Jump to content

Rogue Reviewer?


Recommended Posts

... One thing that doesn't hold water though. If someone told TPTB that SF said there wasn't really a cache, then TPTB archived a cache based on hearsay. Not cool in a few ways and easily repeated by someone who holds a grudge on another cacher.
Here's another thought that I alluded to in my hypothetical scenario, but didn't really discuss. If SF/TDE emailed a fellow cacher that the cache didn't actually exist and that person forwarded the email to a reviewer, it isn't hearsay. This is particularly true if the email was sent via GC.com.
Link to post

The more I think about it the more I think SB111's theory is right on the money. In the end, this would mean that GS did not err on archiving the cache, but on the way the archiving took place.

 

Say there was no cache. SF knows this. Who would SF think also knew this? GS is adamant that they have information that says the cache is not there, but can't release the information because it is sensitive. SF reads this and is automatically going to start looking at folks who might know there is no cache. The damage is done. Either GS speak archived the cache on no information or insider information. Period.

 

A better way to have approached this would be to explain to SF that X number of cachers have spent X number of hours looking for the cache. Give SF 14 days to provide private photographic proof the cache is there or the cache would be archived. Using an outside reviewer would be good to reduce the chance of mistrust of a reviewer claiming FTF on an extreme cache. This would be eliminating any third party to protect and allows full disclosure if it is questioned by the community.

 

Hopefully this will be a good learning experience for the reviewers and TPTB.

Link to post
Even if the cache has not been at the location for years?

 

The point isn't whether the cache was or wasn't there. I don't care one way or the other. The point is the reviewer should not be allowed to call him a liar on the cache page unless he is also able to say why he feels he is a liar. Either that, or the cache owner is allowed to defend himself in the same forum.

 

I have no idea if Superfly's cache was there, or even if it ever was there. I have no way of knowing. However, I will say there is no way I would call him a liar, even if I had absolute proof, if I could not present that proof and allow him to defend himself. To do so would be rude and unethical.

Link to post
Even if the cache has not been at the location for years?
The point isn't whether the cache was or wasn't there. I don't care one way or the other. The point is the reviewer should not be allowed to call him a liar on the cache page unless he is also able to say why he feels he is a liar. Either that, or the cache owner is allowed to defend himself in the same forum.

 

I have no idea if Superfly's cache was there, or even if it ever was there. I have no way of knowing. However, I will say there is no way I would call him a liar, even if I had absolute proof, if I could not present that proof and allow him to defend himself. To do so would be rude and unethical.

Regarding the bolded bit, as far as I know, the cache page wasn't locked. SF/TDE could have defended himself there. He could have also proved the cache's existence in his email to Miss Jenn. Finally, he could have done so in this very thread.

 

SF/TDE wasn't maligned and then locked out of defending himself. He merely chose not to.

 

If the cache had not been in place for years, then SF/TDE was lying to the reviewers and the geocaching community all this time. If this is the case, I have no problem with his being called out on the cache page.

 

In summation, if someone is a liar, I have no problem with another person calling them one.

Edited by sbell111
Link to post
I live in the CO's area, and frankley, none of this surprises me. Speaking from abusive and irrational experiences I have been on the recieving end of with the CO, I have no doubt GC acted properly, and I am impressed that they have not reversed their position after 15 pages. But enough of this insanity....let's get back to why we are here....trails, family, friends, fun and swag! :laughing:

Interesting that you're pointing out "abusive and irrational," but not saying that SF lists caches that aren't there. I was just about to reply to another local above when I read this post. Two locals. Two different experiences.

 

Ok Who-dey is only giving half the story here. The behavior Who-dey is talking about was in response to false accusations made by Who-dey in numerous forums on this site that could of resulted in a major negative consequence for another cacher (me) with their employer. So if SF behavior was "abusive and irrational", he was not completely at fault.

 

Now in response to ST caches existing. First of all, let me say that most cachers in this area know that when you go after a SF, you probably will be looking for awhile. There have been a few times where I have been stumped by some of his caches, like many other cachers have. There have been times when I have called SF to see if I get a hint out of him. Instead of a hint over the phone, he has shown up and given me hints while standing there watching and I eventually made the find. On other SF caches that I did not find or go look for, other cachers that I know have found them. I have never heard that his caches did not exist.

 

Now for the cache in question. I believe that the cache existed. SF has never given me a reason to doubt him or to believe that one of his caches was never really there.

 

Johngie - Maybe after some time now it may be easier for you to understand, my comments were 100% not about yo as I have said many times. You are not the only COP that has a GPS and find's caches in West Michigan. But regarding what was true, and who was at fault, you do not know all you think you do. I could have simply walked away, but as he was local, I tried my best to be respectful and let things pass by. I never have met you or SF/Desert Eagle. SF/Desert Eagle sent me many, many emails of anger and threats. One email he chose to send was clearly disturbing where he listed my home address. My home address where my wife, 2 year old, and 5 year old live. Once he traveled that path, all hope for rational behaviour was gone. So this situation is not too hard for me to believe that it could be how the reviewer has stated.

Link to post
... One thing that doesn't hold water though. If someone told TPTB that SF said there wasn't really a cache, then TPTB archived a cache based on hearsay. Not cool in a few ways and easily repeated by someone who holds a grudge on another cacher.
Here's another thought that I alluded to in my hypothetical scenario, but didn't really discuss. If SF/TDE emailed a fellow cacher that the cache didn't actually exist and that person forwarded the email to a reviewer, it isn't hearsay. This is particularly true if the email was sent via GC.com.

I don't know if this is what happened, but in my opinion you've at least shown that sufficient proof can be had. Good job.

Link to post
That does nothing but increase the noise level without adding to the signal (and yes, some of us do believe there is a signal here).

 

1103352825_5f2e59576b.jpg

 

that is one big Signal..and what a huge cache. That would be a nice surprise after what looks like a deep woods cache hunt.

Link to post

The cache page was locked Nov6.

 

Location: Michigan, United States

-DeRock- posted a reviewer note for Super Fly #30 "Jiendo" (Archived) (Locked)

(Traditional Cache) at 11/6/2009

Nomex did not lock the page when he archived it. It was locked at a later date by DeRock because people were inappropriately using the cache page as a forum.

 

It should be noted that since SF/TDE received an email each time one of these posts were made, he was aware of the discussion on the cache page. He could have easily popped in and posted evidence that the cache did exist or invite the posting cachers to meet him at the cache site to prove it's existence. It would have been a convenient forum to use to exonerate himself.

Edited by sbell111
Link to post
The cache page was locked Nov6.

 

Location: Michigan, United States

-DeRock- posted a reviewer note for Super Fly #30 "Jiendo" (Archived) (Locked)

(Traditional Cache) at 11/6/2009

Nomex did not lock the page when he archived it. It was locked at a later date by DeRock because people were inappropriately using the cache page as a forum.

 

It should be noted that since SF/TDE received an email each time one of these posts were made, he was aware of the discussion on the cache page. He could have easily popped in and posted evidence that the cache did exist or invite the posting cachers to meet him at the cache site to prove it's existence. It would have been a convenient forum to use to exonerate himself.

I popped over to the cache page to discover that SF/TDE did know that the discussion on the cache page was happening. In fact, he was busy fanning the flames. Still, he elected not to offer a show of proof that the cache did, in fact, exist.
Link to post
In summation, if someone is a liar, I have no problem with another person calling them one.

 

I agree, I have no problem with someone being called out as a liar. In the proper format, where the reason you believe it to be can be shown.

 

To just call someone a liar and not presenting any proof is just rude. I know you don't agree with me. (I bet Emily Post would thou. :laughing: ) It is my opinion, and I will stand by it.

 

Nomex was rude and inconsiderate, period. Superfly may or may not be a liar, but we will never know will we?

Link to post
The cache page was locked Nov6.

 

Location: Michigan, United States

-DeRock- posted a reviewer note for Super Fly #30 "Jiendo" (Archived) (Locked)

(Traditional Cache) at 11/6/2009

Nomex did not lock the page when he archived it. It was locked at a later date by DeRock because people were inappropriately using the cache page as a forum.

 

It should be noted that since SF/TDE received an email each time one of these posts were made, he was aware of the discussion on the cache page. He could have easily popped in and posted evidence that the cache did exist or invite the posting cachers to meet him at the cache site to prove it's existence. It would have been a convenient forum to use to exonerate himself.

I popped over to the cache page to discover that SF/TDE did know that the discussion on the cache page was happening. In fact, he was busy fanning the flames. Still, he elected not to offer a show of proof that the cache did, in fact, exist.

 

You are right he asked how to appeal, and all the locals that posted believed the cache was there and wanted to know why it was archived.

 

I would tend to side with the locals, who know the hider.

 

18 pages into this thread and Groundspeak has not offered up anything as to why it was archived, or apologized for the manner in which it was archived.

 

I agree it is rude to call a cacher a liar and then hide behind the privacy screen.

 

If the shoe was on the other foot and someone said Groundspeak was going bankrupt and didn't offer proof, would everyone say well they must be, it is up to them to prove they aren't.

Link to post

As English is not my usual language I'm sure I will not be able to express all my feelings, but let's try it.

 

First, my background: I'm a newbie to geocaching (90 finds, 11 hidden, just some months here). From a foreign country where the geocaching community is far smaller than yours. A forum(s) avid reader.

 

When I first saw this thread I decided it will go away fast as most others on similar subjects. I learned fast than reviewers decission posts are worthless, most of the times the poster did not understand or even read (!) the guidelines.

 

800 posts and 25k readings later, the curiosity won the game and I read it. No, not all of it, but enough of them. Unless I miss some important post (which I doubt) the part I didn't read cannot add anything, only more and more personal opinions.

 

In my -short- experience I am rather satisfied with Groundspeak behaviour so I would be on the side of "they did it right, there are some hidden facts." And several of the people that I enjoy reading and agree usually with what they write say very reasonable things on the same side.

 

But to be honest, I don't like it. I don't like giving credit only because usually someone acts right. And as far as I can see, this seems to be a very objectable situation. A cacher with +120 hiden caches ... doesn't look like someone cheating for free. Reviewer notes not exactly ... ummm, how to say ... clean.

 

I can understand GS policy of "no comment". And I can agree it's the correct one 99.9% of the time. But this post is going to be the hotest ever for years, and every rule has its exceptions. No point in saying that this could reveal to the CO the source of information about "not being there ever"; if this was the case, the CO would know it since aprox the second page of the thread!

 

Were the other two examples (GC1DGZA and GC11EC5) of "curious" archiving object of such an intense arguing? Why is this one going so far?

 

As a newbie, I'm really disapointed, I cannot see any good on the way it is being handled. But maybe time will teach me something.

Edited by DeepButi
Link to post
... One thing that doesn't hold water though. If someone told TPTB that SF said there wasn't really a cache, then TPTB archived a cache based on hearsay. Not cool in a few ways and easily repeated by someone who holds a grudge on another cacher.
Here's another thought that I alluded to in my hypothetical scenario, but didn't really discuss. If SF/TDE emailed a fellow cacher that the cache didn't actually exist and that person forwarded the email to a reviewer, it isn't hearsay. This is particularly true if the email was sent via GC.com.

I don't know if this is what happened, but in my opinion you've at least shown that sufficient proof can be had. Good job.

 

I was thinking something along the lines of what SBell111 said also. Perhaps Groundspeak has hardcopy evidence of SF telling someone the cache didn't really exist in an email.

 

Then of course he could have just been kidding, and pulling this person's leg. :laughing:

Link to post
I live in the CO's area, and frankley, none of this surprises me. Speaking from abusive and irrational experiences I have been on the recieving end of with the CO, I have no doubt GC acted properly, and I am impressed that they have not reversed their position after 15 pages. But enough of this insanity....let's get back to why we are here....trails, family, friends, fun and swag! :laughing:

Interesting that you're pointing out "abusive and irrational," but not saying that SF lists caches that aren't there. I was just about to reply to another local above when I read this post. Two locals. Two different experiences.

 

Ok Who-dey is only giving half the story here. The behavior Who-dey is talking about was in response to false accusations made by Who-dey in numerous forums on this site that could of resulted in a major negative consequence for another cacher (me) with their employer. So if SF behavior was "abusive and irrational", he was not completely at fault.

 

Now in response to ST caches existing. First of all, let me say that most cachers in this area know that when you go after a SF, you probably will be looking for awhile. There have been a few times where I have been stumped by some of his caches, like many other cachers have. There have been times when I have called SF to see if I get a hint out of him. Instead of a hint over the phone, he has shown up and given me hints while standing there watching and I eventually made the find. On other SF caches that I did not find or go look for, other cachers that I know have found them. I have never heard that his caches did not exist.

 

Now for the cache in question. I believe that the cache existed. SF has never given me a reason to doubt him or to believe that one of his caches was never really there.

 

Johngie - Maybe after some time now it may be easier for you to understand, my comments were 100% not about yo as I have said many times. You are not the only COP that has a GPS and find's caches in West Michigan. But regarding what was true, and who was at fault, you do not know all you think you do. I could have simply walked away, but as he was local, I tried my best to be respectful and let things pass by. I never have met you or SF/Desert Eagle. SF/Desert Eagle sent me many, many emails of anger and threats. One email he chose to send was clearly disturbing where he listed my home address. My home address where my wife, 2 year old, and 5 year old live. Once he traveled that path, all hope for rational behaviour was gone. So this situation is not too hard for me to believe that it could be how the reviewer has stated.

 

Whoa! Total Drama Island. That's an adult cartoon by the way. No, not that kind of adult cartoon.

 

As a former cyberstalking victim (nothing to do with Geocaching), that particularly disturbs me about having your address listed in an email, a "I know where you live, sucka" sort of thing. I assume this was reported?

Link to post

so muc supposition, so little to back it up. Which leaves us right where we were several pages ago. Now, who do you suppose could stop the "rumor mill"?

 

As I said, whether the cache was there or not has little to do with the issue we have come to...

 

And, knowing this ISN'T a "one-off" it makes me wonder.

Link to post

so muc supposition, so little to back it up. Which leaves us right where we were several pages ago. Now, who do you suppose could stop the "rumor mill"?

 

As I said, whether the cache was there or not has little to do with the issue we have come to...

 

And, knowing this ISN'T a "one-off" it makes me wonder.

 

Sorry Roddy. Yes, speculation. But hey, they started it. :laughing:

Link to post
... One thing that doesn't hold water though. If someone told TPTB that SF said there wasn't really a cache, then TPTB archived a cache based on hearsay. Not cool in a few ways and easily repeated by someone who holds a grudge on another cacher.
Here's another thought that I alluded to in my hypothetical scenario, but didn't really discuss. If SF/TDE emailed a fellow cacher that the cache didn't actually exist and that person forwarded the email to a reviewer, it isn't hearsay. This is particularly true if the email was sent via GC.com.

I don't know if this is what happened, but in my opinion you've at least shown that sufficient proof can be had. Good job.

 

I was thinking something along the lines of what SBell111 said also. Perhaps Groundspeak has hardcopy evidence of SF telling someone the cache didn't really exist in an email.

 

Then of course he could have just been kidding, and pulling this person's leg. :laughing:

I have to join ranks in saying that SBell11's scenario seems to be the most plausible one to me. I had thought of most of it early-on, but somehow the idea of a forwarded email (hard evidence) had escaped me and I couldn't quite buy it based purely on a he-said/she-said verbal exchange. The only gap that remains for me is that there would have to be a number of such emails for SA to not know immediately who "ratted him out" (to use the phrase that has come up here previously).
Link to post

I wouldn't consider a forwarded email as hard evidence - it is simple to construct a falsified mail message including all the internet headers. Not something normally done, but not inconceivable in this situation, given the alleged history of the parties involved.

 

In fact, email allows for hearsay-within-hearsay.

 

Still, this scenario fits best what we have seen transpire here.

 

fradar.gif

Link to post

so muc supposition, so little to back it up. Which leaves us right where we were several pages ago. Now, who do you suppose could stop the "rumor mill"?

 

As I said, whether the cache was there or not has little to do with the issue we have come to...

 

And, knowing this ISN'T a "one-off" it makes me wonder.

 

Sorry Roddy. Yes, speculation. But hey, they started it. :)

 

:laughing::)

Link to post
I wouldn't consider a forwarded email as hard evidence - it is simple to construct a falsified mail message including all the internet headers. Not something normally done, but not inconceivable in this situation, given the alleged history of the parties involved.

In fact, email allows for hearsay-within-hearsay.

"Hard evidence" is just that... evidence. I'm neither stating nor implying that it is proof.
Link to post

Proof would be a forwarded email from within a system that uses public key encryption, like PGP.

 

This would allow anyone to verify that the messages were not altered, and that they were sent by the person in the from: field. But I digress.

 

Certainly GS could verify that this is what transpired without compromising anyone's confidentiality (more than it has been already).

Link to post

The more I think about it the more I think SB111's theory is right on the money. In the end, this would mean that GS did not err on archiving the cache, but on the way the archiving took place.

 

Say there was no cache. SF knows this. Who would SF think also knew this? GS is adamant that they have information that says the cache is not there, but can't release the information because it is sensitive. SF reads this and is automatically going to start looking at folks who might know there is no cache. The damage is done. Either GS speak archived the cache on no information or insider information. Period.

 

A better way to have approached this would be to explain to SF that X number of cachers have spent X number of hours looking for the cache. Give SF 14 days to provide private photographic proof the cache is there or the cache would be archived. Using an outside reviewer would be good to reduce the chance of mistrust of a reviewer claiming FTF on an extreme cache. This would be eliminating any third party to protect and allows full disclosure if it is questioned by the community.

 

Hopefully this will be a good learning experience for the reviewers and TPTB.

 

I have not seen any example anywhere of GS being adamant that they know there was no cache there. All I have seen is that Nomex accused SF of not having a cache where SF said there is a cache (essentially calling him a liar) and GS doing NOTHING to back up Nomex other than being silent and not overturning Nomex nor canning him (or her).

Oh yeah, I think Miss Jenn said there was nothing "going on" and things were all OK (or something along those lines)

 

BTW, as long as there are some who believe that unfound cashes need to proven to exist, there is one supposedly at the bottom of the ocean I would like the owner to check on (else facing archival).

Link to post

As previously stated, this isn't a court of law. It's a game based on trust. If you have two people telling you contradicting things, sometimes you have to make the call as to who is believed.

 

You are right. This is NOT a court of LAW.

This is a court of public opinion. Public opinion about how a business treats its customers.

 

We have different rules in this court.

Link to post
All I have seen is that Nomex accused SF of not having a cache where SF said there is a cache (essentially calling him a liar) and GS doing NOTHING to back up Nomex other than being silent and not overturning Nomex nor canning him (or her).

Oh yeah, I think Miss Jenn said there was nothing "going on" and things were all OK (or something along those lines)

Here's a reminder of what MissJenn said about Nomex, et al.:
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."
That sounds like they're backing up Nomex to me.
Link to post

so muc supposition, so little to back it up. Which leaves us right where we were several pages ago. Now, who do you suppose could stop the "rumor mill"?

 

 

Actually nobody. If Groundspeak weighed in with time stamps on logs to back up their actions, someone here would say they were faked.

 

And, knowing this ISN'T a "one-off" it makes me wonder.

 

I've yet to see evidence that this isn't a isolate incident. The one linked to earlier is an entirely different situation.

Edited by briansnat
Link to post

Proof would be a forwarded email from within a system that uses public key encryption, like PGP.

 

This would allow anyone to verify that the messages were not altered, and that they were sent by the person in the from: field. But I digress.

 

Certainly GS could verify that this is what transpired without compromising anyone's confidentiality (more than it has been already).

As sbell111 said, the hypothetical email could have been sent through the geocaching.com email system, in which case (I believe) GS would have access to the original.

 

BTW, when I say that would be "sufficient proof", I mean sufficient for the reviewers to come to the conclusion they did. Until sbell111's post, I couldn't imagine anything other than a direct confession would suffice. I hope I didn't imply that I expect them to show us such an email to defend themselves.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to post

As previously stated, this isn't a court of law. It's a game based on trust. If you have two people telling you contradicting things, sometimes you have to make the call as to who is believed.

 

You are right. This is NOT a court of LAW.

This is a court of public opinion. Public opinion about how a business treats its customers.

 

We have different rules in this court.

Caches are archived by reviewers or Groundspeak when they find evidence that the cache is not in the best interest of the game. The level of proof is very low. The reason for this is to remove problems quickly rather than letting them linger. In every case, the owner can a appeal by providing evidence that shows the cache is in compliance with the guidelines. An appeal can be made that a reviewer has misapplied the guidelines, but that is not likely to suceed. An appeal base on evidence that cache is not in violation has a very good chance of succeeding.

 

An example with a different guideline is illustrative.

 

Cacher A hides a LPC at Wal*Mart. The cache is approved and published.

 

Later cacher B is searching for the cache. He is approached by store security who wants to know what he is doing. When he explains geocaching, security tells him that the cache is on private property and should be removed.

 

Cacher B logs an SBA (or perhaps sends and email to the reviewer).

 

The reviewer archives the cache with a canned note that says "This cache is being archived since was placed without permission."

 

Cacher A posts on the cache page "I got permission when I place this cache. The person claiming to be from store security doesn't know what he is talking about".

 

Cacher A appeals to Groundspeak saying "I got permission when I placed the cache".

 

Do you think Groundspeak should unarchive the cache? Why would the owner lie? Why would cacher B lie about store security?

 

What if Cacher A got a letter from store management indicating that he has permission. The store manager appologizes that security wasn't informed about the cache and will see that they are informed. Now should the cache be unarchived?

Evidence that a cache is not there or has never been there is harder to prove. If this were the same LPC as in the example and it had been found 50 times with no DNFs and then there were 10 DNFs in a row, nobody would complain if the reviewer looked at the string of DNFs and disabled the cache with a note "The cache is in need of a maintenance visit as this cache has not been found in months/years". If the owner were to log a Enabled log a few minutes later saying "I checked and the cache is there" and the reviewer went ahead and archived the cache because he didn't believe the owner had checked, would there be all these people in forum accusing the reviewer of calling the cache owner a liar? If the owner were to privately contact the reviewer and explain that the cache is not a typical LPC. It is in plain sight on lamppost. Until a few months ago the skirt was missing on this lampost and cachers took the time to search around and find the cache. Then the store replaced the skirt. Since that time, it appears that cachers are lifting the skirt to look for the cache and when they find nothing they decide the cache is missing and log a DNF. Perhaps then, the reviewer would simply watch the cache. Eventually a newbie who didn't know about LPCs will come along and find the cache. If that didn't happen, however, the reviewer might eventually come back and archive the cache. But if the owner sent a picture of the lampost to prove his story, the cache might not get archived.

 

I think the people are more upset about this cache being archived because it appears to be a very difficult cache by a cacher who has a reputation for intricate camouflage jobs. The owner clearly gets some enjoyment of seeing how long his caches can eluded detection by geocachers; and the those that enjoy a challenge are willing to make as many visits as it takes and log many DNFs till they find the cache. Somehow they feel that because this might the cache owner's pièce de résistance (or as he called it ジーエンド) it should be allowed to stay in place until someone does find it.

 

Of course there are many cachers who feel that even a very difficult cache ought to be found. At some point if a cache isn't being found it becomes a problem since it appears to be a bogus non-existent cache. I'm not sure if there was any additional evidence that the cache did not exist. It probably doesn't matter. A reviewer felt that the it had gotten enough DNF's over a long enough period to at least consider that there was no cache. My guess it that those who are willing to believe a cache can be made so difficult that nobody can find it are out numbered by those who think caches should be findable (albeit difficult in some cases). In the court of public opinion, Groundspeak may feel it is better to archive a cache base purely on suspicion that it doesn't it exist and risk archiving a legitimate cache than to risk having cachers feel you can get away posting a bogus cache because Groundspeak has to take your word the cache exists.

 

Groundspeak, and the reviewers, probably don't have a problem with this because a cache owner with a legitimate but very difficult cache would still be able to provide evidence the cache is real and avoid the archival. I do agree that the notes left by Nomex when disabling and later archiving the cache would be confusing to a cache owner who had put out a cache he knew would be especially difficult to find. One thing I would like to see come out of this is that instead of using the same canned note that gets used when an LPC starts getting lots of DNFs, the reviewers use a different note when it is a high difficulty cache that has never been found. "This cache has a high number of DNFs. This normally indicates the cache might be missing and need a maintenance visit. Please check on the cache and determine if it needs maintenance. If the cache does not require maintenance please contact me at my reviewer email to explain why the cache has not been found despite a number of cachers searching for it over a period of months/years."

Link to post

In yet another insightful post, Toz captures the sort of decision making that reviewers go through every day. We have to make judgements all the time based on the state of the record and the owner's reaction (or lack of response). Here's an example from today where I was proven right in not archiving a cache in response to insistent cries to do so. Likewise, Nomex made the right decision with the cache being discussed here. If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

Link to post

 

Johngie - Maybe after some time now it may be easier for you to understand, my comments were 100% not about yo as I have said many times. You are not the only COP that has a GPS and find's caches in West Michigan. But regarding what was true, and who was at fault, you do not know all you think you do. I could have simply walked away, but as he was local, I tried my best to be respectful and let things pass by. I never have met you or SF/Desert Eagle. SF/Desert Eagle sent me many, many emails of anger and threats. One email he chose to send was clearly disturbing where he listed my home address. My home address where my wife, 2 year old, and 5 year old live. Once he traveled that path, all hope for rational behaviour was gone. So this situation is not too hard for me to believe that it could be how the reviewer has stated.

 

You don't have to release that information in here. Yes, it seems to explain that perhaps Groundspeak was investigating the cacher and incidentally came across a e-mail to someone that indicated the cache was nonexistant. That would explain what happened. However, it really is not anyone's business. There are a few people that seem upset because they believe that the reviewer was speculating, when the reality is that they were the ones that were speculating. Ultimately it is their business and how they mind their business is their business. I don't understand why they were attempting to flame someone with fire proof underwear but that is their business, at least thats what I speculate..

Link to post

In yet another insightful post, Toz captures the sort of decision making that reviewers go through every day. We have to make judgements all the time based on the state of the record and the owner's reaction (or lack of response). Here's an example from today where I was proven right in not archiving a cache in response to insistent cries to do so. Likewise, Nomex made the right decision with the cache being discussed here. If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

 

I'm sorry but the mere lack of a reversal by TPTB on SFs cache is not enough to prove that the reviewer was correct in archiving the cache.

Link to post

In yet another insightful post, Toz captures the sort of decision making that reviewers go through every day. We have to make judgements all the time based on the state of the record and the owner's reaction (or lack of response). Here's an example from today where I was proven right in not archiving a cache in response to insistent cries to do so. Likewise, Nomex made the right decision with the cache being discussed here. If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

 

And it was not archived because??

The owner is not doing maintenance on it.

They haven't logged in since September 23rd and there was need maintenance logs and shoud be archived logs.

The cache may be there but the maintenance part is not being done.

You left a note.

 

What prompted Superfly's archiving, I saw no need's maintenance logs on the page and he seems to do maintenance.

 

How many emails from someone that can't find my cache is enough, for it not to be there?

Link to post

If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

 

I have nothing but the highest respect for Nomex but how could Groundspeak make any kind of determination without contacting the cache owner with their specific concerns?

 

If the email exhange posted by SF/TPE is accurate and complete, this was not done. If Groundspeak did contact the cache owner then that should be clarified.

Link to post

so muc supposition, so little to back it up. Which leaves us right where we were several pages ago. Now, who do you suppose could stop the "rumor mill"?

 

 

Actually nobody. If Groundspeak weighed in with time stamps on logs to back up their actions, someone here would say they were faked.

 

And, knowing this ISN'T a "one-off" it makes me wonder.

 

I've yet to see evidence that this isn't a isolate incident. The one linked to earlier is an entirely different situation.

 

Oh, come on Brian...most of us are rational here. And that cache I linked to looked amazingly similar to me. The "Moonpie" one...well, that's not quite the same at all (I suspect it was a liar's cache with the requirement you log a DNF???).

Link to post

If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

 

I have nothing but the highest respect for Nomex but how could Groundspeak make any kind of determination without contacting the cache owner with their specific concerns?

 

If the email exhange posted by SF/TPE is accurate and complete, this was not done. If Groundspeak did contact the cache owner then that should be clarified.

 

A third party could know the truth. Be it friends or family.

Link to post

so muc supposition, so little to back it up. Which leaves us right where we were several pages ago. Now, who do you suppose could stop the "rumor mill"?

 

 

Actually nobody. If Groundspeak weighed in with time stamps on logs to back up their actions, someone here would say they were faked.

 

And, knowing this ISN'T a "one-off" it makes me wonder.

 

I've yet to see evidence that this isn't a isolate incident. The one linked to earlier is an entirely different situation.

 

Oh, come on Brian...most of us are rational here. And that cache I linked to looked amazingly similar to me. The "Moonpie" one...well, that's not quite the same at all (I suspect it was a liar's cache with the requirement you log a DNF???).

 

Seems to me to be a case of the CO playing games because there were complaints of the container mysteriously appearing where they already looked.

Link to post

so muc supposition, so little to back it up. Which leaves us right where we were several pages ago. Now, who do you suppose could stop the "rumor mill"?

 

 

Actually nobody. If Groundspeak weighed in with time stamps on logs to back up their actions, someone here would say they were faked.

 

And, knowing this ISN'T a "one-off" it makes me wonder.

 

I've yet to see evidence that this isn't a isolate incident. The one linked to earlier is an entirely different situation.

 

Oh, come on Brian...most of us are rational here. And that cache I linked to looked amazingly similar to me. The "Moonpie" one...well, that's not quite the same at all (I suspect it was a liar's cache with the requirement you log a DNF???).

 

I DNF'd the Moonpie one. It was a film Canister in a swampy drainage pond next to Cracker Barrel. Hence the "off your rocker" reference. No one (including me) just felt like making a thorough search for it. Kind of a spoof of the Off your rocker series. :laughing:

 

Now the Indiana cache that the reviewer archived and accused of "disappearing and reappearing", that one is interesting. I guess that one was just never taken to the national forums, but it looks like it was quite controversial in Indiana. Isolated incidents yes, but it shows that this has happened in the past, and always with difficult caches that DNF'ers are whining about.

 

Edit to add: Back Seat driver in Indiana

Head of the hydra #3 (way off your rocker) in Pa.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to post

so muc supposition, so little to back it up. Which leaves us right where we were several pages ago. Now, who do you suppose could stop the "rumor mill"?

 

 

Actually nobody. If Groundspeak weighed in with time stamps on logs to back up their actions, someone here would say they were faked.

 

And, knowing this ISN'T a "one-off" it makes me wonder.

 

I've yet to see evidence that this isn't a isolate incident. The one linked to earlier is an entirely different situation.

 

Oh, come on Brian...most of us are rational here. And that cache I linked to looked amazingly similar to me. The "Moonpie" one...well, that's not quite the same at all (I suspect it was a liar's cache with the requirement you log a DNF???).

 

Seems to me to be a case of the CO playing games because there were complaints of the container mysteriously appearing where they already looked.

 

But it could have just been a very well hidden, camouflaged container. I know I've found caches in places I've sworn I've looked before. Some are just that well hidden. That could've been the case for that one...

Link to post

so muc supposition, so little to back it up. Which leaves us right where we were several pages ago. Now, who do you suppose could stop the "rumor mill"?

 

 

Actually nobody. If Groundspeak weighed in with time stamps on logs to back up their actions, someone here would say they were faked.

 

And, knowing this ISN'T a "one-off" it makes me wonder.

 

I've yet to see evidence that this isn't a isolate incident. The one linked to earlier is an entirely different situation.

 

Oh, come on Brian...most of us are rational here. And that cache I linked to looked amazingly similar to me. The "Moonpie" one...well, that's not quite the same at all (I suspect it was a liar's cache with the requirement you log a DNF???).

 

I DNF'd the Moonpie one. It was a film Canister in a swampy drainage pond next to Cracker Barrel. Hence the "off your rocker" reference. No one (including me) just felt like making a thorough search for it. Kind of a spoof of the Off your rocker series. :laughing:

 

Now the Indiana cache that the reviewer archived and accused of "disappearing and reappearing", that one is interesting. I guess that one was just never taken to the national forums, but it looks like it was quite controversial in Indiana. Isolated incidents yes, but it shows that this has happened in the past, and always with difficult caches that DNF'ers are whining about.

 

Edit to add: Back Seat driver in Indiana

Head of the hydra #3 (way off your rocker) in Pa.

 

I stand corrected and, since it was there, this does prove that this has happened before and with a cache that was truly there! So, my question is now, how many DNFs does it take before a reviewer decides the cache isn't there, AND, how does the reviewer come to that conclusion? I suspect that it's much like in this case (moonpie and Indiana cache), the reviewer takes the word of a non-finder? This means, they have no "proof" at all and are merely archiving a cache because it's too hard.

 

Now, I'm NOT saying that's the case of the cache in question, there are several possibilities including some theories which sound somewhat credible. However, how would we know since GS has been tight-lipped from the start save to say TPTB stand behind their reviewer.

Link to post

So, my question is now, how many DNFs does it take before a reviewer decides the cache isn't there, AND, how does the reviewer come to that conclusion? I suspect that it's much like in this case (moonpie and Indiana cache), the reviewer takes the word of a non-finder? This means, they have no "proof" at all and are merely archiving a cache because it's too hard.

This is not at all true with respect to the "Head of the Hydra" cache, which is in my review territory. I consider your allegation as a personal attack.

Link to post

SBell11's scenario seems certainly makes sense. But lets consider another scenario that also addresses the few facts that we have.

 

 

My story writing skills are limited so I will present this point-by-point.

 

 

  • SF has a run in with a few number of local cachers. It gets ugly with expressed and implied threats being tossed in both directions.
  • A controversy between SF and a couple of local cachers develops. SF is accused of unfairly collecting FTF's and SF accuses other cachers of stealing his caches.
  • It gets ugly with expressed and implied threats being tossed in both directions but SF gets the reputation of being mean and possibly dangerous.
  • During this time SF creates a very convincing brick veneer cache. He hides it and gets it listed.
  • The bad blood between SF and his rivals steeps.
  • The rival cacher (s) come up with a plan to get back at SF. They know that his cache is very popular, and that it has remained unfound for two years.
  • They present altered and embellished "evidence" to the reviewers showing that the cache does not exist and demand that the listing be archived.
  • The reviewers are convinced by the "evidence" and decide to archive the listing, but are worried about SF's temper. They ask a reviewer from across the continent to archive the cache for safety reasons.
  • Nomex archives that cache, but the post implies that SF is a liar.
  • SF retrieves the cache and destroys it in a fit of anger.

 

#2 contains information that was given to me by local cachers that never visit the GC forums.

 

 

I don't know it either scenario is accurate, but both are plausible.

 

 

While SF may be an unpleasant fellow, he may well be the victim here

 

 

One thing is true in both scenarios. GS could have handled the situation in a way that would have been less controversial. SBell11's scenario seems certainly makes sense. But lets consider another scenario that also addresses the few facts that we have.

 

 

My story writing skills are limited so I will present this point-by-point.

 

 

  • SF has a run in with a few number of local cachers. It gets ugly with expressed and implied threats being tossed in both directions.
  • A controversy between SF and a couple of local cachers develops. SF is accused of unfairly collecting FTF's and SF accuses other cachers of stealing his caches.
  • It gets ugly with expressed and implied threats being tossed in both directions but SF gets the reputation of being mean and possibly dangerous.
  • During this time SF creates a very convincing brick veneer cache. He hides it and gets it listed.
  • The bad blood between SF and his rivals steeps.
  • The rival cacher (s) come up with a plan to get back at SF. They know that his cache is very popular, and that it has remained unfound for two years.
  • They present altered and embellished "evidence" to the reviewers showing that the cache does not exist and demand that the listing be archived.
  • The reviewers are convinced by the "evidence" and decide to archive the listing, but are worried about SF's temper. They ask a reviewer from across the continent to archive the cache for safety reasons.
  • Nomex archives that cache, but the post implies that SF is a liar.
  • SF retrieves the cache and destroys it in a fit of anger.

 

#2 contains information that was given to me by local cachers that never visit the GC forums.

 

 

I don't know it either scenario is accurate, but both are plausible.

 

 

While SF may be an unpleasant fellow, he may well be the victim here

 

 

One thing is true in both scenarios. GS could have handled the situation in a way that would have been less controversial.

Link to post

So, my question is now, how many DNFs does it take before a reviewer decides the cache isn't there, AND, how does the reviewer come to that conclusion? I suspect that it's much like in this case (moonpie and Indiana cache), the reviewer takes the word of a non-finder? This means, they have no "proof" at all and are merely archiving a cache because it's too hard.

This is not at all true with respect to the "Head of the Hydra" cache, which is in my review territory. I consider your allegation as a personal attack.

 

Sorry, not meant to be. I would assume you can see how it appears though, right? I would also assume you'd see the similarities to the cache in question in this thread?

 

btw...if you don't mind answering, how did you conclude there wasn't a cache at the HOTH cache? One cacher has already given detail as to the container and such, sounds like it was indeed there?

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

So, my question is now, how many DNFs does it take before a reviewer decides the cache isn't there, AND, how does the reviewer come to that conclusion? I suspect that it's much like in this case (moonpie and Indiana cache), the reviewer takes the word of a non-finder? This means, they have no "proof" at all and are merely archiving a cache because it's too hard.

This is not at all true with respect to the "Head of the Hydra" cache, which is in my review territory. I consider your allegation as a personal attack.

 

I really don't see too much of a difference between HOTH and SF's cache in Michigan, to be honest. Both were placed by controversial members of the Geocaching community, to say the least. I just imagine Quest Master was controversial in a much less politically correct manner, being an opponent of "lame micros". I was told there was a film canister there, and I know for a fact QM got permission from the land owner (cache located about 100 feet from the edge of a Cracker Barrell parking lot).

 

I will say though, that the allegation from the cacher who posted the SBA is that the cache didn't exist ("appears to be a non-functional cache"). Miss Jenn however, said in her archive note only that Groundspeak decided to archive the cache after a "review".

Link to post
One thing is true in both scenarios. GS could have handled the situation in a way that would have been less controversial.

 

Both scenarios, any future scenario, GS handled and is still handling this wrong,,, imo.

 

First off, why did a reviewer from another state get involved in this in the first place? That just doesn't make any sense to me. The only thing i can come up with is that SF contacted Nomex and told him himself, that he never actually placed the physical container. Even then, i would think that it would still be sent to the local reviewer to handle.

 

Second, Unless SF admitted to GS and/or one of the reviewers himself, that he never actually physically placed the container, then where did any reliable proof come from? I wouldn't think relying on the word of another person or a copy of an email would suffice. The dnfs on the cache certainly don't offer any proof either. My point is, unless SF personally told a reviewer (or talks in his sleep within ear reach of a reviewer), then i can't figure out where any reliable proof could have come from.

 

I think the biggest thing that bothers me is that GS is so quiet about this. I just don't believe that this has anything to do with protecting anyone's privacy. The cache was published, which made it more than just GS's and SF's business. Cachers tried to find it, some researched it, some probably had it on their to do list, so the archiving of it affected these people in varying ways. To just archive it like this doesn't seem right...

Link to post

So, my question is now, how many DNFs does it take before a reviewer decides the cache isn't there, AND, how does the reviewer come to that conclusion? I suspect that it's much like in this case (moonpie and Indiana cache), the reviewer takes the word of a non-finder? This means, they have no "proof" at all and are merely archiving a cache because it's too hard.

This is not at all true with respect to the "Head of the Hydra" cache, which is in my review territory. I consider your allegation as a personal attack.

 

Sorry, not meant to be. I would assume you can see how it appears though, right? I would also assume you'd see the similarities to the cache in question in this thread?

 

btw...if you don't mind answering, how did you conclude there wasn't a cache at the HOTH cache? One cacher has already given detail as to the container and such, sounds like it was indeed there?

No I do not agree with your flawed assumptions, which are not supported by the facts on the cache page. I suggest taking a break from your smear campaign and reading that listing. You might learn the danger of making assumptions based on limited facts, and then apply that lesson to your postings to this discussion.

Link to post
SBell11's scenario seems certainly makes sense. But lets consider another scenario that also addresses the few facts that we have.

 

My story writing skills are limited so I will present this point-by-point.

 

  • SF has a run in with a few number of local cachers. It gets ugly with expressed and implied threats being tossed in both directions.
  • A controversy between SF and a couple of local cachers develops. SF is accused of unfairly collecting FTF's and SF accuses other cachers of stealing his caches.
  • It gets ugly with expressed and implied threats being tossed in both directions but SF gets the reputation of being mean and possibly dangerous.
  • During this time SF creates a very convincing brick veneer cache. He hides it and gets it listed.
  • The bad blood between SF and his rivals steeps.
  • The rival cacher (s) come up with a plan to get back at SF. They know that his cache is very popular, and that it has remained unfound for two years.
  • They present altered and embellished "evidence" to the reviewers showing that the cache does not exist and demand that the listing be archived.
  • The reviewers are convinced by the "evidence" and decide to archive the listing, but are worried about SF's temper. They ask a reviewer from across the continent to archive the cache for safety reasons.
  • Nomex archives that cache, but the post implies that SF is a liar.
  • SF retrieves the cache and destroys it in a fit of anger.

#2 contains information that was given to me by local cachers that never visit the GC forums.

 

I don't know it either scenario is accurate, but both are plausible.

 

While SF may be an unpleasant fellow, he may well be the victim here.

Under that hypothetical(?) scenario I would have a hard time calling SuperFly a victim.

 

All of us are exactly where we are today as the direct result of ALL the choices we have made in the past. We all make mistakes in judgment from time to time, but some folks tend to get themselves into a lot more trouble than most. You know the kind I’m talking about. There are some people who never seem to grasp the cause-and-effect relationship between the choices they make and their own resulting woes. They always seem to have an excuse, blaming something or someone else for their latest debacle – yet trouble just seems to keep finding them, over and over, as it does no one else.

 

If such a person’s real, actual, existing, non-missing cache were to be archived under the hypothetical you paint, I would not put the blame on the reviewer; I would instead examine the entire chain of events that led to the present circumstance.

 

Note the parts of your story I bolded. Most people, upon reaching any one of those stages, would have probably handled things differently. Did SF ever have the option to simply walk away from a confrontation? Did he ever have the choice to make an apology instead of a threat? Could he have brought his "rival cacher" and cache-stealing concerns to Groundspeak and let them handle it, instead of fanning the flames? (How does one end up with a "rival" in this hobby anyway?)

 

Blaming the reviewer for that cache’s archival in your scenario would be counterproductive – not only because it would be an inaccurate call, but because it might actually encourage the destructive blame-everyone-else mindset of the true rogue.

 

If things are as you portray them in your hypothesis, then Superfy created his own problems. If his reputation – the direct result of all the past choices he has made – got a guideline-compliant cache of his archived, (a cache that most likely wouldn't have ended up archived had it been placed by an average cache owner), then no, Superfly is not a victim of Groundspeak. He is a victim of his own history of poor decisions.

Edited by KBI
Link to post

Ok I googled my GC name just see were it popped up at.... and I found this

 

http://www.indianageocaching.com/viewtopic...f=90&t=1524

 

about this cache

 

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

 

 

Cutting away all the extras, does anyone still believe this is a "one-off"? Wow, this cache sounds very much like the cache in question in the topic at hand...does it not?

 

but hey, maybe it's just a "two-off"? Or, maybe there's more and more out there that we'd never know about since a LARGE portion of the caching world never visits these forums?

 

Maybe you should take a look Keystone, I wasn't even talking about YOUR work. This is the one I was commenting on, I mistakenly said HOTH as thinking it was the one we were talking about. :laughing: Sorry, I may have confused you, but your tone certainly wasn't nice! Assumptions are a dangerous thing, are they not? :signalviolin:

 

As for "smear campaing" I take THAT as a personal attack, my friend. I am in no way trying to SMEAR anyone in any way, I am looking for answers!

 

Now, if I come across the HOTH link, I'll gladly look into it, if you'd like! :laughing:

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...