Unique Virtual too special to be Archived?

1.5k · February 16, 2011

Ecylram you are my hero! One shouldn't throw stones unless they are willing to deal with their own shortcomings.

Unless,OP searched for the cache and came up DNF, then he/she/it shouldn't armchair police. So, is OP now going to arbitrarily go after every cache he/she/it declares NM or SBA?

To be fair, I used his caches as an example and I did some very selective cherry picking to make a point. If you look at all his caches I don't believe there is any significant history of problems. In fact, the large number of caches that have earned favorites indicates to me that he cares about his caches.

It was an exercise to demonstrate the problems of armchair archiving.

5.7k · February 16, 2011

Armchair logging of ownerless virtuals is getting more common. Two in a small Coal town in SW Virginia got logged by a user on the West coast today. A couple of weeks ago a user from Germany armchaired them as well as virtuals in China and Australia and a few other places. If users like myself are watching this happen, don't try and tell me that Groundspeak is not aware of it.

1.1k · February 16, 2011

Grüße aus Deutschland, or rather greetings from Germany .

I have read each and every post here regarding the achiving of this virtual and think it would be a shame if the Cache would be archived. I also think the Cache community should also be ashamed about the way they have treated the OP. His actions were probably in good faith, bimho were totally wrong. I think the best way for the community to act now would be to petition GC not to archive this Cache.

5.7k · February 16, 2011

Grüße aus Deutschland, or rather greetings from Germany .

I have read each and every post here regarding the achiving of this virtual and think it would be a shame if the Cache would be archived. I also think the Cache community should also be ashamed about the way they have treated the OP. His actions were probably in good faith, bimho were totally wrong. I think the best way for the community to act now would be to petition GC not to archive this Cache.

We have a winner here folks! This user is spot on. Great post.

February 16, 2011

I also think the Cache community should also be ashamed about the way they have treated the OP.

You make it sound like he was only the messenger!?! He is the 'Perp'!! :mad:

February 16, 2011

To be fair, I used his caches as an example and I did some very selective cherry picking to make a point. If you look at all his caches I don't believe there is any significant history of problems. In fact, the large number of caches that have earned favorites indicates to me that he cares about his caches.

It was an exercise to demonstrate the problems of armchair archiving.

I understood it was not a personal attack. But you were pointing out issues that people not in the area may not be aware of (like still having a few feet of snow on the ground, or area fenced off for construction). Would I like it if someone placing a NA from Florida that did not know that? No .. I agree with you.

Would I have gone out and posted a NA on this cache? No I would not have. I do not know enough about it, and I do not even follow it. Is there a discussion to be had about armchair NA? Yes I think there is. Is it always wrong? It is inappropriate in many circumstances, yet it may be appropriate in others. I deal with those decisions on a regular basis.

The point I was making was responsibility. We have a responsibility to make sure we do not post a NA where we should not. The cache owner should take care of his caches as well, and follow the rules that are set out. Once a Virtual/Webcam owner takes time off (forced or not), they know there is a risk it will not be there when they come back. I know I have to watch my caches. Sometimes I can get there soon, and other times I know I risk a NA when I do not get to one quickly.

In this instance it goes both ways. The reviewer would have been made aware of this at some point if the owner was not active, when he did a sweep, someone emailed him, or someone else placed a NA note on it. It is just a matter of time for any owner when they don't log on. As a person looking at caches you have to take a deep breath. I would not have done this, or wanted to deal with the fallback, and I do not say he is right, but he is correct in that the cache owner is gone, and there is an issue. Do we kill the messenger?

As to the person dumping NA notes on the all the original posters caches, and leaving vulgar logs, that is just childish.

7.2k · February 16, 2011

Nevertheless, I don't see a rash of even remotely suspicious logs. One guy did claim it twice, but I'm not going there. This was NOT a problem virtual.

So I guess you thought that the guy who logged it as "My son and I swung by here aver leaving mt. Everest" wasn't suspicious (and I repeat that a log for another is 4 days after he attended and event here).

What he said was "rash". You found one. As has been mentioned, considering the "Greetings from Germany" crowd, I tend to agree with knowschad. This isn't a typical virtual.

I also cannot find the person that logged the find on this cache in question and had logged an event in CA four days before. It is possible though. I left Atlanta on Friday morning last week and found a few caches in Dallas, TX while waiting to get to work. The next day I logged a cache in Hartford, CT after finishing work for the day (in the dark and buried in snow). The next morning I was back in Atlanta for a 5:00 PM hockey game, and we usually get there just over an hour before the games so we can enter as the gates open and watch warm-ups and chat with our pals. If you want to doubt the validity of my finds, I will be happy to show you my AirTran Visa card bill.

February 16, 2011

Agreed... if there are one or two questionable logs, that is not enough for me think a virtual is being abused. I would not have thought that here.

Edited February 16, 2011 by firennice

February 16, 2011

Nevertheless, I don't see a rash of even remotely suspicious logs. One guy did claim it twice, but I'm not going there. This was NOT a problem virtual.

So I guess you thought that the guy who logged it as "My son and I swung by here aver leaving mt. Everest" wasn't suspicious (and I repeat that a log for another is 4 days after he attended and event here).

What he said was "rash". You found one. As has been mentioned, considering the "Greetings from Germany" crowd, I tend to agree with knowschad. This isn't a typical virtual.

I also cannot find the person that logged the find on this cache in question and had logged an event in CA four days before. It is possible though. I left Atlanta on Friday morning last week and found a few caches in Dallas, TX while waiting to get to work. The next day I logged a cache in Hartford, CT after finishing work for the day (in the dark and buried in snow). The next morning I was back in Atlanta for a 5:00 PM hockey game, and we usually get there just over an hour before the games so we can enter as the gates open and watch warm-ups and chat with our pals. If you want to doubt the validity of my finds, I will be happy to show you my AirTran Visa card bill.

A big +1 here. I've logged finds across the nation in consecutive days, as that's where work has taken me. And even more to the extreme, my Pop, who is also a pilot, is currently in the Philippines. By the time he gets home from his current trip, he'll have logged caches in (I believe) China, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the US in a span of about six or seven days. Completely understandable why people might doubt the validity of that at first glance, but there's a very obvious and easy to understand explanation. You just never know.

February 16, 2011

Tried to look for anything significant about this one and couldn't get past photoshopped joke finds. Not saying there aren't, but unfortunately those who made the trek are blurred in a sea of crap.

Can you let us know which photoshopped joke finds you're talking about? I don't see a single one.

There are a lot of notes (one with a photoshopped picture, do you mean this one?) but that shouldn't be a problem. The CO is responsible of making sure people are not logging it as "found" without being there, not for notes or for travel bug logs (which he can't change or remove anyway). I only see one "found" which obviously looks wrong (the everest guy).

I don't seem to see anybody doing a little research and commenting on the logs w/o pictures from people who probably (actually obviously didn't go there).

No problem. There are 22 finds (not looking at DNF and notes as they are no reason for archiving a cache), from oldest to newest:

April 10, 2004 by Son of Sam: Possibly questionable find (sounds like he's really been there even though 31 years earlier.)
December 6, 2004 by polarnav: 100% legitimate find (has several finds in Antarctica, also physical caches)
December 10, 2004 by skiertrave: 100% legitimate find (real picture, physical Antarctica find)
January 24, 2005 by ce2000: Legitimate find (real picture of his GPS)
January 28, 2005 by bergensteen31: Legitimate find (real pictures)
January 2, 2006 by Grimble: Legitimate find (real pictures)
August 19, 2006 by nicofourie: Probably legitimate find (out of date log, no picture but documentary of his 2003-2004 expedition can still be found in internet archive www.archive.org)
December 21, 2006 by ayti: 100% legitimate find (real picture, also physical find in Antarctica)
January 10, 2007 by retrievercrew: 100% legitimate find (real picture, also physical find in Antarctica)
January 25, 2007 by ArcticFire: Probably legitimate find (but no picture)
October 9, 2007 by TipTopTommy & Goody: Probably legitimate find (yet out of date log. real picture)
November 18, 2007 by nutel: Probably legitimate find (TB picture)
December 24, 2007 by NH_matt: Legitimate find (picture looks real)
January 4, 2008 by Tio Bobby: Legitimate find (picture looks real)
January 20, 2008 by physicschick: probably legitimate find (TB pictures)
August 22, 2008 by flipper2006: most probably fake find (way back from everest with kids)
November 8, 2008 by ironpaw: Legitimate find (real picture)
November 13, 2008 by westykids: Legitimate find (real picture)
February 4, 2009 by ADK-Hiker: 100% legitimate find (real pictures, several finds in Antarctica including physicals)
February 5, 2009 by westykids: double log (but real second visit, real picture, real shadow etc.)
February 10, 2009 by nzkeko: 100% legitimate find (real pictures, also of TB's at south pole marker)
January 9, 2010 by Glennerman: 100% legitimate find (real picture, several finds in Antarctica including physicals)

So, summary out of 22 finds:

14 Legitimate finds (no reason whatsoever to assume they are wrong)

5 probably legitimate finds (everything looks ok but no proof or out of date)

2 possibly questionable finds (could still be considered ok)

1 fake find

Anybody call this a "rash of fake finds" or "photoshopped joke finds"?

Then there are the TB's and coins logged through on virtual tours.

That's not a reason to archive the cache. Rather to lock these TB's if there obvously have been fake logs on them.

There is one that logged an event in Northern California 4 days before he logged this one. I might ask him when I see him again.

(...)

I've logged finds across the nation in consecutive days, as that's where work has taken me. And even more to the extreme, my Pop, who is also a pilot, is currently in the Philippines. By the time he gets home from his current trip, he'll have logged caches in (I believe) China, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the US in a span of about six or seven days.

It's even possible to find caches on different continents on the same day. I did this once - grabbed a cache on the way to the airport in London/United Kingdom in the morning, and then, after a 10 hour flight to San Francisco, I went out to find two caches there in the afternoon. That's 5350 miles in a day. Now Northern California to Antarctica is a bit more and the South Pole is more difficult to reach than San Francisco, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to get there in 4 days...

Actually I still haven't found the guy who 'logged an event in Northern California 4 days before'. Walts Hunting, maybe you can clear us up?

Anyway, I see reason for a NA log if the CO has disappeared AND there's a serious problem with the cache (eg. a virtual gets a lot of fake logs, information is not available anymore). Second part is clearly not the case here. I hope the reviewers let it live.

2.1k · February 16, 2011

There is one that logged an event in Northern California 4 days before he logged this one.

And your point is, I suppose, that such a feat is not possible? It's the 21st Century, four days is plenty of time to get to anyplace on the planet. And, with enough money, at least one place not on the planet.

10.2k · February 16, 2011

Grüße aus Deutschland, or rather greetings from Germany .

I have read each and every post here regarding the achiving of this virtual and think it would be a shame if the Cache would be archived. I also think the Cache community should also be ashamed about the way they have treated the OP. His actions were probably in good faith, bimho were totally wrong. I think the best way for the community to act now would be to petition GC not to archive this Cache.

Greetings from Germany? Never heard such a thing, you must have made that up yourself!

Made in good faith, and some of us should be ashamed? No, he's a serial world-wide agitator, I assume you're not familiar with his "work" over at Garmin's Opencaching.com, where he seems intent on stopping what seems to be about 90% of the new submissions in the world from being published. Not that I care about Opencaching.com, or will ever use it. <_<

14k · February 16, 2011

So, summary out of 22 finds:

14 Legitimate finds (no reason whatsoever to assume they are wrong)

5 probably legitimate finds (everything looks ok but no proof or out of date)

2 possibly questionable finds (could still be considered ok)

1 fake find

Anybody call this a "rash of fake finds" or "photoshopped joke finds"?

And not a single "Greetings from Germany" log...

There is one that logged an event in Northern California 4 days before he logged this one. I might ask him when I see him again.

(...)

I've logged finds across the nation in consecutive days, as that's where work has taken me. And even more to the extreme, my Pop, who is also a pilot, is currently in the Philippines. By the time he gets home from his current trip, he'll have logged caches in (I believe) China, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the US in a span of about six or seven days.

It's even possible to find caches on different continents on the same day. I did this once - grabbed a cache on the way to the airport in London/United Kingdom in the morning, and then, after a 10 hour flight to San Francisco, I went out to find two caches there in the afternoon.

I've found caches on three different continents in less than a week. If I had chosen to go out and look for a cache on the day I arrived in South Africa I could have found caches on three different continents in less than 48 hours. I've also found caches on two consecutive days that were 8130 miles apart.

6.1k · February 16, 2011

I knew this would eventually occur. The entire continent has no government and is not claimed by any country, so therefore cannot have any land manager which means Antartica is completely anarchist!!!

There also should be an addition to the guidelines which would require a photo, or some physical proof of a visit for posting a "Needs Archived log. In my honest opinion IMHO. :rolleyes:

Antarctica has no permanent population and hence no citizenship or government. All personnel present on Antarctica at any time are citizens or nationals of some sovereignty outside of Antarctica, as there is no Antarctic sovereignty. The majority of Antarctica is claimed by one or more countries, but most countries do not explicitly recognize those claims. The area on the mainland between 90 degrees west and 150 degrees west, combined with the interior of the Norwegian Sector (the extent of which has never been officially defined)[citation needed], is the only major land on Earth not claimed by any country.

19k · February 16, 2011

His actions were probably in good faith

That is where we differ.

February 16, 2011

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

Yeah, right.

It's kind of like proudly posting "I drowned a sack full of puppies this morning. Should I have burned them instead? Let's keep this discussion friendly, please."

Your behavior was inexcusable. It deserves condemnation. It was completely uncalled-for. I think it is entirely appropriate for people to post their opinions about the behavior (as opposed to the person).

I can't remember the last time I felt this disgusted by something another cacher did.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Mrs. Car54

5.7k · February 16, 2011

Oh boy, vacation caches are really a pain to have around. Every time I go out to the coast to cache, I run into those alot. I am quick to hit the need archived button if I find the container in bad shape and the CO isn't caching anymore. The coastal people that live out there do take care of their own caches alot better and I search for their more if I can help it.

We do have a cache deep in the mountain and its a 14ish miles round trip from the nearest trailhead and only see around 2-4 cachers a year or less and some years, zero. When I went back there last fall to find it, I took maintenance supplies with me. Its an ammo can so its low maintenance in that case. I clean it up and the seals so its good to go for a couple more years. The CO isn't around anymore and the cache taken care of by the cachers that go back there. With this cache, I am ok if the community take care of it but not a cache in a high vacation spot.

I found this on a different forum post called, "Placing a cache that you cannot maintain": I don't understand why you would do an NA on a cache you have never seen nor been to but you will work to keep one that is near you in good shape that falls within the guidelines you quoted?

Edited to add bold

+1

+2. If you're going to preach from the bully pulpit, you better practice it. Otherwise, shut your pie hole, stick to worrying about your back yard, and leave reviewing to reviewers.

6.7k · February 16, 2011

Sorry for original poster and everyone dumping on him. I would agree with him.

The cache owner agreed to rules, and to stay active to keep his virtual. We self police, I do not think one can be held to a different standard than another.

If a cache is being ignored or is breaking the rules there is no problem with someone saying it needs maintenance or needs archived. If the person logs in and visits, everything will move on and nothing will happen.

Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location.

Great quote, but violating the rules of the game, is violating the rules. The cache owner should know that.

You should be looking at the cache owner for not following the rules, not anyone else. Throwing stones at someone for letting someone know is stupid.

That's why they are guidelines, not rules. Guidelines are flexible.

4.1k · February 16, 2011

An interesting discussion that I almost missed because I headed out to find a virtual at an abandoned mine 30 miles from anywhere. After reading this thread I decided that it was a good thing I took the time to do it - apart from the fact that it will go to my favorites list when I log it. Although the logs appear to be legit the owner is not as active as he once was. Somebody on the other side of the world could hit the NA button.

After all it does not take any kind of "guts" to anonymously (at least for the purposes of a wider community) take things into your own hands and post the NA.

Edited February 16, 2011 by mulvaney

8k · February 16, 2011

While I have no sympathy for someone simply searching for caches with no active owner to post a needs archive, I can't agree with those calling for a ban on couch potato needs archive. There are legitimate cases when someone who had never found (or DNF'd) a caches see something that need to be brought to the attention of a reviewer.

My personal attitude is that if a cache is findable (albeit very difficult) I wouldn't worry about missing owners. But this is one area where I've been in disagreement with Groundspeak for a long time. When the rules were changed to no longer allow non-consensual adoption, I asked if a traditional cache that is being maintained by the community would be archived if the owner was missing. I was told that generally the reviewers would not archive such a cache unless it had some maintenace issues that needed a cache owner to fix (for example getting permission or a permit from the land manager). I assume that if there were extensive bogus logs on a traditional cache that it might be archived as well. With virtual caches, it seems that Groundspeak and the reviewers are quick to archive if there is an absentee owner - especially when there are couch potato logs. I'm sure the reviewers believe that they are applying the guidelines fairly, but it seems like virtual cache get archived much more often for not having an owner. Virtuals are also treated differently when it comes to consensual adoption. When a cacher leaves the game and will no longer monitor their virtual cache page, they can't adopt it to someone else as you can with a traditional. I have never gotten a good response from TPTB as to why virtuals are treated differently when it comes to adoption.

The title of the this thread and many of the responses bothers me a bit. What does this mean "Unique virtual too special to be Archived?" Is there some "wow" requirment that says this virtual should get a pass on the quidelines but some other virtual shouldn't? This cache was probably approved under the old "wow" guidelines - so by definition it is a unique location, of interest to other players, and has a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. But this is true of any virtual that was published during this period. I don't like the idea of saying something is so "wow" that is should be treated differently by the reviewers. If the Groundspeak and the reviewers are applying the guideline and archiving virtual caches because of absentee owners, then this cache should not get a pass because it is special.

Of course Groundspeak may still decide to do this -- after all they allow a cache on the International Space Station that is clearly not a geocache and is only there because Jeremy enjoys saying that there are even geocaches in space. He may similarly like to say there is a geocache at the south pole - and since that one is more likely to be found than the ISS cache, it makes more sense.

Finally, this is another example of why Needs Archive should be changed to something like Needs Reviewer Attention. Had SwineFlew posted a Needs Reviewer Attention because the owner appears to be missing, the reviewer could have looked and said "The cache appears to be fine. There are people finding it and there is not an excessive abuse of couch potato logs". Needs Archive tells the reviewer to archive the cache if there are guidelines not being met. It's only semantics, but a reviewer may feel they have less latitude as to how to respond.

5.7k · February 16, 2011

Grüße aus Deutschland, or rather greetings from Germany .

I have read each and every post here regarding the achiving of this virtual and think it would be a shame if the Cache would be archived. I also think the Cache community should also be ashamed about the way they have treated the OP. His actions were probably in good faith, bimho were totally wrong. I think the best way for the community to act now would be to petition GC not to archive this Cache.

Greetings from Germany? Never heard such a thing, you must have made that up yourself!

Made in good faith, and some of us should be ashamed? No, he's a serial world-wide agitator, I assume you're not familiar with his "work" over at Garmin's Opencaching.com, where he seems intent on stopping what seems to be about 90% of the new submissions in the world from being published. Not that I care about Opencaching.com, or will ever use it.

I am quite aware of the OP's work on the other site. So are that sites moderators. I even agreed with some of the OP's work, but not their tatics.

February 16, 2011

I don't see any reason to post a NA on this cache. It was a wrong thing to do. Hope it was worth it. I know who isn't getting geocacher of the year. :laughing:

5.7k · February 16, 2011

I don't see any reason to post a NA on this cache. It was a wrong thing to do. Hope it was worth it. I know who isn't getting geocacher of the year.

Just take a look at the extreame profanity that is being logged on the OP's caches at this time. Now this really crosses the line.

1.5k · February 16, 2011

I don't see any reason to post a NA on this cache. It was a wrong thing to do. Hope it was worth it. I know who isn't getting geocacher of the year.

Just take a look at the extreame profanity that is being logged on the OP's caches at this time. Now this really crosses the line.

Went to look and the logs have already been removed. The Reviewer has also locked the caches, for now, due to the bogus logs.

Whoever is posting bogus logs is damaging the game as it hurts other cachers far more than the CO. Stupid, stupid thing to do.

1.2k · February 16, 2011

I don't see any reason to post a NA on this cache. It was a wrong thing to do. Hope it was worth it. I know who isn't getting geocacher of the year.

Just take a look at the extreame profanity that is being logged on the OP's caches at this time. Now this really crosses the line.

Went to look and the logs have already been removed. The Reviewer has also locked the caches, for now, due to the bogus logs.

Whoever is posting bogus logs is damaging the game as it hurts other cachers far more than the CO. Stupid, stupid thing to do.

Not only that, but I'm willing to bet that the VOLUNTEER Reviewer had better things to do today than deal with this growing mess! :sad:

6.7k · February 16, 2011

Much more damage than SwineFlew did.

3.8k · February 16, 2011

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

My tongue is going to be bleeding by the time I'm done, but I'll keep it as friendly as possible.

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

Ditto ditto ditto. And I feel so strongly that you (the OP) crossed the line that I am posting this before having read the other two pages of posts.

2.7k · February 16, 2011

I agree that the OP crossed the line.

But I am also seriously disappointed at the reaction of the geocaching community to this. It's one thing to call him on it in the forum, and discuss how wrong it was. It's another thing that all the OPs caches are locked due to abusive logs.

THAT's the standard we want to maintain here folks? Really?

2.4k · February 16, 2011

I agree that the OP crossed the line.

But I am also seriously disappointed at the reaction of the geocaching community to this. It's one thing to call him on it in the forum, and discuss how wrong it was. It's another thing that all the OPs caches are locked due to abusive logs.

THAT's the standard we want to maintain here folks? Really?

+1

19k · February 16, 2011

I agree that the OP crossed the line.

But I am also seriously disappointed at the reaction of the geocaching community to this. It's one thing to call him on it in the forum, and discuss how wrong it was. It's another thing that all the OPs caches are locked due to abusive logs.

THAT's the standard we want to maintain here folks? Really?

I think all but one of us agree wholeheartedly with you on that point!

2.5k · February 16, 2011

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

My tongue is going to be bleeding by the time I'm done, but I'll keep it as friendly as possible.

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

+1

I read the opening thread... went to the cache page... and thought "what???? You're in Oregon for cryin out loud!" Every time I think I have "seen it all" something new pops up. What a waste.

All I can say is I hope the OP keeps his caches in perfect condition.

" I got guts and very thick skin"

Bet in a week you won't have a single cache left to find. NOT that I am suggesting anything to anyone... merely predicting.

I thought personal attacks wasn't allowed.

"Sorry, edited for my spelling error that the spelling teacher pointed out."

Edited February 16, 2011 by joranda

15.3k · February 16, 2011

Does anyone else think this looks like a geocide? Sure, most of us will shake our heads at the behavior of the OP, and some will condemn the behavior online. But a few are likely to take it further.

Cache owners depend upon the goodwill of cache seekers to keep our hides safe. Surely, someone with the experience of the OP (both as a cache owner and as a cache seeker) understands that. Why do something so inexcusable and then brag about it in the forums, other than to go out with a bang?

4.2k · February 16, 2011

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

My tongue is going to be bleeding by the time I'm done, but I'll keep it as friendly as possible.

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

+1

I read the opening thread... went to the cache page... and thought "what???? You're in Oregon for cryin out loud!" Every time I think I have "seen it all" something new pops up. What a waste.

All I can say is I hope the OP keeps his caches in perfect condition.

" I got guts and very thick skin"

Bet in a week you won't have a single cache left to find. NOT that I am suggesting anything to anyone... merely predicting.

I thought personal attacks wasn't aloud.

:huh:

February 16, 2011

This morning, I noticed a very"unique" virtual and the CO is MIA and there is no way to get a hold of him/her. So I hit the need archived button to let the reviewers decide what to do about it.

So my question is, is a very unique virtual is too special to be archived?

Here is the guideline for virtual cache if you wonder: Visit Link

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

It sad that you felt the need to NA a cache that you had never searched for. You deserve the anger people feel towards your actions.

5.2k · February 16, 2011

I'm going to go out on a limb here and thank the OP for logging the NA. If I had my way, all virtuals would go the way of locationless caches.

4.2k · February 16, 2011

I'm going to go out on a limb here and thank the OP for logging the NA. If I had my way, all virtuals would go the way of locationless caches.

It's one thing to not like a cache or a type of hide. It's entirely another to take an active part in it's removal. From across the globe.

I mean, you don't see Clan Riffster logging NA on leaky film cans in Australia.

8k · February 16, 2011

I'm going to go out on a limb here and thank the OP for logging the NA. If I had my way, all virtuals would go the way of locationless caches.

There are certainly a number of Waymarking categories where the south pole marker could be listed

February 16, 2011

I mean, you don't see Clan Riffster logging NA on leaky film cans in Australia.

Don't be putting any ideas in Riffters head. He can get into enough trouble all on his own

5.7k · February 16, 2011

Does anyone else think this looks like a geocide? Sure, most of us will shake our heads at the behavior of the OP, and some will condemn the behavior online. But a few are likely to take it further.

Cache owners depend upon the goodwill of cache seekers to keep our hides safe. Surely, someone with the experience of the OP (both as a cache owner and as a cache seeker) understands that. Why do something so inexcusable and then brag about it in the forums, other than to go out with a bang?

I was waiting for a post like this. I can't get in trouble for agreeing with you can I? I set back and watched another user play a funny little game a few nights ago. Their intent was to harm geocaching. Maybe we have the same thing happing here?

February 16, 2011

I don't see any reason to post a NA on this cache. It was a wrong thing to do. Hope it was worth it. I know who isn't getting geocacher of the year.

Just take a look at the extreame profanity that is being logged on the OP's caches at this time. Now this really crosses the line.

I look at like this..............He brought it upon himself. There was no reason for him to put a NA on the cache. These other cachers are MAD. There were alot of folks watching that cache. He's gotta deal with it now.

6.7k · February 16, 2011

I don't see any reason to post a NA on this cache. It was a wrong thing to do. Hope it was worth it. I know who isn't getting geocacher of the year.

Just take a look at the extreame profanity that is being logged on the OP's caches at this time. Now this really crosses the line.

I look at like this..............He brought it upon himself. There was no reason for him to put a NA on the cache. These other cachers are MAD. There were alot of folks watching that cache. He's gotta deal with it now.

He and everyone who may have been watching his caches, the mods, the reviewers and the Groundspeak employees. The reaction has been more akin to "You egged my house so I'm gonna burn down your neighborhood".

1.5k · February 16, 2011

Just take a look at the extreame profanity that is being logged on the OP's caches at this time. Now this really crosses the line.

I look at like this..............He brought it upon himself. There was no reason for him to put a NA on the cache. These other cachers are MAD. There were alot of folks watching that cache. He's gotta deal with it now.

The only thing the OP brought on himself was the forum comments in response to his posting.

The OP did not bring upon himself the actions of the loony toons who posted vile messages on his caches. Those log entries are entirely the responsibility of the sad loaner who (apparently) stopped taking their medications recently.

February 16, 2011

I don't see any reason to post a NA on this cache. It was a wrong thing to do. Hope it was worth it. I know who isn't getting geocacher of the year.

Just take a look at the extreame profanity that is being logged on the OP's caches at this time. Now this really crosses the line.

I look at like this..............He brought it upon himself. There was no reason for him to put a NA on the cache. These other cachers are MAD. There were alot of folks watching that cache. He's gotta deal with it now.

He and everyone who may have been watching his caches, the mods, the reviewers and the Groundspeak employees. The reaction has been more akin to "You egged my house so I'm gonna burn down your neighborhood".

He knew what he was getting himself into by putting the NA on that cache. Really what did you think was going to happen. Of course cachers were going to attack his caches. That's the only way they can get back at him. HE gave them a reason to attck his caches. We wouldn't be talking about this if he would have left everything alone. So I say he deserves whatever is dished to him.

February 16, 2011

Just take a look at the extreame profanity that is being logged on the OP's caches at this time. Now this really crosses the line.

I look at like this..............He brought it upon himself. There was no reason for him to put a NA on the cache. These other cachers are MAD. There were alot of folks watching that cache. He's gotta deal with it now.

The only thing the OP brought on himself was the forum comments in response to his posting.

The OP did not bring upon himself the actions of the loony toons who posted vile messages on his caches. Those log entries are entirely the responsibility of the sad loaner who (apparently) stopped taking their medications recently.

I didn't get to see any of the posts. Every action has a reaction, some good some bad.

2.7k · February 16, 2011

He knew what he was getting himself into by putting the NA on that cache. Really what did you think was going to happen. Of course cachers were going to attack his caches. That's the only way they can get back at him. HE gave them a reason to attck his caches. We wouldn't be talking about this if he would have left everything alone. So I say he deserves whatever is dished to him.

When it becomes acceptable behaviour to vandalize another cacher's caches, it's time for everyone to take their ball home and find a new hobby. This game will not survive if we turn it into a tit-for-tat bloodsport on the caches.

Lowering yourself to the level/activity you disagree with does not make you more "right".

edit: typo

Edited February 16, 2011 by northernpenguin

1.5k · February 16, 2011

He knew what he was getting himself into by putting the NA on that cache. Really what did you think was going to happen. Of course cachers were going to attack his caches. That's the only way they can get back at him. HE gave them a reason to attck his caches. We wouldn't be talking about this if he would have left everything alone. So I say he deserves whatever is dished to him.

-100

Whatever action the OP took, it pales in comparison to what was done to his caches. That response is totally out of proportion to the OP action and is not deserved.

The OP posted a NA and nothing will likely come of that action. It's all a lot of noise and hubbub. Now, having all his caches locked due to what some idiot was posting on them...that's not right.

4.2k · February 16, 2011

I don't see any reason to post a NA on this cache. It was a wrong thing to do. Hope it was worth it. I know who isn't getting geocacher of the year.

Just take a look at the extreame profanity that is being logged on the OP's caches at this time. Now this really crosses the line.

I look at like this..............He brought it upon himself. There was no reason for him to put a NA on the cache. These other cachers are MAD. There were alot of folks watching that cache. He's gotta deal with it now.

He and everyone who may have been watching his caches, the mods, the reviewers and the Groundspeak employees. The reaction has been more akin to "You egged my house so I'm gonna burn down your neighborhood".

He knew what he was getting himself into by putting the NA on that cache. Really what did you think was going to happen. Of course cachers were going to attack his caches. That's the only way they can get back at him. HE gave them a reason to attck his caches. We wouldn't be talking about this if he would have left everything alone. So I say he deserves whatever is dished to him.

Seriously?

He gave them a reason to be upset. He did not give them a reason to act like fourth-graders, that was their choice.

2.1k · February 16, 2011

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

My tongue is going to be bleeding by the time I'm done, but I'll keep it as friendly as possible.

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

+1

I read the opening thread... went to the cache page... and thought "what???? You're in Oregon for cryin out loud!" Every time I think I have "seen it all" something new pops up. What a waste.

All I can say is I hope the OP keeps his caches in perfect condition.

" I got guts and very thick skin"

Bet in a week you won't have a single cache left to find. NOT that I am suggesting anything to anyone... merely predicting.

I thought personal attacks wasn't aloud.

Where do you see a personal attack in there? And by the way, I think you mean "allowed." Unless you are suggesting that we should read the personal attacks silently.

5.7k · February 16, 2011

I'm sure he knew what he was doing. He also first posted within guidelines, but as a self-appointed geopolice. He picked a real good cache to target for attention. Not some of the lame ones on my watchlist that are being bogus logged that no one cares about. He could have just used a sock puppet account to do the deed with.

What is the real issue with posting NA's on ownerless unmaintained caches? It sure stirs up the geocommunity, and do they play by the rules or are they concerned with gidelines?

February 16, 2011

I don't see any reason to post a NA on this cache. It was a wrong thing to do. Hope it was worth it. I know who isn't getting geocacher of the year.

Just take a look at the extreame profanity that is being logged on the OP's caches at this time. Now this really crosses the line.

I look at like this..............He brought it upon himself. There was no reason for him to put a NA on the cache. These other cachers are MAD. There were alot of folks watching that cache. He's gotta deal with it now.

He and everyone who may have been watching his caches, the mods, the reviewers and the Groundspeak employees. The reaction has been more akin to "You egged my house so I'm gonna burn down your neighborhood".

He knew what he was getting himself into by putting the NA on that cache. Really what did you think was going to happen. Of course cachers were going to attack his caches. That's the only way they can get back at him. HE gave them a reason to attck his caches. We wouldn't be talking about this if he would have left everything alone. So I say he deserves whatever is dished to him.

Seriously?

He gave them a reason to be upset. He did not give them a reason to act like fourth-graders, that was their choice.

Hey I don't think it was right for cachers to attack his caches. All I'm saying is he deserves what he gets. He brought this mess on himself.

Unique Virtual too special to be Archived?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment