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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

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...

 

If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar.

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...

 

If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar.

 

And?? So what? Does that prove the cache was never there?

Share this post


Link to post

 

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...

Can I back what? How do I know? I don't care what the owner knew. If the reviewer says check the cache, the CO can't post that he did unless he really did. Otherwise he should say "checking was not needed since the cache has been in place for two years without problem" etc. etc. I really am not sure what you mean here.

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...

 

If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar.

 

And?? So what? Does that prove the cache was never there?

 

If I say I have a green and purple Monkey and you say I don't the burden of proof is on me. You do not have to prove green and purple monkeys don't exist, me failing to prove I have one is sufficient proof they don't.

I know you Roddy, you are stretching way to much here, time to shake hands and walk away, you are only making yourself look bad at this point with your continuing stubbornness. It doesn't matter at this point whether it was real, he failed to prove it so case closed.

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...

 

If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar.

 

And?? So what? Does that prove the cache was never there?

 

If I say I have a green and purple Monkey and you say I don't the burden of proof is on me. You do not have to prove green and purple monkeys don't exist, me failing to prove I have one is sufficient proof they don't.

I know you Roddy, you are stretching way to much here, time to shake hands and walk away, you are only making yourself look bad at this point with your continuing stubbornness. It doesn't matter at this point whether it was real, he failed to prove it so case closed.

 

Truly, my friend, I am not even here to prove or sidprove anything...as I have said many times over. In fact, I want to THANK everyone for keeping this at the top, which has been my main posting reason for several pages now. I have also stated I am more than happy to debate as long as anyone else would like, that's what you see here.

 

And personally, not one person in here has given me even a hint of evidence which proves the CO lied about the cache being in place. You can tell me that it's on the CO all you wish, but I believe GS made the accusation, the burden is on them. Just like in the court of law, innocent until proven otherwise. So no, the CO should not have to clear their name for an accusation someone cannot back. That's like saying the rape victim has to prove they were raped.

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Secrets are no fun unless they are told and once they are told, it's only a matter of time until there is no secret.

 

Most people who would lie to the community as you are suggesting would eventually tell someone else about it, if for no other reason to prove how clever they are. Once that person is told, they might take the information to a reviewer, (on the condition of anonymity). The reviewers might then ask the cache owner to check on his cache, hoping that he will do the honorable thing and report the non-existent cache as missing and archive it. If he did not, the reviewer certainly would archive the cache.

 

This scenario sounds familiar, doesn't it?

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.
I also would have accepted a picture of the cache as proof. I'm sure TPTB would have also, depending on what their other evidence to the contrary is.
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...
You're making the argument that the cache should have been archived because the cache owner failed to maintain his cache and lied to a reviewer about it? Interesting argument, but I don't think it applies to this scenario. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Secrets are no fun unless they are told and once they are told, it's only a matter of time until there is no secret.

 

Most people who would lie to the community as you are suggesting would eventually tell someone else about it, if for no other reason to prove how clever they are. Once that person is told, they might take the information to a reviewer, (on the condition of anonymity). The reviewers might then ask the cache owner to check on his cache, hoping that he will do the honorable thing and report the non-existent cache as missing and archive it. If he did not, the reviewer certainly would archive the cache.

 

This scenario sounds familiar, doesn't it?

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.
I also would have accepted a picture of the cache as proof. I'm sure TPTB would have also, depending on what their other evidence to the contrary is.
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...
You're making the argument that the cache should have been archived because teh cache owner failed to maintain his cache and lied to a reviewer about it? Interesting argument, but I don't think it applis to this scenario.

 

Good try, nice job putting words in my mouth.

Share this post


Link to post

You know sbell, you asked me why I couldn't see your side of this. While I have thought about ALL angles, who sid I do or do not believe in any one of them? My question to you, why are you so stuck on the version you are? What stops you from seeing other possibilities?

 

I know, because GS said so...right?

Share this post


Link to post

This is not a court of law, it is a privately run game. Big difference there. Their game, their right to demand proof, their right to archive if they don't believe it's there.

Community pressure will keep them honest or expose dishonesty, debate is goor. But all the useful debate here ended many days ago. Continue if you wish, I will continue to read. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

This is not a court of law, it is a privately run game. Big difference there. Their game, their right to demand proof, their right to archive if they don't believe it's there.

Community pressure will keep them honest or expose dishonesty, debate is goor. But all the useful debate here ended many days ago. Continue if you wish, I will continue to read. :lol:

 

I do know we're not in a court of law, doesn;t change my belief that the burden is GS. They made the claim, they need to back it.

Share this post


Link to post

This is not a court of law, it is a privately run game. Big difference there. Their game, their right to demand proof, their right to archive if they don't believe it's there.

Community pressure will keep them honest or expose dishonesty, debate is good. But all the useful debate here ended many days ago. Continue if you wish, I will continue to read. ;)

 

I do know we're not in a court of law, doesn't change my belief that the burden is GS. They made the claim, they need to back it.

 

They believe they have done enough. Their belief is the one that counts. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I do know we're not in a court of law, doesn;t change my belief that the burden is GS. They made the claim, they need to back it.

 

Actualy they dont need to do anything, when it comes down to bare bones, It is their listing site and their rules ,, if you (or anyone else) don't like the way they run it ... you have the option to leave

Edited by Smurf

Share this post


Link to post

I do know we're not in a court of law, doesn;t change my belief that the burden is GS. They made the claim, they need to back it.

 

Actualy they dont need to do anything, when it comes down to bare bones, It is their listing site and their rules ,, if you (or anyone else) don't like the way they run it ... you have the option to leave

 

Well said, glad you made that point.

 

So you're saying we should all just thank our lucky stars GS is here?

 

btw, if you thought that was an original statement, you might read back through all the posts and count the number of times that's been said. Then, maybe you should look back and check out the various responses...and what the hey, insert any one of them here to properly illustrate my feelings about such a statement...or action! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

This is not a court of law, it is a privately run game. Big difference there. Their game, their right to demand proof, their right to archive if they don't believe it's there.

Community pressure will keep them honest or expose dishonesty, debate is good. But all the useful debate here ended many days ago. Continue if you wish, I will continue to read. ;)

 

I do know we're not in a court of law, doesn't change my belief that the burden is GS. They made the claim, they need to back it.

 

They believe they have done enough. Their belief is the one that counts. :lol:

 

Is it? I wonder why this thread went sooo many pages if that's true?

Share this post


Link to post

This is not a court of law, it is a privately run game. Big difference there. Their game, their right to demand proof, their right to archive if they don't believe it's there.

Community pressure will keep them honest or expose dishonesty, debate is good. But all the useful debate here ended many days ago. Continue if you wish, I will continue to read. ;)

 

I do know we're not in a court of law, doesn't change my belief that the burden is GS. They made the claim, they need to back it.

 

They believe they have done enough. Their belief is the one that counts. :lol:

 

Is it? I wonder why this thread went sooo many pages if that's true?

 

Because someone wishes to keep it at the top of the page.

 

(dang it, I just helped. grrrrrr)

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...

 

If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar.

 

And?? So what? Does that prove the cache was never there?

 

If I say I have a green and purple Monkey and you say I don't the burden of proof is on me. You do not have to prove green and purple monkeys don't exist, me failing to prove I have one is sufficient proof they don't.

I know you Roddy, you are stretching way to much here, time to shake hands and walk away, you are only making yourself look bad at this point with your continuing stubbornness. It doesn't matter at this point whether it was real, he failed to prove it so case closed.

 

Truly, my friend, I am not even here to prove or sidprove anything...as I have said many times over. In fact, I want to THANK everyone for keeping this at the top, which has been my main posting reason for several pages now. I have also stated I am more than happy to debate as long as anyone else would like, that's what you see here.

 

And personally, not one person in here has given me even a hint of evidence which proves the CO lied about the cache being in place. You can tell me that it's on the CO all you wish, but I believe GS made the accusation, the burden is on them. Just like in the court of law, innocent until proven otherwise. So no, the CO should not have to clear their name for an accusation someone cannot back. That's like saying the rape victim has to prove they were raped.

 

So you're saying a rape victim doesn't have to have a rape kit to help their claim of rape?

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...

 

If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar.

 

And?? So what? Does that prove the cache was never there?

 

If I say I have a green and purple Monkey and you say I don't the burden of proof is on me. You do not have to prove green and purple monkeys don't exist, me failing to prove I have one is sufficient proof they don't.

I know you Roddy, you are stretching way to much here, time to shake hands and walk away, you are only making yourself look bad at this point with your continuing stubbornness. It doesn't matter at this point whether it was real, he failed to prove it so case closed.

 

Truly, my friend, I am not even here to prove or sidprove anything...as I have said many times over. In fact, I want to THANK everyone for keeping this at the top, which has been my main posting reason for several pages now. I have also stated I am more than happy to debate as long as anyone else would like, that's what you see here.

 

And personally, not one person in here has given me even a hint of evidence which proves the CO lied about the cache being in place. You can tell me that it's on the CO all you wish, but I believe GS made the accusation, the burden is on them. Just like in the court of law, innocent until proven otherwise. So no, the CO should not have to clear their name for an accusation someone cannot back. That's like saying the rape victim has to prove they were raped.

 

So you're saying a rape victim doesn't have to have a rape kit to help their claim of rape?

 

Fairly certain you know and understand what I'm saying here.

Share this post


Link to post

You know sbell, you asked me why I couldn't see your side of this. While I have thought about ALL angles, who sid I do or do not believe in any one of them? My question to you, why are you so stuck on the version you are? What stops you from seeing other possibilities?

 

I know, because GS said so...right?

Not really.

 

If you check the early pages of this thread, I wasn't taking sides. I basically held the position that TDE/SF should simply rove the cache's existence and have it re-enabled. Then TDE/SF started posting. The more he posted, the more I found him to be uncredible. Given that I know Miss Jenn to be honorable, people have vouched for Nomex, and he really had no dog in the fight, I landed where I am.

 

You, however, have stuck with the very same position that you had at the beginning of the thread. I wonder why that is. I suspect that you just feel like bashing TPTB. I wonder if we checked your posting history if we wouldn't find a common thread.

Share this post


Link to post

You know sbell, you asked me why I couldn't see your side of this. While I have thought about ALL angles, who sid I do or do not believe in any one of them? My question to you, why are you so stuck on the version you are? What stops you from seeing other possibilities?

 

I know, because GS said so...right?

Not really.

 

If you check the early pages of this thread, I wasn't taking sides. I basically held the position that TDE/SF should simply rove the cache's existence and have it re-enabled. Then TDE/SF started posting. The more he posted, the more I found him to be uncredible. Given that I know Miss Jenn to be honorable, people have vouched for Nomex, and he really had no dog in the fight, I landed where I am.

 

You, however, have stuck with the very same position that you had at the beginning of the thread. I wonder why that is. I suspect that you just feel like bashing TPTB. I wonder if we checked your posting history if we wouldn't find a common thread.

 

Yes, I consider that a personal attack.

 

If you do care to check my history, you'll note that I side with GS almost EVERY SINGLE TIME. Please, check and see...

Share this post


Link to post

You know sbell, you asked me why I couldn't see your side of this. While I have thought about ALL angles, who sid I do or do not believe in any one of them? My question to you, why are you so stuck on the version you are? What stops you from seeing other possibilities?

 

I know, because GS said so...right?

Not really.

 

If you check the early pages of this thread, I wasn't taking sides. I basically held the position that TDE/SF should simply rove the cache's existence and have it re-enabled. Then TDE/SF started posting. The more he posted, the more I found him to be uncredible. Given that I know Miss Jenn to be honorable, people have vouched for Nomex, and he really had no dog in the fight, I landed where I am.

 

You, however, have stuck with the very same position that you had at the beginning of the thread. I wonder why that is. I suspect that you just feel like bashing TPTB. I wonder if we checked your posting history if we wouldn't find a common thread.

 

Yes, I consider that a personal attack.

 

If you do care to check my history, you'll note that I side with GS almost EVERY SINGLE TIME. Please, check and see...

A personal attack? Really?

 

If you really think so, you should report it.

 

BTW, if mine was a personal attack, your previous post must also be, since mine was merely the opposite side of the coin from yours. Still, I think you should definitely report my post.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Is there no end to this Bickering Silliness?

Roddy has made it completely clear that he really has no interest in the discussion. His only goal is to keep the thread bumped.

Share this post


Link to post

You know sbell, you asked me why I couldn't see your side of this. While I have thought about ALL angles, who sid I do or do not believe in any one of them? My question to you, why are you so stuck on the version you are? What stops you from seeing other possibilities?

 

I know, because GS said so...right?

This thread has been very curious in part because it is not just the people whom I see over and over insist that Groundspeak can do no wrong who have take the side the the cache was justly archived. And it not just the people who alway bash GS that have questioned this cache being archived (or at least the way it was archived).

 

If you do care to check my history, you'll note that I side with GS almost EVERY SINGLE TIME. Please, check and see...

 

The only thing I think you are having trouble seeing, is this idea that the burden of proof is on GS or the reviewer when a cache is archived. The reviewer sees whatever evidence he sees and reaches a conclusion that the cache should be archived. GS realizes that only in a few cases will the reviewer have absolute proof that a cache is in violation of guidelines. Reviewers routinely archive caches and leave notes indicating that a cache owner can still provide evidence that the cache is compliant with guidelines and get it unarchived. If the reviewers where to be required to have incontrovertible proof before archiving a cache, there job would be impossible. They are permitted by Groundspeak to use some judgment and make a decision based on what evidence is available. It is up to cache owners who feel there cache is unjustly being archived to provide evidence to change the reviewer's mind (or to get the ruling overruled on appeal). For many people, the fact that SF did not provide this evidence (and instead claims to have destroyed what evidence he might have had), says a lot more about whether there was a cache in the first place than any secret evidence that Groundspeak may hold.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

You know sbell, you asked me why I couldn't see your side of this. While I have thought about ALL angles, who sid I do or do not believe in any one of them? My question to you, why are you so stuck on the version you are? What stops you from seeing other possibilities?

 

I know, because GS said so...right?

This thread has been very curious in part because it is not just the people whom I see over and over insist that Groundspeak can do no wrong who have take the side the the cache was justly archived. And it not just the people who alway bash GS that have questioned this cache being archived (or at least the way it was archived).

 

If you do care to check my history, you'll note that I side with GS almost EVERY SINGLE TIME. Please, check and see...

 

The only thing I think you are having trouble seeing, is this idea that the burden of proof is on GS or the reviewer when a cache is archived. The reviewer sees whatever evidence he sees and reaches a conclusion that the cache should be archived. GS realizes that only in a few cases will the reviewer have absolute proof that a cache is in violation of guidelines. Reviewers routinely archive caches and leave notes indicating that a cache owner can still provide evidence that the cache is compliant with guidelines and get it unarchived. If the reviewers where to be required to have incontrovertible proof before archiving a cache, there job would be impossible. They are permitted by Groundspeak to use some judgment and make a decision based on what evidence is available. It is up to cache owners who feel there cache is unjustly being archived to provide evidence to change the reviewer's mind (or to get the ruling overruled on appeal). For many people, the fact that SF did not provide this evidence (and instead claims to have destroyed what evidence he might have had), says a lot more about whether there was a cache in the first place than any secret evidence that Groundspeak may hold.

 

Toz, when the PTB not only archive, but call the owner a liar, they surely had ought to back that up.

Share this post


Link to post

Is there no end to this Bickering Silliness?

Roddy has made it completely clear that he really has no interest in the discussion. His only goal is to keep the thread bumped.

 

Either you can't read or you're purposely misleading everyone who would believe what you type. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

You know sbell, you asked me why I couldn't see your side of this. While I have thought about ALL angles, who sid I do or do not believe in any one of them? My question to you, why are you so stuck on the version you are? What stops you from seeing other possibilities?

 

I know, because GS said so...right?

This thread has been very curious in part because it is not just the people whom I see over and over insist that Groundspeak can do no wrong who have take the side the the cache was justly archived. And it not just the people who alway bash GS that have questioned this cache being archived (or at least the way it was archived).

 

If you do care to check my history, you'll note that I side with GS almost EVERY SINGLE TIME. Please, check and see...

 

The only thing I think you are having trouble seeing, is this idea that the burden of proof is on GS or the reviewer when a cache is archived. The reviewer sees whatever evidence he sees and reaches a conclusion that the cache should be archived. GS realizes that only in a few cases will the reviewer have absolute proof that a cache is in violation of guidelines. Reviewers routinely archive caches and leave notes indicating that a cache owner can still provide evidence that the cache is compliant with guidelines and get it unarchived. If the reviewers where to be required to have incontrovertible proof before archiving a cache, there job would be impossible. They are permitted by Groundspeak to use some judgment and make a decision based on what evidence is available. It is up to cache owners who feel there cache is unjustly being archived to provide evidence to change the reviewer's mind (or to get the ruling overruled on appeal). For many people, the fact that SF did not provide this evidence (and instead claims to have destroyed what evidence he might have had), says a lot more about whether there was a cache in the first place than any secret evidence that Groundspeak may hold.

 

Toz, when the PTB not only archive, but call the owner a liar, they surely had ought to back that up.

 

I think they've done far more then required, some people will never be satisfied, the wise company does not stoop to hashing it out in public.

Share this post


Link to post

Is there no end to this Bickering Silliness?

Roddy has made it completely clear that he really has no interest in the discussion. His only goal is to keep the thread bumped.

 

Either you can't read or you're purposely misleading everyone who would believe what you type. :lol:

Maybe I can't read either then, because that's what I thought you said... several times now. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Is there no end to this Bickering Silliness?

Roddy has made it completely clear that he really has no interest in the discussion. His only goal is to keep the thread bumped.

 

Either you can't read or you're purposely misleading everyone who would believe what you type. :lol:

I would happily link where you've stated basically that, but we have a little one that is about to get cranked if we don't get her down. Anyone who cares can simply glance through your posts for the last few pages. I'm quite certain that they will easily find the relevent statements.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think they've done far more then required, some people will never be satisfied, the wise company does not stoop to hashing it out in public.

 

I disagree. They say they did a complete investigation, I say they went off of hearsay. Everything I 've heard points in that direction. Do I believe GS believes in that hearsay? Sure, I would call it pretty convincing...but not PROOF. The ONLY way GS could prove this was a hoax would be if the CO admitted it or they actually physically checked....I somehow doubt either of these were done. Now, when saying you have that proof and you call the owner a liar in public, you should be ready to back that proof or some customers might not be happy.

 

Sbell would like you yo believe I am against GS, that I have called Keystone a liar etc etc, good attempts to discredit me...but far from the truth. I happen to admire and appreciate the GS crew, volunteers to lackeys. I often can be seen standing behind them, recently in threads such as the ALR debate, I tend to agree with them in most every case. Sorry, I don't think everyone is perfect though, and I see this to be a case in point! Why am I keeping this up at the top? Simple really, I don't like how this seemed to be swept under the rug and just allowed to fester and die here without even a simple acknowledgement that things could be done better and they have learned from this just as I'm sure many of us here have. And I know, some of you will say I don't have to like it, that complaining over and over won't change it. I bet this thread is being watched more than by just us, I would guess the message is getting through. ;)

 

Sbell would also like you to believe I refuse to discuss the issues. What have I been doing then? It is true I do refuse to play the games that some seem to enjoy....played in enough in this thread already. If all the post is for is to lead in circles, I'll bow out and let you play that game all by yourself. :D

 

At the end of the day, I appreciate and respect Nomex, Miss Jenn, Keystone and all the others, even if I do feel Keystone owes me two apologies now! :lol:;) And, while some will try to tell you you have to vote with your feet or some other form of "if you don't like it..." remark, I don't feel I'd leave the caching world I love over a simpe mishandling (IMHO) of a situation...nor do I believe anyone who suggests this takes their own advice seriously.

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

Is there no end to this Bickering Silliness?

Roddy has made it completely clear that he really has no interest in the discussion. His only goal is to keep the thread bumped.

 

Either you can't read or you're purposely misleading everyone who would believe what you type. :lol:

I would happily link where you've stated basically that, but we have a little one that is about to get cranked if we don't get her down. Anyone who cares can simply glance through your posts for teh last few pages. I'm quite certain that they will easily find the relevent statements.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4140981

 

To Quote:

Truly, my friend, I am not even here to prove or sidprove anything...as I have said many times over. In fact, I want to THANK everyone for keeping this at the top, which has been my main posting reason for several pages now. I have also stated I am more than happy to debate as long as anyone else would like, that's what you see here.

 

And personally, not one person in here has given me even a hint of evidence which proves the CO lied about the cache being in place. You can tell me that it's on the CO all you wish, but I believe GS made the accusation, the burden is on them. Just like in the court of law, innocent until proven otherwise. So no, the CO should not have to clear their name for an accusation someone cannot back. That's like saying the rape victim has to prove they were raped.

 

You did say it.

Share this post


Link to post

Is there no end to this Bickering Silliness?

Roddy has made it completely clear that he really has no interest in the discussion. His only goal is to keep the thread bumped.

 

Either you can't read or you're purposely misleading everyone who would believe what you type. :lol:

Maybe I can't read either then, because that's what I thought you said... several times now. ;)

 

No, my friend, I said my main reason was to keep this at the top. I also said I was more than happy to debate. I would have to assume that debate would be about the discussion at hand, therefore this is completely wrong. I'd be happy to link it for you, but I don;t feel the burden of proof to be on me. ;)

 

In fact, I don't recall EVER saying I outright refuse to discuss this situation.

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think they've done far more then required, some people will never be satisfied, the wise company does not stoop to hashing it out in public.

 

I disagree. They say they did a complete investigation, I say they went off of hearsay. Everything I 've heard points in that direction. Do I believe GS believes in that hearsay? Sure, I would call it pretty convincing...but not PROOF. The ONLY way GS could prove this was a hoax would be if the CO admitted it or they actually physically checked....I somehow doubt either of these were done. Now, when saying you have that proof and you call the owner a liar in public, you should be ready to back that proof or some customers might not be happy.

 

Sbell would like you yo believe I am against GS, that I have called Keystone a liar etc etc, good attempts to discredit me...but far from the truth. I happen to admire and appreciate the GS crew, volunteers to lackeys. I often can be seen standing behind them, recently in threads such as the ALR debate, I tend to agree with them in most every case. Sorry, I don't think everyone is perfect though, and I see this to be a case in point! Why am I keeping this up at the top? Simple really, I don't like how this seemed to be swept under the rug and just allowed to fester and die here without even a simple acknowledgement that things could be done better and they have learned from this just as I'm sure many of us here have. And I know, some of you will say I don't have to like it, that complaining over and over won't change it. I bet this thread is being watched more than by just us, I would guess the message is getting through. ;)

 

Sbell would also like you to believe I refuse to discuss the issues. What have I been doing then? It is true I do refuse to play the games that some seem to enjoy....played in enough in this thread already. If all the post is for is to lead in circles, I'll bow out and let you play that game all by yourself. :D

 

At the end of the day, I appreciate and respect Nomex, Miss Jenn, Keystone and all the others, even if I do feel Keystone owes me two apologies now! :lol:;) And, while some will try to tell you you have to vote with your feet or some other form of "if you don't like it..." remark, I don't feel I'd leave the caching world I love over a simpe mishandling (IMHO) of a situation...nor do I believe anyone who suggests this takes their own advice seriously.

 

Again, what you think is irrelevant. They have done all that is required and more. They have no obligation to provide you with proof of any kind, and in fact would be foolish to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think they've done far more then required, some people will never be satisfied, the wise company does not stoop to hashing it out in public.

 

I disagree. They say they did a complete investigation, I say they went off of hearsay. Everything I 've heard points in that direction. Do I believe GS believes in that hearsay? Sure, I would call it pretty convincing...but not PROOF. The ONLY way GS could prove this was a hoax would be if the CO admitted it or they actually physically checked....I somehow doubt either of these were done. Now, when saying you have that proof and you call the owner a liar in public, you should be ready to back that proof or some customers might not be happy.

 

Sbell would like you yo believe I am against GS, that I have called Keystone a liar etc etc, good attempts to discredit me...but far from the truth. I happen to admire and appreciate the GS crew, volunteers to lackeys. I often can be seen standing behind them, recently in threads such as the ALR debate, I tend to agree with them in most every case. Sorry, I don't think everyone is perfect though, and I see this to be a case in point! Why am I keeping this up at the top? Simple really, I don't like how this seemed to be swept under the rug and just allowed to fester and die here without even a simple acknowledgement that things could be done better and they have learned from this just as I'm sure many of us here have. And I know, some of you will say I don't have to like it, that complaining over and over won't change it. I bet this thread is being watched more than by just us, I would guess the message is getting through. ;)

 

Sbell would also like you to believe I refuse to discuss the issues. What have I been doing then? It is true I do refuse to play the games that some seem to enjoy....played in enough in this thread already. If all the post is for is to lead in circles, I'll bow out and let you play that game all by yourself. :D

 

At the end of the day, I appreciate and respect Nomex, Miss Jenn, Keystone and all the others, even if I do feel Keystone owes me two apologies now! :lol:;) And, while some will try to tell you you have to vote with your feet or some other form of "if you don't like it..." remark, I don't feel I'd leave the caching world I love over a simpe mishandling (IMHO) of a situation...nor do I believe anyone who suggests this takes their own advice seriously.

 

Again, what you think is irrelevant. They have done all that is required and more. They have no obligation to provide you with proof of any kind, and in fact would be foolish to do so.

 

And if you read the whole comment, you'd know I addressed this very thought! :D

Share this post


Link to post

I just found a link at the top of these forums labeled "Visit Geocaching.com"

It has links to all kinds of caches you can go find, outside and away from your computer!

It sure was a nice break from reading all the running in circles on this thread.

And, believe it or not, I actually met another caching team today, a father and daughter going by the name TEAM DESERT EAGLE. They were out looking for caches too; I had a nice, pleasant visit with them.

After 28 pages of this, isn't it about time for all of us to "get a life and go geocaching?"

Share this post


Link to post

card00073_fr.jpg

This thread 20 years hence?

 

So what the heck is this?

 

It looks like a guy with a newspaper telling off some guy folk dancing.

 

Got me. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I just found a link at the top of these forums labeled "Visit Geocaching.com"

It has links to all kinds of caches you can go find, outside and away from your computer!

It sure was a nice break from reading all the running in circles on this thread.

And, believe it or not, I actually met another caching team today, a father and daughter going by the name TEAM DESERT EAGLE. They were out looking for caches too; I had a nice, pleasant visit with them.

After 28 pages of this, isn't it about time for all of us to "get a life and go geocaching?"

 

Glad you had a good experience. ;)

 

Since I am currently unemployed, have more bills than money, no money to waste on gas for caching and it's cold and blustery, I am more than happy to "get my life" doing other things. But THANKS for the suggestion, if I get the chance, I certainly will see if I can add to my find count, THANKS! :lol: It's always refreshing to hear how I should enjoy my time!

 

Others can answer for themselves!

Share this post


Link to post

card00073_fr.jpg

This thread 20 years hence?

 

So what the heck is this?

 

It looks like a guy with a newspaper telling off some guy folk dancing.

 

Got me. :lol:

Looks like two old men arguing to me. It is about where I think this thread will be in twenty years.

Share this post


Link to post

card00073_fr.jpg

This thread 20 years hence?

 

So what the heck is this?

 

It looks like a guy with a newspaper telling off some guy folk dancing.

 

Got me. :lol:

Looks like two old men arguing to me. It is about where I think this thread will be in twenty years.

 

You mean it isn't there already?

Share this post


Link to post

card00073_fr.jpg

This thread 20 years hence?

 

So what the heck is this?

 

It looks like a guy with a newspaper telling off some guy folk dancing.

 

Got me. :lol:

Looks like two old men arguing to me. It is about where I think this thread will be in twenty years.

 

You mean it isn't there already?

 

Um, that is kinda the point. Twenty more years and they will still be in the same place.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Truly, my friend, I am not even here to prove or sidprove anything...as I have said many times over. In fact, I want to THANK everyone for keeping this at the top, which has been my main posting reason for several pages now. I have also stated I am more than happy to debate as long as anyone else would like, that's what you see here.

 

And personally, not one person in here has given me even a hint of evidence which proves the CO lied about the cache being in place. You can tell me that it's on the CO all you wish, but I believe GS made the accusation, the burden is on them. Just like in the court of law, innocent until proven otherwise. So no, the CO should not have to clear their name for an accusation someone cannot back. That's like saying the rape victim has to prove they were raped.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to be staying at the top regardless of our de-railing post attempts.

 

Don't blame that one on us!!

Share this post


Link to post

 

Truly, my friend, I am not even here to prove or sidprove anything...as I have said many times over. In fact, I want to THANK everyone for keeping this at the top, which has been my main posting reason for several pages now. I have also stated I am more than happy to debate as long as anyone else would like, that's what you see here.

 

And personally, not one person in here has given me even a hint of evidence which proves the CO lied about the cache being in place. You can tell me that it's on the CO all you wish, but I believe GS made the accusation, the burden is on them. Just like in the court of law, innocent until proven otherwise. So no, the CO should not have to clear their name for an accusation someone cannot back. That's like saying the rape victim has to prove they were raped.

 

Exactly, my MAIN point. Not my ONLY point, mind you, but my MAIN point! Now, if you could find one post where I said I refused to discuss this issue....

 

I added color to the more important part of that comment, the part you seemed to have missed. :lol:;)

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

 

Truly, my friend, I am not even here to prove or sidprove anything...as I have said many times over. In fact, I want to THANK everyone for keeping this at the top, which has been my main posting reason for several pages now. I have also stated I am more than happy to debate as long as anyone else would like, that's what you see here.

 

And personally, not one person in here has given me even a hint of evidence which proves the CO lied about the cache being in place. You can tell me that it's on the CO all you wish, but I believe GS made the accusation, the burden is on them. Just like in the court of law, innocent until proven otherwise. So no, the CO should not have to clear their name for an accusation someone cannot back. That's like saying the rape victim has to prove they were raped.

 

Exactly, my MAIN point. Not my ONLY point, mind you, but my MAIN point! Now, if you could find one post where I said I refused to discuss this issue....

 

I added color to the more important part of that comment, the part you seemed to have missed. :lol:;)

 

Oh there now you've gone and done it.

 

Bumped it up again.

Share this post


Link to post
It was archived because it didn't exist.

Sorry. I wasn't aware of that. It was my understanding that the cache was archived because Nomex believed it didn't exist. ;)

Is this what you are claiming has never happened before? That a cache was archived because it wasn't there? ;)

Or are you claiming that no one has ever tried pulling the wool over Groundspeak's eyes? :D

 

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

Did it exist? Have you personally verified that SF never had a cache at that location?

If so, then please share that proof with us, as not even Nomex has made that claim. :lol:

 

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

http://www.probability.net/ :D

 

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?

[OT]Bill Clinton would love you. :lol: [/OT]

Of the 4 claims that SF made advising that the cache was OK, which one was Nomex saying was a lie?

If Nomex is stating that 2 or more of SF's claims were lies, then he is calling him a liar, by your definition.

 

As for your second sentence, do you have any evidence that SF lied? Personally, I believe that Nomex, and the local reviewers had some pretty strong suspicions, but as has been pointed out here several times, obtaining hard evidence that there has not been a cache there for "years" would be extremely difficult. Since you are making a public declaration that SF was lying, I assume you can offer some proof to that effect? Or are you just blindly defending the Friar who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar again?

 

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

If that were what happened, then I would say each claim was a separate lie, as they occurred over an extended time period. Had SF made the same claim several times in one day, then perhaps 4wheel's desperate wordsmithing might apply.

 

Simple math might indicate that, but what indicates that it has happened at all?

My first clue was this thread being started. I read a few posts, then saw a link to the cache page, where I read what SF posted, and I read what Nomex wrote. These postings led me to the following conclusion:

1 ) SF submitted a cache for publication.

2 ) The cache was believed to meet the guidelines, and was published.

3 ) A theory was developed amongst locals that the cache was a hoax.

4 ) The local reviewers asked for assistance.

5 ) Nomex reviewed the situation and agreed that it might be a hoax.

6 ) Nomex archived the cache.

 

Ergo, it has happened at least once. Just check the cache page if you don't believe me.

 

Did you come to some other conclusion?

If so, did you leap to it, or approach it cautiously? :D

 

If the ground zero was being scoured by cachers all day they would have seen him.

Since we are stretching hypotheticals to their breaking point, wouldn't it be equally possible that SF had a means to check on his cache from afar? So long as we get to twist reality to fit whatever our agenda of the day is, why not accept that he could simply drive by, and, knowing precisely where his cache was, verify it at a glance? If you are gonna base an entire argument on make-believe, wouldn't it make sense to cover all the possibilities? :D

Share this post


Link to post
If he had not checked it, it would make him a liar.

Agreed. Saying you've done something, several times, without actually doing so would be lying. Repeatedly. I don't think there are more than a couple people in here who won't acknowledge this. But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is that a Groundspeak agent publicly called a paying customer a liar. Now the burden of proof is on them, since they decided to back their agent's incredibly rude behavior. If they are going to hide behind their innuendos of "evidence", under the guise of confidentiality, that's OK. So long as they keep their negative comments equally confidential. However, if they choose to make a very public defamation, then they shouldn't later fall back on the "confidentiality" safety net. It's poor customer relations.

 

If you (or anyone else) don't like the way they run it ... you have the option to leave

We also have the option of discussing the issue.

Which is what we're doing.

Does that bother you?

If so, you have the option of leaving.

Just sayin'... ;):D

 

The only thing I think you are having trouble seeing, is this idea that the burden of proof is on GS or the reviewer when a cache is archived.

I don't think RR has that idea, based upon his last several pages of posts.

I suspect he believes that if a company publicly defames a customer, the company should offer proof of their claim.

This is not about the archival. That's Groundspeak's business. It's about the method employed.

 

The wise company does not stoop to hashing it out in public.

Didn't they do just that when their reviewer publicly called SF a liar, then TPTB supported his actions? :lol:

 

After 28 pages of this, isn't it about time for all of us to "get a life and go geocaching?"

We can't do both? ;)

I know I've found several caches during the time this thread has been active.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I disagree. They say they did a complete investigation, I say they went off of hearsay. Everything I 've heard points in that direction. Do I believe GS believes in that hearsay? Sure, I would call it pretty convincing...but not PROOF. The ONLY way GS could prove this was a hoax would be if the CO admitted it or they actually physically checked....I somehow doubt either of these were done. Now, when saying you have that proof and you call the owner a liar in public, you should be ready to back that proof or some customers might not be happy.

Everything you've heard, or everything you choose to believe? It is not for GS to prove anything. At the end of the day it seems that TPTB are not extremely worried if you are happy with how this turned out.

Share this post


Link to post

blah blah blah blah

I thought I would check back.

Wow it goes on and on.. saying nothing. Let go of it already. Go do something constructive.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...