Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
thebruce0

GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge

Recommended Posts

Thank you for the clarity, CD.

So, you are saying that gg needs to request, once again, either the unarchival of the original cache, or another publish for a replacement cache, to prompt a reviewer to request the mystery cacher's intentions again?

That seems like a very slim technicality. Logical, but almost like intentionally unnecessary legwork for the player. The unarchival request was made. As long as he's under the impression he has to wait, how would he know he has to request again in order for the mystery cacher to be asked again?

 

gg's replacement cache which was passed in favour of unarchival was recently archived itself due to 'lack of timely response'.

 

So, ultimately, is the next official step for gg to once again request unarchival, or complete another replacement cache listing, in order to prompt communication with the mystery cacher? And by extension, this has to happen every time?

Share this post


Link to post

Ironman has been unarchived.

 

Please see the relevant log that hopefully answers all questions and concerns.

 

:cool: CD

 

Well that was easy. :D

 

The question is now who will be next. I am still not in the country so if you plan on visiting you have my permission to bring a replacement container and log in case the original (Mach 2) container is missing.

Edited by gg

Share this post


Link to post

Ironman has been unarchived.

 

Please see the relevant log that hopefully answers all questions and concerns.

 

:cool: CD

 

Well that was easy. :D

 

The question is now who will be next. I am still not in the country so if you plan on visiting you have my permission to bring a replacement container and log in case the original (Mach 2) container is missing.

 

Does this mean you have enabled the cache without verifying the condition of the cache?

Share this post


Link to post

That was quick. The instructions seemed pretty clear to me. I am surprised it took this long.

Edited by Keith Watson

Share this post


Link to post

This thread.

 

I'm guessing that gg's recent note on the cache page may also have something to do with the decision:

 

The question is now who will be next? I am still not in the country so if you plan on visiting soon you have my permission to bring a replacement container and logbook in case the original (Mach 2) container is missing.

 

I've added the bolded text.

Share this post


Link to post

Indeed.

As soon as he shared that, especially on the cache page, a warning flag went up. It was only a matter of time.

It's unfortunate this happened while he was away, however. He's not here to verify the cache is still in place. It hasn't been removed by him, so it's simply a lack of certainty that the container is still there. I'm sure if anyone were to go and check on it (3rd party maintenance of a cache is perfectly feasible, especially in temporary exceptions like a CO going on an extended vacation), then I'm sure it can be verified and re-enabled. I do think however that simply disabling it until it's verified would have been the proper route to take, as that's typically what happens when maintenance is concerned; not archival.

However, as long as this whole distance drama doesn't spike up again from someone else "placing" a cache nearby, Brad's wording seems to imply that it shouldn't be an issue having it re-unarchived and re-enabled once the cache container is verified.

Share this post


Link to post

Indeed.

As soon as he shared that, especially on the cache page, a warning flag went up. It was only a matter of time.

It's unfortunate this happened while he was away, however. He's not here to verify the cache is still in place. It hasn't been removed by him, so it's simply a lack of certainty that the container is still there. I'm sure if anyone were to go and check on it (3rd party maintenance of a cache is perfectly feasible, especially in temporary exceptions like a CO going on an extended vacation), then I'm sure it can be verified and re-enabled. I do think however that simply disabling it until it's verified would have been the proper route to take, as that's typically what happens when maintenance is concerned; not archival.

However, as long as this whole distance drama doesn't spike up again from someone else "placing" a cache nearby, Brad's wording seems to imply that it shouldn't be an issue having it re-unarchived and re-enabled once the cache container is verified.

 

Since you seem to be the most interested in resurrecting the cache, perhaps you should go do a maintenance check on it for the CO.

 

Before someone else creates a new listing and this merr-go-round starts up all over again.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

Cache is dead, lets put it to bed already! Move on people! Better yet, place your OWN version if this is SO important to your stats.

 

Mr. T.

Share this post


Link to post

Cache is dead, lets put it to bed already! Move on people! Better yet, place your OWN version if this is SO important to your stats.

 

Mr. T.

 

It already exists, lol. Carnigrewal made one that looks great.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread.

 

I'm guessing that gg's recent note on the cache page may also have something to do with the decision:

 

The question is now who will be next? I am still not in the country so if you plan on visiting soon you have my permission to bring a replacement container and logbook in case the original (Mach 2) container is missing.

 

I've added the bolded text.

 

I assumed that was the trigger. The note explaining the conditions for enabling I assumed were pretty straight forward. I can only assume that gg ignored the condition, or misunderstood some how.

Share this post


Link to post

Not in the mood to respond effectively right now, for personal reasons. As for this thread, please don't make things worse by fanning the flame. What's done is done; if it gets undone, it will get undone. Leave it be.

Share this post


Link to post

I will be back tomorrow at the latest. If someone wants to check the condition by proxy go for it. You have my permission to go to the site and look around. You have my permission to change a log book or do maintenance on my cache or any other cache you wish. It's common for finders to help out by adding new ziplock bags, containers, logsheets etc. I don't see why this one is different. Unless someone proves it is not there I will go on knowing it's still hidden where it was last found. I see the rule somewhere about cache owners going to the site to do maintenance personally (or by proxy) so I know if I asked 100 cachers when was the last time they visited their caches the most popular answer would be when a finder DNF's it. So far no DNF's on this cache.

 

Now if some Smart Astronaut wants to hide a cache on the island and they are known in the community (and a veteran cacher) it will look bad for them not for me. If a n00b hides a cache here in the next couple of days that's forgivable.

 

When it's confirmed I'll notify Brad_W and we can carry on.

 

It's a Festivus miracle, Happy Festivus.

Edited by gg

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...