Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
thebruce0

GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge

Recommended Posts

so... wondering... what's the status on the alternate "dibs" cache that-is-yet-to-be-published? Is this person even aware that their unpublished cache in "limbo" is blocking the region in which this challenge cache is waiting to be unarchived?

How much longer now until this 'hold' is forfeited?

 

I am quite certain that this person is aware of this non-issue. I am equally certain that they will choose to hold "The Spot" in perpetuity by submitting their listing or not submitting their listing. Since there's nothing you can do to overrule their hold on "The Spot" (as was mentioned before in this thread by myself and CacheDrone, among others) my suggestion would be to come up with a new spot for gg's Challenge Cache.

 

I think it's great you're fighting for this cause since it's something you really seem to believe in, but this spot is not going to become available again for the foreseeable future.

 

that is a lot of certainty there, for the second time, care to tell us why that is? :unsure:

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so is it safe to deduce then, that:

1) the unknown cacher is aware that gg wishes to unarchive his cache but is unable to because their unpublished listing has now reserved the location, but they have chosen to hold the spot regardless, for whatever reason they may have

2) they have not been told that gg is willing to discuss the situation with them to come to an agreement one way or another

3) we don't know if the unknown cacher knows of the lengthy history of the archived cache issue (or this thread)

4) at some point in the very near future the unknown cacher will be asked again if they intend to publish their cache at any point in the future, and if they respond then they'll have another month until this step is repeated; if not, or there is no reply, then the unlisted cache will be archived and gg's can be unarchived

 

1) No it is not safe to assume that. The unknown cacher knows that someone else has shown interest in the general area but the unknown cacher has the spot secured.

2) Yes the unknown cacher not been told that because they were not told who else was looking.

3) No idea, but it has no bearing on the process.

4) Not sure why you think that.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

so... wondering... what's the status on the alternate "dibs" cache that-is-yet-to-be-published? Is this person even aware that their unpublished cache in "limbo" is blocking the region in which this challenge cache is waiting to be unarchived?

How much longer now until this 'hold' is forfeited?

 

I am quite certain that this person is aware of this non-issue. I am equally certain that they will choose to hold "The Spot" in perpetuity by submitting their listing or not submitting their listing. Since there's nothing you can do to overrule their hold on "The Spot" (as was mentioned before in this thread by myself and CacheDrone, among others) my suggestion would be to come up with a new spot for gg's Challenge Cache.

 

I think it's great you're fighting for this cause since it's something you really seem to believe in, but this spot is not going to become available again for the foreseeable future.

 

that is a lot of certainty there, for the second time, care to tell us why that is? :unsure:

 

Could be because I know who is holding the spot. Could be because I am holding the spot. Could be that it's easy to make a statement such as this since nobody is likely to ever know who really is holding the spot.

 

Pick whichever reasoning suits your preference of reality. I care not either way.

Share this post


Link to post

 

4) at some point in the very near future the unknown cacher will be asked again if they intend to publish their cache at any point in the future, and if they respond then they'll have another month until this step is repeated; if not, or there is no reply, then the unlisted cache will be archived and gg's can be unarchived

 

hmm...i thought whomever is holding a spot gets a one time 30 days to publish their cache :unsure:

 

so... wondering... what's the status on the alternate "dibs" cache that-is-yet-to-be-published? Is this person even aware that their unpublished cache in "limbo" is blocking the region in which this challenge cache is waiting to be unarchived?

How much longer now until this 'hold' is forfeited?

 

I am quite certain that this person is aware of this non-issue. I am equally certain that they will choose to hold "The Spot" in perpetuity by submitting their listing or not submitting their listing. Since there's nothing you can do to overrule their hold on "The Spot" (as was mentioned before in this thread by myself and CacheDrone, among others) my suggestion would be to come up with a new spot for gg's Challenge Cache.

 

I think it's great you're fighting for this cause since it's something you really seem to believe in, but this spot is not going to become available again for the foreseeable future.

 

that is a lot of certainty there, for the second time, care to tell us why that is? :unsure:

 

Could be because I know who is holding the spot. Could be because I am holding the spot. Could be that it's easy to make a statement such as this since nobody is likely to ever know who really is holding the spot.

 

Pick whichever reasoning suits your preference of reality. I care not either way.

 

how can that be true if they go ahead and publish a cache there, or you know with certainty that they will not do so?

that statement will only hold true if, as i said before there is going to be a new sock (i do hope you know what a "sock" is) in town or they relinquish the spot

 

or perhaps it is just a "payback" "learn your lesson" kind of thing...it is just too easy to speculate in the absence of certainty, even though you did express quite a bit of certainty for someone that is not a reviewer

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so is it safe to deduce then, that:

1) the unknown cacher is aware that gg wishes to unarchive his cache but is unable to because their unpublished listing has now reserved the location, but they have chosen to hold the spot regardless, for whatever reason they may have

2) they have not been told that gg is willing to discuss the situation with them to come to an agreement one way or another

3) we don't know if the unknown cacher knows of the lengthy history of the archived cache issue (or this thread)

4) at some point in the very near future the unknown cacher will be asked again if they intend to publish their cache at any point in the future, and if they respond then they'll have another month until this step is repeated; if not, or there is no reply, then the unlisted cache will be archived and gg's can be unarchived

 

1) No it is not safe to assume that. The unknown cacher knows that someone else has shown interest in the general area but the unknown cacher has the spot secured.

2) Yes the unknown cacher not been told that because they were not told who else was looking.

3) No idea, but it has no bearing on the process.

4) Not sure why you think that.

 

1) it was based on Dr. House's "certainty" that the unknown cacher is aware of this issue. Not based on your specific quote. Based on #2, they were not told, but based on Dr. House, they are aware. This is why it's "safe to presume", unless these claims are false in some way.

2) This is where my greatest concern is. As mentioned, in a respectable community my hope would be that the unknown cacher be made aware of the issue (as I would very much prefer were I in that position) to make an informed decision. Especially if I were to find out that it's the owner of a previous cache who wants to unarchive but can't because of my reservation. I can't grasp why gg's offer to contact the unknown cacher would not be passed on.

3) I'm not saying it does have any bearing on the (your) process. Only that I would hope they would be aware so they can make an informed decision.

4) What point are you referring to? as you said:

The cache owner of GC33??? exercised their right to hold the claim of the spot. They can do so indefinitely as long as they respond to any requests made by any reviewer within a timely fashion. Typically that means within one month, give or take. So it is a month to respond, not to use the place they have reserved. If they don't reply, I archive it.

As reiterated by dfx I believe, that implies the person can hold the region indefinitely as long as they keep responding to the most recent reviewer request in a 'timely manner' (one month) simply saying "yep, I'm going to publish it there sometime soon". Further, how long until the reviewer checks again? A month after they say they'll use the spot? So it could be two months between any reviewer check up? I'd assume, I'd hope, the reviewer would start making a judgement call at some point, potentially calling shenanigans, since their goal is the publishing of active caches (or existence? demonstrated by the offer to unarchive gg's old, rather than publish gg's new, cache). This is not at that point. But there's a quick way to possibly find out - pass on gg's offer to the unknown cacher. They might respond and work something out. Or not. But at least the opportunity was provided. I still don't see how that's a problem.

Share this post


Link to post

 

{snip}

 

4) What point are you referring to? as you said:

The cache owner of GC33??? exercised their right to hold the claim of the spot. They can do so indefinitely as long as they respond to any requests made by any reviewer within a timely fashion. Typically that means within one month, give or take. So it is a month to respond, not to use the place they have reserved. If they don't reply, I archive it.

As reiterated by dfx I believe, that implies the person can hold the region indefinitely as long as they keep responding to the most recent reviewer request in a 'timely manner' (one month) simply saying "yep, I'm going to publish it there sometime soon". Further, how long until the reviewer checks again? A month after they say they'll use the spot? So it could be two months between any reviewer check up? I'd assume, I'd hope, the reviewer would start making a judgement call at some point, potentially calling shenanigans, since their goal is the publishing of active caches (or existence? demonstrated by the offer to unarchive gg's old, rather than publish gg's new, cache). This is not at that point. But there's a quick way to possibly find out - pass on gg's offer to the unknown cacher. They might respond and work something out. Or not. But at least the opportunity was provided. I still don't see how that's a problem.

 

I gave the unknown cacher one month to reply to me. They did. That's where it ends. There isn't a reason for me to keep nagging the unknown cacher.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

So if they don't publish anything, there's nothing any further you will do, and the hold exists as long as the cache is not archived by the unknown cacher?

That does not seem right.

Share this post


Link to post

 

{snip}

 

4) What point are you referring to? as you said:

The cache owner of GC33??? exercised their right to hold the claim of the spot. They can do so indefinitely as long as they respond to any requests made by any reviewer within a timely fashion. Typically that means within one month, give or take. So it is a month to respond, not to use the place they have reserved. If they don't reply, I archive it.

As reiterated by dfx I believe, that implies the person can hold the region indefinitely as long as they keep responding to the most recent reviewer request in a 'timely manner' (one month) simply saying "yep, I'm going to publish it there sometime soon". Further, how long until the reviewer checks again? A month after they say they'll use the spot? So it could be two months between any reviewer check up? I'd assume, I'd hope, the reviewer would start making a judgement call at some point, potentially calling shenanigans, since their goal is the publishing of active caches (or existence? demonstrated by the offer to unarchive gg's old, rather than publish gg's new, cache). This is not at that point. But there's a quick way to possibly find out - pass on gg's offer to the unknown cacher. They might respond and work something out. Or not. But at least the opportunity was provided. I still don't see how that's a problem.

 

I gave the unknown cacher one month to reply to me. They did. That's where it ends. There isn't a reason for me to keep nagging the unknown cacher.

 

:cool: CD

 

that has to be some kind of joke, my understanding was, of course like everything else this is another left to interpretation "its only a guideline, not a rule" thing that GC likes to enforce, that the "holder" of a spot gets 30 days to publish a cache not to reply and hold it forever

 

so if that's the case this "mystery" place holder can never publish a cache there...now in light of all the "drama" surrounding the subject of this thread that is highly suspicious

 

and before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, NO, i am not accusing anyone of anything, i'm just saying

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

So if they don't publish anything, there's nothing any further you will do, and the hold exists as long as the cache is not archived by the unknown cacher?

That does not seem right.

 

Nope, that isn't right.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

Then pray tell, please explain your process better because I must simply be too dense to understand what exactly it is you're saying.

What is the next step?

I do not like the fact that they are not being fully informed of the situation, for multiple reasons. But, say they don't publish anything in the very near future (let's say a month after they replied saying they would use the spot, which is coming up). Then what? You're either checking in again, or you're not. Which is it? And what would be the outcome of that?

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

At least there's no #OccupyGroundspeak

Sometimes I wonder about that..... {grin}

heh, maybe there is, at least a movement in the making... no real goal or purpose, just a small vocal minority with a general disagreement with TPTB and an exasperated state, their weapons of protest being geocides and GC squatting at the expense of civil rest, hoping only to be heard, for a conversation, or for change to trickle up the ladder.

wait, maybe there is an #OccupyGroundspeak

 

(FTR, and to avoid confusion, no I am not making a political statement nor am I in support of those actions, nor am I anti-GS. it is a joke =P)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Then pray tell, please explain your process better because I must simply be too dense to understand what exactly it is you're saying.

What is the next step?

I do not like the fact that they are not being fully informed of the situation, for multiple reasons. But, say they don't publish anything in the very near future (let's say a month after they replied saying they would use the spot, which is coming up). Then what? You're either checking in again, or you're not. Which is it? And what would be the outcome of that?

 

Why does that matter? How much negotiation can there be over the spot?

 

I can see it now:

 

Original CO: Can I have my spot back

New CO: No

Original CO: Can I have my spot back, please?

New CO: No

Original CO: Let's work something out then! Can you move, say, 162 metres due west?

New CO: No

 

At the end of the day there are only two options for this new CO, stay or go. There's no method to "share" a location or "work something out" on the location. You are either within 162 metres of the spot or not. Putting the cachers in direct contact to "work it out" will simply lead to problems.

 

If the new CO is a new cacher, working on their first hide, is it fair to walk in and say "look, this guy with 5,000 finds had a challenge cache there that others want to complete, so you should talk to him". Most newbies would take that to mean "look noob, your cache will probably suck anyway. just get out of the way and let the experienced cachers play".

 

I see this the same as, say, a new home purchase. The volunteer reviewer acts as your real estate agent and handles things like approvals (quite literally), and negotiates liens (squatting cachers). You deal with Groundspeak, it's their listing service. There is technically nothing stopping the Original CO from placing the cache and having people find it .... there are *other* listing services that I'm not going to mention by name here. The issue is having that cache listed on Groundspeak's database - which is why I'm 100% for having the volunteer reviewer mediate this.

Share this post


Link to post

At least there's no #OccupyGroundspeak

Sometimes I wonder about that..... {grin}

heh, maybe there is, at least a movement in the making... no real goal or purpose, just a small vocal minority with a general disagreement with TPTB and an exasperated state, their weapons of protest being geocides and GC squatting at the expense of civil rest, hoping only to be heard, for a conversation, or for change to trickle up the ladder.

wait, maybe there is an #OccupyGroundspeak

 

(FTR, and to avoid confusion, no I am not making a political statement nor am I in support of those actions, nor am I anti-GS. it is a joke =P)

 

181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Original CO: Can I have my spot back

New CO: No

Original CO: Can I have my spot back, please?

New CO: No

Original CO: Let's work something out then! Can you move, say, 162 metres due west?

New CO: No

But that's not the case. Nor is it the only potential case.

Let's presume the people in this case somewhat respectable and honourable:

 

Original CO: Can I have my spot back?

New CO: No

O: Why not?

N: Because.

O: (frustrated) Ok, well you have dibs.

N: [publish]

* Good outcome, only somewhat frustrating

...or

O: Can I have my spot back?

N: No

O: Why not?

N: Oh, well I've got this great idea...[...]

O: Oh that does sound cool. Ok, take it.

N: Thanks [publish]

* Good outcome, all around!

...or

O: Can I have my spot back?

N: Why?

O: Well I have this archived cache that I'd like to unarchive, and it's [...]

N: Oh, I get you. (or) Oh, mine's definitely not as cool as that. You can have it back.

O: Thanks! [unarchive]

* Good outcome, all around!

 

Let's presume someone is being as a**.

O: Can I have my spot back?

N: No.

O: Why?

N: Because I've got this cache idea that's really cool... [...]

O: I don't care, I just want the spot back.

N: Sorry, I've got the spot. [publish]

* At least one person is being an idiot.

...or

O: Can I have my spot back?

N: No.

O: Why?

N: Because.

O: You're an idiot.

N: Oh well. [publish]

* At least one person is being an idiot.

...or

O: Can I have my spot back?

N: No.

O: Why?

N: Because.

O: You're an idiot.

N: Oh well.

O: [time passes] Can I have my spot back?

N: No!

O: Why?

N: Because you're an idiot. [rinse, repeat; never publishes]

* At least one person is being an Super Idiot.

 

I'd prefer no one be an a**.

The way I see it, passing on the offer that the original CO would like to chat about the position is the best course of action, at the very least in this particular case. I cannot see how that is a Bad Thing. It's also potentially more timely. Otherwise this is just needlessly dragging on.

 

I'd also prefer a situation that doesn't effectively promote an alternate service (nor does Groundspeak otherwise they wouldn't censor those-which-shall-not-be-named, nor would they tell the reviewers to take actions that promote publishing, not non-publishing). Mediation: I certainly agree, yes! But not informing the mystery cacher that gg would like to chat - that's effectively censoring mediation, and not helping this situation potentially speed along towards the ultimate intended goal - active caches with Groundspeak.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

 

At the end of the day there are only two options for this new CO, stay or go.

 

we established that, however the question has been asked and nobody has bothered to answer it yet...how long can someone hold a spot after they replied within the 30 days with their intention?

 

and don't be tossing me the "nobody has to answer anything" because this is something that is not documented anywhere as a guideline...i stand corrected if someone can point me in the right direction

Share this post


Link to post
and don't be tossing me the "nobody has to answer anything"

But... non-answers are paramount to long and lengthy internets forum debates! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

 

At the end of the day there are only two options for this new CO, stay or go.

 

we established that, however the question has been asked and nobody has bothered to answer it yet...how long can someone hold a spot after they replied within the 30 days with their intention?

 

and don't be tossing me the "nobody has to answer anything" because this is something that is not documented anywhere as a guideline...i stand corrected if someone can point me in the right direction

 

The way I've read things is, another 30 days, where they will be asked again. That may be right, that may be wrong. CacheDrone has already indicated above it is certainly not "forever" and that they can tell if the would be CO is just being a problem person. I'll re-iterate this isn't in some iron clad Guideline or Rule, and in this situation it's letting one person (possibly) be a bit antisocial, but overall this is a GOOD thing to have- otherwise you're going to see a dramatic drop in cache quality around these parts when nobody wants to invest time setting up a cache in case someone drives by and drops a micro in that spot.

Share this post


Link to post
and don't be tossing me the "nobody has to answer anything"

But... non-answers are paramount to long and lengthy internets forum debates! :ph34r:

 

even more so when those in the know are around but would rather make vague comments

 

makes you feel like you're back in kindergarten

Share this post


Link to post

Original CO: Can I have my spot back

New CO: No

Original CO: Can I have my spot back, please?

New CO: No

Original CO: Let's work something out then! Can you move, say, 162 metres due west?

New CO: No

But that's not the case. Nor is it the only potential case.

Let's presume the people in this case somewhat respectable and honourable:

 

Original CO: Can I have my spot back?

New CO: No

O: Why not?

N: Because.

O: (frustrated) Ok, well you have dibs.

N: [publish]

* Good outcome, only somewhat frustrating

...or

O: Can I have my spot back?

N: No

O: Why not?

N: Oh, well I've got this great idea...[...]

O: Oh that does sound cool. Ok, take it.

N: Thanks [publish]

* Good outcome, all around!

...or

O: Can I have my spot back?

N: Why?

O: Well I have this archived cache that I'd like to unarchive, and it's [...]

N: Oh, I get you. (or) Oh, mine's definitely not as cool as that. You can have it back.

O: Thanks! [unarchive]

* Good outcome, all around!

 

Let's presume someone is being as a**.

O: Can I have my spot back?

N: No.

O: Why?

N: Because I've got this cache idea that's really cool... [...]

O: I don't care, I just want the spot back.

N: Sorry, I've got the spot. [publish]

* At least one person is being an idiot.

...or

O: Can I have my spot back?

N: No.

O: Why?

N: Because.

O: You're an idiot.

N: Oh well. [publish]

* At least one person is being an idiot.

...or

O: Can I have my spot back?

N: No.

O: Why?

N: Because.

O: You're an idiot.

N: Oh well.

O: [time passes] Can I have my spot back?

N: No!

O: Why?

N: Because you're an idiot. [rinse, repeat; never publishes]

* At least one person is being an Super Idiot.

 

I'd prefer no one be an a**.

The way I see it, passing on the offer that the original CO would like to chat about the position is the best course of action, at the very least in this particular case. I cannot see how that is a Bad Thing. It's also potentially more timely. Otherwise this is just needlessly dragging on.

 

I'd also prefer a situation that doesn't effectively promote an alternate service (nor does Groundspeak otherwise they wouldn't censor those-which-shall-not-be-named, nor would they tell the reviewers to take actions that promote publishing, not non-publishing). Mediation: I certainly agree, yes! But not informing the mystery cacher that gg would like to chat - that's effectively censoring mediation, and not helping this situation potentially speed along towards the ultimate intended goal - active caches with Groundspeak.

 

This assumes that everyone is generally a good hearted, friendly person who is more than willing to decide things in an open, non-confrontational, friendly manner. That's quite idealistic and I'm sorry to say, unrealistic. It's already been demonstrated (in this thread even) that people's passion, emotions or just outright hatred of one another does get in the way of friendly discussion - particularly when the discussion is about having one person or another vacate a chosen cache location.

 

It would be nice if we could "all just get along" but the reality is people don't.

The problem comes in determining *when* to pull in the moderator without becoming that a** yourself. If the moderator is there from the beginning, it's expected and accepted. Just like my real estate agent example. You don't wait until the buyer is yelling at you to put the mediator in between - you start there and thus manage expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
The way I've read things is, another 30 days, where they will be asked again. That may be right, that may be wrong.

Well, that is wrong. Or not. I don't know because I'm confused about these replies.

 

I gave the unknown cacher one month to reply to me. They did. That's where it ends. There isn't a reason for me to keep nagging the unknown cacher.

 

So if they don't publish anything, there's nothing any further you will do, and the hold exists as long as the cache is not archived by the unknown cacher?

Nope, that isn't right.

 

...which is it?

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

 

At the end of the day there are only two options for this new CO, stay or go.

 

we established that, however the question has been asked and nobody has bothered to answer it yet...how long can someone hold a spot after they replied within the 30 days with their intention?

 

and don't be tossing me the "nobody has to answer anything" because this is something that is not documented anywhere as a guideline...i stand corrected if someone can point me in the right direction

 

The way I've read things is, another 30 days, where they will be asked again. That may be right, that may be wrong. CacheDrone has already indicated above it is certainly not "forever" and that they can tell if the would be CO is just being a problem person. I'll re-iterate this isn't in some iron clad Guideline or Rule, and in this situation it's letting one person (possibly) be a bit antisocial, but overall this is a GOOD thing to have- otherwise you're going to see a dramatic drop in cache quality around these parts when nobody wants to invest time setting up a cache in case someone drives by and drops a micro in that spot.

 

his answer definitely doesn't mean "another 30 days, where they will be asked again" from where i am reading it means the cacher has replied and that's where it all ends, no further communication will take place

 

 

I gave the unknown cacher one month to reply to me. They did. That's where it ends. There isn't a reason for me to keep nagging the unknown cacher.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post
This assumes that everyone is generally a good hearted, friendly person who is more than willing to decide things in an open, non-confrontational, friendly manner. That's quite idealistic and I'm sorry to say, unrealistic.

I'm sorry, I disagree. Maybe we should all just presume everyone's an idiot all the time. That'll get things done.

 

It's already been demonstrated (in this thread even) that people's passion, emotions or just outright hatred of one another does get in the way of friendly discussion

By whom? There has been no demonstration by anyone that there is any "outright hatred" (actually I didn't see that anywhere in this thread). Passion? Sure. Passion != Bad. You can be passionate and mature and respectable. The request being made here, right now, presumes that two people are respectable. Sure, it's a presumption for the part of this still-mysterious cacher, but I know that gg has put up with all this so much he'd rather get this thing done. The fact he's willing to discuss the issue and come to a conclusion should alone be sufficient to show that he's taking the respectable route, and presuming he's going to turn this sour the moment he chats with the mysterious CO is, IMO, insulting (though I'm speaking for him at this point, and he may just shrug it off passively =P). There are no generalizations here. And as "the process" has demonstrated, issues are (should be?) dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I see no reason here to think that anyone is going to go berserk if discussion is promoted between these two individuals.

 

Practically, we are simply asking for a clear indication of the next steps.

Ethically, we are simply asking that the mysterious cacher be made aware that gg would like to chat. For the sanity of everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
This assumes that everyone is generally a good hearted, friendly person who is more than willing to decide things in an open, non-confrontational, friendly manner. That's quite idealistic and I'm sorry to say, unrealistic.

I'm sorry, I disagree. Maybe we should all just presume everyone's an idiot all the time. That'll get things done.

 

Assuming everyone is intelligent, friendly and courteous is just as perilous.

 

Even if there is only 1 idiot, meanie or clueless out of 99, you'd be amazed the damage that person can manage.

 

The reason for policies is to deal with those unusual situations, without having to directly confront/insult the guilty party. If there's something an idiot detests, it's getting called on it.

 

It's already been demonstrated (in this thread even) that people's passion, emotions or just outright hatred of one another does get in the way of friendly discussion

By whom? There has been no demonstration by anyone that there is any "outright hatred" (actually I didn't see that anywhere in this thread). Passion? Sure. Passion != Bad. You can be passionate and mature and respectable. The request being made here, right now, presumes that two people are respectable. Sure, it's a presumption for the part of this still-mysterious cacher, but I know that gg has put up with all this so much he'd rather get this thing done. The fact he's willing to discuss the issue and come to a conclusion should alone be sufficient to show that he's taking the respectable route, and presuming he's going to turn this sour the moment he chats with the mysterious CO is, IMO, insulting (though I'm speaking for him at this point, and he may just shrug it off passively =P). There are no generalizations here. And as "the process" has demonstrated, issues are (should be?) dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I see no reason here to think that anyone is going to go berserk if discussion is promoted between these two individuals.

 

I never said that gg would be a direct problem. That's why I'm using terms like "Original CO". Maybe the OTHER cacher is going to take things too far. You don't know. There are other sites with peer review where you can yell at the other player in your way. I will stand by my point that a newbie cacher will feel intimidated by some cacher with 1300 finds and 18 hides who even politely asks for the spot back because you know, technically I was here first, even if I gave that spot up in an aborted geocide. It still boils down to a polite "get out of my way".

 

There are generalizations here, even if they are not convenient - you are disputing the volunteer reviewer's policy to mediate cache location disputes. That's a policy and a policy is a general action.

 

 

Practically, we are simply asking for a clear indication of the next steps.

Ethically, we are simply asking that the mysterious cacher be made aware that gg would like to chat. For the sanity of everyone!

 

YOUR next step is to wait, or move on. The reviewer has their next step, which may or may not involve future contact with the soon-to-be or not-to-be CO.

The mysterious cacher is under no obligation to chat with gg about their cache, unless gg is the property owner/manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Assuming everyone is intelligent, friendly and courteous is just as perilous.

So, guilty until proven innocent?

 

I never said that gg would be a direct problem. That's why I'm using terms like "Original CO".

And I'm saying, keep it in context. You're generalizing. I provided a non-exhaustive list of possible outcomes, and to me, the safer bet is that both are at least somewhat respectable, considerate geocachers (regardless of their 'experience')

 

I will stand by my point that a newbie cacher will feel intimidated by some cacher with 1300 finds and 18 hides who even politely asks for the spot back because you know, technically I was here first, even if I gave that spot up in an aborted geocide. It still boils down to a polite "get out of my way".

You're presuming gg is of the mind that he's unable to tell or make a respectable decision. I'm sure he can tell a 'newbie' cacher, and if he opts to accept that cacher's placement, he can. What better way to introduce a (possibly) newbie cacher to geocaching, than a respectable discourse. Of course, we don't know if it's simply a newbie cacher, an uninformed cacher, or an a** cacher.

 

There are generalizations here, even if they are not convenient - you are disputing the volunteer reviewer's policy to mediate cache location disputes. That's a policy and a policy is a general action.

We're asking for clarification. And requesting (making a case for) a common sense, respectable action.

 

YOUR next step is to wait, or move on. The reviewer has their next step, which may or may not involve future contact with the soon-to-be or not-to-be CO.

More non-answers. We're looking for an answer. We don't have to wait. We're not hurting anything by asking for a clarification. The only thing that's hurting are constant claims that we are the idiots for asking for clarification.

 

The mysterious cacher is under no obligation to chat with gg about their cache, unless gg is the property owner/manager.

 

Of course not. I never said they did have an obligation. But from personal perspective, I would want to know, or at least be given an opportunity to converse, with a cacher for whom a placeholder of mine is blocking a spot. Even if I were hard-hearted, or a newbie cacher, I'd either have no obligation to respond, or I'd care enough to respond by choice.

I cannot comprehend why gg's request (simply being passed on for the other to decide) is being withheld. It's contrary to informed discourse and decision making.

But that's only the matter of ethics, not of process.

 

So again, what is the next action in this case that moves the issue towards an active cache in a timely manner? And does it promote or deter abuse of the system that's currently in place?

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
YOUR next step is to wait, or move on. The reviewer has their next step, which may or may not involve future contact with the soon-to-be or not-to-be CO.

 

Is that so? I'm as confused as thebruce0. First we learn that a future CO is allowed to hold a spot indefinitely as long as they reply to the reviewer. Then we learn that the reviewer asks them only once, and if they reply they're allowed to hold the spot. The only conclusion I can personally draw from this is that there is no next step. They replied, so they're allowed to hold the spot indefinitely. Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Assuming everyone is intelligent, friendly and courteous is just as perilous.

So, guilty until proven innocent?

 

I never said that gg would be a direct problem. That's why I'm using terms like "Original CO".

And I'm saying, keep it in context. You're generalizing. I provided a non-exhaustive list of possible outcomes, and to me, the safer bet is that both are at least somewhat respectable, considerate geocachers (regardless of their 'experience')

 

I'm glad your life experiences have taught you to think that way.

I guess Groundspeak can retire the appeals@geocaching.com email address now that we know everyone can just work things out themselves.

 

I will stand by my point that a newbie cacher will feel intimidated by some cacher with 1300 finds and 18 hides who even politely asks for the spot back because you know, technically I was here first, even if I gave that spot up in an aborted geocide. It still boils down to a polite "get out of my way".

You're presuming gg is of the mind that he's unable to tell or make a respectable decision. I'm sure he can tell a 'newbie' cacher, and if he opts to accept that cacher's placement, he can. What better way to introduce a (possibly) newbie cacher to geocaching, than a respectable discourse. Of course, we don't know if it's simply a newbie cacher, an uninformed cacher, or an a** cacher.

 

No, I'm saying the newbie will possibly be intimidated no matter what gg says. He's a very experienced player that is making a request of a non-experienced player. There's an entire dynamic that enters there no matter what type of person gg is. Even if he asks nicely there is a weight on his words that comes with the experience. The newbie may give up the spot, even if they want to keep it, just so they don't upset the experienced cachers. Is that how we want this game to be based? The experienced cachers get best choice of hiding spots?

Now if gg does want to be an a** he can of course expedite the process of intimidating a newbie ....

Share this post


Link to post
YOUR next step is to wait, or move on. The reviewer has their next step, which may or may not involve future contact with the soon-to-be or not-to-be CO.

 

Is that so? I'm as confused as thebruce0. First we learn that a future CO is allowed to hold a spot indefinitely as long as they reply to the reviewer. Then we learn that the reviewer asks them only once, and if they reply they're allowed to hold the spot. The only conclusion I can personally draw from this is that there is no next step. They replied, so they're allowed to hold the spot indefinitely. Really?

 

Cachedrone already said that they cannot hold the spot indefinitely. CD may not commit to 30 days, +- 10 minutes, but he will eventually go around and check in on things. I suspect the lack of a commitment to "every 30 days" has more to do with a lack of a desire to get that flurry of emails at 30 days, plus one minute from everyone who wants the old cache back vs just keeping in touch with the "new" CO periodically.

Share this post


Link to post
Cachedrone already said that they cannot hold the spot indefinitely. CD may not commit to 30 days, +- 10 minutes, but he will eventually go around and check in on things.

 

Sorry but that's not how I understood it:

The cache owner of GC33??? has exercised their right to hold the claim of the spot. They can do so indefinitely as long as they respond to any requests made by any reviewer within a timely fashion. Typically that means within one month, give or take. So it is a month to respond, not to use the place they have reserved. If they don't reply, I archive it.

 

Together with this:

I gave the unknown cacher one month to reply to me. They did. That's where it ends. There isn't a reason for me to keep nagging the unknown cacher.

 

To me that can only mean: Reviewer asks, gives them one month (or whatever time) to reply. They replied. Reviewer won't ask again. ... and then what?

Share this post


Link to post

 

To me that can only mean: Reviewer asks, gives them one month (or whatever time) to reply. They replied. Reviewer won't ask again. ... and then what?

 

See this one

 

So if they don't publish anything, there's nothing any further you will do, and the hold exists as long as the cache is not archived by the unknown cacher?

That does not seem right.

 

Nope, that isn't right.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post
I'm glad your life experiences have taught you to think that way.

Thank you. I like to think I can trust people until they prove themselves problematic.

 

I guess Groundspeak can retire the appeals@geocaching.com email address now that we know everyone can just work things out themselves.

Howso? I never said there wouldn't be disagreements. But I'd rather not start out on the foot that there ARE and will ALWAYS BE disagreements from the get-go. appeals certainly has its place when there are legitimate complaints that can be reviewed and reversed. That's not the case here.

 

No, I'm saying the newbie will possibly be intimidated no matter what gg says. He's a very experienced player that is making a request of a non-experienced player.

You're presuming that an initial "here's the information of the other cacher if you'd like to chat with him" is somehow already a request. I can't see how a newbie cacher (one who is already experienced enough to place a geocache) would in any way be "intimidated" by that step.

If they take the step and contact gg, I'd presume they are intelligent and mature enough not to be intimidated by a man who would like to come to a conclusion one way or another and would be respectful to not push a decision on the person. Sure I'm speaking for gg right now, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is all based on my opinion of how gg's been handling this all up to this point.

 

To me that can only mean: Reviewer asks, gives them one month (or whatever time) to reply. They replied. Reviewer won't ask again. ... and then what?

We, those not directly involved, argue in circles never getting a clear answer and only re-iterating what's already been said, redundantly, over and over and over again, for perpetuity. Clearly.

Share this post


Link to post

To me that can only mean: Reviewer asks, gives them one month (or whatever time) to reply. They replied. Reviewer won't ask again. ... and then what?

 

See this one

 

So if they don't publish anything, there's nothing any further you will do, and the hold exists as long as the cache is not archived by the unknown cacher?

That does not seem right.

 

Nope, that isn't right.

 

:cool: CD

 

Yeah, which tells me and everybody else exactly nothing.

Share this post


Link to post

 

To me that can only mean: Reviewer asks, gives them one month (or whatever time) to reply. They replied. Reviewer won't ask again. ... and then what?

 

See this one

 

So if they don't publish anything, there's nothing any further you will do, and the hold exists as long as the cache is not archived by the unknown cacher?

That does not seem right.

 

Nope, that isn't right.

 

:cool: CD

 

to me he agrees with thebruce that the system is not right

 

if he meant otherwise he would have explained further

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

 

:P

 

I am sure glad my hobby doesn't cause me the level of angst that it causes for some people. :)

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

 

:P

 

I am sure glad my hobby doesn't cause me the level of angst that it causes for some people. :)

 

 

.

 

how i hate that word, i hate it with a passion

 

what is with everybody using the darn word? most of the time it doesn't even make sense in the context used... fear and anxiety?...i don't see why would that be...or maybe is the lure of using a foreign word? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

 

how i hate that word, i hate it with a passion

 

what is with everybody using the darn word? most of the time it doesn't even make sense in the context used... fear and anxiety?...i don't see why would that be...or maybe is the lure of using a foreign word? :unsure:

 

Hee hee :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

DISCLAIMER: I am not here to reignite drama. I am posting to find out the current status of this situation as it has been quite some time since the most recent stage of this issue began.

 

Timeline recap: (as per CacheDrone's summary on Nov 7)

 

08/23/11 - GC280PA archived by gg

 

09/06/11 - GC33??? created, unpublished by "mc" (mystery cacher)

 

10/05/11 - GC35D21 created by gg as a replacement, wasn't published as GC33??? had held the spot, and CacheDrone offered to unarchive GC280PA if mc would release the spot.

 

Sometime between 10/05/11 and 11/07/11 - CacheDrone asked and was informed by mc that there is intent to publish in the new location, and thus continues to reserve the spot.

 

Quote, CacheDrone: "They can do so indefinitely as long as they respond to any requests made by any reviewer within a timely fashion. Typically that means within one month, give or take. So it is a month to respond, not to use the place they have reserved. If they don't reply, I archive it."

 

With uncertainty over whether this means mc can hold the post indefinitely as long as a response is given to a reviewer, as it's now been 3 months since mc created the "work in progress" cache, and at least a month since the last (disclaimed) contact with mc, I'd like to know what the next steps are in regards to the new cache and the cache offered and available to be unarchived.

 

Please do not comment if you have no productive input or only wish to share an opinion - this is an honest inquiry for information, not seeking drama.

:santa:

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

If you really want to know, maybe you should contact cache drone directly. Then once you find something out, if anything, you can report back to the rest of us with something of value.

Share this post


Link to post

If you really want to know, maybe you should contact cache drone directly. Then once you find something out, if anything, you can report back to the rest of us with something of value.

 

and why must thebruce be the proxy? :unsure:

CD visits the forums quite frequently and can answer directly

some of his responses are vague as it is, we don't need someone else to try and understand why he meant and relay it here, only to run the risk of going the "no, that's not what i said" route

Share this post


Link to post

If you really want to know, maybe you should contact cache drone directly. Then once you find something out, if anything, you can report back to the rest of us with something of value.

 

and why must thebruce be the proxy? :unsure:

CD visits the forums quite frequently and can answer directly

some of his responses are vague as it is, we don't need someone else to try and understand why he meant and relay it here, only to run the risk of going the "no, that's not what i said" route

 

Exactly. Contact him directly and ask a direct question. You may be surprised and get a direct answer.

Share this post


Link to post

If you really want to know, maybe you should contact cache drone directly. Then once you find something out, if anything, you can report back to the rest of us with something of value.

 

and why must thebruce be the proxy? :unsure:

CD visits the forums quite frequently and can answer directly

some of his responses are vague as it is, we don't need someone else to try and understand why he meant and relay it here, only to run the risk of going the "no, that's not what i said" route

 

Exactly. Contact him directly and ask a direct question. You may be surprised and get a direct answer.

 

exactly not what i suggested

Share this post


Link to post

If you really want to know, maybe you should contact cache drone directly. Then once you find something out, if anything, you can report back to the rest of us with something of value.

 

and why must thebruce be the proxy? :unsure:

CD visits the forums quite frequently and can answer directly

some of his responses are vague as it is, we don't need someone else to try and understand why he meant and relay it here, only to run the risk of going the "no, that's not what i said" route

 

Exactly. Contact him directly and ask a direct question. You may be surprised and get a direct answer.

 

exactly not what i suggested

 

If you don't the kind of answer you get in the forum, try another approach. Apparently the forum is not working for what you want.

Share this post


Link to post

If you really want to know, maybe you should contact cache drone directly. Then once you find something out, if anything, you can report back to the rest of us with something of value.

 

and why must thebruce be the proxy? :unsure:

CD visits the forums quite frequently and can answer directly

some of his responses are vague as it is, we don't need someone else to try and understand why he meant and relay it here, only to run the risk of going the "no, that's not what i said" route

 

Exactly. Contact him directly and ask a direct question. You may be surprised and get a direct answer.

 

exactly not what i suggested

 

If you don't the kind of answer you get in the forum, try another approach. Apparently the forum is not working for what you want.

 

meh, i am a big proponent of discussing things out in the open, not hush hush behind closed doors and bringing out some distorted conclusions

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest I am still laughing about this entire thread. But I would agree with KW, If you have a question for someone you should ask them directly. No need to have an audience. Besides, isn't the new Ironman Challenge cache already up and running (GC33XXF)? Hasn't the purpose of this discussion run its course?

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest I am still laughing about this entire thread. But I would agree with KW, If you have a question for someone you should ask them directly. No need to have an audience. Besides, isn't the new Ironman Challenge cache already up and running (GC33XXF)? Hasn't the purpose of this discussion run its course?

 

Oh carp. Here we go again.

There's the old beating a dead horse thing, but now we're right into zombie horses that kick back.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm happy to answer and if my previous replies were vague or cryptic, then that is my fault.

 

Preface: Some processes are not fully documented or revealed to the general public. This is done to prevent abuse. In this case we do not want a bunch of unused listings blocking areas thus delaying the review process for everyone or increasing the amount of communication or delays in communication. Or the short version is that people should only create listings that reserve a spot if they have a serious intention to use the spot in a timely fashion. As example, someone could potentially cover Algonquin Park with unused listings in the hopes that one day they can place a cache there. I hope everyone can see how this would be a problem.

 

The reason why I have not nudged the so-called "mystery cacher" is that no one with a vested interest has made the request. There are no new listings in the area that were enabled for review and no cache owners have requested theirs be unarchived since the last time I did all the leg work and was told by the "mystery cacher" they wanted to retain the spot.

 

I hope that helps.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest I am still laughing about this entire thread. But I would agree with KW, If you have a question for someone you should ask them directly. No need to have an audience. Besides, isn't the new Ironman Challenge cache already up and running (GC33XXF)? Hasn't the purpose of this discussion run its course?

 

yes, there is a need for audience because thebruce is not the only one with an interest in hearing the current developments, besides the purpose of a forum is to enable discussions, instead some seem to feel that its a medium for poking fun at others interests

 

you forgot to link to the rest of the Ironman caches in Canada

 

when we logged GC33XXF i didn't exactly find it in the location discussed in this thread

 

 

I hope that helps.

 

:cool: CD

 

thanks, makes some sense now

 

although i was under the impression that gg requested the unarchival

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...