The Gatineau Park debacle.

[+narcissa]

Just interested to hear other's thoughts on this, and perhaps spread the word around about this.

 

I live in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada which is right on the border between Ontario and Quebec. This puts geocachers here in the interesting position of having 6 or 7 reviewers to deal with, depending on where a cache is placed. Most of these reviewers do a stand-up job, and are reasonable and open communicators.

 

Much of the publicly accessible land in this area is owned and managed by an entity called the National Capital Commission (NCC). Until recently, geocachers pretty much had carte blanche access to NCC's vast network of parks and trails.

 

A couple of months ago, the NCC published a new set of policies that would affect a large section of land in Quebec called Gatineau Park. They identified a particular section of the park that would become off-limits to geocaching, and have suggested that there would be some additional rules imposed on geocaching elsewhere in Gatineau Park. This is a little disappointing, but most cachers are more than willing to comply and cooperate. We don't want to lose access to the park.

 

Local blogger and geocacher Gordon Dewis has a good outline of the NCC policy as it pertains to geocaching here. There are links to the NCC's policies and maps there.

 

There hasn't been any additional direction from the NCC since the document was published, and we expect it will take some time before they have a firm policy in place. We've all been waiting to hear more before taking action - nobody wants to remove caches prematurely.

 

Understandably, it came as a shock when the Quebec reviewer cacheblex sent out the following letter to the owners of nearly 300 geocaches in (and near) Gatineau Park:

 

You are receiving this message because one of your caches is located within the territory of Gatineau Park.

 

The National Capital Commission (NCC) wishes to control Geocaching in the Gatineau Park. Therefore, it is currently setting a procedure for caches within its territory, and is asking geocachers to archive all caches in the park. They are requesting the cooperation of concerned geocachers to pick up all the containers.

 

We are asking for your cooperation in collecting your cache and in archiving the listing. Note that on June 20, 2010, all remaining caches within the territory of the park will be archived.

 

All new requests for publication at this location will be denied until permission of the NCC and the new procedure are received. We apologize for this inconvenience, which is beyond our control, and solicit the patience and cooperation of all geocachers.

 

Thank you

 

The Quebec Reviewers

 

There was no other indication from the NCC that they were now requiring the removal of all caches. Nothing on their website, no press release, no amendment to the policy. Cache owners were quick to email cacheblex to ask what was going on, but it was days before anybody heard a response.

 

Within a couple of days, a local CBC reporter was contacting local cachers, Groundspeak, and the NCC, trying to get some answers. Was the NCC trying to use a back door to get caches archived as quietly as possible? While the NCC is prone to gaffes, this didn't seem likely.

 

With the local geocaching gossip mill in overdrive, it quickly became apparent that one Quebec reviewer, cacheblex, was acting on second-hand information. Eventually, one local cacher was able to elicit a response from cacheblex, and directed him to the NCC's publicly accessible documents and maps that clearly state the geocaching is only going to be prohibited in a small section of the park, and that the rest of their geocaching policy has yet to be finalized.

 

According to another local blogger with an interest in the park:

 

"I talked to Steve McLaughlin – the Gatineau Park recreational services manager – yesterday. He confirms that the NCC did not issue a request to archive caches throughout the park and reassures me that it is only in certain highly sensitive areas (the integral conservation zone) that they wish to discontinue caching."

 

The reviewer has supposedly rescinded the archival threat, but has not yet sent a correction to the same people who received the initial message. I'm still getting notifications of cache archivals within the park by owners who haven't heard that the situation has changed.

 

There are several key elements of this reviewer's behaviour that I take issue with:

• The reviewer blatantly lied in the original email - there was no correspondence from the NCC asking for caches to be removed or archived.
  
• The reviewer did not look at the pertinent policy and related maps before sending out the message to cache owners.
  
• The reviewer has not emailed cache owners to tell them that he has reversed his decision.
  
• When faced with questions and criticism, the reviewer directed inquiries straight to Groundspeak, even though he is the one who is supposed to deal with these issues at the local level.
  

Our local club is getting organized to deal with the larger issue of geocaching policy in Gatineau Park, but I think this reviewer's behaviour is an entirely separate issue. Anybody have thoughts and insight to share?

 

P.S. Just want to repeat that most of the reviewers we work with in this area are very accommodating, helpful, and reasonable. This is the most serious reviewer issue I've ever heard of in Ottawa/Gatineau.

[+StarBrand]

I think your being awfully harsh with a very few facts.

 

You do not know that he lied - you are assuming that. You do not know what prompted the original message.

 

Groundspeak controls the reviewers and is ultimately responsible for thier actions. I do not blame anybody for referencing them.

 

As with many things - I am quite certain there is much more to the story. I am also quite certain that Groundspeak's customers do not always NEED to know how/why/who of every decision.

 

Relax is my advice. Work with the landmanagers and with Groundspeak to get a clear picture before you drag anybody through the mud.

[+Chrysalides]

We never get the other side of the story because Groundspeak's policy is not to comment on them. Maybe he did receive an email from someone claiming to represent NCC? Or dozens of other scenarios. All pure speculation on our part, some from the desire to find fault in the all powerful reviewers, others who want to believe the best in the volunteers.

 

If you feel strongly about it, and you obviously do, you should send an email to Groundspeak if you have not already done so. If history is any indication, they might suggest you discuss this in the forums, so include a link to this thread.

[+HockeyPuck]

/me thinks your reviewer needs a raise for all the time and effort he/she dedicates to the hobby we all enjoy.

[+narcissa]

I think your being awfully harsh with a very few facts.

 

You do not know that he lied - you are assuming that. You do not know what prompted the original message.

 

 

The NCC and the reviewer have both confirmed that there was no message from the NCC to prompt the archival messages.

 

The reviewer heard something from a third party about the NCC's Gatineau Park policies and acted without looking at the policy or hearing from the NCC directly. He has admitted this in private correspondence with the geocacher who showed him the policy and the map.

 

The NCC never asked for geocaches to be removed - to say so in the letter was a lie.

[+narcissa]

Additionally, the CBC reporter who was independently investigating the issue spoke to the NCC and ultimately dropped the story because the NCC did not ask for geocaches to be removed.

[+Chrysalides]

The NCC never asked for geocaches to be removed - to say so in the letter was a lie.

No. It's misinformation. By your own description, the reviewer believed (incorrectly) that NCC was asking for geocaches to be removed.

 

Lie is a strong word charged with emotion.

[+narcissa]

The NCC never asked for geocaches to be removed - to say so in the letter was a lie.

No. It's misinformation. By your own description, the reviewer believed (incorrectly) that NCC was asking for geocaches to be removed.

 

Lie is a strong word charged with emotion.

 

"They are requesting the cooperation of concerned geocachers to pick up all the containers."

 

This is patently false - as confirmed by NCC staff - and for me, this is what moves it from "misinformation" to "lie."

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I suspect that the Reviewer believed himself to be doing the right thing.

 

He may have good reasons that we don't know about, or he may have been given bad information. No way for us to know.

 

I seriously doubt that he woke up one morning with a mad on and decided to archive all of the caches in that park.

 

The thing is, even if it was a mistake why crucify him? It's really disheartening to see not just in this game but in everyday life folks so willing to chew up good men when they make a mistake.

 

Email your concern to Groundspeak and trust them to properly sort it out. Trust me on this one... I know for a fact that they don't always side with the Reviewer!

 

Making mistakes makes folks human, not incompetent or rogues.

Edited June 2, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Chrysalides]

The NCC never asked for geocaches to be removed - to say so in the letter was a lie.

No. It's misinformation. By your own description, the reviewer believed (incorrectly) that NCC was asking for geocaches to be removed.

 

Lie is a strong word charged with emotion.

 

"They are requesting the cooperation of concerned geocachers to pick up all the containers."

 

This is patently false - as confirmed by NCC staff - and for me, this is what moves it from "misinformation" to "lie."

Please refer to wikipedia entry linked in my post.

 

This thread can proceed as a calm and logical discussion, or degenerate into emotional grandstanding. "Lie" is an emotionally charged word and is likely to raise the hackles of those defending the reviewer.

 

My question to you is, did he intentionally make that false statement, knowing at the time he made the statement that it is untrue? And if the answer is yes, do you have a way of proving that?

 

Otherwise, your assertion that his statement is a lie is, itself, a lie.

[+AuntieWeasel]

Some folks can't be trusted to hold a stick. I'd be annoyed, too.

[+narcissa]

I suspect that the Reviewer believed himself to be doing the right thing.

 

He may have good reasons that we don't know about, or he may have been given bad information. No way for us to know.

 

I seriously doubt that he woke up one morning with a mad on and decided to archive all of the caches in that park.

 

The thing is, even if it was a mistake why crucify him? It's really disheartening to see not just in this game but in everyday life folks so willing to chew up good men when they make a mistake.

 

Email your concern to Groundspeak and trust them to properly sort it out. Trust me on this one... I know for a fact that they don't always side with the Reviewer!

 

Making mistakes makes folks human, not incompetent or rogues.

 

When I was contacted by the reporter last week, she asked me what I thought his motivation was. I told her that he was probably acting with good intent, but was going about it entirely the wrong way.

 

I still believe this to be true.

 

However, that doesn't excuse all of his behaviour. I recognize that the reviewers are volunteers and sometimes they make mistakes, but threatening to archive 300 geocaches without even looking at the policy is a pretty massive mistake. At what point are the grassroots of the geocaching community allowed to demand accountability?

 

Falsely attributing his action to a request from the NCC that never occurred is the really sore point for me. The NCC has been bombarded with complaints and questions because of this letter, and I'm sure they're wondering what the heck is going on since they never asked for caches to be removed! They're getting enough flack from the community because of their new policies, and now they're getting flack for something they didn't even do. It makes geocaching and geocachers look really bad.

 

I'm sure there are many complaints to Groundspeak about this issue. My reason for posting this is to get the story out and get input from a broader range of viewpoints. Everyone in my community is pretty riled up about it, so it's nice to hear some different insights from cachers who aren't directly affected by this.

[+narcissa]

 

My question to you is, did he intentionally make that false statement, knowing at the time he made the statement that it is untrue? And if the answer is yes, do you have a way of proving that?

 

 

He did not receive such a request from the NCC. The NCC has confirmed this. To state that the NCC requested the caches be removed was a lie.

 

As I stated in the original post, he has reversed his initial decision because there was no such request from the NCC, thus confirming that the statement was a lie.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

He did not receive such a request from the NCC. The NCC has confirmed this. To state that the NCC requested the caches be removed was a lie.

 

You keep saying that. That doesn't make it true.

 

If he believed that the NCC wanted the caches archived, then he wasn't telling a lie. He simply made a mistake. As my Momma used to say, there's only one person that never made a mistake, and He got nailed to a cross.

 

My reason for posting this is to get the story out and get input from a broader range of viewpoints.

 

As long as that "broader range of viewpoints" all agrees that the reviewer should be severely punished for lying?

 

To quote George Costanza: "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."

[+Gamaliel]

This stuff about the nature of a lie is just a semantic sideshow.

 

Should reviewers be archiving caches based on nonexistent requests? If yes, why is it okay to do so and to also state that you are doing this for a nonexistent reason? If no, what are the appropriate steps that should be taken?

[+wolfslady]

I think those who have caches and cache in the area have the right to be upset. This wasn't 1 cache that was effected, by an overzealous reviewer, this was 100’s. In a case where this many people are involved not only should the reviewer have made sure they had all the FACTs, they should likely have gotten an official statement from the “powers that be.” I just don’t believe that an announcement of that magnitude is something a reviewer should be handling on their own. Why would they even want to take that kind of heat? In addition (if I’m understanding correctly.) they have not taken the time to resend their message and let everyone they sent the first message to, that they made a mistake and they don’t have to archive their caches. This is just compounding the problem. They need to take responsibility for the mistake and do their best to fix it. Ignoring it just feeds the frustration that many people are rightly feeling. Did the reviewer lie? Who knows, but it would seem that acting on 3rd party information is a lame excuse for such a broad action. So perhaps more of a lie of omission? It sucks that this happened. It would be nice if the reviewer stepped up and said I made a mistake and I’m sorry for the inconvenience it caused so many of you. Reviewers are human and have feelings (I’m assuming) but so are we. Just my 2 cents. Not that they are always worth that.

[+narcissa]

If he believed that the NCC wanted the caches archived, then he wasn't telling a lie. He simply made a mistake.

 

 

Maybe. The wording of the original letter implied that he had received a request, which is what leads me to read it as a lie.

 

Another factor I just thought of is that he's a Francophone, so it's possible that it's just clumsy English that makes the letter sound that way. The other correspondence I've seen from him has been in French.

 

Still, threatening to archive 300 caches based on misinformation, and his complete failure to investigate the matter in any way until AFTER he'd received a flood of complaints - that's a pretty huge mistake, and I know I'm not alone in wanting answers and some assurance that he'll be more cautious in the future.

 

 

As long as that "broader range of viewpoints" all agrees that the reviewer should be severely punished for lying?

 

 

 

Where did I say that? Asking for accountability != Asking for severe punishment

 

Stating/clarifying my opinion doesn't preclude others from holding and sharing theirs. There's room for disagreement without turning it into a ridiculous, personal flame war. Sheesh.

[+narcissa]

This stuff about the nature of a lie is just a semantic sideshow.

 

Please see the Wikipedia entry about semantics to see why you are wrong.

[+J the Goat]

I think arguing lie vs. misinformation here is just semantics and is a complete waste of time on either side. IMHO, it doesn't matter what you decide to call it, it boils down to this;

 

1) The NCC has changed their geocaching policy. At least they haven't banned it completely.

 

2) A local reviewer caught wind of said changes and took it upon himself to send out a seemingly premature letter regarding voluntary/automatic archival.

 

3) Said reviewer should send out emails retracting his prior statements, unless TPTB have suggested that he not do for whatever reason. At the very least, he's admitted his mistake.

 

I'd be careful if I were you in using words like "incompetence" when describing your local reviewers. Mistake = Incompetence? This may not be the first issue you've had withis reviewer, but even so, GS seems to think they're alrightfor the job.

 

I'd be willing to bet that this guy/gal will be paying ridiculous close attention to the guidelines from here on out, I know I would. Are you certain all your hides are well within the guidelines?

 

I guess I''m just asking that you take a step back and not let the fact that this person screwed up huge get you angry. It's already done, now the only thing you can do is make the best of what's there now. It sounds like your local organization is doing just that.

 

Good luck, and try to keep calm.

[+roziecakes]

My take on it is that he misinterpreted the information not outright lied about it... the fact that he rescinded the archival notice after he got the correct information says that he just misunderstood.

 

However, it seems like it would be nice if he could send out another notice mentioning his mistake to clear up the confusion.

[+StarBrand]

 

My question to you is, did he intentionally make that false statement, knowing at the time he made the statement that it is untrue? And if the answer is yes, do you have a way of proving that?

 

 

He did not receive such a request from the NCC. The NCC has confirmed this. To state that the NCC requested the caches be removed was a lie.

 

As I stated in the original post, he has reversed his initial decision because there was no such request from the NCC, thus confirming that the statement was a lie.

I know that is your assertion but I seriously doubt that is entirely true. I am quite certain that he must have at a minimum 'believed' it to be true in order to have sent out a notice to a large number of cachers.

 

Identifying the individual cachers and sending the emails would take a fair amount of effort on his part or collabration with HQ. So there is clearly some element to this story we are all missing as it is rather unlikely anybody would go through that effort for no reason other than to satisy the conditions of a lie.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Not having yet read all the replies, here are some things that immediatly raise red flags in my mind...

 

According to another local blogger with an interest in the park:

 

"I talked to Steve McLaughlin – the Gatineau Park recreational services manager – yesterday. He confirms that the NCC did not issue a request to archive caches throughout the park and reassures me that it is only in certain highly sensitive areas (the integral conservation zone) that they wish to discontinue caching."

 

The reviewer has supposedly rescinded the archival threat, but has not yet sent a correction to the same people who received the initial message. I'm still getting notifications of cache archivals within the park by owners who haven't heard that the situation has changed.

 

There are several key elements of this reviewer's behaviour that I take issue with:

 

•The reviewer blatantly lied in the original email - there was no correspondence from the NCC asking for caches to be removed or archived.

•The reviewer did not look at the pertinent policy and related maps before sending out the message to cache owners.

•The reviewer has not emailed cache owners to tell them that he has reversed his decision.

•When faced with questions and criticism, the reviewer directed inquiries straight to Groundspeak, even though he is the one who is supposed to deal with these issues at the local level.

 

According to your OP...

 

because some "local blogger with an interest in the park"

 

SAYS

 

"I talked to Steve McLaughlin...He confirms that the NCC did not issue a request to archive caches throughout the park"

 

it is proof that

 

"The reviewer blatantly lied"

 

 

How do you know that it's not someone else who is lying, or that there wasn't just some major misunderstanding of some email that WAS received?

 

Jimmy said this, so Johnny MUST be a liar?? Get real. Are we on the Jerry Springer show??

[+narcissa]

 

I know that is your assertion but I seriously doubt that is entirely true. I am quite certain that he must have at a minimum 'believed' it to be true in order to have sent out a notice to a large number of cachers.

 

Identifying the individual cachers and sending the emails would take a fair amount of effort on his part or collabration with HQ. So there is clearly some element to this story we are all missing as it is rather unlikely anybody would go through that effort for no reason other than to satisy the conditions of a lie.

 

I think he believed that the NCC wanted caches out of the park but did not receive any direct correspondence to this effect.

 

Many cache owners with caches NEAR the park received emails, and some cache owners with caches in the park did not. It looks like he just identified a general area and sent out a mass email, but did not actually pick out the caches that were inside the park. Fair enough, it would take some time to do that.

 

One thing we're talking about doing in a committee is identifying exactly which caches are inside the "integral conservation zone." That will save either NCC or the reviewer from that work, and will show that we're cooperative.

 

What I would like to see from Groundspeak is a different reviewer assigned to this issue. Cacheblex lives 500 miles away. There are several other reviewers in Ontario and Quebec who are more familiar with the NCC and Gatineau Park. Gatineau Park is in Quebec, but there is an Ontario reviewer who lives in Ottawa who could be assigned to this issue, for example. There's another Ontario reviewer less than an hour out of town, and another Quebec reviewer just two hours away. All of these reviewers understand the local area and the NCC better than cacheblex.

[+narcissa]

Not having yet read all the replies... Are we on the Jerry Springer show??

 

Could you perhaps raise your concerns in a less-inflammatory manner? There's enough contention in this post without people elevating the discourse with comments like this. Thanks.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

I seriously doubt that he woke up one morning with a mad on and decided to archive all of the caches in that park.

 

Haha, never heard that before...I like it. Is that an AL thing??

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Not having yet read all the replies... Are we on the Jerry Springer show??

 

Could you perhaps raise your concerns in a less-inflammatory manner? There's enough contention in this post without people elevating the discourse with comments like this. Thanks.

Perhaps I could, but you're the one who came in here screaming that the reviewer is a LIAR, and ROUGE, and INCOMPETENT. Really...look at what you said, quoted in my previous post. Just because someone has written something that may not be true does not make them a LIAR. Liar implies a malicious intent. You have no reason to beleive that the reviewer had done anything malicious on purpose. That kind of accusation is typical of the Jerry Springer show.

 

"I KNOW you slept with my cousin, because the drug dealer down the street told me so."

Edited June 2, 2010 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+ArcherDragoon]

...because...when I want facts and truth on the internet...I go find a blogger...

 

[+narcissa]

 

Perhaps I could, but you're the one who came in here screaming that the reviewer is a LIAR, and ROUGE, and INCOMPETENT. Really...look at what you said, quoted in my previous post. Just because someone has written something that may not be true does not make them a LIAR. Liar implies a malicious intent. You have no reason to beleive that the reviewer had done anything malicious on purpose.

 

Your general point has been made far more eloquently by others. There's no need to be so inflammatory.

 

The reviewer's initial letter may have been a lie, or it may have been clumsy writing, and his behaviour was certainly incompetent. I put "rogue" with a question mark, because I'm really not sure what's going on here (hence the post, eliciting opinions from others). I certainly didn't put any of those words in caps.

 

BTW, liar doesn't imply "malicious" intent, it simply implies intent. That's still a question mark as far as I'm concerned. He may have lied because he thought it was the best course of action to get the situation under control quickly. It would still be a lie, but not really malicious in such a case. Right now, as others have said, there isn't enough information to confirm if he was lying, or simply misinformed and clumsy with his writing.

Edited June 2, 2010 by narcissa

[+sTeamTraen]

There's enough contention in this post without people elevating the discourse with comments like this.

There is indeed. And up to this point, you have been way out in front on that issue.

 

Tell me, does the approach of wading in with both feet, calling people liars, and then accusing people of being inflammatory when it turns out that things might be a little more complicated, work well in other areas of your life? So far it has never occurred to me to try such an approach, but if it's made you a millionaire or something then I might try it. I have a job interview tomorrow, maybe that would be a good place to start.

Edited June 2, 2010 by sTeamTraen

[+StarBrand]

...

BTW, liar doesn't imply "malicious" intent, it simply implies intent. That's still a question mark as far as I'm concerned. He may have lied because he thought it was the best course of action to get the situation under control quickly. It would still be a lie, but not really malicious in such a case. Right now, as others have said, there isn't enough information to confirm if he was lying, or simply misinformed and clumsy with his writing.

 

From the above linked wiki definition of lie:

 

"A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment or repercussion for one's actions. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth. A liar is a person who is lying, who has previously lied, or who tends by nature to lie repeatedly - even when not necessary"

 

Now explain to us what exactly was being protected, avoided, covered up in this case??

 

I DO NOT think you have all the fact needed here.

 

Reviewers have assigned territories - if the disputed land is in his area - nothing wrong occured.

 

Seriously - I'd just let it go and concentrate on what is important here - crafting a workable Geocaching policy with the land managers.

[+roziecakes]

 

What I would like to see from Groundspeak is a different reviewer assigned to this issue. Cacheblex lives 500 miles away. There are several other reviewers in Ontario and Quebec who are more familiar with the NCC and Gatineau Park. Gatineau Park is in Quebec, but there is an Ontario reviewer who lives in Ottawa who could be assigned to this issue, for example. There's another Ontario reviewer less than an hour out of town, and another Quebec reviewer just two hours away. All of these reviewers understand the local area and the NCC better than cacheblex.

 

I agree with you that in regards to this issue, he probably isn't the best reviewer for the job.

[+BulldogBlitz]

Not having yet read all the replies... Are we on the Jerry Springer show??

 

Could you perhaps raise your concerns in a less-inflammatory manner? There's enough contention in this post without people elevating the discourse with comments like this. Thanks.

Perhaps I could, but you're the one who came in here screaming that the reviewer is a LIAR, and ROUGE, and INCOMPETENT. Really...look at what you said, quoted in my previous post. Just because someone has written something that may not be true does not make them a LIAR. Liar implies a malicious intent. You have no reason to beleive that the reviewer had done anything malicious on purpose. That kind of accusation is typical of the Jerry Springer show.

 

"I KNOW you slept with my cousin, because the drug dealer down the street told me so."

 

[+narcissa]

There's enough contention in this post without people elevating the discourse with comments like this.

There is indeed. And up to this point, you have been way out in front on that issue.

 

Tell me, does the approach of wading in with both feet, calling people liars, and then accusing people of being inflammatory when it turns out that things might be a little more complicated, work well in other areas of your life? So far it has never occurred to me to try such an approach, but if it's made you a millionaire or something then I might try it. I have a job interview tomorrow, maybe that would be a good place to start.

 

It's not his point that's inflammatory, it's the way he worded it. He admitted that he hadn't read the post, and then started writing things in caps and making comparisons to tv shows. Other people in the thread have made similar points in a civil manner.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the original letter looks like a lie, but I have already conceded that it may have been clumsy wording. The pile-on regarding this point can end now.

 

I still think his behaviour is, at the very least, incompetent. Threatening to archive 300 caches without even looking at the map or the policy is just ridiculous.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

Your general point has been made far more eloquently by others. There's no need to be so inflammatory.

 

Good for them. I like to respond directly to an OP without first reading everyone elses opinions. If you don't want things to be inflamatory, perhaps you could rewrite your OP far more eloquently, so as not to assume people of being liars? Of coures we could go on all day like this, or you could drop it and try to get back to the issue you really wanted to discuss?

 

What is the issue anyway? Is the issue the new policy, or is the issue that the revierer is a liar? You let us know what we're supposed to be discussing. Thanks.

 

Edit for spelling.

Edited June 2, 2010 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+atmospherium]

Re the rogue reviewer: I've placed a call to Martin Sheen. Let me know when he arrives; I have "The End" by the Doors all cued up.

 

Re Gatineau Park: Never heard of it. Nice place?

[+narcissa]

 

Reviewers have assigned territories - if the disputed land is in his area - nothing wrong occured.

 

 

Something wrong did occur, but it has now been retracted. The manner in which it occurred raises serious questions about this reviewer's ability to handle this situation.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I certainly didn't put any of those words in caps.

 

and I didn't put them in quotes, so I'm not claiming that you put them in CAPS. I did that because I'm too lazy to use bold or italics.

[+narcissa]

I like to respond directly to an OP without first reading everyone elses opinions.

 

Let's be honest here - you look at who wrote the post, and if it's someone who annoys you, you skim the post and look for something to flame. Flame received. Thank you!

[+StarBrand]

 

Reviewers have assigned territories - if the disputed land is in his area - nothing wrong occured.

 

 

Something wrong did occur, but it has now been retracted. The manner in which it occurred raises serious questions about this reviewer's ability to handle this situation.

Your posts are long on judgement and short on facts.

 

Even if I take your story as being 100% of the facts - I still have trouble seeing anything dramatic in what occured. It is only your assertions that are dramatic.........

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

He admitted that he hadn't read the post,

No...I didn't say that. I said that I hadn't read the replies(does that make one of us a liar?, or does it mean that one of us had misunderstood the other?). I like to respond to original questions before I read what everyone else has said. If I say the same thing as them, so be it.

 

Edit for spelling

Edited June 2, 2010 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+KoosKoos]

Whether the reviewer "lied" or used bad judgment, it was a mistake (based on the information we have and the reviewer's retraction of the archival notice). Public relations has never been a strength of Groundspeak, but the forums are only dealing in hearsay. You'll need to take it up with TPTB to get anything more than just a bunch of posting.

 

From a similar thread: Rogue reviewer summary

 

edit: better link to the right post

Edited June 2, 2010 by KoosKoos

[+Gamaliel]

Can we talk about geocaching as opposed to why we don't like each other?

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I like to respond directly to an OP without first reading everyone elses opinions.

 

Let's be honest here - you look at who wrote the post, and if it's someone who annoys you, you skim the post and look for something to flame. Flame received. Thank you!

Not true art all...If I wanted to flame you, I'd call you a liar directly. I didn't do that and I wont. I think we went down a similar road before?

 

I'll shut up for a while and see if you can steer this back to whatever direction thet you think this is supposed to be going.

[+sTeamTraen]

I suggest that everyone step away from their keyboard for 5 minutes, take hold of their mouse, click on this link, read it, then decide if you want to continue.

[+narcissa]

 

Even if I take your story as being 100% of the facts - I still have trouble seeing anything dramatic in what occured. It is only your assertions that are dramatic.........

 

Three hundred caches were threatened with archival, including Quebec's oldest geocache. It's been a pretty dramatic event for geocachers around here!

 

The fact that it has been retracted definitely lessens the drama, though it would be nice if he would send a general email to the same list of people who received the original letter.

[+narcissa]

I suggest that everyone step away from their keyboard for 5 minutes, take hold of their mouse, click on this link, read it, then decide if you want to continue.

 

Sheesh, people, if you want something to troll, there are still like 25 active ashnikes posts to choose from!

[+thedeadpirate]

Perhaps I could, but you're the one who came in here screaming that the reviewer is a LIAR, and ROUGE, and INCOMPETENT.

 

Seriously, if this keeps up, we're gonna have to take away all the reviewers' makeup.

 

*** This was a joke. I have no idea what kind of makeup cacheblex uses.

[+narcissa]

Perhaps I could, but you're the one who came in here screaming that the reviewer is a LIAR, and ROUGE, and INCOMPETENT.

 

Seriously, if this keeps up, we're gonna have to take away all the reviewers' makeup.

 

*** This was a joke. I have no idea what kind of makeup cacheblex uses.

 

[+thedeadpirate]

I suggest that everyone step away from their keyboard for 5 minutes, take hold of their mouse, click on this link, read it, then decide if you want to continue.

Sheesh, people, if you want something to troll, there are still like 25 active ashnikes posts to choose from!

 

Narcissa, I have no issues with you. However, the suggestion to step away from the keyboard for 5 minutes is pretty good advice. It's obvious that you are worked up over this and are posting on emotion and adrenaline.

 

I get why you are upset. I also get that it boils down to a mistake was made which the reviewer admitted to.

 

There's no need to crucify him over it. We all make mistakes.

 

Take 5 minutes and see if it doesn't help. I'm pretty sure it will.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I suggest that everyone step away from their keyboard for 5 minutes, take hold of their mouse, click on this link, read it, then decide if you want to continue.

OK, I stepped away for ling enough to make a cup of coffee. Thanks for the advice.

 

Just to be sure, after reading the OP. Is the discussion supposed to be on the new park policy and how to influence it, or is the issue that the reviewer is a liar? Honstly, I think those are two completely different topics, perhaps they should be addressed in seperate threads?