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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

Seems you have a problem with the guideline that requires a gps to be used to find ANY cache.

I wasn't aware of that guideline. Got a link?

I know there's something in the guidelines worded to the effect of, "A GRPr must be used to obtain the coordinates for any hide, but I didn't know Groundspeak requires that we use a GPSr to find the things. I know there will be many folks in here that would be sorely disappointed by such a guideline, as they take great personal pride in finding caches without modern, high tech gadgets.

From the section- Rules that apply to all geocache types"

 

"You as the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS. GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions."

Share this post


Link to post
Seems you have a problem with the guideline that requires a gps to be used to find ANY cache.
I wasn't aware of that guideline. Got a link?

I know there's something in the guidelines worded to the effect of, "A GRPr must be used to obtain the coordinates for any hide, but I didn't know Groundspeak requires that we use a GPSr to find the things. I know there will be many folks in here that would be sorely disappointed by such a guideline, as they take great personal pride in finding caches without modern, high tech gadgets.

The paragraph in question is:

You as the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS. GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions.

That last sentence means that there must be at least one stage of the hunt in which, if the seeker wishes, they can use their GPSr.

 

For example, a Traditional cache always allows this, because even if the listing says "the cache is on the statue in the middle of the square", you could choose to just follow the arrow.

 

For a Mystery cache, you can't just say "park near the above coordinates, walk along the path to the east, and the cache is behind the fifth tree on the right", because you're not using the accuracy of the GPS. It's OK for the placer to give that information as well as a GPS-based way to find the cache, but there has to be the option at least. In other words, your cache description can't be a pure letterbox hunt.

Or a picture of an iphone looking at an open field from 10,000 ft with no coordinates to enter into your gps.

Edited by JohnE5

Share this post


Link to post
Seems you have a problem with the guideline that requires a gps to be used to find ANY cache.

I wasn't aware of that guideline. Got a link?

I know there's something in the guidelines worded to the effect of, "A GRPr must be used to obtain the coordinates for any hide, but I didn't know Groundspeak requires that we use a GPSr to find the things. I know there will be many folks in here that would be sorely disappointed by such a guideline, as they take great personal pride in finding caches without modern, high tech gadgets.

 

Yea, like kkool2, who I introduced to geocaching on a trip to Indiana, has over 400 finds using only a compass and a grid map. I'm sure he will be very disappointed to know that all of his finds are illegitimate.

Share this post


Link to post

5) GC1GG8V

The reason for the archiving was what was edited out!!!

Because everyone is out to get you and remove your perfectly logical, eloquent, level-headed remarks that you made when you archived it.

 

 

There are still 248 caches left to pick apart

Share this post


Link to post
Seems you have a problem with the guideline that requires a gps to be used to find ANY cache.

I wasn't aware of that guideline. Got a link?

I know there's something in the guidelines worded to the effect of, "A GRPr must be used to obtain the coordinates for any hide, but I didn't know Groundspeak requires that we use a GPSr to find the things. I know there will be many folks in here that would be sorely disappointed by such a guideline, as they take great personal pride in finding caches without modern, high tech gadgets.

 

Yea, like kkool2, who I introduced to geocaching on a trip to Indiana, has over 400 finds using only a compass and a grid map. I'm sure he will be very disappointed to know that all of his finds are illegitimate.

And he was never given lat/long to use with compass and map?

Share this post


Link to post

5) GC1GG8V

The reason for the archiving was what was edited out!!!

Because everyone is out to get you and remove your perfectly logical, eloquent, level-headed remarks that you made when you archived it.

 

 

There are still 248 caches left to pick apart

How many are still active?

Share this post


Link to post
Seems you have a problem with the guideline that requires a gps to be used to find ANY cache.
I wasn't aware of that guideline. Got a link?

I know there's something in the guidelines worded to the effect of, "A GRPr must be used to obtain the coordinates for any hide, but I didn't know Groundspeak requires that we use a GPSr to find the things. I know there will be many folks in here that would be sorely disappointed by such a guideline, as they take great personal pride in finding caches without modern, high tech gadgets.

The paragraph in question is:

You as the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS. GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions.

That last sentence means that there must be at least one stage of the hunt in which, if the seeker wishes, they can use their GPSr.

 

For example, a Traditional cache always allows this, because even if the listing says "the cache is on the statue in the middle of the square", you could choose to just follow the arrow.

 

For a Mystery cache, you can't just say "park near the above coordinates, walk along the path to the east, and the cache is behind the fifth tree on the right", because you're not using the accuracy of the GPS. It's OK for the placer to give that information as well as a GPS-based way to find the cache, but there has to be the option at least. In other words, your cache description can't be a pure letterbox hunt.

Or a picture of an iphone looking at an open field from 10,000 ft with no coordinates to enter into your gps.

 

The whole idea was to get coordinates (if needed) from google earth. Not like what happened, coordinates were marked at the cache site by a cacher who I will not name, then they were passed out in a mass email which was shown to me by a different cacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Seems you have a problem with the guideline that requires a gps to be used to find ANY cache.

I wasn't aware of that guideline. Got a link?

I know there's something in the guidelines worded to the effect of, "A GRPr must be used to obtain the coordinates for any hide, but I didn't know Groundspeak requires that we use a GPSr to find the things. I know there will be many folks in here that would be sorely disappointed by such a guideline, as they take great personal pride in finding caches without modern, high tech gadgets.

 

Yea, like kkool2, who I introduced to geocaching on a trip to Indiana, has over 400 finds using only a compass and a grid map. I'm sure he will be very disappointed to know that all of his finds are illegitimate.

And he was never given lat/long to use with compass and map?

 

I'm betting a smart person could get coords from that piture....I've seen many puzzle cachesthat didn't supply coords, you had to figure out how to get them. Opps, TDE beat me to it.

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post
Seems you have a problem with the guideline that requires a gps to be used to find ANY cache.

I wasn't aware of that guideline. Got a link?

I know there's something in the guidelines worded to the effect of, "A GRPr must be used to obtain the coordinates for any hide, but I didn't know Groundspeak requires that we use a GPSr to find the things. I know there will be many folks in here that would be sorely disappointed by such a guideline, as they take great personal pride in finding caches without modern, high tech gadgets.

 

Yea, like kkool2, who I introduced to geocaching on a trip to Indiana, has over 400 finds using only a compass and a grid map. I'm sure he will be very disappointed to know that all of his finds are illegitimate.

And he was never given lat/long to use with compass and map?

I'm betting a smart person could get coords from that piture....I've seen many puzzle cachesthat didn't supply coords, you had to figure out how to get them. Opps, TDE beat me to it.

Yeah from a mass e-mail.

Share this post


Link to post

5) GC1GG8V

The reason for the archiving was what was edited out!!!

Because everyone is out to get you and remove your perfectly logical, eloquent, level-headed remarks that you made when you archived it.

 

 

There are still 248 caches left to pick apart

How many are still active?

 

Slightly off topic now but yes at some point caches do run their course and get replaced by new caches. Point is that I had a very creative cache that was archived and I am the one who needs to deal with it. Because I feel wronged by the decision to archive my cache and offended by being called a liar, thats why I am not going to place any more caches.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Stay on target, Luke...

Share this post


Link to post
Seems you have a problem with the guideline that requires a gps to be used to find ANY cache.
I wasn't aware of that guideline. Got a link?

I know there's something in the guidelines worded to the effect of, "A GRPr must be used to obtain the coordinates for any hide, but I didn't know Groundspeak requires that we use a GPSr to find the things. I know there will be many folks in here that would be sorely disappointed by such a guideline, as they take great personal pride in finding caches without modern, high tech gadgets.

The paragraph in question is:

You as the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS. GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions.

That last sentence means that there must be at least one stage of the hunt in which, if the seeker wishes, they can use their GPSr.

 

For example, a Traditional cache always allows this, because even if the listing says "the cache is on the statue in the middle of the square", you could choose to just follow the arrow.

 

For a Mystery cache, you can't just say "park near the above coordinates, walk along the path to the east, and the cache is behind the fifth tree on the right", because you're not using the accuracy of the GPS. It's OK for the placer to give that information as well as a GPS-based way to find the cache, but there has to be the option at least. In other words, your cache description can't be a pure letterbox hunt.

Or a picture of an iphone looking at an open field from 10,000 ft with no coordinates to enter into your gps.

 

This was a PUZZLE CACHE. The picture was the puzzle. You were intended to load up Google Earth, or some other terrain surveying program, overlay the picture on it to scale, put the mouse cursor on the circle, and write down the coordinates displayed.

 

Step two was to load these coordinates into your GPSr and go find the cache.

 

There is nothing in this that violates GC guidelines in any way. The reviewer approved this cache. Your objection has no merit at all.

 

The cache was archived because someone e-mailed the solution to several of his friends. I would likely remove any puzzle cache of mine for these reasons as well. This would effectively change one of my puzzle caches into a traditional. And remove it's only reason for existing.

Share this post


Link to post

5) GC1GG8V

The reason for the archiving was what was edited out!!!

Because everyone is out to get you and remove your perfectly logical, eloquent, level-headed remarks that you made when you archived it.

 

 

There are still 248 caches left to pick apart

How many are still active?

 

Yup your right 401 finds and 31 hides

 

vs

 

my 5325 finds and 255 hides

 

You are obviously much more experianced and finding and hiding caches than I am.. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Not Judging- just saying

 

The cache owner has/had 2 caches in my area, a good 4 1/2 hours away from his home area....don't know if there is family here or not- just saying....

 

GC1FVQ8 The Iron Hunter

GC1FQP4 The Wolf of Rome

 

I'm sure many of you will remember this but I don't- When were ALR caches not allowed??

 

Those 2 above mentioned caches have stated very boldly in red letters this message- "Before finding the cache at the posted coordinates, you have one additional logging requirement"..... Both of the caches were placed on 8-29-08 but were not archieved until September 4th of this year....not following guidelines?????

Share this post


Link to post

Not Judging- just saying

 

The cache owner has/had 2 caches in my area, a good 4 1/2 hours away from his home area....don't know if there is family here or not- just saying....

 

GC1FVQ8 The Iron Hunter

GC1FQP4 The Wolf of Rome

 

I'm sure many of you will remember this but I don't- When were ALR caches not allowed??

 

Those 2 above mentioned caches have stated very boldly in red letters this message- "Before finding the cache at the posted coordinates, you have one additional logging requirement"..... Both of the caches were placed on 8-29-08 but were not archieved until September 4th of this year....not following guidelines?????

 

The whole ALR ban is relatively new and really holds no bearing in this topic.

 

My family and I have enjoyed several TDE/SF caches over the last 8 years and we hope to continue to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yup your right 401 finds and 31 hides

 

vs

 

my 5325 finds and 255 hides

 

You are obviously much more experianced and finding and hiding caches than I am.. :)

 

this means nothing, no offense.

Share this post


Link to post
From the section- Rules that apply to all geocache types"

Doesn't that say that the hider must use a GPSr to obtain accurate coords?

Seems one of us has a problem comprehending simple English.

Your claim was that the seeker must use a GPSr to find a cache.

That is obviously not the case.

 

Your objection has no merit at all.

No surprise here. None of his arguments have had any merit.

But ya gotta admire his spunk! :)

Share this post


Link to post
He seems like an aggressive personality type that is quick to blame and take no blame upon himself.
I agree that someone does. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Seems you have a problem with the guideline that requires a gps to be used to find ANY cache.

I wasn't aware of that guideline. Got a link?

I know there's something in the guidelines worded to the effect of, "A GRPr must be used to obtain the coordinates for any hide, but I didn't know Groundspeak requires that we use a GPSr to find the things. I know there will be many folks in here that would be sorely disappointed by such a guideline, as they take great personal pride in finding caches without modern, high tech gadgets.

 

Yea, like kkool2, who I introduced to geocaching on a trip to Indiana, has over 400 finds using only a compass and a grid map. I'm sure he will be very disappointed to know that all of his finds are illegitimate.

The Guideline section referred to above concerns PLACING caches. It's hard to see how this make this person's FINDS "illegitimate". :)

Edited by Prime Suspect

Share this post


Link to post

5) GC1GG8V

The reason for the archiving was what was edited out!!!

Because everyone is out to get you and remove your perfectly logical, eloquent, level-headed remarks that you made when you archived it.

 

Have you got proof of something or do you get a kick out of trying to accuse someone with no knowledge of reality. Seems YOU'RE the aggressive one here.

 

Allow me to try to diffuse this a little bit. I don't think JohnE5 is being aggressive, he's just trying to make the point that TDE/SF is a cache owner who has had plenty of controversy with his hides in the past, and this may cause TPTB/The local reviewer to tend to "pick on him", for lack of a better term. It's buried on probably like page 3, but I noticed (and hopefully pointed out less "aggressively") how he had a series of 26 1/1 micros where all 26 of his archive notes were edited by the local reviewer, and all the cache pages locked by the reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post

Allow me to try to diffuse this a little bit. I don't think JohnE5 is being aggressive, he's just trying to make the point that TDE/SF is a cache owner who has had plenty of controversy with his hides in the past, and this may cause TPTB/The local reviewer to tend to "pick on him", for lack of a better term. It's buried on probably like page 3, but I noticed (and hopefully pointed out less "aggressively") how he had a series of 26 1/1 micros where all 26 of his archive notes were edited by the local reviewer, and all the cache pages locked by the reviewer.

This falls in the category of sc... uh, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Share this post


Link to post

5) GC1GG8V

The reason for the archiving was what was edited out!!!

Because everyone is out to get you and remove your perfectly logical, eloquent, level-headed remarks that you made when you archived it.

 

 

There are still 248 caches left to pick apart

How many are still active?

 

Yup your right 401 finds and 31 hides

 

vs

 

my 5325 finds and 255 hides

 

You are obviously much more experianced and finding and hiding caches than I am.. :)

That means as much to me as my post count on the forums 250ish vs. your 35ish, means to you.

 

By your logic, I should be better at debating in the forums and we can all agree that’s not true.

Share this post


Link to post

Allow me to try to diffuse this a little bit. I don't think JohnE5 is being aggressive, he's just trying to make the point that TDE/SF is a cache owner who has had plenty of controversy with his hides in the past, and this may cause TPTB/The local reviewer to tend to "pick on him", for lack of a better term. It's buried on probably like page 3, but I noticed (and hopefully pointed out less "aggressively") how he had a series of 26 1/1 micros where all 26 of his archive notes were edited by the local reviewer, and all the cache pages locked by the reviewer.

 

Another assumption that this means something. Maybe the cache maggot stole them and the listings became a forums and the reviewer edited all logs and locked them? As feasible as anything and doesn't mean the CO is controversial. Maybe the CO made comments as such about the containers being stolen and Tiki didn't like that and edited and locked...still nothing controversial to me. There's just as many non-controversial meanings to this as anything else.

Share this post


Link to post

... There's just as many non-controversial meanings to this as anything else.

Yep, there's rarely a fire under that column of smoke. :)

Hey, some are throwing some pretty hefty accusations, I am telling you that this could all be nothing...which is true. Assumptions...I think we all know what that means.

Share this post


Link to post

5) GC1GG8V

The reason for the archiving was what was edited out!!!

Because everyone is out to get you and remove your perfectly logical, eloquent, level-headed remarks that you made when you archived it.

 

 

There are still 248 caches left to pick apart

How many are still active?

 

Slightly off topic now but yes at some point caches do run their course and get replaced by new caches. Point is that I had a very creative cache that was archived and I am the one who needs to deal with it. Because I feel wronged by the decision to archive my cache and offended by being called a liar, thats why I am not going to place any more caches.

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, here. 132 hidden caches later here we are. Maybe you should stick to your decisions. Apparently TPTB want to help you accomplish your goal.

Share this post


Link to post

5) GC1GG8V

The reason for the archiving was what was edited out!!!

Because everyone is out to get you and remove your perfectly logical, eloquent, level-headed remarks that you made when you archived it.

 

Have you got proof of something or do you get a kick out of trying to accuse someone with no knowledge of reality. Seems YOU'RE the aggressive one here.

 

Allow me to try to diffuse this a little bit. I don't think JohnE5 is being aggressive, he's just trying to make the point that TDE/SF is a cache owner who has had plenty of controversy with his hides in the past, and this may cause TPTB/The local reviewer to tend to "pick on him", for lack of a better term. It's buried on probably like page 3, but I noticed (and hopefully pointed out less "aggressively") how he had a series of 26 1/1 micros where all 26 of his archive notes were edited by the local reviewer, and all the cache pages locked by the reviewer.

Controversy or no, that's still a long way from faking a hide. If anything, this suggests heavy-handedness on the part of TPTB.

Share this post


Link to post

5) GC1GG8V

The reason for the archiving was what was edited out!!!

Because everyone is out to get you and remove your perfectly logical, eloquent, level-headed remarks that you made when you archived it.

 

Have you got proof of something or do you get a kick out of trying to accuse someone with no knowledge of reality. Seems YOU'RE the aggressive one here.

 

Allow me to try to diffuse this a little bit. I don't think JohnE5 is being aggressive, he's just trying to make the point that TDE/SF is a cache owner who has had plenty of controversy with his hides in the past, and this may cause TPTB/The local reviewer to tend to "pick on him", for lack of a better term. It's buried on probably like page 3, but I noticed (and hopefully pointed out less "aggressively") how he had a series of 26 1/1 micros where all 26 of his archive notes were edited by the local reviewer, and all the cache pages locked by the reviewer.

Controversy or no, that's still a long way from faking a hide. If anything, this suggests heavy-handedness on the part of TPTB.

 

Yes, I can't argue with that.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think JohnE5 is being aggressive, he's just trying to make the point that TDE/SF is a cache owner who has had plenty of controversy with his hides in the past, and this may cause TPTB/The local reviewer to tend to "pick on him", for lack of a better term.

While it's hard to really tell what someone means from what they post, John's attitude certainly appears aggressive to me. I haven't seen anything indicating that he's willing to see both sides of this issue. Rather, all I've seen is him jumping down Super Fly's throat at every opportunity, looking to nitpick him into a negative response, presumably due to some inner need to discredit him, which would then discredit his complaint.

 

Super Fly's past does not appear to be harsh enough to use against him in this incident. I don't see anything in his current or archived caches that would indicate he is a deceptive person. Occasionally grumpy? Sure! Aren't we all? Should that warrant having an active, existing cache archived, when he complied with every request made of him? :)

Share this post


Link to post

The Basic Fact :

 

TPTB did something that is completely off the scale of acceptance and most want to understand Why.

Share this post


Link to post

Well... that's odd.

 

Without picking sides, I am interested in checking out one of those other listing services... perhaps I'll check it out in the off season so I can make a decision before my membership comes up for renewal.

 

I wonder how I might find a sponsor...

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post

5) GC1GG8V

The reason for the archiving was what was edited out!!!

Because everyone is out to get you and remove your perfectly logical, eloquent, level-headed remarks that you made when you archived it.

Have you got proof of something or do you get a kick out of trying to accuse someone with no knowledge of reality. Seems YOU'RE the aggressive one here.

Yes, it does. I was just thinking the same thing!

Share this post


Link to post

Any other questions???

 

Just one, could you post a picture of the container? I'm a cacher here in Michigan and seeing a picture of the container would give me a TON of information. Both about Michigan cachers, reviewers and GS.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
could you post a picture of the container?

To Super Fly:

If you have even the slightest inclination of listing this at another site, please don't post a picture.

Doing so will change your difficulty 5 to a difficulty 1.

 

To Morning Dew:

Love your user name! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Seems you have a problem with the guideline that requires a gps to be used to find ANY cache.

I wasn't aware of that guideline. Got a link?

I know there's something in the guidelines worded to the effect of, "A GRPr must be used to obtain the coordinates for any hide, but I didn't know Groundspeak requires that we use a GPSr to find the things. I know there will be many folks in here that would be sorely disappointed by such a guideline, as they take great personal pride in finding caches without modern, high tech gadgets.

 

Yea, like kkool2, who I introduced to geocaching on a trip to Indiana, has over 400 finds using only a compass and a grid map. I'm sure he will be very disappointed to know that all of his finds are illegitimate.

The Guideline section referred to above concerns PLACING caches. It's hard to see how this make this person's FINDS "illegitimate". :)

You need to read the FIRST quote above -- which was what I was referring to.

JohnE5 said "Seems you have a problem with the guideline that requires a gps to be used to find ANY cache".

In this context, my comment makes perfect sense. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post

I am not defending anything just answereing questions.

 

Well....not all the questions, just to be clear.

Edited by Morning Dew

Share this post


Link to post
Well....not all the questions, just to be clear.

True. However, he's answered a heck of a lot more questions than I would, if Groundspeak called me a liar in a public format.

As much as I love this game, an insult like that would've likely lead to a geocide by me.

There are some things in this life I refuse to tolerate.

Being called a liar, when I behave honorably is one of those things.

 

And, he's answered a heck of a lot more questions than Groundspeak, Nomex, Jenn or the local reviewers.

In fact, of all the people involved, Super Fly is the only one who has been forthright.

Edited by Clan Riffster

Share this post


Link to post
Well....not all the questions, just to be clear.

True. However, he's answered a heck of a lot more questions than I would, if Groundspeak called me a liar in a public format.

As much as I love this game, an insult like that would've likely lead to a geocide by me.

There are some things in this life I refuse to tolerate.

Being called a liar, when I behave honorably is one of those things.

 

And, he's answered a heck of a lot more questions than Groundspeak, Nomex, Jenn or the local reviewers.

In fact, of all the people involved, Super Fly is the only one who has been forthright.

 

Gotta say I agree with that ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Well....not all the questions, just to be clear.

True. However, he's answered a heck of a lot more questions than I would, if Groundspeak called me a liar in a public format.

As much as I love this game, an insult like that would've likely lead to a geocide by me.

There are some things in this life I refuse to tolerate.

Being called a liar, when I behave honorably is one of those things.

 

And, he's answered a heck of a lot more questions than Groundspeak, Nomex, Jenn or the local reviewers.

In fact, of all the people involved, Super Fly is the only one who has been forthright.

 

Gotta say I agree with that ^^

 

Me too....however, I'd still like to know if he plans to post a picture of the cache container in the VERY near future (less than 24 hours). Once he does or doesn't then I'll reform the current conspiracy theory I have in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Well....not all the questions, just to be clear.

True. However, he's answered a heck of a lot more questions than I would, if Groundspeak called me a liar in a public format.

As much as I love this game, an insult like that would've likely lead to a geocide by me.

There are some things in this life I refuse to tolerate.

Being called a liar, when I behave honorably is one of those things.

 

And, he's answered a heck of a lot more questions than Groundspeak, Nomex, Jenn or the local reviewers.

In fact, of all the people involved, Super Fly is the only one who has been forthright.

With only the SF side of this story I just don't see how this claim can be made. Lots of speculation. Claims from SF. No posting of the container to prove the validity of the claims. GS being consistent with past practice and not engaging in this thread. Seems to me this is still between SF and GS, although it would be really nice to see pics of the container since it does sound very cool.

Share this post


Link to post
With only the SF side of this story I just don't see how this claim can be made.

Which claim?

1 ) He's answered a heck of a lot more questions than I would, if Groundspeak called me a liar in a public format.

 

2 ) As much as I love this game, an insult like that would've likely lead to a geocide by me.

 

 

3 ) There are some things in this life I refuse to tolerate.

 

4 ) Being called a liar, when I behave honorably is one of those things.

 

These four claims are just my personal viewpoint on this matter.

They express how I might react under similar circumstances.

Are you refuting those? :)

 

5 ) He's answered a heck of a lot more questions than Groundspeak, Nomex, Jenn or the local reviewers.

 

Is this the one you are disputing? Let's do the math:

Questions answered by Groundspeak = 0

Questions answered by Nomex = 0

Questions answered by Jenn = 0

Questions answered by the local reviewers = 0

 

6 ) In fact, of all the people involved, Super Fly is the only one who has been forthright.

 

Or is this the one you are refuting?

Has Groundspeak been forthright, explaining their actions? No.

Has Nomex been forthright, explaining his actions? No

Has Jenn been forthright, explaining her actions? No.

Have the local reviewers been forthright, explaining their actions? No.

 

Super Fly, on the other hand, did explain exactly what he did.

Was he lying? I don't know. If he was, the people with proof are remaining mum.

Even after they publicly called him a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
No posting of the container to prove the validity of the claims.

No picture? Seriously? This is what leads to your doubt?

Has Groundspeak asked for a picture?

Has Nomex, or any other reviewer asked for a picture?

Not according to Super Fly.

If anyone up the food chain has asked, they could shut this thread down by telling us this.

<insert more cricket sounds>

 

Have you ever been asked for photographic evidence that one of your caches was present?

Every time I've submitted a cache for review, my reviewers have been willing to take my word for its existence.

Has this changed?

The concept of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" comes to mind... :)

 

I would be mostly OK with the way this incident has played out, except for one small detail:

A reviewer, acting as a representative of Groundspeak, called a member a liar in a very public way.

TPTB brought that out in the open for the rest of the community to see.

It is quite possible that Super Fly is a liar, and the reviewer acted justly in naming him as such.

However, since TPTB called him out, in public, it's up to them to demonstrate the validity of their claims.

It's not up to Super Fly to prove he was innocent.

Share this post


Link to post

Claim #6

 

SF has responded in this thread. It is unknown to me if he has responded in a forthright manner. The other parties have not responded, as is their custom.

 

I respect your personal viewpoints and opinions.

 

I respect the manner in which GS conducts their business.

 

I do not know SF so I have no opinion regarding his position beyond that which has been presented in this thread.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...