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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Yep, good excuse to post off-topic....he did it, why can't I?? Just so you know, I RARELY posted off topic, I was happy to let others since they were helping one of my goals though! :unsure:

 

THANKS for the tip, my friend, but I'll post in the manner I feel and you have the right to do the same. But hey, if it bothers you, I'm sure there are plenty of threads where others post how you like! Adding to that, if you'd care to look back, you'll note I have done just as you suggest on occassion...and I would note that I appear not to be the only one guilty of this?

 

btw...the sarcasm, you'll note it's happily met likewise! :unsure:

Edited by Rockin Roddy

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.

 

Or send a private email and make any claims you can prove...in private.

 

We agree on most all counts, my friend. Nicely worded too!

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yep, good excuse to post off-topic....he did it, why can't I?? Just so you know, I RARELY posted off topic, I was happy to let others since they were helping one of my goals though! :unsure:

 

 

Isn't it off-topic to tell someone that they are off-topic?

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 the endless pages of "I know you are, but what am I?" are on topic?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yep, good excuse to post off-topic....he did it, why can't I?? Just so you know, I RARELY posted off topic, I was happy to let others since they were helping one of my goals though! :unsure:

 

 

Isn't it off-topic to tell someone that they are off-topic?

 

I'm off-topic! You're off-topic! This whole darned thread is off-topic!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yep, good excuse to post off-topic....he did it, why can't I?? Just so you know, I RARELY posted off topic, I was happy to let others since they were helping one of my goals though! :unsure:

 

 

Isn't it off-topic to tell someone that they are off-topic?

 

Sorry, you posted that you saw it on-topic. I commented my opinion and you got all edgy. And also sorry that I had to point out that you were indeed off-topic to begin with, just letting you know since you seemed to think otherwise.

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 the endless pages of "I know you are, but what am I?" are on topic?

 

Yep, but I would hope we could get past all the crud and get back to the topic at hand! :unsure: Seems some would rather that didn't happen though!

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yep, good excuse to post off-topic....he did it, why can't I?? Just so you know, I RARELY posted off topic, I was happy to let others since they were helping one of my goals though! :unsure:

 

 

Isn't it off-topic to tell someone that they are off-topic?

 

You know... the nazis would often go off topic.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yep, good excuse to post off-topic....he did it, why can't I?? Just so you know, I RARELY posted off topic, I was happy to let others since they were helping one of my goals though! :unsure:

 

 

Isn't it off-topic to tell someone that they are off-topic?

 

Sorry, you posted that you saw it on-topic. I commented my opinion and you got all edgy. And also sorry that I had to point out that you were indeed off-topic to begin with, just letting you know since you seemed to think otherwise.

 

Hey, flask, how's your neighbor's cat?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yep, good excuse to post off-topic....he did it, why can't I?? Just so you know, I RARELY posted off topic, I was happy to let others since they were helping one of my goals though! :unsure:

 

 

Isn't it off-topic to tell someone that they are off-topic?

 

I'm off-topic! You're off-topic! This whole darned thread is off-topic!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:unsure:

 

And with that in mind, I must take leave. The bank gets edgy when I am late to make a payment and I pushed it as far as possible! :unsure:

 

Oh darn, I'm off-topic here. To get back on-topic, I still say the last cache being discussed is very similar...there, that should do it!

 

:unsure::unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

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

I suspect they have the power to do whatever they want... and that's the point. For ~10 years they have used their power fairly to do good and build this game and community. Folks get banned from the forum but I can't remember anyone being banned from listing caches. No doubt it has happened, but I think that you'd have to be a seriously bad actor for them to do it.

 

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?

This takes us back to the early days of this thread. Faith. Earned trust. ~10 years of good example. Because I believe that they investigated this situation and backed the Reviewer... and I know for a fact that they do not blindly back their Reviewers. There is no secret society where Reviewers can act out at will.

 

Plus

 

Let's say that the Reviewer had a mad on with this guy, archived his cache for no reason, called him a liar, really peed in this boy's Wheaties, and Groundspeak said "That's cool." Even if that extreme were the case, I would be okay with that. If it became a habit I would grow concerned, but I realize people get wound up, do silly things they might later regret. It happens. Move on.

 

Geocachers sometimes get elevated to Reviewers, Reviewers never get elevated to Gods. Well, except for Mtn-Man. :unsure: Sometimes they cause controversy. When that happens it does not set a precedent. We cannot, despite my expressed concern earlier over the second similar incident, let this one or possibly two incidents cloud our judgment and make us fear the cache reaper.

 

So, to answer your question more succinctly, I believe Groundspeak because they said it.

 

Edit to add: Does this mean I have to change my forum sig to "Kool-aid Drinker"? :unsure:

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler

Share this post


Link to post

 

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.

 

The Voice of Reason raised its ugly head once more...

Share this post


Link to post

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

I suspect they have the power to do whatever they want... and that's the point. For ~10 years they have used their power fairly to do good and build this game and community. Folks get banned from the forum but I can't remember anyone being banned from listing caches. No doubt it has happened, but I think that you'd have to be a seriously bad actor for them to do it.

 

Actually, I was banned completely from the site at one point for supporting the idea of the illegal alien geocoin....

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

 

It's free to use. I don't have to support them with my hard earned money though. In regards to hoops yes they exist. In regards to unwritten rules yes they exist. I joined this hobby to have fun not play "read GroundSpeaks mind" games. My reasons for no longer supporting them monitarily are mine and good enough for me. As has been pointed out this has not been an isolated incident as you and a few others would like people to believe. Another was brought up recently. How many others have happened that we have not heard about? I'm betting more.

 

As for the hoops in our specific area myself and others have discussed it many times over the past year. People are getting tired of the unwritten policies and rules. I will not address them here because it isn't the place. Other than that like this situation it's pointless to even try. Like this one it is ignored, swept under the rug, or dismissed. My money is best spent elsewhere until they get the message. Like anything else though I'm sure it will be ignored as well.

Share this post


Link to post

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

I suspect they have the power to do whatever they want... and that's the point. For ~10 years they have used their power fairly to do good and build this game and community. Folks get banned from the forum but I can't remember anyone being banned from listing caches. No doubt it has happened, but I think that you'd have to be a seriously bad actor for them to do it.

 

 

I have ran across profiles that have been banned. I dont have any links so I must be lying :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Holy Cow!! Is this thing still going???? I figured it would have died out by now.

Shhh! Don't put 'em off!

 

<whispers>2000 posts! 2000 posts! 2000 posts!</whispers>

 

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
... 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.
I have. (Darn puzzle caches.)

 

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...
As I recall, Miss Jenn's email all but drew the gun and set it on the table in front of her so SF/TDE could see how serious she was.
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?
Because I have every reason to trust them and (based on his posts and the posts of others) no reason to trust SF/TDE.

 

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.

That probably describes our difference of opinion as well as anything.

 

I feel that a canned note is less likely to cause drama than a custom note. I also feel that the small change that he did make to the note was enough to 1) let SF/TDE know that he was aware of his shenanigans and 2) clue those cachers who had their time wasted on the deception. Others believe that this second part is unnecessary, but I think that when a fraud is perpetrated on someone that he/she should be made aware of it.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
I'd be willling to bet Miss Jenn does though...
I suspect they have the power to do whatever they want... and that's the point. For ~10 years they have used their power fairly to do good and build this game and community. Folks get banned from the forum but I can't remember anyone being banned from listing caches. No doubt it has happened, but I think that you'd have to be a seriously bad actor for them to do it.
I have ran across profiles that have been banned. I dont have any links so I must be lying :unsure:
Some people have been banned over the years. It happens and I'm glad for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Holy Cow!! Is this thing still going???? I figured it would have died out by now.

Shhh! Don't put 'em off!

 

<whispers>2000 posts! 2000 posts! 2000 posts!</whispers>

 

:unsure:

 

5 days to 500 posts

9 days from 500 to 1000

7 days from 1000 to 1500

 

I'd say the posts are picking up a little steam.

Share this post


Link to post

It's free to use. I don't have to support them with my hard earned money though.

True, and isn't that cool? Stop paying your phone bill because you're mad at your carrier and see how long you can talk.

 

In regards to hoops yes they exist. In regards to unwritten rules yes they exist.

Care to back those assertions with facts?

 

I joined this hobby to have fun not play "read GroundSpeaks mind" games.

Can you show me a single incident of a "read Groundspeak's mind" game? Just one?

 

My reasons for no longer supporting them monitarily are mine and good enough for me. As has been pointed out this has not been an isolated incident as you and a few others would like people to believe. Another was brought up recently. How many others have happened that we have not heard about? I'm betting more.

Me too. With millions of cache listing published while building a business and training a force of ~100 volunteer Reviewers I am sure there have been many unfortunate incidents. As far as I can tell Groundspeak used them as learning experiences and fixed the problem.

 

As for the hoops in our specific area myself and others have discussed it many times over the past year. People are getting tired of the unwritten policies and rules. I will not address them here because it isn't the place.

By casting unsupported allegations in this forum you just made it the place. Let's hear 'em!

 

Other than that like this situation it's pointless to even try. Like this one it is ignored, swept under the rug, or dismissed. My money is best spent elsewhere until they get the message. Like anything else though I'm sure it will be ignored as well.

How can anything change unless someone tries? They've given you an international forum to freely discuss your concerns and grievances. Use it. If you are right I strongly believe that they will back you.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler

Share this post


Link to post
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.

That probably describes our difference of opinion as well as anything.

 

I feel that a canned note is less likely to cause drama than a custom note. I also feel that the small change that he did make to the note was enough to 1) let SF/TDE know that he was aware of his shenanigans and 2) clue those cachers who had their time wasted on the deception. Others believe that this second part is unnecessary, but I think that when a fraud is perpetrated on someone that he/she should be made aware of it.

 

I am fine with leaving it with the two of us having differing opinions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

I am honestly not sufficiently worked up over this issue to put much more effort into it. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

It's free to use. I don't have to support them with my hard earned money though.

 

I admire and support your decision to show your disapproval by choosing not to support GS with your dollars.

 

In regards to hoops yes they exist. In regards to unwritten rules yes they exist. I joined this hobby to have fun not play "read GroundSpeaks mind" games. My reasons for no longer supporting them monitarily are mine and good enough for me. As has been pointed out this has not been an isolated incident as you and a few others would like people to believe. Another was brought up recently. How many others have happened that we have not heard about? I'm betting more.

 

As for the hoops in our specific area myself and others have discussed it many times over the past year. People are getting tired of the unwritten policies and rules. I will not address them here because it isn't the place. Other than that like this situation it's pointless to even try. Like this one it is ignored, swept under the rug, or dismissed.

 

You may wish to start a new topic if these incidents are not similar to what happened in this case.

 

But if you are going to make claims of unwritten rules and having to jump through hoops, then you should be willing to support that claim. That is no different than what transpired here.

Share this post


Link to post

Imagine that Nomex had irrefutable evidence that the cache never existed.

My response must, as a matter of course, be speculation, but here goes:

I suspect that if Nomex and Miss Jenn had rock solid proof that Super Fly played a two+ year long hoax on the geocaching community, resulting in at least 27 wasted attempts to find a non-existent hide, he would no longer be welcome here. If I were part of TPTB, I would take great personal affront at such an act, and take steps to ensure it did not happen again. The loss of that cacher's $30 annual revenue would be paltry compared to the damage he had done.

 

My suspicions are more along the line of:

The local reviewers developed a working theory that the cache was not there, despite what SF posted. How they developed this theory is immaterial to me, at this stage. Having had some experience with SF, they called for some outside assistance, and Nomex, being the good guy he is, answered the call. He checked out the issue as thoroughly as he was able, listening to the local reviewers and examining whatever evidence they had, and came to the same conclusion as the locals, believing that SF had tried to pull a fast one. This aggravated him, and his emotions crept into his copy/past note.

 

Let's say that the Reviewer had a mad on with this guy, archived his cache for no reason, called him a liar, really peed in this boy's Wheaties, and Groundspeak said "That's cool." Even if that extreme were the case, I would be okay with that.

Ed, this is where you and I must disagree. In my day to day job, I am a "person of authority". This has been (mostly), my career since joining the Army Military Police in '82. Over the years, one thing I've learned is that people in authority must never abuse that authority. I know it happens on occasion, but for the public to turn a blind eye to it is as reprehensible as the initial act itself. The situation is only further exacerbated what the boss of the person in authority reviews what has occurred and takes no action against the violator. I think it sets a real bad precedent.

 

Imagine if I conducted a traffic stop, and cussed out a little ole lady. She obtains proof that I did this and presents it to the public. The public replies with "Meh... Get over it lady. He's just doing his job". She takes it to my boss and gets a similar response. That's going to put law enforcement in a bad light, deservedly.

 

Can you show me a single incident of a "read Groundspeak's mind" game? Just one?

I'd say the posts on SF's cache were a pretty fair example. Presumably, (based upon some posts the Groundspeak defenders have made), Nomex wanted proof that the cache was real, when he disabled it. Yet, rather than ask for that proof, he cited a maintenance guideline that mentions a cache owner should periodically check on their cache, and requests that SF do this. Had SF been a mind reader, one of two things seem likely:

 

1 ) He would've known his bluff was called, and he would've slunk away with his tail betwixt his legs.

or

2 ) He would've obtained and submitted proof that the cache was in place, as he claimed.

 

Since he is not a mind reader, he had little choice but to fall back on doing what was asked of him, which was "Check Your Cache". Assuming for argument's sake (again), that this was not a hoax perpetrated on the whole caching community, SF's cache was nuked because he did what he was told to do, rather than doing what Nomex supposedly wanted done.

Share this post


Link to post

After three weeks and 34 pages everything relevant has been said.

 

The horse is dead. I believe I speak for the majority of readers when I say we are tired of this thread.

 

If you feel you have not had sufficient opportunity to speak your mind, please send an e-mail to appeals.

 

In respect of the Holiday Season, there is a mandatory 26 day waiting.cooling off period before starting any new threads. If you do decide to start a new thread after Christmas, please have new evidence.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...