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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

Why is it unbelievable to think that Nomex may have made the maintenance request to give SF/TDE an opportunity to archive the non-existent cache without having to call him out on his deception. All SF/TDE had to do at that point is to not attempt to continue the deception and archive the cache. He would have walked away with his honor intact. Instead, he chose to continue the lie. This left Nomex no where to go except to archive the cache because it didn't exist.

 

As you say, acting professionally is a two-way street. Had TDE/SF not attempted to continue his deception, Nomex would not have been forced to call him on it.

Share this post


Link to post

 

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.

I would assume that in those cases there was not a forum post suggesting that they had been archived because of too many DNFs.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you calling Lep a liar?

 

You are ALL LIARS !

 

By percentage:

 

Rockin Roddy 163%

Clan Riffster 59%

KBI 53%

knowschad 50%

sbell111 45%

bittsen 43%

Team Desert Eagle/Superfly 43%

Dinoprophet 40%

CoyoteRed 33%

briansnat 26%

Erickson 25%

TheAlabamaRambler 24%

uxorious 23%

JohnE5 23%

Keystone 22%

slumbersix 22%

tozainamboku 22%

myself 22%

Mushtang 20%

traildad 19%

GeoBain 17%

Team Sagefox 16%

WRASTRO 15%

TheWhiteUrkel 13%

Cpl. Klinger 13%

Wooden Cyclist 13%

Vater_Araignee 12%

GOF & Bacall 12%

MickEMT 11%

brslk 11%

Nozzletime 11%

Ambrosia 10%

sTeamTraen 10%

JeremyR 9%

ScottKaren 9%

GeoGeeBee 9%

Prime Suspect 8%

StarBrand 8%

Team Cotati 8%

wimseyguy 7%

Morning Dew 7%

Col. Flagg 7%

iWikeCake 6%

allenite 6%

The Macho Homemaker 6%

spektrum2 6%

Moose Mob 6%

Arrow42 6%

Tequila 6%

WHO-DEY 6%

ao318 6%

Minimike2 5%

Sileny Jizda 5%

kyle98632 5%

jholly 5%

Castle Mischief 5%

ThePetersTrio 5%

the pooks 5%

bshwckr 5%

Mudfrog 4%

alicephilippa 4%

KeeperOfTheMist 4%

Bergie Bunch 4%

va griz 4%

pranayamamma 4%

Too Tall John 4%

ironman114 4%

beejay&esskay 4%

runner_one 4%

Chrysalides 3%

Trader Rick & Rosie 3%

jhauser42 3%

PastorJon 3%

Harry Dolphin 3%

Don_J 3%

MBQS 3%

SkipHerr 3%

niraD 3%

DeRock & The Psychic Cacher 3%

cheech gang 3%

Motorcycle_Mama 3%

Ryuchan 3%

DeepButi 3%

paulbarratt 3%

DarkZen and Beautiful 3%

rovers3 2%

HockeyPuck 2%

Smurf 2%

pybarrondo 2%

BadAndy 2%

ArcherDragoon 2%

Armando & Co. 2%

steve p 2%

quadsinthemudd 2%

helix149 2%

SunshineGang 2%

larryc43230 2%

ace862 2%

hukilaulau 2%

NWCREW 2%

Antelope Dog 2%

B+L 2%

Chumpo 2%

SixDogTeam 2%

johngie 2%

HouseOfDragons 2%

nittany dave 2%

frinklabs 2%

Road Rabbit 2%

Packanack 2%

firennice 2%

Ubear & Stinky 1%

rustynails. 1%

erik88l-r 1%

Kealia 1%

Sioneva 1%

Konnarock Kid & Marge 1%

gravechaser 1%

TheBeanTeam 1%

Turtle_Sask 1%

Renegade Knight 1%

Sol seaker 1%

Compazz Roze 1%

Cardinal Red 1%

Plasma Boy 1%

Sgt. Hulka 1%

Lil Devil 1%

TripCyclone 1%

sweetlife 1%

LordEd 1%

usyoopers 1%

aniyn 1%

Munkeh 1%

Andronicus 1%

oneeyesquare 1%

genegene 1%

JPatton 1%

ThomasFamily102 1%

Danbike_Lizbike 1%

9Key 1%

fizzymagic 1%

MissJenn .01%

Bundyrumandcoke 1%

Michigan Cacheman 1%

BlueDeuce 1%

Walts Hunting 1%

FatherAndProgeny 1%

Outhouse Inspector 1%

Moldslug 1%

DoubleBent 1%

Markwell 1%

humboldt flier 1%

keehotee 1%

riviouveur 1%

redsox_mark 1%

Parabola 1%

Roland_oso 1%

rosebud55112 1%

the_bell_dingers 1%

ChileHead 1%

HH242 1%

CCWashburn 1%

cyrus003 1%

Difficult Run 1%

mertat 1%

Mopar 1%

addisonbr 1%

 

:unsure::P

Share this post


Link to post

Are you calling Lep a liar?

 

You are ALL LIARS !

 

By percentage:

 

Rockin Roddy 163%

Clan Riffster 59%

KBI 53%

knowschad 50%

sbell111 45%

bittsen 43%

Team Desert Eagle/Superfly 43%

Dinoprophet 40%

CoyoteRed 33%

briansnat 26%

Erickson 25%

TheAlabamaRambler 24%

uxorious 23%

JohnE5 23%

Keystone 22%

slumbersix 22%

tozainamboku 22%

myself 22%

Mushtang 20%

traildad 19%

GeoBain 17%

Team Sagefox 16%

WRASTRO 15%

TheWhiteUrkel 13%

Cpl. Klinger 13%

Wooden Cyclist 13%

Vater_Araignee 12%

GOF & Bacall 12%

MickEMT 11%

brslk 11%

Nozzletime 11%

Ambrosia 10%

sTeamTraen 10%

JeremyR 9%

ScottKaren 9%

GeoGeeBee 9%

Prime Suspect 8%

StarBrand 8%

Team Cotati 8%

wimseyguy 7%

Morning Dew 7%

Col. Flagg 7%

iWikeCake 6%

allenite 6%

The Macho Homemaker 6%

spektrum2 6%

Moose Mob 6%

Arrow42 6%

Tequila 6%

WHO-DEY 6%

ao318 6%

Minimike2 5%

Sileny Jizda 5%

kyle98632 5%

jholly 5%

Castle Mischief 5%

ThePetersTrio 5%

the pooks 5%

bshwckr 5%

Mudfrog 4%

alicephilippa 4%

KeeperOfTheMist 4%

Bergie Bunch 4%

va griz 4%

pranayamamma 4%

Too Tall John 4%

ironman114 4%

beejay&esskay 4%

runner_one 4%

Chrysalides 3%

Trader Rick & Rosie 3%

jhauser42 3%

PastorJon 3%

Harry Dolphin 3%

Don_J 3%

MBQS 3%

SkipHerr 3%

niraD 3%

DeRock & The Psychic Cacher 3%

cheech gang 3%

Motorcycle_Mama 3%

Ryuchan 3%

DeepButi 3%

paulbarratt 3%

DarkZen and Beautiful 3%

rovers3 2%

HockeyPuck 2%

Smurf 2%

pybarrondo 2%

BadAndy 2%

ArcherDragoon 2%

Armando & Co. 2%

steve p 2%

quadsinthemudd 2%

helix149 2%

SunshineGang 2%

larryc43230 2%

ace862 2%

hukilaulau 2%

NWCREW 2%

Antelope Dog 2%

B+L 2%

Chumpo 2%

SixDogTeam 2%

johngie 2%

HouseOfDragons 2%

nittany dave 2%

frinklabs 2%

Road Rabbit 2%

Packanack 2%

firennice 2%

Ubear & Stinky 1%

rustynails. 1%

erik88l-r 1%

Kealia 1%

Sioneva 1%

Konnarock Kid & Marge 1%

gravechaser 1%

TheBeanTeam 1%

Turtle_Sask 1%

Renegade Knight 1%

Sol seaker 1%

Compazz Roze 1%

Cardinal Red 1%

Plasma Boy 1%

Sgt. Hulka 1%

Lil Devil 1%

TripCyclone 1%

sweetlife 1%

LordEd 1%

usyoopers 1%

aniyn 1%

Munkeh 1%

Andronicus 1%

oneeyesquare 1%

genegene 1%

JPatton 1%

ThomasFamily102 1%

Danbike_Lizbike 1%

9Key 1%

fizzymagic 1%

MissJenn .01%

Bundyrumandcoke 1%

Michigan Cacheman 1%

BlueDeuce 1%

Walts Hunting 1%

FatherAndProgeny 1%

Outhouse Inspector 1%

Moldslug 1%

DoubleBent 1%

Markwell 1%

humboldt flier 1%

keehotee 1%

riviouveur 1%

redsox_mark 1%

Parabola 1%

Roland_oso 1%

rosebud55112 1%

the_bell_dingers 1%

ChileHead 1%

HH242 1%

CCWashburn 1%

cyrus003 1%

Difficult Run 1%

mertat 1%

Mopar 1%

addisonbr 1%

 

:unsure::P

I don't get it.

Share this post


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.

For me, this fact, combined with his seeming willingness to drop out of the debate, does the most harm to SF's credibility. Although I have no proof to offer, I find it simply unbelievable that in his lengthy construction process, he wouldn't snap a few pics. If his claims are true, he really shot himself in the foot. :unsure:

 

Given that Lep made it perfectly clear that caches are in no such danger, why do you insist on taking this position?

Simple math would indicate that, if a thing happens once, there exists a possibility that it could happen again.

RR says it's "possible". The mathematics of probability says it's "possible".

A better question, (as asked by Sage Fox), would be, "Is it likely?".

Because of my personal relationship with my reviewers, and the high degree of professionalism consistently displayed by folks like Miss Jenn, combined with the almost universal claims from those who know him that Nomex is an honorable person, I'd say the chances of this happening again are remarkably slim. If TPTB were to do some behind the scenes work with their reviewers regarding customer relations, I think that the chances would be even more remote.

 

This left Nomex no where to go except to archive the cache because it didn't exist.

Actually, Nomex had many options available to him, including e-mailing SF directly, after SF claimed to have checked the cache, asking for proof. This may very well have happened. SF could have ignored this request, causing Nomex to archive it. We simply have no way of knowing. You could be right. Roddy could be right. All we can do is speculate. Not that speculation is a bad thing. :D

 

You are ALL LIARS !

 

By percentage:

 

Clan Riffster 59%

Hey! I resemble resent that remark! :PB)

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get it.

 

There is a big difference between directly calling someone "a liar", and implying that someone is lying.

 

"A liar" means that the person tells numerous lies, and cannot be believed.

 

To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

 

I just determined through a very special process that everyone is a liar, and it's not really that bad, is it? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

The only problem with your logic is that you strayed from reality to reach that conclusion. Nomex didn't "imply" that he didn't believe him. Nomex stated, loud and clear, that there has been no cache in place for months/years, despite SF's claims to the contrary. Of course I may be jaded, as I never bought into Clinton's whole "definition of Is" argument either. If you were OK with Slick Willy's wordsmithing, then I could see where you would be OK with this one as well. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get it.

 

There is a big difference between directly calling someone "a liar", and implying that someone is lying.

 

"A liar" means that the person tells numerous lies, and cannot be believed.

 

To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

 

I just determined through a very special process that everyone is a liar, and it's not really that bad, is it? :unsure:

Actually, what I found confusing were the percentages.

Share this post


Link to post
Given that Lep made it perfectly clear that caches are in no such danger, why do you insist on taking this position?

Simple math would indicate that, if a thing happens once, there exists a possibility that it could happen again.

RR says it's "possible". The mathematics of probability says it's "possible".

The bolded bit is where I have a problem with your logic. This cache wasn't archived because it was difficult. It was archived because it didn't exist. As near as I can tell, the thing hasn't yet happened once. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

The only problem with your logic is that you strayed from reality to reach that conclusion. Nomex didn't "imply" that he didn't believe him. Nomex stated, loud and clear, that there has been no cache in place for months/years, despite SF's claims to the contrary. Of course I may be jaded, as I never bought into Clinton's whole "definition of Is" argument either. If you were OK with Slick Willy's wordsmithing, then I could see where you would be OK with this one as well. :unsure:

If the cache didn't exist, it wasn't 'wordsmithing'. It was the simple and direct truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, what I found confusing were the percentages.

# of posts in this thread? I'm not motivated enough to find out. I just popped back here to see if there's anything new.

Share this post


Link to post
Simple math would indicate that, if a thing happens once, there exists a possibility that it could happen again.

Pray enlighten where I can find the theory behind this, because apparently simple math is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, what I found confusing were the percentages.

# of posts in this thread? I'm not motivated enough to find out. I just popped back here to see if there's anything new.

 

Did you notice 4wheelin_fool is not on the list and Miss Jenn is only listed as .01%

4wheelin_fool must be the our geocaching Diogenes looking for an honest man.

Share this post


Link to post
To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

The only problem with your logic is that you strayed from reality to reach that conclusion. Nomex didn't "imply" that he didn't believe him. Nomex stated, loud and clear, that there has been no cache in place for months/years, despite SF's claims to the contrary. Of course I may be jaded, as I never bought into Clinton's whole "definition of Is" argument either. If you were OK with Slick Willy's wordsmithing, then I could see where you would be OK with this one as well. :unsure:

If the cache didn't exist, it wasn't 'wordsmithing'. It was the simple and direct truth.

 

The key word being "IF"! :P

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post
To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

The only problem with your logic is that you strayed from reality to reach that conclusion. Nomex didn't "imply" that he didn't believe him. Nomex stated, loud and clear, that there has been no cache in place for months/years, despite SF's claims to the contrary. Of course I may be jaded, as I never bought into Clinton's whole "definition of Is" argument either. If you were OK with Slick Willy's wordsmithing, then I could see where you would be OK with this one as well. :unsure:

If the cache didn't exist, it wasn't 'wordsmithing'. It was the simple and direct truth.

 

The key word being "IF"! :P

Given that TPTB have proof that the cache didn't exist, I believe that it didn't exist. The 'if' was simply my attempt to focus my response only to the meat of CR's post. I should have known that you would choose to obfuscate, rather than stick to the issue..

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get it.

 

There is a big difference between directly calling someone "a liar", and implying that someone is lying.

 

"A liar" means that the person tells numerous lies, and cannot be believed.

 

To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

 

I just determined through a very special process that everyone is a liar, and it's not really that bad, is it? :unsure:

Am not!!!!!! Did that just boost me up to 5%? :P

Share this post


Link to post
To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

The only problem with your logic is that you strayed from reality to reach that conclusion. Nomex didn't "imply" that he didn't believe him. Nomex stated, loud and clear, that there has been no cache in place for months/years, despite SF's claims to the contrary. Of course I may be jaded, as I never bought into Clinton's whole "definition of Is" argument either. If you were OK with Slick Willy's wordsmithing, then I could see where you would be OK with this one as well. :unsure:

If the cache didn't exist, it wasn't 'wordsmithing'. It was the simple and direct truth.

 

The key word being "IF"! B)

Given that TPTB have proof that the cache didn't exist, I believe that it didn't exist. The 'if' was simply my attempt to focus my response only to the meat of CR's post. I should have known that you would choose to obfuscate, rather than stick to the issue..

 

Hey, you said it, my friend! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, what I found confusing were the percentages.

# of posts in this thread? I'm not motivated enough to find out. I just popped back here to see if there's anything new.

 

Did you notice 4wheelin_fool is not on the list and Miss Jenn is only listed as .01%

4wheelin_fool must be the our geocaching Diogenes looking for an honest man.

 

I am listed as "myself" at 22%. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Did you notice 4wheelin_fool is not on the list and Miss Jenn is only listed as .01%

4wheelin_fool must be the our geocaching Diogenes looking for an honest man.

I am listed as "myself" at 22%. :unsure:

Very stealthy. Now how do you explain the .01%

Share this post


Link to post

Did you notice 4wheelin_fool is not on the list and Miss Jenn is only listed as .01%

4wheelin_fool must be the our geocaching Diogenes looking for an honest man.

I am listed as "myself" at 22%. :unsure:

Very stealthy. Now how do you explain the .01%

I was amused by the 163%.

Share this post


Link to post
To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

The only problem with your logic is that you strayed from reality to reach that conclusion. Nomex didn't "imply" that he didn't believe him. Nomex stated, loud and clear, that there has been no cache in place for months/years, despite SF's claims to the contrary. Of course I may be jaded, as I never bought into Clinton's whole "definition of Is" argument either. If you were OK with Slick Willy's wordsmithing, then I could see where you would be OK with this one as well. :unsure:

 

He never said "Superfly is a liar".

 

He implied that he did not believe him on that occasion. A "liar" is defined by telling multiple lies.

 

Now, since he was lying, was it really in bad form for Nomex to tell the truth about it, my friend? :P

Share this post


Link to post

Did you notice 4wheelin_fool is not on the list and Miss Jenn is only listed as .01%

4wheelin_fool must be the our geocaching Diogenes looking for an honest man.

I am listed as "myself" at 22%. :unsure:

Very stealthy. Now how do you explain the .01%

 

I don't know. I didn't write the program.. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get it.

 

There is a big difference between directly calling someone "a liar", and implying that someone is lying.

 

"A liar" means that the person tells numerous lies, and cannot be believed.

 

To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

 

I just determined through a very special process that everyone is a liar, and it's not really that bad, is it? :unsure:

Am not!!!!!! Did that just boost me up to 5%? :P

Let's be HONEST here. The frog has to take some of the heat...see post 1009

Share this post


Link to post

A "liar" is defined by telling multiple lies.

 

 

I have to respectfully disagree. Lie once, and you are a liar. Steal once, and you are a thief.

Share this post


Link to post

If you list a fake cache and then repeatedly report that it exists, did you lie once or numerous times?

Share this post


Link to post

A "liar" is defined by telling multiple lies.

 

 

I have to respectfully disagree. Lie once, and you are a liar. Steal once, and you are a thief.

 

No!

 

Thats label abuse.

 

When I was 7 I stole a pencil off of a teacher's desk.

 

I am not "a thief"! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

If you list a fake cache and then repeatedly report that it exists, did you lie once or numerous times?

Technically, thats telling a single lie over and over.

 

"A liar" would have to churn out several different ones..

Share this post


Link to post

If you list a fake cache and then repeatedly report that it exists, did you lie once or numerous times?

Technically, thats telling a single lie over and over.

 

"A liar" would have to churn out several different ones..

In that case, I respect Nomex's restraint in not calling SF/TDE a liar.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get it.

 

There is a big difference between directly calling someone "a liar", and implying that someone is lying.

 

"A liar" means that the person tells numerous lies, and cannot be believed.

 

To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

 

I just determined through a very special process that everyone is a liar, and it's not really that bad, is it? :unsure:

Am not!!!!!! Did that just boost me up to 5%? :P

Let's be HONEST here. The frog has to take some of the heat...see post 1009

The frog in that picture is not lying, but clearly standing up. :D

 

 

The greatest liar of all times was Abe Lincoln, whose election campaign promise was to not abolish slavery, but to simply prevent it from spreading to the new northwest territories. If he had told the truth, he would not have been elected. If he had allowed it to continue, the consequences would have been much worse.

 

Most slaveowners at the time pointed at the biblical Abraham as an example to justify their evil wrongdoing. It took another "Abraham" to peel the label off, and put a stop to it. However, it is really unknown if the biblical Abraham actually had "slaves", or rather people who rather worked in exchange for food and shelter instead. He most likely just didn't pay them money. The label "slave" was used, but did not match what had arisen out of it. Perhaps this arrangement eventually caused dependency. Out of dependency comes abuse...

 

Label abuse is the spinning of meanings applied to labels, and technically under close inspection everyone is guilty, and "a liar"... B)

Edited by 4wheelin_fool

Share this post


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:

 

Sorry Rod, I was just trying to have some fun in the thread for once. Figured I'd go all paranoid. Sorry if I disappointed you.

Share this post


Link to post

A "liar" is defined by telling multiple lies.

 

 

I have to respectfully disagree. Lie once, and you are a liar. Steal once, and you are a thief.

 

No!

 

Thats label abuse.

 

When I was 7 I stole a pencil off of a teacher's desk.

 

I am not "a thief"! :unsure:

 

It is not abuse of anything at all. It is a simple truth.

You owe that teacher a pencil :P

 

(note that the smiley face is meant to show that I am not really considering you a thief by nature or really invested in hoping that you will eventually agree with this line of reasoning.)

Share this post


Link to post

A "liar" is defined by telling multiple lies.

 

 

I have to respectfully disagree. Lie once, and you are a liar. Steal once, and you are a thief.

 

No!

 

Thats label abuse.

 

When I was 7 I stole a pencil off of a teacher's desk.

 

I am not "a thief"! :unsure:

 

But you were a thief at one point!

Share this post


Link to post
Given that Lep made it perfectly clear that caches are in no such danger, why do you insist on taking this position?

Simple math would indicate that, if a thing happens once, there exists a possibility that it could happen again.

RR says it's "possible". The mathematics of probability says it's "possible".

A better question, (as asked by Sage Fox), would be, "Is it likely?".

Because of my personal relationship with my reviewers, and the high degree of professionalism consistently displayed by folks like Miss Jenn, combined with the almost universal claims from those who know him that Nomex is an honorable person, I'd say the chances of this happening again are remarkably slim. If TPTB were to do some behind the scenes work with their reviewers regarding customer relations, I think that the chances would be even more remote.

Simple math might indicate that, but what indicates that it has happened at all? You jump to the conclusion, and then use it to support the aftermath. The mathematics of probability say that it is possible that the world will end tomorrow. Do you live your life as though all things that are possible, are likely? Reasonable doubt and ridiculous doubt are not equal.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow I think anything usefull was left behind about page 4 maybe 5 if we were lucky..

at this point, I think people are talking to waste electrons, hear themselves, push their counts up, or just annoy each other.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow I think anything usefull was left behind about page 4 maybe 5 if we were lucky..

at this point, I think people are talking to waste electrons, hear themselves, push their counts up, or just annoy each other.

I suspect it is mostly the last one.

Share this post


Link to post

This is rather silly. I have no doubt the the review/appeals process is not perfect. I about as sure as I can be that there have been caches archived that should not have been. There have also been caches that should be archive that have been allowed to stand. Grounspeak has developed a process that allows caches that should not be listed on Geocaching.com to be reviewed. They have put in checks to protect valid, guidelines compliant caches from being archived (or at least to allow a cache owner to present evidence that can get an archived listing restored. The fact that the forums aren't full of people complaining of rogue reviewers and unjust accusations, goes a long way to show that checks work most of the time. Even when someone complains that they were treated unfairly we usually find out that if you know the whole story, the reviewers and Grounspeak acted very fairly in dealing with the cache owner.

 

In this instance we may never know whether this cache was archived unjustly. What evidence there might have been to prove the existence of this cache was, according to the owner, destroyed by the owner once his appeal was denied. What evidence the reviewer and Groundspeak used to determing the cache was a hoax, is not going to be made public because of confidentiality. Maybe this cache was unfairly archived or maybe this cache was a hoax and should have been archived.

 

I'd like to be able to say that if a similar situation were to happen again both the reviewer and the cache owner would handle things differently. I've proposed that a reviewer be more straight forward in describing his position that the has not been a cache to find and explicitly ask for a photo or other proof. However some on the side that Groundspeak/reviewer did no wrong find it hard to accept that Groundspeak/Reveiwer could have done better. It is clear that the cache owner in this case could have responded better (assuming there was a cache). But it still seems to me that the reviewer/Grounspeak side could have done better as well.

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! 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.

Exactly. You are arguing my point for me. It is apparent that this is a unique situation and there is NO reason to believe that the two things you suggested are going to happen unless there are extreme circumstances. Ironically, I don't believe you, RR, would ever find yourself in this situation because you are smart enough and responsible enough to never let it get that far.

Seriously, I know you are a champion of causes and I admire that. When I hear Phil Ochs sing "Going down to Mississippi" I think of you. I like to think that although we disagree on a point of this trivial game, we would be standing together for a real cause. So don't take offense if I poke a little fun at you on this topic! When the real spit starts goin' down, I got yer back! :P

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! :D 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.

:lol:

 

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.

Exactly. You are arguing my point for me. It is apparent that this is a unique situation and there is NO reason to believe that the two things you suggested are going to happen unless there are extreme circumstances. Ironically, I don't believe you, RR, would ever find yourself in this situation because you are smart enough and responsible enough to never let it get that far.

Seriously, I know you are a champion of causes and I admire that. When I hear Phil Ochs sing "Going down to Mississippi" I think of you. I like to think that although we disagree on a point of this trivial game, we would be standing together for a real cause. So don't take offense if I poke a little fun at you on this topic! When the real spit starts goin' down, I got yer back! ;)

 

My friend, I'd be buying the first beer should we happen to meet, no worries there!! ;):D

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get it.

 

There is a big difference between directly calling someone "a liar", and implying that someone is lying.

 

"A liar" means that the person tells numerous lies, and cannot be believed.

 

To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

 

I just determined through a very special process that everyone is a liar, and it's not really that bad, is it? :lol:

Am not!!!!!! Did that just boost me up to 5%? ;)

Let's be HONEST here. The frog has to take some of the heat...see post 1009

The frog in that picture is not lying, but clearly standing up. :D

 

 

The greatest liar of all times was Abe Lincoln, whose election campaign promise was to not abolish slavery, but to simply prevent it from spreading to the new northwest territories. If he had told the truth, he would not have been elected. If he had allowed it to continue, the consequences would have been much worse.

 

Most slaveowners at the time pointed at the biblical Abraham as an example to justify their evil wrongdoing. It took another "Abraham" to peel the label off, and put a stop to it. However, it is really unknown if the biblical Abraham actually had "slaves", or rather people who rather worked in exchange for food and shelter instead. He most likely just didn't pay them money. The label "slave" was used, but did not match what had arisen out of it. Perhaps this arrangement eventually caused dependency. Out of dependency comes abuse...

 

Label abuse is the spinning of meanings applied to labels, and technically under close inspection everyone is guilty, and "a liar"... :D

My true aploogies. I am guilty and indeed "a liar." ;) The frog is indeed standing. However, we can not say the frog does not lie because we can not verify that from the facts presented. Geez I gotta be up to 6% by now!!

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get it.

 

There is a big difference between directly calling someone "a liar", and implying that someone is lying.

 

"A liar" means that the person tells numerous lies, and cannot be believed.

 

To simply imply that a single lie is being told, or to just imply that you don't believe them - such as what Nomex did is no big deal.

 

I just determined through a very special process that everyone is a liar, and it's not really that bad, is it? :lol:

Am not!!!!!! Did that just boost me up to 5%? ;)

Let's be HONEST here. The frog has to take some of the heat...see post 1009

The frog in that picture is not lying, but clearly standing up. :D

 

 

The greatest liar of all times was Abe Lincoln, whose election campaign promise was to not abolish slavery, but to simply prevent it from spreading to the new northwest territories. If he had told the truth, he would not have been elected. If he had allowed it to continue, the consequences would have been much worse.

 

Most slaveowners at the time pointed at the biblical Abraham as an example to justify their evil wrongdoing. It took another "Abraham" to peel the label off, and put a stop to it. However, it is really unknown if the biblical Abraham actually had "slaves", or rather people who rather worked in exchange for food and shelter instead. He most likely just didn't pay them money. The label "slave" was used, but did not match what had arisen out of it. Perhaps this arrangement eventually caused dependency. Out of dependency comes abuse...

 

Label abuse is the spinning of meanings applied to labels, and technically under close inspection everyone is guilty, and "a liar"... :D

My true aploogies. I am guilty and indeed "a liar." ;) The frog is indeed standing. However, we can not say the frog does not lie because we can not verify that from the facts presented. Geez I gotta be up to 6% by now!!

 

However you also cannot say that the frog does lie because we cannot verify that from the facts presented.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Has anyone else had any experience with a reviewer meddling with the caches in another state?

 

 

no. :lol:

My first cache was listed by this guy. Does that count?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Has anyone else had any experience with a reviewer meddling with the caches in another state?

 

 

no. :lol:

My first cache was listed by this guy. Does that count?

 

Who is that?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Has anyone else had any experience with a reviewer meddling with the caches in another state?

 

 

no. ;)

My first cache was listed by this guy. Does that count?

 

Who is that?

Just some guy in Seattle who thinks he owns the place. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I love the arguments back and forth. Noone will ever change their minds on this one.

 

On the issue of photographs as 'proof', regardless of whether this cache ever existed, a photo would not satisfy anyone. Those believing the cache was never there would say the photo was faked, those who believe it WAS there need no such proof.

 

How about this scenario? If I really wanted to spoof the caching community with a non-existent cache, I could create an exact duplicate of a rock face (just as an example), take a picture of it, show the cache to one friend sworn to not log it, submit the photo of the cache and its intended location to the reviewer, THEN NEVER ACTUALLY PLACE IT. If ever questioned, I could simply say "gee, someone must have taken it". Perfect non-cache, not findable, noone could ever say it was not there, because I have a photo and a witness who would swear in court that he saw it.

 

I'm betting this thread has at least 20 or more pages to go before dying out...

Share this post


Link to post

I love the arguments back and forth. Noone will ever change their minds on this one.

 

On the issue of photographs as 'proof', regardless of whether this cache ever existed, a photo would not satisfy anyone. Those believing the cache was never there would say the photo was faked, those who believe it WAS there need no such proof.

 

How about this scenario? If I really wanted to spoof the caching community with a non-existent cache, I could create an exact duplicate of a rock face (just as an example), take a picture of it, show the cache to one friend sworn to not log it, submit the photo of the cache and its intended location to the reviewer, THEN NEVER ACTUALLY PLACE IT. If ever questioned, I could simply say "gee, someone must have taken it". Perfect non-cache, not findable, noone could ever say it was not there, because I have a photo and a witness who would swear in court that he saw it.

 

I'm betting this thread has at least 20 or more pages to go before dying out...

If you claim to check the cache, and witnesses say you were never there, you might have a problem. I think this might be what happened. SF was asked to check the cache and posted that he did on the same day he was asked. If the ground zero was being scoured by cachers all day they would have seen him. No real cache check means no real cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I love the arguments back and forth. Noone will ever change their minds on this one.

 

On the issue of photographs as 'proof', regardless of whether this cache ever existed, a photo would not satisfy anyone. Those believing the cache was never there would say the photo was faked, those who believe it WAS there need no such proof.

 

How about this scenario? If I really wanted to spoof the caching community with a non-existent cache, I could create an exact duplicate of a rock face (just as an example), take a picture of it, show the cache to one friend sworn to not log it, submit the photo of the cache and its intended location to the reviewer, THEN NEVER ACTUALLY PLACE IT. If ever questioned, I could simply say "gee, someone must have taken it". Perfect non-cache, not findable, noone could ever say it was not there, because I have a photo and a witness who would swear in court that he saw it.

 

I'm betting this thread has at least 20 or more pages to go before dying out...

 

I question the existence of the cache. However, had SF taken a picture of the cache and submitted it to GS as proof, I have no doubt that they would have accepted it as such. Heck, I even would concede the cache existed if there was a picture of it. So don't go claiming that a picture would not satisfy anyone.

Share this post


Link to post

I love the arguments back and forth. Noone will ever change their minds on this one.

 

On the issue of photographs as 'proof', regardless of whether this cache ever existed, a photo would not satisfy anyone. Those believing the cache was never there would say the photo was faked, those who believe it WAS there need no such proof.

 

How about this scenario? If I really wanted to spoof the caching community with a non-existent cache, I could create an exact duplicate of a rock face (just as an example), take a picture of it, show the cache to one friend sworn to not log it, submit the photo of the cache and its intended location to the reviewer, THEN NEVER ACTUALLY PLACE IT. If ever questioned, I could simply say "gee, someone must have taken it". Perfect non-cache, not findable, noone could ever say it was not there, because I have a photo and a witness who would swear in court that he saw it.

 

I'm betting this thread has at least 20 or more pages to go before dying out...

If you claim to check the cache, and witnesses say you were never there, you might have a problem. I think this might be what happened. SF was asked to check the cache and posted that he did on the same day he was asked. If the ground zero was being scoured by cachers all day they would have seen him. No real cache check means no real cache.

 

That's making quite the leap, can you back that? How do you know that the owner was certain such checking was not needed since the cache has been in place for two years without problem of falling off and no one had visited it, so no chance of muggles? Sure, the CO could have lied about checking, that doesn't mean the cache wasn't there...

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...