Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
thebruce0

GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge

Recommended Posts

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.

 

OK, the video I posted was relevant. In both the video and this situation it is based on wanting something and going about it the wrong way. It doesn't matter if the person that asked did not know better. It happened and guess what. The answer was no. Now attempts are being made to step around it by trying to infer some loop hole based on a clever slant. I have some news for you if you just in case you don't know. In the law there is the written law and case law. Case law if how judges have riled on the letter of the law based on arguments provided. Once a ruling is made all following decisions are usually based on that decision even if it contradicts the letter of the law.

 

The same is happening here. And like in the law, you will have to come up with a very good argument to change the ruling. As in the law, you have to go to a higher "court" to get your case heard. That would be appeals. You can argue all you want here until you are blue in the face and I am pretty sure you are not going to win this in the court of public opinion. Just because this may or may have not gone to Groundspeak direct, don't believe that you will be getting a fresh start. I suspect they are pretty clever and will know what it is that is trying to be achieved. Bottom line is there is an archived cache and someone wants to adopt it. Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Once a ruling is made all following decisions are usually based on that decision even if it contradicts the letter of the law.

Yep. But that's not the case here. No precedent. If a ruling was made in the past, it can't be used to force the same ruling in a future case. There is no case law here. There is only the letter of the law and subjective independent judgement calls with no inherent basis for consistency or logic. Everyone must trust and agree with their reviewers on issues that are not letter of the law, or it's potential major disagreements.

 

You can argue all you want here until you are blue in the face and I am pretty sure you are not going to win this in the court of public opinion.

Fine, I'm not trying to. It's gone waaaaaaaay beyond that. It was at first a thread opened with the goal to discuss rationally the case for unarchival and adoption with the hope that perhaps, maybe, a kind-hearted reviewer might understand the desire for adoption since that was a viable exception; and the forums are the place to discuss such matters, not the cache listing.

When that was thrown out the window, it became a matter of discussing the merits of adoption, and seeing what kind of support there was for the request, in the hopes of coming to a reasonable, logical consensus. There was support on either side, but more vocal proponents against.

Then when that discussion went downhill, it became a dead horse stuck between the beating of 5 and 1 vocal people, give or take one or two on either side. I had hoped that regardless of that beating people would continue to be productive throughout and offer solid arguments on either side. That's a rare occurrence in the grand scheme, it seems.

I can debate forever as long as a reasonable, logical resolution has yet to be achieved. I've provided the outcomes that would suffice, whether the cache is adopted or not. We've fleshed out pretty much every argument by now (unless someone else has anything new to add, which was a refreshing change a few comments back). So instead of rehashing old arguments, and debating a futile debate (aside from new arguments, who's mind is going to be changed now anyway?) why not let it drop? Leave it now to TPTB.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

why not let it drop? Leave it now to TPTB.

 

You could always request to have the thread closed. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
why not let it drop? Leave it now to TPTB.

You could always request to have the thread closed. Just a thought.

I still have hope in humanity, and respectful, forward-moving discourse (but stagnation is also just dandy).

Share this post


Link to post
Once a ruling is made all following decisions are usually based on that decision even if it contradicts the letter of the law.

Yep. But that's not the case here. No precedent. If a ruling was made in the past, it can't be used to force the same ruling in a future case. There is no case law here. There is only the letter of the law and subjective independent judgement calls with no inherent basis for consistency or logic. Everyone must trust and agree with their reviewers on issues that are not letter of the law, or it's potential major disagreements.

 

I think you are missing a big point here. There is no precedence for getting a cache published. There are plenty for not getting a cache published. Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
I think you are missing a big point here. There is no precedence for getting a cache published. There are plenty for not getting a cache published. Big difference.

This isn't publishing (which has clear rules with common sense reasoning - private property and respect for nature primarily).

This is unarchival with the independent once-off exception being that it can continue under new ownership. Very, very simple.

Share this post


Link to post
I think you are missing a big point here. There is no precedence for getting a cache published. There are plenty for not getting a cache published. Big difference.

This isn't publishing (which has clear rules with common sense reasoning - private property and respect for nature primarily).

This is unarchival with the independent once-off exception being that it can continue under new ownership. Very, very simple.

 

Then there is no "no residence" protection. Which means that is it has not been allowed in the past, it is not going to be allowed now.

 

Do you have another angle?

Share this post


Link to post

Technically there is a cache being published. Caches can be unarchived provided they meet the CURRENT guidelines. Once that archive button is hit the first time all grandfathering is void... It must meet the merits that a NEW listing must meet.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, and as mentioned earlier, one can hope that were the request granted, as part of the adoption process adjustment of the cache would be allowed as necessary to meet whatever new requirements are stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Link what?

To an explanation of "no residence" protection. You say "it has not been allowed in the past, it is not going to be allowed now" - where is that stated? In what context? By Groundspeak? By someone else somewhere else? What's the connection and purpose here? I don't see how it relates to what it was in response to.

Share this post


Link to post
Link what?

To an explanation of "no residence" protection. You say "it has not been allowed in the past, it is not going to be allowed now" - where is that stated? In what context? By Groundspeak? By someone else somewhere else? What's the connection and purpose here? I don't see how it relates to what it was in response to.

 

That would be "no precedence", typo. Part of your stand is that it should be unarchived because precedence or "no precedence" has something to do with it. Can you provide anything that states that? If not then precedence has nothing to do with any argument to get it unarchived. I do know that there is a precedence for un-archiving caches and it is quite clear. It can not be done for adoption. Don;t need a rule or guideline for that. It just is.

Share this post


Link to post
It just is.

That's not a reason. If it's a rule just for the sake of being a rule, that's different (and there's no record of it being a rule). Going from a non-existent rule to "it just is" is a huge a leap, and power-lording.

 

Part of your stand is that it should be unarchived because precedence or "no precedence" has something to do with it.

No, I'm saying "because that's how it's been done in the past" is contrary to the arguments put forth previously by reviewers where past examples couldn't be used to sway a decision. If reviewers are "above" that no-precedence clause and can pick and choose whether to apply a precedent or not (as discussed earlier), then the system is unfair, inconsistent and flawed. It is indeed unfair to tell a customer "you can't use that as defense" and then use the very same tactic later against them. The flaw is that in response, all they have to do is say it's not based on the past example, it's just my independent decision now. Then there's no defense against it when asking for an exception.

 

Point being: if precedents can't be set, then past examples can't be used as defense. I've never cited a past cache that was unarchived as a defense, because I've been told that's pointless. Nor would I expect a fair, consistent reviewer to say 'because that's how it's been done in the past' as a defense. But now I fully expect to just hear "because I say so".

 

I do know that there is a precedence for un-archiving caches and it is quite clear. It can not be done for adoption.

Where is this precedent? It's still not been provided.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
It just is.

That's not a reason. If it's a rule just for the sake of being a rule, that's different (and there's no record of it being a rule). Going from a non-existent rule to "it just is" is a huge a leap, and power-lording.

 

Part of your stand is that it should be unarchived because precedence or "no precedence" has something to do with it.

No, I'm saying "because that's how it's been done in the past" is contrary to the arguments put forth previously by reviewers where past examples couldn't be used to sway a decision. If reviewers are "above" that no-precedence clause and can pick and choose whether to apply a precedent or not (as discussed earlier), then the system is unfair, inconsistent and flawed. It is indeed unfair to tell a customer "you can't use that as defense" and then use the very same tactic later against them. The flaw is that in response, all they have to do is say it's not based on the past example, it's just my independent decision now. Then there's no defense against it when asking for an exception.

 

Point being: if precedents can't be set, then past examples can't be used as defense. I've never cited a past cache that was unarchived as a defense, because I've been told that's pointless. Nor would I expect a fair, consistent reviewer to say 'because that's how it's been done in the past' as a defense. But now I fully expect to just hear "because I say so".

 

I do know that there is a precedence for un-archiving caches and it is quite clear. It can not be done for adoption.

Where is this precedent? It's still not been provided.

 

That is how a precedent works. There is no rule or guideline. Someone some time ago asked for it and was told no. Someone else asked for it and was told no. That's how a precedent gets born as I explained earlier. And again, the "no precedent" thingy applies to publishing caches. And as you have made it clear this is not a cache being published thing so the whole concept of precedent is negated in this case.

 

Do you have anything else that makes this cache stand out from any other that would make it a special case?

Share this post


Link to post

Where is this precedent? It's still not been provided.

 

The precedent, as I see it, is the fact that the challenge cache that you so desperately want unarchived for the purposes of adoption, is still archived.

Share this post


Link to post
That is how a precedent works

Thank you. I know how a precedent works.

 

"The whole concept of precedent is negated" in general for the defense of a request on the part of the player, and hopefully also for defense of a decision on the part of a reviewer, if they're being fair, consistent, and logical. The flaw is that all they have to do is say their decision isn't based on precedent, but it's their final uninfluenced decision here and now.

 

Do you have anything else that makes this cache stand out from any other that would make it a special case?

All the points already laid out earlier in this thread, which may or may not be enough for anyone else reading this thread, but obviously not enough for the reviewers.

 

The precedent, as I see it, is the fact that the challenge cache that you so desperately want unarchived for the purposes of adoption, is still archived.

That's...not a precedent. That's just state of things.

 

now I see why the reviewers are sticking to their guns... wow you peoples are relentless!

inorite? Props all around for relentlessness! The reviewers have not said a word in some time, and I understand why. Because this is going in circles, points are being re-stated, it would do them no good, and it's probably somewhat entertaining for them to watch as well.

Share this post


Link to post

 

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) :)

 

 

You are 100% correct! It was dead for a few days, I made a somewhat off-topic comment, decided I should make another on-topic post, and here I am now on page 5. I think I'll just go back to America with my tail between my legs now. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

"The whole concept of precedent is negated" in general for the defense of a request on the part of the player, and hopefully also for defense of a decision on the part of a reviewer, if they're being fair, consistent, and logical. The flaw is that all they have to do is say their decision isn't based on precedent, but it's their final uninfluenced decision here and now.

 

Why would they have to do that? I think they have made it pretty clear where they stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Once a ruling is made all following decisions are usually based on that decision even if it contradicts the letter of the law.

Yep. But that's not the case here. No precedent.

I think you're unclear on the no precedent concept. It only applies to us when we're trying to influence a reviewer's decision. We can't point to a past decision and tell them they have to rule the same way.

 

The reviewers can choose to rule a certain way on an unclear guideline and then always rule that way from then on. If you want to call that a precedent then that's fine but it's not a binding precedent. They can choose to make an exception or they can choose to be consistent.

 

The no adoption after an archive rule is not an unclear or ambiguous guideline. I'd even consider it a rule. The fact that they've always followed that rule with no exceptions means precedent has nothing to do with it. They're doing what Groundspeak explicitly told them to do.

Share this post


Link to post

No, I'm saying "because that's how it's been done in the past" is contrary to the arguments put forth previously by reviewers where past examples couldn't be used to sway a decision.

By us. We can't use a past example to sway a reviewers decision.

 

If reviewers are "above" that no-precedence clause and can pick and choose whether to apply a precedent or not (as discussed earlier), then the system is unfair, inconsistent and flawed.

You need to reread what you wrote and see how silly it is. You want the reviewers not to look a past rulings and always decide things on a case by case basis? If they did that then people would be crying that the reviewers were inconsistent.

 

It is indeed unfair to tell a customer "you can't use that as defense" and then use the very same tactic later against them.

What are you talking about? A vendor and customer are not peers. The vendor gets to make the rules on what goes on in their store. A store can sell an item for whatever reason at a discounted price to one person and it doesn't mean the next person can force them to sell one to them at the same price.

 

The flaw is that in response, all they have to do is say it's not based on the past example, it's just my independent decision now. Then there's no defense against it when asking for an exception.

They don't have to do anything. It's their web site and their rules/guidelines. They can say it was a full moon yesterday as the justification for their decision and it won't affect the decision one bit.

 

How they arrived at that decision is irrelevant to getting the decision changed.

Share this post


Link to post

*sigh* and here I thought we were done...

 

I think you're unclear on the no precedent concept. It only applies to us when we're trying to influence a reviewer's decision. We can't point to a past decision and tell them they have to rule the same way.

The reviewers can choose to rule a certain way on an unclear guideline and then always rule that way from then on. If you want to call that a precedent then that's fine but it's not a binding precedent. They can choose to make an exception or they can choose to be consistent.

I stated that above. And I stated my opinion on that, and on the system because of that.

If a reviewer "can choose to rule a certain way on an unclear guideline and then always rule that way from then on", but it's not appended to the rules, another reviewer may "choose differently" not knowing how the other reviewer chose, and boom, conflict. But no defense, because other instances can't be used as a precedent. So it's fine. Which means it's not a rule. And round and round we go.

It's either a rule that all reviewers must always adhere to - it's not a choice on their part - or it's guideline for which they can make an exception. If the latter and neither they, nor appeals, feel the reasoning for the exception is sufficient. Fine. That sucks. Hard. But fine. So which is it? Don't say it's a rule if it's not a rule.

 

The no adoption after an archive rule inside practice is not an unclear or ambiguous guideline. I'd even consider it a rule.

Then it should be added to the rules for unarchival, and the rules for adoption.

 

The fact that they've always followed that rule with no exceptions means precedent has nothing to do with it.

I would love to see a report of all unarchived caches and find out if any have been adopted. But I'm confident that will never happen. Not, of course, that that would provide a defense for this cache's adoption, as I've always said.

 

If they did that then people would be crying that the reviewers were inconsistent.

This is why the system is flawed. And this is why geocide increased this year. Reviewers are trying not to be inconsistent. And in doing so, past exceptions - caches published by reviewers, were getting overridden. Forcefully. Actions some considered draconion.

 

A vendor and customer are not peers.

They are cachers. They are cachers who volunteered and have been appointed without compensation as reviewers. They are peers with more power and responsibility, who follow and are bound by the same guidelines.

 

A store can sell an item for whatever reason at a discounted price to one person and it doesn't mean the next person can force them to sell one to them at the same price.

Analogies=bad. So. many. holes.

 

They don't have to do anything. It's their web site and their rules/guidelines. They can say it was a full moon yesterday as the justification for their decision and it won't affect the decision one bit.

And that's a system that allows for power-lording, lack of respect for community, mistakes, bad decisions, unfair actions, interpretation, subjectivity, etc etc - without no recourse for defense from the customer (yes, members pay) if their decision does not break a rule.

 

Now to be back on topic. Anything new to add to this cache request? Or just more complaining about the complaining?

Share this post


Link to post

As long as there isn't more than one person insisting on having the last word, we can be done.

 

Just stop posting.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

hah, I was wondering how much longer it would be until the "have the last word" comment would be made :laughing:

Props.

It's also pure irony in discussion forums as ideally the one posting about the last word is the one who would have the last word :)

 

Nonetheless, for my part as the OP, I said earlier that I would respond to any points that I felt needed addressing, noting that it didn't mean every point addressed was on topic.

So, to embrace-and-extend the 'last word' request, if no comment following this is one I think needs addressing, then whoever posts that last comment will have the last word. I'd be more than happy to let this thread stagnate if nothing new is added (and nothing more needs addressing). It's not about having the last word unless one makes it about having the last word.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

As long as there isn't more than one person insisting on having the last word, we can be done.

 

Just stop posting.

 

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone have the time?

 

So much for letting this thread go out to pasture with the other ones.

Though I do have to say I can certainly see both sides more clearly now after another week has passed.

Share this post


Link to post

well well and what a gem did i come across :anibad:

 

Match Stash GC4D

 

from this first archived log just follow the trail up...quite an interesting history of archival and unarchival there

Share this post


Link to post

well well and what a gem did i come across :anibad:

 

Match Stash GC4D

 

from this first archived log just follow the trail up...quite an interesting history of archival and unarchival there

 

This is the interesting log. Would suggest 1% possible after all....

 

even though is a small % it shows that its been done before, not to mention that it was 5 years after it was originally archived lol

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

well well and what a gem did i come across :anibad:

 

Match Stash GC4D

 

from this first archived log just follow the trail up...quite an interesting history of archival and unarchival there

 

This is the interesting log. Would suggest 1% possible after all....

 

even though is a small % it shows that its been done before, not to mention that it was 5 years after it was originally archived lol

 

On the other hand, is CyberJunkie still a reviewer (or did he get slapped back to being a regular cacher for that?). His profile shows him as a "Charter Member".

Share this post


Link to post

well well and what a gem did i come across :anibad:

 

Match Stash GC4D

 

from this first archived log just follow the trail up...quite an interesting history of archival and unarchival there

 

This is the interesting log. Would suggest 1% possible after all....

 

even though is a small % it shows that its been done before, not to mention that it was 5 years after it was originally archived lol

 

On the other hand, is CyberJunkie still a reviewer (or did he get slapped back to being a regular cacher for that?). His profile shows him as a "Charter Member".

 

looks like he is not a reviewer anymore, but ww will only be speculating that its due to those actions

neither is the one that unarchived it the second time, he/she shows as PM

Share this post


Link to post

 

Just wanted to add my two cents:

popagitatorblow.gif

KAAAAPOW!!!!

(thank you, that is all)

 

It's not a victory for the unarchiving camp until we're sure it didn't cost those reviewers their ability to review ..... it may very well be that Cachedrone, Cacheshadow et al have no interest in unarchiving a cache if that meant they would no longer be a reviewer at the end of the day .....

Share this post


Link to post

don't get me wrong, i'm all for archiving it. just make a new ironman cache somewhere else. let everyone who met the challenge start another 365 day streak, ha! :D

Share this post


Link to post

well well and what a gem did i come across :anibad:

 

Match Stash GC4D

 

from this first archived log just follow the trail up...quite an interesting history of archival and unarchival there

 

Would you care to explain how you found such an obscure entry?

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

well well and what a gem did i come across :anibad:

 

Match Stash GC4D

 

from this first archived log just follow the trail up...quite an interesting history of archival and unarchival there

 

Would you care to explain how you found such an obscure entry?

 

.

 

isn't it clear that it was a witch-hunt? :anibad::lol:

 

seriously though it was just a fluke while i was looking up the available caches to complete this challenge The Year That Was...2000 (Mini Jasmer Challenge) i found it in the August bookmark :P

i noticed the two "archived" "unarchived" icons and got curious how can that be

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

Well, there's 40 minutes of my life I'll never get back....

 

Come to Ottawa, IRONCACHER - 365 Days in a Row Challenge by missbug, http://coord.info/GC312YH, or go to the States:365 Day Calendar Challenge by Loch Cache, http://coord.info/GC22D90 or A Cache A Day ... <I>for 365 Days?</I> by King Boreas http://coord.info/GC1AG09,

or the UK: 365 Day Challenge - The Year Completed. by One last look http://coord.info/GC2VQ8C, or A Year, Lost! - 365 days of caching! by Mario McTavish, http://coord.info/GC254H4

 

or publish one in every woodlot or on every island within 100 kms of your home co-ordinates. 'Challenges' are a dime a dozen these days, this one isn't in anyway special in my opinion.

 

Bluelamb03

Share this post


Link to post

Well, there's 40 minutes of my life I'll never get back....

 

 

and you didn't even get it :anibad::lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Well, there's 40 minutes of my life I'll never get back....

 

 

and you didn't even get it :anibad::lol:

 

Oh, I get it alright. Some people think this is an extraordinary cache and that this is an extraordinary circumstance that requires an extraordinary exception. Correct?

 

I think this is a pretty ordinary cache and a very common circumstance that requires no special consideration. Sorry to disagree, but that's what I see.....

 

Blue -

Share this post


Link to post
Oh, I get it alright. Some people think this is an extraordinary cache and that this is an extraordinary circumstance that requires an extraordinary exception. Correct?

 

Not at all. The only thing that's extraordinary about the whole debacle is that it's extraordinarily pointless to require a new listing for something that's completely identical in every other aspect. Why have two listings for exactly the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post

As I haven't yet addressed the previous request for an update, I'll attempt to address everything to this point...

 

Oh, I get it alright. Some people think this is an extraordinary cache and that this is an extraordinary circumstance that requires an extraordinary exception. Correct?

Some people think that because it's not extraodrinary to them that it's it's fundamentally unimportant to anyone.

 

Is the cache itself extraordinary in the grand scheme of things? No. Has it ever been described as extraordinary? YMMV. But let's examine this for argument's sake...

 

The closest 5/5 365 challenge cache is 500 miles away in Missouri.

The next closest 5/5 365 challenge cache is in Southern England.

The next closest 5/5 365 challenge cache is in Switzerland.

The next closest ... uh, actually there's no more that I could find.

 

I've now created a bookmark list of cache-a-day challenges. It contains 29 listings worldwide. One archived.

 

Extraordinary? Perhaps not. Rare? You'd better believe it. Simple resolution? Most definitely.

 

My personal crusade: Is it important for me? Absolutely. This cache was ~7.5km from my home. A bike ride. And archived halfway through my year's progress. Would I sign a different cache-a-day challenge? Why not. I'd be most appreciative if another 5/5 365 challenge cache is published within biking distance if this one is not unarchived. Would I still like this one unarchived? Absolutely. It's a simple request with no logical reason for flat out denial, with a history of previous finders with whom I'd love to be listed along-side.

 

Things move slowly, if at all. Please don't ask me for updates - if and when there is one, I'll update. Or for that matter, anyone else can, of course. At this point, I don't expect anything further to happen. It's clear from another recent thread which, in my opinion, had even more merit against a reviewer interpretation of guidelines but was shut down and locked by Keystone, that this is a losing battle (even though a 5 year old archived cache was unarchived and adopted, and still active today). So, regardless of how many may agree or disagree with this push for GC280PA unarchival and adoption, it is, to be realistic, a futile fight. I personally never believed otherwise. It's frustrating and upsetting, but that's the way things work around here for paying customers, as evidenced by other legitimate guideline debates, though TPTB can and will never admit it. Ultimately, this is Groundspeak's baby, and they set the rules. Not everyone can be pleased. But you'd think that solid debates and concerns would be addressed. But anyway.

 

If any appeal goes through or there's any official update, please post here, as I too will if I have any. Otherwise, there's not much else to say (which would be productive, at least).

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
Nothing like a little equine rigor mortis for a boxing match.....

Please stop beating the dead horse. It's not fair to the horse.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×
×
  • Create New...