Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
thebruce0

GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to add anything, necessarily to this discussion, but as spoken by Sargents and confirmed by CacheDrone, the forum is better place for discussion, so I'm copying the logs posted to the cache page here for perpetuity, and for review by other forum members.

 

This is regarding GC280PA

 

I'll only say this: This cache should prompt an exception for adoption. If only because of all the work cachers have put into completing it, and those who may have been working on this high-effort task for up to a full year. It is only fair. Anyhow, here is the progress of discussion since gg's archival (his reasoning will remain out of it - talk to him about that). The following comments were posted as logs on the cache page (but for some reason there's a max quote limit in the forum)

 

---- gg

I give up on Geocaching.com. I may move this listing to a competitors site. Goodbye. Thanks all for stopping by.

 

I know some of you were looking forward to finding this cache however I will not maintain it. If you wish to hide a similar challenge cache in the area go for it.

 

---- philfyboy

So sorry to see this one go, my wife and I were coming in early October to complete the cache. This is the cache I pointed to during my streak to keep my wife happy and a trip to Canada was something she was excited about.

 

---- gg

If any of the local finders would like to adopt this cache let me know.

 

---- carnigrewal

The idea behind this cache is awesome, and I can honestly say that I was sad to get the archive notice. I really do hope its gets adopted.

 

---- thebruce0

Not giving on the daily caching. Hopefully this will be revived or adopted...

 

---- gg

The Sargents will adopt this cache.

 

---- dfx

Too bad you can't adopt archived caches...

 

---- CacheDrone

As was correctly pointed out, it is our policy to not unarchive a geocache for the purposes of adoption. As such if someone else wants to create their own version of this listing then they are free to so as long as they meet the conditions listed under (visit link)

 

---- gg

Oh well this one is now dead. Not sure why that policy would be in place. If I just said un-archive it because I will tend to it then transferred it a few weeks later it results in the same thing.

 

Maybe the policy needs to be revised!

 

If someone wants to make Ironman 2, the container is already on site and it's ready to go.

 

---- thebruce0

If there's one thing I've learned over the past couple of months, it's that the rules aren't rules - they're guidelines that the reviewers vehemently adhere to, though given the rights to make exceptions based on their own judgement on a case by case basis as they see fit, knowing that the exception does not set a precedent for future cases.

 

I would hope in this case that an exception is feasible as there are people who have been watching and working on this challenge cache - across the continent and up to a full year as of now.

 

Having this cache now resigned to forever be archived simply because it's "not allowed" to be adopted once archived is...

well I'll just stop there.

 

Of course someone could just re-publish an Ironman 2 at the same coordinates using the same container, but that does seem so very redundant and unnecessary. Just unarchive and allow adoption. Please.

 

I hope a decision can be made, or an appeal on principle, to allow this cache to remain for those who are working on it, or desire to work on it. *sigh*

 

---- sargents

Note sent to CacheDrone

 

I was hoping that you would please review your decision on unarchiving GC280PA (Ironman Cache a Day Challenge). I was the one who volunteered to take over the cache.If this were a normal cache I would not ask and would have no qualms about posting a new cache.I believe that this is a somewhat unique situation and requires a bit of thought and made a stretching or bending of the normal practices. As this is a challenge cache where the requirement is to complete 365 continuous days of caching it is not an easy cache to get. People from many areas have come to get this cache and there are many who are (were) working hard to achieve the requirements so that they can come here to record their completion.

 

I would like the people that have already accomplished the challenge and log the cache would have to return and re-logged to still be included without having to return and re-log a new cache. I also think that re-logging a new cache with an old achievement diminishes the true spirit of this cache.

 

Thanks for talking the time to look at this

Sargents

 

---- CacheDrone

Listing will now be locked as this is not the place for a forum discussion. This cache page will not be unarchived as the original cache owner has indicated that it would be for the purposes of adoption.

 

There is currently little if anything that prevents others from creating their own version of this challenge cache under their own account. There are other factors to be considered for challenge cache ownership.

 

----

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, having just done a bit of looking up on the rules (the point about adopting unarchived cached not actually being linked above), I do have a comment. (emphasis mine)

 

1. Permanent Removal: Archiving a Cache

To archive a cache is to remove the listing permanently from the website and from public searches. A cache owner can archive their own listing. A cache owner cannot unarchive it.

 

2. Unarchiving a Cache

The archiving of a cache by the owner is supposed to be a permanent status. That is why only the site administrators and volunteers have the capability to unarchive it. This is done only in rare circumstances.

 

3. Adopting or Transferring a Cache

Grandfathered cache types cannot be transferred to a new owner. Neither the adoption tool on the website nor Groundspeak will be able to make the transfer for Virtual, Webcam or Locationless caches. Archived caches cannot be transferred, either.

 

Unless I missed something, I found nothing that states 'an archived cache cannot be unarchived for the purposes of adoption' - and I've searched the guidelines for keywords archive, unarchive, adoption, and their variants. Please link me if I missed this key 'rule'.

 

What I did read is that an archived cache can't have its ownership transferred - it must be active, not archived (see the page in point #3 for more detailed instruction). In which case, an exception can indeed be granted, it is not a hard and fast rule, so that the cache may be unarchived and transferred to a new owner.

 

Now while that's by a reading in the letter of the law, obviously the "exception" for unarchival is still based on the opinion of the reviewers and may or may not be granted. So this is just to hopefully raise the point that it is (as far as I'm concerned) up to the judgement of the reviewers, not a rule they are restricted from circumventing.

 

So once again, I ask that the reviewers reconsider the proposal to have this special and lengthy challenge cache adopted by another willing cacher.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

My hat off to those have completed that challenge. That shows real commitment. It is a shame to see any viable cache archived let alone a whole bunch at once and sad to see someone give up all together. I assume that they have their reasons and I will respect that.

 

The issue of un-archiving a cache for the purpose of adoption would a very interesting event. I know of a cache that predates any currently active cache in Ontario and to date has not been allowed to be un-archived for the purpose of adoption. If a cache had historical significance then this would fir the bill. Unfortunately this would lead to more caches being petitioned to be un-archived and the reviewers would then be forced to decide which ones would be worthy and which ones would not be.

 

To anyone who has completed a challenge cache or is working on one I don't think too much fret should be placed on if the cache is archived or not. The main objective is that you completed something unique or challenging. This is something to take pride in and is a good thing to place in your profile. That is the place where people will notice it rather than digging through all the caches you have found to see if there is any challenge caches in there.

Edited by Keith Watson

Share this post


Link to post

Because I am trying to make an effort to have more fun I would like to share a little nugget. One of my favourite television shows is a situation comedy that takes place in a hospital about three interns and the doctors they become over the 8 years that the show ran (yes I know there was a ninth season, but if I refuse to acknowledge it then I can keep saying it didn't happen.)

 

This guy is my favourite character, probably due to his ego... I've considered using him as my avatar.

 

tumblr_lk670zKDXM1qc72z6.gif

 

So, continuing to attempt to inject some humour...

.

 

But to repeat, hopefully someone will make a brand new listing for this challenge cache since it sure sounds like there is interest in the idea.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post
The main objective is that you completed something unique or challenging. This is something to take pride in and is a good thing to place in your profile.

Then... what's the point of ANY challenge cache being in existence?

Yes, there is value in completing a challenge and logging the goal cache as found.

Obviously anyone can set up whatever personal challenge they want for themselves, and be happy when it's completed. But when one begins the challenge with the goal of logging the challenge cache as complete, that is the intended reward. You can't simply shrug of challenge caches as frivolous.

 

While the removal of the ability to log any challenge cache itself shouldn't make the accomplishment of said challenge any less something to be proud of, it's like taking away the Gold Medal for someone who finishes the race, while they're running the race.

 

I'll also requote sargents here:

I would like the people that have already accomplished the challenge and logged the cache who would have to return and re-log to still be included without having to return and re-log a new cache. I also think that re-logging a new cache with an old achievement diminishes the true spirit of this cache.

Obviously they can re-log, in theory, providing the owner's requirements are identical, but once again it comes down to the principle of the thing:

 

IMO, I haven't seen a reason why this should not be granted an exception and adopted, other than "it could make more work for reviewers in the future". You're forgetting - no precedent is set by exceptions, no more responsibility is given for reviewers to have to make complex judgements. We're just looking at this situation; that's the benefit of not having to consider setting a precedent is it not?

 

And, off topic - CacheDrone, as much as you think that was funny here, in context - what the hell?

Is it just me or are more and more locals being vindicated in dropping Groundspeak's Geocaching all together?

Share this post


Link to post

i agree that completing a challenge is a matter of personal satisfaction, regardless of signing the log on the challenge cache itself...however, it is a nice way to validate one's achievement if they wish to do so, until GC comes up with a way to acknowledge the completion of challenges this is the only way to do it

there has been talk of creating a special icon for challenges, but that is probably sitting somewhere at the bottom of the "internal queue" or maybe not based on this comment from Jeremy, which leads me to believe that at some point in the future they will cease to exist, more so as the replacement for the virtuals have been released under the confusing name of "Challenges"

 

 

I also agree that the "challenge cache" is an abused form of the former ALR, or "additional logging requirements." It makes very little sense to restrict a cache find in this way, especially since a geocacher can accomplish many of the tasks on the opposite side of the world but could never find this particular cache. This needs to be dealt with, but shouldn't be in the context of this new activity, and it won't be restricted at the same time this new activity is launched, or because this new activity is launched.

 

but until such decision, to discontinue the challenge caches, is made i do agree with those that feel that an exemption should be made and have the Ironman cache un-archived for the purpose of adoption...

 

to me the original holds some significance to this area, as far as i know it is first of its kind, and gg was the first to officially complete it, furthermore it was an inspiration to a lot of people to complete it, us included

 

yes, there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a new listing, but in light of what i just said above, it will not be quite the same

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

to me the original holds some significance to this area, as far as i know it is first of its kind, and gg was the first to officially complete it, furthermore it was an inspiration to a lot of people to complete it, us included

 

This was not the first of its kind. GC256Z9 was published on 3/18/2010. Some of the finders of that one completed the 365 consecutive days a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see what the issue is with simply making a new listing with the exact same parameters. Why the drama over the GC number?

 

Kinda seems pointless to erase history for no good reason...

Share this post


Link to post

to me the original holds some significance to this area, as far as i know it is first of its kind, and gg was the first to officially complete it, furthermore it was an inspiration to a lot of people to complete it, us included

 

This was not the first of its kind. GC256Z9 was published on 3/18/2010. Some of the finders of that one completed the 365 consecutive days a few years ago.

 

i said "to this area" :P

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see what the issue is with simply making a new listing with the exact same parameters. Why the drama over the GC number?

 

Kinda seems pointless to erase history for no good reason...

 

Geocache listings aren't historic. That has been demonstrated many times. The angst over the challenge is corrected quite easily by posting a new listing with the same parameters is it not?

 

The choice to archive the listing was the CO's. A new challenge cache with the same parameters is the same challenge with a new CO.

 

If this was some grandfathered listing type that could not be published under a new GC number I would understand, but I don't see the problem here so far

Share this post


Link to post

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. You best bet is to contact a reviewer to get it un-arcived. If that fails, contact Groundspeak. Though bringing things out in the forums is a good way to get attention, I dodn;t think the success rate has been that good over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Geocache listings aren't historic. That has been demonstrated many times. The angst over the challenge is corrected quite easily by posting a new listing with the same parameters is it not?

 

The choice to archive the listing was the CO's. A new challenge cache with the same parameters is the same challenge with a new CO.

 

If this was some grandfathered listing type that could not be published under a new GC number I would understand, but I don't see the problem here so far

 

Of course creating a new listing wouldn't be a problem, and the point isn't the challenge either. The point is that the archival was a mistake, as the CO clearly thought that adoption would be still possible. People should be allowed to make mistakes and get a chance to correct them, but in this case the CO basically gets told "well too bad, you screwed up, sucks to be you". Or rather, that message goes out to the community, as it's them who care the most. I don't think that's quite fair.

Share this post


Link to post

This.

Of course creating a new listing wouldn't be a problem, and the point isn't the challenge either. The point is that the archival was a mistake, as the CO clearly thought that adoption would be still possible. People should be allowed to make mistakes and get a chance to correct them, but in this case the CO basically gets told "well too bad, you screwed up, sucks to be you". Or rather, that message goes out to the community, as it's them who care the most. I don't think that's quite fair.

 

Also

You best bet is to contact a reviewer to get it un-arcived. If that fails, contact Groundspeak

This is precisely the issue. The reviewer(s) won't unarchive it. Based on the reasoning that it's supposedly against the rules to unarchive for the purpose of adoption. That "rule" hasn't been shown anywhere.

So. Why can the cache not be unarchived, then transferred to a new owner?

Share this post


Link to post

Also

You best bet is to contact a reviewer to get it un-arcived. If that fails, contact Groundspeak

This is precisely the issue. The reviewer(s) won't unarchive it. Based on the reasoning that it's supposedly against the rules to unarchive for the purpose of adoption. That "rule" hasn't been shown anywhere.

So. Why can the cache not be unarchived, then transferred to a new owner?

 

Keith is correct that since the reviewer (me) is unwilling to bend on the decision that the only course of action left is to email Groundspeak at appeals@geocaching.com and it is best if you include the GC CODE of the listing. Unless you are the person that wants to assume the ownership, don't waste your time.

 

As for the rule not being shown, there are two aspects that come into play. One being that the quotes provided earlier show the intent that what you are wanting is not granted. The second is that if every situation was documented then we wouldn't have the listing requirements and guidelines or knowledgebooks... we would have the "Groundspeak Rules and Regulations Encyclopaedia" and no one would read that, myself included.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, having just done a bit of looking up on the rules (the point about adopting unarchived cached not actually being linked above), I do have a comment. (emphasis mine)

 

1. Permanent Removal: Archiving a Cache

To archive a cache is to remove the listing permanently from the website and from public searches. A cache owner can archive their own listing. A cache owner cannot unarchive it.

 

2. Unarchiving a Cache

The archiving of a cache by the owner is supposed to be a permanent status. That is why only the site administrators and volunteers have the capability to unarchive it. This is done only in rare circumstances.

 

3. Adopting or Transferring a Cache

Grandfathered cache types cannot be transferred to a new owner. Neither the adoption tool on the website nor Groundspeak will be able to make the transfer for Virtual, Webcam or Locationless caches. Archived caches cannot be transferred, either.

 

Unless I missed something, I found nothing that states 'an archived cache cannot be unarchived for the purposes of adoption'

 

I've added a little extra emphasis into the paragraphs above.

 

"Rare Circumstances" typically fall into the "Oops" category; when a cache owner archives all of their caches... that would not appear to be an "Ooops".

 

-

Hypothetical conversation :

 

Player : Hello Reviewer!

Reviewer : Hello Player!

Player : Another Player would like to adopt this Archived cache! <passes over GC code>

Reviewer : I'm sorry, Archived caches cannot be adopted/transferred

Player : Oh! OK! How about you Unarchive it FIRST, THEN the CO can go ahead and start the adoption process?

Reviewer : That would essentially render that item in the Listing Guidelines moot, wouldn't it?

Player : What do you mean? It doesn't say that it cannot be done.

Reviewer : Well, as it is indicated that the intention would be to have the cache Unarchived solely for the purposes of Adoption, that would appear to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent that item in the Listing Guidelines, wouldn't it?

Player : I don't want to hear that. You aren't very flexible.

Reviewer : Who archived the cache again?

Player : The CO.

Reviewer : So, the CO clicked on the "Archive Listing" button of their own accord?

Player : Yes

Reviewer : ..and the CO keyed in a paragraph or so of text that clearly indicates their intention was to remove the listing from the website?

Player : Yes

Reviewer : And when the red text popped up after they hit the "Submit" button that read:

 

"Are you sure? To archive a cache is to remove the listing permanently.

Choose to "temporarily disable listing" instead if you need to take your cache offline for only a short time.

Click "yes" to archive this cache"

 

....they clicked "Yes"...?

 

Player : Yes

Reviewer : ....and the CO has publicly offered the container to anyone that wishes to create a cache at the same location?

Player : Yes

 

Reviewer : ....?

Share this post


Link to post

The Cache Owner for the cache in question should contact Appeals if they wish their to have the Archive action considered for reversal.

Share this post


Link to post
Geocache listings aren't historic. That has been demonstrated many times. The angst over the challenge is corrected quite easily by posting a new listing with the same parameters is it not?

 

The choice to archive the listing was the CO's. A new challenge cache with the same parameters is the same challenge with a new CO.

 

If this was some grandfathered listing type that could not be published under a new GC number I would understand, but I don't see the problem here so far

 

Of course creating a new listing wouldn't be a problem, and the point isn't the challenge either. The point is that the archival was a mistake, as the CO clearly thought that adoption would be still possible. People should be allowed to make mistakes and get a chance to correct them, but in this case the CO basically gets told "well too bad, you screwed up, sucks to be you". Or rather, that message goes out to the community, as it's them who care the most. I don't think that's quite fair.

 

Ok.... well an archived listing isn't deleted, so why not just make a new listing, with a new GC code, with the exact same text and everything ... then at the bottom put a paragraph that says "This cache was inspired by the GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge" with a link to it. Voila, history preserved.

 

As for the archival being a mistake, it sure looked like a geocide from the sidelines and that was the CO's decision to make.

Share this post


Link to post
As for the archival being a mistake, it sure looked like a geocide from the sidelines and that was the CO's decision to make.

 

What I meant was not that the archival was accidental. What I meant was that it was a case of "I can't be bothered any more, so I'll just archive all my caches, but if somebody wants to adopt one of them, then I can just have it unarchived". In other words, he didn't know that this rule was in place, and if he had known, then he might not have archived all his caches. Pure speculation of course, but I just don't think that the change of mind from "I'm gonna wipe out everything" to "oh maybe not, maybe I'll adopt some of them out" is likely to happen within a few hours.

Share this post


Link to post
As for the archival being a mistake, it sure looked like a geocide from the sidelines and that was the CO's decision to make.

 

What I meant was not that the archival was accidental. What I meant was that it was a case of "I can't be bothered any more, so I'll just archive all my caches, but if somebody wants to adopt one of them, then I can just have it unarchived". In other words, he didn't know that this rule was in place, and if he had known, then he might not have archived all his caches. Pure speculation of course, but I just don't think that the change of mind from "I'm gonna wipe out everything" to "oh maybe not, maybe I'll adopt some of them out" is likely to happen within a few hours.

 

Well, the next person should pause and consider the consequences of the action then. The CO did hit archive, then when the "are you sure" came up he hit yes.

 

Pinning this on the reviewers when it was the CO who caused the archival just doesn't sit well with me

Share this post


Link to post
Well, the next person should pause and consider the consequences of the action then. The CO did hit archive, then when the "are you sure" came up he hit yes.

 

That's exactly the point. If you don't know that you can't adopt out archived caches and can't have them unarchived either, how would you consider the consequences of that?

 

I fully understand the reasoning behind the "no unarchiving for adoption" rule, doing so wouldn't make sense in most cases. But in this case it would make a lot of sense, not because it's such a great cache or whatever, but simply because of the short time frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Well, the next person should pause and consider the consequences of the action then. The CO did hit archive, then when the "are you sure" came up he hit yes.

 

That's exactly the point. If you don't know that you can't adopt out archived caches and can't have them unarchived either, how would you consider the consequences of that?

 

I fully understand the reasoning behind the "no unarchiving for adoption" rule, doing so wouldn't make sense in most cases. But in this case it would make a lot of sense, not because it's such a great cache or whatever, but simply because of the short time frame.

 

Once again it appears that you are at a crossroads where you are choosing to examine two options, and opting to take the one that allows for the option to debate ad naseum some point that has already been solved through other means. Ignorance of the guidelines that one agreed to adhere to does not warrent an exception.

 

The options are

A= Contact Groundspeak and ask for my decision to be overturned. This is only available to the person that wants the cache, no one else.

B= Anyone can make a brand new listing that meet the current LR&G

C= Drop it

 

Here's the ones that are not an option

D= CacheDrone changing his mind

E= Fiding loopholes or exceptions that will sway me (see option D)

 

Believe it or not, I had nothing to do with the creation of the LR&G nor the KB (minus 2 articles that I did write that are unrelated to this discussion) so all I do is apply these documents to the best of my comprehension.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post
Once again it appears that you are at a crossroads where you are choosing to examine two options, and opting to take the one that allows for the option to debate ad naseum some point that has already been solved through other means.

 

Is this addressed to me? If it is: I'm not writing here to change anybody's mind, I know that's not gonna happen, but that doesn't change my mind on the matter either. I'm simply voicing my opinion. (I thought this was one of the purposes of having a discussion forum...)

Share this post


Link to post

banghead.gif

 

So has anyone offered to relist this one rather than continuing to bang their head against the wall (aka Working against the Reviewers)?

Share this post


Link to post
Once again it appears that you are at a crossroads where you are choosing to examine two options, and opting to take the one that allows for the option to debate ad naseum some point that has already been solved through other means.

 

Is this addressed to me? If it is: I'm not writing here to change anybody's mind, I know that's not gonna happen, but that doesn't change my mind on the matter either. I'm simply voicing my opinion. (I thought this was one of the purposes of having a discussion forum...)

 

It was to a generic you, based on the theme of the quoted text that could have been from anyone. It was not at "dfx" specifically, but at those that seek to spin their wheels over moot points that could easily be solved using options provided. That's my point, some people seem to be more interested in being difficult than contributing to the game in a positive way.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not at home, which is why I've been quietly watching this unfold today.

I'm sorry CD, no this is not about "being difficult", or trying to prove the reviewers wrong. I think the intent of raising this concern is once again specifically about issue at hand - an interpretation of guidelines being held to what some consider draconian levels, over a very simple, single request that many of us consider a 'grey' area. Once again, alternative solutions have been acknowledged - including the reasons why we're still opting to seek out the original solution.

 

I frankly don't care what decisions the reviewers make on a daily basis - they do a good, unenviable job of managing many regions of activity encompassing thousands of cachers and endless more caches. For free.

 

No, I for one am not out on some vengeful spree of battling with reviewers.

I am only here trying to understand the reasoning for why another plea for an exception to the decisions made by a reviewer are insufficient. If it simply comes down to "I don't want to allow it" (ignoring the "nyah nyah" joking attitude expressed earlier), then as much as I, personally, detest that decision, then I'm resigned to accept that choice, along with the detest I have for it.

 

I'm just getting too tired of this... it just feels like a futile effort to put forth a feasible argument in the hopes of appealing to a reviewer's better side after they've made a decision. And I'm positive my souring attitude in situations like this is simply not going to help the situation at all.

 

I'm done. Giving up on this. Wasted effort. I'm going to encourage someone else to appeal for the unarchival and adoption, and probably not going to be putting out any more caches. I enjoy the game, and I'm not going to take my caches away from others for finding. But cache ownership has just prompted way too drama recently, so the less I have to deal with the review process the better.

I have to decide if I'm still going to lay my next legitimately creative cache after this.

Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post

My 2 cents (what it's worth) is that the saddest part of this is whole thing that the reason the CO was archiving the cache was because he was driven away from geocaching.com. And fiascoes such as this only drive more people away.

Share this post


Link to post

My 2 cents (what it's worth) is that the saddest part of this is whole thing that the reason the CO was archiving the cache was because he was driven away from geocaching.com. And fiascoes such as this only drive more people away.

 

such "fiascoes" happen every day, most people just don't come to the forums to discuss it, and they have nothing to do with driving other people away, well at least it shouldn't

 

however i don't see how this qualifies as a "fiasco", the CO has not even made any comments here nor do we know any details of their reasons, so basically there is absolutely nothing that should/would influence anyone

 

long time ago i got fed up with TD Bank and i moved to President's Choice, based just on that statement would you do the same?...afaik TD still has millions of costumers

 

people have their own personal reasons for their actions and in the absence of specifics nobody has a right to judge them or accuse them that their actions are having an influence on other people's actions, at least not in this context

 

we are all free to analyze the facts and make decisions for ourselves

Share this post


Link to post

My 2 cents (what it's worth) is that the saddest part of this is whole thing that the reason the CO was archiving the cache was because he was driven away from geocaching.com. And fiascoes such as this only drive more people away.

 

such "fiascoes" happen every day, most people just don't come to the forums to discuss it, and they have nothing to do with driving other people away, well at least it shouldn't

 

however i don't see how this qualifies as a "fiasco", the CO has not even made any comments here nor do we know any details of their reasons, so basically there is absolutely nothing that should/would influence anyone

 

long time ago i got fed up with TD Bank and i moved to President's Choice, based just on that statement would you do the same?...afaik TD still has millions of costumers

 

people have their own personal reasons for their actions and in the absence of specifics nobody has a right to judge them or accuse them that their actions are having an influence on other people's actions, at least not in this context

 

we are all free to analyze the facts and make decisions for ourselves

 

Yes, these fiascoes may seem frivolous (to me or you) however to the parties involved they are most certainly not. And they do leave an impression over time. The CO said "I give up on Geocaching.com. I may move this listing to a competitors site." on the cache page itself, the reason he's not here arguing is because he likely washed his hands of the whole thing (I can't say I blame him).

 

The difference between your moving to President's Choice and someone moving to another caching site is huge. I have no stake in your leaving TD. However when someone leaves geocaching.com they take their caches with them, which can be a blow to a community.

 

I also hope I didn't imply that the CO's leaving is influencing anyone else to leave, I'm just remarking on a trend I've noticed in the geocaching.com community and how it relates to what were seeing here.

Share this post


Link to post

However when someone leaves geocaching.com they take their caches with them, which can be a blow to a community.

 

 

i don't think that's something to worry about, for every archived cache there's at least 10 new ones being published :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

However when someone leaves geocaching.com they take their caches with them, which can be a blow to a community.

 

 

i don't think that's something to worry about, for every archived cache there's at least 10 new lamp post micros being published :anibad:

 

There, I fixed it for you :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

However when someone leaves geocaching.com they take their caches with them, which can be a blow to a community.

 

 

i don't think that's something to worry about, for every archived cache there's at least 10 new lamp post micros being published :anibad:

 

There, I fixed it for you :ph34r:

 

right, and not to mention the ones that the container is not there for few days after the cache is published or the coordinates are just a bit off by 60 meters

 

but i do know someone that really likes those, they may pop in here defending the hides any minute :laughing:

 

ok lets revise that statement...for every cache archived there are at least 10 more new ones being published and 1 out of the 10 is a good one

Share this post


Link to post

However when someone leaves geocaching.com they take their caches with them, which can be a blow to a community.

 

 

i don't think that's something to worry about, for every archived cache there's at least 10 new lamp post micros being published :anibad:

 

There, I fixed it for you :ph34r:

 

...but i do know someone that really likes those, they may pop in here defending the hides any minute :laughing:

 

 

I like lamp post cache hides. Was it me you were expecting? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

 

I like lamp post cache hides. Was it me you were expecting? :lol:

 

they're planning on putting lamp posts in the woods? :o

 

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

 

I like lamp post cache hides. Was it me you were expecting? :lol:

 

they're planning on putting lamp posts in the woods? :o

 

:laughing:

 

I certainly hope so! I'd happily search for them! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

 

I like lamp post cache hides. Was it me you were expecting? :lol:

 

Cacheketball anyone? Just check for bees under the skirt first :lol:

 

Aboslutely! I like the hide, but they are seriously the one that scares me the most simply because of the bees. B)

Share this post


Link to post

I've heard of bees being an issue in LPCs but I have never encountered them yet. Fortunately! I'll keep it in mind when I'm caching south of here... (Barrie/Orillia)

Share this post


Link to post

I've heard of bees being an issue in LPCs but I have never encountered them yet. Fortunately! I'll keep it in mind when I'm caching south of here... (Barrie/Orillia)

 

we found a bird's nest under one lol

Share this post


Link to post

Wowza lol. The only thing I ever find is a swarm of earwigs. Nasty little fellas!

Share this post


Link to post
Geocache listings aren't historic. That has been demonstrated many times. The angst over the challenge is corrected quite easily by posting a new listing with the same parameters is it not?

 

The choice to archive the listing was the CO's. A new challenge cache with the same parameters is the same challenge with a new CO.

 

If this was some grandfathered listing type that could not be published under a new GC number I would understand, but I don't see the problem here so far

 

Of course creating a new listing wouldn't be a problem, and the point isn't the challenge either. The point is that the archival was a mistake, as the CO clearly thought that adoption would be still possible. People should be allowed to make mistakes and get a chance to correct them, but in this case the CO basically gets told "well too bad, you screwed up, sucks to be you". Or rather, that message goes out to the community, as it's them who care the most. I don't think that's quite fair.

 

Ok.... well an archived listing isn't deleted, so why not just make a new listing, with a new GC code, with the exact same text and everything ... then at the bottom put a paragraph that says "This cache was inspired by the GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge" with a link to it. Voila, history preserved.

 

As for the archival being a mistake, it sure looked like a geocide from the sidelines and that was the CO's decision to make.

 

Easy to do, but the drone with the commercial avatar (haha) could easily click one button. Why should he though? Because it would be a kind thing to do??? The locals would still find something to give him a hard time about - but he seems to enjoy that also :P

Share this post


Link to post
Geocache listings aren't historic. That has been demonstrated many times. The angst over the challenge is corrected quite easily by posting a new listing with the same parameters is it not?

 

The choice to archive the listing was the CO's. A new challenge cache with the same parameters is the same challenge with a new CO.

 

If this was some grandfathered listing type that could not be published under a new GC number I would understand, but I don't see the problem here so far

 

Of course creating a new listing wouldn't be a problem, and the point isn't the challenge either. The point is that the archival was a mistake, as the CO clearly thought that adoption would be still possible. People should be allowed to make mistakes and get a chance to correct them, but in this case the CO basically gets told "well too bad, you screwed up, sucks to be you". Or rather, that message goes out to the community, as it's them who care the most. I don't think that's quite fair.

 

Ok.... well an archived listing isn't deleted, so why not just make a new listing, with a new GC code, with the exact same text and everything ... then at the bottom put a paragraph that says "This cache was inspired by the GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge" with a link to it. Voila, history preserved.

 

As for the archival being a mistake, it sure looked like a geocide from the sidelines and that was the CO's decision to make.

 

Easy to do, but the drone with the commercial avatar (haha) could easily click one button. Why should he though? Because it would be a kind thing to do??? The locals would still find something to give him a hard time about - but he seems to enjoy that also :P

 

Yup. Every other cache in the area that has ever been archived. Particularly the old ones, and the virtuals.

Unarchiving the cache for adoption would set a precedent that would most likely turn nasty on the Ontario Reviewers pretty quick ... which is why I speculate they want that to come down from Appeals to make it official.

Share this post


Link to post

I keep a GSAK DB of my Ontario friend's caches. You guys are a tough group, some day I shall get over the border to see if ya are really that tough in person! {grin} I still have not found one cache in Ontario, but get new notices everyday just about.

Share this post


Link to post
Unarchiving the cache for adoption would set a precedent that would most likely turn nasty on the Ontario Reviewers pretty quick

 

Nope! Precedents are not set by reviewer decision. That is a Fact that has been pointed out clearly and repeatedly. You can't have it both ways. If past actions don't set a precedent for future cases, then you can't use concern for future cases as an excuse/reason for your immediate decision.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
Unarchiving the cache for adoption would set a precedent that would most likely turn nasty on the Ontario Reviewers pretty quick

 

Nope! Precedents are not set by reviewer decision. That is a Fact that has been pointed out clearly and repeatedly. You can't have it both ways. If past actions don't set a precedent for future cases, then you can't use concern for future cases as an excuse/reason for your immediate decision.

 

Tell that to the hoards who will use it as an excuse to start that fight. I'm not in the know, but I know if I was a reviewer I'd be very, very careful before saying "oh hell it's just one, here you go". I know of one battle that occurred (well in the past) where someone tried to adopt a cache that was published before Ontario's oldest active cache, and reactivate it for example.

Share this post


Link to post

I keep a GSAK DB of my Ontario friend's caches. You guys are a tough group, some day I shall get over the border to see if ya are really that tough in person! {grin} I still have not found one cache in Ontario, but get new notices everyday just about.

 

October 29 might be a good day night to cross on over ...... past iterations of the event have featured winter storms tossing trees at (for some reason very) happy night cachers.....

Share this post


Link to post
Tell that to the hoards who will use it as an excuse to start that fight. I'm not in the know, but I know if I was a reviewer I'd be very, very careful before saying "oh hell it's just one, here you go".

Nope. All they have to do is what they've done in the past... Just say "No", then link to that funny youtube video that was linked earlier in this thread.

They're all too good at saying no, once they've made a decision. No extra work or thought required.

Share this post


Link to post
Tell that to the hoards who will use it as an excuse to start that fight. I'm not in the know, but I know if I was a reviewer I'd be very, very careful before saying "oh hell it's just one, here you go".

Nope. All they have to do is what they've done in the past... Just say "No", then link to that funny youtube video that was linked earlier in this thread.

They're all too good at saying no, once they've made a decision. No extra work or thought required.

 

In that case, they already are continuing as they have in the past. Caches can't be unarchived for adoption. Same as it ever was.

 

If they make the change in policy for this one, how do they tell the next person that they don't qualify for a reviewer exemption? With much more difficulty, that's how. Pretty much right after they say "nope" there will be a thread in the forums pleading for mercy, just this once.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×