Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
thebruce0

GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge

Recommended Posts

Indeed. But from a principle stand-point, direct solutions in this case are 1) unarchive and adopt, or 2) recreate with a new owner and lose the public records tied to the original cache.

Any additional work to have #1 approved is, effectively, due to the resistance of others to execute it. So of course, as a whole, it would be more work in the end to do #1, but on principle, the argument and support for #1 is better than #2, as is the fundamental work required. The only thing stopping it is this "No. Nope. Never. Nuh-uh. Black ball beats it all" sentiment, which from this side of the fence has no solid defense except an interpretation of the guidelines.

If someone ends up re-creating the cache, great. I wouldn't be averse to signing it. But until there's either an official rule on this circumstance from on high, or someone decides to unarchive it, it's still quicker and simpler and more appealing to the geocacher to have the old cache unarchived as a gracious exception to a guideline. No precedent. No slippery slope. No personal vendetta. No lording of power. That's it, and respect all around. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post

Why not create a new listing, cut and paste the old one, and provide a link to the old one? It would take only a few minutes of effort, the physical cache is still there, and you still get the history of the old cache listing via a link.

Share this post


Link to post

If you /must/ have the original listing, a path has been provided but it is rocky and not marked well ... But it exists ...

 

Which, if I am aiming to achieve a certain goal, would want to avoid a path that is rocky and not marked well. Unless it is geocaching, then that way can be fun!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Indeed. But from a principle stand-point, direct solutions in this case are 1) unarchive and adopt, or 2) recreate with a new owner and lose the public records tied to the original cache.

Any additional work to have #1 approved is, effectively, due to the resistance of others to execute it. So of course, as a whole, it would be more work in the end to do #1, but on principle, the argument and support for #1 is better than #2, as is the fundamental work required. The only thing stopping it is this "No. Nope. Never. Nuh-uh. Black ball beats it all" sentiment, which from this side of the fence has no solid defense except an interpretation of the guidelines.

If someone ends up re-creating the cache, great. I wouldn't be averse to signing it. But until there's either an official rule on this circumstance from on high, or someone decides to unarchive it, it's still quicker and simpler and more appealing to the geocacher to have the old cache unarchived as a gracious exception to a guideline. No precedent. No slippery slope. No personal vendetta. No lording of power. That's it, and respect all around. Simple.

 

Then why does it sound more complicated than making a new listing like KW mentioned? It also wouldn't involve motivating another person to go back on their previous action.

Share this post


Link to post

There IS an echo in here!

 

Then why does it sound more complicated than unarchiving thie cache so it can be adopted immediately? It also wouldn't involve forcing the geocacher to do extra work in duplicating a cache when the only difference is the code, owner, and all the past logs of finders visible in their intended form.

 

Round and round and round we go. Maybe we should keep a leaderboard of how many times each of the resolutions have been repeated here.

Share this post


Link to post

There IS an echo in here!

 

Then why does it sound more complicated than unarchiving thie cache so it can be adopted immediately? It also wouldn't involve forcing the geocacher to do extra work in duplicating a cache when the only difference is the code, owner, and all the past logs of finders visible in their intended form.

 

Round and round and round we go. Maybe we should keep a leaderboard of how many times each of the resolutions have been repeated here.

 

The same reason it's harder to get the police officer to rip up the ticket after they wrote it. It goes from being routine to being a challenge to their authority/decision to write the ticket. You're basically telling the reviewers to admit they were wrong to decide the way they did.

Share this post


Link to post

1) Police officers are paid and have FAR more responsibility for the well-being of citizens against danger.

2) What type of ticket? J-walking? Or speeding? Both are breaking the LAW, not a guideline (or a law with clauses that the officer CAN grant an exception)

3) This is regarding the unarchival of a cache. It's more like being written up for littering, not murder. Actually not even littering - that doesn't help anyone except the lazy, careless individual. This is a request for something positive, which is only beneficial to the community.

4) No one is demanding the reviewer admit to a mistake (echo!). No "error" was made here. Only a controversial judgement call that is within the bounds of a reversal decision, by anyone with the power to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

I have read through the thread and I still don't see why this can't be resolved with a simple redux. This isn't an old cache. This isn't the first of its kind. Many have risen to the challenge and as such qualify to create their own version of it. I think if you want to put a feather in your cap, feel free, it is an awesome challenge. Why does it have to be a certain GC code? I am having trouble with the idea that it MUST be this cache and not another similar listing in the same region.

 

Nobody's saying that it can't be resolved by making a new listing. The point (or rather, my point) is that doing so is an incredibly pointless exercise. It's not a new cache in any way whatsoever, so why require a new listing?

Share this post


Link to post

1) Police officers are paid and have FAR more responsibility for the well-being of citizens against danger.

 

It's an example of an authority figure with an ability to make an on the spot reversal without involving a higher up. Aka "Judge = Appeals"

 

2) What type of ticket? J-walking? Or speeding? Both are breaking the LAW, not a guideline (or a law with clauses that the officer CAN grant an exception)

 

Obviously one that the officer can use discretion on. Again, it is an example.

 

3) This is regarding the unarchival of a cache. It's more like being written up for littering, not murder. Actually not even littering - that doesn't help anyone except the lazy, careless individual. This is a request for something positive, which is only beneficial to the community.

 

I never quoted murder, I said "ticket" not "federal indictment". Police officers do not routinely issue tickets to murderers and send them on their way.

 

4) No one is demanding the reviewer admit to a mistake (echo!). No "error" was made here. Only a controversial judgement call that is within the bounds of a reversal decision, by anyone with the power to do so.

 

You are calling the judgement call wrong. The reviewers disagree. You're not going to move them off that rock any more than you are going to move the officer off the rock of issuing you a speeding ticket (particularly if you've gathered a crowd of people to shout at him while he was writing up the ticket).

 

--

 

It should be painfully obvious now that the easiest way to resolve this entire thing is a new, identical cache listing. You have no power to change the reviewer's mind( minds actually, it's clear there is more than one of them in that camp). You have some power to bring some level of authority to bear on the reviewers to test the validity of that decision they made, namely the appeals department.

Share this post


Link to post

If someone doesn't create a new listing shortly, you run the very real risk that someone else is going to create a totally new cache within 160 meters of this archived cache. That will put an end to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Nobody's saying that it can't be resolved by making a new listing. The point (or rather, my point) is that doing so is an incredibly pointless exercise.

This.

 

@NP: The point remains that a police officer writing a ticket for breaking the law is not an accurate analogy to a reviewer denying an exception to unarchival guideline.

 

You are calling the judgement call wrong.

No, I'm calling the judgement frivolous. It's not wrong. There's no rule stating that the reviewer is in the wrong for saying no. But there is a written clause that says the reviewer can grant an exception. We are defending the position that the exception is worthy of being granted, because there is no rule that says it is not - whether or not the reviewer(s) can or will change their mind on the matter.

 

If someone doesn't create a new listing shortly, you run the very real risk that someone else is going to create a totally new cache within 160 meters of this archived cache. That will put an end to the discussion.

If someone creates a new listing, I really couldn't care less where it is, as long as it's 5/5. So no, it wouldn't 'put an end to the discussion'.

Share this post


Link to post

If someone creates a new listing, I really couldn't care less where it is, as long as it's 5/5. So no, it wouldn't 'put an end to the discussion'.

 

Why would it have to be a 5/5?

Share this post


Link to post
Why would it have to be a 5/5?

Seriously? Because that's the rating of the original cache.

Share this post


Link to post
Why would it have to be a 5/5?

Seriously? Because that's the rating of the original cache.

 

Yes seriously. Does it matter other than that was the rating of the other one? I assume the replacement would be the same yet you chose to point out the D/T rating specifically. Just wondering if the D/T rating had some special meaning.

Share this post


Link to post

We repeatedly mentioned identical listings. I thought the D/T would have been a clear element be included in 'identical except for code, owner, and past logs'.

Share this post


Link to post

We repeatedly mentioned identical listings. I thought the D/T would have been a clear element be included in 'identical except for code, owner, and past logs'.

 

You missed my point.

 

I am suggesting that someone could create a brand new totally unrelated traditional cache that is not a challenge within 160 meters of the archived location. If that happens, you have missed the opportunity to recreate this challenge cache.

 

It is clear that the un-archival is not going to happen.

 

Therefore, I am suggesting, if you care about the challenge, create a new listing before the location is no longer available.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

No, you're focusing on the wrong point.

IF this 5/5 ironman challenge cache gets recreated, it doesn't matter where it gets recreated, as long as it remains a 5/5. If a traditional is published within this particular cache's range, then all it means is that the ONLY resolution then is to publish a new 5/5 ironman challenge cache elsewhere. It of course doesn't mean another 5/5 challenge chache can no longer be created. I, for one, am not tied to this location, only the rating. But I would most certainly prefer this cache be adopted than having another cacher have to resort to duplicating and republishing the listing simply for the reasons already discussed, whether at the same location or elsewhere.

echo....

Share this post


Link to post

Joe Cacher: Albert, Have you been following this thread?

 

Albert Einstein: Yes. It demonstrates one of my greatest quotations.

 

Joe Cacher: And what would that be?

 

Albert Einstein: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Share this post


Link to post
Nobody's saying that it can't be resolved by making a new listing. The point (or rather, my point) is that doing so is an incredibly pointless exercise.

This.

 

@NP: The point remains that a police officer writing a ticket for breaking the law is not an accurate analogy to a reviewer denying an exception to unarchival guideline.

 

You are calling the judgement call wrong.

No, I'm calling the judgement frivolous. It's not wrong. There's no rule stating that the reviewer is in the wrong for saying no. But there is a written clause that says the reviewer can grant an exception. We are defending the position that the exception is worthy of being granted, because there is no rule that says it is not - whether or not the reviewer(s) can or will change their mind on the matter.

 

There is no rule written in the Knowledge Books or Guidelines. But we know there are internal practices. Try listing a geocache in, say, an area of Natural or Scientific Interest in Halton Region. It will get declined, even though Halton Region is not explicitly spelled out in the Guidelines. The fact that multiple reviewers are lining up to say "no" suggests there is a code of practice being enforced, more than a reviewer's whim.

 

The police officer analogy boils down to a person in charge who can make a judgement call yet chooses not to. You can swap out police officer for any other authority figure, say teacher, parent, deity and the reversible action to something similar like cancelling a class, letting you go out and play, or whether or not to smite the population of some small atoll somewhere. Don't get stuck with the details - you KNOW the point I was making.

Share this post


Link to post
Why would it have to be a 5/5?

Seriously? Because that's the rating of the original cache.

 

We repeatedly mentioned identical listings. I thought the D/T would have been a clear element be included in 'identical except for code, owner, and past logs'.

 

I, for one, am not tied to this location, only the rating.

 

I'm confused here. You're arguing it should be a 5/5 because "We repeatedly mentioned identical listings" yet you don't care about the location being the same which would not make it an identical listing.

Share this post


Link to post

"internal practices" now.

Why can't they be external? That would prevent a whole lot of confusion and frustration.

Explicitly state (not by the reviewers, but by those who create the guidelines that the reviewers follow) that "an archived cache cannot be unarchived for the purposes of adoption" - which has already been quoted as a rule for which they cannot (or will not) grant an exception, and the point is resolved.

Until then, the written practices specifically made public for the public allow for the exception on the judgement of the reviewers. In this case, we feel the denial judgment is frivolous. We are defending the request for a reversal. This is entirely within our ability as paying members of Geocaching.com.

 

I'm confused here. You're arguing it should be a 5/5 because "We repeatedly mentioned identical listings" yet you don't care about the location being the same which would not make it an identical listing.

How is that confusing? Location isn't tied to rating - move it somewhere else on the island, move it to another island, move it somewhere that requires climbing gear, it's still a 5/5.

Ok, my mistake, the only differences being "code, owner, past logs, and coordinates". I guess I made the mistake of forcing too literal a hand. I guess I can't have it both ways, eh?

 

Perhaps if I were also trying to complete an "island caches" challenge, or some form of "lat/lon" challenge where the coordinates were essential, then I might debate the physical coordinates of the cache itself. I presumed that the important factors were code and rating, as per a general acceptance of completing a specific challenge, cache, and challenge cache. Coordinates are not important.

 

Still doesn't change a thing.

So are we clear now on what we want the same in our request? Code (for the sake of the community's past logs), and D/T (for the physical requirement and stats)? Or does that somehow negate any support we may have for this request?

 

What else isn't crystal clear about this position that needs to be spelled out for the record?

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

"internal practices" now.

Why can't they be external? That would prevent a whole lot of confusion and frustration.

Explicitly state (not by the reviewers, but by those who create the guidelines that the reviewers follow) that "an archived cache cannot be unarchived for the purposes of adoption" - which has already been quoted as a rule for which they cannot (or will not) grant an exception, and the point is resolved.

Until then, the written practices specifically made public for the public allow for the exception on the judgement of the reviewers. In this case, we feel the denial judgment is frivolous. We are defending the request for a reversal. This is entirely within our ability as paying members of Geocaching.com.

 

Groundspeak IS NOT a public company. Yup, they have a publicly accessible web page and database, should you agree to their terms of service.

It's a private company who are free to run their internal staff/volunteers as they see fit. Or should they be listing the details of their 401k on the Knowledge Base too?

Share this post


Link to post
Groundspeak IS NOT a public company.

Geez, I'm talking about the publicly available guidelines for geocachers to view on how to proceed with the activity - those guidelines that, yes, geocachers are to read and understand, ideally, before going out to hide and find geocaches.

THAT is reference for this entire debate. "inside practices" that void any discussion of or contradict any of these guidelines, should, for the sake of the community and sanity, be publicized. Including a simple rule like no reviewers can make an exception to allow for the unarchival and adoption of a geocache.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
Groundspeak IS NOT a public company.

Geez, I'm talking about the publicly available guidelines for geocachers to view on how to proceed with the activity - those guidelines that, yes, geocachers are to read and understand, ideally, before going out to hide and find geocaches.

THAT is reference for this entire debate. "inside practices" that void any discussion of or contradict any of these guidelines, should, for the sake of the community and sanity, be publicized. Including a simple rule like no reviewers can make an exception to allow for the unarchival and adoption of a geocache.

 

My point stands. They can do what they want. If they want to put a sticky note on their monitor that says "Give thebruce0 a hard time when he submits a cache" they can do that. You don't have to like it though, but at the end of the day, you're only recourse is to take it or take your ball home.

 

They publish most of their stuff online in the Knowledge Books but there are, occasionally, things that will not be appropriate to post online. Like the conversations a player has with a reviewer. Let's face it for full transparency the entire conversation log every reviewer has with a player should be a matter of public record.

 

It's not because these are not public elected officials. They are volunteers appointed by a for-profit corporation to handle the needs of most of it's customers. One puzzle cache in Waterloo Region doesn't even begin to become most of the customers in any sense of the word. There are at most a couple dozen ticked off cachers here and I've only seen about 6 or 7 speak up.

 

I'd love to see how many unarchive requests are requested/granted in Ontario but I won't because that's another thing Groundspeak won't share easily.

You have been told, in writing (here) that the cache will not be unarchived. You're quibbling now that they didn't write that in the correct spot (Knowledge Books / Guidelines).

Share this post


Link to post

How is that confusing? Location isn't tied to rating - move it somewhere else on the island, move it to another island, move it somewhere that requires climbing gear, it's still a 5/5.

Ok, my mistake, the only differences being "code, owner, past logs, and coordinates". I guess I made the mistake of forcing too literal a hand. I guess I can't have it both ways, eh?

 

Perhaps if I were also trying to complete an "island caches" challenge, or some form of "lat/lon" challenge where the coordinates were essential, then I might debate the physical coordinates of the cache itself. I presumed that the important factors were code and rating, as per a general acceptance of completing a specific challenge, cache, and challenge cache. Coordinates are not important.

Looks like you presumed wrong then. The code and D/T rating is pretty much at the bottom of the list of things that make a challenge what it is. The primary thing that makes a challenge is the challenge rules. The location of the final comes second.

 

This is a "Find a cache for 365 days consecutively" challenge. I can put on a very steep hill and rate it a 5/4.5 and it will still be the same challenge.

 

So are we clear now on what we want the same in our request? Code (for the sake of the community's past logs), and D/T (for the physical requirement and stats)? Or does that somehow negate any support we may have for this request?

 

What else isn't crystal clear about this position that needs to be spelled out for the record?

"We" want? Looks like its "you" want. And yeah, it pretty much negates your support for unarchving when you say the location doesn't matter. New location means new listing. So on one had you're saying it needs to be unarchived to preserve the listing and on the other hand your saying it can be moved so a new listing is required.

 

Having it at the same location solves a few other problems. It's the same container in the same spot therefore the hidden/placed date is exactly the same. Since it's the same container that's been there since the beginning and contains all the previous signature the other cachers can just relog their finds with the same date and text. The owner would be different but so would the original if it were adopted.

 

So that just leaves the code. Big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
My point stands. They can do what they want. If they want to put a sticky note on their monitor that says "Give thebruce0 a hard time when he submits a cache" they can do that. You don't have to like it though, but at the end of the day, you're only recourse is to take it or take your ball home.

 

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." I'm sure you've heard that somewhere else before. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

If the rating is so important, why not just go do another 5/5. There are easier ways to get that stat.

Share this post


Link to post

For the sake of sanity, you should step back, take a few days away from this nonsense and enjoy a donut.

 

This thing is a box, beside a rock, on an island, in some park with co-ordinates listed on someone's provided service. Nothing more. The lack of sanity I'm seeing is the continued notion that this container is somehow more than just a box and deserves special treatment over the other thousands upon thousands of other archived caches.

 

Last time I checked, toilet seats didn't come with explicit instructions telling men that they should lift the seat prior to relieving themselves either, so I'm amazed that we managed to figure that out on our own without the availability of black & white absolute laws.

Share this post


Link to post
My point stands. They can do what they want. If they want to put a sticky note on their monitor that says "Give thebruce0 a hard time when he submits a cache" they can do that. You don't have to like it though, but at the end of the day, you're only recourse is to take it or take your ball home.

Some others have. I'm stubborn - I don't yet see a feasible reason to 1) give up or 2) hvae the request denied.

That's also precisely what I have been saying is the flaw with this system. Ultimately it's whimsical. It's subjective. Arguing against that is pointless. The only courses of action are to request and provide ample reasoning for an exception, or not, and if so hope for a resolution or understandable reason otherwise ("because I say so" isn't reasonable). If still unsatisfied, take it to appeals, although on past experience appeals is for correcting reviewer mistakes, not overriding reviewer judgements denying an exception. But who knows, they could still grant it anyway.

 

echo.....

 

They publish most of their stuff online in the Knowledge Books but there are, occasionally, things that will not be appropriate to post online. Like the conversations a player has with a reviewer.

No one's asking for that. Or anything else like that.

 

echo.....

 

We were told by a reviewer that a reviewer cannot grant an exception because there's a "BIG RED STAMP" on an archived cache that says it cannot be unarchived for the purposes of adoption. Nowhere is that outlined in the guidelines which we as account holders of geocaching.com are told to read and understand. Rather, those very guidelines by which the reviewers are told to judge and act, and we the players are told to abide, allow for the reviewer to make an exception for unarchival. No precedents are set, and the decision doesn't have to be influenced by a past instance. We feel that the denial of that exception in this specific instance is frivolous, and so we are expressing that discontent and continue to defend the request for a reversal (or at least voice that defense here for discussion which is also the proper location for discussion).

 

As far as I know, the appeals process is in action.

 

(I should just put this whole thing in a macro to paste repeatedly with little effort)

 

Looks like you presumed wrong then. The code and D/T rating is pretty much at the bottom of the list of things that make a challenge what it is. The primary thing that makes a challenge is the challenge rules. The location of the final comes second.

Sorry no. I can choose not to attempt a challenge if the D/T rating doesn't interest me. So yes, the D/T rating of a challenge cache is, or rather can be important to any particular cacher. THAT is what goes in the stats when the cache is logged. It's hand in hand with completing a challenge cache. A 5/1 challenge cache is not equivalent to a 5/5 challenge cache.

 

"We" want? Looks like its "you" want.

Others have spoken up. You don't know who's lurking, the total count of who may agree with me or others who have spoken up, or who agree with the reviewers. Argument ad populum is irrelevant here, for you and I. This is about the points put forth on the table, not the loudness of one voice or the quantity of whispers.

 

So on one had you're saying it needs to be unarchived to preserve the listing and on the other hand your saying it can be moved so a new listing is required.

echo.....

No, I'm not. I'm saying IF A NEW 5/5 IRONMAN IS RE-PUBLISHED by someone else, there is nothing that would stop me from logging it. Why would I? That does not negate the position or reasoning for having this particular cache unarchived. A new cache would not carry forward this cache's historic logs. A 'link' to the archived cache is not equivalent.

 

Having it at the same location solves a few other problems. It's the same container in the same spot therefore the hidden/placed date is exactly the same.

And thus frivolous duplication in republishing.

 

So that just leaves the code. Big deal.

No, it doesn't. The logs on the website are not carried forward.

We don't care about owner. We care about that cache.

Code = historicity of logs, no promotion of repeated logs for previous finders, simplicity of the game, spirit of that challenge cache

Rating = stats, tie to that particular challenge

And geez, it's just an unarchival of an exceptional challenge so it can be adopted immediately by another willing geocacher in the area.

Why is this such a freaking big deal? (and I fully expect that sentiment to be reciprocated)

echo.....

Share this post


Link to post

For the sake of sanity, you should step back, take a few days away from this nonsense and enjoy a donut.

I agree. It was quiet for a while. It comes in spurts :P

Share this post


Link to post

Albert Einstein: Will, what do you think of this?

 

Will Rogers: Seems pretty simple to me. When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

Albert Einstein: Will, what do you think of this?

 

Will Rogers: Seems pretty simple to me. When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.

 

.

 

Albert Einstein: Good advice Will. However, it has one serious "gotcha"

 

Will Rogers: What would that be Al?

 

Albert Einstein: You have to realize you are in a hole.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

So the other side has sunk to selective quoting of others, appealing to authority, as if to imply they're entirely in context and supportive of the points being made here.

 

Yes, this needs to stop.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yes, this needs to stop.

 

I think most would agree with that.

 

Since you are the OP, it is within your power to ask the Moderators to close this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

No, I would prefer not no shut the door on appropriate discourse.

Inappropriate discourse has to stop.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

No, I would prefer not no shut the door on appropriate discourse.

Inappropriate discourse has to stop.

 

So... How is the appeals process progressing?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know. I'm not the owner, and I'm not the one adopting it. Appeals can take a while. I check back occasionally with those appealing.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know. I'm not the owner, and I'm not the one adopting it. Appeals can take a while. I check back occasionally with those appealing.

 

Cool cool... And those folks who are appealing, when you checked with them, did they happen to give a status update?

 

Are you appealing this decision as well?

Share this post


Link to post

Hi There... Me Again!

 

Ya know, something about my toilet seat analogy just didn't sit right with me (pun intended), so I decided to take it upon myself to do some investigatory work to see if there's actually explicit instructions on when to lift a toilet seat. I figured, gosh, if all these people know when to use it, and how to use it as designed, there must be instructions, right?

 

So, I went here: Toilet Seat Manufacturer. It was the first manufacturer that appeared in a Google Search, so I guess that means they're pretty popular insofar as toilet seats go (though I haven't seen a rule book on how the Interwebz work, so I suppose the jury is still out on that).

 

Strangely, not one of the frequently asked questions seems to mention the proper time to lift (or lower, for that matter) a toilet seat to prepare it for incoming waste. I sat back in my chair, and muttered "WOW" to myself. I wondered "Sheesh... how do all these people figure out this complicated device and function in society? How the heck did I ever come to possess the knowledge required to keep the seat dry and women in my life happy?"

 

I called my mom. She raised me as well as a single mother could, and though standing and aiming was clearly not her strong point, somehow she still taught me how to work the thing(s). She said that there was no rule book for that since it should be pretty self-evident that it works best for all who might use it if it were lifted prior to use by men.

 

But I pushed back to my mom. I just couldn't believe that there was no proper answer written anywhere that explained to people the awesome mystery of the incredible toilet seat. She said it was true whether I liked to believe it or not, and suggested I ask my dad. I guess there's just no changing her mind.

 

So I emailed my dad. While my dad didn't potty train me, surely he must've read these rules somewhere along the line. He, too, is quite obviously a human male, and thus must've had the same training as me in order to know how to properly use this seat. His initial response was "You're kidding me, right??". I replied back to him that I wasn't joking, and that this question was of paramount importance and that I deserved to have an answer from someone who raised me and taught me right versus wrong cuz surely someone must've pointed him in the direction of the rule book for toilets. Frustratingly, he also told me that no such rule book existed and went on to further explain that one wasn't necessary since common sense people work out the logistics of toilet seats on their own, without the need for explicit rules. He said something about "It's absurd to require a Funk & Wagnalls for every petty inconvenience in life, so don't sweat the petty things and pick battles that really matter", but since I'm stubborn, I decided to persist with this question even further, even if it meant that I was beating a dead horse while the fat lady sang and the ships had sailed.

 

Then I searched on the computer. I found a site that allowed a person to have open discourse and posted my rant. I was just so absolutely beside myself at this point that I figured surely there must be many people who feel that this "non-existant toilet seat rule book" was an absolute travesty that needed me to fight for that oversight to be recitfied. I became very annoyed. Would you believe that almost nobody saw my grievance as anything to get upset about? Most of the people couldn't understand why I couldn't just enjoy the toilet seat for the convenience it provided. Some people offered suggestions on how a toilet seat should be used, though they also had never seen a rule book. One guy actually said that the answer I was seeking was a rubber stamp that said "42"! Like, what the heck does that mean, anyway??

 

Dispondent, I went for a walk. I ended up at a donut shop and had a few donuts and some chocolate milk. As I was sitting there, still steaming mad about the lack of toilet seat rules, my irritable bowel syndrome kicked in, and I raced to the restrooms. I pretty much ripped my pants and boxers off so that I didn't burst in my clothes. And then I sat down... right in a wet spot.

 

At that point, I understood everything. The reason there isn't a rule book for toilet seats is because nobody would be happy with how it was written anyway, and would still interpret the content to allow them to dirty the seat if that was how they chose to use the toilet. Clearly the guy who used the stall before me didn't care about the well-being of future toilet seat users (even though it was a "public" toilet) and I kinda figured that he likely wouldn't have even if there existed a set of laws to use the seat. In fact, I figured he'd find away around the rules that somebody wasted time drawing up anyway, and I became glad that nobody had bothered write a rulebook.

 

Since I was affected (moved, if you will) by my sit down experience in the donut shop stall, I made a pact with myself to strive to be a better person and not burden other people with my poor toilet seat experience. It made sense to me to not leave the seat soiled in any way so that the next person to frequent the bowl could have as pleasant an experience as possible in the hopes that they might pay it forward and not affect the next person, and so on.

 

In the end (pun intended), we all use the same pot. And we seem to use it quite well without the need for hard-fast rules. I suppose that we could continue to try to make it messy but in my opinion, it's probably better to just get off the pot rather than stir up crap all the time when we feel crampy.

 

Just flush your cares away and get out and enjoy the game as I know you do.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. Well I'm sure that's one well thought out dissertation (tl;dr) about toiletry and good communal bowl ethics, that's quite the elephant hurdle and very much not this situation. Neither is anyone stopping anyone else from getting out and enjoying the game (rather if it is, it's by the choice of the forum reader), nor is this stopping me from getting out there either. So, thanks for the essay, but we're more interested in resolutions than meta analogies about the debate itself.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. Well I'm sure that's one well thought out dissertation (tl;dr) about toiletry and good communal bowl ethics, that's quite the elephant hurdle and very much not this situation. Neither is anyone stopping anyone else from getting out and enjoying the game (rather if it is, it's by the choice of the forum reader), nor is this stopping me from getting out there either. So, thanks for the essay, but we're more interested in resolutions than meta analogies about the debate itself.

 

Which is why I'll be stubborn too, and ask you again:

 

Those folks who are appealing, when you checked with them, did they happen to give a status update?

 

Are you appealing this decision as well?

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry no. I can choose not to attempt a challenge if the D/T rating doesn't interest me. So yes, the D/T rating of a challenge cache is, or rather can be important to any particular cacher. THAT is what goes in the stats when the cache is logged. It's hand in hand with completing a challenge cache. A 5/1 challenge cache is not equivalent to a 5/5 challenge cache.

Wow. You're one of the only people I know that chooses challenges based on the D/T it will give you. Everyone else takes on a challenge because they're interested in the actual challenge. As Flintstone5611 wrote, there are easier ways to get that stat than taking on a challenge.

 

Others have spoken up. You don't know who's lurking, the total count of who may agree with me or others who have spoken up, or who agree with the reviewers. Argument ad populum is irrelevant here, for you and I. This is about the points put forth on the table, not the loudness of one voice or the quantity of whispers.

No, others just want the original cache unarchived and adopted. You want the original unarchived or a replacement with the exact D/T.

 

No, I'm not. I'm saying IF A NEW 5/5 IRONMAN IS RE-PUBLISHED by someone else, there is nothing that would stop me from logging it. Why would I? That does not negate the position or reasoning for having this particular cache unarchived. A new cache would not carry forward this cache's historic logs. A 'link' to the archived cache is not equivalent.

Except that stating you're willing to accept a replacement hurts your case for getting the original unarchived. If you're trying to sell me a car for $8000 and tell me that it has sentimental value, you put a lot of work into it, etc. and then you let me know you would settle for $5000 well guess what, all you'd get is $5000 from me for it.

 

And thus frivolous duplication in republishing.

So? Since you're not going to relist it what's it bother you that someone else choses to do it?

 

No, it doesn't. The logs on the website are not carried forward.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I said the that the other finders can re-log the new cache with the exact same logs since the hidden date would be the same.

 

We don't care about owner. We care about that cache.

You care about the cache? I thought you said the location didn't matter. How can you care about the cache if you're willing to abandon one of the fundamental things about a cache, it's location?

 

And geez, it's just an unarchival of an exceptional challenge so it can be adopted immediately by another willing geocacher in the area.

Why is this such a freaking big deal? (and I fully expect that sentiment to be reciprocated)

Same freaking big deal as relisting it apparently.

 

echo.....

Odd that you keep writing that since you're the biggest source of the echo around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Odd that you keep writing that since you're the biggest source of the echo around here.

I only answer points that need answering, because the points themselves have already been used - I try to direct people back earlier in the thread, but it seems people keep wanting to state the same things over and over and over again. So I'll respond likewise.

 

Those folks who are appealing, when you checked with them, did they happen to give a status update?

Are you appealing this decision as well?

Considering how slow appeals can take, I'm not going to check with them every day, let alone multiple times in a day. They're also capable of handling the situation themselves. I'll check in when them occasionally when I get curious enough to check in.

No, as I said, I'm not appealing because I'm not the cache owner nor the one who will be adopting.

 

Wow. You're one of the only people I know that chooses challenges based on the D/T it will give you.

Wow. You must not know a lot of people who choose challenges based on D/T (well that's a given) - people choose caches for their ratings all the time. Whether it's a challenge or not. Surely you can understand why a 5/5 challenge is far more appealing, for stats, than a 5/1. AND, hey, a 5 terrain may be on an island; that's a heck of a lot more fun than an LPC. D/T is only one of the many reason we would like this cache to remain active.

echo.....

 

No, others just want the original cache unarchived and adopted. You want the original unarchived or a replacement with the exact D/T.

You seem to think the defense for having this cache unarchived and adopted is hitched on this fact that I'm enamoured with the D/T rating. That is in fact one of the least important points in the defense for adoption. That is only a preference applicable if a new challenge cache is re-published. I'm not stupid. Most assuredly other daily caching challenge caches will be published, all around the world. Why on earth would I be resigned to not log any of them if I complete their requirements? IF THIS cache is re-published, only a 5/5 will suffice. If it's republished with a different rating, it's not a republish, it's a different cache entirely, boasting a similar challenge. I'm not going to NOT log any other cache just because this one might not get adopted. Don't be absurd. That is not an admission that this cache is no longer worthy of adoption. There are other reasons, as echoed many times above, as to why we believe this cache is worthy of adoption and remaining active.

 

So? Since you're not going to relist it what's it bother you that someone else choses to do it?

Absolutely nothing. If someone chooses to publish a new Ironman challenge, great for them! We'd still like to see this one unarchived and adopted. You think that's frivolous? Including all the points presented in its case? Ok, fine, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Thank you for your input.

 

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I said the that the other finders can re-log the new cache with the exact same logs since the hidden date would be the same.

Yep, now requiring all the past finders to post duplicate logs unnecessarily. I'm sure they wouldn't mind finding and logging two 5/5 challenge caches just because the original was for absolutely no good reason barricaded without hope of seeing daylight again. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just looks like a whole lot more work though for people overall because the original cache just wasn't unarchived and adopted.

 

You care about the cache? I thought you said the location didn't matter. How can you care about the cache if you're willing to abandon one of the fundamental things about a cache, it's location?

Did you read what I wrote? Some of us would like to log this cache, because of its rating, and to be a part of its historicity; not because of its location, or its ownership.

echo.....

 

Ok, cheer away - I'm done debating the debate.

As pointed out, I'm the OP, so as such, I'm asking you to please only comment further if you have something to ADD to the discussion - that is, logical reasoning as to why the cache should be unarchived so it can be adopted, or why that should not be an option, instead of attacking why anyone would even want that, or the character those that do.

Analogies are out. Past precedents and future scaremongering are out. Personal attacks are out. If you repeat points that have already been made, I'll go and cry in a corner.

Arguments like "you can't place a cache on private property without permission because it encourages others to trespass, which is illegal" are welcome - common sense, legal issues, nature preservation - good geocaching points to defend a position.

Arguments like "I don't know anyone who thinks like you" are not welcome.

Arguments like "because they say so" is a given and offer nothing to the issue at hand.

Voicing in with support for either position is welcome, and much more so with a clear understanding of the points already presented.

 

This has gone in circles long enough.

Share this post


Link to post

So why aren't you writing to appeals? You seem too passionate about this one box in the woods to let the fact that you are not the CO of that cache stand in your way. What do you stand to lose? If you truly want this to happen, it seems logical that you don't just bark away in here when you have an opportunity to speak directly with appeals to lend weight to someone else's cause. Who gives a flying fart that the cache isn't yours and that you aren't adopting it? It hasn't stopped you from writing about the perceived unfairness of that decision thusfar, and therefore shouldn't stop you from writing Groundspeak either. To me, that says more about a person's mettle than digging their heels here in this forum and trying to pawn it off as "The Good Fight".

 

It seems fairly evident to me that your foot stomping crusade to have this decision overturned via open discourse in the forum is not changing anyone's mind, and, at face value, doesn't appear to be reaching those who would effort the change you so desperately seek.

Share this post


Link to post

You seem to think the defense for having this cache unarchived and adopted is hitched on this fact that I'm enamoured with the D/T rating. That is in fact one of the least important points in the defense for adoption. That is only a preference applicable if a new challenge cache is re-published. I'm not stupid. Most assuredly other daily caching challenge caches will be published, all around the world. Why on earth would I be resigned to not log any of them if I complete their requirements? IF THIS cache is re-published, only a 5/5 will suffice. If it's republished with a different rating, it's not a republish, it's a different cache entirely, boasting a similar challenge. I'm not going to NOT log any other cache just because this one might not get adopted. Don't be absurd. That is not an admission that this cache is no longer worthy of adoption. There are other reasons, as echoed many times above, as to why we believe this cache is worthy of adoption and remaining active.

 

This statement confuses me. You state the D/T is least important and only a preference and then state only a 5/5 will suffice. This seams a little conflicting. It would seem to me that there is something about the D/T of this cache as the the reward for a challenge should be the warm fuzzy feeling of a job well done and nothing else.

 

Yep, now requiring all the past finders to post duplicate logs unnecessarily. I'm sure they wouldn't mind finding and logging two 5/5 challenge caches just because the original was for absolutely no good reason barricaded without hope of seeing daylight again. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just looks like a whole lot more work though for people overall because the original cache just wasn't unarchived and adopted.

 

Nobody would be required to do anything. If they want to log a freebee go right ahead. If they want to re-visit the cache and then log a find or do nothing at all that is up to the finders. Why would they be required to do anything? I d0 notice the D/T is mentioned again. I wonder what is so important about it it. When you state "for absolutely no good reason barricaded without hope of seeing daylight again" I would say that happened when it was archive by the owner.

 

An example of how not to win an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
You state the D/T is least important and only a preference and then state only a 5/5 will suffice.

A sufficient replacement cache can only be 5/5 in this context. Otherwise it's not a replacement cache.

 

Nobody would be required to do anything. If they want to log a freebee go right ahead.

Why don't we just keep creating ironman challenge caches then? It doesn't matter, right? Each is independent, wherever the location, whatever the rating. Who cares if there's 50 in one city? If they want to log the freebees go right ahead. ..there's a reason why having one is more enticing and simply more meaningful, at least to those who care about the challenge (as opposed to those who cheer at the increase of 'freebees'.

 

One very, very simple action would avoid all this extra action and work that everyone else will be taking, or will be prompted to take. Simply unarchive so it can be adopted. Save past logs, save the cache, the listing in its historicity and spirit, no extra actions or work for anyone, no harm done to anyone, anywhere, and everyone's happy.

Or, deny the unarchival, prompting someone to duplicate the listing or list a different one, lose the past logs, and prompt previous loggers to decide to come and find the new cache, either duplicating their past logs or duplicating their stats, else not be listed in the new (let's assume feasible replacement of challenge/D/T) cache.

To me the former is the much simpler, streamlined action, that keeps everyone happy with the least amount of work all around. But it's apparently not possible because of an interpretation of the guidelines that is not clear, but the reviewers have made up their mind, they cannot be changed, and no amount of sound reasoning or support to adopt it and keep it active will make a difference, and not because of logical, reasonable explanations as to why, but simply because "they said so".

I don't "foot stomp" with appeals (any more). The respectful and best way, as it's a one-on-one exchange is to have those directly involved appeal. Thus the one wishing to adopt, and/or the owner.

 

I would say that happened when it was archive by the owner.

No. Echo..... The guidelines which users are encouraged to understand and by which the reviewers are required to abide allow for an exception to unarchival, with no clause saying that unarchival for adoption is disallowed.

 

So anything new to add? (other than media clips, which is off topic and not relevant to the issue at hand, as I requested above, thank you for listening).

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Actually that's somewhat new. Except that no one said they were required to. However, that's supported by a point that has been mentioned, that each situation is independent and free from past and future precedent. They didn't make a 'wrong' decision, they simply made an arguably 'bad' one, which by nature will bring out the advocates and detractors.

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

×