Jump to content

Too Close for Comfort


Recommended Posts

So let me see if I am following this correctly;

 

A geocacher has a new cache denied for proximity issues.

 

Later that same geocacher finds a cache that was published that is even more out of line with proximity guidelines then their denied cache. However they still go ahead and log a find and claim their FTF.

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum.

 

This posting leads to supposed questions about reviewer competency. It also appears there is some question as to the reviewers gender since despite several mentions that the reviewer is female there are subsequent posts still referring to the reviewer as male.

 

The offending cache gets archived and an apology sent to the cache owner for the mistake.

 

Owner of the archived cache may or may not be pleased with this result.

 

An attempt to shift blame(responsibility) for this incident to the cache owner is made by a third party. An ironic twist of the word 'thorough' is used considering a 'thorough' reading of the thread could have established the previously mentioned PMO issue.

 

A third party adds to the discussion by questioning if it is ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count.

 

So after all of this I have a question.

 

Why would anybody go through all that work to summarize the thread, then turn it into an FTF ethics question? :lol:

Link to comment

An attempt to shift blame(responsibility) for this incident to the cache owner is made by a third party. An ironic twist of the word 'thorough' is used considering a 'thorough' reading of the thread could have established the previously mentioned PMO issue.

 

I did read the thread. As has been stated, you don't have to be a premium member to check for PM proximity issues.

 

Hopefully people who are placing caches are checking for PM caches, and finding as many multis and puzzle caches in their area before placing the cache. Otherwise, that makes waaaay too much unecessary work for the reviewer.

Link to comment

Actually being FTF is very relevant because they could have prevented this from becoming an issue at all.

They were first to know that there was an issue with the cache. They could have immediately contacted the cache owner and/or a reviewer with their concerns. Instead they log a find and then later bring the issue up on a forum. So now the reviewer and cache owner are blindsided by this becoming an issue on an international forum. Accusations have been raised against the cache reviewer and cache owner all because it was more important for someone to get their 'smiley' then to address the listing issue first.

 

That has a nice spin on it, however the simple fact is both the cache owner and the reviewer made a mistake, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Also a find is a find, nothing more, nothing less, despite your obvious distaste against people who rush out for FTFs. A "find" is simple communication that the person found it and signed the logbook. There are many more problems from people posting NA logs on caches that they did not find, or did not even visit. If someone finds something, they are encouraged to log it.

 

Also since the How Close is Too Close thread was bumped, it is perfectly valid for someone to bring it up in here. Blind accusations were raised against cache reviewers, with no examples to accompany them. This is a forum, it is MUCH better for people to talk about things in the open than behind someones back.

Inferring that someone should keep silent, or hush up, historically leads to many more problems.

Link to comment

 

 

despite your obvious distaste against people who rush out for FTFs.

 

Seriously where? WHERE?!?!

Show me ANYTHING I have posted where I say ANYTHING NEGATIVE about the PEOPLE who enjoy FTFs in this thread.

Do I think FTF is important for how I enjoy geocaching? No.

Does that statement say or imply anything about how I feel about the PEOPLE that do enjoy FTF? NO!

 

What is your agenda about insisting on making this about FTF?

 

There are many more problems from people posting NA logs on caches that they did not find, or did not even visit.

So are you implying that because there are more prevalent issues that less prevalent issues should not be discussed? Otherwise I don't see what you hope to accomplish with that statement.

 

Also since the How Close is Too Close thread was bumped, it is perfectly valid for someone to bring it up in here. Blind accusations were raised against cache reviewers, with no examples to accompany them. This is a forum, it is MUCH better for people to talk about things in the open than behind someones back.

Inferring that someone should keep silent, or hush up, historically leads to many more problems.

Where has anyone in this thread inferred, implied, stated or requested that someone should keep silent or hush up?

Has it been suggested that potential issues be handled by following some common sense guidelines by contacting the people directly involved to seek a remedy before posting it to the forum? Yes

Does that equate to telling someone to keep silent? No.

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

Zero excuse whatsoever.

 

I appreciate that our Reviewers are Volunteers, but if they can't handle the job competently along with the rest of their daily lives then they don't need to be in it!

 

I hear that all the time as an excuse... they are volunteers, they have a life, yada yada. I'm a volunteer too, in other communities, and if I get to where I can't balance everything (and it does happen) I ask for help.

 

'I'm over-worked' or 'I'm too busy to do what I do well' is never an acceptable excuse.

 

Little harsh really man,just was making an observation in my post, everybody makes a mistake sometimes. Ooze is really good reviewer in our area, he usually doesn't miss a beat.............and in realty now that he has seen my post here I have to do some MAJOR sucking up otherwise I'll never get anymore of my future caches published !!!! :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

 

I'm SCREWED !!

 

SS

 

Think of it this way. If that archived cache gets published at a new location you'll have another FTF opportunity.

Link to comment

 

I just looked at your profile, and saw how many FTFs you have, this explains why you just don't get it.

 

SS

Oh I get it, to you the following of the rules and listing guidelines only matters AFTER you get your precious FTF. You have no problem upsetting a cache owner and causing issues for a reviewer all on a forum instead of following proper channels as long as you get to keep the smiley.

Now as to why the FTF is so precious the rules shouldn't matter....yeah I don't get that.

5 friends with a few sock-puppet accounts could get me FTF numbers higher then yours in a matter of a few months. So what do FTF numbers prove?

Link to comment

 

I just looked at your profile, and saw how many FTFs you have, this explains why you just don't get it.

 

SS

Oh I get it, to you the following of the rules and listing guidelines only matters AFTER you get your precious FTF. You have no problem upsetting a cache owner and causing issues for a reviewer all on a forum instead of following proper channels as long as you get to keep the smiley.

Now as to why the FTF is so precious the rules shouldn't matter....yeah I don't get that.

5 friends with a few sock-puppet accounts could get me FTF numbers higher then yours in a matter of a few months. So what do FTF numbers prove?

Love-15

Link to comment

 

I just looked at your profile, and saw how many FTFs you have, this explains why you just don't get it.

 

SS

Oh I get it, to you the following of the rules and listing guidelines only matters AFTER you get your precious FTF. You have no problem upsetting a cache owner and causing issues for a reviewer all on a forum instead of following proper channels as long as you get to keep the smiley.

Now as to why the FTF is so precious the rules shouldn't matter....yeah I don't get that.

5 friends with a few sock-puppet accounts could get me FTF numbers higher then yours in a matter of a few months. So what do FTF numbers prove?

Your point? SS used my lack of high FTF numbers as some odd rational for why I could not understand the unrelated concept of not logging a find on a cache you want to get archived.

You want to take a comment I made to a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL about a SPECIFIC POINT and then apply that comment to ALL PEOPLE who might be GENERALLY INVOLVED? Using that same concept then I must have 'distaste' for ALL geocachers since it was a comment about an INDIVIDUAL geocacher. And then to take it even further I must also have 'distaste' for all HUMANS since I assume SS is a human and I did make a comment to them.

Seriously, this is your example to prove I have 'distaste' for all people who like to FTF? Really?

Wow.

Link to comment

 

Seriously where? WHERE?!?!

Show me ANYTHING I have posted where I say ANYTHING NEGATIVE about the PEOPLE who enjoy FTFs in this thread.

Do I think FTF is important for how I enjoy geocaching? No.

Does that statement say or imply anything about how I feel about the PEOPLE that do enjoy FTF? NO!

 

I think this is what 4wheelin_fool was referring to. (emphasis mine)

 

"Oh I get it, to you the following of the rules and listing guidelines only matters AFTER you get your precious FTF. You have no problem upsetting a cache owner and causing issues for a reviewer all on a forum instead of following proper channels as long as you get to keep the smiley.

Now as to why the FTF is so precious the rules shouldn't matter....yeah I don't get that.

5 friends with a few sock-puppet accounts could get me FTF numbers higher then yours in a matter of a few months. So what do FTF numbers prove?"

 

Seems a lot like something negative to me. (I do mean "to me") It also seems like you have a problem with SS enjoying the "FTF" hunt.

 

I agree with SS that, in the instance described, logging a find and then bringing the proximity issue to the attention of the reviewer is just fine. It should not matter that SS was the "FTF". Someone was bound to be "FTF" on that cache, and, if they wanted to observe and mention that the cache did not meet proximity guidelines, they are entitled to do so in whatever way they see fit.

 

You have said that you would not claim a find. So be it. SS claimed a find. So be it. I would do the same. However, like knowschad has said, if it requires breaking the law to make a find and then report it to the owner/reviewer, one should likely not log a find. But again, some do.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

 

Seems a lot like something negative to me. (I do mean "to me") It also seems like you have a problem with SS enjoying the "FTF" hunt.

 

Ok so perhaps my grasp of the English language is lacking but I do not see anything negative said about Bob. Bob is a random geocacher who really enjoys FTF hunts. So what negative thing did I state that would apply directly to Bob in the quote you cite? Now 4wheelin_fool wants to apply what I said to SS to somehow directly be about Bob and all other people who enjoy FTF.

 

I have no problem with SS, Bob or anyone else enjoying the "FTF" hunt.

 

I do have a problem with ANYONE who disregards the guidelines and tries to use the "FTF" hunt or even just a smiley as an excuse to do so. (Not implying that SS does this, but it does happen and I think it is wrong and against the spirit of the hobby).

 

I do have a problem with people directly posting about a problem cache in the forum without at least attempting to go through the proper local channels first. (not saying that SS did this, but it is still not clear which action they took first and it has happened may other times on this forum)

 

I also have an issue with using another geocacher's 'stats' as a basis to belittle their ability to form a rational opinion on a geocaching subject. (Yes I am stating that I feel that SS did do this).

 

The only reason FTF was even in this thread is because SS brought that information to the thread.

I got both FTFs on these caches there was no movement at all on either one, but again not a big deal really.
So could one take that now since SS got his FTF on each cache the future of the cache in question is now "not a big deal really"? Yet it was a big enough of a deal to get the reviewer drug into forum and the cache archived.
Link to comment

Cx1, you flung the arrows first, and are posting in caps now. If the arrows don't hit anyone, don't be surprised if someone else picks them up and flings them back. A bit emotionally charged over a situation where you did not start the thread, are the cache owner or the reviewer, eh?

 

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Fry up a can of worms and don't be surprised if someone complains of the taste. :rolleyes:

 

SS only reported a situation, and didn't accuse anyone of anything other than making a mistake.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Cx1, you flung the arrows first, and are posting in caps now. If the arrows don't hit anyone, don't be surprised if someone else picks them up and flings them back. A bit emotionally charged over a situation where you did not start the thread, are the cache owner or the reviewer, eh?

 

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Fry up a can of worms and don't be surprised if someone complains of the taste. :rolleyes:

Caps where an attempt to get you to actually see the words I post instead of attributing statements to me that I never made.

No arrows were flung, I asked a question and you and others would rather avoid the question and make the discussion about something else.

I have no emotion on this issue, I am simply procrastinating on doing my housework.

However I do not care for people attributing statements to me which I did not make. So it could be I am a bit miffed about that one particular aspect of the thread. But since you can not actually show any evidence that I have written 'anything' that would apply to 'all FTF hunters' other then I do not have issues with them then I suppose I will have no choice but to let you maintain your slight delusion. I mean you have stated to cook something after suggesting I should leave the proper room to cook in. How rational is someone who posts like that?

Link to comment

Cx1, you flung the arrows first, and are posting in caps now. If the arrows don't hit anyone, don't be surprised if someone else picks them up and flings them back. A bit emotionally charged over a situation where you did not start the thread, are the cache owner or the reviewer, eh?

 

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Fry up a can of worms and don't be surprised if someone complains of the taste. :rolleyes:

Caps where an attempt to get you to actually see the words I post instead of attributing statements to me that I never made.

No arrows were flung, I asked a question and you and others would rather avoid the question and make the discussion about something else.

I have no emotion on this issue, I am simply procrastinating on doing my housework.

However I do not care for people attributing statements to me which I did not make. So it could be I am a bit miffed about that one particular aspect of the thread. But since you can not actually show any evidence that I have written 'anything' that would apply to 'all FTF hunters' other then I do not have issues with them then I suppose I will have no choice but to let you maintain your slight delusion. I mean you have stated to cook something after suggesting I should leave the proper room to cook in. How rational is someone who posts like that?

I'm sorry, I called attention to it after 4w_f posted what led to this fiasco. (and fwiw, there were two different sentences used as separate idioms, so I don't think you can attribute them to 4w_f's "delusion")

 

Again, cx1, you need to see that your argument for your stance on the issue lumped SS's actions (summarized as, "Found 2 caches. They were too close, according to the guidelines. I thought it was interesting, based on my personal experience. I contacted the reviewer, and they didn't respond until coming to the forums. The cache was archived.") into how many cachers would treat this situation, including myself. It may not be "all" FTF hounds, but it is a broad brush to paint your disgust with.

 

I've quoted the things you actually said, and to me it seems like a bit negative. I highlighted the words that made your tone come across as negative. And yet, the issue really isn't that big of a deal. Just cool your jets and make nice with SS and move on. SS didn't disregard the guidelines. Technically, the cache owner and the reviewer "disregarded" (in quotes because that's mighty harsh, considering the context) the guidelines, and SS followed up on this discovery.

 

It really seemed like you got heated back when SS mentioned that they found the caches as "FTF". You then got into something about how a "precious" FTF hunt was misguided when the finds were made on caches that were too close.

 

I get it, you're upset about order of operations. You wouldn't have handled it that way. That is very clear to us. But you did come across as negative, and I find myself in the group of people sharing the opinion about which you have a problem--that a find is a find, and calling out an improperly hidden cache after that find is just fine--so long as no laws were broken in the hunt.

Link to comment

Looks like we have a new situation where the term puritan applies.

 

Come on now. The goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider. We can debate if the rationale for the guidelines still apply but the clearly they aren't meant to be taken as hard and fast rules. Whether a reviewer decided to allow an exception, the reviewer made a mistake, or the cache owner moved the cache after it was approved (and the reviewer missed the notification), there are many caches that are less than 528 ft. apart. It makes no difference. In particular just because someone finds two caches close together, there should be no reason for them to expect the reviewer to allow them to place caches as close to another cache. The general rule is to expect caches to be at least 528 feet apart, but gosh to appoint oneself the Lord Protector of the rules and start complaining in the forums everytime you find an exception to this? So what if there are two caches close to each other? Be happy that they are there to be found, just don't expect the cache you placed too close to another one will be approved.

 

But what really is puritan are those who go further and say that if you find a cache that appears to violate the guidelines don't log a find and a needs archive. Prior to the cache being archived, it is a cache on Geocaching.com and is just as valid a find as any other cache. If there is something that is a real concern that a reviewer should know about, a Needs Archive is a valid way to do this (still hoping this gets changed to Needs Reviewer Attention). The reviewer may look and say the cache is OK even. When you find a cache you can log it found online. If you think a reviewer needs to look at it again, that is something separate. Only a puritan would think that logging a find and a needs archive is "cheating".

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

If you say that a geocache needs archiving you are basically stating that given the current set of circumstances this 'object' found in your own opinion does not meet the guidelines to be an official geocache listed on the Groundspeak listing service and the listing should be either disabled or archived.

 

But even though to you this 'object' should not be listed as an official geocache, you want to be able to count it as an official geocache for yourself anyway.

 

To not agree is being a Puritan?

 

Or maybe it is just not having double-standards.

Link to comment

If you say that a geocache needs archiving you are basically stating that given the current set of circumstances this 'object' found in your own opinion does not meet the guidelines to be an official geocache listed on the Groundspeak listing service and the listing should be either disabled or archived.

 

But even though to you this 'object' should not be listed as an official geocache, you want to be able to count it as an official geocache for yourself anyway.

 

To not agree is being a Puritan?

 

Or maybe it is just not having double-standards.

Just stop. Please. Pretty please. I'll share my ice cream.

Link to comment

If you say that a geocache needs archiving you are basically stating that given the current set of circumstances this 'object' found in your own opinion does not meet the guidelines to be an official geocache listed on the Groundspeak listing service and the listing should be either disabled or archived.

 

But even though to you this 'object' should not be listed as an official geocache, you want to be able to count it as an official geocache for yourself anyway.

 

To not agree is being a Puritan?

 

Or maybe it is just not having double-standards.

That's why Needs Archive should be Needs Reviewer Attention. I'm saying I found a geocache listed on Geocaching.com. Therefore I can log it as found. Perhaps I see something that might be problematic and I would like to bring this to the attention of a reviewer. If the cache needs to be archived the reviewer can do so. But while it was active it is an official piece in this game.

 

Many caches are active for a long time before there is a problem - permission was revoked, construction has made the cache unaccessible, a guideline was changed, a cache owner stops doing maintenance. These were all valid caches until they got archived. Of course the puritan can say that when the condition changed to cause the cache to be archived is when it stopped being a cache. The problem is that perhaps the condition didn't change. What the cachers sees was known to the hider and reviewer all along, but they determined that there was adequate permission or that an exception to the saturation guidelines was in order. Still the finder should let the reviewer know particular if they think it could cause a problem.

 

Unlike you I don't see Need Archive as saying this shouldn't be a cache and therefore I shouldn't find it. Instead I see this as saying there may be a problem with the cache vis a vis one or more of the guidelines. The reviewer should take a look. There could be an outcome to do nothing, or it could be that a minor adjustment and the problem will be taken care. Archiving is only one possible outcome and, IMO, doesn't mean the cache was not valid find when I found it.

Link to comment

 

That's why Needs Archive should be Needs Reviewer Attention.

But as it is currently "Needs Archived" is what it is. Isn't it?

I do support the idea of having that either changed, or a 3rd option of adding Needs Reviewer Attention, but with a different acronym perhaps. Reviewer Attention Please (RAP) might work.

 

Edit: Oops it appears that while I was posting mysterious forces are starting to make people click threads they don't want to read. Golly, since they no longer have control over their own actions and are forced to read this thread I will stop posting in it to save them from themselves.

Edited by cx1
Link to comment

That's why Needs Archive should be Needs Reviewer Attention.

But as it is currently "Needs Archived" is what it is. Isn't it?

I do support the idea of having that either changed, or a 3rd option of adding Needs Reviewer Attention, but with a different acronym perhaps. Reviewer Attention Please (RAP) might work.

 

No. If you actually had to power to have a cache archived just because you posted a NA log, then that might be true. But you don't. All your NA log does is to notify the cache owner and the reviewer that you *think* there is a significant problem with the cache. You are not the judge nor the jury. You are simply another cacher giving your opinion.

Link to comment

If you say that a geocache needs archiving you are basically stating that given the current set of circumstances this 'object' found in your own opinion does not meet the guidelines to be an official geocache listed on the Groundspeak listing service and the listing should be either disabled or archived.

 

But even though to you this 'object' should not be listed as an official geocache, you want to be able to count it as an official geocache for yourself anyway.

 

To not agree is being a Puritan?

 

Or maybe it is just not having double-standards.

That's why Needs Archive should be Needs Reviewer Attention. I'm saying I found a geocache listed on Geocaching.com. Therefore I can log it as found. Perhaps I see something that might be problematic and I would like to bring this to the attention of a reviewer. If the cache needs to be archived the reviewer can do so. But while it was active it is an official piece in this game.

 

Many caches are active for a long time before there is a problem - permission was revoked, construction has made the cache unaccessible, a guideline was changed, a cache owner stops doing maintenance. These were all valid caches until they got archived. Of course the puritan can say that when the condition changed to cause the cache to be archived is when it stopped being a cache. The problem is that perhaps the condition didn't change. What the cachers sees was known to the hider and reviewer all along, but they determined that there was adequate permission or that an exception to the saturation guidelines was in order. Still the finder should let the reviewer know particular if they think it could cause a problem.

 

Unlike you I don't see Need Archive as saying this shouldn't be a cache and therefore I shouldn't find it. Instead I see this as saying there may be a problem with the cache vis a vis one or more of the guidelines. The reviewer should take a look. There could be an outcome to do nothing, or it could be that a minor adjustment and the problem will be taken care. Archiving is only one possible outcome and, IMO, doesn't mean the cache was not valid find when I found it.

 

It is not good for my mental health when I agree with Toz! If a cache is listed, and one finds it, and signs the log, then it is a valid find. Two of the caches on which I have logged finds have been retracted. (Neither due to anything I said or did.) One was in an historically inappropriate location. On the other, I suspect that the CO fudged the final coords for a mystery cache. The final was 70' from another cache. Actually, a very well done cache. Shame that the CO didn't rework it... Both were listed caches when I foud and logged them. I would have been very upset if I had been denied the find when they were retracted.

Link to comment

[this thread] Needs Moderator Attention.

I don't know. I still see a valid concern here...

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum. This posting leads to supposed questions about reviewer competency. It also appears there is some question as to the reviewers gender since despite several mentions that the reviewer is female there are subsequent posts still referring to the reviewer as male.

There is still an issue here that has been left untouched. No one mentions the question of whether the reviewer is a canine or a human. I see at least two more pages as that issue really needs to be resolved here too.

 

:cool:

Link to comment

[this thread] Needs Moderator Attention.

I don't know. I still see a valid concern here...

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum. This posting leads to supposed questions about reviewer competency. It also appears there is some question as to the reviewers gender since despite several mentions that the reviewer is female there are subsequent posts still referring to the reviewer as male.

There is still an issue here that has been left untouched. No one mentions the question of whether the reviewer is a canine or a human. I see at least two more pages as that issue really needs to be resolved here too.

 

:cool:

Gosh, when will you deploy gerbils as reviewers? K9's take away too much of the spotlight. :P

Link to comment

There is still an issue here that has been left untouched. No one mentions the question of whether the reviewer is a canine or a human. I see at least two more pages as that issue really needs to be resolved here too.

 

:cool:

Yes we know that some reviewers are canine. But it has never been mentioned if there is a feline reviewer. One has to speculate if one should trade in some of the milkbones for some prime tuna. I know in my house the canines are large and bark ferociously, but it is the felines that rule the roost and call the shots.

Link to comment

[this thread] Needs Moderator Attention.

I don't know. I still see a valid concern here...

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum. This posting leads to supposed questions about reviewer competency. It also appears there is some question as to the reviewers gender since despite several mentions that the reviewer is female there are subsequent posts still referring to the reviewer as male.

There is still an issue here that has been left untouched. No one mentions the question of whether the reviewer is a canine or a human. I see at least two more pages as that issue really needs to be resolved here too.

 

:cool:

 

Perhaps the reviewer is a doorknob. We can't eliminate that possibility. In which case, we need to ascertain if it's metal or wooden.

Link to comment

[this thread] Needs Moderator Attention.

I don't know. I still see a valid concern here...

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum. This posting leads to supposed questions about reviewer competency. It also appears there is some question as to the reviewers gender since despite several mentions that the reviewer is female there are subsequent posts still referring to the reviewer as male.

There is still an issue here that has been left untouched. No one mentions the question of whether the reviewer is a canine or a human. I see at least two more pages as that issue really needs to be resolved here too.

 

:cool:

 

Perhaps the reviewer is a doorknob. We can't eliminate that possibility. In which case, we need to ascertain if it's metal or wooden.

Is there some reason your prejudice against glass doorknobs?

Link to comment

[this thread] Needs Moderator Attention.

I don't know. I still see a valid concern here...

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum. This posting leads to supposed questions about reviewer competency. It also appears there is some question as to the reviewers gender since despite several mentions that the reviewer is female there are subsequent posts still referring to the reviewer as male.

There is still an issue here that has been left untouched. No one mentions the question of whether the reviewer is a canine or a human. I see at least two more pages as that issue really needs to be resolved here too.

 

:cool:

 

YES there are still many unresolved issues such as I heard from a friend,of a friend of a friend that used to be into Letter boxing and now is into Geocaching..... that the Reviewer in question may be a VEGAN we need to talk about that for a few more pages??? :drama::drama::drama:

 

Scubasonic

Link to comment

So let me see if I am following this correctly;

 

A geocacher has a new cache denied for proximity issues.

 

Later that same geocacher finds a cache that was published that is even more out of line with proximity guidelines then their denied cache. However they still go ahead and log a find and claim their FTF.

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum.

 

...

 

Is it ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count?

 

If you are sufficiently driven by competition and numbers, then "ethics" does not enter into it. Getting the find, and, more importantly, the FTF is all that matters.

 

Clearly the OP thought this was a big enough deal to post about it on the forums and then continued posting frequently to keep the thread alive. All while insisting that he considered it "no big deal." Methinks he doth protest too much.

Link to comment

[this thread] Needs Moderator Attention.

I don't know. I still see a valid concern here...

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum. This posting leads to supposed questions about reviewer competency. It also appears there is some question as to the reviewers gender since despite several mentions that the reviewer is female there are subsequent posts still referring to the reviewer as male.

There is still an issue here that has been left untouched. No one mentions the question of whether the reviewer is a canine or a human. I see at least two more pages as that issue really needs to be resolved here too.

 

:cool:

 

Perhaps the reviewer is a doorknob. We can't eliminate that possibility. In which case, we need to ascertain if it's metal or wooden.

Is there some reason your prejudice against glass doorknobs?

 

They get smudgy! I'm entitled to not like them! It's a free country!

Link to comment

So let me see if I am following this correctly;

 

A geocacher has a new cache denied for proximity issues.

 

Later that same geocacher finds a cache that was published that is even more out of line with proximity guidelines then their denied cache. However they still go ahead and log a find and claim their FTF.

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum.

 

...

 

Is it ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count?

 

If you are sufficiently driven by competition and numbers, then "ethics" does not enter into it. Getting the find, and, more importantly, the FTF is all that matters.

 

Clearly the OP thought this was a big enough deal to post about it on the forums and then continued posting frequently to keep the thread alive. All while insisting that he considered it "no big deal." Methinks he doth protest too much.

 

Hey Fizzy don't you have a School paper to correct for grammar, or spelling? since you seem to be hung up on that.

 

SS

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...