+thebruce0 Posted December 10, 2011 Author Share Posted December 10, 2011 Thank you for the clarity, CD. So, you are saying that gg needs to request, once again, either the unarchival of the original cache, or another publish for a replacement cache, to prompt a reviewer to request the mystery cacher's intentions again? That seems like a very slim technicality. Logical, but almost like intentionally unnecessary legwork for the player. The unarchival request was made. As long as he's under the impression he has to wait, how would he know he has to request again in order for the mystery cacher to be asked again? gg's replacement cache which was passed in favour of unarchival was recently archived itself due to 'lack of timely response'. So, ultimately, is the next official step for gg to once again request unarchival, or complete another replacement cache listing, in order to prompt communication with the mystery cacher? And by extension, this has to happen every time? Quote Link to comment
+Keith Watson Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I suspect privacy issues limit what reviewers can respond with. Quote Link to comment
+CacheDrone Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Ironman has been unarchived. Please see the relevant log that hopefully answers all questions and concerns. CD Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted December 17, 2011 Author Share Posted December 17, 2011 Thank you Quote Link to comment
+gg Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) Ironman has been unarchived. Please see the relevant log that hopefully answers all questions and concerns. CD Well that was easy. The question is now who will be next. I am still not in the country so if you plan on visiting you have my permission to bring a replacement container and log in case the original (Mach 2) container is missing. Edited December 17, 2011 by gg Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Ironman has been unarchived. Please see the relevant log that hopefully answers all questions and concerns. CD well thank you and early Happy Festivus!!! Quote Link to comment
+Keith Watson Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Ironman has been unarchived. Please see the relevant log that hopefully answers all questions and concerns. CD Well that was easy. The question is now who will be next. I am still not in the country so if you plan on visiting you have my permission to bring a replacement container and log in case the original (Mach 2) container is missing. Does this mean you have enabled the cache without verifying the condition of the cache? Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 ^^ don't know why but came to mind Quote Link to comment
+Flintstone5611 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Ironman has been unarchived. Please see the relevant log that hopefully answers all questions and concerns. CD Bwahahahaahahaha... still don't get it, but congrats. Quote Link to comment
+Flintstone5611 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Now that is an interesting development: This has become awkward. Who squealed? Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 This thread. Quote Link to comment
+Keith Watson Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) That was quick. The instructions seemed pretty clear to me. I am surprised it took this long. Edited December 19, 2011 by Keith Watson Quote Link to comment
+Dr. House Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 This thread. I'm guessing that gg's recent note on the cache page may also have something to do with the decision: The question is now who will be next? I am still not in the country so if you plan on visiting soon you have my permission to bring a replacement container and logbook in case the original (Mach 2) container is missing. I've added the bolded text. Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 Indeed. As soon as he shared that, especially on the cache page, a warning flag went up. It was only a matter of time. It's unfortunate this happened while he was away, however. He's not here to verify the cache is still in place. It hasn't been removed by him, so it's simply a lack of certainty that the container is still there. I'm sure if anyone were to go and check on it (3rd party maintenance of a cache is perfectly feasible, especially in temporary exceptions like a CO going on an extended vacation), then I'm sure it can be verified and re-enabled. I do think however that simply disabling it until it's verified would have been the proper route to take, as that's typically what happens when maintenance is concerned; not archival. However, as long as this whole distance drama doesn't spike up again from someone else "placing" a cache nearby, Brad's wording seems to imply that it shouldn't be an issue having it re-unarchived and re-enabled once the cache container is verified. Quote Link to comment
+Tequila Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Indeed. As soon as he shared that, especially on the cache page, a warning flag went up. It was only a matter of time. It's unfortunate this happened while he was away, however. He's not here to verify the cache is still in place. It hasn't been removed by him, so it's simply a lack of certainty that the container is still there. I'm sure if anyone were to go and check on it (3rd party maintenance of a cache is perfectly feasible, especially in temporary exceptions like a CO going on an extended vacation), then I'm sure it can be verified and re-enabled. I do think however that simply disabling it until it's verified would have been the proper route to take, as that's typically what happens when maintenance is concerned; not archival. However, as long as this whole distance drama doesn't spike up again from someone else "placing" a cache nearby, Brad's wording seems to imply that it shouldn't be an issue having it re-unarchived and re-enabled once the cache container is verified. Since you seem to be the most interested in resurrecting the cache, perhaps you should go do a maintenance check on it for the CO. Before someone else creates a new listing and this merr-go-round starts up all over again. . Quote Link to comment
+Treknschmidt Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Cache is dead, lets put it to bed already! Move on people! Better yet, place your OWN version if this is SO important to your stats. Mr. T. Quote Link to comment
+Flintstone5611 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Cache is dead, lets put it to bed already! Move on people! Better yet, place your OWN version if this is SO important to your stats. Mr. T. It already exists, lol. Carnigrewal made one that looks great. Quote Link to comment
+Keith Watson Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 This thread. I'm guessing that gg's recent note on the cache page may also have something to do with the decision: The question is now who will be next? I am still not in the country so if you plan on visiting soon you have my permission to bring a replacement container and logbook in case the original (Mach 2) container is missing. I've added the bolded text. I assumed that was the trigger. The note explaining the conditions for enabling I assumed were pretty straight forward. I can only assume that gg ignored the condition, or misunderstood some how. Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 Not in the mood to respond effectively right now, for personal reasons. As for this thread, please don't make things worse by fanning the flame. What's done is done; if it gets undone, it will get undone. Leave it be. Quote Link to comment
+gg Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) I will be back tomorrow at the latest. If someone wants to check the condition by proxy go for it. You have my permission to go to the site and look around. You have my permission to change a log book or do maintenance on my cache or any other cache you wish. It's common for finders to help out by adding new ziplock bags, containers, logsheets etc. I don't see why this one is different. Unless someone proves it is not there I will go on knowing it's still hidden where it was last found. I see the rule somewhere about cache owners going to the site to do maintenance personally (or by proxy) so I know if I asked 100 cachers when was the last time they visited their caches the most popular answer would be when a finder DNF's it. So far no DNF's on this cache. Now if some Smart Astronaut wants to hide a cache on the island and they are known in the community (and a veteran cacher) it will look bad for them not for me. If a n00b hides a cache here in the next couple of days that's forgivable. When it's confirmed I'll notify Brad_W and we can carry on. It's a Festivus miracle, Happy Festivus. Edited December 20, 2011 by gg Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.