Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13
Wooden Cyclist

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

I thought this was interesting. SuperFly has, in the past, found a couple of my owned caches. This was before he was told not to have contact with me anylonger. I know it was mentioned in past threads, but he has had another team name. It i s "TEAM DESERT EAGLE". Well, it looks as if he has made the choice to leave the "SUPER FLY" name and now he is officially "TEAM DESERT EAGLE" only. How do I know, well, he has been re-logging ALL 2009 of his cache finds by Super Fly, into his TEAM DESERT EAGLE account. I just got a few of these "find" logs/email notifications:

 

I found this cache as Super Fly. Due to personal reasons I am no longer caching as Super Fly.

This log is to keep record of the finds that I have made.

If there are any questions please feel free to email me at the address on my profile page.

Team Desert Eagle caching iPhone style.

 

..personal reasons? And to do this 2009 times? WOW...that is, um,... something. :)

 

If I were a CO up there, and I got this kind of a log coming through, wouldn't I be able to delete the log, citing it as a bogus log? I know he had already found it once, but isn't he know basically getting smiley's under a name that never actually found the cache, nor is on the log book? Something to ponder...

 

Nah. People do this all the time. Best to let it stand and avoid the drama.

 

Also...

 

...NAZIS!

Share this post


Link to post
Some of you seem to think the reviewers are doing us hiders a favor...how? If I wanted to, I could hide caches all I want in other sites...reviewers not needed!

You're making LOTS of friends in the reviewer ranks. :)

 

I guess you don't want to have any other caches published on this site? :)

 

Mushtang's implication that Roddy will now be retaliated against by reviewers is highly offensive to us. We have had a fair number of caches approved and have always found the reviewers to be FAIR, FIRM, AND FRIENDLY. We don't always agree with TPTB, being rogue troublemakers ourselves, but we have nothing but the utmost respect for the unpaid reviewers that we've had dealings with. To suggest that they would mount a vendetta against Roddy for speaking his mind, without any evidence that they would, is just not right. Other cachers, yes for sure, we've endured their unbridled cowardly hatred ; Reviewers, no. If Mushtang's comment was meant to be a joke, it sure wasn't funny to us.

 

If TPTB choose not to enlighten us on their side of this controversy, I'm sure they have their reasons...guess we won't ever know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment?
I'd say that any hoax cache was rated improperly.
No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to.
It would surprise me to find that any of the reviewers asked for the job. It is my understanding that qualified individuals are approached about the positions, they don't seek them out.
If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread?
If teh cache 'owner' had submitted a pic with his appeal, we wouldn't be having this thread. Of course, you can't photograph what doesn't exist.
When you can prove that cache was a hoax, your continued insistance it was will mean something.

 

My mistake, they agreed to or chose to do what was asked them. Not a big difference IMHO. I wonder if any of the reviewers were forced into service? Any of you had a gun held to your heads when "asked" to become a VOLUNTEER??

 

And you can go in circles all day about the picture, the fact is NOT ONE hider has ever been known to be ASKED to provide photograghic proof. If this is what the reviewer wanted, they should have ASKED!

Do you think that you could wander farther from this thread's topic?

 

As for proving that the cache was a hoax, I don't have to. Nomex had the proof of this that he needed. His word and that of Miss Jenn is sufficient for me. The cache, therefore, was a hoax unless the cache owner is willing to prove otherwise.

Gee, I answered your question and you complain I'm off-topic? Sorry, please don't ask if it's off topic then!

 

Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove to me. The fact that they have proof is all that I need to know. The cache did not exist. SF/TDE's contradictory posts in this thread further convince me of this.
... But even if Groundspeak had reason to believe that a cache was not there, and even if I assume that they were correct in their decision, I still think it would be a prudent course of action (as a matter of policy and procedure) to contact the cache owner, state that their specific concerns, and give a person full opportunity to respond before sending an email stating that after investigating the action, they have determined that you were lying. ...
He was contacted.
  • TPTB had evidence that the cache was a hoax.
  • They asked SF/TDE to verify that the cache was there.
  • He stated that it was.
  • Since the cache didn't, in fact, exist, SF/TDE once again had lied to the reviewers and the community. The cache was archived.

Rod, we're just running around in circles here. We both know that. You feel it was wrongly archived. I don't.

 

You're right and wrong on the last point. GS claims there was no cache but SF claims there was a cache. GS feels they have enough evidence to backup their claim. Evidence they feel needs not be released. SF now has no proof his cache existed(as he claims he threw it away), if it existed in the first place(check my logs, I've questioned it once before in the cache page).

I don't necessarily think it was wrongly archived, more that it was archived wrongly! :)
So you admit that the cache was a hoax and that SF/TDE had been repeatedly lying to the reviewers and the community?

Share this post


Link to post
... But even if Groundspeak had reason to believe that a cache was not there, and even if I assume that they were correct in their decision, I still think it would be a prudent course of action (as a matter of policy and procedure) to contact the cache owner, state that their specific concerns, and give a person full opportunity to respond before sending an email stating that after investigating the action, they have determined that you were lying. ...
He was contacted.
  • TPTB had evidence that the cache was a hoax.
  • They asked SF/TDE to verify that the cache was there.
  • He stated that it was.
  • Since the cache didn't, in fact, exist, SF/TDE once again had lied to the reviewers and the community. The cache was archived.

 

He stated the cache was there and it was archived.

The archiving sounds predetermined.

Share this post


Link to post
... But even if Groundspeak had reason to believe that a cache was not there, and even if I assume that they were correct in their decision, I still think it would be a prudent course of action (as a matter of policy and procedure) to contact the cache owner, state that their specific concerns, and give a person full opportunity to respond before sending an email stating that after investigating the action, they have determined that you were lying. ...
He was contacted.
  • TPTB had evidence that the cache was a hoax.
  • They asked SF/TDE to verify that the cache was there.
  • He stated that it was.
  • Since the cache didn't, in fact, exist, SF/TDE once again had lied to the reviewers and the community. The cache was archived.

He stated the cache was there and it was archived.

The archiving sounds predetermined.

Not at all. He could easily have stated (truthfully) that the cache was not there and archived it himself.

Share this post


Link to post

So you admit that the cache was a hoax and that SF/TDE had been repeatedly lying to the reviewers and the community?

 

I don't recall saying that either.

Share this post


Link to post
So you admit that the cache was a hoax and that SF/TDE had been repeatedly lying to the reviewers and the community?

 

I don't know about RR, but I think there's a difference between believing that the archival was justified and believing that the cache was a hoax.

 

On the one hand, I don't think Nomex would have archived the cache if he didn't have good reason to believe the cache was not there. TPTB would not be supporting him if they didn't have good reason to believe it wasn't there.

 

On the other hand, I've gone back and forth on whether or not I believe the cache was a hoax or not. We have the fact that SF has apparently placed some devious hides in the past. A number of cachers have posted stating the difficulty of some of these hides and that being the reason that they continued to hunt this particularly hide. We have SF posting several maintenance logs on the cache. Then we have the very odd explanation of how he threw the cache away out of disgust and how he didn't take pictures and how it somehow took over a year to make this cache.

 

Honestly, I don't really know what to believe in regards to the cache's existence. But there is enough doubt to justify the archival, in my opinion.

 

As has been stated, what happened prior to, during the disabling, up to the archival and even afterwards has been one huge lesson in the importance of good communication or rather the follies of poor communication.

 

I see this as a problem with both sides failing to communicate properly. The reviewer should have been clearer about what he wanted. The cache owner could have been more forthcoming with information. Most definitely he should not have destroyed all evidence of the cache's existence.

 

Frankly, I have a hard time believing no pictures were ever taken of the cache, but I can actually imagine being ticked off enough to just remove the cache after having it archived in the manner it was archived.

 

In the end, nothing is going to change the outcome of this archival. What's done is done.

 

Moving forward, I hope everyone has learned a little about how to best communicate your wishes to another party.

Share this post


Link to post

So you admit that the cache was a hoax and that SF/TDE had been repeatedly lying to the reviewers and the community?

 

I don't recall saying that either.

My mistake. When you posted that you didn't feel that the cache was wrongly archived, I thought that you were saying that you felt the cache was correctly archived. In other words, you agreed with the reason that the cache was archived; that it didn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Frankly, I have a hard time believing no pictures were ever taken of the cache, but I can actually imagine being ticked off enough to just remove the cache after having it archived in the manner it was archived.
I can imagine that, also. However, I can't imagine making the trip to remove the archived cache at 2am. That would be a job for the next day (or frankly whenever I got around to doing it). Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
Frankly, I have a hard time believing no pictures were ever taken of the cache, but I can actually imagine being ticked off enough to just remove the cache after having it archived in the manner it was archived.
I can imagine that, also. However, I can't imagine making the trip to remove the archived cache at 2am. That would be a job for the next day (or frankly whenever I got around to doing it).

 

I'm retired now, but when I was working I always preferred the night shifts. I know if it had been me, and I was working a night shift, 2am would very likely be about when I would go get it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment?
I'd say that any hoax cache was rated improperly.
No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to.
It would surprise me to find that any of the reviewers asked for the job. It is my understanding that qualified individuals are approached about the positions, they don't seek them out.
If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread?
If teh cache 'owner' had submitted a pic with his appeal, we wouldn't be having this thread. Of course, you can't photograph what doesn't exist.

 

When you can prove that cache was a hoax, your continued insistance it was will mean something.

 

My mistake, they agreed to or chose to do what was asked them. Not a big difference IMHO. I wonder if any of the reviewers were forced into service? Any of you had a gun held to your heads when "asked" to become a VOLUNTEER??

 

And you can go in circles all day about the picture, the fact is NOT ONE hider has ever been known to be ASKED to provide photograghic proof. If this is what the reviewer wanted, they should have ASKED!

Do you think that you could wander farther from this thread's topic?

 

As for proving that the cache was a hoax, I don't have to. Nomex had the proof of this that he needed. His word and that of Miss Jenn is sufficient for me. The cache, therefore, was a hoax unless the cache owner is willing to prove otherwise.

 

Gee, I answered your question and you complain I'm off-topic? Sorry, please don't ask if it's off topic then!

 

Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

The logs don't show time so it is hard to tell how much time passed between Nomex's post and the Super Fly reply that the cache was still there. I wonder if it is possible that a group of local cachers had decided to make a day of hunting the cache and find it come heck or high water. Spending the whole day there looking high and low. All during the day while looking for the cache they never see any other people at the location. Then they get home and go to log the dnf and surprise, they see the Super Fly note. Wait they think, he couldn't have checked on the cache without us seeing him. Then instead of logging the dnf, they drop the dime. No one knows except TPTB, who dropped the dime. This would not be hearsay evidence, and it would give TPTB good reason to not reveal more information. If a team of cachers all verified that no one came to check the cache, I would call that credible proof.

 

Total speculation, but it fits.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

 

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT.

 

Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough?

 

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! :)

Keep in mind there is more than one kind of proof. Absolute proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence is just a little more proof it is a hoax than proof that it is not. Just enough to tip the scale. For this kind of court, that would be good enough.

Share this post


Link to post

• SF/TDE is no longer posting

• TPTB are obviously not going to comment

• The cache no longer exists (if it ever did)

• No one has been convinced to change their opinion that I’ve been able to tell

• The discussions (arguments?) have been going in circles since about page twelve (if not before)

• Godwin’s Law has been flirted with in several posts

 

I think that I can say with some certainty that this equine is not merely dead; it’s totally and severely dead. It’s time to move on to some other nonsense. Thanks for the entertainment.

Share this post


Link to post

• SF/TDE is no longer posting

• TPTB are obviously not going to comment

• The cache no longer exists (if it ever did)

• No one has been convinced to change their opinion that I’ve been able to tell

• The discussions (arguments?) have been going in circles since about page twelve (if not before)

• Godwin’s Law has been flirted with in several posts

 

I think that I can say with some certainty that this equine is not merely dead; it’s totally and severely dead. It’s time to move on to some other nonsense. Thanks for the entertainment.

Do you mean?

morally, ethic'lly

Spiritually, physically

Positively, absolutely

Undeniably and reliably Dead. :)

Share this post


Link to post

• SF/TDE is no longer posting

• TPTB are obviously not going to comment

• The cache no longer exists (if it ever did)

• No one has been convinced to change their opinion that I’ve been able to tell

• The discussions (arguments?) have been going in circles since about page twelve (if not before)

• Godwin’s Law has been flirted with in several posts

 

I think that I can say with some certainty that this equine is not merely dead; it’s totally and severely dead. It’s time to move on to some other nonsense. Thanks for the entertainment.

Do you mean?

morally, ethic'lly

Spiritually, physically

Positively, absolutely

Undeniably and reliably Dead. :)

Thank you, I couldn't quite remember the lines.

This thread is DPM, anyway!

Share this post


Link to post

 

Thank you, I couldn't quite remember the lines.

This thread is DPM, anyway!

Google is your friend. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Just wait until you think one of your caches is missing. You take it offline in preparation for a replacement only to have someone claim they found it after you check to see that it's not in its resting spot. It's happened to me on at least two caches. It goes like this: folks put the cache back in a different spot. The next folks post DNFs. A previous finder might check on it and report it's not there. You go check on it and it's not there. You take it offline. A finder posts a find. You question the find as false. They describe exactly where they found it. You follow their directions and there it is. Now you, as the owner, thought your own cache didn't exist when, in fact, it did!

By this argument cache owners should never archive their own cache just because they think it is missing. But cache owners do this every day. Some do it simply based on the cache getting several DNFs - they don't even try to check to see if the cache is there. Are cache owners any different than a reviewer who sees evidence that a cache has gone missing or may have never even been there and archives it? The only difference is that when a reviewer archives a cache, the cache owner can present evidence that the cache is there and get it unarchived.

 

The difference is, the owner has a CHOICE whether they want to archive unlike in this situation.

The difference is that the owner has a CHOICE whether to provide evidence to the reviewer that there really is a cache. Or the owner could just get angry, take the cache and throw it away. But I was just responding to Coyote Red's claim that you can never prove a cache is missing.

 

I can see that Nomex's note would be confusing for a cache owner who believed that is only ask him to check on the cache. He did and when he reported it was there, that didn't seem to be enough for the reviewer who wen and archived the cache anyhow. Now with a second opportunity to offer evidence that there was a cache to find, the owner provides only the fact that it was a custom built container and that depending on the river can be difficult to access. Miss Jenn responds that after some investigation Groundspeak believes there is no cache to find and uphold the archive decision. At this point instead of offering to show pictures of how the cache was hidden or offer to show the cache to a local reviewer, SF makes a 2 AM run to remove the cache and throws it away.

 

Now it seems that some are angry because Nomex and later Groundspeak did not explicitly ask the cache owner to provide them evidence the cache existed. I believe this was because they had additional information beyond the DNFs that led to believe there was no cache. Rather than telling someone who was listing a hoax cache exactly what he needed to do to continue his hoax, they left it for him to decide. If the was a hoax, the cache owner might eventually slink away and not challenge the archival since there was no proof he could give that there was a cache. If it was really a difficult cache, the cache owner might eventually realize what needed to be done to show that cache existed. There is a small chance left that we had an actual cache but the cache owner's temperament led hid to destroy any evidence he could have used to show this.

Share this post


Link to post

Just wait until you think one of your caches is missing. You take it offline in preparation for a replacement only to have someone claim they found it after you check to see that it's not in its resting spot. It's happened to me on at least two caches. It goes like this: folks put the cache back in a different spot. The next folks post DNFs. A previous finder might check on it and report it's not there. You go check on it and it's not there. You take it offline. A finder posts a find. You question the find as false. They describe exactly where they found it. You follow their directions and there it is. Now you, as the owner, thought your own cache didn't exist when, in fact, it did!

By this argument cache owners should never archive their own cache just because they think it is missing. But cache owners do this every day. Some do it simply based on the cache getting several DNFs - they don't even try to check to see if the cache is there. Are cache owners any different than a reviewer who sees evidence that a cache has gone missing or may have never even been there and archives it? The only difference is that when a reviewer archives a cache, the cache owner can present evidence that the cache is there and get it unarchived.

 

The difference is, the owner has a CHOICE whether they want to archive unlike in this situation.

The difference is that the owner has a CHOICE whether to provide evidence to the reviewer that there really is a cache. Or the owner could just get angry, take the cache and throw it away. But I was just responding to Coyote Red's claim that you can never prove a cache is missing.

 

I can see that Nomex's note would be confusing for a cache owner who believed that is only ask him to check on the cache. He did and when he reported it was there, that didn't seem to be enough for the reviewer who wen and archived the cache anyhow. Now with a second opportunity to offer evidence that there was a cache to find, the owner provides only the fact that it was a custom built container and that depending on the river can be difficult to access. Miss Jenn responds that after some investigation Groundspeak believes there is no cache to find and uphold the archive decision. At this point instead of offering to show pictures of how the cache was hidden or offer to show the cache to a local reviewer, SF makes a 2 AM run to remove the cache and throws it away.

 

Now it seems that some are angry because Nomex and later Groundspeak did not explicitly ask the cache owner to provide them evidence the cache existed. I believe this was because they had additional information beyond the DNFs that led to believe there was no cache. Rather than telling someone who was listing a hoax cache exactly what he needed to do to continue his hoax, they left it for him to decide. If the was a hoax, the cache owner might eventually slink away and not challenge the archival since there was no proof he could give that there was a cache. If it was really a difficult cache, the cache owner might eventually realize what needed to be done to show that cache existed. There is a small chance left that we had an actual cache but the cache owner's temperament led hid to destroy any evidence he could have used to show this.

 

Anything's possible Toz! :) I just hope everyone learned something from this!! Personally, I learned that we had better be able to prove we hid a chace if it's hard to find. I learned that GS may not ask for what they want, you need to read between the lines. I learned that some in here don't think GS could do wrong.

 

In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good!

Share this post


Link to post

Just wait until you think one of your caches is missing. You take it offline in preparation for a replacement only to have someone claim they found it after you check to see that it's not in its resting spot. It's happened to me on at least two caches. It goes like this: folks put the cache back in a different spot. The next folks post DNFs. A previous finder might check on it and report it's not there. You go check on it and it's not there. You take it offline. A finder posts a find. You question the find as false. They describe exactly where they found it. You follow their directions and there it is. Now you, as the owner, thought your own cache didn't exist when, in fact, it did!

By this argument cache owners should never archive their own cache just because they think it is missing. But cache owners do this every day. Some do it simply based on the cache getting several DNFs - they don't even try to check to see if the cache is there. Are cache owners any different than a reviewer who sees evidence that a cache has gone missing or may have never even been there and archives it? The only difference is that when a reviewer archives a cache, the cache owner can present evidence that the cache is there and get it unarchived.

 

The difference is, the owner has a CHOICE whether they want to archive unlike in this situation.

The difference is that the owner has a CHOICE whether to provide evidence to the reviewer that there really is a cache. Or the owner could just get angry, take the cache and throw it away. But I was just responding to Coyote Red's claim that you can never prove a cache is missing.

 

I can see that Nomex's note would be confusing for a cache owner who believed that is only ask him to check on the cache. He did and when he reported it was there, that didn't seem to be enough for the reviewer who wen and archived the cache anyhow. Now with a second opportunity to offer evidence that there was a cache to find, the owner provides only the fact that it was a custom built container and that depending on the river can be difficult to access. Miss Jenn responds that after some investigation Groundspeak believes there is no cache to find and uphold the archive decision. At this point instead of offering to show pictures of how the cache was hidden or offer to show the cache to a local reviewer, SF makes a 2 AM run to remove the cache and throws it away.

 

Now it seems that some are angry because Nomex and later Groundspeak did not explicitly ask the cache owner to provide them evidence the cache existed. I believe this was because they had additional information beyond the DNFs that led to believe there was no cache. Rather than telling someone who was listing a hoax cache exactly what he needed to do to continue his hoax, they left it for him to decide. If the was a hoax, the cache owner might eventually slink away and not challenge the archival since there was no proof he could give that there was a cache. If it was really a difficult cache, the cache owner might eventually realize what needed to be done to show that cache existed. There is a small chance left that we had an actual cache but the cache owner's temperament led hid to destroy any evidence he could have used to show this.

 

Anything's possible Toz! :laughing: I just hope everyone learned something from this!! Personally, I learned that we had better be able to prove we hid a chace if it's hard to find. I learned that GS may not ask for what they want, you need to read between the lines. I learned that some in here don't think GS could do wrong.

 

In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good!

 

So after being told that GS doesn't think the cache exists, instead of providing proof you would just go out and destroy your cache? You also forget that GS says they have some other information on why they believe it's not there. So it's not that it's just a hard to find cache.

 

And this is only the second or third case out of how many difficult caches for this to happen to? It's not like it's normal operating procedure. That's what people seem to forget.

Share this post


Link to post

We think it may be a good idea to photograph a unique container in situ just for the record. We did that with the fake orange cache we hid in an old orange tree... kind of stuck out in the off season however!

Share this post


Link to post

 

So after being told that GS doesn't think the cache exists, instead of providing proof you would just go out and destroy your cache? You also forget that GS says they have some other information on why they believe it's not there. So it's not that it's just a hard to find cache.

 

And this is only the second or third case out of how many difficult caches for this to happen to? It's not like it's normal operating procedure. That's what people seem to forget.

Not following you on the first comment, not sure where you're going there...

 

As for the second comment, if it has happened in the past, it could happen again. What if it's your cache next? What if you put hundreds of $$$ and several months of work and prep into the hide? Someone complains, GS hears them and archives. It may not be the "norm" but it sure sends a message....

 

Now, hard to tell if this cache was there or not. I've seen some interesting details which could mean anything really, nothing that is proof...either way. GS may have acted in good faith, they may have done the right thing the wrong way or they may have done the wrong thing the wrong way...we'll never know. But lets hope this doesn't get more common and we now have to fight to keep our hard caches!

 

It is refreshing to hear Keystone tell us there's no new guidelines, but I don't think there was when the Indiana, Pennsylvania and now this cache were archived either...were all three of these fake caches?? Were ANY of them? We'll never know save some have said that at least one did exist!

 

Another thing I did learn...GS has got to be the most forgiving group I've ever heard of. IF the things went down as GS has said, then the CO lied to us, lied to them, lied to them some more and then came in here and lied lied lied. All while defending a cache which GS says never existed? Very forgiving of GS to allow this CO to continue on...if this was the case.

Share this post


Link to post

We think it may be a good idea to photograph a unique container in situ just for the record. We did that with the fake orange cache we hid in an old orange tree... kind of stuck out in the off season however!

 

Never in my hiding "career" lol, would I have thought "hey, I'd better take pics of this hide since it's sooo devious...someone might not believe it's there". Now, I may take a pic out of pride, but not because I feel the burden of proof is on me if someone can't find the hide. Sad that, after this, some of us feel this is a necessary step.

Share this post


Link to post

 

So after being told that GS doesn't think the cache exists, instead of providing proof you would just go out and destroy your cache? You also forget that GS says they have some other information on why they believe it's not there. So it's not that it's just a hard to find cache.

 

And this is only the second or third case out of how many difficult caches for this to happen to? It's not like it's normal operating procedure. That's what people seem to forget.

Not following you on the first comment, not sure where you're going there...

 

As for the second comment, if it has happened in the past, it could happen again. What if it's your cache next? What if you put hundreds of $$$ and several months of work and prep into the hide? Someone complains, GS hears them and archives. It may not be the "norm" but it sure sends a message....

 

Now, hard to tell if this cache was there or not. I've seen some interesting details which could mean anything really, nothing that is proof...either way. GS may have acted in good faith, they may have done the right thing the wrong way or they may have done the wrong thing the wrong way...we'll never know. But lets hope this doesn't get more common and we now have to fight to keep our hard caches!

 

It is refreshing to hear Keystone tell us there's no new guidelines, but I don't think there was when the Indiana, Pennsylvania and now this cache were archived either...were all three of these fake caches?? Were ANY of them? We'll never know save some have said that at least one did exist!

 

Another thing I did learn...GS has got to be the most forgiving group I've ever heard of. IF the things went down as GS has said, then the CO lied to us, lied to them, lied to them some more and then came in here and lied lied lied. All while defending a cache which GS says never existed? Very forgiving of GS to allow this CO to continue on...if this was the case.

 

My first comment meant SF was told that GS believed his cache never existed. It may not have been told to him at the get go. However, at the archival he was told that they believed his cache never existed. So rather than appealing it with proof that it exists, he destroys a cache that he worked on for over a year. That seems really fishy.

 

As for hiding very difficult caches, if I ever hid one so devious and evil that people couldn't find it, I would be more than willing to contact a reviewer and explain to them the hide, regardless if they "required" it of me or not.

 

And once again, even if this is the third time this has happened, that's what kind of a percentage of unjust cache archival? That's .0003% of currently active caches that have been archived due to too high of difficulty. Though I suspect there's more to the story than that.

Share this post


Link to post

We think it may be a good idea to photograph a unique container in situ just for the record. We did that with the fake orange cache we hid in an old orange tree... kind of stuck out in the off season however!

 

Never in my hiding "career" lol, would I have thought "hey, I'd better take pics of this hide since it's sooo devious...someone might not believe it's there". Now, I may take a pic out of pride, but not because I feel the burden of proof is on me if someone can't find the hide. Sad that, after this, some of us feel this is a necessary step.

 

Maybe not, but he did state that he worked on it over a year and a half period. If it was that darn good, I think I would be pretty proud and take some pictures of it...

Share this post


Link to post

 

So after being told that GS doesn't think the cache exists, instead of providing proof you would just go out and destroy your cache? You also forget that GS says they have some other information on why they believe it's not there. So it's not that it's just a hard to find cache.

 

And this is only the second or third case out of how many difficult caches for this to happen to? It's not like it's normal operating procedure. That's what people seem to forget.

Not following you on the first comment, not sure where you're going there...

 

As for the second comment, if it has happened in the past, it could happen again. What if it's your cache next? What if you put hundreds of $$$ and several months of work and prep into the hide? Someone complains, GS hears them and archives. It may not be the "norm" but it sure sends a message....

 

Now, hard to tell if this cache was there or not. I've seen some interesting details which could mean anything really, nothing that is proof...either way. GS may have acted in good faith, they may have done the right thing the wrong way or they may have done the wrong thing the wrong way...we'll never know. But lets hope this doesn't get more common and we now have to fight to keep our hard caches!

 

It is refreshing to hear Keystone tell us there's no new guidelines, but I don't think there was when the Indiana, Pennsylvania and now this cache were archived either...were all three of these fake caches?? Were ANY of them? We'll never know save some have said that at least one did exist!

 

Another thing I did learn...GS has got to be the most forgiving group I've ever heard of. IF the things went down as GS has said, then the CO lied to us, lied to them, lied to them some more and then came in here and lied lied lied. All while defending a cache which GS says never existed? Very forgiving of GS to allow this CO to continue on...if this was the case.

 

My first comment meant SF was told that GS believed his cache never existed. It may not have been told to him at the get go. However, at the archival he was told that they believed his cache never existed. So rather than appealing it with proof that it exists, he destroys a cache that he worked on for over a year. That seems really fishy.

 

As for hiding very difficult caches, if I ever hid one so devious and evil that people couldn't find it, I would be more than willing to contact a reviewer and explain to them the hide, regardless if they "required" it of me or not.

 

And once again, even if this is the third time this has happened, that's what kind of a percentage of unjust cache archival? That's .0003% of currently active caches that have been archived due to too high of difficulty. Though I suspect there's more to the story than that.

 

So, you'd know to contact GS and inform them that your hide is super tough...after how many DNFs? I mean, if they merely asked you to check to make sure the hide was still there, you would automatically know you'd better provide proof?

 

May seem fishy to you, bt some of us work differently than others, I would maybe handle it slightly different, but I'd likely not send them a pic even after they archived. I'd likely show my work to several of my friends and tell the tale so they can make a big noice if they please, but I'd not give GS the satisfaction...I shouldn't have to prove I'm a man of my word to them.

 

I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.

Share this post


Link to post

We think it may be a good idea to photograph a unique container in situ just for the record. We did that with the fake orange cache we hid in an old orange tree... kind of stuck out in the off season however!

 

Never in my hiding "career" lol, would I have thought "hey, I'd better take pics of this hide since it's sooo devious...someone might not believe it's there". Now, I may take a pic out of pride, but not because I feel the burden of proof is on me if someone can't find the hide. Sad that, after this, some of us feel this is a necessary step.

 

Maybe not, but he did state that he worked on it over a year and a half period. If it was that darn good, I think I would be pretty proud and take some pictures of it...

 

My pride wouldn't be such that I'd even consider proving my case to GS. Look, they already asked a different reviewer to come in. They then asked the CO to "check" his cache...he did (we're told). They then archive even after he did what was asked. Upon appeals, the PTB do nothing more than ask the reviewer (as it appears, not saying this to be fact, just how it could have been perceived by the CO) and then uphold the archival. Do "I" as the CO, having a bad attitude anyway, believe I'd get a fair shake regardless?? Not likely. But hey, I'm a suspecting soul anyway, I trust no one. Some of us are like that...

 

So, why jump through their hoops even knowing I'm not going to get a fair shake?

Share this post


Link to post

We think it may be a good idea to photograph a unique container in situ just for the record. We did that with the fake orange cache we hid in an old orange tree... kind of stuck out in the off season however!

 

Never in my hiding "career" lol, would I have thought "hey, I'd better take pics of this hide since it's sooo devious...someone might not believe it's there". Now, I may take a pic out of pride, but not because I feel the burden of proof is on me if someone can't find the hide. Sad that, after this, some of us feel this is a necessary step.

 

Maybe not, but he did state that he worked on it over a year and a half period. If it was that darn good, I think I would be pretty proud and take some pictures of it...

 

My pride wouldn't be such that I'd even consider proving my case to GS. Look, they already asked a different reviewer to come in. They then asked the CO to "check" his cache...he did (we're told). They then archive even after he did what was asked. Upon appeals, the PTB do nothing more than ask the reviewer (as it appears, not saying this to be fact, just how it could have been perceived by the CO) and then uphold the archival. Do "I" as the CO, having a bad attitude anyway, believe I'd get a fair shake regardless?? Not likely. But hey, I'm a suspecting soul anyway, I trust no one. Some of us are like that...

 

So, why jump through their hoops even knowing I'm not going to get a fair shake?

You've rewritten history just a bit.

 

You are ignoring the fact that SF/TDE appeal was lacking, so it was denied.

 

You are also forgetting that, during an appeal, the burdon of proof is on the cache owner. Since his cache was denied because it was not believed to exist, he should have shown evidence of it's existence. He did not, so his appeal could only be denied.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Anything's possible Toz! :laughing: I just hope everyone learned something from this!! Personally, I learned that we had better be able to prove we hid a chace if it's hard to find. I learned that GS may not ask for what they want, you need to read between the lines. I learned that some in here don't think GS could do wrong.

 

In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good!

I learned that some people will make assumptions based on inadequate information, and then never let go of their belief. Oh, wait... I already knew that.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.

The precedent was set the first time a cache was ever archived by a reviewer. That reviewer received some evidence that the cache was not in compliance with the guidelines and archived/disabled it. The cache owner never presented evidence that the cache was in compliance or brought into compliance so the reviewers ruling stood.

 

This is the way it has always worked. This cache was not an exception. The only thing one can complain about is that the way Nomex's note was written when he disabled the cache could be read as only asking for the cache owner to do a maintenance visit. When the CO reenabled the cache he said he did a maintenance visit. This turned out to not be what Nomex's was looking for. Perhaps reviewer notes can be made clearer. What we should all take away is that we the cache owner can ask if he/she doesn't understand what the issue with the cache is.

 

Anything's possible Toz! :laughing: I just hope everyone learned something from this!! Personally, I learned that we had better be able to prove we hid a chace if it's hard to find. I learned that GS may not ask for what they want, you need to read between the lines. I learned that some in here don't think GS could do wrong.

 

In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good!

I learned that some people will make assumptions based on inadequate information, and then never let go of their belief. Oh, wait... I already knew that.

:laughing:

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

We think it may be a good idea to photograph a unique container in situ just for the record. We did that with the fake orange cache we hid in an old orange tree... kind of stuck out in the off season however!

 

Never in my hiding "career" lol, would I have thought "hey, I'd better take pics of this hide since it's sooo devious...someone might not believe it's there". Now, I may take a pic out of pride, but not because I feel the burden of proof is on me if someone can't find the hide. Sad that, after this, some of us feel this is a necessary step.

 

Maybe not, but he did state that he worked on it over a year and a half period. If it was that darn good, I think I would be pretty proud and take some pictures of it...

 

My pride wouldn't be such that I'd even consider proving my case to GS. Look, they already asked a different reviewer to come in. They then asked the CO to "check" his cache...he did (we're told). They then archive even after he did what was asked. Upon appeals, the PTB do nothing more than ask the reviewer (as it appears, not saying this to be fact, just how it could have been perceived by the CO) and then uphold the archival. Do "I" as the CO, having a bad attitude anyway, believe I'd get a fair shake regardless?? Not likely. But hey, I'm a suspecting soul anyway, I trust no one. Some of us are like that...

 

So, why jump through their hoops even knowing I'm not going to get a fair shake?

You've rewritten history just a bit.

 

You are ignoring the fact that SF/TDE appeal was lacking, so it was denied.

 

You are also forgetting that, during an appeal, the burdon of proof is on the cache owner. Since his cache was denied because it was not believed to exist, he should have shown evidence of it's existence. He did not, so his appeal could only be denied.

You're ignoring the fact that, even with the archival, nothing was said that TPTB wanted photo proof. How are we to know that we need to prove something with a photo? Ever heard that before? Was the CO asked for this proof? So, again, we need to be mind readers...

 

Shouldn't have needed an appeal. Either GS KNEW they had the proof and should have confronted the owner with such OR they guessed they had the proof and should have done a BETTER investigation. Closing the cache down without either seems backwards to me.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.

The precedent was set the first time a cache was ever archived by a reviewer. That reviewer received some evidence that the cache was not in compliance with the guidelines and archived/disabled it. The cache owner never presented evidence that the cache was in compliance or brought into compliance so the reviewers ruling stood.

 

This is the way it has always worked. This cache was not an exception. The only thing one can complain about is that the way Nomex's note was written when he disabled the cache could be read as only asking for the cache owner to do a maintenance visit. When the CO reenabled the cache he said he did a maintenance visit. This turned out to not be what Nomex's was looking for. Perhaps reviewer notes can be made clearer. What we should all take away is that we the cache owner can ask if he/she doesn't understand what the issue with the cache is.

 

Anything's possible Toz! :laughing: I just hope everyone learned something from this!! Personally, I learned that we had better be able to prove we hid a chace if it's hard to find. I learned that GS may not ask for what they want, you need to read between the lines. I learned that some in here don't think GS could do wrong.

 

In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good!

I learned that some people will make assumptions based on inadequate information, and then never let go of their belief. Oh, wait... I already knew that.

:laughing:

 

Not hardly. Show me, other than the three here, where a presumed active cache was archived even after insistance from the CO that it was there? Sure, we see GS archive caches when owners don't answer or tke the time to bring the cache back to compliance, that's not the case here at all. Nope, that's apples and oranges.

Share this post


Link to post

At the end of the day, any archived cache can be unarchived if it meets the guidelines.

 

There were no photos taken and it simply vanished into thin air after archival; an appeal was made without proof.

 

The "tweaks" to the archival note is welcome communication to the people who went and searched hours for it.

 

It was the correct thing to do; if they swept it under the rug and did not reveal why it was archived, it would have caused even more consternation.

 

Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.

-Mark Twain

 

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I've also learned that, even when some pretend not to have interest in a thread, they can't help but to post...often to announce how they feel others should feel or that the thread needs shut down.

 

Or, sometimes merely to be snarky...

Share this post


Link to post

I've also learned that, even when some pretend not to have interest in a thread, they can't help but to post...often to announce how they feel others should feel or that the thread needs shut down.

 

Or, sometimes merely to be snarky...

 

:laughing:

 

In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good my friend!

Share this post


Link to post

At the end of the day, any archived cache can be unarchived if it meets the guidelines.

 

There were no photos taken and it simply vanished into thin air after archival; an appeal was made without proof.

 

The "tweaks" to the archival note is welcome communication to the people who went and searched hours for it.

 

It was the correct thing to do; if they swept it under the rug and did not reveal why it was archived, it would have caused even more consternation.

 

Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.

-Mark Twain

 

:laughing:

 

Please. Can you back that "welcome" statement or are you simply assuming once again? I believe many of us have issues with the added word...as has been discussed over and over. The right thing to do would have simply archived with the same canned message as always, confront the CO in private and deal with it...IN PRIVATE! Pretending those who searched are "relieved" they weren't fooled... :laughing::lol:

Share this post


Link to post

You may have missed it. It was before your last 30 posts.

 

 

That phrasing may have been better, but i think people would still be asking why it was archived. I've spent well over 5 hours searching that bridge and came up empty. With the time that was invested, I'm glad to know that the reason is(as Groundspeak believes) the cache was never there.

 

I really think there's a lot more going on with this cache than meets the eye.

 

I agree with slubersix. Having spent a few hours looking for the cache (and now a few more on this knotted up thread of a discussion), I wish I knew a few more details, but am glad to know their opinion (regardless of how rightly or poorly worded).

But just as I decide trust a CO when they say a cache is there, I now have to decide if I trust or doubt that GS had more than just a few whiners complaining to give them reason to believe it really was not there.

 

In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good my friend!

:laughing:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool

Share this post


Link to post

You may have missed it. It was before your last 30 posts.

 

 

That phrasing may have been better, but i think people would still be asking why it was archived. I've spent well over 5 hours searching that bridge and came up empty. With the time that was invested, I'm glad to know that the reason is(as Groundspeak believes) the cache was never there.

 

I really think there's a lot more going on with this cache than meets the eye.

 

I agree with slubersix. Having spent a few hours looking for the cache (and now a few more on this knotted up thread of a discussion), I wish I knew a few more details, but am glad to know their opinion (regardless of how rightly or poorly worded).

But just as I decide trust a CO when they say a cache is there, I now have to decide if I trust or doubt that GS had more than just a few whiners complaining to give them reason to believe it really was not there.

 

In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good my friend!

:laughing:

 

I see. Since two people say this, it must be true that ALL believe this?? I see your :lol: and raise you :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

You may have missed it. It was before your last 30 posts.

 

 

That phrasing may have been better, but i think people would still be asking why it was archived. I've spent well over 5 hours searching that bridge and came up empty. With the time that was invested, I'm glad to know that the reason is(as Groundspeak believes) the cache was never there.

 

I really think there's a lot more going on with this cache than meets the eye.

 

I agree with slubersix. Having spent a few hours looking for the cache (and now a few more on this knotted up thread of a discussion), I wish I knew a few more details, but am glad to know their opinion (regardless of how rightly or poorly worded).

But just as I decide trust a CO when they say a cache is there, I now have to decide if I trust or doubt that GS had more than just a few whiners complaining to give them reason to believe it really was not there.

 

In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good my friend!

:lol:

 

I see. Since two people say this, it must be true that ALL believe this?? I see your :P and raise you :laughing:

 

Two people that spent a combined 7 (or more) hours looking for it.

 

If Groundspeak had protected the cache owner by keeping the reason for archival silent, then we would be here reading a 25 page thread titled "Why Was This Cache Archived?", "Secret Reviewer Archival?" or "Secret Archive Tribunals?" :)

 

What was the CO's intent, anyway? To put Groundspeak in a Catch-22 situation? :huh:

 

You live in the same state, did YOU look for it Roddy? Perhaps you would have a different opinion. I do admire how you stand up for what you believe in, but your intense dedication to this thread also leaves me to believe that you know a little more than what you are saying.. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

You may have missed it. It was before your last 30 posts.

 

 

That phrasing may have been better, but i think people would still be asking why it was archived. I've spent well over 5 hours searching that bridge and came up empty. With the time that was invested, I'm glad to know that the reason is(as Groundspeak believes) the cache was never there.

 

I really think there's a lot more going on with this cache than meets the eye.

 

I agree with slubersix. Having spent a few hours looking for the cache (and now a few more on this knotted up thread of a discussion), I wish I knew a few more details, but am glad to know their opinion (regardless of how rightly or poorly worded).

But just as I decide trust a CO when they say a cache is there, I now have to decide if I trust or doubt that GS had more than just a few whiners complaining to give them reason to believe it really was not there.

 

In the end, as long as we all learned something, life is good my friend!

:lol:

 

I see. Since two people say this, it must be true that ALL believe this?? I see your :P and raise you :laughing:

 

Two people that spent a combined 7 (or more) hours looking for it.

 

If Groundspeak had protected the cache owner by keeping the reason for archival silent, then we would be here reading a 25 page thread titled "Why Was This Cache Archived?", "Secret Reviewer Archival?" or "Secret Archive Tribunals?" :)

 

What was the CO's intent, anyway? To put Groundspeak in a Catch-22 situation? :huh:

 

You live in the same state, did YOU look for it Roddy? Perhaps you would have a different opinion. I do admire how you stand up for what you believe in, but your intense dedication to this thread also leaves me to believe that you know a little more than what you are saying.. :laughing:

 

lol, I do, but that doesn't make a difference to the conversation!

 

No, it wouldn't have made a difference one way or the other. I did state that I was going to go after it....waaaay back in the beginning of the thread! And I would ASSUME that the CO's intent was to hide a hard cache. It was GS' actions which put them in THIS catch-22...not sure what you were meaning other than that?

Share this post


Link to post
Just wait until you think one of your caches is missing. You take it offline in preparation for a replacement only to have someone claim they found it after you check to see that it's not in its resting spot. It's happened to me on at least two caches. It goes like this: folks put the cache back in a different spot. The next folks post DNFs. A previous finder might check on it and report it's not there. You go check on it and it's not there. You take it offline. A finder posts a find. You question the find as false. They describe exactly where they found it. You follow their directions and there it is. Now you, as the owner, thought your own cache didn't exist when, in fact, it did!
By this argument cache owners should never archive their own cache just because they think it is missing. But cache owners do this every day. Some do it simply based on the cache getting several DNFs - they don't even try to check to see if the cache is there. Are cache owners any different than a reviewer who sees evidence that a cache has gone missing or may have never even been there and archives it? The only difference is that when a reviewer archives a cache, the cache owner can present evidence that the cache is there and get it unarchived.

You completely miss the point. In response to establishing the difference between an unfound cache and a cache that didn't exist, I made a point. That point was that a cache could seem to not exist even to the cache owner when, in fact, it does. When I went and checked on those caches, I'd looked at where they were supposed to be. I didn't look elsewhere. I assumed they no longer existed because they were not where I left them. No, I was convinced they no longer existed because of my assumption. One I even replaced resulting in two caches within feet of each other.

 

This parallels the idea that a cache that is "too hard to find" is no different than a cache that doesn't exist.

 

Me making the assumption that because the cache was not where I had left it meant that it didn't exist is no different than those 27 DNFs saying that they looking everywhere, when it could have been they never looked in the spot in which the cache was actually located and recognized it for what it was. If they had only recognized what they were seeing is the same as me either walking the 40' to the cache behind the tree or looking to my right as a crucial point in my crawl--both would have produced a found cache.

 

My point had nothing to do with trying to prove a negative or anything of that nature.

Share this post


Link to post

This parallels the idea that a cache that is "too hard to find" is no different than a cache that doesn't exist.

So I can assume that if I DNF it then it does not exist? Man, I feel better knowing that it wasn't just too hard for me to find!

:laughing:

 

Now I need a new log type - DNE = Does Not Exist :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
So I can assume that if I DNF it then it does not exist? Man, I feel better knowing that it wasn't just too hard for me to find!

Maybe you need to read the whole post and that to which it refers. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
So I can assume that if I DNF it then it does not exist? Man, I feel better knowing that it wasn't just too hard for me to find!

Maybe you need to read the whole post and that to which it refers. :laughing:

I have read every post to this thread. Sometimes it's just fun to play with context. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
The logs don't show time so it is hard to tell how much time passed between Nomex's post and the Super Fly reply that the cache was still there. I wonder if it is possible that a group of local cachers had decided to make a day of hunting the cache and find it come heck or high water. Spending the whole day there looking high and low. All during the day while looking for the cache they never see any other people at the location. Then they get home and go to log the dnf and surprise, they see the Super Fly note. Wait they think, he couldn't have checked on the cache without us seeing him. Then instead of logging the dnf, they drop the dime. No one knows except TPTB, who dropped the dime. This would not be hearsay evidence, and it would give TPTB good reason to not reveal more information. If a team of cachers all verified that no one came to check the cache, I would call that credible proof.

 

Total speculation, but it fits.

 

Wow! I can answer the first part of this one: 5 hours, 5 minutes and 55 seconds

 

SF note: 2009-10-04T19:22:19

Nomex note: 2009-10-04T14:16:24

 

:laughing::laughing:

Edited by DeepButi

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.

 

Oh no. Does this mean that the sky is, in fact, falling after all?

 

I just want to come away from this topic knowing whether the sky is falling or not. Are all the hard to find caches now in danger of being archived? Is that what we've learned here?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.

 

Oh no. Does this mean that the sky is, in fact, falling after all?

 

I just want to come away from this topic knowing whether the sky is falling or not. Are all the hard to find caches now in danger of being archived? Is that what we've learned here?

 

Have you seen anyone preaching doom and gloom? You sure have a way of twisting things to fit your own needs...which, in this case, seems to be just to be snarky? :laughing:

 

I assume you're a grown-up, draw your own conclusions... :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.

 

Oh no. Does this mean that the sky is, in fact, falling after all?

 

I just want to come away from this topic knowing whether the sky is falling or not. Are all the hard to find caches now in danger of being archived? Is that what we've learned here?

 

Have you seen anyone preaching doom and gloom? You sure have a way of twisting things to fit your own needs...which, in this case, seems to be just to be snarky? :laughing:

 

I assume you're a grown-up, draw your own conclusions... :laughing:

 

Why, if there is no doom and gloom, as you say, has this topic drug on so long? Why should anyone, save for the cache owner and maybe some folks in his area be concerned? The only conclusion I can draw from is that folks are fearful that gs will start archiving hard to find caches with dnfs in great numbers.

 

Do you believe your hard to find caches are now in danger of being archived, or that the hard to find caches in your area might be next?

 

If it only ever happens .0003% (too many zeros?) of the time how could it possibly be causing so much strife?

 

Or, maybe you guys think that you are preempting a future doom and gloom situation by firing down hard on gs right now. Nipping it in the bud. For the benefit of all.

 

I think some folks here are just plain rankled by how this cache got archived. Fair enough that some folks have hard feelings. But... when you attach "It happened once, it can happen again" then you, yourself, have raised the doom and gloom flag. That is the conclusion I draw because it is soooo unrealistic to believe that a few questionable decisions (I add the "questionable" for your benefit) will lead to any sort of long term problems.

 

(edit to repair quotes)

Edited by Team Sagefox

Share this post


Link to post
I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.
The precedent was set the first time a cache was ever archived by a reviewer. That reviewer received some evidence that the cache was not in compliance with the guidelines and archived/disabled it. The cache owner never presented evidence that the cache was in compliance or brought into compliance so the reviewers ruling stood.

 

This is the way it has always worked. This cache was not an exception. The only thing one can complain about is that the way Nomex's note was written when he disabled the cache could be read as only asking for the cache owner to do a maintenance visit. When the CO reenabled the cache he said he did a maintenance visit. This turned out to not be what Nomex's was looking for. Perhaps reviewer notes can be made clearer. What we should all take away is that we the cache owner can ask if he/she doesn't understand what the issue with the cache is.

I disagree with the bolded bit. Given that the cache did not exist, SF/TDE's response to the maintenance request was a lie.

 

Nomex need not have initially challenged SF/TDE on this issue. Nomex asked SF/TDE to check on the cache, thereby giving SF/TDE an honorable way out of his deception. All he had to do was to be truthful and report that the cache was not in place. At that point, it could have either been disabled for a time to allow SF/TDE to place a cache at the location or it could be archived. Instead, SF/TDE chose to attempt to perpetuate the lie and it bit him in the butt.

We think it may be a good idea to photograph a unique container in situ just for the record. We did that with the fake orange cache we hid in an old orange tree... kind of stuck out in the off season however!
Never in my hiding "career" lol, would I have thought "hey, I'd better take pics of this hide since it's sooo devious...someone might not believe it's there". Now, I may take a pic out of pride, but not because I feel the burden of proof is on me if someone can't find the hide. Sad that, after this, some of us feel this is a necessary step.
Maybe not, but he did state that he worked on it over a year and a half period. If it was that darn good, I think I would be pretty proud and take some pictures of it...
My pride wouldn't be such that I'd even consider proving my case to GS. Look, they already asked a different reviewer to come in. They then asked the CO to "check" his cache...he did (we're told). They then archive even after he did what was asked. Upon appeals, the PTB do nothing more than ask the reviewer (as it appears, not saying this to be fact, just how it could have been perceived by the CO) and then uphold the archival. Do "I" as the CO, having a bad attitude anyway, believe I'd get a fair shake regardless?? Not likely. But hey, I'm a suspecting soul anyway, I trust no one. Some of us are like that...

 

So, why jump through their hoops even knowing I'm not going to get a fair shake?

You've rewritten history just a bit.

 

You are ignoring the fact that SF/TDE appeal was lacking, so it was denied.

 

You are also forgetting that, during an appeal, the burdon of proof is on the cache owner. Since his cache was denied because it was not believed to exist, he should have shown evidence of it's existence. He did not, so his appeal could only be denied.

You're ignoring the fact that, even with the archival, nothing was said that TPTB wanted photo proof. How are we to know that we need to prove something with a photo? Ever heard that before? Was the CO asked for this proof? So, again, we need to be mind readers...

 

Shouldn't have needed an appeal. Either GS KNEW they had the proof and should have confronted the owner with such OR they guessed they had the proof and should have done a BETTER investigation. Closing the cache down without either seems backwards to me.

Anytime a cache owner appeals an archival, the burdon of proof is on him. He is expected to prove that the archival was in error. SF/TDE could not do that, so he lost his appeal. It is as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't care the percentage, I'm not a numbers person. I DO care that there is precedence! It happened once, it can happen again.
The precedent was set the first time a cache was ever archived by a reviewer. That reviewer received some evidence that the cache was not in compliance with the guidelines and archived/disabled it. The cache owner never presented evidence that the cache was in compliance or brought into compliance so the reviewers ruling stood.

 

This is the way it has always worked. This cache was not an exception. The only thing one can complain about is that the way Nomex's note was written when he disabled the cache could be read as only asking for the cache owner to do a maintenance visit. When the CO reenabled the cache he said he did a maintenance visit. This turned out to not be what Nomex's was looking for. Perhaps reviewer notes can be made clearer. What we should all take away is that we the cache owner can ask if he/she doesn't understand what the issue with the cache is.

I disagree with the bolded bit. Given that the cache did not exist, SF/TDE's response to the maintenance request was a lie.

 

Nomex need not have initially challenged SF/TDE on this issue. Nomex asked SF/TDE to check on the cache, thereby giving SF/TDE an honorable way out of his deception. All he had to do was to be truthful and report that the cache was not in place. At that point, it could have either been disabled for a time to allow SF/TDE to place a cache at the location or it could be archived. Instead, SF/TDE chose to attempt to perpetuate the lie and it bit him in the butt.

My guess is that is the reason that Nomex's not did not specifically ask for proof the cache was there. If Nomex truly believed there was never a cache (and it seems that he did) it would not make much sense to tell the cache owner what he could do to continue to perpetuate the hoax. If SF really wanted a hoax cache, he could then quickly create the camouflage, photograph it in place, sent that in as proof, and in the meantime throw away the fake and still have a hoax. If there really was a cache, a reasonable cache owner would have simply shown evidence without being prompted for it and that would likely have satisfied the reviewers. However, I can imagine that sometimes a cache owner who has hidden a really hard cache might believe that if a reviewer ask him to check the cache, that all he has to do is post that he checked the cache. I still believe there is a fair likelihood that there was a cache to find. I'm looking for a way for reviewers to indicate that a cache owner can provide evidence that there really is a cache to counter whatever evidence made the reviewer believe there was no cache in the first place, and how to do this without telling a hoaxer what he has to do to continue his hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

×
×
  • Create New...