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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

 

If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.

 

We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, :D but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...

Share this post


Link to post
If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.
We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, :D but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...
I think disabling questionable caches has been going on since the start of the game.

 

Disabling is not archiving.

 

The cache you're talking about has no bearing on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Even if Jeremy himself came into this thread and said, "The situation was handled correctly, any further information given by the reviewers would compromise the privacy of some involved parties, and those involved that need to know anything already know the details. No more information will be given out, and there is no need to be worried about caches being archived simply because they have a long string of DNF logs.", RR and the rest wouldn't be satisfied and would still demand to know more while claiming the incident wasn't handled correctly.

 

That certainly would not satisfy me, nor do I think it would satisfy some of the others who have the same concern I have.

 

Nomex called Superfly a liar, in a format that does not allow rebuttal. I'm sorry but that is as rude as passing gas in a crowded elevator.

 

I don't expect Nomex or Groundspeak to acknowledge, he was rude. I don't believe they feel that there was anything wrong.

 

This incident is disappointing to me, and has caused me to lose a great deal of the respect I have had in the Reviewers and Groundspeak. However, there seems to be little I can do about it, and I am not about to give up my favorite pastime, (Geocaching) over it.

 

Whether the archival was handled properly or not depends on you point of view. It saddens me to see a few posters that I have looked up to in the past, that do not care about common courtesy.

It seems to me that SF had plenty of opportunity for rebuttal. He chose to throw the cache away and say nothing. He could have left the cache archived and posted great photos showing the cache in place and detailed photos of the cache container. That would have been a great rebuttal leaving TPTB looking very bad. I wonder why he didn't go that route. After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response.

 

What this boils down to, is you feel it is just fine for a reviewer to insult you when he cannot back up that insult.(not that he doesn't have proof, just that he cannot or will not provide the proof.) If that is OK with you that's fine just don't expect me to agree.

 

From my point of view, I really don't know if the cache was a hoax or not. Nor do most of you. For me that is not the point. If the reviewer cannot tell us why he thinks the cache was not there then he should not say the cache was not there.

 

However, I don't know why I am even trying to get the point across. Nobody cares these days about manners. :D

 

Was all that an attempt to say gee, you are right. There really was plenty of opportunity for SF to make a rebuttal?

Share this post


Link to post

 

let me know and I will re-quote and post them in a 140 font in red.

Once again you are either unwilling or unable to back your spurious claims. :D

Not that this is surprising, considering your typical debate tactics. :laughing:

So, just in case you are able to comprehend simple sentences:

Yes, please re-quote specifically what it was that makes me dishonest, unethical and discourteous, in 140 font red.

Thanx! :anicute:

So there you go again. You could just say that you responded without reading the post, please re post but you choose falsely imply debate tactics. As I posted a short time ago and was there for you to read

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4142052

 

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.

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

 

I typed it very very slowly. Are you now able to read the words that you yourself typed that I quoted right on the page where you chose to respond to as though you had no clue what I was referring to.

 

After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response.

Agreed, absolutely! If Groundspeak is going to allow their agents to publicly discredit their customers, then those agents should make their rational for the discrediting just as public. In business, that's most commonly referred to as quality customer relations. Glad you finally picked up on that! :o

Yes I see you just love to use those debate tactics that are dishonest, unfair, and lacking integrity. All the while claiming

My personal values include honesty, integrity and fairness.
As long as we all know you are making false claims and false quotes, knock yourself out. PS, your quote of my words above used the word discourteous. Did I type too fast for you again or did you include that word in another attempt to be dishonest, unfair and show a lack of integrity?

Share this post


Link to post
snow_wreck.gif

 

flask, how's your neighbor's cat?

Posting off topic pictures and questions about flasks cat is offensive to me and I'm asking you to stop. (It's also against the guidelines by the way)

Share this post


Link to post

 

let me know and I will re-quote and post them in a 140 font in red.

Once again you are either unwilling or unable to back your spurious claims. :D

Not that this is surprising, considering your typical debate tactics. :laughing:

So, just in case you are able to comprehend simple sentences:

Yes, please re-quote specifically what it was that makes me dishonest, unethical and discourteous, in 140 font red.

Thanx! :anicute:

So there you go again. You could just say that you responded without reading the post, please re post but you choose falsely imply debate tactics. As I posted a short time ago and was there for you to read

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4142052

 

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.

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

 

I typed it very very slowly. Are you now able to read the words that you yourself typed that I quoted right on the page where you chose to respond to as though you had no clue what I was referring to.

 

After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response.

Agreed, absolutely! If Groundspeak is going to allow their agents to publicly discredit their customers, then those agents should make their rational for the discrediting just as public. In business, that's most commonly referred to as quality customer relations. Glad you finally picked up on that! :o

Yes I see you just love to use those debate tactics that are dishonest, unfair, and lacking integrity. All the while claiming

My personal values include honesty, integrity and fairness.
As long as we all know you are making false claims and false quotes, knock yourself out. PS, your quote of my words above used the word discourteous. Did I type too fast for you again or did you include that word in another attempt to be dishonest, unfair and show a lack of integrity?

 

It seems to me you both agree that since the reviewer chose to make a public implication that the cache owner was lying that he should have been willing to also support that claim. If so, then why all the perceived animosity? This constant back and forth will only serve to either get you both some vacation time or this thread closed down. While the latter would probably be welcome by quite a few of us at this point, there really isn't any need for individuals to get themselves in trouble over this.

Share this post


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

Maybe not, but I think these two exchanges came pretty close.

 

This one:

 

I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to ...
Then please consider this as a hypothetical:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

I have no desire to play these games with you. :laughing:

Oh well. :D

 

It was worth a try...

... and this one:

 

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?

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

There are others as well.

 

Whenever anyone asks you to reexamine your viewpoint in a way that might better allow you to see the issue from another person’s point of view, you recoil and blow it off, calling it "games."

 

That doesn’t sound very open-minded to me. That sounds more like an absolute refusal to discuss this situation—the very thing you deny doing.

 

(And now that I’ve pointed that out, I expect you will again respond by accusing me of "playing games" with you.)

 

Seems to me that if you really want to sell your viewpoint you might want to consider some tactic other than childish obfuscation. It’s not a very effective persuasion tool.

 

A person who is confident in his point of view shouldn’t be afraid to open it up to question, or to question it in his own mind. If a viewpoint can’t withstand such questioning, then what good is it?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Acceptable to whom?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Acceptable to whom?

 

I actually think there are better ways to handle the situation than to call someone a liar. But not everyone is diplomatic in their approach to people.

 

If you are going to do so, then at least make sure those 2 points are addressed.

Share this post


Link to post

Posting off topic pictures and questions about flasks cat is offensive to me and I'm asking you to stop. (It's also against the guidelines by the way)

The train wreck picture is as on-topic as many of the posts in this thread, but I apologize if the picture offended you.

 

And

 

I did not ask about flask's cat. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Posting off topic pictures and questions about flasks cat is offensive to me and I'm asking you to stop. (It's also against the guidelines by the way)
The train wreck picture is as on-topic as many of the posts in this thread, but I apologize if the picture offended you.
Two wrongs don't make a right. All off topic posts are unacceptable.

 

And

 

I did not ask about flask's cat. :laughing:
Her neighbor's cat is just as off topic as her own. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure that the train wreck photo is off topic. I think it is more of a statement on the condition of the topic itself.

 

The cat, regardless of ownership, is most likely off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Acceptable to whom?

 

I actually think there are better ways to handle the situation than to call someone a liar. But not everyone is diplomatic in their approach to people.

 

If you are going to do so, then at least make sure those 2 points are addressed.

Keep in mind that no one actually called anyone a liar. It is inferred by the statement that the cache had not been in place for months or years. Depending on your point of view, it could be that the comment by Nomex only meant that SF was a hoaxer. The lie word is all in the mind of those reading the comment. If the cache in question was a joke/hoax cache, maybe the lie word is the wrong choice.

Edited by traildad

Share this post


Link to post

PoTAEto, poTAHto. Whatever word works best, it obviously could have been handled better.

 

It wasn't.

 

TPTB are not willing to step up and say they will work on handling things better in the future.

 

I don't foresee TPTB ever making that assurance.

 

So all we are left with is a handful of people rubbing paint, so to speak.

 

It has become a trainwreck and if the OP has any mercy on us he will go ahead and request it be closed.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I went back and bolded the part of my comment that you might have missed.

 

If a cache is so difficult that no one can find it, it is equivalent to a cache that does not exist. "No one can find it" would exclude anyone being smart/persistent/good enough to find it.

 

Schrödinger's cache, if you will. If a cache falls in the forest and no one finds it, is it really there? Like Zen, the concept is so simple that it is difficult for some to grasp.

 

Several times in this thread someone has mentioned the cache at the bottom of the ocean. Well, what's the point of that? I could flush a micro down my toilet and post the coordinates for my septic tank, but what's the point of that?

The point of this game, if it has one, is NOT to create caches so hard that no mere mortal can find them. Any fool can do that. Weight down an ammo box and toss it overboard, or toss a blinkie into a swamp. But it takes real skill to create a cache that CAN be found, but only after extreme effort.

 

A great cache provides an "aha" moment. An impossible cache only creates frustration.

 

Did Jiendo really exist, or was it a hoax? It doesn't matter. If it had been found, it would have provided the finder with a tremendous "aha" moment. But it was not found, and now it never will be found. So, functionally, it is identical to a cache that never was.

I spent a couple days reading and/or skimming this thread, and should have known better than to be reading it while eating/drinking.... I 'bout choked and had to clean up the monitor after I read the above (bolded and in red) comment. TOO funny!

Share this post


Link to post
Nobody cares these days about manners. :D

I do! :laughing:...

 

I know that and have appreciated your straight forward discussions concerning the primary issues in this topic even though I have not acknowledged that before.

 

If they acknowledge even the possibility that he (our Friar??) might have acted badly, then their faith would suffer a blow. This would threaten who they are on a very deep level. Thus, they respond in anger, which is based upon fear.

 

I don't feel any of this at all - I'm sure it was said in jest. I doubt that other "defenders" are operating from this model either. I have not felt anger when posting to this topic nor do I have any fear, whatsoever, that there are any problems that warrant the amount of anger displayed in this topic. Being rankled by something and discussing it is not always done from anger and fear.

 

I said earlier that I can, for myself, allow some errors by management. I have no expectations that GS and reviewers will be perfect. I just don't believe that a few instances of questionable actions constitutes a need to be concerned that a we are in a progression toward mass unpopular behavior on the part of GS or volunteer reviewers.

 

If GS has made it an actual policy to archive or temporarily disable hard to find caches with several DNFs (23 in the latest example) or even if they have only asked reviewers to be more aware of the condition and experiment with some solutions then I do not have a problem with that.

 

It has been said here many times that COs have options available in this situation. What might help COs would be to bite back the first inclination to rail against the reviewers. They can step back from the situation a bit and provide some additional proofs that the cache exists.

I was just about to post a really good reply when I realized someone else had already posted it for me! :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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

Uh... OK. I'll give it a try, but I gotta say, you're not making a whole lotta sense:

 

In the quote above, I pointed out that there were (at least) two sides to this issue. Right?

The opponents and the proponents?

Those who support Groundspeak, and those that feel Nomex erred.

Was that dishonest?

Lacking integrity?

Unfair, perhaps? :unsure:

 

I also pointed out that the folks who disagree with the side you are supporting have a problem with how Nomex chose to act on his beliefs.

Was that dishonest?

Lacking integrity?

Unfair, perhaps? :unsure:

 

I also misspelled philosophy, but I mentioned that earlier, so that's probably not what has you upset. :unsure:

 

After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response.

Agreed, absolutely! If Groundspeak is going to allow their agents to publicly discredit their customers, then those agents should make their rational for the discrediting just as public. In business, that's most commonly referred to as quality customer relations. Glad you finally picked up on that! B)
Yes I see you just love to use those debate tactics that are dishonest, unfair, and lacking integrity.

Uh... Me agreeing with you is dishonest, unfair and lacking integrity? :unsure:

Sorry. That's so bizarre as to defy any kind of reasonable response. :unsure:

 

The cache you're talking about has no bearing on this topic.

Agreed. While there might have been some early similarities, it's a different kettle of fish altogether.

This still appears to be an isolated incident.

 

It has been said here many times that COs have options available in this situation. What might help COs would be to bite back the first inclination to rail against the reviewers. They can step back from the situation a bit and provide some additional proofs that the cache exists.

Sage advice! (pun intended) :lol:

If we assume, for argument's sake, that there was a real cache here, and allow for the possibility that he somehow neglected to take at least one picture of it, SF allowed his emotions to overcome his reason. He got mad and threw away what took him over a year to design and build, forever denying himself the satisfaction of proving Nomex wrong. Without a doubt, he shot himself in the foot on this one. B)

 

The fact that they didn't do this (apparently) for the cache in question makes me think that the "more to the story" we don't know about is pretty serious.

That's certainly possible. Heck, it's even plausible.

But it's not the only possible scenario.

<puts on uber-paranoid tin foil beanie> :ph34r:

It's also possible that Nomex messed up, and TPTB don't want to air their dirty laundry. :unsure:

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 :unsure: have actually tried to answer the question asked, namely has anyone ever seen this happen on another cache?

Does that about cover it?

 

That's most of it.

 

We also found out that Clam Riffster shot JFK.

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....

 

There is more, but due to Attention Deficeit Disorder, I have to skim the thread several times to figure it all out...

Share this post


Link to post
It has been said here many times...

Sage advice! (pun intended) :unsure:

 

It is the desert herb that gives us our name, not the wisdom. :unsure:

One half of TS typically displays no wisdom whatsoever. Would he be here if he did? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

 

If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.

 

We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, :unsure: but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...

You sure it wasn't a fake find log to avoid this very situation? That's what this issue is going to drive CO's to do, post fake finds so the reviewers leave them alone.

Share this post


Link to post
The fact that they didn't do this (apparently) for the cache in question makes me think that the "more to the story" we don't know about is pretty serious.
That's certainly possible. Heck, it's even plausible.

But it's not the only possible scenario.

In this, you and I are in total agreement. There are several scenarios that are possible.

 

The scenario that I believe is the most likely to be true is the one in which there was a good reason for the way the cache was archived and none of the private information was divulged. I believe that if you knew the entire story you would probably agree with what has happened, and would agree with what is (not) being done about it. I don't know the back story myself, but this is what I believe to be most likely.

 

<puts on uber-paranoid tin foil beanie> :unsure:

It's also possible that Nomex messed up, and TPTB don't want to air their dirty laundry. :unsure:

I concede that it's also possible that a reviewer messed up by accusing someone of not having a cache in place for years, when in fact the cache was there, and the reviewer did this against the policies and procedures of the company. It's also possible that the company, seeing what a huge cluster this has turned into in the forums and on the cache page, has agreed to back up the reviewer and not do anything to make the situation better.

 

However, this scenario seems a lot less likely to me, and I'm only basing this on how the company has done business in the past. I've heard of mistakes that have been made and the company had to make some changes (unarchive caches, fire reviewers, etc.) to make it right. They don't have a history of covering up mistakes or protecting their own when guilty just to save face. It doesn't make sense that they'd all of the sudden, out of the blue, just decide to go crazy and change the way they do business in this one cache and not do other crazy things too.

 

An isolated incident like this points to something special. It makes me believe that it was better for Nomex to let SuperFly understand that he knew the cache hadn't been in place in years, and for that information to be on the cache page where everyone (or maybe just a few locals) could see it.

 

I'm not blindly following the religion and trying to justify the friar that has gone astray because I'm scared, or because I'm in love with the religion and I'm ignoring anything that may show it to be less than perfect. I'm just looking at what has happened and taking into account the history of the game, the company, and the way things are usually done.

Share this post


Link to post

The scenario that I believe is the most likely to be true is the one in which there was a good reason for the way the cache was archived and none of the private information was divulged.

Because I've never had cause to doubt anything that my reviewers have done, or (prior to this isolated incident), anything that TPTB have done, I tend to agree with your assessment. When we, (the collective 'we'), are not privy to all the facts, we tend to look for what is most likely. In this case, I think you nailed "most likely" perfectly. I still have some concerns, and some questions, and I would feel a whole lot better if Groundspeak would tell us that they will, at least, look into whether or not the copy/paste notes used for disabling/archiving caches might be revised for a more positive effect, but at this juncture, I doubt that will come to pass.

 

As with many aspects of this game, we must rely somewhat on faith. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

 

If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.

 

We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, :unsure: but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...

You sure it wasn't a fake find log to avoid this very situation? That's what this issue is going to drive CO's to do, post fake finds so the reviewers leave them alone.

 

Knowing the cachers who found the cache, Im sure it isnt a fake log.

Share this post


Link to post

 

If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.

 

We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, :unsure: but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...

You sure it wasn't a fake find log to avoid this very situation? That's what this issue is going to drive CO's to do, post fake finds so the reviewers leave them alone.

 

Knowing the cachers who found the cache, Im sure it isnt a fake log.

Oh, I didn't mean to say anything bad about the finders (in this case), Its meant to point out that with this, and the fact a couple more caches have been disabled since this cache was archived, its inevitable that this will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not sure that the train wreck photo is off topic. I think it is more of a statement on the condition of the topic itself.

 

The cat, regardless of ownership, is most likely off topic.

 

If the reviewer had not implied that the cat was there when clearly it can not be known if the cat is or is not there........

 

Sorry, physics humor

Share this post


Link to post

The scenario that I believe is the most likely to be true is the one in which there was a good reason for the way the cache was archived and none of the private information was divulged.

Because I've never had cause to doubt anything that my reviewers have done, or (prior to this isolated incident), anything that TPTB have done, I tend to agree with your assessment. When we, (the collective 'we'), are not privy to all the facts, we tend to look for what is most likely. In this case, I think you nailed "most likely" perfectly. I still have some concerns, and some questions, and I would feel a whole lot better if Groundspeak would tell us that they will, at least, look into whether or not the copy/paste notes used for disabling/archiving caches might be revised for a more positive effect, but at this juncture, I doubt that will come to pass.

 

As with many aspects of this game, we must rely somewhat on faith. :unsure:

 

Leaving KBI to his inisting I refuse to discuss the issues (half right, I won't play he spinarama game with him as I stated previously), I think this is about right! What would I like to see? That GS has learned from all this (surprise, I've said it enough) and that our concerns are being listened to. A simple "we hear you" would be great and would go a loooong way for some of us (hey Mushtang....I posted it again for you :unsure: ).

Share this post


Link to post
If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.
We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, :unsure: but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...
I think disabling questionable caches has been going on since the start of the game.

 

Disabling is not archiving.

 

The cache you're talking about has no bearing on this topic.

 

Just like the first one. It was first archived with a note a bit similar to the cache in question. This DOES have bearing on thie discussion. How do you know that the next step wasn't archival? If that cache wasn't found, we have no idea the curse this cache was about to be taken down.

 

You say we see questionable caches disabled all the time. Can you remember the last one that was disabed just a few logs after the owner said it was OK? Any that were disabled with a note saying this cache has a lot of DNFs so check it and repair replace...if replaced blah blah blah? In other words, despite the owner checkigng it 4 times, this cache was disabled as being missing...seems the disabling was the questionable part of all that...to me at least.

 

So yes, I see a reason for concern about this.

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

just sayin' my friends

Is "my friends" the new short-hand for "crawl back under your rock and die"? It seems to be the way it's being used in this thread.

 

Nah, it's just the new way to agitate and play their games. They like to belittle, just like the "just saying" line (I'd bet some know where that came from too). It's like I said, they want me to be frendly, they tell me I'm rude to Sbell for not appreciating him asking me to not call him friend (and I would...as soon as he stopped demanding, defaming and belittling as I had asked). They want to ignore all the incoming jabs and pretend I am the rude one. Play on, it's great fun watching some of them...

 

Of course, it has been used to identify both friends and those who are not so friendly...by me at least. It's great how those two words can be used in either way, my friend!! (that was the actual friend use there just so we know :unsure: )

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


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

 

I tell him, privately, what my concerns were, and what I need to relist the cache.

What I need would vary based upon the circumstances.

 

Also, it seems like options 3 and 4 would result in a thread much like this one

Caches from non-compliant owners get archived all the time.

I've yet to see a regular in here squawk about it.

 

wouldn't you archive it ASAP?

No, I don't think so. Even a credible source can get it wrong on occasion. By disabling, and posting a note asking that the owner contact me, I've put the ball in the CO's court. They can respond, or not, as is their want. If they choose not to respond, they would have very little room left for whining when I archived it. If, in the unlikely event the archival created a poo storm on the forums, I could post that I asked the CO to contact me, and they refused, without violating any privacy concerns.

 

If the credible source told me of something more serious, (No Trespassing signs, cache hidden next to a police station that was shaped like a pipe bomb, etc), requiring immediate attention, then I would archive it right away. This one didn't seem serious enough to warrant a rapid response. I'd guess that Nomex felt the same way.

 

What would you like to see posted in this thread by Jeremy?

The coords to a local ammo can containing a pair of airline tickets and a car rental receipt in my name, along with a gilded invitation to Groundspeak Headquarters. :unsure:

 

let me know and I will re-quote and post them in a 140 font in red.

Once again you are either unwilling or unable to back your spurious claims. :unsure:

Not that this is surprising, considering your typical debate tactics. :unsure:

So, just in case you are able to comprehend simple sentences:

Yes, please re-quote specifically what it was that makes me dishonest, unethical and discourteous, in 140 font red.

Thanx! :unsure:

 

If they kept the reason for the archival between themselves and the CO, I doubt this thread would have been this long.

Can I get an "Amen!"? :unsure:

 

After "being called a liar" in public, a little public evidence would have been a perfect response.

Agreed, absolutely! If Groundspeak is going to allow their agents to publicly discredit their customers, then those agents should make their rational for the discrediting just as public. In business, that's most commonly referred to as quality customer relations. Glad you finally picked up on that! :ph34r:

 

THANKS Clan...I was having the doggest time figuring out why my publically looked so weird, just couldn't find the right spelling. Got it now, THANKS!!

 

Oh, and I agree with just about everything you posted here!! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.
We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, :unsure: but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...
I think disabling questionable caches has been going on since the start of the game.

 

Disabling is not archiving.

 

The cache you're talking about has no bearing on this topic.

 

Just like the first one. It was first archived with a note a bit similar to the cache in question. This DOES have bearing on thie discussion. How do you know that the next step wasn't archival? If that cache wasn't found, we have no idea the curse this cache was about to be taken down.

 

RR, one BIG difference, the cache WAS reactivated. As for what MIGHT have happened, well, there is no way to tell. Perhaps the cache would have been archived. Then who knows, maybe the owner would have sent in a few photos, and taken his or her local reviewer to the cache and the reviewer would have kept it archived because it was just too hard to find. The Maybe Jeremy would have flown out in the Groundspeak Lear Jet, investigated the situation, held a "beer summit", re enabled the cache and caused and outbreak of world peace.

 

You can't use what might have happened to bolster your argument, there is no way to prove "might have been's"

 

You say we see questionable caches disabled all the time. Can you remember the last one that was disabed just a few logs after the owner said it was OK? Any that were disabled with a note saying this cache has a lot of DNFs so check it and repair replace...if replaced blah blah blah? In other words, despite the owner checkigng it 4 times, this cache was disabled as being missing...seems the disabling was the questionable part of all that...to me at least.

 

So yes, I see a reason for concern about this.

 

I don't see it.......... the reviewer had concerns and acted appropriately. The cache was then found and all is well.

Share this post


Link to post
If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.
We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, :unsure: but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...
I think disabling questionable caches has been going on since the start of the game.

 

Disabling is not archiving.

 

The cache you're talking about has no bearing on this topic.

 

Just like the first one. It was first archived with a note a bit similar to the cache in question. This DOES have bearing on thie discussion. How do you know that the next step wasn't archival? If that cache wasn't found, we have no idea the curse this cache was about to be taken down.

 

RR, one BIG difference, the cache WAS reactivated. As for what MIGHT have happened, well, there is no way to tell. Perhaps the cache would have been archived. Then who knows, maybe the owner would have sent in a few photos, and taken his or her local reviewer to the cache and the reviewer would have kept it archived because it was just too hard to find. The Maybe Jeremy would have flown out in the Groundspeak Lear Jet, investigated the situation, held a "beer summit", re enabled the cache and caused and outbreak of world peace.

 

You can't use what might have happened to bolster your argument, there is no way to prove "might have been's"

 

You say we see questionable caches disabled all the time. Can you remember the last one that was disabed just a few logs after the owner said it was OK? Any that were disabled with a note saying this cache has a lot of DNFs so check it and repair replace...if replaced blah blah blah? In other words, despite the owner checkigng it 4 times, this cache was disabled as being missing...seems the disabling was the questionable part of all that...to me at least.

 

So yes, I see a reason for concern about this.

 

I don't see it.......... the reviewer had concerns and acted appropriately. The cache was then found and all is well.

 

I know I'd be pretty concerned if, after I had just checked and stated checking to make sure the cache was still there, the reviewer disabled my cache. Even if I didn't know anyting about this thread, that would give me reason for concern. Why did the reviewer have concerns? Because of the inordinate amount of DNFs? That seems a first to me. What constitutes an inordinate amount? Why disable? Why didn't the reviewer simply email the owner asking about his concern?

 

Seems this is a perfect reason for concern. You say the cache was found and all is good...what if the cache hadn't been found? You can't see the similarities?

Share this post


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

Maybe not, but I think these two exchanges came pretty close.

 

This one:

 

I'm more than happy to debate the different "theories" all anyone wants to ...
Then please consider this as a hypothetical:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

I have no desire to play these games with you. :unsure:

Oh well. :unsure:

 

It was worth a try...

... and this one:

 

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?

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

There are others as well.

 

Whenever anyone asks you to reexamine your viewpoint in a way that might better allow you to see the issue from another person’s point of view, you recoil and blow it off, calling it "games."

 

That doesn’t sound very open-minded to me. That sounds more like an absolute refusal to discuss this situation—the very thing you deny doing.

 

(And now that I’ve pointed that out, I expect you will again respond by accusing me of "playing games" with you.)

 

Seems to me that if you really want to sell your viewpoint you might want to consider some tactic other than childish obfuscation. It’s not a very effective persuasion tool.

 

A person who is confident in his point of view shouldn’t be afraid to open it up to question, or to question it in his own mind. If a viewpoint can’t withstand such questioning, then what good is it?

 

Sad KBI, but who's fault is it that I won't engage with you, Mushtang, KBI and maybe a couple others (at most)? Could it be that I've been down that road a few times before and am now gunshy? You guys have played this game I have detailed more than a few times with me, yet you want me to just blindly accept that this time will be different? Sorry, you made that bed, my friend!

 

Withstanding a few questions if fine, spinarama and demand/twist are games which I am not quick enough to play, you guys are pros. Take that as a compliment if you'd like, it's not exactly meant to be. Your tactics are to rile, agitate, spin and twist until you have me so confounded "I" don't even know what I said. This is nothing I am interested in playing, my friend!

 

So, you can call me a liar, you can say I won't back my statements...but you and I both know he truth. And truly, I don't believe you're actually interested in my opinion anyway, are you? I mean, I've given it enough and all I see is agitation and games being played, so why such interest that some continually DEMAND my answers?

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post
If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.
We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, :unsure: but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...
I think disabling questionable caches has been going on since the start of the game.

 

Disabling is not archiving.

 

The cache you're talking about has no bearing on this topic.

 

Just like the first one. It was first archived with a note a bit similar to the cache in question. This DOES have bearing on thie discussion. How do you know that the next step wasn't archival? If that cache wasn't found, we have no idea the curse this cache was about to be taken down.

 

RR, one BIG difference, the cache WAS reactivated. As for what MIGHT have happened, well, there is no way to tell. Perhaps the cache would have been archived. Then who knows, maybe the owner would have sent in a few photos, and taken his or her local reviewer to the cache and the reviewer would have kept it archived because it was just too hard to find. The Maybe Jeremy would have flown out in the Groundspeak Lear Jet, investigated the situation, held a "beer summit", re enabled the cache and caused and outbreak of world peace.

 

You can't use what might have happened to bolster your argument, there is no way to prove "might have been's"

 

You say we see questionable caches disabled all the time. Can you remember the last one that was disabed just a few logs after the owner said it was OK? Any that were disabled with a note saying this cache has a lot of DNFs so check it and repair replace...if replaced blah blah blah? In other words, despite the owner checkigng it 4 times, this cache was disabled as being missing...seems the disabling was the questionable part of all that...to me at least.

 

So yes, I see a reason for concern about this.

 

I don't see it.......... the reviewer had concerns and acted appropriately. The cache was then found and all is well.

 

I know I'd be pretty concerned if, after I had just checked and stated checking to make sure the cache was still there, the reviewer disabled my cache. Even if I didn't know anyting about this thread, that would give me reason for concern. Why did the reviewer have concerns? Because of the inordinate amount of DNFs? That seems a first to me. What constitutes an inordinate amount? Why disable? Why didn't the reviewer simply email the owner asking about his concern?

 

Seems this is a perfect reason for concern. You say the cache was found and all is good...what if the cache hadn't been found? You can't see the similarities?

 

Simple RR, if the reviewer has concerns about the cache, he or she should disable it. At that point, they can ask for whatever information/actions seem needed and reasonable. What is an inordinate amount of DNF's?? I'd say it depends on the cache. A 1.5/1.5 that has few, if any DNF's that suddenly starts racking them up, 3-4 DNF's and I'd be concerned. A 5 Star, depends on the number of DNF's AND the cachers that have DNF'd it. A bunch of rookie cachers who have mostly found 1 and 2 star caches, not as big of a concern as a few high number cachers who regularly go after the tough ones, then I'd be looking.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Simple RR, if the reviewer has concerns about the cache, he or she should disable it. At that point, they can ask for whatever information/actions seem needed and reasonable. What is an inordinate amount of DNF's?? I'd say it depends on the cache. A 1.5/1.5 that has few, if any DNF's that suddenly starts racking them up, 3-4 DNF's and I'd be concerned. A 5 Star, depends on the number of DNF's AND the cachers that have DNF'd it. A bunch of rookie cachers who have mostly found 1 and 2 star caches, not as big of a concern as a few high number cachers who regularly go after the tough ones, then I'd be looking.

 

So checking the cache 4 times doesn't alleve any concerns the reviewer has? Being an active CO has no bearing on whether the cache is being maintained or not (surely, that must be the concern of the reviewer unless they're saying the cache is a hoax...right?)? Again, why disable? Why not privately ask since it's obvious (to me at least) that the CO is doing her job.

 

I'm not questioning whether a problem cache should be disaled, I wonder why this one was considered a problem cache if the CO is active...unless the reviewer believes the cache not to be there at all. Isn't that saying the CO lied when she stated all was well just a few logs before? IMHO, this isn't a problem cache. A problem cache would (again, IMHO) be those which seem to be neglected, the owner is inactive ec. Since when did a lot of DNFs equate to a problem cache?

 

How many DNFs are now required before I must either fake a find or expect my cache to be called a "problem" cache?

Share this post


Link to post
If this were a recurring problem and caches were getting archived with no explanation left and right, I'd be concerned too. But a one time occurrence like this... not a problem for me.
We won't mention a few previous because it angers one of our friends, :unsure: but we just saw them disable one yesterday. If it hadn't been found today, we have no idea where that was going...
I think disabling questionable caches has been going on since the start of the game.

 

Disabling is not archiving.

 

The cache you're talking about has no bearing on this topic.

 

Just like the first one. It was first archived with a note a bit similar to the cache in question. This DOES have bearing on thie discussion. How do you know that the next step wasn't archival? If that cache wasn't found, we have no idea the curse this cache was about to be taken down.

 

RR, one BIG difference, the cache WAS reactivated. As for what MIGHT have happened, well, there is no way to tell. Perhaps the cache would have been archived. Then who knows, maybe the owner would have sent in a few photos, and taken his or her local reviewer to the cache and the reviewer would have kept it archived because it was just too hard to find. The Maybe Jeremy would have flown out in the Groundspeak Lear Jet, investigated the situation, held a "beer summit", re enabled the cache and caused and outbreak of world peace.

 

You can't use what might have happened to bolster your argument, there is no way to prove "might have been's"

 

You say we see questionable caches disabled all the time. Can you remember the last one that was disabed just a few logs after the owner said it was OK? Any that were disabled with a note saying this cache has a lot of DNFs so check it and repair replace...if replaced blah blah blah? In other words, despite the owner checkigng it 4 times, this cache was disabled as being missing...seems the disabling was the questionable part of all that...to me at least.

 

So yes, I see a reason for concern about this.

 

I don't see it.......... the reviewer had concerns and acted appropriately. The cache was then found and all is well.

 

I know I'd be pretty concerned if, after I had just checked and stated checking to make sure the cache was still there, the reviewer disabled my cache. Even if I didn't know anything about this thread, that would give me reason for concern. Why did the reviewer have concerns? Because of the inordinate amount of DNFs? That seems a first to me. What constitutes an inordinate amount? Why disable? Why didn't the reviewer simply email the owner asking about his concern?

 

Seems this is a perfect reason for concern. You say the cache was found and all is good...what if the cache hadn't been found? You can't see the similarities?

 

The situations are the same. Only the outcome was different due to it being found. An act of which only puts more egg on GS faces. It also points to a new unspoken, unwritten rule being enforced that we must use tea leaves and smoke to discern in placing a cache. As for the number of finds a cachet has giving him more credibility over another I call bunk. Anyone can get high numbers from multi-logging to park and grab runs. Numbers mean nothing when it comes to skill in this game.

 

Let the kool-aid drinkers guzzle their brew. What is going on is obvious even without word from GS to verify. I have chosen to speak with my wallet at this point until this issue is either changed, clarified, or resolved. We will not be renewing our membership nor buying any of their product. We will let those that do not know about what is going on and encourage them to do the same as well. I'm tired of all the unwritten hoops and guessing games.

Edited by Sileny Jizda

Share this post


Link to post

Roddy, seriously, when do you have time to cache? It seems like you spend most of your time on the forums............. :unsure:

 

Each case is different, each reviewer is different. I'd say that in 99.999999% of the cases, the reviewers do the right thing. That does not mean their actions are always correct, but made for the right reasons.

 

A lot of DNF's on a cache should be taken by the reviewers as a sign that there may indeed be a problem. I know of a few caches in my area that have gone MIA after being replaced before anyone could find them.

 

As for "faking" a find to keep your cache from being disabled, I'd say that that would count as a "bogus log" and if discovered, should result in the immediate archiving of the cache, locking it, and suspending the owners account for a while.

 

Roddy, it seems to me that at times in this thread, you are trying to keep it going by stretching for similarities that just aren't there. You've used the "what might have happened" argument to make your point.

 

We need to stay "on target" here. We can't make arguments about what might have happened, or facts not in evidence. There is only one person who knows for sure if the cache really existed. His story, while plausible, does create some doubt. When Miss Jen posted that she supported Nomex's actions, the cache had already been thrown away. From the time line that I can figure out, it was tossed the day the cache was archived.

 

The only thing that concerns me with this situation is the way the logs made things look. In my opinion, there was a serious breakdown in communication. If Nomex wanted proof that the cache was there, he could have asked for it, or at least posted a note along the lines of " There have been some concerns raised about this cache, could you please contact me at such and such email address so we can discuss this further before re-enabling this cache"

 

NOTE, I am NOT in any way singling Nomex out for censure. I believe that sooner or later this sort of issue would have happened with the canned notes, it is unfortunate that he was the "lucky one". I've spoken via email with some of the cachers from his area, and I am assured that he does a great job, and has a reputation for being quite fair and understanding.

Share this post


Link to post

Roddy, seriously, when do you have time to cache? It seems like you spend most of your time on the forums............. :unsure:

 

Each case is different, each reviewer is different. I'd say that in 99.999999% of the cases, the reviewers do the right thing. That does not mean their actions are always correct, but made for the right reasons.

 

A lot of DNF's on a cache should be taken by the reviewers as a sign that there may indeed be a problem. I know of a few caches in my area that have gone MIA after being replaced before anyone could find them.

 

As for "faking" a find to keep your cache from being disabled, I'd say that that would count as a "bogus log" and if discovered, should result in the immediate archiving of the cache, locking it, and suspending the owners account for a while.

 

Roddy, it seems to me that at times in this thread, you are trying to keep it going by stretching for similarities that just aren't there. You've used the "what might have happened" argument to make your point.

 

We need to stay "on target" here. We can't make arguments about what might have happened, or facts not in evidence. There is only one person who knows for sure if the cache really existed. His story, while plausible, does create some doubt. When Miss Jen posted that she supported Nomex's actions, the cache had already been thrown away. From the time line that I can figure out, it was tossed the day the cache was archived.

 

The only thing that concerns me with this situation is the way the logs made things look. In my opinion, there was a serious breakdown in communication. If Nomex wanted proof that the cache was there, he could have asked for it, or at least posted a note along the lines of " There have been some concerns raised about this cache, could you please contact me at such and such email address so we can discuss this further before re-enabling this cache"

 

NOTE, I am NOT in any way singling Nomex out for censure. I believe that sooner or later this sort of issue would have happened with the canned notes, it is unfortunate that he was the "lucky one". I've spoken via email with some of the cachers from his area, and I am assured that he does a great job, and has a reputation for being quite fair and understanding.

 

Respectfully, I am unemployed and have no money for gas to go caching. If I did, I would be out and caching. So, I don't mind playing in here. :unsure:

 

I'd agree with the percentage of correct actions, I see a few cases right here though that cause concern. It may not for you, it surely does for me. I hide caches which are sometimes considered hard and I don't want to worry that I will soon be forced to prove my hide exists. Seriously, the owner checked the cache just DAYS before it was disabled (could have been sooner, I've not gone back to the page to check the exact time). no one has found it and it's HIGHLY unlikely to have been muggled..so why would a reviewer think this is a problem cache? One thing I can think of (STRIKING SIMILARITY ALERT :unsure: )...because a previous searcher complained. Truly, the cache wouldn't even be in the reviewer's radar otherwise, would it?

 

I shouldn't have to fake a find at all, but then, I shouldn't have to worry that my cache will suddenly be disabled and I will need to prove I'm not lying. I believe your idea of the handling of the situation is waaay overboard though, if the situation and outcome of this (the cache in question that started this thread) is an indicator...they have enough reason to believe the CO LIED and then carried on that lie while all the while the cache was a hoax...is a lot worse than trying to protect my cache from a worried finder that can't help themselves but to complain simply because they aren't good enough to make a find.

 

I'm not stretching a thing, the facts are right there to be seen. If you aren't concerned, that's fine. I am and I will discuss it as much as I see fit! I am not being rude to you, my friend, please don't tell me I am purposely exxaggerating in order to carry on the thread, I am sure most here can see this is NOT the case. These are honest concerns and I am happy to endure the now expected assaults to discuss my concern.

 

Why are you backtracking to the original cache? Why are you still trying to prove/disprove something many of us have acknowledged matters little at this point? The point I am discussing here is the new cache and I believe I am very much on target. The "one off" theory is now proven wrong by yet another similar case, saying we can't worry because of the cache being found is like saying we shouldn't worry about the next big quake merely because we felt a few tremors. Sticking my head in the sand and pretending life is peachy has not proven to work well for me, I will speak my concerns and hope they are being heard!

 

The statement about handling the cache in the OP...we agree.

 

In the end, I surely hope this doesn't become the norm, you'll have to excuse me if I am a bit concerned it will be though. Having been here a few years, I wouldn't say I know all the goings ons, but I do know this is the first such disablement for the reason given by the reviewer...and I wonder when the guidelines changed to what seems to be what they are now. When was "cache must be found before too many DNFs" get added to the requirements of hiding a cache?

Share this post


Link to post

But hey Mick, I'd be happy to go caching should a gas card mystically find itself in my mailbox! :unsure: :unsure:

 

Just kidding, my friend. Truly, we've left a few local caches for when the weather is nice and we have a few spare gallons to go out...tonight may be one of those times! Got to wait for the kid to get home though...

Share this post


Link to post

To those who believe that Nomex handled the archival of the cache improperly and that his addition of the word 'years' to the archival note indicate that he was calling SF/TDE a liar, I ask that you take a brief moment to consider the other side of the coin.

 

Imagine that Nomex had irrefutable evidence that the cache never existed. In this scenario, Nomex was dealing with a cacher that had decived the community for years and had just finished lying to Nomex. If that was the case, doesn't it seem like the archival note used a huge amount of restraint?

 

If I were in that situation, my archival note would be a mix of Miss Jenn's email and some of Jeremy's most classic posts.

Share this post


Link to post

To those who believe that Nomex handled the archival of the cache improperly and that his addition of the word 'years' to the archival note indicate that he was calling SF/TDE a liar, I ask that you take a brief moment to consider the other side of the coin.

 

Imagine that Nomex had irrefutable evidence that the cache never existed. In this scenario, Nomex was dealing with a cacher that had decived the community for years and had just finished lying to Nomex. If that was the case, doesn't it seem like the archival note used a huge amount of restraint?

 

If I were in that situation, my archival note would be a mix of Miss Jenn's email and some of Jeremy's most classic posts.

 

Something we can agree on. Take that thought a bit further please...if I had PROOF that all that was accused of the CO was fact, would I let the CO continue to hide caches, to have posting ability in the forums and even to be allowed to cache? My response would be a BAN for a long time so the community has no worry that this purposeful hoax wouldn't be a concern from that CO again and to send a message that lying and trying to get over on the PTB will not be tolerated. I have to wonder why the PTB were so nice about the way they handled the situation.

Share this post


Link to post

To those who believe that Nomex handled the archival of the cache improperly and that his addition of the word 'years' to the archival note indicate that he was calling SF/TDE a liar, I ask that you take a brief moment to consider the other side of the coin.

 

Imagine that Nomex had irrefutable evidence that the cache never existed. In this scenario, Nomex was dealing with a cacher that had decived the community for years and had just finished lying to Nomex. If that was the case, doesn't it seem like the archival note used a huge amount of restraint?

 

If I were in that situation, my archival note would be a mix of Miss Jenn's email and some of Jeremy's most classic posts.

 

Something we can agree on. Take that thought a bit further please...if I had PROOF that all that was accused of the CO was fact, would I let the CO continue to hide caches, to have posting ability in the forums and even to be allowed to cache? My response would be a BAN for a long time so the community has no worry that this purposeful hoax wouldn't be a concern from that CO again and to send a message that lying and trying to get over on the PTB will not be tolerated. I have to wonder why the PTB were so nice about the way they handled the situation.

I suspect that Jeremy was on vacation and everyone else hit the nog.

 

(It should be noted that I'm pretty sure that the volunteer reviewers don't have the authority to ban cachers or do that other stuff.)

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Let the kool-aid drinkers guzzle their brew. What is going on is obvious even without word from GS to verify. I have chosen to speak with my wallet at this point until this issue is either changed, clarified, or resolved. We will not be renewing our membership nor buying any of their product. We will let those that do not know about what is going on and encourage them to do the same as well. I'm tired of all the unwritten hoops and guessing games.

Wow! Really? Unwritten hoops and guessing games? And you'll abandon your membership over one incident?

 

But, I 'll bet you will still use their site for free. And come in their forum to criticize them, for free.

 

This thread has been long and heated but in the end it's all about very little. Someone did something controversial, lots of us discussed it, no resolution an be had and the thing is slowly winding down. Happens from time to time in any forum.

 

But hoops and guessing games? I've been in the game for a little while, found a few caches, hidden some, but never had to jump through a hoop or play a guessing game.

 

Quit 'em if you want, but please find a legitimate excuse. :unsure:

 

Sign me

Kool-aid drinker

Share this post


Link to post

To those who believe that Nomex handled the archival of the cache improperly and that his addition of the word 'years' to the archival note indicate that he was calling SF/TDE a liar, I ask that you take a brief moment to consider the other side of the coin.

 

Imagine that Nomex had irrefutable evidence that the cache never existed. In this scenario, Nomex was dealing with a cacher that had decived the community for years and had just finished lying to Nomex. If that was the case, doesn't it seem like the archival note used a huge amount of restraint?

 

If I were in that situation, my archival note would be a mix of Miss Jenn's email and some of Jeremy's most classic posts.

 

Something we can agree on. Take that thought a bit further please...if I had PROOF that all that was accused of the CO was fact, would I let the CO continue to hide caches, to have posting ability in the forums and even to be allowed to cache? My response would be a BAN for a long time so the community has no worry that this purposeful hoax wouldn't be a concern from that CO again and to send a message that lying and trying to get over on the PTB will not be tolerated. I have to wonder why the PTB were so nice about the way they handled the situation.

I suspect that Jeremy was on vacation and everyone else hit the nog.

 

(It should be noted that I'm pretty sure that the volunteer reviewers don't have the authority to ban cachers or do that other stuff.)

 

I'd be willling to bet Miss Jenn does though...

 

Let me ask you this, and you can answer or not as you please :unsure: I may have already asked, but whay are you so willing to accept that TPTB have the smoking gun? You seem to keep saying you wholeheartedly believe they have it....why?

Share this post


Link to post

The cat, regardless of ownership, is most likely off topic.

 

Ah, but you are assuming that the cat actually exists. Perhaps flask's neighbor doesn't HAVE a cat. And yet, flask was asked to check on this non-existent cat. How will flask respond?

 

I wait in breathless anticipation, and see this cat discussion as an allegory for the entire thread.

Share this post


Link to post

The cat, regardless of ownership, is most likely off topic.

 

Ah, but you are assuming that the cat actually exists. Perhaps flask's neighbor doesn't HAVE a cat. And yet, flask was asked to check on this non-existent cat. How will flask respond?

 

I wait in breathless anticipation, and see this cat discussion as an allegory for the entire thread.

 

I see it as off-topic. If you want to discuss the thread, then there's enough here to discuss without muddying it up! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

To those who believe that Nomex handled the archival of the cache improperly and that his addition of the word 'years' to the archival note indicate that he was calling SF/TDE a liar, I ask that you take a brief moment to consider the other side of the coin.

 

Imagine that Nomex had irrefutable evidence that the cache never existed. In this scenario, Nomex was dealing with a cacher that had decived the community for years and had just finished lying to Nomex. If that was the case, doesn't it seem like the archival note used a huge amount of restraint?

 

If I were in that situation, my archival note would be a mix of Miss Jenn's email and some of Jeremy's most classic posts.

 

Good point. It is quite possible that Nomex wanted to say a lot more, but given that he could not explain himself, chose to just alter a canned response to add more weight without saying all he wanted to say.

 

However, given that this was a special circumstance where I believe Nomex was called in for a specific reason, then care should have been given in how it was handled from beginning to end.

 

All I am asking for is that TPTB consider this, learn from this, and use what has been learned from this in the future.

 

When the circumstances are such that you are not able to back up your claims and especially if you are dealing with a problematic cacher that you know has the potential to cause a stink, do not use a canned note. Take the time to word your response in order to mitigate the type of firestorm that this response caused.

Share this post


Link to post

I see it as off-topic. If you want to discuss the thread, then there's enough here to discuss without muddying it up! :unsure:

 

And I see your "I'll post anything to keep this thread at the top of the list" tactics as off-topic. You appear to be less interested in making a rational argument than in simply having the last word.

 

By the way, you may notice that I trimmed most of the quotes-of-quotes from this post, and kept only the bit to which I was replying. You might want to try it, it makes the post much easier to read.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...