Jump to content

Effortless Smiley


angel77ra
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I feel signing the log when you're with the CO when he/she hides it is a bit tacky but if someone feel OK then fine but claiming an FTF on top of that is just plain wrong.

A lot depends on the situation also. We were on a group hike, grabbing a number of caches, and one was placed (we knew it was going to be done) part way thru. Being that there were two reviewers/lackeys along, it was published within seconds of being placed, and logged within a few more seconds (smart phones are a wonder). We all enjoyed the "FTF Party" (the fastest on record!) and had much fun with the whole thing. Normal? No. Acceptable? Yes, in that setting.

 

I'd fire the reviewers/lackeys for conflict of interest.

What conflict of interest? Reviewers' job is publishing caches that meet the guidelines - neither of the two were the hider, the cache met the guidelines (since then a forest filre swept the area, so the cache may be ash now), a cache page was submitted, reviewed and published. Multi-persons had smart phones and then logged the cache. A unique experience that is far from normal - but a heck of a lot of fun.

 

The Lackeys knew a new cache was going to get submitted, you went to the area and then they published it right when you were at GZ. That in my books is cheating and in fact a local reviewer here lost his reviewer status for similar conduct.

Link to comment
The Lackeys knew a new cache was going to get submitted, you went to the area and then they published it right when you were at GZ. That in my books is cheating and in fact a local reviewer here lost his reviewer status for similar conduct.
Cheating? In what way is it cheating? What rules are being violated? The rule against publishing caches quickly? The rule against publishing caches using a mobile device while away from your desk? The rule against discussing cache hides with cache owners before the cache listing has been submitted? The rule against publishing caches while in the company of others? Oh, wait, there are no such rules...

 

If I were a betting man, I'd bet the local reviewer lost his reviewer status for something else.

Link to comment
The Lackeys knew a new cache was going to get submitted, you went to the area and then they published it right when you were at GZ. That in my books is cheating and in fact a local reviewer here lost his reviewer status for similar conduct.
Cheating? In what way is it cheating? What rules are being violated? The rule against publishing caches quickly? The rule against publishing caches using a mobile device while away from your desk? The rule against discussing cache hides with cache owners before the cache listing has been submitted? The rule against publishing caches while in the company of others? Oh, wait, there are no such rules...

 

If I were a betting man, I'd bet the local reviewer lost his reviewer status for something else.

Wow, yeah. There has to be more to the story. There are no rules that would make that the case.

 

 

 

Plus, you can't "fire" a volunteer. :anicute:

Link to comment
The Lackeys knew a new cache was going to get submitted, you went to the area and then they published it right when you were at GZ. That in my books is cheating and in fact a local reviewer here lost his reviewer status for similar conduct.
Cheating? In what way is it cheating? What rules are being violated? The rule against publishing caches quickly? The rule against publishing caches using a mobile device while away from your desk? The rule against discussing cache hides with cache owners before the cache listing has been submitted? The rule against publishing caches while in the company of others? Oh, wait, there are no such rules...

 

If I were a betting man, I'd bet the local reviewer lost his reviewer status for something else.

Wow, yeah. There has to be more to the story. There are no rules that would make that the case.

 

 

 

Plus, you can't "fire" a volunteer. :anicute:

 

He was using his reviewer status to get FTFs.

 

You can a lackey, what would be the correct term for the reviewer? Impeach? Demote?

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment
The Lackeys knew a new cache was going to get submitted, you went to the area and then they published it right when you were at GZ. That in my books is cheating and in fact a local reviewer here lost his reviewer status for similar conduct.
Cheating? In what way is it cheating? What rules are being violated? The rule against publishing caches quickly? The rule against publishing caches using a mobile device while away from your desk? The rule against discussing cache hides with cache owners before the cache listing has been submitted? The rule against publishing caches while in the company of others? Oh, wait, there are no such rules...

 

If I were a betting man, I'd bet the local reviewer lost his reviewer status for something else.

 

I guess they cheated the other local cachers out of a FTF. Do we hang them by the thumbs, or tar and feather them?

 

I was at an event in California and the Nevada reviewer was telling us that he was publishing caches in Las Vegas, as he ate his hamburger. A reviewer can be 1000's of miles away or feet away and still do their job. If anything, we know that the cache is within the guidelines.

Link to comment
The Lackeys knew a new cache was going to get submitted, you went to the area and then they published it right when you were at GZ. That in my books is cheating and in fact a local reviewer here lost his reviewer status for similar conduct.
Cheating? In what way is it cheating? What rules are being violated? The rule against publishing caches quickly? The rule against publishing caches using a mobile device while away from your desk? The rule against discussing cache hides with cache owners before the cache listing has been submitted? The rule against publishing caches while in the company of others? Oh, wait, there are no such rules...

 

If I were a betting man, I'd bet the local reviewer lost his reviewer status for something else.

Wow, yeah. There has to be more to the story. There are no rules that would make that the case.

 

 

 

Plus, you can't "fire" a volunteer. :anicute:

 

He was using his reviewer status to get FTFs.

 

You can a lackey, what would be the correct term for the reviewer? Impeach? Demote?

 

How did he hide his FTF obsession from Groundspeak in order to get selected as a reviewer in the first place?

 

I think that this is an Urban Reviewer Legend. This so called reviewer seems to have come from all different areas and we only usually hear about him when it suits someones forum argument.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment
The Lackeys knew a new cache was going to get submitted, you went to the area and then they published it right when you were at GZ. That in my books is cheating and in fact a local reviewer here lost his reviewer status for similar conduct.
Cheating? In what way is it cheating? What rules are being violated? The rule against publishing caches quickly? The rule against publishing caches using a mobile device while away from your desk? The rule against discussing cache hides with cache owners before the cache listing has been submitted? The rule against publishing caches while in the company of others? Oh, wait, there are no such rules...

 

If I were a betting man, I'd bet the local reviewer lost his reviewer status for something else.

Wow, yeah. There has to be more to the story. There are no rules that would make that the case.

 

 

 

Plus, you can't "fire" a volunteer. :anicute:

 

He was using his reviewer status to get FTFs.

 

You can a lackey, what would be the correct term for the reviewer? Impeach? Demote?

 

How did he hide his FTF obsession from Groundspeak in order to get selected as a reviewer in the first place?

 

I think that this is an Urban Reviewer Legend. This so called reviewer seems to have come from all different areas and we only usually hear about him when it suits someones forum argument.

 

I'd bet my wife that more than one reviewer has lost their reviewer status for cheating on FTFs in the past, in fact I'd bet it's more than you can count on one had.

 

As for cheating, IMHO if the reviewer published the cache while he was very near it so the group he was with could get the FTF, I think that's just bad taste. If I were the reviewer I would have published the cache after we all got home, again this is just my sense of right and wrong, yours may vary.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

The Lackeys knew a new cache was going to get submitted, you went to the area and then they published it right when you were at GZ. That in my books is cheating and in fact a local reviewer here lost his reviewer status for similar conduct.

Yeah, they knew the cache was going in when the CO mentioned it at the meeting point, and discussed it on the hike. The decision to approve it was made at the hide site, along the lines of "hey, we have two reviewers here, can we do it instantly?" One person whipped out a quick cache page on their phone, the CO submitted it (although, I think someone else actually pushed the button on their phone using the CO's account), one of the reviewers published it, and others logged it thereafter (some of us without fancy phones waited until we were at home at the computer). We had discussed not logging it in the field, just to mess with a local FTF hound or two, but decided that was too nasty but worth a laugh.

Link to comment

The Lackeys knew a new cache was going to get submitted, you went to the area and then they published it right when you were at GZ. That in my books is cheating and in fact a local reviewer here lost his reviewer status for similar conduct.

Yeah, they knew the cache was going in when the CO mentioned it at the meeting point, and discussed it on the hike. The decision to approve it was made at the hide site, along the lines of "hey, we have two reviewers here, can we do it instantly?" One person whipped out a quick cache page on their phone, the CO submitted it (although, I think someone else actually pushed the button on their phone using the CO's account), one of the reviewers published it, and others logged it thereafter (some of us without fancy phones waited until we were at home at the computer). We had discussed not logging it in the field, just to mess with a local FTF hound or two, but decided that was too nasty but worth a laugh.

 

That to me seems a reviewer abusing his/her power, again others may see it differently and accepable but I don't.

Link to comment

I still don't get the whole "abusing power" thing? They published a cache that was submitted. So they were standing nearby the hider - I've seen caches get published within a couple of minutes of submission when everybody was sitting at home (I believe, I really don't know where the reviewers work from, what with smart phones, tablets, wi-fi and all). It was all pretty spur-of-the-moment. Would it make any difference to you if we'd all gone home before all submissions/publishing/logging had taken place? Does delay equal not abusing power?

Link to comment

I still don't get the whole "abusing power" thing? They published a cache that was submitted. So they were standing nearby the hider - I've seen caches get published within a couple of minutes of submission when everybody was sitting at home (I believe, I really don't know where the reviewers work from, what with smart phones, tablets, wi-fi and all). It was all pretty spur-of-the-moment. Would it make any difference to you if we'd all gone home before all submissions/publishing/logging had taken place? Does delay equal not abusing power?

 

If someone has the power to publish a cache they should not do it when they are standing beside it and then having the group they are with claim FTF, might just be me but I think that's wrong.

 

Further more, having the hider there as well and putting together a quick cache page to get it listed while they're all standing there just makes it worse, again, maybe just me, but I think it's wrong.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I still don't get the whole "abusing power" thing? They published a cache that was submitted. So they were standing nearby the hider - I've seen caches get published within a couple of minutes of submission when everybody was sitting at home (I believe, I really don't know where the reviewers work from, what with smart phones, tablets, wi-fi and all). It was all pretty spur-of-the-moment. Would it make any difference to you if we'd all gone home before all submissions/publishing/logging had taken place? Does delay equal not abusing power?

 

If someone has the power to publish a cache they should not do it when they are standing beside it and then having the group they are with claim FTF, might just be me but I think that's wrong.

 

Further more, having the hider there as well and putting together a quick cache page to get it listed while they're all standing there just makes it worse, again, maybe just me, but I think it's wrong.

 

Maybe it's just me but sometimes I think some people take the FTF games *way* too seriously. So a cache was placed, published, and immediately found by a group of people. It's really not the end of the world that the local FTF hounds didn't get the opportunity for those all important bragging rights.

Link to comment

Is it common to claim a find when you are with the CO during placement.? This happens often in my area and takes away from FTF points in the regions Lonelycache project. There is also a number of unfounded caches that are claimed by the CO's hiking buddies. Just curious if this is standard or if it is frowned upon.

 

It's fairly common, but not something that many cachers would do. I personally don't see the point of "finding" a cache that I had a part in hiding, but to each his own.

 

Being with the hider on a hike/tour does not mean to watch the hiding process or even taking part in it. Suppose I join a friend on a lengthy hike up a mountain, the friend then decides to hide a cache somewhere while I'm having a rest or need the time to reach the summit (I'm walking slower than most of my friends). Why shouldn't I search for the cache and log it as find if I find it?

 

Moreover, there are other reasons for logging a cache as found even when having been involved in hiding it: Many cachers want to get rid of such caches on various maps and there is no way to do that for many maps than logging a found it. Putting a cache on the ignore list one has been involved into hiding is not an ideal way to deal with the situation even for those who have the ignore list option. I have decided not to log caches as found where I was involved into hiding them, but found it very annoying that those caches were dealt like unfounds one because the system does not allow co-hidership.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I still don't get the whole "abusing power" thing? They published a cache that was submitted. So they were standing nearby the hider - I've seen caches get published within a couple of minutes of submission when everybody was sitting at home (I believe, I really don't know where the reviewers work from, what with smart phones, tablets, wi-fi and all). It was all pretty spur-of-the-moment. Would it make any difference to you if we'd all gone home before all submissions/publishing/logging had taken place? Does delay equal not abusing power?

 

If someone has the power to publish a cache they should not do it when they are standing beside it and then having the group they are with claim FTF, might just be me but I think that's wrong.

 

Further more, having the hider there as well and putting together a quick cache page to get it listed while they're all standing there just makes it worse, again, maybe just me, but I think it's wrong.

 

Maybe it's just me but sometimes I think some people take the FTF games *way* too seriously. So a cache was placed, published, and immediately found by a group of people. It's really not the end of the world that the local FTF hounds didn't get the opportunity for those all important bragging rights.

As it's something like a 7 mile RT hike to the cache, I doubt there would have been much of a FTF race. I just found out it survived the wild fires this summer, as it was logged a couple of days ago.

 

One of the others in the group summed it up nicely in their log:

This was a unique and very fun experience! We managed to get this cache hidden, written up, published, and found - all within a couple minutes on smart phones. So weird to think how clunky geocaching was when we started over 10 years ago, and here we are now, with everything at our fingertips! Thanks everyone, for a fun find.

 

I remember other threads discussing whether reviewers did (or should) phsically check cache hides. Now we have people complaining that a reviewer doing so is abusing their power.

Link to comment

I still don't get the whole "abusing power" thing? They published a cache that was submitted. So they were standing nearby the hider - I've seen caches get published within a couple of minutes of submission when everybody was sitting at home (I believe, I really don't know where the reviewers work from, what with smart phones, tablets, wi-fi and all). It was all pretty spur-of-the-moment. Would it make any difference to you if we'd all gone home before all submissions/publishing/logging had taken place? Does delay equal not abusing power?

 

If someone has the power to publish a cache they should not do it when they are standing beside it and then having the group they are with claim FTF, might just be me but I think that's wrong.

 

Further more, having the hider there as well and putting together a quick cache page to get it listed while they're all standing there just makes it worse, again, maybe just me, but I think it's wrong.

 

Maybe it's just me but sometimes I think some people take the FTF games *way* too seriously. So a cache was placed, published, and immediately found by a group of people. It's really not the end of the world that the local FTF hounds didn't get the opportunity for those all important bragging rights.

As it's something like a 7 mile RT hike to the cache, I doubt there would have been much of a FTF race. I just found out it survived the wild fires this summer, as it was logged a couple of days ago.

 

One of the others in the group summed it up nicely in their log:

This was a unique and very fun experience! We managed to get this cache hidden, written up, published, and found - all within a couple minutes on smart phones. So weird to think how clunky geocaching was when we started over 10 years ago, and here we are now, with everything at our fingertips! Thanks everyone, for a fun find.

 

I remember other threads discussing whether reviewers did (or should) phsically check cache hides. Now we have people complaining that a reviewer doing so is abusing their power.

 

That log to me is just wrong, again based on my definition of right and wrong.

 

I'm not complaining a reviewer checked on a cache, I have a problem with a reviewer publishing a cache when he is standing right beside it so he and his group can get an FTF.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment
If someone has the power to publish a cache they should not do it when they are standing beside it and then having the group they are with claim FTF, might just be me but I think that's wrong.
Why would anyone in the group need to "claim FTF"? FTF is simply a fact, not something to be claimed by finders or awarded by cache owners. If someone finds a cache first before it is published here, then they're still FTF. If someone finds a cache first because they were within a few feet of the cache when it was published, then they're still FTF. If someone finds a cache first while trespassing (searching while the park is closed), then they're still FTF.

 

To paraphrase another forum regular, an FTF gets me a free soda from the break-room machine at work. But I can get a free soda without the FTF too.

 

I agree with NYPaddleCacher: some people take the FTF games way too seriously. And I still think The Jester's story is pretty cool.

Link to comment
If someone has the power to publish a cache they should not do it when they are standing beside it and then having the group they are with claim FTF, might just be me but I think that's wrong.
Why would anyone in the group need to "claim FTF"? FTF is simply a fact, not something to be claimed by finders or awarded by cache owners. If someone finds a cache first before it is published here, then they're still FTF. If someone finds a cache first because they were within a few feet of the cache when it was published, then they're still FTF. If someone finds a cache first while trespassing (searching while the park is closed), then they're still FTF.

 

To paraphrase another forum regular, an FTF gets me a free soda from the break-room machine at work. But I can get a free soda without the FTF too.

 

I agree with NYPaddleCacher: some people take the FTF games way too seriously. And I still think The Jester's story is pretty cool.

 

Regardless of what you think FTF is a side game many take seriously and in my point of view the reviewer abused his power and regardless of what you think, this is what I think.

 

As for that phrase, it's just a way of saying something is worthless to you, doesn't mean it's worthless to everyone, you're just insulting other cachers.

Link to comment
If someone has the power to publish a cache they should not do it when they are standing beside it and then having the group they are with claim FTF, might just be me but I think that's wrong.
Why would anyone in the group need to "claim FTF"? FTF is simply a fact, not something to be claimed by finders or awarded by cache owners. If someone finds a cache first before it is published here, then they're still FTF. If someone finds a cache first because they were within a few feet of the cache when it was published, then they're still FTF. If someone finds a cache first while trespassing (searching while the park is closed), then they're still FTF.

 

To paraphrase another forum regular, an FTF gets me a free soda from the break-room machine at work. But I can get a free soda without the FTF too.

 

I agree with NYPaddleCacher: some people take the FTF games way too seriously. And I still think The Jester's story is pretty cool.

 

Regardless of what you think FTF is a side game many take seriously and in my point of view the reviewer abused his power and regardless of what you think, this is what I think.

 

As for that phrase, it's just a way of saying something is worthless to you, doesn't mean it's worthless to everyone, you're just insulting other cachers.

Pray tell me, what is it that you see as "wrong" in this case. Please don't use gut feelings, as this game is based on rules and guidelines.

 

Therefore, please enlighten me as to what part of the guidelines and rules of geocaching were violated to make this "wrong" in your eyes?

Link to comment
If someone has the power to publish a cache they should not do it when they are standing beside it and then having the group they are with claim FTF, might just be me but I think that's wrong.
Why would anyone in the group need to "claim FTF"? FTF is simply a fact, not something to be claimed by finders or awarded by cache owners. If someone finds a cache first before it is published here, then they're still FTF. If someone finds a cache first because they were within a few feet of the cache when it was published, then they're still FTF. If someone finds a cache first while trespassing (searching while the park is closed), then they're still FTF.

 

To paraphrase another forum regular, an FTF gets me a free soda from the break-room machine at work. But I can get a free soda without the FTF too.

 

I agree with NYPaddleCacher: some people take the FTF games way too seriously. And I still think The Jester's story is pretty cool.

 

Regardless of what you think FTF is a side game many take seriously and in my point of view the reviewer abused his power and regardless of what you think, this is what I think.

 

As for that phrase, it's just a way of saying something is worthless to you, doesn't mean it's worthless to everyone, you're just insulting other cachers.

Pray tell me, what is it that you see as "wrong" in this case. Please don't use gut feelings, as this game is based on rules and guidelines.

 

Therefore, please enlighten me as to what part of the guidelines and rules of geocaching were violated to make this "wrong" in your eyes?

 

I'm not going to argue about my opinion but what I'd love to see is an opinion from any other reviewer is they would have done the same thing.

 

I'm sure reviewers have a code of conduct they agree to so they'd be best to determine if it's OK or wrong.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment
To paraphrase another forum regular, an FTF gets me a free soda from the break-room machine at work. But I can get a free soda without the FTF too.
As for that phrase, it's just a way of saying something is worthless to you, doesn't mean it's worthless to everyone, you're just insulting other cachers.
Actually, it's a way of saying that there is no intrinsic value to an FTF. Like beauty, the value of an FTF is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

A reviewer using his reviewer status to log FTFs with his player account clearly places value on FTFs, and is abusing his power as a reviewer to get something he values.

 

I see no evidence of that in The Jester's story. Yes, an FTF occurred. But the story wasn't about the FTF per se. It was about a group of people using modern mobile technology to hide, list, publish, and find a new cache within minutes. They could have done the same thing with the reviewers sitting at home waiting for the listing to be submitted, and it wouldn't have changed a thing as far as the supposed "abuse of power" goes. And I think the reviewers using mobile devices to publish the cache makes it a better story.

Link to comment

Maybe it's just me but sometimes I think some people take the FTF games *way* too seriously. So a cache was placed, published, and immediately found by a group of people. It's really not the end of the world that the local FTF hounds didn't get the opportunity for those all important bragging rights.

Yeah, this sums it up for me, too. Now if a reviewer did this kind of thing regularly just to pump up his or his friends FTF numbers, then there would be a problem. But this is just a group of people basically playing a joke while also creating a new cache entirely by the book. Seeing this as some kind of fundamental violation of trust is an over reaction. Even the most serious about the FTF game shouldn't view every single cache placement in its light.

Link to comment
If someone has the power to publish a cache they should not do it when they are standing beside it and then having the group they are with claim FTF, might just be me but I think that's wrong.
Why would anyone in the group need to "claim FTF"? FTF is simply a fact, not something to be claimed by finders or awarded by cache owners. If someone finds a cache first before it is published here, then they're still FTF. If someone finds a cache first because they were within a few feet of the cache when it was published, then they're still FTF. If someone finds a cache first while trespassing (searching while the park is closed), then they're still FTF.

 

To paraphrase another forum regular, an FTF gets me a free soda from the break-room machine at work. But I can get a free soda without the FTF too.

 

I agree with NYPaddleCacher: some people take the FTF games way too seriously. And I still think The Jester's story is pretty cool.

 

Regardless of what you think FTF is a side game many take seriously and in my point of view the reviewer abused his power and regardless of what you think, this is what I think.

 

As for that phrase, it's just a way of saying something is worthless to you, doesn't mean it's worthless to everyone, you're just insulting other cachers.

Pray tell me, what is it that you see as "wrong" in this case. Please don't use gut feelings, as this game is based on rules and guidelines.

 

Therefore, please enlighten me as to what part of the guidelines and rules of geocaching were violated to make this "wrong" in your eyes?

 

I'm not going to argue about my opinion but what I'd love to see is an opinion from any other reviewer is they would have done the same thing.

 

I'm sure reviewers have a code of conduct they agree to so they'd be best to determine if it's OK or wrong.

:laughing: You know, Volunteer Reviewers are not infallible. They make errors, and all have interpretations of the game. They do a great job of doing their job, however.

 

I have a very, very hard time, however, believing that a full survey of Volunteer Reviewers would net anyone saying that what happened was against the guidelines. Against personal preference? Perhaps a small handful, I would guess. Not allowed? Doubt it completely.

 

You're very adept at dodging questions, I've noticed. Please answer what I asked. I wonder how you formed your opinion; it intrigues me.

Link to comment

Firstly im not dodging anything, infact its the opposite, my point is being dodged by people posting thier opinions on the FTF game.

 

I already stated that the reviewer used his status to enable a cache when his group was standing beside it so they could get FTF. If the reviewer wasn't there the group would not have got the FTF at that time and others. would have had a chance, he cheated other catchers out of A chance at the FTF and used his powers for his own personal gain.

 

Once again I'd love the opinion of a reviewer.

Link to comment
I already stated that the reviewer used his status to enable a cache when his group was standing beside it so they could get FTF.
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

 

I've seen no evidence that the reviewers published the cache "so they could get FTF".

 

I've seen evidence that the reviewers published the cache so a new cache could be hidden, listed, published, and found within minutes using modern mobile technology. That is not the same thing at all.

Link to comment
I already stated that the reviewer used his status to enable a cache when his group was standing beside it so they could get FTF.
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

 

I've seen no evidence that the reviewers published the cache "so they could get FTF".

 

I've seen evidence that the reviewers published the cache so a new cache could be hidden, listed, published, and found within minutes using modern mobile technology. That is not the same thing at all.

SUSTAINED.

Link to comment

Firstly im not dodging anything, infact its the opposite, my point is being dodged by people posting thier opinions on the FTF game.

 

I already stated that the reviewer used his status to enable a cache when his group was standing beside it so they could get FTF. If the reviewer wasn't there the group would not have got the FTF at that time and others. would have had a chance, he cheated other catchers out of A chance at the FTF and used his powers for his own personal gain.

 

Once again I'd love the opinion of a reviewer.

The cache was published, and people happened to be there faster than someone else. Seems like your opinion is rooted in your feelings that the "FTF" hunt is really, really important to how you play the game.

Link to comment

This isn't a trial and there is no black or white. I posted my opinion ion and you're entitled to yours and both combined really mean nothing.

 

We do not know what guidelines reviewers agree to and that's why I'd like the opinion of a reviewer.

 

In fact if it was all good you'd think one would have posted already.

Link to comment

It has nothing to do with what I think if the FTF hunt, it has to do with the reviewer using his power for his own gain and wether he broke any rules or guidelines he agreed to when he became a reviewer.

 

If you say he was removed as a reviewer, and it was specifically because of this incident, I would have to say yes, a rule, written or unwritten was broken. I suppose this boils down to you'd better be darn sure they were removed for that incident.

 

I've only ever heard of one other reviewer being fired in North America, and it was many years ago. And that is about as specific as I'm going to get. There may have been others, and I can't speak for Europe, or anywhere else in the world. :ph34r:

Link to comment

This isn't a trial and there is no black or white. I posted my opinion ion and you're entitled to yours and both combined really mean nothing.

 

We do not know what guidelines reviewers agree to and that's why I'd like the opinion of a reviewer.

 

In fact if it was all good you'd think one would have posted already.

No, I think Volunteer Reviewers are not all on the forums all day like some of us are. I also think that Reviewers are not going to weigh in unless they happen on this thread or are contacted directly. I'm pretty sure that the Reviewers will have different opinions on the subject as well.

 

The thing that matters is the Guidelines. Can you please, for the record, tell me where in the Guidelines it says that the process used in the example above would be against the Guidelines in any way? The Reviewers are sure to cite or refer to the Guidelines before making a judgement on this subject.

Link to comment
This isn't a trial
I know. I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to add a little levity.

 

"That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son." - Foghorn Leghorn

 

It has nothing to do with what I think if the FTF hunt, it has to do with the reviewer using his power for his own gain and wether he broke any rules or guidelines he agreed to when he became a reviewer.
Again, I don't see the volunteer reviewer in this situation "using his power for his own gain". The only "gain" I see is having a good laugh at a group of people miles from the trailhead being able to hide, list, publish, and find a new geocache within minutes using modern mobile technology, and I'm not going to fault the volunteer reviewer for that. I wish I'd been there (and no, not for the FTF, co-FTF, or anything like that).
Link to comment

I do not know what guidelines reviewers agree to so theyd have the only say wether this reviewer did anything wrong. All I'm stating is I feel he did.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

 

Maybe these ones?

 

So, to get back to my question that you're still avoiding, what guideline-based wrong-doing do you think this Reviewer engaged in?

 

(Edit to add the link)

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

I already many times posted that in my opinion what the reviewer did was abuse if his power. Whether he actually broke any guidelines only someone that knows what code of conduct reviewers agree to could answer.

 

You seem not to understand my opinion and quite frankly I'm done trying to explain it to you.

Link to comment
This isn't a trial
I know. I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to add a little levity.

 

"That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son." - Foghorn Leghorn

 

It has nothing to do with what I think if the FTF hunt, it has to do with the reviewer using his power for his own gain and wether he broke any rules or guidelines he agreed to when he became a reviewer.
Again, I don't see the volunteer reviewer in this situation "using his power for his own gain". The only "gain" I see is having a good laugh at a group of people miles from the trailhead being able to hide, list, publish, and find a new geocache within minutes using modern mobile technology, and I'm not going to fault the volunteer reviewer for that. I wish I'd been there (and no, not for the FTF, co-FTF, or anything like that).

 

It's too bad that one of them didn't soak the log book from a water bottle, another post a needs maintenance and a should be archived log, then have the reviewer archive the listing, thus completing the life of a geocache in a manner of a few minutes.

Link to comment

Firstly im not dodging anything, infact its the opposite, my point is being dodged by people posting thier opinions on the FTF game. er.

 

Nice dodge.

 

Really? You chop up my post to take it out of context, I'd say nice dodge to you.

 

Anyways, this is going nowhere so I am done here.

However, if in fact the reviewer did break any rules/guidlines that may be in place a reviewer would not come here and post about it and make it public.

Link to comment
This isn't a trial
I know. I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to add a little levity.

 

"That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son." - Foghorn Leghorn

 

It has nothing to do with what I think if the FTF hunt, it has to do with the reviewer using his power for his own gain and wether he broke any rules or guidelines he agreed to when he became a reviewer.
Again, I don't see the volunteer reviewer in this situation "using his power for his own gain". The only "gain" I see is having a good laugh at a group of people miles from the trailhead being able to hide, list, publish, and find a new geocache within minutes using modern mobile technology, and I'm not going to fault the volunteer reviewer for that. I wish I'd been there (and no, not for the FTF, co-FTF, or anything like that).

 

It's too bad that one of them didn't soak the log book from a water bottle, another post a needs maintenance and a should be archived log, then have the reviewer archive the listing, thus completing the life of a geocache in a manner of a few minutes.

Now that's some levity! :laughing:

Link to comment

Anyways, this is going nowhere so I am done here.

However, if in fact the reviewer did break any rules/guidlines that may be in place a reviewer would not come here and post about it and make it public.

You don't think so? What makes you think this Reviewer is such a yellowbelly? Why such a cynic, Roman!?

 

There has to be more to this feeling that they were so "wrong". Your opinion of allowable opportunities for a FTF hunt are so incredibly skewed, that you feel this logical, allowable, technology-using publication and logging of a cache was "wrong".

 

I'm still waiting for what guidelines you think were ignored in this case. Do you think the Reviewers don't become reviewers due to their knowledge of the guidelines? Do you not think the process is vetted enough? What's the beef all about? There has to be more to this...

Link to comment
Regardless of what you think FTF is a side game many take seriously
Okay, I finally figured out something that has been bugging me about this conversation.

 

Why should the stereotypical FTF side game played by Roman! take precedence over the "fastest FTF party" side game that was being played by The Jester's group? To me, the "fastest FTF party" side game seems just as legitimate as the stereotypical FTF side game.

 

The only "gain" I see is having a good laugh at a group of people miles from the trailhead being able to hide, list, publish, and find a new geocache within minutes using modern mobile technology, and I'm not going to fault the volunteer reviewer for that. I wish I'd been there (and no, not for the FTF, co-FTF, or anything like that).
It's too bad that one of them didn't soak the log book from a water bottle, another post a needs maintenance and a should be archived log, then have the reviewer archive the listing, thus completing the life of a geocache in a manner of a few minutes.
:laughing: That would have been really funny. Unfortunately, planning that in advance would have violated the Geocache Permanence guideline. :anibad:
Link to comment

If the reviewer stood beside every single cache he published then logged it as FTF would that be OK?

 

I think a lot of people would be complaining.

 

If its not ok every time why is it ok once?

 

As for the FTF game, there are many people that play it. If you don't, fine, but cut the attitude that you think you're better than those that do.

Link to comment

If the reviewer stood beside every single cache he published then logged it as FTF would that be OK?

 

I think a lot of people would be complaining.

 

If its not ok every time why is it ok once?

 

As for the FTF game, there are many people that play it. If you don't, fine, but cut the attitude that you think you're better than those that do.

First of all let me say I'm an FTFer. I love go after the FTF.

 

Now....

 

The FTF has nothing to do with Geocaching (notice the big 'G'), or Groundspeak. It is a side game made up by people who geocache (notice the little 'g'). How is a reviewer who is doing everything by the guidelines of Geocaching and Groundspeak (notice the big 'G') doing something wrong when then only thing he has upset in any way is our little side game? Could you please answer that?

 

 

Edit: Also it wouldn't really bother me at all if my reviewer stood by and watched every hide. In fact I would think it might improve some parts of the game.

Edited by Totem Clan
Link to comment

If the reviewer stood beside every single cache he published then logged it as FTF would that be OK?

 

I think a lot of people would be complaining.

 

If its not ok every time why is it ok once?

 

As for the FTF game, there are many people that play it. If you don't, fine, but cut the attitude that you think you're better than those that do.

First of all let me say I'm an FTFer. I love go after the FTF.

 

Now....

 

The FTF has nothing to do with Geocaching (notice the big 'G'), or Groundspeak. It is a side game made up by people who geocache (notice the little 'g'). How is a reviewer who is doing everything by the guidelines of Geocaching and Groundspeak (notice the big 'G') doing something wrong when then only thing he has upset in any way is our little side game? Could you please answer that?

 

If a reviewer logged a puzzle cache he could not solve because due to his reviewer status he knew the final coordinate would not this be wrong?

 

In my opinion it would be wrong as I'd feel the reviewer abused his position for personal gain.

This to me is the same as publishing a cache when you're standing beside it so you and your friends can log the FTF, as I've said multiple time but for some reason no one can comprehend, it's not about the FTF, it's about using his status inappropriately.

 

How about an answer to my question: If the reviewer stood beside every single cache he published then logged it as FTF would that be OK?

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

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...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...