the few who aren't. Let me again point you to the "door". If you don't like the conversation, you too can "go play elsewhere". Your whining over us having a conversation seems worse than us having the conversation, you KNOW what's going on, yet you come back to subject yourself to what you claim are sick of...go figure. Link to comment
+beejay&esskay Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Wow. According to the GC.com home page, there are 941,344 active geocaches around the world. Let's just round that number up to 1,000,000, it's pretty close if you really think about it. This cache equals 0.000001% of all caches around the world. Actually that is .0001%. Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 "If you insist on questioning their integrity perhaps you need to find another playground." What it always comes down to. There is too much whining in playgrounds, which is why I try to filter them out when looking for caches. Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 "yes, your neighbour was arrested by Officer X, and we back his action in so doing" With the exception of juvenile arrests, the hypothetical department will happily provide details regarding why my neighbor was arrested. It was decided many decades ago that the actions of any law enforcement officer must be a matter of public record, so long as detailing those actions don't hinder an active investigation. Under those circumstances, the incident will be released as soon as it is safe to do so. Even with juvenile arrests, LEOs must disclose why someone was arrested. The only thing they cannot usually reveal is the youth's name and address. I think it's great that Miss Jenn, and the rest of the Groundspeak staff are supporting Nomex in this. I've had the rug yanked out from under me by a past administration, when my actions were deemed to be within our agency's policies. It's not fun knowing, even when you do the job right, you might find a knife in your back. However, I would still like to see some disclosure regarding the reasons for this archival. Groundspeak is having a tough time selling the "privacy" angle, since we've all seen them bypass that in the past. Couple that with the fact that a Groundspeak agent posted an inflammatory note on the cache page, and the fact that the CO has given his permission to reveal the rest of the story, I think the truth would ease a lot of minds. but a few are discontent and believe Groundspeak et al to be evil unfair and oppressive Sorry Ed. I'm not seeing it. I see two primary, vocal sides to this issue. 1 ) "Groundspeak did nothing wrong. Move along now. Nothing to see here." and 2 ) "Hey guys, I'm pretty concerned about this action. What's up?" Belittling someone because their message makes you uncomfortable does not make that message any less valid. This is, and always be, an issue between the CO, the Reviewers, and GS. Nomex made it our concern when he decided to post the comment he made questioning the integrity of the CO. A professionally run company would never do that, without kwickly revealing how they knew the subject of their disparagement lacked integrity. Just my opinion... Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 but a few are discontent and believe Groundspeak et al to be evil unfair and oppressive Sorry Ed. I'm not seeing it. I see two primary, vocal sides to this issue. 1 ) "Groundspeak did nothing wrong. Move along now. Nothing to see here." and 2 ) "Hey guys, I'm pretty concerned about this action. What's up?" Belittling someone because their message makes you uncomfortable does not make that message any less valid. Indeed. It's a strawman, as is someone's previous comment about people wanting Nomex publicly flogged. Few if any have suggested such a thing. I myself suspect that nothing worse was committed than a few poor choices of words, on one or both sides. I'd just like to see some forthrightness about what really happened and, if it shouldn't have happened this way, an indication of how it will be kept from happening again. Link to comment
ao318 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Wow. According to the GC.com home page, there are 941,344 active geocaches around the world. Let's just round that number up to 1,000,000, it's pretty close if you really think about it. This cache equals 0.000001% of all caches around the world. Actually that is .0001%. You're right. I forgot to move my decimal point after solving . Yet, it still is a very small number. Link to comment
+bittsen Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Indeed. It's a strawman, as is someone's previous comment about people wanting Nomex publicly flogged. Few if any have suggested such a thing. I myself suspect that nothing worse was committed than a few poor choices of words, on one or both sides. I'd just like to see some forthrightness about what really happened and, if it shouldn't have happened this way, an indication of how it will be kept from happening again. I would like nothing more than for the GS staff to prove they did nothing wrong. I would like nothing more than for SuperFly to prove he did nothing wrong. Do I want Nomex flogged? No, unless Nomex did something wrong and then covered it up. Do I want SuperFly flogged? No, unless he did something wrong and then covered it up. I just want the truth. I don't want to see allegations. Nomex alleged that SuperFly listed a nonexistant cache. SuperFly alleged that Nomex acted with malice. Someone is right and someone is wrong. Since I know neither party, personally, and only have "reputations" to go on, I want the truth. Either truth will do. I'm not particular about what the truth ends up to be. I just don't want to leave the deception out there hanging over the proverbial head of geocaching. Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I want the truth. Either truth will do. John 18:38 Link to comment
+B+L Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Someone is right and someone is wrong. You have made an valiant attempt to reason from the facts that you have, but sometimes you just have accept the fact that you do not have all the facts. Link to comment
+gravechaser Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) After reading this thread from the first post to the 13th page I've done a lot of thinking about both sides. Granted, I've not been caching long but I am a 41yr old cynical, jaded, suspicious mom. That being said: 1. I think SF started replying on this thread while he was still angry so he wasn't as clear at times as he could have been. 2. If I were on a jury and had to decide this case of SuperFly vs. TPTB? I'd be firmly on SF's side. My reasoning would be that he and the OP presented good clear communications and have answered questions seemingly openly. TPTB have done nothing to clarify their reason for what they did. This particular situation SCREAMS for them to clearly explain why they archived this cache. (edited for fat-fingered typing) Edited November 16, 2009 by gravechaser Link to comment
+bittsen Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 After reading this thread from the first post to the 13th page I've done a lot of thinking about both sides. Granted, I've not been caching long but I am a 41yr old cynical, jaded, suspicious mom. That being said: 1. I think SF started replying on this thread while he was still angry so he wasn't as clear at times as he could have been. 2. If I were on a jury and had to decide this case of SuperFly vs. TPTB? I'd be firmly on SF's side. My reasoning would be that he and the OP presented good clear communications and have answered questions seemingly openly. TPTB have done nothing to clarify their reason for what they did. This particular situation SCREAMS for them to clearly explain why they archived this cache. (edited for fat-fingered typing) Exactly what I have been saying all along. Link to comment
+KBI Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 2. If I were on a jury and had to decide this case of SuperFly vs. TPTB? If you were on a jury and had to decide this case of SuperFly vs. TPTB, you would probably be privy to a LOT more information than you have now. Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) I love this MissJenn post because it completely demands that we trust the GS reviewers when they say they didn't do anything wrong.It's like asking someone if they are guilty and then taking their word for it when they say "no". I take it to mean simply that if there is any fault here from the reviewer/GS side, it's not caused by a "rogue" reviewer, but that Groundspeak entirely backs the action taken. So in your analogy, it's as if the cops have carted your neighbour off to jail and you don't know what he did wrong; when you call police HQ, they tell you "yes, your neighbour was arrested by Officer X, and we back his action in so doing". That doesn't mean that the action taken was right (I think it probably was, you think it probably wasn't), but it at least means that you have confirmation from Groundspeak that the action was not taken unilaterally by the reviewer. Interesting analogy. If GS invites Nomex and Super Fly to a Beer Summit, I volunteer as the token second Michigander a la Joe Biden. It occurred to me that this is more on point than I intended. We have: A well-known, well respected "enforcement officer" A well-known, well-respected "citizen", with an occasional reputation as a firebrand The EO busts the citizen. The citizen says he was unfairly singled out. The EO says he had good reason. The EO's co-workers support his decision. Communication occurs that a sharply divided public isn't privy to. The parties involved ostensibly reach an agreement but no one really seems happy. Edited November 16, 2009 by Dinoprophet Link to comment
Trader Rick & Rosie Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 2. If I were on a jury and had to decide this case of SuperFly vs. TPTB? If you were on a jury and had to decide this case of SuperFly vs. TPTB, you would probably be privy to a LOT more information than you have now. Not True. The jury knows only what goes on in open court, here in the forums, just like the rest of us . Nobody gives them secret info. Our justice system prohibits it. Link to comment
aniyn Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I love the idea of a rogue reviewer dashing about the country, archiving caches or publishing caches none other would publish. Nationwide manhunt for the reviewer going about moving travel bugs in the opposite direction of where they are supposed to go, moving caches, swapping containers between caches, publishing outlaw caches that are against the rules, like caches at police stations and on private property when it was an interesting site, and otherwise generally wreaking havoc. Oh my God he's in Texas now! Suddenly every traffic circle in Huston suddenly has a cache on it!! Oh no! 32 micros have just been published on the statue of liberty!!! What will he stop at? Has he no sense of decency!! He must be stopped!! I love this idea too. A cloaked figure, sprinting through the rain. Always on the run; Manually confirming every cache before publishing from it from a hot air balloon. Sleeping with their boots on, always waiting for Dave Ulmer to kick in the door. Dodging Mike Teague at a train station. Archiving gas station micros through simple spite. Enforcing ALR's. And always wearing a fedora. Link to comment
+sTeamTraen Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 It occurred to me that this is more on point than I intended. We have: A well-known, well respected "enforcement officer" A well-known, well-respected "citizen", with an occasional reputation as a firebrand The EO busts the citizen. The citizen says he was unfairly singled out. The EO says he had good reason. The EO's co-workers support his decision. Communication occurs that a sharply divided public isn't privy to. The parties involved ostensibly reach an agreement but no one really seems happy. Yeah. And we don't have the White House balcony available. Or beer. What chance do we have? Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 .... This particular situation SCREAMS for them to clearly explain why they archived this cache. ... No - not at all. Certain amounts of information need to be kept private. I respect that. In the end, I just have to believe in the system. I know and respect just too many of the reviewers to believe that this was some kind of arbitrary grevious rogue action. Groundspeak is a business and we just don't need to be privy to each and every decision they make. What happened was done to be in the best interests of the game or Groundspeak as a business - it matters little which. I just have to believe it to be so. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 What happened was done to be in the best interests of the game or Groundspeak as a business... I'm not sure how either are true. Last first. How would the existence of a cache that passes all tests of the guidelines and is a legal placement not be in the best interests of Groundspeak. I would think the "interest" is the one places a cache within 528' of that spot. On the first point, how does a cache that is not found bad for the hobby? We don't know if the cache was there or not. SF says yes. GS says no. Which is it? I think it's not SF that GS is protecting but some third party(ies) who were able to convince them the cache did not exist. Link to comment
+GeoGeeBee Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 They never actually said SF was a liar. They did however certainly infer that he was lying. No, they implied that he was lying; the readers inferred that he was lying. Sorry. Grammar peeves are lame, I know. I can't help myself. Link to comment
Recommended Posts