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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

I believe I posted my thoughts. Everything I have heard. What you seem to have missed is that I said the evidence seems convincing? Does this sound like someone who is not willing to see both sides? It would be others here who are not willing to have an open mind, well, nor even read what is posted. As CR pointed out, many don't even know what the issue at present is.

 

We would disagree on who has the burden of proving what, you are welcome to your opinion as I assume I am mine. As I have stated my position several times over and it has yet to sway you, I won't bother going in further circles.

 

Whether TPTB are worried or not is not up to you or I to determine.

Share this post


Link to post
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? :lol:

It seems that you have made a big leap. Where did it say the locals developed a theory? Was this is a group meeting? The local reviewers asked for assistance? With this cache or in general? Nomex agreed it might be a hoax implies that he was informed of some suspicions and asked to check them out. What hat did you pull that out of? Nomex archived the cache, you got that one right.

 

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? ;)

No I don't think it would be equally possible. It is much easier to believe that there was some cachers looking for the cache that day than it is to believe that a impossible to find cache could be checked from afar. If you want to make up a argument for every possibility have at it. The likelihood of GS archiving a cache only because no one had found it reduces the credibility of the other arguments.

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.

 

I believe I posted my thoughts. Everything I have heard. What you seem to have missed is that I said the evidence seems convincing? Does this sound like someone who is not willing to see both sides? It would be others here who are not willing to have an open mind, well, nor even read what is posted. As CR pointed out, many don't even know what the issue at present is.

 

We would disagree on who has the burden of proving what, you are welcome to your opinion as I assume I am mine. As I have stated my position several times over and it has yet to sway you, I won't bother going in further circles.

 

Whether TPTB are worried or not is not up to you or I to determine.

Then maybe also it is not up to us to determine if any customers are happy or not.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Hello Mr Pot. My name is Mr Kettle. You sure do look black today. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

It seems that you have made a big leap. Where did it say the locals developed a theory?

Perhaps I did. I tend to use logic when facts are not present. In this case, I'm working on the theory that the cache was not archived simply because it had not been found. Based on that theory, there must be some other reason it was archived. Could that reason be that Nomex believed the cache had not been in place for months/years? It certainly seems that way based upon what he posted. If that's the case, how did he reach that conclusion? Perhaps someone brought it to his attention? If so, who would that be? Some ole fat crippled guy in Central Florida? Not likely, as I didn't even know this cache existed. Who then? The local reviewers? Now we're approaching the realm of the possible. While you are welcome to your theory that Nomex is a psychic, and was mystically blessed with the knowledge that one cache out of 900,000 was a potential problem child, I think I'll stick to my theory, as it sounds more reasonable.

 

It is much easier to believe that there was some cachers looking for the cache that day

Without so much as a single DNF? According to what I saw on the cache page, the locals were not particularly shy about posting DNFs to this cache. Yet, you would have us believe that a group of them stayed out there for an entire 24 hour period, stalking the cache site, without a single mention of their activities? Uh... OK. Hey, who am I to question your beliefs? Should we discuss the Illuminati, black helicopters, aluminum foil deflection beanies, and those strange symbols on the backs of stop signs next? ;):lol:;)

Share this post


Link to post

Why isn't this perfectly clear to people? Do they think that, just this one time, because a topic runs 16 pages, that GS should make an exception to their policy?

No, but when it reaches 20 pages they should. :angry:

 

You have GOT to be kidding me!

 

Why cut the discussion short like that? :D

 

 

(Bumping thread to help the Rocking Roddy Rogue Reviewer crusade)

 

Although I disagree with him, I admire his dedication to principle. :lol:

 

aluminum foil deflection beanies

283979764_7f86e010c4.jpg

 

A complete falsehood, they do absolutely NOTHING to prevent psychics from intercepting your thoughts. They are a PLACEBO. You need to wear a hat that is made out of steel and at least 1/8 thick to stop you from broadcasting your thoughts to others! :unsure:

 

steel_helmet.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

There are some points that everyone seems to be missing.

 

Point 1 - Proof of the cache:

 

Everyone wants to keep saying that SuperFly should have provided proof that his cache existed. AT NO POINT DID GS QUESTION THE EXISTENCE OF THE CACHE, NOR DID THEY ASK FOR PROOF. Their entire grounds seemed to be focused on the lack of finds and assumptions based on that. They asked SF to check on it, he did. GS archived it anyway.

 

Even in Superfly's appeal, there was no request for proof, nor even a valid response except to say that they reviewed it and it would remain archived. No follow up questions, nothing.

 

At that point it doesn't really matter if Superfly destroyed the cache or not, GS never asked about it, indicating that they had already made their decision.

 

While its true that only SuperFly would truly know if the cache existed, he was known for more challenging caches.

 

Lack of asking for proof would indicate that GS believed the cache was there (or that it didn't matter if it was there or not) and is basing this decision on other factors (see point 2). If GS did not believe the cache was there, asking for proof would have been a big point in their favor, lack of asking shows it didn't matter if it was there.

 

Point 2 - Why the focus on Nomex, why not the 3 real reviewers of the area:

 

Nomex first disabled this cache, then later archived it, as a favor to the reviewers in Michigan.

 

Miss Jenn defends his actions.

 

Of course she can honestly defend his actions, he wasn't acting as a reviewer checking the status of a cache, he was doing a favor for a fellow reviewer. Be it a right or wrong action, its that simple, and that's why Miss Jenn can defend this action and can say he did no wrong, her statement was that he acted appropriately and supports his decision. Even if Nomex had full knowledge that the cache did indeed exist or had no conflicting information to the opposite, he was acting out as a favor, not a reviewer. Miss Jenn NEVER stated that she felt that Nomex believed the cache never existed, she simply stated that he acted appropriately. Anyone that does a favor for a friend (fellow reviewer) in most cases is acting appropriately.

 

Why have the local reviewers barely been mentioned in this thread?

 

-DeRock- -Rusty- and -Tiki- seem to be strangely absent from mention in this thread.

 

To me it seems pretty obvious that Nomex was doing a favor for one of these three, if not all three reviewers.

 

Another reviewer made the comment that reviewers often help each other, I'm not aware of any other evidence that nomex was working Michigan caches that day, so I'm not sure I buy the "busy reviewer helping" story. I might be wrong on this statement, but even if I am, it doesn't affect this point.

 

So again, this falls back on the original Michigan reviewers asking for a very specific favor.

 

Superfly and others have stated that there is contention between SF and the Michigan reviewers. If this is the case, the cache owners (and finders) of Michigan should be demanding new reviewers that don't let their personal feelings and agendas get in the way.

 

Now what I believe:

 

I believe the cache did indeed exist. I've seen the political games that go on here so I also believe Nomex was simply a scape goat, nothing more, and as a result, GS can defend him and still have both sides of the cake. The Michigan reviewers didn't want blood on their hands, and they seem to have successfully avoided that.

Share this post


Link to post
Everyone wants to keep saying that SuperFly should have provided proof that his cache existed. AT NO POINT DID GS QUESTION THE EXISTENCE OF THE CACHE, NOR DID THEY ASK FOR PROOF

 

You don't think SF could figure out that GS needed proof of the cache when the reviewer said it did not exist? That would be like trying to defend yourself against a ticket for no drivers licence without bringing the licence to court.

Share this post


Link to post

The people with the facts aren't talking.

 

The people talking don't have the facts.

 

So this "Inference Fest" goes on and on and on......

Share this post


Link to post
That would be like trying to defend yourself against a ticket for no drivers licence without bringing the licence to court.

By the time you got to court, you would most likely have at least a hint that the complaint was for you not having a license. This clue would probably come in the form of what was written on the ticket at the initial encounter, to whit; "No Drivers License". A more accurate comparison would be you getting a ticket for a dead tail light, then fixing it and bringing proof of the repair to court. Then having the judge find you guilty for not bringing proof that you fixed your headlight.

Share this post


Link to post
That would be like trying to defend yourself against a ticket for no drivers licence without bringing the licence to court.

By the time you got to court, you would most likely have at least a hint that the complaint was for you not having a license. This clue would probably come in the form of what was written on the ticket at the initial encounter, to whit; "No Drivers License". A more accurate comparison would be you getting a ticket for a dead tail light, then fixing it and bringing proof of the repair to court. Then having the judge find you guilty for not bringing proof that you fixed your headlight.

 

Actually, your first part sounds pretty accurate as to what has happened. The reviewer archived the cache stating that there has been no cache there(written on the ticket as no drivers license). He then goes to dispute the charge with GS(going to court and bring evidence) except he never brings any proof that his cache has existed.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm am the cacher that found KRYPTONITE by TEAM DESERT EAGLE GCYHH9.

 

As my normal action I wrote TDE (became SF after this) with the coords to confirm.

 

Since TDE/SF know I generally do not go after a cache at night he archives the cache before morning.

 

When I log the archived cache as a find since I did find a container at the given coordinates and signed the log.

 

TDE/SF response that I have found a replacement cache that he has not activated yet and which he placed after midnight. He proceed to delete my find.

 

Funny thing is I've got him there. I went out and found the cache before midnight in a snow storm which was not my norm. Also my entry in the log was second so it had been found by his girlfriend. So how could a new cache that has never been published already be signed.

 

From here he just keeps changing his story.

 

This cache was never meant to be found by anyone but his girlfriend at the time. To solve the cache required squeezing the letters then decrypting by August and then decrypting with BUTTERFLY. He really didn't think anyone would break it.

 

I'll let you decided for yourself what kind of character TDE/SF is.

 

But after this I never went after one of his as a FTF without other cachers along. Both of which are now reviewers.

 

So the local reviewers do know what kind of person he is.

 

Team Sand Dollar

Edited by Team Sand Dollar

Share this post


Link to post

I'm am the cacher that found KRYPTONITE by TEAM DESERT EAGLE GCYHH9.

 

As my normal action I wrote TDE (became SF after this) with the coords to confirm.

 

Since TDE/SF know I generally do not go after a cache at night he archives the cache before morning.

 

When I log the archived cache as a find since I did find a container at the given coordinates and signed the log.

 

TDE/SF response that I have found a replacement cache that he has not activated yet and which he placed after midnight. He proceed to delete my find.

 

Funny thing is I've got him there. I went out and found the cache before midnight in a snow storm which was not my norm. Also my entry in the log was second so it had been found by his girlfriend. So how could a new cache that has never been published already be signed.

 

From here he just keeps changing his story.

 

This cache was never meant to be found by anyone but his girlfriend at the time. To solve the cache required squeezing the letters then decrypting by August and then decrypting with BUTTERFLY. He really didn't think anyone would break it.

 

I'll let you decided for yourself what kind of character TDE/SF is.

 

But after this I never went after one of his as a FTF without other cachers along. Both of which are now reviewers.

 

So the local reviewers do know what kind of person he is.

 

Team Sand Dollar

 

And that should be the final nail in the coffin. Groundspeak was right, the Archiving was properly done, and all this angst has been wasted.

Great job Groundspeak, keep it up. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post

I'm am the cacher that found KRYPTONITE by TEAM DESERT EAGLE GCYHH9.

 

As my normal action I wrote TDE (became SF after this) with the coords to confirm.

 

Since TDE/SF know I generally do not go after a cache at night he archives the cache before morning.

 

When I log the archived cache as a find since I did find a container at the given coordinates and signed the log.

 

TDE/SF response that I have found a replacement cache that he has not activated yet and which he placed after midnight. He proceed to delete my find.

 

Funny thing is I've got him there. I went out and found the cache before midnight in a snow storm which was not my norm. Also my entry in the log was second so it had been found by his girlfriend. So how could a new cache that has never been published already be signed.

 

From here he just keeps changing his story.

 

This cache was never meant to be found by anyone but his girlfriend at the time. To solve the cache required squeezing the letters then decrypting by August and then decrypting with BUTTERFLY. He really didn't think anyone would break it.

 

I'll let you decided for yourself what kind of character TDE/SF is.

 

But after this I never went after one of his as a FTF without other cachers along. Both of which are now reviewers.

 

So the local reviewers do know what kind of person he is.

 

Team Sand Dollar

 

And that should be the final nail in the coffin. Groundspeak was right, the Archiving was properly done, and all this angst has been wasted.

Great job Groundspeak, keep it up. :angry:

 

I'm assuming that's sarcasm directed at TSD because the post really doesn't prove or disprove anything, it merely speaks to character? I like it, but you need to add smilies so others understand your motivation for posting it, my friend!! :unsure:

 

THANKS for the post TSD, but this just doesn't help in the discussion at hand. It does show to character as I pointed out, but character alone won't be convincing enough for most of us to jump to the conclusion the cache was faked. Truly, as I've said many times before, we're (most of us at least) are past the point of whether the cache existed or not, we are (well, I am at least, not putting words in others' mouths here) questioning the business practice of openly calling the CO a liar without backing such a statement!!

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. :unsure:

 

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! :angry: It's always refreshing to hear how I should enjoy my time!

 

Others can answer for themselves!

Didn't you claim to own a golf course, earlier in the thread?

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, your first part sounds pretty accurate as to what has happened.

I would think, in your hideously twisted courtroom analogy, that getting the ticket would equate to having the cache disabled.

I.e; An official of some sort brought to your attention a problem that needs to be responded to.

In the case of this cache, on the offense line, the ticket says "Hasn't been found".

On the back of the ticket, where you have your listed remedies, Nomex selected "Check your cache".

SF knew that a cache not being found was, in no way, even a suggestion of a guideline violation.

As such, he follows the suggested remedy on the back of the ticket, (claiming), checking his cache.

He walks into court, (posts on the cache page), that he took the suggested course of action.

The Judge finds him guilty for an offense that was never mentioned on the ticket.

 

Not unlike me going to court, testifying that I had fixed my tail light.

Then having the Judge say, "I order a $50 fine for your broken headlight". :angry:

I appeal to the next higher circuit, to be told "We stand behind our Judge's ruling. Pay your broken headlight fine".

Share this post


Link to post
We are questioning the business practice of openly calling the CO a liar without backing such a statement!!

But Roddy, the defender's only hope of getting this thread shut down is to obfuscate the issues, constantly bringing up stuff that is irrelevant to the course this discussion has taken. Those who believe in the Almighty sanctity of the Church, will never accept that their Friar might have erred. As such, they must come up with any defense possible, in the hopes of pushing the detractors over the edge of reasonable conversation.

 

No matter how many times you point out your concerns, someone will post something that has nothing to do with your concern.

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. :lol:

 

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! :D It's always refreshing to hear how I should enjoy my time!

 

Others can answer for themselves!

Didn't you claim to own a golf course, earlier in the thread?

 

Are you still looking for ways to discredit me? Keep trying, it's amusing. I not only CLAIMED it, it's the truth, my friend! Why not go ahead and run with this though, see where it leads you! :P:lol::angry::unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
There are some points that everyone seems to be missing.

 

Point 1 - Proof of the cache:

 

Everyone wants to keep saying that SuperFly should have provided proof that his cache existed. AT NO POINT DID GS QUESTION THE EXISTENCE OF THE CACHE, NOR DID THEY ASK FOR PROOF. Their entire grounds seemed to be focused on the lack of finds and assumptions based on that. They asked SF to check on it, he did. GS archived it anyway.

 

Even in Superfly's appeal, there was no request for proof, nor even a valid response except to say that they reviewed it and it would remain archived. No follow up questions, nothing.

Since the cache was archived because it was believed to not exist, he would certainly need to make an offer of roof of its existence in order to win the appeal and have it reinstated. He offered no such proof, so the appeal was denied.
At that point it doesn't really matter if Superfly destroyed the cache or not, GS never asked about it, indicating that they had already made their decision.
They made the initial archival decision. The appeal decision could not be made until SF/TDE submitted an appeal. I assume that you are not challenging Miss Jenn's ability to fairly decide an appeal.
While its true that only SuperFly would truly know if the cache existed, he was known for more challenging caches.
This is not correct. Anyone that SF/TDE told of the hoax would know. Remember, secrets are no fun unless they are told.
Lack of asking for proof would indicate that GS believed the cache was there (or that it didn't matter if it was there or not) and is basing this decision on other factors (see point 2). If GS did not believe the cache was there, asking for proof would have been a big point in their favor, lack of asking shows it didn't matter if it was there.
The bolded statement does not logically follow.
Point 2 - Why the focus on Nomex, why not the 3 real reviewers of the area:
Because the other reviewers did not archive the cache?
Nomex first disabled this cache, then later archived it, as a favor to the reviewers in Michigan.

 

Miss Jenn defends his actions.

 

Of course she can honestly defend his actions, he wasn't acting as a reviewer checking the status of a cache, he was doing a favor for a fellow reviewer. Be it a right or wrong action, its that simple, and that's why Miss Jenn can defend this action and can say he did no wrong, her statement was that he acted appropriately and supports his decision. Even if Nomex had full knowledge that the cache did indeed exist or had no conflicting information to the opposite, he was acting out as a favor, not a reviewer. Miss Jenn NEVER stated that she felt that Nomex believed the cache never existed, she simply stated that he acted appropriately. Anyone that does a favor for a friend (fellow reviewer) in most cases is acting appropriately.

This entire passage hinges on the bolded bit. Unfortunately, that bit does not logically work. If a buddy asks me to help him kill his wife and I agree, Are my actions appropriate? Of course not.
Why have the local reviewers barely been mentioned in this thread?
Again, because they took no actions related to this issue.
-DeRock- -Rusty- and -Tiki- seem to be strangely absent from mention in this thread.

 

To me it seems pretty obvious that Nomex was doing a favor for one of these three, if not all three reviewers.

 

Another reviewer made the comment that reviewers often help each other, I'm not aware of any other evidence that nomex was working Michigan caches that day, so I'm not sure I buy the "busy reviewer helping" story. I might be wrong on this statement, but even if I am, it doesn't affect this point.

 

So again, this falls back on the original Michigan reviewers asking for a very specific favor.

 

Superfly and others have stated that there is contention between SF and the Michigan reviewers. If this is the case, the cache owners (and finders) of Michigan should be demanding new reviewers that don't let their personal feelings and agendas get in the way.

I completely disagree. If an individual thinks that he may have personal bias, it is right for him to step aside on making any related decisions, but he should not have to step down from his position completely.

 

The perfect analogy is a judge. If a case comes before him where he has prior history with a defendant that could bias him, he should remove himself from that case. He needs not quit his job.

Now what I believe:

 

I believe the cache did indeed exist. I've seen the political games that go on here so I also believe Nomex was simply a scape goat, nothing more, and as a result, GS can defend him and still have both sides of the cake. The Michigan reviewers didn't want blood on their hands, and they seem to have successfully avoided that.

How did you come to this conclusion? Why would they single out this cache? If TPTB really wanted SF/TDE gone, they could have merely banned him completely. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
We are questioning the business practice of openly calling the CO a liar without backing such a statement!!

But Roddy, the defender's only hope of getting this thread shut down is to obfuscate the issues, constantly bringing up stuff that is irrelevant to the course this discussion has taken. Those who believe in the Almighty sanctity of the Church, will never accept that their Friar might have erred. As such, they must come up with any defense possible, in the hopes of pushing the detractors over the edge of reasonable conversation.

 

No matter how many times you point out your concerns, someone will post something that has nothing to do with your concern.

 

I know, but if I don't take the time to correct them (regardless if they already know and understand or not), I lose a great chance to take this up to the top! :angry: I have enjoyed many of your posts, my friend. Well said and thought out. I sure wish I had your patience and level-headedness!

 

btw, some not only try to derail, some even go to such antics as trying to discredit and defame...sad if you ask me, but it happens!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm am the cacher that found KRYPTONITE by TEAM DESERT EAGLE GCYHH9.

 

As my normal action I wrote TDE (became SF after this) with the coords to confirm.

 

Since TDE/SF know I generally do not go after a cache at night he archives the cache before morning.

 

When I log the archived cache as a find since I did find a container at the given coordinates and signed the log.

 

TDE/SF response that I have found a replacement cache that he has not activated yet and which he placed after midnight. He proceed to delete my find.

 

Funny thing is I've got him there. I went out and found the cache before midnight in a snow storm which was not my norm. Also my entry in the log was second so it had been found by his girlfriend. So how could a new cache that has never been published already be signed.

 

From here he just keeps changing his story.

 

This cache was never meant to be found by anyone but his girlfriend at the time. To solve the cache required squeezing the letters then decrypting by August and then decrypting with BUTTERFLY. He really didn't think anyone would break it.

 

I'll let you decided for yourself what kind of character TDE/SF is.

 

But after this I never went after one of his as a FTF without other cachers along. Both of which are now reviewers.

 

So the local reviewers do know what kind of person he is.

 

Team Sand Dollar

 

And that should be the final nail in the coffin. Groundspeak was right, the Archiving was properly done, and all this angst has been wasted.

Great job Groundspeak, keep it up. :angry:

 

I'm assuming that's sarcasm directed at TSD because the post really doesn't prove or disprove anything, it merely speaks to character? I like it, but you need to add smilies so others understand your motivation for posting it, my friend!! :unsure:

 

THANKS for the post TSD, but this just doesn't help in the discussion at hand. It does show to character as I pointed out, but character alone won't be convincing enough for most of us to jump to the conclusion the cache was faked. Truly, as I've said many times before, we're (most of us at least) are past the point of whether the cache existed or not, we are (well, I am at least, not putting words in others' mouths here) questioning the business practice of openly calling the CO a liar without backing such a statement!!

It actually does help the discussion at hand. This thread is about whether the cache was archived appropriately. From what has been divulged, Nomex made teh decision to archive teh cache based on third party information. On one hand, he had a maintenance note from SF/TDE stating that the cache was present and accounted for. On the other hand, he had third party information affirming that the cache was not present and hadn't been for years. (In other words, SF/TDE had been lying to the community about the cache for years.) Assuming that they did not have email correspondence from Nomex to this third party stating that the cache was a fraud (which they may certainly have), they are left with a he said/she said scenario. If this was the case, they have to make their decision based on each party's character. Nomex's prior actions, as described by TSD and others, indicate that he is willing to commit this type of fraud.

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. :lol:

 

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! :D It's always refreshing to hear how I should enjoy my time!

 

Others can answer for themselves!

Didn't you claim to own a golf course, earlier in the thread?
Are you still looking for ways to discredit me? Keep trying, it's amusing. I not only CLAIMED it, it's the truth, my friend! Why not go ahead and run with this though, see where it leads you! :P:lol::angry::unsure:
Don't mind if I do. If you do, in fact, own a working golf course (even though that you have previously stated that it was your father's (grandfather's???) if I recall correctly), how could you be unemployed? You could be underemployed, certainly, if it is not successful.

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. :P

 

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! :P It's always refreshing to hear how I should enjoy my time!

 

Others can answer for themselves!

Didn't you claim to own a golf course, earlier in the thread?
Are you still looking for ways to discredit me? Keep trying, it's amusing. I not only CLAIMED it, it's the truth, my friend! Why not go ahead and run with this though, see where it leads you! :lol::D:angry::unsure:
Don't mind if I do. If you do, in fact, own a working golf course (even though that you have previously stated that it was your father's (grandfather's???) if I recall correctly), how could you be unemployed? You could be underemployed, certainly, if it is not successful.

We don't play much golf up here this time of year, it gets kinda hard to find the golf balls in the snow :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I want to make a statement right here and now, I would like to state that CLAN RIFFSTER was the one who shot JFK. To top that off, Clan doesn't put the top on his tube of toothpaste, he distributes sour milk to orphanages so the poor kids only have sour milk on their Cheerios....he has a history of being a "bad man". I fully expect that he will now be arrested and charged with murder, right? Hey, let's not dig any deeper, I stated this and thus, it MUST be true. Just lock him up and get the gallows ready.

 

Wait...we can't just go by hearsay? What? But that's exactly what sbell is suggesting with his latest post, isn't it? Since it was believed by some locals that the cache wasn't there, it MUST be true, right? And we know this to be true because some have come forward and given evidence which proves the CO is a "bad person"....wow, must be true then!

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I have no proof of ANY of the SILLY and nonfactual claims I made against Clan and only used him as an example to make a point. I hardly believe Clan Riffster is a "bad person". No hard feelings or intent of malice here, just a friendly example of how this all looks. Sorry Clan, hope I didn't upset you with the use of you in my demonstration....

 

I do like that sbell stated that he believes the PTB acted upon 3rd party info...hearsay if you will. Seems we're getting somewhere.

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. :P

 

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! :P It's always refreshing to hear how I should enjoy my time!

 

Others can answer for themselves!

Didn't you claim to own a golf course, earlier in the thread?
Are you still looking for ways to discredit me? Keep trying, it's amusing. I not only CLAIMED it, it's the truth, my friend! Why not go ahead and run with this though, see where it leads you! :lol::D:angry::unsure:
Don't mind if I do. If you do, in fact, own a working golf course (even though that you have previously stated that it was your father's (grandfather's???) if I recall correctly), how could you be unemployed? You could be underemployed, certainly, if it is not successful.

We don't play much golf up here this time of year, it gets kinda hard to find the golf balls in the snow :lol:

 

You bet, Skipherr!! But, we have held tournies in the snow before, I even had a "hole in one" in one of the tournaments! Paint the balls orange and be carefull where you step so you can see where your ball went...and carry a lot of spare balls just in case!! :)

 

Since my main duties involves mowing the greens, the fairways and course maintenance, what would you call someone who was laid off for lack of work due to the weather? Unemployed...isn't that what I stated?

 

See sbell, you do remember. So why the attempt to defame? Yep, my dad owns it for the most part...we've had it in the family going on 30 years or so now. Are you now going to say I'm lying when I state I own the course?? Well, maybe not on paper, but why not ask my dad who the owners are, why not ask the many customers we have? Oh, and who do you suppose will inherit the course one of these days??? :P Lord and economy willing!

Share this post


Link to post
... I do like that sbell stated that he believes the PTB acted upon 3rd party info...hearsay if you will. Seems we're getting somewhere.
You are still going around in circles. Early in the thread, it was discussed how third party information would not necessarily be hearsay. Of course, since this isn't a court of law and teh appeals process is properly in place, it wouldn't matter if it was.

 

See sbell, you do remember. So why the attempt to defame? Yep, my dad owns it for the most part...we've had it in the family going on 30 years or so now. Are you now going to say I'm lying when I state I own the course?? Well, maybe not on paper, but why not ask my dad who the owners are, why not ask the many customers we have? Oh, and who do you suppose will inherit the course one of these days??? :angry: Lord and economy willing!
An owner cannot be laid off.

Share this post


Link to post

I want to make a statement right here and now, I would like to state that CLAN RIFFSTER was the one who shot JFK. To top that off, Clan doesn't put the top on his tube of toothpaste, he distributes sour milk to orphanages so the poor kids only have sour milk on their Cheerios....he has a history of being a "bad man". I fully expect that he will now be arrested and charged with murder, right? Hey, let's not dig any deeper, I stated this and thus, it MUST be true. Just lock him up and get the gallows ready.

 

Wait...we can't just go by hearsay? What? But that's exactly what sbell is suggesting with his latest post, isn't it? Since it was believed by some locals that the cache wasn't there, it MUST be true, right? And we know this to be true because some have come forward and given evidence which proves the CO is a "bad person"....wow, must be true then!

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I have no proof of ANY of the SILLY and nonfactual claims I made against Clan and only used him as an example to make a point. I hardly believe Clan Riffster is a "bad person". No hard feelings or intent of malice here, just a friendly example of how this all looks. Sorry Clan, hope I didn't upset you with the use of you in my demonstration....

 

I do like that sbell stated that he believes the PTB acted upon 3rd party info...hearsay if you will. Seems we're getting somewhere.

Difference is credibility. Groundspeak has it, you do not.

Second is believability. If something sounds fishy it probably is.

SF sounds fishy, his own posts work against his credibility, and TSD's post is very believable as it matches the image SF has created of himself.

At this point it's apparent that those who followed this thread with an open mind and made a decision based on the available evidence have concluded GS acted appropriately.

Those who will believe nothing that doesn't match their preconceived idea of the situation continue to demand ever more proof they will not accept.

As I said in my first post Roddy, you are only hurting your own credibility here now, so say what you want about CF, no one will believe it.

Share this post


Link to post

I want to make a statement right here and now, I would like to state that CLAN RIFFSTER was the one who shot JFK. To top that off, Clan doesn't put the top on his tube of toothpaste, he distributes sour milk to orphanages so the poor kids only have sour milk on their Cheerios....he has a history of being a "bad man". I fully expect that he will now be arrested and charged with murder, right? Hey, let's not dig any deeper, I stated this and thus, it MUST be true. Just lock him up and get the gallows ready.

 

 

Riffster!!! I had no idea!!!!

 

And he writes such great posts too!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
We are questioning the business practice of openly calling the CO a liar without backing such a statement!!

But Roddy, the defender's only hope of getting this thread shut down is to obfuscate the issues, constantly bringing up stuff that is irrelevant to the course this discussion has taken. Those who believe in the Almighty sanctity of the Church, will never accept that their Friar might have erred. As such, they must come up with any defense possible, in the hopes of pushing the detractors over the edge of reasonable conversation.

 

No matter how many times you point out your concerns, someone will post something that has nothing to do with your concern.

 

I know, but if I don't take the time to correct them (regardless if they already know and understand or not), I lose a great chance to take this up to the top! :angry: I have enjoyed many of your posts, my friend. Well said and thought out. I sure wish I had your patience and level-headedness!

 

btw, some not only try to derail, some even go to such antics as trying to discredit and defame...sad if you ask me, but it happens!

So it seem that the issue is that Nomex did not believe SF claim that he had checked on the cache an all was in order. This is good. It was hard to argue when sometimes this was problem and sometime the problem was that a cache could be archived just because nobody had found it.

 

I don't think it should surprise anyone that the reviewers don't take everybody's word when it come to publishing or archiving caches. If this were the case we would not need reviewers. Since we all check the box on the submission form saying we have read and understood the guidelines why doe Groundspeak need reviewers? Are they calling all of us liars?

 

The reviewers look at the cache page for certain guideline issues. The primary one they can check is proximity to an existing cache. But they also look for commercialism, agendas, caches neer railroad tracks, schools, highway bridges, etc. Frankly I'm shocked that they do this. I checked I read and understood the guidelines but I guess they would rather call me a liar and see for themselves.

 

Some guidelines can't be checked by looking at the cache page. In this case, the reviewers do trust me and they go ahead and publish the cache. But suppose later on they get information that the cache is buried or that it is on private property that is posted "No Trespassing". What do they do then? They usually will believe this new information - no matter what its source is - instead of trusting that I told them the truth when I check that box. They might even archive the cache immediately if they think it could cause a problem with a land owner or manager. Or they might disable the cache and ask me to fix the issues. Now it does seem that in some situations, a simple note on the cache page that I've done the maintenance is sufficient. In other cases, the reviewers will ask that I provide addition information that might not go on the cache page. For example, if there is a permission issue they might want the name of the person who gave permission so they can contact them and verify this.

 

The case of a missing cache is probably one of the harder situations to handle. First of all the information that cache is missing (or was not there in the first place) is often circumstantial. An easy cache that had many finds and is now getting DNFs or the case where someone finds swag and a geocaching note spread out over an area but no container make it easier for the reviewer to ask for the cache owner to check the cache and replace the container (or remove the geo-litter and archive the cache).

 

In this case we had a difficult cache that had never been found. We may like to believe that simply the fact the cache was never found would not be enough to archive it. It seems there must have been some other evidence in this case that the cache was not there. TPTB have decided not to share this with us, which is a shame only because those who believe the cache was wrongly archived are not going to change their minds without knowing what this was. Whatever the evidence, Nomex believed there was no cache. He used the form response he generally used for a missing cache. Understandably, SF assumed that he simply needed to visit his cache and verify it was there. We don't know whether or not he actually did this, we have only his word.

 

In a normal "cache is missing" case, a cache owner would post that he replaced the cache or that he found some other problem (such as cache migration) that caused the cache to be DNF'd. If the note that was posted seemed a reasonable explanation, the reviewer is going to believe it. (Of course if this happens a few times and nobody is finding the cache they may reach other conclusions). In this case however, the reviewer thought the the cache was a hoax. SF's response was clearly not going to change the reviewer's mind, so the archival was done. Note that SF still has an opportunity to get his cache unarchived. He now knows that the issue is that the reviewer believes there has been no cache to find for years. Instead of putting together evidence of a cache for his appeal, he simply says that the reviewers have treated him unfairly. Groundspeak upholds the decision to archive since there is no new evidence beyond that which Nomex had. SF destroys what evidence he may have had in a huff so there is no proof a cache ever existed.

 

So now we have the people who believe that Groundspeak should always take the cache owner's word unless they are willing to put forth evidence to the contrary versus those that think Groundspeak should act even on weak evidence and that it is up to the cache owner to present evidence to overturn the decision.

Share this post


Link to post

An owner cannot be laid off.

 

Hummmm....seems I have been every year for the last 30 years. I'd have to say your statement is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
We are questioning the business practice of openly calling the CO a liar without backing such a statement!!

But Roddy, the defender's only hope of getting this thread shut down is to obfuscate the issues, constantly bringing up stuff that is irrelevant to the course this discussion has taken. Those who believe in the Almighty sanctity of the Church, will never accept that their Friar might have erred. As such, they must come up with any defense possible, in the hopes of pushing the detractors over the edge of reasonable conversation.

 

No matter how many times you point out your concerns, someone will post something that has nothing to do with your concern.

 

I know, but if I don't take the time to correct them (regardless if they already know and understand or not), I lose a great chance to take this up to the top! :angry: I have enjoyed many of your posts, my friend. Well said and thought out. I sure wish I had your patience and level-headedness!

 

btw, some not only try to derail, some even go to such antics as trying to discredit and defame...sad if you ask me, but it happens!

So it seem that the issue is that Nomex did not believe SF claim that he had checked on the cache an all was in order. This is good. It was hard to argue when sometimes this was problem and sometime the problem was that a cache could be archived just because nobody had found it.

 

I don't think it should surprise anyone that the reviewers don't take everybody's word when it come to publishing or archiving caches. If this were the case we would not need reviewers. Since we all check the box on the submission form saying we have read and understood the guidelines why doe Groundspeak need reviewers? Are they calling all of us liars?

 

The reviewers look at the cache page for certain guideline issues. The primary one they can check is proximity to an existing cache. But they also look for commercialism, agendas, caches neer railroad tracks, schools, highway bridges, etc. Frankly I'm shocked that they do this. I checked I read and understood the guidelines but I guess they would rather call me a liar and see for themselves.

 

Some guidelines can't be checked by looking at the cache page. In this case, the reviewers do trust me and they go ahead and publish the cache. But suppose later on they get information that the cache is buried or that it is on private property that is posted "No Trespassing". What do they do then? They usually will believe this new information - no matter what its source is - instead of trusting that I told them the truth when I check that box. They might even archive the cache immediately if they think it could cause a problem with a land owner or manager. Or they might disable the cache and ask me to fix the issues. Now it does seem that in some situations, a simple note on the cache page that I've done the maintenance is sufficient. In other cases, the reviewers will ask that I provide addition information that might not go on the cache page. For example, if there is a permission issue they might want the name of the person who gave permission so they can contact them and verify this.

 

The case of a missing cache is probably one of the harder situations to handle. First of all the information that cache is missing (or was not there in the first place) is often circumstantial. An easy cache that had many finds and is now getting DNFs or the case where someone finds swag and a geocaching note spread out over an area but no container make it easier for the reviewer to ask for the cache owner to check the cache and replace the container (or remove the geo-litter and archive the cache).

 

In this case we had a difficult cache that had never been found. We may like to believe that simply the fact the cache was never found would not be enough to archive it. It seems there must have been some other evidence in this case that the cache was not there. TPTB have decided not to share this with us, which is a shame only because those who believe the cache was wrongly archived are not going to change their minds without knowing what this was. Whatever the evidence, Nomex believed there was no cache. He used the form response he generally used for a missing cache. Understandably, SF assumed that he simply needed to visit his cache and verify it was there. We don't know whether or not he actually did this, we have only his word.

 

In a normal "cache is missing" case, a cache owner would post that he replaced the cache or that he found some other problem (such as cache migration) that caused the cache to be DNF'd. If the note that was posted seemed a reasonable explanation, the reviewer is going to believe it. (Of course if this happens a few times and nobody is finding the cache they may reach other conclusions). In this case however, the reviewer thought the the cache was a hoax. SF's response was clearly not going to change the reviewer's mind, so the archival was done. Note that SF still has an opportunity to get his cache unarchived. He now knows that the issue is that the reviewer believes there has been no cache to find for years. Instead of putting together evidence of a cache for his appeal, he simply says that the reviewers have treated him unfairly. Groundspeak upholds the decision to archive since there is no new evidence beyond that which Nomex had. SF destroys what evidence he may have had in a huff so there is no proof a cache ever existed.

 

So now we have the people who believe that Groundspeak should always take the cache owner's word unless they are willing to put forth evidence to the contrary versus those that think Groundspeak should act even on weak evidence and that it is up to the cache owner to present evidence to overturn the decision.

 

I don't agree with most all of this statement. I also say that you need to read my posts better if this was aimed at me! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

It seems that you have made a big leap. Where did it say the locals developed a theory?

Perhaps I did. I tend to use logic when facts are not present. In this case, I'm working on the theory that the cache was not archived simply because it had not been found. Based on that theory, there must be some other reason it was archived. Could that reason be that Nomex believed the cache had not been in place for months/years? It certainly seems that way based upon what he posted. If that's the case, how did he reach that conclusion? Perhaps someone brought it to his attention? If so, who would that be? Some ole fat crippled guy in Central Florida? Not likely, as I didn't even know this cache existed. Who then? The local reviewers? Now we're approaching the realm of the possible. While you are welcome to your theory that Nomex is a psychic, and was mystically blessed with the knowledge that one cache out of 900,000 was a potential problem child, I think I'll stick to my theory, as it sounds more reasonable.

 

It is much easier to believe that there was some cachers looking for the cache that day

Without so much as a single DNF? According to what I saw on the cache page, the locals were not particularly shy about posting DNFs to this cache. Yet, you would have us believe that a group of them stayed out there for an entire 24 hour period, stalking the cache site, without a single mention of their activities? Uh... OK. Hey, who am I to question your beliefs? Should we discuss the Illuminati, black helicopters, aluminum foil deflection beanies, and those strange symbols on the backs of stop signs next? :unsure::angry::lol:

You are missing a very important part. If they dropped a dime on the CO, now maybe they wouldn't want to post the dnf. If they did, then everyone might figure out they were somehow linked to the archival. If you realized that the claim of a maintenance check was bogus and turned it in, would you post your dnf?

Share this post


Link to post

Since my main duties involves mowing the greens, the fairways and course maintenance, what would you call someone who was laid off for lack of work due to the weather? Unemployed...isn't that what I stated?

 

See sbell, you do remember. So why the attempt to defame? Yep, my dad owns it for the most part...we've had it in the family going on 30 years or so now. Are you now going to say I'm lying when I state I own the course?? Well, maybe not on paper, but why not ask my dad who the owners are, why not ask the many customers we have? Oh, and who do you suppose will inherit the course one of these days??? :lol: Lord and economy willing!

Sorry, Roddy, you were doing so well steadfastly maintaining the 'let's be honest', 'don't twist the facts', 'full disclosure' and 'business ethics' bit... but claiming to own your Daddy's business where you cut the grass in the summer and which you might inherit one day isn't helping your credibility here! :angry:

 

Yep, my dad owns it for the most part...we've had it in the family going on 30 years or so now. Are you now going to say I'm lying when I state I own the course?? Well, maybe not on paper...

 

When it comes to the question of business ownership paper is ALL that counts! Can you sell it without Dad signing the papers? If not then you don't own it!

 

'Trim the greens well son and one day all this will be yours' does not make you an owner.

 

So... unless there are facts not in evidence "I own a golf course" is indeed a lie.

 

I don't think that anyone was out to discredit you personally. We argued against your beliefs of what happened in this thread, but that's not a personal attack. By introducing the statements that you own a business and then stating that in fact you just work in the summer for your Daddy's business you start to discredit yourself. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, your first part sounds pretty accurate as to what has happened.

I would think, in your hideously twisted courtroom analogy, that getting the ticket would equate to having the cache disabled.

I.e; An official of some sort brought to your attention a problem that needs to be responded to.

In the case of this cache, on the offense line, the ticket says "Hasn't been found".

On the back of the ticket, where you have your listed remedies, Nomex selected "Check your cache".

SF knew that a cache not being found was, in no way, even a suggestion of a guideline violation.

As such, he follows the suggested remedy on the back of the ticket, (claiming), checking his cache.

He walks into court, (posts on the cache page), that he took the suggested course of action.

The Judge finds him guilty for an offense that was never mentioned on the ticket.

 

Not unlike me going to court, testifying that I had fixed my tail light.

Then having the Judge say, "I order a $50 fine for your broken headlight". :angry:

I appeal to the next higher circuit, to be told "We stand behind our Judge's ruling. Pay your broken headlight fine".

Talk about hideously twisted. It seems clear to me that this has more to do with the claimed maintenance check, and nothing to do with how many dnf's there were.

Share this post


Link to post

Since my main duties involves mowing the greens, the fairways and course maintenance, what would you call someone who was laid off for lack of work due to the weather? Unemployed...isn't that what I stated?

 

See sbell, you do remember. So why the attempt to defame? Yep, my dad owns it for the most part...we've had it in the family going on 30 years or so now. Are you now going to say I'm lying when I state I own the course?? Well, maybe not on paper, but why not ask my dad who the owners are, why not ask the many customers we have? Oh, and who do you suppose will inherit the course one of these days??? :D Lord and economy willing!

Sorry, Roddy, you were doing so well steadfastly maintaining the 'let's be honest', 'don't twist the facts', 'full disclosure' and 'business ethics' bit... but claiming to own your Daddy's business where you cut the grass in the summer and which you might inherit one day isn't helping your credibility here! :angry:

 

Yep, my dad owns it for the most part...we've had it in the family going on 30 years or so now. Are you now going to say I'm lying when I state I own the course?? Well, maybe not on paper...

 

When it comes to the question of business ownership paper is ALL that counts! Can you sell it without Dad signing the papers? If not then you don't own it!

 

'Trim the greens well son and one day all this will be yours' does not make you an owner.

 

So... unless there are facts not in evidence "I own a golf course" is indeed a lie.

 

I don't think that anyone was out to discredit you personally. We argued against your beliefs of what happened in this thread, but that's not a personal attack. By introducing the statements that you own a business and then stating that in fact you just work in the summer for your Daddy's business you start to discredit yourself. :unsure:

 

You can call it anything you please. It is what it is and I will stand behind the very simple fact I am considered an owner of the golf course. That, my friend is how it is seen in the family, that is how it is. And no, I suppose you DON'T know the whole story, so maybe posting such things and not knowing is much like Nomex's situation and I do think it was out of line! :lol: Kind of a long drawn out way of politely calling me a liar.

 

You haven't a clue, but you jump to conclusions....not bad!

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to state that CLAN RIFFSTER was the one who shot JFK.

Shhh!! :unsure: We agreed that we'd keep that quiet! :lol::D

(stoopid grassy knoll...)

 

If you realized that the claim of a maintenance check was bogus and turned it in, would you post your dnf?

Of course. Wouldn't you? I prefer to operate openly and honestly, as I feel that doing so helps my credibility. Sneaking around behind the scenes just feels kinda slimy. From what I've read of the cachers up that way, I think most of them are also open, honest people. Based on that assumption, it would be difficult to believe that an entire horde of them could spend an entire day at one cache site, without at least one of them posting something. If you are the type that prefers backroom dealings, then I can see why you'd make the assumptions you have. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post

 

I don't agree with most all of this statement. I also say that you need to read my posts better if this was aimed at me! :angry:

Maybe you should read your posts. It seemed like he was pretty spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to state that CLAN RIFFSTER was the one who shot JFK.

Shhh!! :unsure: We agreed that we'd keep that quiet! :lol::D

(stoopid grassy knoll...)

 

If you realized that the claim of a maintenance check was bogus and turned it in, would you post your dnf?

Of course. Wouldn't you? I prefer to operate openly and honestly, as I feel that doing so helps my credibility. Sneaking around behind the scenes just feels kinda slimy. From what I've read of the cachers up that way, I think most of them are also open, honest people. Based on that assumption, it would be difficult to believe that an entire horde of them could spend an entire day at one cache site, without at least one of them posting something. If you are the type that prefers backroom dealings, then I can see why you'd make the assumptions you have. :angry:

I see. It is just TPTB and the reviewers etc. that are the slimy ones? All that back room dealings archiving the cache without posting proof. Concealing the identity of anyone that provided the info. How many are an entire horde, (your word not mine)? I notice how when you want to help your argument you change my words to make your argument sound more reasonable. I say more than one person. That would be more reliable evidence for the reviewer that SF never showed up for the maintenance check. If all of the horde had spent a lot of time searching for the hoax, then yes they might act as one and keep things quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
It seems clear to me that this has more to do with the claimed maintenance check, and nothing to do with how many dnf's there were.

Of course it is. The lack of finds was just the text that happened to be in Nomex's copy/paste disabling note. It had nothing to do with why this cache got the axe. Nomex developed a belief that the cache had not been in place for some time, and that SF was pulling a hoax on the community. As a reviewer, he is tasked with using his knowledge and experience to ensure this game stays enjoyable for all. No one here has a problem with that. Often, that job involves acting on information which we, as players, are not privy to. No one here has a problem with that. Often, reviewers have to make unpopular calls, based upon partial data, because they feel that doing so is in the best interest of the game. No one has a problem with that.

 

If you'll pay attention, you'll find that what the detractors to your "Groundspeak Can Do No Wrong, Hallielujah and Amen" phylosiphy have a problem with is how Nomex chose to act upon his beliefs. Calling a customer a liar, in public, defaming him for all the world to see, is only an acceptable business practice if two things occur:

 

1 ) The customer was, in fact, a liar.

 

2 ) The company makes just as public, their reasons for their accusation.

 

Everyone in this discussion has admitted that # 1 is entirely possible. SF could be the biggest liar since Baal Davar. Nomex could have been entirely correct in his summation of SF's character. No one is debating that. What we would question is the fact that TPTB haven't come forward with a public explanation regarding why one of their agents deliberately chose to besmirch a customer. That's bad customer relations.

Share this post


Link to post

After careful analysis of this thread over the past couple of weeks I've finally been able to complete an easy to follow flow chart depicting the logic behind the reasoned thoughts of our major protagonists. I hope it helps.

 

spaghetti.png

Edited by cheech gang

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

I don't agree with most all of this statement. I also say that you need to read my posts better if this was aimed at me! :angry:

I don't think this was "aimed" at anyone in particular. It is my take on these discussions. I've read your posts and am still trying to figure out exactly what is bothering you about what Nomex and Groundspeak did. Frankly you have not made it clear what the issue is here and any attempt to address one issue is brushed aside with comments like thie one above.

 

I'll repeat my opinion. The reviewers and Grounspeak do not have to blindly trust the word of any cache owner. This is not bad customer relations as the issues they suspect with a cache can do much more harm to geocaching then the problem of getting one cache owner and a handful of forum participants upset. The cache owner is given plenty of opportunity to present his side of the story with evidence to back it up. So nobody's caches are being unfairly archived.

Share this post


Link to post
We are questioning the business practice of openly calling the CO a liar without backing such a statement!!

But Roddy, the defender's only hope of getting this thread shut down is to obfuscate the issues, constantly bringing up stuff that is irrelevant to the course this discussion has taken. Those who believe in the Almighty sanctity of the Church, will never accept that their Friar might have erred. As such, they must come up with any defense possible, in the hopes of pushing the detractors over the edge of reasonable conversation.

 

No matter how many times you point out your concerns, someone will post something that has nothing to do with your concern.

 

I know, but if I don't take the time to correct them (regardless if they already know and understand or not), I lose a great chance to take this up to the top! :angry: I have enjoyed many of your posts, my friend. Well said and thought out. I sure wish I had your patience and level-headedness!

 

btw, some not only try to derail, some even go to such antics as trying to discredit and defame...sad if you ask me, but it happens!

So it seem that the issue is that Nomex did not believe SF claim that he had checked on the cache an all was in order. This is good. It was hard to argue when sometimes this was problem and sometime the problem was that a cache could be archived just because nobody had found it.

 

I don't think it should surprise anyone that the reviewers don't take everybody's word when it come to publishing or archiving caches. If this were the case we would not need reviewers. Since we all check the box on the submission form saying we have read and understood the guidelines why doe Groundspeak need reviewers? Are they calling all of us liars?

 

The reviewers look at the cache page for certain guideline issues. The primary one they can check is proximity to an existing cache. But they also look for commercialism, agendas, caches neer railroad tracks, schools, highway bridges, etc. Frankly I'm shocked that they do this. I checked I read and understood the guidelines but I guess they would rather call me a liar and see for themselves.

 

Some guidelines can't be checked by looking at the cache page. In this case, the reviewers do trust me and they go ahead and publish the cache. But suppose later on they get information that the cache is buried or that it is on private property that is posted "No Trespassing". What do they do then? They usually will believe this new information - no matter what its source is - instead of trusting that I told them the truth when I check that box. They might even archive the cache immediately if they think it could cause a problem with a land owner or manager. Or they might disable the cache and ask me to fix the issues. Now it does seem that in some situations, a simple note on the cache page that I've done the maintenance is sufficient. In other cases, the reviewers will ask that I provide addition information that might not go on the cache page. For example, if there is a permission issue they might want the name of the person who gave permission so they can contact them and verify this.

 

The case of a missing cache is probably one of the harder situations to handle. First of all the information that cache is missing (or was not there in the first place) is often circumstantial. An easy cache that had many finds and is now getting DNFs or the case where someone finds swag and a geocaching note spread out over an area but no container make it easier for the reviewer to ask for the cache owner to check the cache and replace the container (or remove the geo-litter and archive the cache).

 

In this case we had a difficult cache that had never been found. We may like to believe that simply the fact the cache was never found would not be enough to archive it. It seems there must have been some other evidence in this case that the cache was not there. TPTB have decided not to share this with us, which is a shame only because those who believe the cache was wrongly archived are not going to change their minds without knowing what this was. Whatever the evidence, Nomex believed there was no cache. He used the form response he generally used for a missing cache. Understandably, SF assumed that he simply needed to visit his cache and verify it was there. We don't know whether or not he actually did this, we have only his word.

 

In a normal "cache is missing" case, a cache owner would post that he replaced the cache or that he found some other problem (such as cache migration) that caused the cache to be DNF'd. If the note that was posted seemed a reasonable explanation, the reviewer is going to believe it. (Of course if this happens a few times and nobody is finding the cache they may reach other conclusions). In this case however, the reviewer thought the the cache was a hoax. SF's response was clearly not going to change the reviewer's mind, so the archival was done. Note that SF still has an opportunity to get his cache unarchived. He now knows that the issue is that the reviewer believes there has been no cache to find for years. Instead of putting together evidence of a cache for his appeal, he simply says that the reviewers have treated him unfairly. Groundspeak upholds the decision to archive since there is no new evidence beyond that which Nomex had. SF destroys what evidence he may have had in a huff so there is no proof a cache ever existed.

 

So now we have the people who believe that Groundspeak should always take the cache owner's word unless they are willing to put forth evidence to the contrary versus those that think Groundspeak should act even on weak evidence and that it is up to the cache owner to present evidence to overturn the decision.

 

I don't agree with most all of this statement. I also say that you need to read my posts better if this was aimed at me! :unsure:

 

Actually he summed it up perfectly. Best post in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post

An owner cannot be laid off.

 

Hummmm....seems I have been every year for the last 30 years. I'd have to say your statement is incorrect.

 

I know where you are coming from but sbell is right, an owner cannot be laid off from his business, just ask your state unemployment office.

You would be better described, perhaps, as an Owner in name, until, as The Rambler pointed out, you have the deed in your name.

When my Dad passed away I got the family farm, but it was not Legally mine until the deed was in my name, until then even though everyone around here considered me the owner, in the view of the state I was not.

Share this post


Link to post

I see. It is just TPTB and the reviewers etc. that are the slimy ones?

Why would you think that? :angry:

I believe that everyone involved in this thread has stated they have nothing but the highest respect for Miss Jenn, and the rest of the Lackeys at Groundspeak.

 

All that back room dealings archiving the cache without posting proof.

Once again you choose obfuscation. No one is complaining that an agent of Groundspeak archived a cache without proof. Heck, they do that every day. That's part of their job. However, publicly humiliating their customers is probably not in their posted job descriptions.

 

Concealing the identity of anyone that provided the info.

No one is complaining about Groundspeak hiding what data was used to accomplish this objective.

What some are complaining about is that an agent, acting under their authority, opted to besmirch a customer, in a very public manner, completely ignoring any possible privacy concerns. Then they hid behind claims of privacy concerns when brought to task. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

If you insist on furthering this argument, could you at least try and stay focused on what the real argument is? I realize that your belief structure feels threatened, because someone had the temerity to accuse the Friar of having his hands in the cookie jar, but that's no reason to get off track. If you can focus on the real issue at hand, rather than your continued desperate attempts to twist this into something unrecognizable, we might each reach a point where we are satisfied. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

I see. It is just TPTB and the reviewers etc. that are the slimy ones?

Why would you think that? :D

I believe that everyone involved in this thread has stated they have nothing but the highest respect for Miss Jenn, and the rest of the Lackeys at Groundspeak.

Because that is what you implied. Read your own post.

 

All that back room dealings archiving the cache without posting proof.

Once again you choose obfuscation. No one is complaining that an agent of Groundspeak archived a cache without proof. Heck, they do that every day. That's part of their job. However, publicly humiliating their customers is probably not in their posted job descriptions.

Do you feel publicly humiliated? I didn't see anyone say that they were.

 

Concealing the identity of anyone that provided the info.

No one is complaining about Groundspeak hiding what data was used to accomplish this objective.

What some are complaining about is that an agent, acting under their authority, opted to besmirch a customer, in a very public manner, completely ignoring any possible privacy concerns. Then they hid behind claims of privacy concerns when brought to task. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

If you insist on furthering this argument, could you at least try and stay focused on what the real argument is? I realize that your belief structure feels threatened, because someone had the temerity to accuse the Friar of having his hands in the cookie jar, but that's no reason to get off track. If you can focus on the real issue at hand, rather than your continued desperate attempts to twist this into something unrecognizable, we might each reach a point where we are satisfied. :P

:angry::unsure::lol:

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

I don't agree with most all of this statement. I also say that you need to read my posts better if this was aimed at me! :angry:

I don't think this was "aimed" at anyone in particular. It is my take on these discussions. I've read your posts and am still trying to figure out exactly what is bothering you about what Nomex and Groundspeak did. Frankly you have not made it clear what the issue is here and any attempt to address one issue is brushed aside with comments like thie one above.

 

I'll repeat my opinion. The reviewers and Grounspeak do not have to blindly trust the word of any cache owner. This is not bad customer relations as the issues they suspect with a cache can do much more harm to geocaching then the problem of getting one cache owner and a handful of forum participants upset. The cache owner is given plenty of opportunity to present his side of the story with evidence to back it up. So nobody's caches are being unfairly archived.

 

Yes, caches are being unfairly archived.

Share this post


Link to post

I see. It is just TPTB and the reviewers etc. that are the slimy ones?

Why would you think that? :angry:

I believe that everyone involved in this thread has stated they have nothing but the highest respect for Miss Jenn, and the rest of the Lackeys at Groundspeak.

 

All that back room dealings archiving the cache without posting proof.

Once again you choose obfuscation. No one is complaining that an agent of Groundspeak archived a cache without proof. Heck, they do that every day. That's part of their job. However, publicly humiliating their customers is probably not in their posted job descriptions.

 

Concealing the identity of anyone that provided the info.

No one is complaining about Groundspeak hiding what data was used to accomplish this objective.

What some are complaining about is that an agent, acting under their authority, opted to besmirch a customer, in a very public manner, completely ignoring any possible privacy concerns. Then they hid behind claims of privacy concerns when brought to task. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

If you insist on furthering this argument, could you at least try and stay focused on what the real argument is? I realize that your belief structure feels threatened, because someone had the temerity to accuse the Friar of having his hands in the cookie jar, but that's no reason to get off track. If you can focus on the real issue at hand, rather than your continued desperate attempts to twist this into something unrecognizable, we might each reach a point where we are satisfied. :unsure:

 

Actually this thread has been so far off topic almost from the get-go. Here was the OPs original question -- "Has anyone else had any experience with a reviewer meddling with the caches in another state?"

Share this post


Link to post
Do you feel publicly humiliated?

Nope. Not at all. Did I ever claim I was, or is this just another desperate attempt to twist reality? :angry:

Of course if Groundspeak, (or Wally World, or Sears, or AT&T, etc), publically called me a liar, then I would feel humiliated. I suspect that anyone who makes it a point to comport themselves with honesty and integrity would also feel slighted by such a public claim. How about you? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Trouble with quote boxes apparently lead to a double post.

Edited by Team Sagefox

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...