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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

That cache wasn't archived. It was disabled.

 

It's not unheard of for a new cache that has lots of DNFs to need some maintenance from the cache owner. Perhaps the coords are bad. Perhaps it is no longer there. All the cache owner has to do is ceck up on it and make sure that the cache page info is good.

 

The cache owner (or spouse) DID check on it and stated that it was still in place.

Great. Let's see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post

We'll get to how you would end it in a bit. How would you start?

 

I believe I have posted how I would handle this a few times, please feel free to check and post it when you come across it! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

That cache wasn't archived. It was disabled.

 

It's not unheard of for a new cache that has lots of DNFs to need some maintenance from the cache owner. Perhaps the coords are bad. Perhaps it is no longer there. All the cache owner has to do is ceck up on it and make sure that the cache page info is good.

 

The cache owner (or spouse) DID check on it and stated that it was still in place.

Great. Let's see what happens.

Lets see. They checked it TODAY. but they must be lying. Right? Let's just archive it.

 

I must add, the only thing you said that makes me wonder is: "Perhaps the coords are bad."

Share this post


Link to post

Will this monster NEVER die?!

 

You guys really should stop banging your heads together like that. The spots where your foreheads keep coming together are starting to look all squishy and stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
I think it's clear what the problem is. There a HUGE difference between handling differently and handling BADLY.
It was handled badly IN YOUR OPINION.

 

Your opinion stems from how you think you would have handled it.

 

The problem with this is that you don't have all the facts. None of us probably ever will. Until you have the facts, your OPINION on how this should have been handled is just that, an OPINION. Not a FACT.

 

I think what TAR is getting at is that what you seem to be saying is that it's ok to have different ways of handling something as long as it is YOUR WAY.

 

Edit: Speeling

You're making statements not backed by the facts.
Not backed by facts? Which ones?
  • Statement 1:"It was handled badly IN YOUR OPINION." I suppose I can't really say that it was handled badly in your opinion, but if I had to bet money on if you thought it was handled well or poorly based on what you've said (especially the statement I quoted "There a HUGE difference between handling differently and handling BADLY.") I'd feel pretty safe betting you'd say "Poorly."
  • Statement 2: "Your opinion stems from how you think you would have handled it." Everyone's opinion on anything is based on their own views and life experiences. I don't think you can argue that.
  • Statement 3: "The problem with this is that you don't have all the facts. None of us probably ever will." Okay, fess up, Roddy! Groundspeak has been feeding you special information on this situation, and you do in fact have all the pertinent information! No? Well, sounds like that statement is true, too, then!
  • Statement 4: "Until you have the facts, your OPINION on how this should have been handled is just that, an OPINION. Not a FACT." You don't have any idea if this was handled properly without all the info, which unless you're willing to admit you have the inside track with GS, you don't have, thus you are left with the opinion that the situation was mishandled, not the fact that it was.
  • Statement 5: I think what TAR is getting at is that what you seem to be saying is that it's ok to have different ways of handling something as long as it is YOUR WAY. An interpretation of another's opinion, there. You might have something there, except, if you read it extra carefully, I said "I think what TAR is getting at is..." meaning, it was simply an interpretation I offered.

I never said anything about how I'd handle it fitting into how I feel THEY should handle it...and I believe my posts would support this.
If you are saying that you can keep how you'd handle a situation completely compartmentalized from how you think someone else should handle the same situation, you have a very high opinion of yourself or are deceiving yourself. Or both.

Share this post


Link to post

We'll get to how you would end it in a bit. How would you start?

 

I believe I have posted how I would handle this a few times, please feel free to check and post it when you come across it! :angry:

You have stated that they did it wrong. I am merely asking you to roleplay a way that you think would be better. Why are you unwilling to do this?

 

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

That cache wasn't archived. It was disabled.

 

It's not unheard of for a new cache that has lots of DNFs to need some maintenance from the cache owner. Perhaps the coords are bad. Perhaps it is no longer there. All the cache owner has to do is ceck up on it and make sure that the cache page info is good.

 

The cache owner (or spouse) DID check on it and stated that it was still in place.

Great. Let's see what happens.

Lets see. They checked it TODAY. but they must be lying. Right? Let's just archive it.

 

I must add, the only thing you said that makes me wonder is: "Perhaps the coords are bad."

Caches are frequently listed with bad coords.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

That cache wasn't archived. It was disabled.

 

It's not unheard of for a new cache that has lots of DNFs to need some maintenance from the cache owner. Perhaps the coords are bad. Perhaps it is no longer there. All the cache owner has to do is ceck up on it and make sure that the cache page info is good.

 

The cache owner (or spouse) DID check on it and stated that it was still in place.

Great. Let's see what happens.

Lets see. They checked it TODAY. but they must be lying. Right? Let's just archive it.

 

I must add, the only thing you said that makes me wonder is: "Perhaps the coords are bad."

Hmmm....

 

Five start cache approved: 25 NOV 09.

21 DNFs total.

28 NOV 09: COs wrote in log that cache had been checked, was still in place, and was not a hoax. FIVE POSTS LATER reviewer disabled cache, requesting that it be repaired or replaced.

 

COs have 2500+ finds and >30 hides.

 

Is this the new caching reality?

 

Let's see, I think I can find a few dozen film cannisters around here.....

Edited by Road Rabbit

Share this post


Link to post

We'll get to how you would end it in a bit. How would you start?

 

I believe I have posted how I would handle this a few times, please feel free to check and post it when you come across it! :angry:

You have stated that they did it wrong. I am merely asking you to roleplay a way that you think would be better. Why are you unwilling to do this?

 

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

That cache wasn't archived. It was disabled.

 

It's not unheard of for a new cache that has lots of DNFs to need some maintenance from the cache owner. Perhaps the coords are bad. Perhaps it is no longer there. All the cache owner has to do is ceck up on it and make sure that the cache page info is good.

 

The cache owner (or spouse) DID check on it and stated that it was still in place.

Great. Let's see what happens.

Lets see. They checked it TODAY. but they must be lying. Right? Let's just archive it.

 

I must add, the only thing you said that makes me wonder is: "Perhaps the coords are bad."

Caches are frequently listed with bad coords.

 

And no, I don't wish to play these games with you, my friend. Play on your own and see how that works! :unsure:

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

Caches are frequently listed with bad coords.

 

I thought my comment was acknowledging that. You know. An indication that you could be right on that point. I thought I could communicate better than that, but I'll work on it.

However a subsequent post MIGHT indicate coordinates are not the issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

 

Got it on my watchlist. Curious how this one will unfold. In this case the CO had just posted a few posts prior that they checked it and it was in place. THEN the reviewer disables it anyway.

 

 

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

That cache wasn't archived. It was disabled.

 

It's not unheard of for a new cache that has lots of DNFs to need some maintenance from the cache owner. Perhaps the coords are bad. Perhaps it is no longer there. All the cache owner has to do is ceck up on it and make sure that the cache page info is good.

 

SF's cache wasn't initially archived either. It started just like this, with a disabled note. The curious thing about this cache is that 5 posts prior to the reviewer disabling the cache, the CO posted they checked it and "the cache is right where We put it, Alive and well. and this is not a hoax !!!"

 

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

That cache wasn't archived. It was disabled.

 

It's not unheard of for a new cache that has lots of DNFs to need some maintenance from the cache owner. Perhaps the coords are bad. Perhaps it is no longer there. All the cache owner has to do is ceck up on it and make sure that the cache page info is good.

 

The cache owner (or spouse) DID check on it and stated that it was still in place.

Great. Let's see what happens.

Lets see. They checked it TODAY. but they must be lying. Right? Let's just archive it.

 

I must add, the only thing you said that makes me wonder is: "Perhaps the coords are bad."

 

Looking at the CO's other caches, it appears they like to put out hard to find caches. I see a number of 5 and 4.6 difficulty caches.

 

I'm not saying the sky is falling, but there does seem to be a storm a brewing.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not saying the sky is falling, but there does seem to be a storm a brewing.

One that the CO can avert simply by proving that the cache is in place... probably too late now to prove that it was in place on the day it was disabled.

 

Still, eerily similar.

 

Does the disabling post after the CO stated that it was in place make him out to be a liar?

Share this post


Link to post

When you make statements like the one directly above, you have no room to be preaching about honesty, integrity and fairness. :angry:

Sorry. Maybe I'm just dense tonight, but I'm not following your logic. Are you saying I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I suggested you weren't paying attention? Or are you saying I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I labeled the opposing side to your view as detractors? Or could it be that I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I misspelled philosophy? Perhaps you feel I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I mentioned that the other side to this debate has an issue with how Nomex handled it?

 

Please clarify. :D

 

If you can. :unsure:

 

Thanx! :P

Well you used the word dense, not me. When you falsely and intentionally mis-characterize someone's words, you have no room to be preaching about honesty, integrity or fairness. :lol:

 

By the way, I quoted a short statement by you and your response had lots of "guesses" but somehow didn't include the words that were quoted. Maybe a good nights sleep would be in order before you try to respond again.

Share this post


Link to post

Caches are frequently listed with bad coords.

 

I thought my comment was acknowledging that. You know. An indication that you could be right on that point. I thought I could communicate better than that, but I'll work on it.

However a subsequent post MIGHT indicate coordinates are not the issue.

 

I'm curious if the CO goes back out there the very next day (their note today stated they already checked it today and all was well) if they will know they might need to take pictures or otherwise provide some proof of the cache's existence? Should they wait a few days so their maintenance note does not make it look like they checked too quickly?

 

If it is not a hoax, as the CO has already stated and the CO visits it again and all is still ok, will this CO realize that the reviewer is really wanting more than just what was written? It appears that another standard note was used that is just as confusing as the one left by Nomex. It only applies IF the cache is missing or otherwise messed up. If the cache is in good order as the note 5 posts down implies, then I wonder if this CO will catch on that more is required than just confirming all is ok? I wonder if this reviewer will contact the CO directly if more information is required.

 

I just wonder if it is possible that nothing was learned in the last 20+ pages of this thread?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not saying the sky is falling, but there does seem to be a storm a brewing.

One that the CO can avert simply by proving that the cache is in place... probably too late now to prove that it was in place on the day it was disabled.

 

Still, eerily similar.

 

The CO can easily avert its ultimate archival IF the CO realizes that more is being asked than was actually asked in the disable note.

 

Does the disabling post after the CO stated that it was in place make him out to be a liar?

 

In this case I think it shows that the reviewer did not read the other notes prior to disabling.

Share this post


Link to post

Since I brought it up, I have since learned, and feel like I should post some information I got regarding the cache in Arizona. It looks like there may have been some tricks pulled that made it more difficult to find. Im only hearing this second hand so I prefer not to be specific. Given that, there may be a good reason for the reviewer to post his log on the page and disable the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Since I brought it up, I have since learned, and feel like I should post some information I got regarding the cache in Arizona. It looks like there may have been some tricks pulled that made it more difficult to find. Im only hearing this second hand so I prefer not to be specific. Given that, there may be a good reason for the reviewer to post his log on the page and disable the cache.

"Tricks pulled". Can you explain that, 'cause I'm starting to feel like I've been had. I should have known there was more to the story.

Share this post


Link to post

SuperFly / Team Desert Eagle... you're letting JohnE5 draw you off on a pointless, calculatedly irrelevant tangent.

 

Stay on target, Luke...

 

Thanks Luke

Share this post


Link to post

Since I brought it up, I have since learned, and feel like I should post some information I got regarding the cache in Arizona. It looks like there may have been some tricks pulled that made it more difficult to find. Im only hearing this second hand so I prefer not to be specific. Given that, there may be a good reason for the reviewer to post his log on the page and disable the cache.

"Tricks pulled". Can you explain that, 'cause I'm starting to feel like I've been had. I should have known there was more to the story.

 

Another Arizona cacher mentioned some things that were done with the cache to make it harder to find. I will pm you the thread on a local forum. You were not "had". My posts on this topic are of genuine concern over the perceived interference by a reviewer. When I learned that there was something else to it, I felt I should post it here since it supports the concern of the reviewer. Even tho it makes me look like a bit of an idiot lol. Like that is a change for me.

Share this post


Link to post

Since I brought it up, I have since learned, and feel like I should post some information I got regarding the cache in Arizona. It looks like there may have been some tricks pulled that made it more difficult to find. Im only hearing this second hand so I prefer not to be specific. Given that, there may be a good reason for the reviewer to post his log on the page and disable the cache.

"Tricks pulled". Can you explain that, 'cause I'm starting to feel like I've been had. I should have known there was more to the story.

 

Another Arizona cacher mentioned some things that were done with the cache to make it harder to find. I will pm you the thread on a local forum. You were not "had". My posts on this topic are of genuine concern over the perceived interference by a reviewer. When I learned that there was something else to it, I felt I should post it here since it supports the concern of the reviewer. Even tho it makes me look like a bit of an idiot lol. Like that is a change for me.

Thanks, the forum thread at http://www.calgarycachers.net/azcachers/vi...422&start=0 assures that the issue is real. It appears that the cache is there but the Reviewer took the word of "experienced" cachers who DNFed it that it wasn't. Oops! :angry:

 

It's what I call a PITA cache, a rock-in-a-rockpile kind of thing that is hard to find but indeed there. PITA caches are not well-liked by many but are perfectly legal within the guidelines.

 

It's a tough call for a Reviewer. He feels alarrums and asks a local trusted cacher to go check on it, he's told it's not there, he takes the trusted local's word on it and gets pie in the face. Bummer.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler

Share this post


Link to post

We'll get to how you would end it in a bit. How would you start?

 

I believe I have posted how I would handle this a few times, please feel free to check and post it when you come across it! :D

You have stated that they did it wrong. I am merely asking you to roleplay a way that you think would be better. Why are you unwilling to do this?

 

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

That cache wasn't archived. It was disabled.

 

It's not unheard of for a new cache that has lots of DNFs to need some maintenance from the cache owner. Perhaps the coords are bad. Perhaps it is no longer there. All the cache owner has to do is ceck up on it and make sure that the cache page info is good.

 

The cache owner (or spouse) DID check on it and stated that it was still in place.

Great. Let's see what happens.

Lets see. They checked it TODAY. but they must be lying. Right? Let's just archive it.

 

I must add, the only thing you said that makes me wonder is: "Perhaps the coords are bad."

Caches are frequently listed with bad coords.

 

And no, I don't wish to play these games with you, my friend. Play on your own and see how that works! :laughing:

The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Caches are frequently listed with bad coords.
I thought my comment was acknowledging that. You know. An indication that you could be right on that point. I thought I could communicate better than that, but I'll work on it.

However a subsequent post MIGHT indicate coordinates are not the issue.

I apologize. I had gotten so use to Mr Snarkipants' back and forth that I read sarcasm into your post when it wasn't there.

Share this post


Link to post

The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind.

 

It sure does...and if you're not willing to put up, please do the latter. I am about tired of playing your games, my friend. If you want to carry on personal conversations about what you think I should or shouldn't answer, you may PM me, but I don't feel I have a need to jump through your hoops.

 

As I said, play your games all you wish, but don't think you can bully me into playing along.

Share this post


Link to post
Caches are frequently listed with bad coords.
I thought my comment was acknowledging that. You know. An indication that you could be right on that point. I thought I could communicate better than that, but I'll work on it.

However a subsequent post MIGHT indicate coordinates are not the issue.

I apologize. I had gotten so use to Mr Snarkipants' back and forth that I read sarcasm into your post when it wasn't there.

 

You can always change your attack debate practices so you aren't that Mr snarkipants if it bothers you.

Share this post


Link to post

The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind.

 

It sure does...and if you're not willing to put up, please do the latter. I am about tired of playing your games, my friend. If you want to carry on personal conversations about what you think I should or shouldn't answer, you may PM me, but I don't feel I have a need to jump through your hoops.

 

As I said, play your games all you wish, but don't think you can bully me into playing along.

Since you have gone on and on about how you think the reviewer should have handled it better, I've given you an opportunity to prove your point and maybe win a few people over to your side.

 

The fact that you have refused to participate in this exercise says volumes about your true motives, in my opinion.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind.

 

It sure does...and if you're not willing to put up, please do the latter. I am about tired of playing your games, my friend. If you want to carry on personal conversations about what you think I should or shouldn't answer, you may PM me, but I don't feel I have a need to jump through your hoops.

 

As I said, play your games all you wish, but don't think you can bully me into playing along.

Since you have gone on and on about how you think the reviewer should have handled it better, I've given you an opportunity to prove your point and maybe win a few people over to your side.

 

The fact that you have refused to participate in this exercise says volumes about your true motives, in my opinion.

 

 

DON'T be lazy, if you want the info you seem to demand, I have stated several times I POSTED IT PREVIOUSLY. Do yourself a favor and look it up if you are really interested in what I said...otherwise this is merely more bullying and harrassing. Other than that, I am done with your bullying attitude, your calling me a liar and your attempts to smear me. We don't agree....get over it, my friend. But don't pretend I am your child who must answer to your every whim.

 

Truly, your refusal to look it up only tells me you're not interested in what I said...so I wonder why you continue to badger?

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind.

 

It sure does...and if you're not willing to put up, please do the latter. I am about tired of playing your games, my friend. If you want to carry on personal conversations about what you think I should or shouldn't answer, you may PM me, but I don't feel I have a need to jump through your hoops.

 

As I said, play your games all you wish, but don't think you can bully me into playing along.

Since you have gone on and on about how you think the reviewer should have handled it better, I've given you an opportunity to prove your point and maybe win a few people over to your side.

 

The fact that you have refused to participate in this exercise says volumes about your true motives, in my opinion.

 

 

DON'T be lazy, if you want the info you seem to demand, I have stated several times I POSTED IT PREVIOUSLY. Do yourself a favor and look it up if you are really interested in what I said...otherwise this is merely more bullying and harrassing. Other than that, I am done with your bullying attitude, your calling me a liar and your attempts to smear me. We don't agree....get over it, my friend. But don't pretend I am your child who must answer to your every whim.

First, stop calling me your friend. You're not acting like a friend, so doing so just makes you look disingenuous.

 

Second, we have never gone down this road before. You have never stated how you would have handled the interaction based on how it might really go down. You certainly have never roleplayed this particular simulation before.

Share this post


Link to post

The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind.

 

It sure does...and if you're not willing to put up, please do the latter. I am about tired of playing your games, my friend. If you want to carry on personal conversations about what you think I should or shouldn't answer, you may PM me, but I don't feel I have a need to jump through your hoops.

 

As I said, play your games all you wish, but don't think you can bully me into playing along.

Since you have gone on and on about how you think the reviewer should have handled it better, I've given you an opportunity to prove your point and maybe win a few people over to your side.

 

The fact that you have refused to participate in this exercise says volumes about your true motives, in my opinion.

 

 

DON'T be lazy, if you want the info you seem to demand, I have stated several times I POSTED IT PREVIOUSLY. Do yourself a favor and look it up if you are really interested in what I said...otherwise this is merely more bullying and harrassing. Other than that, I am done with your bullying attitude, your calling me a liar and your attempts to smear me. We don't agree....get over it, my friend. But don't pretend I am your child who must answer to your every whim.

First, stop calling me your friend. You're not acting like a friend, so doing so just makes you look disingenuous.

 

Second, we have never gone down this road before. You have never stated how you would have handled the interaction based on how it might really go down. You certainly have never roleplayed this particular simulation before.

 

My friend, maybe you should step back and check out your posting practices...I don't see anything friendly about that one bit!

 

Second, you asked me to play your game, I denied. I'm not in the mood for your spin tactics and the twist game. Do you think bullying me is going to change my mind? I have stated exactly what you desire, LOOK IT UP OR GIVE IT UP. either way, I'm done playing your games! Have a nice day, my friend!

Share this post


Link to post

The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind.

 

It sure does...and if you're not willing to put up, please do the latter. I am about tired of playing your games, my friend. If you want to carry on personal conversations about what you think I should or shouldn't answer, you may PM me, but I don't feel I have a need to jump through your hoops.

 

As I said, play your games all you wish, but don't think you can bully me into playing along.

Since you have gone on and on about how you think the reviewer should have handled it better, I've given you an opportunity to prove your point and maybe win a few people over to your side.

 

The fact that you have refused to participate in this exercise says volumes about your true motives, in my opinion.

 

 

DON'T be lazy, if you want the info you seem to demand, I have stated several times I POSTED IT PREVIOUSLY. Do yourself a favor and look it up if you are really interested in what I said...otherwise this is merely more bullying and harrassing. Other than that, I am done with your bullying attitude, your calling me a liar and your attempts to smear me. We don't agree....get over it, my friend. But don't pretend I am your child who must answer to your every whim.

First, stop calling me your friend. You're not acting like a friend, so doing so just makes you look disingenuous.

 

Second, we have never gone down this road before. You have never stated how you would have handled the interaction based on how it might really go down. You certainly have never roleplayed this particular simulation before.

 

My friend, maybe you should step back and check out your posting practices...I don't see anything friendly about that one bit!

 

Second, you asked me to play your game, I denied. I'm not in the mood for your spin tactics and the twist game. Do you think bullying me is going to change my mind? I have stated exactly what you desire, LOOK IT UP OR GIVE IT UP. either way, I'm done playing your games! Have a nice day, my friend!

First, I am not your friend. I am merely another geocacher discussing geocaching issues in a geocaching forum.

 

Second, if you are not willing to discuss the topic, shove off.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Second, if you are not willing to discuss the topic, shove off.

 

My friend, do you believe I must bend to your demands in order to be discussing the topic? I must have missed that memo.

 

Have a nice day, my friend!

Share this post


Link to post

Since I brought it up, I have since learned, and feel like I should post some information I got regarding the cache in Arizona. It looks like there may have been some tricks pulled that made it more difficult to find. Im only hearing this second hand so I prefer not to be specific. Given that, there may be a good reason for the reviewer to post his log on the page and disable the cache.

"Tricks pulled". Can you explain that, 'cause I'm starting to feel like I've been had. I should have known there was more to the story.

 

Another Arizona cacher mentioned some things that were done with the cache to make it harder to find. I will pm you the thread on a local forum. You were not "had". My posts on this topic are of genuine concern over the perceived interference by a reviewer. When I learned that there was something else to it, I felt I should post it here since it supports the concern of the reviewer. Even tho it makes me look like a bit of an idiot lol. Like that is a change for me.

Thanks, the forum thread at http://www.calgarycachers.net/azcachers/vi...422&start=0 assures that the issue is real. It appears that the cache is there but the Reviewer took the word of "experienced" cachers who DNFed it that it wasn't. Oops! :D

 

It's what I call a PITA cache, a rock-in-a-rockpile kind of thing that is hard to find but indeed there. PITA caches are not well-liked by many but are perfectly legal within the guidelines.

 

It's a tough call for a Reviewer. He feels alarrums and asks a local trusted cacher to go check on it, he's told it's not there, he takes the trusted local's word on it and gets pie in the face. Bummer.

 

I have hidden a few fake rock caches, I have one active right now. None in a huge area as the pics of some of their caches have suggested though...and I don't think anyone would ever think to bring a rke. This seems like their norm since people come prepared like they do...but still within guidelines. I see the watch count has gone up, many of us watching this one closely!!

Share this post


Link to post

Lest we forget what the actual thread topic is:

GC171MH Super Fly #30 "Jiendo" is a popular cache in Grand Rapids Michigan. Its popular not because it gets found a lot, just the opposite. Its was published October 29, 2007 and has never been found. If you go to the listing you will see that there have been 27 DNF's posted along with many notes. There is a controversy brewing.

 

On November 5 a reviewer in California, Nomex, took it upon himself or herself to archive the listing. According to one of the Michigan reviewers, DeRock, none of the Michigan reviewers asked for assistance from Nomex on this or any other caches in Michigan.

 

Many of the area cachers are very upset about Nomex's actions. If you take the time to read some of the posts for this cache you will see that many of the cachers have put a lot of effort toward finding this cache and their posts are entertaining to read. Jiendo is somewhat of a celebrity cache in these parts and now it has been taken away from us by a reviewer that is on the other side of the country.

 

This morning I sent an email to the reviewer that is primarily responsible for that part of the Michigan asking about Nomex's actions and what may become of the whole controvers, but I haven't heard back. I expect to soon because Tiki has been a very responsive reviewer in the past.

 

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

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Lest we forget what the actual thread topic is...

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

Seeing as this AZ kerfluffle is an almost exact match I hope we can include it here.

 

That is if y'alls pissing match doesn't get it locked. :D

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler

Share this post


Link to post
Second, you asked me to play your game, I denied. I'm not in the mood for your spin tactics and the twist game. Do you think bullying me is going to change my mind? I have stated exactly what you desire, LOOK IT UP OR GIVE IT UP. either way, I'm done playing your games! Have a nice day, my friend!
I, personally, am not going to peruse back through a 30+ page thread to find whatever post it is that you think answers the question at hand. Odds are I I've read it already and didn't think it addressed anything, so it was summarily dismissed in my mind. On the other hand, you seem to be so sure you've said it several times, you should be able to find at least one post in a blink of an eye.

 

You are not making your point by saying "Look it up."

 

Maybe if it was 5 or six posts up, but in a 30+ page nightmare? That's nuts!

 

So, put up or shut up. Where's a link to one of these posts of yours? Or better yet, let's hear it fresh.

Share this post


Link to post
Second, you asked me to play your game, I denied. I'm not in the mood for your spin tactics and the twist game. Do you think bullying me is going to change my mind? I have stated exactly what you desire, LOOK IT UP OR GIVE IT UP. either way, I'm done playing your games! Have a nice day, my friend!
I, personally, am not going to peruse back through a 30+ page thread to find whatever post it is that you think answers the question at hand. Odds are I I've read it already and didn't think it addressed anything, so it was summarily dismissed in my mind. On the other hand, you seem to be so sure you've said it several times, you should be able to find at least one post in a blink of an eye.

 

You are not making your point by saying "Look it up."

 

Maybe if it was 5 or six posts up, but in a 30+ page nightmare? That's nuts!

 

So, put up or shut up. Where's a link to one of these posts of yours? Or better yet, let's hear it fresh.

 

Here's a thought...look it up. I can't help you're too lazy to do for yourself, my friend. Personally, I will be more happy to post on, feel free to stop me if you can! :D:laughing: Last I checked, I wasn't your dog to be barked orders at. And truly, if you want something from me, demanding and commanding are the worst way to get what you want...from me!

 

Did anyone notice there was a FTF on the AZ cache? Found by a previous searcher. Now, what will be the fallout from this?

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

Log Date: 11/29/2009

Co-FTF Co-FTF Co-FTF!!!!

@ 8:40am with AZ Fastfeet!!

It's more like a 10.. Persistance does pay off! Since we all had our doubts all I can say is excellent hide Mrs. Fireman! After team Butterfly Princesses woke me up claiming they've found a bogus container lodged in the wall, I came over to dispose of it. When AZ Fastfeet showed up we searched everywhere- even places already searched before- until it was finally noticed. Excellent evil hide and, what a container! TFTC and the fun Mrs. and Mr. Fireman!!!!

 

Here's the log for anyone not having this on their watchlist!

Share this post


Link to post
Here's a thought...look it up. I can't help you're too lazy to do for yourself, my friend.
It's your point I'm trying to see here. If you don't care enough to link to your thoughts, that's you being lazy, not me. I'm at least trying to understand what the heck you are talking about.
Personally, I will be more happy to post on, feel free to stop me if you can! :D:anicute: Last I checked, I wasn't your dog to be barked orders at. And truly, if you want something from me, demanding and commanding are the worst way to get what you want...from me!
:anicute::laughing:

 

So, I take your utter refusal to link to your alleged past posts as an implication that they don't actually exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's do some roleplaying. You be the reviewer. I'll be a cache owner. Someone contacted you and told you that I told them that my cache didn't exist. They asked you to protect their privacy.

 

How would you handle it?

Role play! Whoo Hoo!! Do we get swords? (never mind... back to the question...)

 

How would I handle it?

(Assuming I thought the "someone" was credible)

 

1 ) Post a disabling note on the cache page. Something to the effect of: "A local cacher has brought to my attention the fact that this cache may not be in compliance with the Groundspeak guidelines. Please contact me through my profile so we can discuss the matter. Thanx!"

 

2 ) If the cache owner contacted me, I would tell therm my concerns, and see if they were willing to address them.

 

3 ) If they did not contact me, I would archive the cache with a note similar to: "This cache is being archived. If the owner wishes to bring it back to life, please contact me through my profile"

 

4 ) If they contacted me, but refused to address my concerns, it would get archived with a similar note.

 

You'll note that, in both my disabling note and my archival note, I didn't post anything that would cast the owner in a bad light. No disparaging remarks. No innuendos of falsehood. Just straightforward text which accomplishes the goal.

 

When you falsely and intentionally mis-characterize someone's words, you have no room to be preaching about honesty, integrity or fairness.

Uh... OK. Let me type this slowly... :D

What words of yours did I falsely and intentionally mis-characterize? :laughing:

Thanx! :anicute:

 

...otherwise this is merely more bullying and harrassing.

Actually, I think it's just an attempt to anger you, in the hopes of getting the thread locked.

At least it looks that way to me.

sbell has already read your stance on this matter. So has everyone else here.

Don't let him draw you off track. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I think I get it now. Tell me if this is correct:

When you boil the question down to its essence...

RR and others are saying the situation was handled poorly regardless of whether the cache was really there or not., Right? This is a valid opinion and he really doesn't need to supplement it with anything else (although he does.)

Another group is engaging in a fruitless debate about whether the cache was really there or not.

A third group (myself included) says, if the cache was bogus we have no problem with the way Groundspeak handled it, but we'll probably never know.

A few fringe wackos :D have actually tried to answer the question asked, namely has anyone ever seen this happen on another cache?

Does that about cover it?

Share this post


Link to post

 

...otherwise this is merely more bullying and harrassing.

Actually, I think it's just an attempt to anger you, in the hopes of getting the thread locked.

At least it looks that way to me.

sbell has already read your stance on this matter. So has everyone else here.

Don't let him draw you off track. :D

 

I agree, this was my thought as I was showering just now! No worries though, if it keeps the thread at top, I am happy to have them play their games. Just as long as they realize I'm not participating and they're merely wasting their time.

 

Oh well, TURKEY DAY for me, I'm leaving soon.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread needs a llama to llighten things up. :D

 

Blizzard%20Smiling.JPG

 

I was nearly killed by one of these a few years back. A friend had two and they were really tempermental. One minute, playing and running around. The next, they would corner you and bully you. I was feeding them when the bigge of the two came up and nudged for a pet. I complied and went on with feeding, but the big guy decided to bowl me over. I was thrown to the ground and quickly dodged a very directed attack which consisted of the big guy rearing up and trying to stomp on me with it's front hooves.

 

Luckily, I was in good shape at the time, I was able to dodge the first atack and get back to my feet. I then was thrown to the barn's side by another attack, the slam into the wall nearly knocked the wind out of me. Another lucky thing for me, I was thrown right beside the barn door which I was able to get into and back to safety.

 

Those "pets" were quickly taken down the road and sold at auction...

Share this post


Link to post

Log Date: 11/29/2009

Co-FTF Co-FTF Co-FTF!!!!

@ 8:40am with AZ Fastfeet!!

It's more like a 10.. Persistance does pay off! Since we all had our doubts all I can say is excellent hide Mrs. Fireman! After team Butterfly Princesses woke me up claiming they've found a bogus container lodged in the wall, I came over to dispose of it. When AZ Fastfeet showed up we searched everywhere- even places already searched before- until it was finally noticed. Excellent evil hide and, what a container! TFTC and the fun Mrs. and Mr. Fireman!!!!

 

Here's the log for anyone not having this on their watchlist!

 

Total sarcasm mode ON.

 

They are all in on it with the cache owner. They are all lying.

Or ... the the cache owner finally placed it after the cache was disabled.

 

Sarcasm mode OFF.

 

There, I said it first before someone else posted it in serious mode. Let the discussion continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's do some roleplaying. You be the reviewer. I'll be a cache owner. Someone contacted you and told you that I told them that my cache didn't exist. They asked you to protect their privacy.

 

How would you handle it?

Role play! Whoo Hoo!! Do we get swords? (never mind... back to the question...)

 

How would I handle it?

(Assuming I thought the "someone" was credible)

 

1 ) Post a disabling note on the cache page. Something to the effect of: "A local cacher has brought to my attention the fact that this cache may not be in compliance with the Groundspeak guidelines. Please contact me through my profile so we can discuss the matter. Thanx!"

 

2 ) If the cache owner contacted me, I would tell therm my concerns, and see if they were willing to address them.

 

3 ) If they did not contact me, I would archive the cache with a note similar to: "This cache is being archived. If the owner wishes to bring it back to life, please contact me through my profile"

 

4 ) If they contacted me, but refused to address my concerns, it would get archived with a similar note.

 

You'll note that, in both my disabling note and my archival note, I didn't post anything that would cast the owner in a bad light. No disparaging remarks. No innuendos of falsehood. Just straightforward text which accomplishes the goal.

 

When you falsely and intentionally mis-characterize someone's words, you have no room to be preaching about honesty, integrity or fairness.

Uh... OK. Let me type this slowly... :D

What words of yours did I falsely and intentionally mis-characterize? :laughing:

Thanx! :anicute:

 

...otherwise this is merely more bullying and harrassing.

Actually, I think it's just an attempt to anger you, in the hopes of getting the thread locked.

At least it looks that way to me.

sbell has already read your stance on this matter. So has everyone else here.

Don't let him draw you off track. :anicute:

So he contacts you and tells you that the cache does, in fact, exist. What do you do?

 

Also, it seems like options 3 and 4 would result in a thread much like this one (bot hopefully without RR's shenanigans). Some out-of-state reviewer archived this local cache for no reason.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Log Date: 11/29/2009

Co-FTF Co-FTF Co-FTF!!!!

@ 8:40am with AZ Fastfeet!!

It's more like a 10.. Persistance does pay off! Since we all had our doubts all I can say is excellent hide Mrs. Fireman! After team Butterfly Princesses woke me up claiming they've found a bogus container lodged in the wall, I came over to dispose of it. When AZ Fastfeet showed up we searched everywhere- even places already searched before- until it was finally noticed. Excellent evil hide and, what a container! TFTC and the fun Mrs. and Mr. Fireman!!!!

 

Here's the log for anyone not having this on their watchlist!

 

Total sarcasm mode ON.

 

They are all in on it with the cache owner. They are all lying.

Or ... the the cache owner finally placed it after the cache was disabled.

 

Sarcasm mode OFF.

 

There, I said it first before someone else posted it in serious mode. Let the discussion continue.

Another option is that that cache has nothing in common with the false cache discussed in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's do some roleplaying. You be the reviewer. I'll be a cache owner. Someone contacted you and told you that I told them that my cache didn't exist. They asked you to protect their privacy.

 

How would you handle it?

Role play! Whoo Hoo!! Do we get swords? (never mind... back to the question...)

 

How would I handle it?

(Assuming I thought the "someone" was credible)

 

1 ) Post a disabling note on the cache page. Something to the effect of: "A local cacher has brought to my attention the fact that this cache may not be in compliance with the Groundspeak guidelines. Please contact me through my profile so we can discuss the matter. Thanx!"

 

2 ) If the cache owner contacted me, I would tell therm my concerns, and see if they were willing to address them.

 

3 ) If they did not contact me, I would archive the cache with a note similar to: "This cache is being archived. If the owner wishes to bring it back to life, please contact me through my profile"

 

4 ) If they contacted me, but refused to address my concerns, it would get archived with a similar note.

 

You'll note that, in both my disabling note and my archival note, I didn't post anything that would cast the owner in a bad light. No disparaging remarks. No innuendos of falsehood. Just straightforward text which accomplishes the goal.

 

When you falsely and intentionally mis-characterize someone's words, you have no room to be preaching about honesty, integrity or fairness.

Uh... OK. Let me type this slowly... :D

What words of yours did I falsely and intentionally mis-characterize? :laughing:

Thanx! :anicute:

 

...otherwise this is merely more bullying and harrassing.

Actually, I think it's just an attempt to anger you, in the hopes of getting the thread locked.

At least it looks that way to me.

sbell has already read your stance on this matter. So has everyone else here.

Don't let him draw you off track. :anicute:

So he contacts you and tells you that the cache does, in fact, exist. What do you do?

 

Also, it seems like options 3 and 4 would result in a thread much like this one (bot hopefully without RR's shenanigans). Some out-of-state reviewer archived this local cache for no reason.

 

Wouldn't that be YOUR shenanigans....my friend?

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I think I get it now. Tell me if this is correct:

When you boil the question down to its essence...

RR and others are saying the situation was handled poorly regardless of whether the cache was really there or not., Right? This is a valid opinion and he really doesn't need to supplement it with anything else (although he does.)

Another group is engaging in a fruitless debate about whether the cache was really there or not.

A third group (myself included) says, if the cache was bogus we have no problem with the way Groundspeak handled it, but we'll probably never know.

A few fringe wackos :laughing: have actually tried to answer the question asked, namely has anyone ever seen this happen on another cache?

Does that about cover it?

 

Nice summation, but it doesn't do it for me. :D [snark on] I am just about to change my mind on this topic, and need some help. Maybe if one more person would describe how offended they are at having an insult cross their path. Perhaps another tortured analogy would do it*. At least help me by telling me who the burden of proof falls when somebody is trying to find the truth about something somebody said about something that might not have been. One more circular argument might work. Please help, I've almost decided which way to think. [snark off]

 

* guilty of this one myself

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I think I get it now. Tell me if this is correct:

When you boil the question down to its essence...

RR and others are saying the situation was handled poorly regardless of whether the cache was really there or not., Right? This is a valid opinion and he really doesn't need to supplement it with anything else (although he does.)

Another group is engaging in a fruitless debate about whether the cache was really there or not.

A third group (myself included) says, if the cache was bogus we have no problem with the way Groundspeak handled it, but we'll probably never know.

A few fringe wackos :o have actually tried to answer the question asked, namely has anyone ever seen this happen on another cache?

Does that about cover it?

 

Nice summation, but it doesn't do it for me. :anicute: [snark on] I am just about to change my mind on this topic, and need some help. Maybe if one more person would describe how offended they are at having an insult cross their path. Perhaps another tortured analogy would do it*. At least help me by telling me who the burden of proof falls when somebody is trying to find the truth about something somebody said about something that might not have been. One more circular argument might work. Please help, I've almost decided which way to think. [snark off]

 

* guilty of this one myself

:D They started it.... :anicute::laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't that be YOUR shenanigans....my friend?

 

On a more serious note than my last post, since you have already declined to participate in an ongoing discusion of how to handle a difficult situation, pointed jabs at those talking is really uncalled for.

 

Just sayin', my friend.

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't that be YOUR shenanigans....my friend?

 

On a more serious note than my last post, since you have already declined to participate in an ongoing discusion of how to handle a difficult situation, pointed jabs at those talking is really uncalled for.

 

Just sayin', my friend.

 

As soon as the jabs stop flying at me, my friend! I am more than happy to treat others as they treat me. Want to play games and belittle, let's play. Want to be serious and have a real discussion, better yet. If you've been paying any attention at all, you'll note that sbell has been slapping at me for the last few days now and not just in this thread. If he wants respect, he's going at it quite wrong. And you're quite right, the jabs at me are completely uncalled for. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you should continually subject me to jabs and slams...you being general here. As for not participating...are Clan and I the only ones who remember I did post my thoughts? Sorry if I'm not willing to play games (that IS what both sbell abd TTJ were up to btw, not trying to hear my view since I've been more than happy to give it all along), that doesn't mean I'm not willing to have a serious discussion as I have repeaedly demonstrated.

 

You may note that was a response to him shooting out spew in his post....or are we only concentrating on me?

 

Topic on hand...a thought about how to not get the PTB looking into your "evil" hide...ask that no DNFs be logged OR remove them from the page with an explanation to the logger. No DNFs, no reason to disable?

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...