Jump to content

Rogue Reviewer?


Recommended Posts

Are you saying it's OK to call someone a liar in public and that this is how the situation should have been handled?

If a company is convinced that the customer is lying, and if it is acting in the best interests of its other customers, then ... yes.

 

Officials have confirmed for us that this is the case.

 

If you insist otherwise, then you are calling those officials liars.

 

So why is it okay when you do it but not when they do it?

Link to post
Are you saying it's OK to call someone a liar in public and that this is how the situation should have been handled?

If a company is convinced that the customer is lying, and if it is acting in the best interests of its other customers, then ... yes.

 

Officials have confirmed for us that this is the case.

 

If you insist otherwise, then you are calling those officials liars.

 

So why is it okay when you do it but not when they do it?

 

With all due respect KBI, it seems to me that you are simply trying to get a rise.

 

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

 

I'm done with your "liar" comments, sir. This is the last I will comment to you if all you're going to do is go in circles. :P

 

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

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

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

 

38af2978-93cf-4836-9205-354362586932.jpg

 

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

Link to post

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

 

38af2978-93cf-4836-9205-354362586932.jpg

 

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

 

Well there could possibly be an answer in the Dr. Sigmund Freud reference manual. Check it out.

Link to post

So long as we're quoting Keystone posts this morning, here's another one. Really, the questions have been answered. If there's a need to hear it from your local reviewer, write them an e-mail.

 

My question has not been answered: does Groundspeak have a policy of contacting the cache owner with their specific questions or concerns when they investigate a decision on appeal?

By definition, when a cache owner writes an appeal message to Groundspeak, they are in contact with Groundspeak. If they have information to provide, they can put it in the appeal message. If further clarification is needed, the Groundspeak employee can write back and ask the owner and/or the cache reviewer. If no further information is needed, the appeal can be denied or upheld.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

Edited by KBI
Link to post

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

 

38af2978-93cf-4836-9205-354362586932.jpg

 

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

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

Link to post

Hey Roddy, would you please stop distracting Keystone. He needs to get back to publishing caches in his queue. We all know he can't do two things at once. :laughing:

 

Sorry Cheech!! :P;) Waiting on a publication??

 

ETA: I think you undersetimate the ability of our friend, Mr Keystone. Although we seem to be at odds here, I have high confidence in the man!!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

Can someone please explain to me why this thread is still going??? (and yes I am aware that by posting I'm moving it to the top of the list)

 

Seems fairly obvious to me that some of us are still concerned? Truly, you don;t need to visit this thread if you wish not to! :P

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Apples and oranges...but I'm certain you know that. Furthermore, I feel no need to convinve you of anything.

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

 

Yes he did!! :P By adding the word years to the canned statement in his archival log, he did call Superfly a liar. You people can put blinders on all you want, but if Nomex had left the canned statement as it was there would be no problem. However, he felt he had to insult Superfly publicly and he added the extra word. That in my opinion, makes Nomex rude and inconsiderate. whether SF is a liar or not.

 

It doesn't matter if SF is a liar or not, the format in which Nomex called him out is improper. ;):laughing::anicute::D:D

Link to post

Hey Roddy, would you please stop distracting Keystone. He needs to get back to publishing caches in his queue. We all know he can't do two things at once. :P

Your multicache, submitted yesterday, was published 12 minutes after your forum post.

 

For your audacity in bringing this to the forums, and for your delaying my geocaching trip today, and because I DNF'd its predecessor, I am going to ask Nomex to archive your new cache in Cass Park.

Link to post
Can someone please explain to me why this thread is still going???

Because they want to get to the bottom of a dispute between a cacher that said his cache was there and a reviewer (and the company that backs him up) saying it wasn't and used his authority to archive the listing.

 

"We are the government and we're here to help."

Link to post
For your audacity in bringing this to the forums, and for your delaying my geocaching trip today, and because I DNF'd its predecessor, I am going to ask Nomex to archive your new cache in Cass Park.

While I'm sure this is tongue in cheek, considering the thread I don't think that was funny.

Link to post

Hey Roddy, would you please stop distracting Keystone. He needs to get back to publishing caches in his queue. We all know he can't do two things at once. :laughing:

Your multicache, submitted yesterday, was published 12 minutes after your forum post.

 

For your audacity in bringing this to the forums, and for your delaying my geocaching trip today, and because I DNF'd its predecessor, I am going to ask Nomex to archive your new cache in Cass Park.

 

:P

 

Have a good trip. ;)

Link to post

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Yes he did!! :P By adding the word years to the canned statement in his archival log, he did call Superfly a liar. You people can put blinders on all you want, but if Nomex had left the canned statement as it was there would be no problem. However, he felt he had to insult Superfly publicly and he added the extra word. That in my opinion, makes Nomex rude and inconsiderate. whether SF is a liar or not.

 

It doesn't matter if SF is a liar or not, the format in which Nomex called him out is improper. ;):laughing::anicute::D:D

If for the sake of the discussion we assume for the moment that we know beyond doubt that Nomex is absolutely correct, would that change your view? If a CO had published a non-existent cache for years, using this site as an unwitting accomplice to help them pull a practical joke on cachers, I imagine that people who care might be really unhappy. Add on to that repeated lies to reviewers claiming that the cache had been checked and was truly still there. That might really really PO some of TPTB. It is entirely possible that this is what happened. It is also possible that it did not. Based on my overall understanding of TPTB and the whole ethical mindset of reviewers, I am leaning towards the idea that this is all about a practical joke that fell extremely flat when it was outed. We can't prove it either way, but I know who I am giving the benefit of the doubt to.

Edited by traildad
Link to post
For your audacity in bringing this to the forums, and for your delaying my geocaching trip today, and because I DNF'd its predecessor, I am going to ask Nomex to archive your new cache in Cass Park.

While I'm sure this is tongue in cheek, considering the thread I don't think that was funny.

Driving 200 miles to DNF a Cheech Gang cache is no choking matter, either.

Link to post
Can someone please explain to me why this thread is still going???

Because they want to get to the bottom of a dispute between a cacher that said his cache was there and a reviewer (and the company that backs him up) saying it wasn't and used his authority to archive the listing.

 

Yes but... it was made clear way back (oh what page was that, 1st or 2nd?) that by policy gs confidential communication in this matter would be not be published.

 

Noble protest effort, I suppose, on the part of those who want gs to relent, change policies or just offer up an apology, however unwarranted that might be.

 

This topic continues, equally, because some other "theys" disagree with the "theys" that want to get to the bottom. (Heck, haven't we been to the bottom already? :P )

Link to post

 

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

 

I agree.

 

Also if I spent several hours looking for a difficult cache and it was never there to begin with I certainly would want to know. People are argueing that GS should have hidden that fact from it's users. The cacher spent 18 months working on it and never took a picture of it which would have ended the entire debate. Other cachers have had issues with the CO, and everyone wants to know the dirty details which is truly disgusting.

 

Rubberneckers!

Link to post
Can someone please explain to me why this thread is still going???

Because they want to get to the bottom of a dispute between a cacher that said his cache was there and a reviewer (and the company that backs him up) saying it wasn't and used his authority to archive the listing.

 

Yes but... it was made clear way back (oh what page was that, 1st or 2nd?) that by policy gs confidential communication in this matter would be not be published.

 

Noble protest effort, I suppose, on the part of those who want gs to relent, change policies or just offer up an apology, however unwarranted that might be.

 

This topic continues, equally, because some other "theys" disagree with the "theys" that want to get to the bottom. (Heck, haven't we been to the bottom already? :P )

 

GS coupld provide answers without revealing confidential communications. They choose to keep us in the dark about it.

Some will argue that it is none of our business but EVERY cache is our business. Caches are why we are here.

Sure, i live FAR away from the archived cache but, as we know, with geocaching, distance doesn't mean too much.

 

Yeah, sure, Miss Jenn came in and said she agreed with Nomex calling SF a liar but, sorry, that just isn't enough to settle the issue. IMHO

Link to post
If for the sake of the discussion we assume for the moment that we know beyond doubt that Nomex is absolutely correct, would that change your view? If a CO had published a non-existent cache for years, using this site as an unwitting accomplice to help them pull a practical joke on cachers, I imagine that people who care might be really unhappy.

 

One of the things that has bothered me with this thread is that most of the people posting do not really pay any attention to what the other posters are saying. If you read my posts, any of them in this thread, you would see that even if SF was wrong, and Nomex was right, IT WOULD NOT CHANGE MY MIND.

 

If you reread the above quote, there are two distinct points. If a CO had published a non-existent cache for years, using this site as an unwitting accomplice to help them pull a practical joke on cachers. I would imagine TPTB would be really upset. I would be too.

 

If proof came out that Nomex was correct, I would still feel he was wrong in the way he archived the cache.

 

Take a deep breath, and try to follow what I'm saying. For a reviewer to intentionally call a CO a liar on the cache page, without proof, that reviewer is rude and inconsiderate. If the CO was lying he also is wrong, but two wrongs have never made a right.

 

If Superfly was using this site to play a practical joke on the Geocaching community, he needs to be called out. The archival of the cache is not the place to do so.

Link to post

This topic continues, equally, because some other "theys" disagree with the "theys" that want to get to the bottom. (Heck, haven't we been to the bottom already? :P )

But mostly because we are trying to win the 1k post prize (only 24 to go!) that Keystone promised earlier in this thread. I don't remember which post he said that in, you will have to go back and read all of them, but I am pretty sure he said that there was a nice prize.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to post
If for the sake of the discussion we assume for the moment that we know beyond doubt that Nomex is absolutely correct, would that change your view? If a CO had published a non-existent cache for years, using this site as an unwitting accomplice to help them pull a practical joke on cachers, I imagine that people who care might be really unhappy.

 

One of the things that has bothered me with this thread is that most of the people posting do not really pay any attention to what the other posters are saying. If you read my posts, any of them in this thread, you would see that even if SF was wrong, and Nomex was right, IT WOULD NOT CHANGE MY MIND.

 

If you reread the above quote, there are two distinct points. If a CO had published a non-existent cache for years, using this site as an unwitting accomplice to help them pull a practical joke on cachers. I would imagine TPTB would be really upset. I would be too.

 

If proof came out that Nomex was correct, I would still feel he was wrong in the way he archived the cache.

 

Take a deep breath, and try to follow what I'm saying. For a reviewer to intentionally call a CO a liar on the cache page, without proof, that reviewer is rude and inconsiderate. If the CO was lying he also is wrong, but two wrongs have never made a right.

 

If Superfly was using this site to play a practical joke on the Geocaching community, he needs to be called out. The archival of the cache is not the place to do so.

Take your own deep breath, the point is that I would imagine given the circumstances I suggested, the people involved would be really POd. If what I suggested was true, would you maybe change your mind from :P;):laughing::anicute::D to maybe only :D:D ? Maybe some understanding that people as wrapped up in caching as TPTB and reviewers must be, have human qualities and are not robots. I am responding to you being :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: more than the your feeling that this was not handled the "right" way.

Link to post

Hey Roddy, would you please stop distracting Keystone. He needs to get back to publishing caches in his queue. We all know he can't do two things at once. :P

Your multicache, submitted yesterday, was published 12 minutes after your forum post.

 

For your audacity in bringing this to the forums, and for your delaying my geocaching trip today, and because I DNF'd its predecessor, I am going to ask Nomex to archive your new cache in Cass Park.

 

Hold on now, was it Cheech's fault you DNF'd? Did you give your all in your attempt to find?

Link to post

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Take your own deep breath, the point is that I would imagine given the circumstances I suggested, the people involved would be really POd. If what I suggested was true, would you maybe change your mind from ;):laughing::anicute::D:D to maybe only :D:lol: ?

 

You don't seem to understand where I am coming from. What makes me mad in this, is a person in authority

using this forum to call a person a liar.

 

If Nomex or TPTB, were to admit they were wrong to use the cache page and their authority, to call SF a liar,without proof it would change my :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: to :P .

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

Yes he did!! :P

No, he didn't.

 

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

Link to post

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

 

38af2978-93cf-4836-9205-354362586932.jpg

 

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

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

 

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

Link to post

This topic continues, equally, because some other "theys" disagree with the "theys" that want to get to the bottom. (Heck, haven't we been to the bottom already? ;) )

But mostly because we are trying to win the 1k post prize...

 

Well. yes. Mostly that. That is why I'm still in. :P

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Take your own deep breath, the point is that I would imagine given the circumstances I suggested, the people involved would be really POd. If what I suggested was true, would you maybe change your mind from ;):laughing::anicute::D:D to maybe only :D:lol: ?

 

You don't seem to understand where I am coming from. What makes me mad in this, is a person in authority

using this forum to call a person a liar.

 

If Nomex or TPTB, were to admit they were wrong to use the cache page and their authority, to call SF a liar,without proof it would change my :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: to :P .

Without proof, or without offering proof to you? You do realize that they may have proof don't you? Under my scenario you seem to be completely ok with a CO publishing a non-existent practical joke. Where is your outrage for that. You seem very upset that the CO was "called" a liar. If TPTB are going to archive the cache they must give some kind of reason. It seems their reason was, the cache was never there. It becomes hard to give a public explanation for cache archival without calling the CO a liar. Maybe they could have done it in a more subtle way, but I imagine they might not have been in a subtle mood.

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

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

I think you are seeing a disagreement where there is none.

 

Please re-read this:

 

... Personally, I, and many others in here, feel that the context of Nomex's post called Super Fly a liar, and those who would argue the technicality that he didn't use the term "liar" are deluding themselves. ...

... I fully agree with your assessment that Nomex called Superfly a liar. That much is clear. ...

... and this:

 

Superfly says he checked the cache, and that it was there.

 

Nomex then archived the cache, stating there was nothing there.

 

Ever since, folks have been correctly interpreting Nomex’s log as calling Superfly a liar.

... and, taking careful note of my use of quote marks, this:

 

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

... and tell me if you don’t think that maybe you missed my point.

 

Roddy was hitting the "Nomex called Superfly a LIAR!" thing pretty hard. I have never denied that Nomex accused Superfly of lying; in fact I have agreed with that claim several times, as you can see. My point was that he never actually gave him "the title of Liar," as Roddy put it:

 

I don't care if the person lied or otherwise. If the person did, you had better be ready to show proof if you already publically called them out OR you'd best not title them the liar at all.

So again: Nomex didn’t actually say "Superfly is a LIAR!!!" Nomex simply contradicted one of Superfly's statements with a statement of his own.

 

Nomex therefore did NOT engage in petty name-calling, as Roddy likes to imply. It’s a fine point, but one I thought was worth making in order to help keep some of the hot-headedness out of this discussion.

 

See my point? Are you and I on the same page now?

Edited by KBI
Link to post
Take your own deep breath, the point is that I would imagine given the circumstances I suggested, the people involved would be really POd. If what I suggested was true, would you maybe change your mind from ;):laughing::anicute::D:D to maybe only :D:lol: ?

You don't seem to understand where I am coming from. What makes me mad in this, is a person in authority using this forum to call a person a liar.

 

If Nomex or TPTB, were to admit they were wrong to use the cache page and their authority, to call SF a liar,without proof it would change my :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: to :P .

Without proof, or without offering proof to you? You do realize that they may have proof don't you? Under my scenario you seem to be completely ok with a CO publishing a non-existent practical joke. Where is your outrage for that. You seem very upset that the CO was "called" a liar. If TPTB are going to archive the cache they must give some kind of reason. It seems their reason was, the cache was never there. It becomes hard to give a public explanation for cache archival without calling the CO a liar. Maybe they could have done it in a more subtle way, but I imagine they might not have been in a subtle mood.

I was going to respond to that, but Traildad said it much better than I would have.

 

Well put, Traildad.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post

By definition, when a cache owner writes an appeal message to Groundspeak, they are in contact with Groundspeak. If they have information to provide, they can put it in the appeal message. If further clarification is needed, the Groundspeak employee can write back and ask the owner and/or the cache reviewer. If no further information is needed, the appeal can be denied or upheld.

 

That is reasonable and what I would expect. In most cases that might be enough -- if a cache was denied because it was too commercial, if it was archived because it had not been found in several months and the owner had not done any maintenance check.

 

But in this case the CO claimed he checked on the cache did not seem to know why the cache was archived. His appeal focused on the number of DNF's. Assuming we are not missing any pieces of critical correspondence (the CO states we are not), I am still at a loss as to how Groundspeak could investigate whether the cache was there without asking the CO for specific information relevant to their concerns. Even assuming they had some sort of additional information or suspicion, wouldn't it be fair and reasonable to state that they had doubts about the cache placement and ask for clarification or proof, before concluding that the CO had lied.

Edited by Erickson
Link to post

Standard policies work well, and are defined for, most normal situations.

 

Unusual, very strange situations require sometimes, to follow non-standard procedures to deal with them.

 

I would say, but that's of course my humble opinion, a 800 posts thread with +30k readings reveals this one is an unusual, very strange situation and GS could have used a non-standard procedure to explain what happened. I doubt they will :P .

 

I would have liked to believe GS acted right on this one, but -again my humble opinion- the so-called-facts that we know doesn't allow me to do so. I know GS will not (can not) care about every single user opinion, but nevertheless that's mine if they are interested.

 

And now, I'm going to look for a couple of caches and (try to) forget this thread.

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

If that were the case, there would apparently be no reason for concern:

 

Nomex applied his judgment to a particular cache. It's an unusual case. Perhaps that judgment can be reexamined and, if the cache was archived in error, the simple remedy is to unarchive it. Not a big deal.
Link to post
Without proof, or without offering proof to you? You do realize that they may have proof don't you? Under my scenario you seem to be completely ok with a CO publishing a non-existent practical joke. Where is your outrage for that. You seem very upset that the CO was "called" a liar.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

Link to post

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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