Jump to content

Rogue Reviewer?


Recommended Posts

The fact remains that SF claims there was a container. There's no proof of it.

Just wanted to touch on this bit of silliness.

According to the GC homepage at the time I wrote this:

"There are 946,694 active caches worldwide."

Based upon your personal experience, how many of those 946,694 caches required proof that there was an actual cache on site at the time of publication? My guess would be somewhere between zero and none. Your mileage may vary. I've never heard of any cacher having to submit proof that their cache existed. Ever. Have you? I would think, if needing proof was such an ongoing problem, Nomex would've had a "We Need Proof" copy/paste note handy, and wouldn't have had to use his "You Are A Liar" copy/paste note. Since Nomex, acting as an agent of Groundspeak, never so much as hinted that proof was desired, your argument kinda falls apart.

 

Didn't I read somewhere that the Nazis used to go in circles...?

Your desperate attempt to shut this thread down is sad.

If it causes you so much grief, why punish yourself by clicking on it? :laughing:

Is this your normal reaction to statements you disagree with?

Silence the dissenters? :lol:

 

check my logs, I've questioned it once before in the cache page.

You questioned if the cache was there? What prompted you to doubt? Seems I just read a thread about ego, and folks assuming a cache must not be there if they, in their infinite cache finding skills, fail at finding it.

 

...NAZIS!

Again? How remarkably clever of you. :laughing:

 

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.

Could be read? How else could any reasonable, prudent person read it? "Check your cache" can only mean "Check your cache". The only confusion here is your continued obfuscation of reality with your assertion that Nomex's note could have been confusing.

 

BTW, if you had read any of my posts, you'd see that the so called confusion isn't the only legitimate complaint.

My complaint has been more along the lines of poor customer relations. With the exception of those folks who bought Clinton's argument regarding what "Is" is, no one can seriously claim that Nomex didn't publicly call SF a liar. I believe that any time a company representative publicly disparages a paying customer, that rep should explain himself. If that rep refuses, as Nomex has done for the past 22 pages, the company should step in and offer an explanation. I see it as simple company courtesy. Putting up smokescreens with suggestions of evidence is not sufficient, in my mind, to make up for Nomex's public rudeness.

 

For the record, my biggest cause for doubting SF is that he dropped out of this long ago.

 

I know if I were in a similar situation, and I felt I was wronged by a company, I would not meekly slink away.

 

(of course, I wouldn't be in this situation, since I typically take lots of pictures of my hides)

Link to post
The fact remains that SF claims there was a container. There's no proof of it.

Just wanted to touch on this bit of silliness.

According to the GC homepage at the time I wrote this:

"There are 946,694 active caches worldwide."

Based upon your personal experience, how many of those 946,694 caches required proof that there was an actual cache on site at the time of publication? My guess would be somewhere between zero and none. Your mileage may vary. I've never heard of any cacher having to submit proof that their cache existed. Ever. Have you? I would think, if needing proof was such an ongoing problem, Nomex would've had a "We Need Proof" copy/paste note handy, and wouldn't have had to use his "You Are A Liar" copy/paste note. Since Nomex, acting as an agent of Groundspeak, never so much as hinted that proof was desired, your argument kinda falls apart.

 

Didn't I read somewhere that the Nazis used to go in circles...?

Your desperate attempt to shut this thread down is sad.

If it causes you so much grief, why punish yourself by clicking on it? :laughing:

Is this your normal reaction to statements you disagree with?

Silence the dissenters? :lol:

 

check my logs, I've questioned it once before in the cache page.

You questioned if the cache was there? What prompted you to doubt? Seems I just read a thread about ego, and folks assuming a cache must not be there if they, in their infinite cache finding skills, fail at finding it.

 

...NAZIS!

Again? How remarkably clever of you. :laughing:

 

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.

Could be read? How else could any reasonable, prudent person read it? "Check your cache" can only mean "Check your cache". The only confusion here is your continued obfuscation of reality with your assertion that Nomex's note could have been confusing.

 

BTW, if you had read any of my posts, you'd see that the so called confusion isn't the only legitimate complaint.

My complaint has been more along the lines of poor customer relations. With the exception of those folks who bought Clinton's argument regarding what "Is" is, no one can seriously claim that Nomex didn't publicly call SF a liar. I believe that any time a company representative publicly disparages a paying customer, that rep should explain himself. If that rep refuses, as Nomex has done for the past 22 pages, the company should step in and offer an explanation. I see it as simple company courtesy. Putting up smokescreens with suggestions of evidence is not sufficient, in my mind, to make up for Nomex's public rudeness.

 

For the record, my biggest cause for doubting SF is that he dropped out of this long ago.

 

I know if I were in a similar situation, and I felt I was wronged by a company, I would not meekly slink away.

 

(of course, I wouldn't be in this situation, since I typically take lots of pictures of my hides)

Rather than taking the time to parse your post, I'll simply make these two related statements:
  1. 'Owners' of caches that are archived because it is not believed that they exist, should reasonably be expected to prove said existence in order to have the cache reactivated upon appeal.
  2. Cachers who lie to the community should reasonably expect to be called liars, no matter how much said cachers have previously paid the company.

Link to post
The fact remains that SF claims there was a container. There's no proof of it.

Just wanted to touch on this bit of silliness.

According to the GC homepage at the time I wrote this:

"There are 946,694 active caches worldwide."

Based upon your personal experience, how many of those 946,694 caches required proof that there was an actual cache on site at the time of publication? My guess would be somewhere between zero and none. Your mileage may vary. I've never heard of any cacher having to submit proof that their cache existed. Ever. Have you? I would think, if needing proof was such an ongoing problem, Nomex would've had a "We Need Proof" copy/paste note handy, and wouldn't have had to use his "You Are A Liar" copy/paste note. Since Nomex, acting as an agent of Groundspeak, never so much as hinted that proof was desired, your argument kinda falls apart.

When caches are submitted, the submitter checks a box saying he has read and understood the guidelines. Unless there is something on the cache page that indicates a guideline problem the reviewers don't ask for proof that all the guidelines are met. The cache owner checked a box and is given the benefit of the doubt. If later on, there is evidence that there is a problem then reviewers ask the cache owner to fix the problem. (Some problems result in the cache being archived immediately, but the cache owner can still fix the problem and present evidence that the cache is now in compliance it can be unarchived). This cache was published like any other cache. The reviewers had evidence that there was no cache to find. Nomex disabled the cache and when he was not satisfied that SF had corrected the problem he archived the cache.

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.

Could be read? How else could any reasonable, prudent person read it? "Check your cache" can only mean "Check your cache". The only confusion here is your continued obfuscation of reality with your assertion that Nomex's note could have been confusing.

Nomex's note said

The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either replace it or archive it, after picking up any geo-litter.
If there was no need to replace the cache and no geo-liter to pick up the cache owner should have had a question or two about the issue with his cache. Nomex's note also says
Don't hesitate to email me via the link on my Profile if you have any questions.
SF did not do this. I agree that the note could have been clearer. I am certain that a reasonable, prudent person could have reacted in a different manner than SF did.

 

BTW, if you had read any of my posts, you'd see that the so called confusion isn't the only legitimate complaint.

My complaint has been more along the lines of poor customer relations. With the exception of those folks who bought Clinton's argument regarding what "Is" is, no one can seriously claim that Nomex didn't publicly call SF a liar. I believe that any time a company representative publicly disparages a paying customer, that rep should explain himself. If that rep refuses, as Nomex has done for the past 22 pages, the company should step in and offer an explanation. I see it as simple company courtesy. Putting up smokescreens with suggestions of evidence is not sufficient, in my mind, to make up for Nomex's public rudeness.

 

For the record, my biggest cause for doubting SF is that he dropped out of this long ago.

 

I know if I were in a similar situation, and I felt I was wronged by a company, I would not meekly slink away.

 

(of course, I wouldn't be in this situation, since I typically take lots of pictures of my hides)

If Groundspeak or their agent calls someone a liar and this is a lie, wouldn't that be defamation. It may be poor customer relations, but I would think SF might want to consider suing Groundspeak and Nomex for libel. :unsure: I think that reasonable people would understand that if a reviewer believes there is a problem with a cache, it is more effective to simply state what that problem is and let the cache owner provide evidence to the contrary. The cache owner who hides behind the argument that the reviewer is rude or that the reviewed defamed them by not taking their word that the cache was there is not going to convince many people that they are being truthful themselves.

If you stop someone for speeding and they say "but officer, I was going the speed limit", is it bad customer relations when you still write them a ticket? Better, if they went to court and told the judge, "The police officer was rude and called me a liar", do you think the judge should throw out the ticket?

Edited by tozainamboku
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? :unsure:

 

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

 

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)

 

MAYBE because it's a hot issue and, while it doesn't spell the end of caching in whole, it COULD happen to you or I. You know, just like a car accident could happen, but we still drive? I really give you more credit than I should be if you can't figure this out on your own, my friend!

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.

 

Define "reasonable". Tell me how you KNOW how a "reasonable" cacher would react. What professional training brought you to the ability to make these conclusions.

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! :P 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.

:unsure:

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.

There is no way to make an apples-to-apples comparison here. It has been made clear that this is a unique circumstance. It has also been made clear that there is much more to this story, and that the additional information is not going to be made public.

 

Consequently, there is no way to dig up an equivalent case for any apples-to-apples comparison.

 

Therefore: The fact that no one can demonstrate that this has happened before means nothing.

 

Roddy:

(1) We, the caching public, do not have complete information about this archival.

(2) Any conclusions drawn from incomplete information are inherently invalid.

 

What part(s) of those two inarguable facts do you not understand?

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! B) 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.

:unsure:

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.

There is no way to make an apples-to-apples comparison here. It has been made clear that this is a unique circumstance. It has also been made clear that there is much more to this story, and that the additional information is not going to be made public.

 

Consequently, there is no way to dig up an equivalent case for any apples-to-apples comparison.

 

Therefore: The fact that no one can demonstrate that this has happened before means nothing.

 

Roddy:

(1) We, the caching public, do not have complete information about this archival.

(2) Any conclusions drawn from incomplete information are inherently invalid.

 

What part(s) of those two inarguable facts do you not understand?

 

KBI, discussion is the only thing we have and can do in this situation. I am discussing. Is that so hard to understand? If this bothers you, please don't hesitate to not open the thread, but PLEASE don't come in and tell others what we should or shouldn't do, how we should or shouldn't think or what we should or shouldn't take away from this discussion. If your only reason to come into this thread is to post as you did above, why bother? Do you really think I'm going to stop simply because you posted that? I mean, others have done a much better job of trying and I'm still here, my friend! :P

 

#2 on your little list there...that goes for a lot more in this thread than just this discussion (between you and I). Having ALL the information would be helpful in making decisions, wouldn't you say? We shouldn't act on hearsay, on belief or on past actions alone, right? We should strive to get ALL the info before making a decision, right? And no, not just perceiving we have it all, but doing all it takes to KNOW we have it all...before acting.

 

Not having all the info, as you have stated...does that mean we should just shut up and go away? I think not. And who's drawing ANY conclusions here? What conclusion should we even be trying to come to? I take it, you just don't understand what the reason for this discussion is. If you did, you'd realize I'm not here to decide on anything, not to make conclusions. I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to, but that's not my reason being here either.

Link to post

When did the number of caches being discussed change from one cache location at a bridge in Michigan to "the three here?" :unsure:

 

What are the other two caches?

 

I believe you and I had a little debate about a couple others, which were remarkably similar?? My memory is terrible and I'm pretty lazy these days, but I'm sure anyone interested could find the other two in this thread somewhere!! :P

Link to post
Do you really think I'm going to stop simply because you posted that?

No, I don’t. It is not my intent to stop you from posting. And I would like to further point out that such strawman arguments are counterproductive.

 

I thought my intent was clear: I simply asked you a question.

 

You did not answer the question. You chose instead to obfuscate, to insult me, to belittle my post, to challenge my right to post my opinion, and to sprinkle in a few strawman arguments for added flavor.

 

I would prefer that you address what I thought was a very reasonable question.

 

Having ALL the information would be helpful in making decisions, wouldn't you say? We shouldn't act on hearsay ...

I agree. So why, then, have you filled this thread with opinion and accusation and debate based on hearsay, and information you know to be incomplete?

 

I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to ...

Then please consider this as a hypothetical:

 

(1) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might fully agree that the archival was necessary, and that it was handled in the best way available.

(2) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might understand why the additional details were not made public.

 

These two statements represent my own admittedly unprovable assumptions about this case, as they fit the few facts given in this thread and on the cache page, and because they are consistent with the statements (and reputations) of all the parties involved.

 

I recommend that you at least consider those two possibilities, and that you do so with an open mind. Doing so might make it easier to put yourself in the shoes of those you keep ranting against.

Link to post

When did the number of caches being discussed change from one cache location at a bridge in Michigan to "the three here?" :unsure:

 

What are the other two caches?

 

I believe you and I had a little debate about a couple others, which were remarkably similar?? My memory is terrible and I'm pretty lazy these days, but I'm sure anyone interested could find the other two in this thread somewhere!! :P

The Pennsylvania cache you referenced several pages ago is factually NOT on point to the discussion in this thread. The cache was archived by Groundspeak, not a reviewer, and it wasn't archived because of a belief that there was no cache at the location. Since you continue to reference this "example" without checking your facts, your own actions are no better than the perceived behavior that your posts complain about.

 

If your memory is so terrible, and you are that lazy, that you would continue to falsely say that the western Pennsylvania reviewer archived that cache because it was never there, then you should stop posting.

Link to post
Do you really think I'm going to stop simply because you posted that?

No, I don’t. It is not my intent to stop you from posting. And I would like to further point out that such strawman arguments are counterproductive.

 

I thought my intent was clear: I simply asked you a question.

 

You did not answer the question. You chose instead to obfuscate, to insult me, to belittle my post, to challenge my right to post my opinion, and to sprinkle in a few strawman arguments for added flavor.

 

I would prefer that you address what I thought was a very reasonable question.

 

Having ALL the information would be helpful in making decisions, wouldn't you say? We shouldn't act on hearsay ...

I agree. So why, then, have you filled this thread with opinion and accusation and debate based on hearsay, and information you know to be incomplete?

 

I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to ...

Then please consider this as a hypothetical:

 

(1) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might fully agree that the archival was necessary, and that it was handled in the best way available.

(2) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might understand why the additional details were not made public.

 

These two statements represent my own admittedly unprovable assumptions about this case, as they fit the few facts given in this thread and on the cache page, and because they are consistent with the statements (and reputations) of all the parties involved.

 

I recommend that you at least consider those two possibilities, and that you do so with an open mind. Doing so might make it easier to put yourself in the shoes of those you keep ranting against.

 

Groundspeak is going to archive all difficult to find caches? Oh noooesss!!! We must debate this matter.

 

The SF cache was archived unjustly!

Link to post

When did the number of caches being discussed change from one cache location at a bridge in Michigan to "the three here?" :unsure:

 

What are the other two caches?

 

I believe you and I had a little debate about a couple others, which were remarkably similar?? My memory is terrible and I'm pretty lazy these days, but I'm sure anyone interested could find the other two in this thread somewhere!! B)

The Pennsylvania cache you referenced several pages ago is factually NOT on point to the discussion in this thread. The cache was archived by Groundspeak, not a reviewer, and it wasn't archived because of a belief that there was no cache at the location. Since you continue to reference this "example" without checking your facts, your own actions are no better than the perceived behavior that your posts complain about.

 

If your memory is so terrible, and you are that lazy, that you would continue to falsely say that the western Pennsylvania reviewer archived that cache because it was never there, then you should stop posting.

 

I believe I did read that page and I said they were SIMILAR, not exact. The cache was closed and it did appear to have been in place. I'm sure there's also more to the story than is said, just like here. The similarities are really striking. I checked all the "facts" I am privy to, my friend, can you provide something I am not privy to? I would be more than happy to check into it if so!! :P

Link to post
Do you really think I'm going to stop simply because you posted that?

No, I don’t. It is not my intent to stop you from posting. And I would like to further point out that such strawman arguments are counterproductive.

 

I thought my intent was clear: I simply asked you a question.

 

You did not answer the question. You chose instead to obfuscate, to insult me, to belittle my post, to challenge my right to post my opinion, and to sprinkle in a few strawman arguments for added flavor.

 

I would prefer that you address what I thought was a very reasonable question.

 

Having ALL the information would be helpful in making decisions, wouldn't you say? We shouldn't act on hearsay ...

I agree. So why, then, have you filled this thread with opinion and accusation and debate based on hearsay, and information you know to be incomplete?

 

I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to ...

Then please consider this as a hypothetical:

 

(1) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might fully agree that the archival was necessary, and that it was handled in the best way available.

(2) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might understand why the additional details were not made public.

 

These two statements represent my own admittedly unprovable assumptions about this case, as they fit the few facts given in this thread and on the cache page, and because they are consistent with the statements (and reputations) of all the parties involved.

 

I recommend that you at least consider those two possibilities, and that you do so with an open mind. Doing so might make it easier to put yourself in the shoes of those you keep ranting against.

 

Please point out where I insulted you, belittled you or challenged your right to post? If not, this is a strawman and I have no desire to play these games with you. :unsure:

Link to post

Bored now.

 

This going nowhere, and i doubt it ever will ....................... let it lie

 

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! If we do, all the hard caches will be archived. We must, for the sake of difficult caches, keep this thread alive and well. If not, all hard caches will disappear and be archived.

Link to post

No, the similarities are not "really striking." My prior post illustrates why.

 

I will simply accept that you are a ROGUE POSTER who will blindly charge ahead, regardless of the facts.

 

You can call me what you wish, the facts are right there.

 

GS archived a cache believed to be there, you posted that in the post you just pointed to. Are you saying that GS jumped in right from the start of archival and no reviewer was involved...even in the beginning? I see, from what info I can get (which is what I assume you mean when getting my facts, right?), that there is INDEED quite the similarity. Sorry. But, as I said, if you want me to know more, I am more than happy to check out anything you can direct me to...

Link to post

Bored now.

 

This going nowhere, and i doubt it ever will ....................... let it lie

 

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! If we do, all the hard caches will be archived. We must, for the sake of difficult caches, keep this thread alive and well. If not, all hard caches will disappear and be archived.

 

Oh brother....sad to see this type of posting from someone I thought was above this. :unsure:

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

Is there a point to this thread? :unsure:

 

Sure is, it's right there to read if you want! :P

 

I had been following this from the start. Still not sure about the point of it

My memory is terrible and I'm pretty lazy these days, (wait, I heard this before!) Rocky would you mind spelling it out for me?

What are you trying to accomplish in this thread?

B)

Link to post

Is there a point to this thread? :unsure:

 

Sure is, it's right there to read if you want! B)

 

I had been following this from the start. Still not sure about the point of it

My memory is terrible and I'm pretty lazy these days, (wait, I heard this before!) Rocky would you mind spelling it out for me?

What are you trying to accomplish in this thread?

:D

 

Nope. Too lazy to bother. It's all there, please feel free, my friend! :P

Link to post
Please point out where I insulted you, belittled you or challenged your right to post? If not, this is a strawman and I have no desire to play these games with you. :unsure:

My memory is terrible and I'm pretty lazy these days, but I'm sure anyone interested could find them in your post somewhere. They are there. I refuse to follow you on a tangent and away from your claims.

 

 

So, that distraction aside, how are you coming with the open mind thing I recommended?

 

In case you missed it:

 

I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to ...

Then please consider this as a hypothetical:

 

(1) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might fully agree that the archival was necessary, and that it was handled in the best way available.

(2) If you had the full story on this archival, it is entirely possible you might understand why the additional details were not made public.

 

These two statements represent my own admittedly unprovable assumptions about this case, as they fit the few facts given in this thread and on the cache page, and because they are consistent with the statements (and reputations) of all the parties involved.

 

I recommend that you at least consider those two possibilities, and that you do so with an open mind. Doing so might make it easier to put yourself in the shoes of those you keep ranting against.

Are you still working on a response to that? You DID say you were "more than happy to debate the different theories." I saw it right there in your post, and I took you at your word.

 

I know you are not here simply to troll. I therefore sincerely believe you will give my hypothetical plenty of serious, unbiased and unprejudiced consideration, and I await your honest reply.

Link to post
I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to ...
... I recommend that you at least consider those two possibilities, and that you do so with an open mind. Doing so might make it easier for you to put yourself in the shoes of those you keep ranting against.
I have no desire to play these games with you. :P

Oh well. :unsure:

 

It was worth a try, but I’m out of time for now.

 

I’m outta here for a few more days.

 

Good luck with whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here Roddy – and I sincerely hope your Thanksgiving is as awesome as mine is about to be ...

Link to post
I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to ...
... I recommend that you at least consider those two possibilities, and that you do so with an open mind. Doing so might make it easier for you to put yourself in the shoes of those you keep ranting against.
I have no desire to play these games with you. B)

Oh well. :unsure:

 

It was worth a try, but I’m out of time for now.

 

I’m outta here for a few more days.

 

Good luck with whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here Roddy – and I sincerely hope your Thanksgiving is as awesome as mine is about to be ...

 

Unfortunately, mine won't be until Sunday....no turkey for me this day! :P Have a good one, my friend!

Link to post
When did the number of caches being discussed change from one cache location at a bridge in Michigan to "the three here?" :unsure:

 

What are the other two caches?

I believe you and I had a little debate about a couple others, which were remarkably similar?? My memory is terrible and I'm pretty lazy these days, but I'm sure anyone interested could find the other two in this thread somewhere!! :P

There was the 'Kryptonite' cache that SF/TDE apparently set up only so his squeeze could log it (and she alone). I'm not aware of a third cache. Edited by sbell111
Link to post
... I checked all the "facts" I am privy to, my friend, can you provide something I am not privy to? I would be more than happy to check into it if so!! :unsure:
Your recent posts have reminded me of a politician on the ropes. He is desperate to beat the more popular candidate, but he has to be careful not to offend too many of the other guy's supporters. So he repeatedly refers to him as 'my friend'. Everyone sees through this, of course. They see him as someone who would say anything to win, whether he believed it or not. So he loses. It would actually have been better for him if he either said what he meant (Jerkface is going to raise your taxes) or not actually referred to him at all (I will make sure that your taxes don't go up).
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. :unsure:
I have read every post to this thread. Sometimes it's just fun to play with context. :P

Ah, my bad. I didn't have my humor bone engaged at the time. So sorry.

 

That does remind me of some past threads arguing that you can't posts a DNF on a cache that doesn't exist, you can't post a DNF until you know it was actually there for you not find, and other nonsensical notions.

 

In the end I'm glad our caches got found so we didn't have to prove they actually existed.

Link to post

 

(1) We, the caching public, do not have complete information about this archival.

(2) Any conclusions drawn from incomplete information are inherently invalid.

 

What part(s) of those two inarguable facts do you not understand?

 

Because we, the caching public, to not have complete information about this archival, I agree any conclusions drawn are inherently invalid.

 

That does not seem to stop anyone on either side of this debate from drawing conclusions and stating them as facts. :unsure:

 

The only thing I find here that,to me is a fact, Nomex called Superfly a liar and did not/ or could not provide any proof.

 

For those who feel if Superfly was lying he should be publicly call on it. I agree, he should. But only if the person who calls him on it is in a position to back it up.

 

I may be wrong, but I believe if Nomex had just archive the cache and had not added his editorial, this thread would have died after the third page.

 

For those who feel it is perfectly acceptable to accuse someone of something by using secret information. I would say I really wouldn't want to live in your world.

Link to post

 

(1) We, the caching public, do not have complete information about this archival.

(2) Any conclusions drawn from incomplete information are inherently invalid.

 

What part(s) of those two inarguable facts do you not understand?

 

Because we, the caching public, to not have complete information about this archival, I agree any conclusions drawn are inherently invalid.

 

That does not seem to stop anyone on either side of this debate from drawing conclusions and stating them as facts. :unsure:

 

The only thing I find here that,to me is a fact, Nomex called Superfly a liar and did not/ or could not provide any proof.

 

For those who feel if Superfly was lying he should be publicly call on it. I agree, he should. But only if the person who calls him on it is in a position to back it up.

 

I may be wrong, but I believe if Nomex had just archive the cache and had not added his editorial, this thread would have died after the third page.

 

For those who feel it is perfectly acceptable to accuse someone of something by using secret information. I would say I really wouldn't want to live in your world.

I believe that you are wrong. If the cache had been archived without any explanation, the controversy would have been worse. Then everyone would be sure that it was only because it was too hard to find. Some public explanation was needed. Any truthful explanation ends up suggesting SF was a liar.

Link to post
... I checked all the "facts" I am privy to, my friend, can you provide something I am not privy to? I would be more than happy to check into it if so!! :unsure:
Your recent posts have reminded me of a politician on the ropes. He is desperate to beat the more popular candidate, but he has to be careful not to offend too many of the other guy's supporters. So he repeatedly refers to him as 'my friend'. Everyone sees through this, of course. They see him as someone who would say anything to win, whether he believed it or not. So he loses. It would actually have been better for him if he either said what he meant (Jerkface is going to raise your taxes) or not actually referred to him at all (I will make sure that your taxes don't go up).

 

Sbell, would it surprise you to know I OFTEN acknowledge people with "my friend"? Would it surprise you that I am in no way trying to BEAT anyone? I said it before and I'm saying it now, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're just posting to post...my friend! When you're done attacking me simply because I wish to keep this at the top, I'd be more than happy to debate with you!

 

Of course, I don't expect you to believe what I said, however, check ANY of my posts in the Todie's Wild Ride thread, in many other thrteads, in many of my emails or PMs or anywhere I comment...if you feel you need me to prove my statement, my friend!

 

Oh, and why do I use that comment, you might ask? I consider most people here as my friends. Some are more like combatants, but I still would be happy to buy most a beer at the end of the day. If my being a friendly person bothers you or makes you perceive me as a two-faced person, that would be YOUR problem, my friend, and is for you to consider fixing for yourself. It matters not to me how you see me since I truly don't give a rip whether you believe me, don't believe me or WHATEVER....my friend!

 

btw, I sometimes use "my friend" with those I don't consider friends, those I have less than full respect for and those I would never even consider buying a beer for...although this doesn't necessarily pertain to you, my friend!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

 

(1) We, the caching public, do not have complete information about this archival.

(2) Any conclusions drawn from incomplete information are inherently invalid.

 

What part(s) of those two inarguable facts do you not understand?

 

Because we, the caching public, to not have complete information about this archival, I agree any conclusions drawn are inherently invalid.

 

That does not seem to stop anyone on either side of this debate from drawing conclusions and stating them as facts. :unsure:

 

The only thing I find here that,to me is a fact, Nomex called Superfly a liar and did not/ or could not provide any proof.

 

For those who feel if Superfly was lying he should be publicly call on it. I agree, he should. But only if the person who calls him on it is in a position to back it up.

 

I may be wrong, but I believe if Nomex had just archive the cache and had not added his editorial, this thread would have died after the third page.

 

For those who feel it is perfectly acceptable to accuse someone of something by using secret information. I would say I really wouldn't want to live in your world.

I believe that you are wrong. If the cache had been archived without any explanation, the controversy would have been worse. Then everyone would be sure that it was only because it was too hard to find. Some public explanation was needed. Any truthful explanation ends up suggesting SF was a liar.

 

Some public explanation may have been wanted, but if TPTB cannot give the reasons they believe the CO was a liar, no explanation should be offered. A simple, "contact us for more info" on the note to the CO would be all that was needed.

 

I have seen a few caches archived over time, that had no real explanation as to why. I do not see pages and pages in the forum wondering about it.

Link to post

MAYBE because it's a hot issue and, while it doesn't spell the end of caching in whole, it COULD happen to you or I.

 

So, I should be worried now that one of my caches could be archived? Even though it appears that there is less than a .003% chance it could happen to me?

 

Or I should be worried that any hard to find cache in my area with a string of dnf's could be a target now matter how unlikely that is to happen?

 

Do you really think that this is worth worrying about?

Link to post

MAYBE because it's a hot issue and, while it doesn't spell the end of caching in whole, it COULD happen to you or I.

 

So, I should be worried now that one of my caches could be archived? Even though it appears that there is less than a .003% chance it could happen to me?

 

Or I should be worried that any hard to find cache in my area with a string of dnf's could be a target now matter how unlikely that is to happen?

 

Do you really think that this is worth worrying about?

 

I can't decide what you yourself should worry about, but I am flattered you'd ask my opinion on the matter! :unsure:

Link to post
... I checked all the "facts" I am privy to, my friend, can you provide something I am not privy to? I would be more than happy to check into it if so!! :unsure:
Your recent posts have reminded me of a politician on the ropes. He is desperate to beat the more popular candidate, but he has to be careful not to offend too many of the other guy's supporters. So he repeatedly refers to him as 'my friend'. Everyone sees through this, of course. They see him as someone who would say anything to win, whether he believed it or not. So he loses. It would actually have been better for him if he either said what he meant (Jerkface is going to raise your taxes) or not actually referred to him at all (I will make sure that your taxes don't go up).

 

Sbell, would it surprise you to know I OFTEN acknowledge people with "my friend"? Would it surprise you that I am in no way trying to BEAT anyone? I said it before and I'm saying it now, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're just posting to post...my friend! When you're done attacking me simply because I wish to keep this at the top, I'd be more than happy to debate with you!

 

Of course, I don't expect you to believe what I said, however, check ANY of my posts in the Todie's Wild Ride thread, in many other thrteads, in many of my emails or PMs or anywhere I comment...if you feel you need me to prove my statement, my friend!

 

Oh, and why do I use that comment, you might ask? I consider most people here as my friends. Some are more like combatants, but I still would be happy to buy most a beer at the end of the day. If my being a friendly person bothers you or makes you perceive me as a two-faced person, that would be YOUR problem, my friend, and is for you to consider fixing for yourself. It matters not to me how you see me since I truly don't give a rip whether you believe me, don't believe me or WHATEVER....my friend!

 

btw, I sometimes use "my friend" with those I don't consider friends, those I have less than full respect for and those I would never even consider buying a beer for...although this doesn't necessarily pertain to you, my friend!

That is the second time in this thread that you have accused me of making attacks or otherwise violating the forum guidelines. I previously asked you to back up your accusation and you declined. I again ask you to do this.

 

Where in the prior post did I attack you?

 

I must, at this time, insist that you stop these spurious attacks and begin showing more respect for the forum guidelines and the overall community. Your current behavior is unacceptable.

Link to post

Having taken a quick look at TDE/SF's profile page, I was a bit surprised to find the links to bajillions of pictures of caches. Given that he felt the need to take pictures of all those caches, I find it hard to believe that he never snapped a pic of the cache in question.

Link to post
... I checked all the "facts" I am privy to, my friend, can you provide something I am not privy to? I would be more than happy to check into it if so!! :unsure:
Your recent posts have reminded me of a politician on the ropes. He is desperate to beat the more popular candidate, but he has to be careful not to offend too many of the other guy's supporters. So he repeatedly refers to him as 'my friend'. Everyone sees through this, of course. They see him as someone who would say anything to win, whether he believed it or not. So he loses. It would actually have been better for him if he either said what he meant (Jerkface is going to raise your taxes) or not actually referred to him at all (I will make sure that your taxes don't go up).

 

Sbell, would it surprise you to know I OFTEN acknowledge people with "my friend"? Would it surprise you that I am in no way trying to BEAT anyone? I said it before and I'm saying it now, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're just posting to post...my friend! When you're done attacking me simply because I wish to keep this at the top, I'd be more than happy to debate with you!

 

Of course, I don't expect you to believe what I said, however, check ANY of my posts in the Todie's Wild Ride thread, in many other thrteads, in many of my emails or PMs or anywhere I comment...if you feel you need me to prove my statement, my friend!

 

Oh, and why do I use that comment, you might ask? I consider most people here as my friends. Some are more like combatants, but I still would be happy to buy most a beer at the end of the day. If my being a friendly person bothers you or makes you perceive me as a two-faced person, that would be YOUR problem, my friend, and is for you to consider fixing for yourself. It matters not to me how you see me since I truly don't give a rip whether you believe me, don't believe me or WHATEVER....my friend!

 

btw, I sometimes use "my friend" with those I don't consider friends, those I have less than full respect for and those I would never even consider buying a beer for...although this doesn't necessarily pertain to you, my friend!

That is the second time in this thread that you have accused me of making attacks or otherwise violating the forum guidelines. I previously asked you to back up your accusation and you declined. I again ask you to do this.

 

Where in the prior post did I attack you?

 

I must, at this time, insist that you stop these spurious attacks and begin showing more respect for the forum guidelines and the overall community. Your current behavior is unacceptable.

 

I believe you can find the attack just fine as can anyone else who reads the post. Whether it violates TOU is another matter, I don't recall stating that anywhere...as you can read. If you feel my "current behavior" to be unacceptable, please feel free to hit that report button, it's for that purpose, my friend! btw, respect is something earned, not given. I tend to treat people as I'm treated.

 

Now, if you can show where I attacked you, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

Having taken a quick look at TDE/SF's profile page, I was a bit surprised to find the links to bajillions of pictures of caches. Given that he felt the need to take pictures of all those caches, I find it hard to believe that he never snapped a pic of the cache in question.

What you believe and what you can prove is entirely different, I'm afraid.

Link to post

I can't decide what you yourself should worry about, but I am flattered you'd ask my opinion on the matter! :unsure:

 

O.K. I guess that I should keep my questions separate from my comments. I will try this one more time and then I've got to catch a train for the weekend. (I hope to be back before the 1600th post! :P )

 

 

Here are the unanswered questions from my previous posts:

 

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 (this topic) possibly be causing so much strife?

 

Do you really think that this ("it could happen to you or me.") is worth worrying about?

 

And one more:

 

Do you believe that others need to be as concerned about this as you are?

Link to post

This thread is still running? 26 pages, 50 comments per page is 1300 comments...

 

Without going back through all 26 pages and making this into a hockey analogy, the ref blew the whistle and called a penalty. On review, the league supported the original call.

 

Correct or not, the ref made the call. Drop the puck and carry on.

Link to post

I can't decide what you yourself should worry about, but I am flattered you'd ask my opinion on the matter! :unsure:

 

O.K. I guess that I should keep my questions separate from my comments. I will try this one more time and then I've got to catch a train for the weekend. (I hope to be back before the 1600th post! :P )

 

 

Here are the unanswered questions from my previous posts:

 

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? Yes, it is a possibility.

 

If it only ever happens .0003% (too many zeros?) of the time how could it (this topic) possibly be causing so much strife? I don't believe the chance is even REMOTELY part of the cause of the strife, that's a whole different thing altogether. Possibly snarky remarks, misrepresentation and a few other less than friendly actions would be the cause of any strife...you know, belittlement?

 

Do you really think that this ("it could happen to you or me.") is worth worrying about? And I answered this for you earlier...what you consider worthy of concern and what I do are obviously different. Please use your own judgement when tryig to come up with this answer...as I have stated before.

 

And one more:

 

Do you believe that others need to be as concerned about this as you are? Read the last answer.

Link to post

This thread is still running? 26 pages, 50 comments per page is 1300 comments...

 

Without going back through all 26 pages and making this into a hockey analogy, the ref blew the whistle and called a penalty. On review, the league supported the original call.

 

Correct or not, the ref made the call. Drop the puck and carry on.

 

Yes, the puck has been dropped. However, just like in the game of hockey, sometimes people disagree with "the call" and they do as is done here (I'd hope with less snarkiness and belittlement), they discuss it. Case in point...The Red Wings had a player hurt the game before last, the call was for a minor penalty against the opposing player. Not many agreed with the ref and held a discussion after the fact where it was decided the opposing player should be penalized more than 2 minutes, was given a 5 game suspension w/o pay and loss of over $38,000 as a fine.

 

Discussion, some might wish it didn't happen, but then, they don't really need to participate if they'd rather not!

Link to post

I can't decide what you yourself should worry about, but I am flattered you'd ask my opinion on the matter! :unsure:

 

O.K. I guess that I should keep my questions separate from my comments. I will try this one more time and then I've got to catch a train for the weekend. (I hope to be back before the 1600th post! :P )

 

 

Here are the unanswered questions from my previous posts:

 

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? Yes, it is a possibility.

 

If it only ever happens .0003% (too many zeros?) of the time how could it (this topic) possibly be causing so much strife? I don't believe the chance is even REMOTELY part of the cause of the strife, that's a whole different thing altogether. Possibly snarky remarks, misrepresentation and a few other less than friendly actions would be the cause of any strife...you know, belittlement?

 

Do you really think that this ("it could happen to you or me.") is worth worrying about? And I answered this for you earlier...what you consider worthy of concern and what I do are obviously different. Please use your own judgement when tryig to come up with this answer...as I have stated before.

 

And one more:

 

Do you believe that others need to be as concerned about this as you are? Read the last answer.

 

O.K. Thanks. I think I now have what I was looking for.

Link to post
I can't decide what you yourself should worry about, but I am flattered you'd ask my opinion on the matter! :unsure:
O.K. I guess that I should keep my questions separate from my comments. I will try this one more time and then I've got to catch a train for the weekend. (I hope to be back before the 1600th post! :P )

 

Here are the unanswered questions from my previous posts:

 

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? [

Yes, it is a possibility.
Given that Lep made it perfectly clear that caches are in no such danger, why do you insist on taking this position? Are you calling Lep a liar?
Link to post
I can't decide what you yourself should worry about, but I am flattered you'd ask my opinion on the matter! :P
O.K. I guess that I should keep my questions separate from my comments. I will try this one more time and then I've got to catch a train for the weekend. (I hope to be back before the 1600th post! B) )

 

Here are the unanswered questions from my previous posts:

 

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? [

Yes, it is a possibility.
Given that Lep made it perfectly clear that caches are in no such danger, why do you insist on taking this position? Are you calling Lep a liar?

 

Here we go again.... :unsure:

 

I believe it could happen again, it's happened before. I didn't see Keystone state it couldn't happen, I did see him state the guidelines haven't changed...big difference here! I suspect we both know this though....

Link to post
I can't decide what you yourself should worry about, but I am flattered you'd ask my opinion on the matter! :P
O.K. I guess that I should keep my questions separate from my comments. I will try this one more time and then I've got to catch a train for the weekend. (I hope to be back before the 1600th post! B) )

 

Here are the unanswered questions from my previous posts:

 

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? [

Yes, it is a possibility.
Given that Lep made it perfectly clear that caches are in no such danger, why do you insist on taking this position? Are you calling Lep a liar?

 

Here we go again.... :unsure:

 

I believe it could happen again, it's happened before. I didn't see Keystone state it couldn't happen, I did see him state the guidelines haven't changed...big difference here! I suspect we both know this though....

Please prove that "it's happened before". When was a cache archived simply because it was difficult? Since your entire premise hinges on this point, you should certainly be able to give some examples of this happening.

 

Also, why don't you try to stay on topic or wander out of this thread? Continued off-topic posts are a violation of the forum guidelines.

Link to post
'Owners' of caches that are archived because it is not believed that they exist, should reasonably be expected to prove said existence in order to have the cache reactivated upon appeal.

Agreed. I think anyone, faced with a legitimate request for proof, would provide it. I know I would be happy to do so. According to SF, he would have been happy to provide any proof that was requested of him, up until his cache was archived and he was publicly called a liar. I know cachers are typically some of the kindest, most understanding folks on the planet, but that positive attitude should not be automatically assumed. If a reviewer mentioned that he had concerns regarding the existence of one of my hides, I would open a line of communication, and determine what degree of proof was needed for that cache, happily supplying it. However, I also recognize that I occasionally suffer from negative emotions, and if a reviewer simply called me a liar, in public, I would no longer do business with Groundspeak. All my caches would be archived, and I would spend my paltry coinage at another listing site. I think that SF tossing his cache in a fit of pique, is not beyond the realm of possible reactions, considering his other conflicts.

 

Acting in a professional manner should be a two sided street. I make it a point to always treat my reviewers, and my fellow cachers with honesty and respect. I expect the same from them. If I receive disrespect from another cacher, I can simply avoid them. If I receive disrespect from Groundspeak, or one of their agents, I cannot simply avoid them, and still continue to play in their sandbox.

 

It saddens me to see our society stooping so low as to find public insult a perfectly acceptable behavior. :unsure:

 

Cachers who lie to the community should reasonably expect to be called liars, no matter how much said cachers have previously paid the company.

No question about that. A liar should be called a liar. However, if the company chooses a public format to call a liar a liar, the company should be willing to explain their actions with more than a smokescreen hinting at so called evidence.

 

If you stop someone for speeding and they say "but officer, I was going the speed limit", is it bad customer relations when you still write them a ticket? Better, if they went to court and told the judge, "The police officer was rude and called me a liar", do you think the judge should throw out the ticket?

Weren't you the one who mentioned this was not a court of law? :P

Since you insist on using such a meaningless analogy, allow me to respond in kind:

If I write a speeding ticket, the person cited is presumed innocent until I can prove them guilty. I would need to demonstrate my competency in operating speed measuring equipment, and I would need to demonstrate that my equipment operates properly, within established standards of accuracy. I would also need to testify regarding exactly how I determined the subject was speeding. If the speeder wanted to complain about me being rude in the performance of my duties, the Judge would instruct them that the issue at hand was whether or not they were speeding, not how I reacted to them speeding. The Judge would then offer them guidance in the proper channels to address their complaint.

 

I think that reasonable people would understand that if a reviewer believes there is a problem with a cache, it is more effective to simply state what that problem is and let the cache owner provide evidence to the contrary.

Very true. If Nomex had stated what the problem was, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. However, the only concern Nomex posted was that the cache had not been found. Is that a real concern? If it is a real concern, then what time line applies? At what point does an unfound cache become a guideline violation? A month? 6 months? A year? Is the timeline dependent upon the local entitlement crowd who lack the skills necessary to locate anything more challenging than a P&G? B)

 

I suspect that the local cachers brought their concerns to the local reviewers, opining that this cache was a hoax. I further suspect that, based upon past interactions with SF, they thought the locals may have been right. At this point in my theory, no actual evidence was ever generated. Merely a suspicion based upon past behavior. The local reviewers didn't want to deal with SF anymore, so they recruited Nomex. Nomex listened carefully to the local reviewers, and believed them, taking action against the cache. Again, no actual evidence, just a belief. I'm actually OK with that. Reviewers should be empowered to act on their beliefs, based upon their observations and experience.

 

Again, my only concern is what Nomex posted, not why he posted it.

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