GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge

[+Avernar]

Wow. You must not know a lot of people who choose challenges based on D/T (well that's a given)

You're the only one who has told me you pick challenges base on D/T, so that's a correct statement.

 

people choose caches for their ratings all the time. Whether it's a challenge or not.

Yes, people choose caches for their ratings all the time but it's not the top deciding factor for picking a challenge cache. I believe for most people it's not a deciding factor at all. Especially since most challenges have an artificial 5 as their terrain rating (which is a whole other debate).

 

I will agree that this is a rare challenge cache in which the terrain actually can be considered a true 5 (weather canoe caches are really a 5 is yet another debate).

 

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.

Having a proper 5/5 in the stats would be a nice to have but would not prevent me from doing a challenge if it wasn't a 5/5. Therefore it's not a factor.

 

As others have pointed out a replacement in the spot would also be a 5/5 so it's not a reason why the original must be unarchived. You seem to ignore this point choosing to reply with "echo" instead.

 

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.

I'm with Keith here, this confuses me. You're saying that the D/T rating is the least important point for adoption but the most important point for relisting.

 

If that's your criteria then I'll adopt the cache and drop the rating to 5/4.5 as I don't consider a canoe special equipment as it's way to easy to borrow/rent one. This would satisfy your argument then.

 

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.

Oh, nice. "I don't agree with your opinion or how you argue your point so please shut up".

 

I am not attacking you and I'm not happy you're implying I am. An I'm not attacking why you want it unarchived. Why must everyone in the forum cry "I'm being attacked" when someone picks apart their logic/arguments.

 

It's a public forum. This is a debate. The point of a debate is to show the flaws in your opponents arguments. It's not an attack.

 

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

Now you're rephrasing my statement to make it sound like a personal attack. "I don't know anyone who thinks like you" is much more attackish than "You're in the minority with that opinion".

 

Saying that only one person thinks something is important as opposed to many people thinking something is important is a valid argument. That's why I accept the historical argument as many share that idea. The D/T argument however, you're in the extreme minority.

 

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

I did. I think it should stay archived and a new one relisted. The point of that challenge is to find a cache 365 days consecutively. I believe most people think the same and that they're mad because they've "wasted" effort trying to complete the challenge just to have it yanked away. I believe they'd be perfectly happy with a replacement regardless of the D/T or the location. The location staying the same would be nice as the canoe trip over is a nice "icing on the cake". The D/T is still irrelevant as they'd still do it if it were listed as a 5/4.5 or lower.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Avernar

[+Keith Watson]

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'.

 

"more enticing and simply more meaningful" is subjective and may not be shared by all or even the majority.

 

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.

 

What is the extra work that everyone else will be taking or prompted to take? Everyone does not have to do every cache. If it stays archive no past logs will be lost, and the history of the cache will stay in tact. What some seem to have a problem with is not the history of the cache but rather the future of it. "no harm done to anyone, anywhere, and everyone's happy" I beg to differ on this point. I for one would want to know why this cache has more merit than other caches with historical significance as I bet others would.

 

I am still wondering about the D/T issue. For something not so important, it keeps appearing in your posts.

[+Dr. House]

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'.

 

"more enticing and simply more meaningful" is subjective and may not be shared by all or even the majority.

 

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.

 

What is the extra work that everyone else will be taking or prompted to take? Everyone does not have to do every cache. If it stays archive no past logs will be lost, and the history of the cache will stay in tact. What some seem to have a problem with is not the history of the cache but rather the future of it. "no harm done to anyone, anywhere, and everyone's happy" I beg to differ on this point. I for one would want to know why this cache has more merit than other caches with historical significance as I bet others would.

 

I am still wondering about the D/T issue. For something not so important, it keeps appearing in your posts.

 

+1

 

[+Tequila]

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'.

 

"more enticing and simply more meaningful" is subjective and may not be shared by all or even the majority.

 

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.

 

What is the extra work that everyone else will be taking or prompted to take? Everyone does not have to do every cache. If it stays archive no past logs will be lost, and the history of the cache will stay in tact. What some seem to have a problem with is not the history of the cache but rather the future of it. "no harm done to anyone, anywhere, and everyone's happy" I beg to differ on this point. I for one would want to know why this cache has more merit than other caches with historical significance as I bet others would.

 

I am still wondering about the D/T issue. For something not so important, it keeps appearing in your posts.

 

+1

 

 

I am really starting to feel sorry for the residents of hell who are no use to all this freezing weather, but:

 

+2

 

BTW, Mr. Yuck. This is all your fault. This thread had pretty much died a typical forum death until you resurrected it and tore off the scabs. (Said in total jest, my friend)

 

.

[+Avernar]

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'.

 

"more enticing and simply more meaningful" is subjective and may not be shared by all or even the majority.

 

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.

 

What is the extra work that everyone else will be taking or prompted to take? Everyone does not have to do every cache. If it stays archive no past logs will be lost, and the history of the cache will stay in tact. What some seem to have a problem with is not the history of the cache but rather the future of it. "no harm done to anyone, anywhere, and everyone's happy" I beg to differ on this point. I for one would want to know why this cache has more merit than other caches with historical significance as I bet others would.

 

I am still wondering about the D/T issue. For something not so important, it keeps appearing in your posts.

 

+1

 

 

I am really starting to feel sorry for the residents of hell who are no use to all this freezing weather, but:

 

+2

+3

 

The shipment of industrial snow blowers has just cleared customs.

[+thebruce0]

You're the only one who has told me you pick challenges base on D/T, so that's a correct statement.

I don't pick challenges based on D/T, but I certainly give weight to challenges with higher D/T ratings. But if I pick a challenge, and it is a 5/5 challenge cache, then yes in a replacement, I would want a 5/5 replacement. Does that not make sense to you?

 

:: "I will agree that this is a rare challenge cache in which the terrain actually can be considered a true 5"

Thank you.

 

Having a proper 5/5 in the stats would be a nice to have but would not prevent me from doing a challenge if it wasn't a 5/5. Therefore it's not a factor.

For you. And not being a 5/5 is not a factor causing me not doing a challenge. But in this case, I for one began a 5/5 challenge cache. My preference is that this cache be adopted, but if someone opts to put out a replacement cache, I would only be satisfied if it were a 5/5. If not, it's not a replacement. It's another challenge cache.

 

As others have pointed out a replacement in the spot would also be a 5/5 so it's not a reason why the original must be unarchived.

That is only one of the points as to why we'd like this cache unarchived, which range from personal reasons to community reasons, as well mentioned throughout this thread.

 

If that's your criteria then I'll adopt the cache and drop the rating to 5/4.5 as I don't consider a canoe special equipment as it's way to easy to borrow/rent one. This would satisfy your argument then.

No, I would not refrain from logging the challenge, but I would not agree with the 4.5 rating if it were on an island, and I would not be satisfied with it as a replacement. If I were specifically aiming for that rating for a fizzy, this would not be a replacement.

 

Now you're rephrasing my statement to make it sound like a personal attack. "I don't know anyone who thinks like you" is much more attackish than "You're in the minority with that opinion".

You didn't say the latter. You implied in your original quote (my inference, perhaps) that because no one told you that they choose challenges primarily based on D/T, my argument is somehow moot. That does not compute.

Personal attack would be "you're stupid for thinking like that" or implying as such, and I didn't say "I don't know anyone who thinks like you" was a personal attack, only that that's not a welcome debate point in this thread.

 

As for "The D/T argument however, you're in the extreme minority" -- I beg to differ. But unless either of us can produce stats, I guess it's your opinion against mine.

 

:: "I think it should stay archived and a new one relisted."

Ok. Thank you for your input.

 

:: "The point of that challenge is to find a cache 365 days consecutively."

And many (I can only speak for myself) on accepting that challenge also expect to be able to log that 5/5 cache on completion.

 

I believe most people think the same and that they're mad because they've "wasted" effort trying to complete the challenge just to have it yanked away.

That's a valid observation.

 

I believe they'd be perfectly happy with a replacement regardless of the D/T or the location.

That's a subjective argument; while some may, others may not. There have been comments even just in this thread (though I can also say that I've also had plenty of personal feedback and support for the position of adoption) that don't see why unarchival and adoption is an issue, and that logging a replacement cache is not the same.

 

"more enticing and simply more meaningful" is subjective and may not be shared by all or even the majority.

let's bring in the "it's all about the numbers" faction vs the "it's all about the sport". Maybe that'll settle that argument. Whether it's majority opinion or not doesn't matter. If I'm alone in this request (which I'm very much not, only perhaps the loudest and least likely to give up the position in the forum), then I'd concede.

 

I beg to differ on this point. I for one would want to know why this cache has more merit than other caches with historical significance as I bet others would.

Because of the context of this particular instance. Regardless of other past instances. This was archived quickly and rashly, and followed up with a quick request for reversal so that it could be adopted. What is the harm in that? This is not a request to unarchive a 5 year old cache. This is not requesting unarchival for an abandoned cache. Both owner and adopter have voiced their agreement for the exchange, and within hours of the archival. To date, no reason other than "nope" has been provided for denying the request. This is indeed a unique, highly debatable controversy.

If there are other caches with a similar circumstance (whether they have more merit or not), or a feasible "historical significance", then yeah I'd love to see the support for unarchival of that as well. If there are good reasons to deny it, then so be it. Here, none have yet been provided, according to those of us who would like to see it adopted and remain active, given the supporting arguments provided.

 

I am still wondering about the D/T issue. For something not so important, it keeps appearing in your posts.

Yes. Because it's a 5/5 challenge cache.

 

re: the +1's - grow up.

[+Dr. House]

 

re: the +1's - grow up.

 

So, personal attacks are OK provided they aren't directed at you?

[+Keith Watson]

re: the +1's - grow up.

 

I am pretty sure there is a guideline about that.

 

1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly.

 

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Keith Watson

[+Dr. House]

re: the +1's - grow up.

 

I am pretty sure there is a guideline about that.

 

1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly.

 

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

+1

[+thebruce0]

Oh. My. Word.

Y'all were just waiting to pounce on that.

Yes, I requested only responses that added to the discussion in the thread. So please do so. "+1" is neither additive nor respectful of the discussion, is self-congratulatory, and comes off as immature in the course of debate.

If you have nothing to add, please do not comment any further.

[+northernpenguin]

Oh. My. Word.

Y'all were just waiting to pounce on that.

Yes, I requested only responses that added to the discussion in the thread. So please do so. "+1" is neither additive nor respectful of the discussion, is self-congratulatory, and comes off as immature in the course of debate.

If you have nothing to add, please do not comment any further.

 

Actually, I planned to +4 the earlier one.

+[x] is an established forum technique here in the Groundspeak forums (and more) to demonstrate agreement with the post quickly.

 

The fact that so many of us are starting to agree who would normally be at each other's throats is somewhat telling.

 

To be clear about my stance with more than a +1(/2/3/4), I also question how the challenge D/T is related to the challenge though I cede that an identical cache placed in the identical spot should be more or less identical (if the new CO agrees). Caches do get re-rated by their owners and yes you could very well find this cache have it's rating changed after adoption if the new CO feels it should be a 4/4.5 for example.

[+Dr. House]

If you have nothing to add, please do not comment any further.

 

+1

 

Actually, I think I'm gonna listen to this request in the hopes that others will do the same so that this forum thread will just vanish like a fart in the wind.

[+thebruce0]

+[x] is an established forum technique here in the Groundspeak forums (and more) to demonstrate agreement with the post quickly.

It's already clear you all agree with other.

 

I also question how the challenge D/T is related to the challenge though I cede that an identical cache placed in the identical spot should be more or less identical (if the new CO agrees). Caches do get re-rated by their owners and yes you could very well find this cache have it's rating changed after adoption if the new CO feels it should be a 4/4.5 for example.

Yes, that can happen, but not without the potential of inciting rage too. If I change the rating on any of my caches, I put a note in the description with the old and new ratings and the date, out of respect for those people that are playing for the numbers.

 

Actually, I think I'm gonna listen to this request in the hopes that others will do the same so that this forum thread will just vanish like a fart in the wind.

Thank you. And if at any point no one has anything else to add, then it will.

[+Avernar]

I don't pick challenges based on D/T, but I certainly give weight to challenges with higher D/T ratings. But if I pick a challenge, and it is a 5/5 challenge cache, then yes in a replacement, I would want a 5/5 replacement. Does that not make sense to you?

Never said it didn't make sense. You prefer it was a 5/5. I have nothing against that. I disagree with you saying it's not a replacement if it wasn't a 5/5.

 

And not being a 5/5 is not a factor causing me not doing a challenge. But in this case, I for one began a 5/5 challenge cache. My preference is that this cache be adopted, but if someone opts to put out a replacement cache, I would only be satisfied if it were a 5/5. If not, it's not a replacement. It's another challenge cache.

So the 5/5 thing is about your satisfaction? That's not a very persuasive argument.

 

As for "The D/T argument however, you're in the extreme minority" -- I beg to differ. But unless either of us can produce stats, I guess it's your opinion against mine.

D/T matters: thebruce0

D/T doesn't matter: Keith Watson, Dr House, Tequila, Northernpenguin, Avernar

 

5 to 1 there so far.

 

:: "The point of that challenge is to find a cache 365 days consecutively."

And many (I can only speak for myself) on accepting that challenge also expect to be able to log that 5/5 cache on completion.

That doesn't seem the consensus here.

 

I believe they'd be perfectly happy with a replacement regardless of the D/T or the location.

That's a subjective argument; while some may, others may not. There have been comments even just in this thread (though I can also say that I've also had plenty of personal feedback and support for the position of adoption) that don't see why unarchival and adoption is an issue, and that logging a replacement cache is not the same.

This I would like to see here. I'd like whoever else wouldn't be happy with a replacement that wasn't 5/5 to speak up.

 

re: the +1's - grow up.

+1's are standard forum shorthand for I agree fully with what they said.

 

You telling us to grow up is calling us immature. After you going on a rant about attacks I find this amusing.

[+thebruce0]

I disagree with you saying it's not a replacement if it wasn't a 5/5.

Ok. I disagree. Thank you for your input.

 

So the 5/5 thing is about your satisfaction? That's not a very persuasive argument.

How does that not grok? Our desire is to see this cache adopted. It's a 5/5 cache. I cannot obviously speak for everyone, but a replacement cache in this case for me would be a 5/5 cache of the same challenge. If that's not a persuasive argument for you (though it's not an argument related to adoption, only about what I'd consider a replacement cache), then ok. Thank you for your input.

Edited September 7, 2011 by thebruce0

[+dfx]

+[x] is an established forum technique here in the Groundspeak forums (and more) to demonstrate agreement with the post quickly.

 

Which I find rather annoying btw. Not much better (maybe even worse) than AOL-style "me too!" If you don't have anything to add, don't post. Rant over, back to topic

[+Avernar]

How does that not grok? Our desire is to see this cache adopted. It's a 5/5 cache. I cannot obviously speak for everyone, but a replacement cache in this case for me would be a 5/5 cache of the same challenge. If that's not a persuasive argument for you (though it's not an argument related to adoption, only about what I'd consider a replacement cache), then ok. Thank you for your input.

Find that thread in the Geocaching Topics forum where people were arguing that the entire final container for a challenge cache doesn't matter and should be abolished. The D/T rating of the cache never once came up in that debate.

 

None of my friends has ever said this was a factor.

 

The people in this thread have said this is not a factor.

 

None of the people beta testing my challenge cache calculator program have ever requested I prioritize the challenges by D/T.

 

I'm not saying there's no one else who thinks the D/T is a major factor, I'm saying nobody else has said stepped up and said so.

[+Avernar]

Which I find rather annoying btw. Not much better (maybe even worse) than AOL-style "me too!" If you don't have anything to add, don't post. Rant over, back to topic

Oh the irony!

[+thebruce0]

I'm not saying there's no one else who thinks the D/T is a major factor, I'm saying nobody else has said stepped up and said so.

Probably because it was never an issue. Ask someone who aims to complete a 5/5 challenge cache if they'd be just as happy to log the same challenge if it were replaced by a 1/1. Actually, don't. This isn't a poll.

 

Find that thread in the Geocaching Topics forum where people were arguing that the entire final container for a challenge cache doesn't matter and should be abolished.

That's a whole different debate. Those people should take up Geocaching Challenges (once the quirks are worked out).

Edited September 7, 2011 by thebruce0

[+Avernar]

Probably because it was never an issue. Ask someone who aims to complete a 5/5 challenge cache if they'd be just as happy to log the same challenge if it were replaced by a 1/1. Actually, don't. This isn't a poll.

Then why did you bring it up if you don't want it answered? To make a point while trying to suppress a counter argument?

 

They'd probably be happy they completed the challenge. While I agree it might be a little anticlimactic it's not going to affect their decision weather or not to continue pursuing the challenge to completion.

 

That's a whole different debate. Those people should take up Geocaching Challenges (once the quirks are worked out).

You missed the point. It's the other way around. Those people who were defending the final container never mentioned anything about the D/T of the final container.

[+thebruce0]

While I agree it might be a little anticlimactic it's not going to affect their decision weather or not to continue pursuing the challenge to completion.

I already said I wasn't going to stop pursuing the challenge to completion.

 

Those people who were defending the final container never mentioned anything about the D/T of the final container.

Based on how you described that debate, D/T was never a concern. It was the existence of the final container itself.

Nonetheless, that is a different debate, a different situation, an appeal to popular opinion, and as per no precedent, has no bearing on this situation.

Edited September 7, 2011 by thebruce0

[+Avernar]

I already said I wasn't going to stop pursuing the challenge to completion.

Exactly. So the container doesn't matter then to the challenge aspect. Therefore you can substitute any other 5/5 cache to replace the missing stat you were going to get from this cache.

 

Based on how you described that debate, D/T was never a concern. It was the existence of the final container itself.

Which is my point. Not once did "A final container is necessary because you need to get a +1 on your D/T matrix" ever came up.

 

Nonetheless, that is a different debate, a different situation, an appeal to popular opinion, and as per no precedent, has no bearing on this situation.

Sorry, you don't get to make up the rules in this forum. I can bring any past precedent, other debates, etc, into my argument that I want as long as it's supporting my argument. As the OP, the fact that you acknowledged my argument and presented a counter point solidifies my opinion that it part of the topic.

 

I'm getting really tired of your debating style of presenting a counter point then telling me I can't reply for whatever reason.

 

You can do three things here:

 

1) Reply to things in my argument which I will reply back.

2) Ignore things in my argument.

3) Close the thread.

 

Your choice but as long as you keep picking option 1 you have no right to tell me to keep quiet.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Avernar

[+thebruce0]

Exactly. So the container doesn't matter then to the challenge aspect. Therefore you can substitute any other 5/5 cache to replace the missing stat you were going to get from this cache.

echo..... that is only one aspect to the purpose of unarchival and adoption. If that were the ONLY concern, then sure. But it's not.

 

Sorry, you don't get to make up the rules in this forum

I never said I did. I hoped that the discussion in the thread could remain mature, reasonable, and informative. I hoped to limit what was causing frustration and annoyance, primarily repetition, insult, and off topic chatter; especially in combination.

 

As the OP, the fact that you acknowledged my argument and presented a counter point solidifies my opinion that it part of the topic.

I've repeatedly ignored content I felt was off topic and irrelevant to the discussion. If I reply, it means I feel it deserves a response, not that it's on topic. See below.

 

1) Reply to things in my argument which I will reply back.

2) Ignore things in my argument.

3) Close the thread.

As I started the thread, my goal is to address any point that's raised if I feel it prompts a response, whether it's new or not, and if not new then reiterating the answer or directing to where it's been answered. I'm asking for new input so that doesn't have to happen over and over and over again.

Closing the thread is the final resort.

 

Arguments that rely on precedent as a reason to deny unarchival and adoption are irrelevant to this debate because precedent has been demonstrated as irrelevant to the reviewer's decision, and also a key element of the reviewers' decision making process.

However, if the argument is made that reviewers can pick and choose if, where, and when to apply precedent or not, but GS members are not allowed to cite precedent, then that only serves to show how the review process is open to being subjective, unfair, whimsical, and biased.

If that's the fact, then I'll bow out.

 

Your choice but as long as you keep picking option 1 you have no right to tell me to keep quiet.

You don't have to keep quiet. I never said you did.

I asked that any commenters please add to the discussion, or don't comment (everyone knows those words of wisdom "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all", right?), because it drags the thread down. If you don't like the debate style, then don't debate. If you're only going to quibble about debate style, then that's not adding.

 

If you have nothing to add, please do not comment any further.

+1

 

Actually, I think I'm gonna listen to this request in the hopes that others will do the same so that this forum thread will just vanish like a fart in the wind.

Edited September 7, 2011 by thebruce0

[+northernpenguin]

[+thebruce0]

That made me laugh. It deserves a response.

+1

[+Keith Watson]

I just went back and read the listing of the archived cache. I doubt that listing would pass the reviewers as it is considering the "solicitation" that happens a few times in the listing.

[+thebruce0]

I just went back and read the listing of the archived cache. I doubt that listing would pass the reviewers as it is considering the "solicitation" that happens a few times in the listing.

Good point.

Solicitation (by named reference at least) is still a point of contention, but at least with reviewers now attempting to be more consistent recently, it's a solid point. The description can be edited, however. I'd say it was published with an exception due to the solicitation being a natural conservation area, but I don't know if that was explicitly stated as I'm not the CO; perhaps gg could chime in on that point - but even so, no precedent means the previous exception is irrelevant. So...

Thank you - that was probably the best input in pages

[+Keith Watson]

I just went back and read the listing of the archived cache. I doubt that listing would pass the reviewers as it is considering the "solicitation" that happens a few times in the listing.

Good point.

Solicitation (by named reference at least) is still a point of contention, but at least with reviewers now attempting to be more consistent recently, it's a solid point. The description can be edited, however. I'd say it was published with an exception due to the solicitation being a natural conservation area, but I don't know if that was explicitly stated as I'm not the CO; perhaps gg could chime in on that point - but even so, no precedent means the previous exception is irrelevant. So...

Thank you - that was probably the best input in pages

 

On the contrary. Remember, there are no precedences when publishing caches. In order for it to come back it would have to pass the review process.

[+thebruce0]

That's what I meant - "no precedent means the previous exception is irrelevant"

[+Keith Watson]

That's what I meant - "no precedent means the previous exception is irrelevant"

Sorry, mis-understood.

[+junglehair]

Here is my overly simplistic view of the situation.

 

Player 1 has a hissy fit and decides to take his ball and go home. What are the rest of the players supposed to do? Rather than trying to get the ball back from Player 1 - just go get a new ball. No more drama.

[+Avernar]

echo..... that is only one aspect to the purpose of unarchival and adoption. If that were the ONLY concern, then sure. But it's not.

 

I never said I did. I hoped that the discussion in the thread could remain mature, reasonable, and informative. I hoped to limit what was causing frustration and annoyance, primarily repetition, insult, and off topic chatter; especially in combination.

You're not helping that goal very much.

 

If I reply, it means I feel it deserves a response, not that it's on topic. See below.

So you're allowed to be off topic but we're not?

 

As I started the thread, my goal is to address any point that's raised if I feel it prompts a response, whether it's new or not, and if not new then reiterating the answer or directing to where it's been answered. I'm asking for new input so that doesn't have to happen over and over and over again.

Again, this is an open forum which means other people will present stuff that they consider relevant to the conversation even if you don't. Seems to me you should have posted this to a blog if you wanted to keep things one sided.

 

You're trying to act as a referee here while also being a participant. Just imagine a hockey game where the referee was one of the players. The other team would quickly start to get very frustrated at the very least.

 

Some friendly advice, if you do want to cut a side topic short try to do so without getting the last word in. Otherwise you'll end up doing the opposite. As I said, you're either the referee or a player.

 

If you're serious about keeping this mature, reasonable, and informative then ignore all my comments above and just focus on the following:

 

Arguments that rely on precedent as a reason to deny unarchival and adoption are irrelevant to this debate because precedent has been demonstrated as irrelevant to the reviewer's decision, and also a key element of the reviewers' decision making process.

Yes, there is a lot of inconsistency with the reviewers decisions sometimes but they are volunteers and not soldiers in an army. You can't fault the reviewers for making a decision and standing by it.

 

If you think they were wrong then you have the option of going to appeals. Now if appeals is not consistent with their decisions you have the right to be annoyed.

 

However, if the argument is made that reviewers can pick and choose if, where, and when to apply precedent or not, but GS members are not allowed to cite precedent, then that only serves to show how the review process is open to being subjective, unfair, whimsical, and biased.

If that's the fact, then I'll bow out.

How is picking and choosing which precedent to follow any different from not following a precedent at all and making a decision based on the current situation? To an outside observer they would be indistinguishable.

 

Let's take precedent out of the picture and look at it based on the current situation. The CO basically gave Groundspeak and the reviewers the finger by geociding with the message "I give up on Geocaching.com. I may move this listing to a competitors site." Then he made a mistake about the adoption procedures and came crawling back asking for a favour.

 

Now if I was the reviewer, after that slap in the face I'm not going to stick my neck out for him and go against company policy regarding adoption and unarchive the cache. I'd be professional about it and inform him of the policy and tell him that he can go to appeals and have them fix it.

 

I'm not saying this is what the reviewers were thinking as I'm not a mind reader. They've collectively made a decision and gave a way for it to be possibly reversed.

 

Now it's up to someone to get the ball rolling and start the procedure.

[+northernpenguin]

One challenge:

 

You cannot edit an archived listing.

The listing cannot be published with the solicitations (probably).

 

You now have a chicken vs egg scenario.

 

So, you'd have to have the reviewer edit it before it could be unarchived.

The reviewer *could* publish it and leave it disabled but that would be a very, very slippery slope as the listing could just be "enabled" at that point without review ... so it's doubtful they would use that method.

[+thebruce0]

Player 1 has a hissy fit and decides to take his ball and go home. What are the rest of the players supposed to do? Rather than trying to get the ball back from Player 1 - just go get a new ball. No more drama.

I wrote up a more detailed version of this analogy to respond, but realized that would just make things worse here as I requested no analogies. They're inherently flawed, and continuously amendable to serve the purpose of whoever's stating it. So I digress. Please provide real world examples as points. If you really want to read my response, PM me.

 

Yes, there is a lot of inconsistency with the reviewers decisions sometimes but they are volunteers and not soldiers in an army. You can't fault the reviewers for making a decision and standing by it.

 

If you think they were wrong then you have the option of going to appeals. Now if appeals is not consistent with their decisions you have the right to be annoyed.

Entirely agreed.

We are going to appeals. And we're not faulting the reviewers for an incorrect decision. We're pleading for a reversal. Big difference.

Also, the reviewers have been far more consistent recently, for which I applaud, on principle. Even if I agree with others that the consistency may come across draconian at times. But that's the nature of the beast, the system that's in place.

 

Now if I was the reviewer, after that slap in the face I'm not going to stick my neck out for him and go against company policy regarding adoption and unarchive the cache.

That's between the reviewer and the CO. This is our plead, not his. The one offering to adopt is appealing. The owner is willing and able to cooperate.

Also, where is this company policy? Unarchiving for the purpose of adoption isn't in the publicly available guidelines that are required reading for the members and reviewers. If it's an unwritten "inside practice", then I believe there's enough concern for this significant loophole in guideline wording for it to be clarified. Then it won't happen again.

 

Now it's up to someone to get the ball rolling and start the procedure.

The procedure has started. And as far as I know, it started long ago, relatively speaking.

 

You cannot edit an archived listing.

The listing cannot be published with the solicitations (probably).

Nice, another interesting quandry...

However, as the reviewers have stated they're not changing their mind, if appeals decides to allow the unarchival and adoption, I'm sure if they felt it was an issue and important not to include the solicitations, they might allow the adopter to easily make the change as part of the agreement and adoption process in this specific context, if they felt it worth the effort. I'd hope that would be the case, but who knows.

Edited September 7, 2011 by thebruce0

[+northernpenguin]

 

That's between the reviewer and the CO. This is our plead, not his. The one offering to adopt is appealing. The owner is willing and able to cooperate.

Also, where is this company policy? Unarchiving for the purpose of adoption isn't in the publicly available guidelines that are required reading for the members and reviewers. If it's an unwritten "inside practice", then I believe there's enough concern for this significant loophole in guideline wording for it to be clarified. Then it won't happen again.

 

 

It does come up when you try to adopt an archived listing:

 

 

So maybe it's time to start a Feedback Topic to have this language added to the Knowledge Base or Guidelines.

 

Edit: Nevermind. Found it right there in the guidelines after all. See below.

Edited September 7, 2011 by northernpenguin

[+northernpenguin]

 

That's between the reviewer and the CO. This is our plead, not his. The one offering to adopt is appealing. The owner is willing and able to cooperate.

Also, where is this company policy? Unarchiving for the purpose of adoption isn't in the publicly available guidelines that are required reading for the members and reviewers. If it's an unwritten "inside practice", then I believe there's enough concern for this significant loophole in guideline wording for it to be clarified. Then it won't happen again.

 

 

Ok time to end this right now:

 

Yes, it is. Refer to the Knowledge Base:

 

Which states:

 

---------------------------------

 

3.3. Adopting or Transferring a Cache

 

In some rare situations, a geocache is no longer able to be maintained by the owner. A geocache adoption can be processed using the Geocaching Adoption Service without intervention from Groundspeak.

 

Steps for transferring ownership of a geocache:

 

The current cache owner logs in and visits:

http://www.geocaching.com/adopt/

Enter the GC Code (GCXXXXX) and click 'Lookup.'

Enter the username of the new owner and click 'Go.'

Click on 'Send Adoption Request.'

The new cache owner will receive an email. They should log in to the site and follow the adoption instructions provided.

If the original geocache owner is inactive on our site and/or will not use the Geocaching Adoption Service, the interested new party must ask the original cache owner to give Groundspeak written permission. The owner should inform us at contact@geocaching.com from their Geocaching email account that this cache can be adopted to the new party with their permission. If the cache owner is unresponsive and the cache needs attention, you may write a Needs Maintenance log or a Needs Archived log to the cache page, as appropriate.

 

Groundspeak will not process a geocache transfer without written permission from the geocache owner. Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com. Decisions about caches belonging to someone who is deceased need to be made by the cache owner’s family since that cache is now part of the estate.

 

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.

 

Many thanks to Volunteer Cache Reviewer Keystone for initially writing this article.

[+thebruce0]

Please revisit the first page of this thread. Post #2, even.

[+northernpenguin]

Please revisit the first page of this thread. Post #2, even.

 

Call me silly but you're going to have to clarify. What I quoted is not grey. That is written as a black and white.

You pleaded your case, the reviewers (obviously having read the above) said: NO. Someone else took it to appeals, who have not provided an answer yet.

 

You have been going on and on about how it's not written anywhere that they cannot unarchive it. I provided you the location where it is written - a place the reviewers check and the players can access and read the rather firm guideline. Appeals can overrule it but the reviewers are not going to be racing to do it. Particularly after the original CO basically stuck his finger up at the reviewers over a perceived injustice.

 

What, exactly, am I missing.

[+thebruce0]

echo...

There is no rule written that a cache "cannot be unarchived for the purpose of adoption".

A) An archived cache may not be adopted.

An archived cache may be unarchived by the judgement of the reviewer.

C) An active cache may be adopted.

This process is not addressed. There's nothing that says you can't get from A to C.

 

If it gets addressed officially as a rule the reviewers are unable to override and thus disallowed entirely, then I'd like to see that made official and clear in the guidelines so it can simply be pointed to in the future. If not, then it remains a point of contentious ambiguity.

 

If the official response from appeals is that the arguments provided in support of the adoption of this cache are insufficient to allow the exception at step B (rather than simply denying that it's even an option), then as much I'd personally detest to that ruling, at least it's consistent and logical with the written guidelines, and I'll bow out.

Edited September 7, 2011 by thebruce0

[+northernpenguin]

echo...

There is no rule written that a cache "cannot be unarchived for the purpose of adoption".

A) An archived cache may not be adopted.

An archived cache may be unarchived by the judgement of the reviewer.

C) An active cache may be adopted.

This process is not addressed. There's nothing that says you can't get from A to C.

 

If it gets addressed officially as a rule the reviewers are unable to override and thus disallowed entirely, then I'd like to see that made official and clear in the guidelines so it can simply be pointed to in the future. If not, then it remains a point of contention.

 

If the official response from appeals is that the arguments provided in support of the adoption of this cache are insufficient to allow the exception (rather than simply denying that it's even an option), then as much I'd personally detest to that ruling, at least it's consistent and logical with the written guidelines, and I'll bow out.

 

Considering that the only possible outcome from adopting an archived geocache is reactivation with a different user account I interpret that to mean the same thing:

 

An archived cache cannot be adopted = A cache cannot be unarchived then transferred to a new owner.

[+thebruce0]

I interpret that to mean the same thing:

An archived cache cannot be adopted = A cache cannot be unarchived then transferred to a new owner.

 

Whereas I interpret that as saying:

An archived cache cannot be adopted = If you try to adopt a cache that's archived, you won't be able to.

 

It says nothing about unarchival.

[+northernpenguin]

I interpret that to mean the same thing:

An archived cache cannot be adopted = A cache cannot be unarchived then transferred to a new owner.

 

Whereas I interpret that as saying:

An archived cache cannot be adopted = If you try to adopt a cache that's archived, you won't be able to.

 

It says nothing about unarchival.

 

Well, it may be time to get Bryan Roth in here then to cut the legalese. Maybe even poke Keystone to update the Knowledge Book article to explicitly spell that out so there is no perceived loophole.

 

Though to me this is really getting creative with your thinking rather than seeing the obvious intent of the guideline.

[+northernpenguin]

echo...

There is no rule written that a cache "cannot be unarchived for the purpose of adoption".

A) An archived cache may not be adopted.

An archived cache may be unarchived by the judgement of the reviewer.

C) An active cache may be adopted.

This process is not addressed. There's nothing that says you can't get from A to C.

 

If it gets addressed officially as a rule the reviewers are unable to override and thus disallowed entirely, then I'd like to see that made official and clear in the guidelines so it can simply be pointed to in the future. If not, then it remains a point of contentious ambiguity.

 

If the official response from appeals is that the arguments provided in support of the adoption of this cache are insufficient to allow the exception at step B (rather than simply denying that it's even an option), then as much I'd personally detest to that ruling, at least it's consistent and logical with the written guidelines, and I'll bow out.

 

Also to answer the A to C jump. A must pass through B. B is at the discretion of the reviewer. The reviewers said NO. Therefore the stop sign is in place at step B.

May is not equal to Will. You don't get an automatic. If you did, step B would be automated on the Adopt a Cache page .... and I'd own the listing for Taz in Bolton.

[+thebruce0]

Though to me this is really getting creative with your thinking

This was spelled out since the beginning of the thread, a key element of reasoning as why we'd like the cache unarchived and adopted, whether creative thinking or obvious loophole.

 

Maybe even poke Keystone to update the Knowledge Book article to explicitly spell that out so there is no perceived loophole.

I would more than happy with that.

 

As for step B, once again, we appealed to the reviewer(s) to change their mind, because it is an option (contrary to what we were repeatedly told), and once that was made abundantly clear that no amount of reasoning would change their mind, we took it to appeals.

Edited September 7, 2011 by thebruce0

[+hikerT]

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.

 

For the love of Cache I sure hope so.

[+dfx]

Well, it may be time to get Bryan Roth in here then to cut the legalese. Maybe even poke Keystone to update the Knowledge Book article to explicitly spell that out so there is no perceived loophole.

 

I wonder if they'd actually do that. The "rule" would then become more common knowledge, and people would be tempted to ask for unarchival without mentioning adoption (which would probably be granted), and then just adopt it out anyway. But I guess reviewers are supposed to keep an eye on unarchived listings anyway...

[+thebruce0]

Well then in that case, there's no winning either way.

Leave it ambiguous and people may appeal in the future, and have to be dealt with. Clarify it, and people may try to circumvent it. Cheaters will be cheaters, eh?

 

Speaking for myself, I guess my only option is:

If the official response from appeals is that the arguments provided in support of the adoption of this cache are insufficient to allow the exception at step B (rather than simply denying that it's even an option), then as much I'd personally detest to that ruling, at least it's consistent and logical with the written guidelines, and I'll bow out.

In which case, appeals could just claim that's the case, and I'm done. Unhappily. And very tempted to join the ranks of those upset with Groundspeak's policies. Not that that makes anything more than a ripple in the ocean, if even that.

Edited September 7, 2011 by thebruce0

[+Keith Watson]

The problem is an attempt was made to un-archive the cache for adoption. Once that request was made it was over. Any attempt or justification now is just trying to work around the fact that the desire is to un-archive it for adoption. Another example of asking for the wring thing up front.

 

[+thebruce0]

The problem is an attempt was made to un-archive the cache for adoption.

It was not known at the time that it would be an issue. And the wording of the guidelines is ambiguous.

trying to work around the fact that the desire is to un-archive it for adoption

No one trying to work around that fact. It's been the clear goal from the get-go.

 

Friday

I can link videos that offer nothing too.

[+Dr. House]

The problem is an attempt was made to un-archive the cache for adoption. Once that request was made it was over. Any attempt or justification now is just trying to work around the fact that the desire is to un-archive it for adoption. Another example of asking for the wring thing up front.

 

 

+1

 

Loved that episode. Borrowed the season from Tequila since he'd moved on to Twilight Zone.

 

Actually, since the OP has demonstrated that it's OK to deviate off topic, I'd like to share a video I found about a guy who, like me, didn't get a rule book with his toilet seat. It appears that he shares some people's frustration. Almost like banging his head against a wall. Or beating a dead horse.

 

Almost...