Jump to content

Effortless Smiley


angel77ra
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

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.

The same ones you did.

 

I'm sure when you become a reviewer you have additional guidlines or rules you need to adhere to.

Oh, like a code of conduct? Why not ask Groundspeak directly? (contact (at) geocaching.com)

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.

The same ones you did.

 

I'm sure when you become a reviewer you have additional guidlines or rules you need to adhere to.

Oh, like a code of conduct? Why not ask Groundspeak directly? (contact (at) geocaching.com)

 

I already told you I don't know that's why I said its just in my opinion what he did was wrong.

There are many reviewers and mods that come to these forums and I'm sure are reading this thread, maybe one could post the rules a reviewer agrees to is that's allowable but I suspect that it is private information.

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.

The same ones you did.

 

I'm sure when you become a reviewer you have additional guidlines or rules you need to adhere to.

Oh, like a code of conduct? Why not ask Groundspeak directly? (contact (at) geocaching.com)

You beat me to it.

 

Ask them if there is anything in there about the FTF.

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.

The same ones you did.

 

I'm sure when you become a reviewer you have additional guidlines or rules you need to adhere to.

Oh, like a code of conduct? Why not ask Groundspeak directly? (contact (at) geocaching.com)

You beat me to it.

 

Ask them if there is anything in there about the FTF.

 

You people need to get off the FTF thing that's not my point.

 

Why are you dodging 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

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?

Who said this Reviewer claimed an FTF? Even if they did, it isn't a recognized "game" by Geocaching.com. FTF hounds everywhere would complain, yeah. But so long as they aren't going out, taking a placed FTF gift or specific swag, it's JUST ANOTHER FIND.

 

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.

Who said that?! Don't act like because you are in love with a FTF game, you can bully around and tell others that they're wrong about something that isn't recognized as a sanctioned activity with Geocaching.com.

 

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.

That's different. But, if they were there when it was placed, they have every right to log a find, as it isn't against any guidelines. Instead, this goes against some people's opinions of the process. Big difference.

 

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?! The cache was submitted, they published it when it hit the queue, it was logged after publication. Just because it was faster than most publication processes doesn't mean that it was wrong. It just means that YOU didn't have a chance to run out and claim a FTF.

 

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?

Fine by me. It's just another find. Are there circumstances where it might be different? Sure. But that's not the point.

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.

The same ones you did.

 

I'm sure when you become a reviewer you have additional guidlines or rules you need to adhere to.

Oh, like a code of conduct? Why not ask Groundspeak directly? (contact (at) geocaching.com)

 

I already told you I don't know that's why I said its just in my opinion what he did was wrong.

There are many reviewers and mods that come to these forums and I'm sure are reading this thread, maybe one could post the rules a reviewer agrees to is that's allowable but I suspect that it is private information.

If your undies are in a bunch about it, hunt for the answer yourself.

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.

The same ones you did.

 

I'm sure when you become a reviewer you have additional guidlines or rules you need to adhere to.

Oh, like a code of conduct? Why not ask Groundspeak directly? (contact (at) geocaching.com)

You beat me to it.

 

Ask them if there is anything in there about the FTF.

 

You people need to get off the FTF thing that's not my point.

 

Why are you dodging my question?

 

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

I already answered that. I think it would improve the game.

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.

(this reply is in before I've read every other response) I should mention that the log I quoted was the other reviewer's (not the one who published the cache). So, in fact, you do have another reviewer's opinion (of course, you'll probably discount it because they were also on site).

Link to comment
If the reviewer stood beside every single cache he published then logged it as FTF would that be OK?
That would certainly slow down the publication of new caches, which I'm sure some would consider a good thing.

 

But as I said before, it would be pretty cheesy for a reviewer to manipulate cache publication to give himself an advantage in the FTF game. Likewise, it would be pretty cheesy for a reviewer to find puzzle caches with his player account by viewing the solution coordinates with his reviewer account.

 

But that is not what happened here.

 

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.
As for the "fastest FTF party" game, there are a few 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?

No, that would not be OK. That would be an abuse of power.

 

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

Well, actually, I think it would in fact be OK once because one artificial FTF is not that big of a deal. Sometimes FTFs are artificial. So what?

 

In this case, though, I thought someone said that the reviewer that actually published the cache did not claim the find. And, in any case, he didn't publish the cache in order to get a find: he published the cache because it was submitted, he was responsible for publishing it, and it was acceptable, so he published it in a timely manner. If he then immediately signed the log and claimed the find, it strikes me as an unrelated action.

 

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.

I didn't notice anyone here suggesting that the FTF game wasn't important. What's been said is that you shouldn't take the FTF game that seriously. Your premise here is that this one FTF, all by itself, unavailable for someone else in the area to have a chance for, is so critical that this reviewer should be flogged for allowing the people he was caching with to claim it. I like FTFs as much as anyone else, and my reaction is nothing more than, "Eh, there's another FTF I didn't get."

Link to comment

You people need to get off the FTF thing that's not my point.

 

Why are you dodging my question?

 

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

First you say "get off the FTF thing", then ask about a reviewer logging FTF's - which is it? Is it an FTF thing or not? If not, then why the question about FTFs?

 

Looking over the logs, I notice that the only person to mention FTF (co-FTF) was another Lackey that I'd forgotten was along on the hike. So let's see, that's three Lackey's (two are also reviewers) on the side "it's OK", one FTF hound that's on the side "it's abuse" - I wonder who's winning (not that that will change anyone's opinion).

Link to comment

You people need to get off the FTF thing that's not my point.

 

Why are you dodging my question?

 

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

First you say "get off the FTF thing", then ask about a reviewer logging FTF's - which is it? Is it an FTF thing or not? If not, then why the question about FTFs?

 

Looking over the logs, I notice that the only person to mention FTF (co-FTF) was another Lackey that I'd forgotten was along on the hike. So let's see, that's three Lackey's (two are also reviewers) on the side "it's OK", one FTF hound that's on the side "it's abuse" - I wonder who's winning (not that that will change anyone's opinion).

"Winning" is an impossibility in this case. When someone has such a strong opinion about having to be the First To Find at every opportunity, you have to wonder what the motivation really is.

 

With very few First to Find gifts, FTF certificates, or even quality swag to trade in caches anymore, what is the point of a FTF race to those that are so gung-ho about getting one? If a cache is placed, and published, what's against the guidelines if it is logged? If someone who is along for the hide claims a "FTF", who is harmed but those that chomp at the bit to get the next one?

 

If I hide a cache...

-If a caching friend is along when I hide it, can they log it? Yup.

-If they log it, are they likely to claim FTF? Who knows, none of my caching buddies would.

 

...and say there's a $20 Target gift card for the FTF...

-If they do claim "FTF", do they take the FTF gift I've left behind? Probably not. That would be plain silly.

-If someone comes and signs the log after they logged it, can they claim "FTF"? You bet. Nobody is stopping you from claiming you got a FTF.

-If I don't leave any gift, does it matter at all? Nope.

-Does the "game" of "FTF" mean anything? Nope.

Link to comment

You people need to get off the FTF thing that's not my point.

 

Why are you dodging my question?

 

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

First you say "get off the FTF thing", then ask about a reviewer logging FTF's - which is it? Is it an FTF thing or not? If not, then why the question about FTFs?

 

Looking over the logs, I notice that the only person to mention FTF (co-FTF) was another Lackey that I'd forgotten was along on the hike. So let's see, that's three Lackey's (two are also reviewers) on the side "it's OK", one FTF hound that's on the side "it's abuse" - I wonder who's winning (not that that will change anyone's opinion).

"Winning" is an impossibility in this case. When someone has such a strong opinion about having to be the First To Find at every opportunity, you have to wonder what the motivation really is.

 

With very few First to Find gifts, FTF certificates, or even quality swag to trade in caches anymore, what is the point of a FTF race to those that are so gung-ho about getting one? If a cache is placed, and published, what's against the guidelines if it is logged? If someone who is along for the hide claims a "FTF", who is harmed but those that chomp at the bit to get the next one?

 

If I hide a cache...

-If a caching friend is along when I hide it, can they log it? Yup.

-If they log it, are they likely to claim FTF? Who knows, none of my caching buddies would.

 

...and say there's a $20 Target gift card for the FTF...

-If they do claim "FTF", do they take the FTF gift I've left behind? Probably not. That would be plain silly.

-If someone comes and signs the log after they logged it, can they claim "FTF"? You bet. Nobody is stopping you from claiming you got a FTF.

-If I don't leave any gift, does it matter at all? Nope.

-Does the "game" of "FTF" mean anything? Nope.

 

You're doing a lot of talking but very little if any listening. I am not nor was I ever discussing the FTF game, I was questioning the reviewers actions for which similar actions, just on a much larger scale a reviewer lost his status for.

 

If you think his actions were acceptable, great, I don't. That's it, that's all, good night.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

You people need to get off the FTF thing that's not my point.

 

Why are you dodging my question?

 

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

First you say "get off the FTF thing", then ask about a reviewer logging FTF's - which is it? Is it an FTF thing or not? If not, then why the question about FTFs?

 

Looking over the logs, I notice that the only person to mention FTF (co-FTF) was another Lackey that I'd forgotten was along on the hike. So let's see, that's three Lackey's (two are also reviewers) on the side "it's OK", one FTF hound that's on the side "it's abuse" - I wonder who's winning (not that that will change anyone's opinion).

"Winning" is an impossibility in this case. When someone has such a strong opinion about having to be the First To Find at every opportunity, you have to wonder what the motivation really is.

 

With very few First to Find gifts, FTF certificates, or even quality swag to trade in caches anymore, what is the point of a FTF race to those that are so gung-ho about getting one? If a cache is placed, and published, what's against the guidelines if it is logged? If someone who is along for the hide claims a "FTF", who is harmed but those that chomp at the bit to get the next one?

 

If I hide a cache...

-If a caching friend is along when I hide it, can they log it? Yup.

-If they log it, are they likely to claim FTF? Who knows, none of my caching buddies would.

 

...and say there's a $20 Target gift card for the FTF...

-If they do claim "FTF", do they take the FTF gift I've left behind? Probably not. That would be plain silly.

-If someone comes and signs the log after they logged it, can they claim "FTF"? You bet. Nobody is stopping you from claiming you got a FTF.

-If I don't leave any gift, does it matter at all? Nope.

-Does the "game" of "FTF" mean anything? Nope.

 

You're doing a lot of talking but very little if any listening. I am not nor was I ever discussing the FTF game, I was questioning the reviewers actions for which similar actions, just on a much larger scale a reviewer lost his status for.

 

If you think his actions were acceptable, great, I don't. That's it, that's all, good night.

Do I need to quote how many times you talk about "FTF" here, or in other threads when it comes up? Believe me, I'm listening. (Close enough that you still haven't addressed how any of what you are saying is "wrong" is based on guidelines)

 

That's the second time you've said you're done with this...yet here you are!

 

The issue really is that you are playing the game by your rules, including "FTF" as a significant part of it. Those rules you play by are not part of the guidelines that the game of Geocaching (big "G") is played by. If you want to make rules for your version, that's great. I'll keep playing by the ones in the Guidelines.

Link to comment

You people need to get off the FTF thing that's not my point.

 

Why are you dodging my question?

 

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

First you say "get off the FTF thing", then ask about a reviewer logging FTF's - which is it? Is it an FTF thing or not? If not, then why the question about FTFs?

 

Looking over the logs, I notice that the only person to mention FTF (co-FTF) was another Lackey that I'd forgotten was along on the hike. So let's see, that's three Lackey's (two are also reviewers) on the side "it's OK", one FTF hound that's on the side "it's abuse" - I wonder who's winning (not that that will change anyone's opinion).

"Winning" is an impossibility in this case. When someone has such a strong opinion about having to be the First To Find at every opportunity, you have to wonder what the motivation really is.

 

With very few First to Find gifts, FTF certificates, or even quality swag to trade in caches anymore, what is the point of a FTF race to those that are so gung-ho about getting one? If a cache is placed, and published, what's against the guidelines if it is logged? If someone who is along for the hide claims a "FTF", who is harmed but those that chomp at the bit to get the next one?

 

If I hide a cache...

-If a caching friend is along when I hide it, can they log it? Yup.

-If they log it, are they likely to claim FTF? Who knows, none of my caching buddies would.

 

...and say there's a $20 Target gift card for the FTF...

-If they do claim "FTF", do they take the FTF gift I've left behind? Probably not. That would be plain silly.

-If someone comes and signs the log after they logged it, can they claim "FTF"? You bet. Nobody is stopping you from claiming you got a FTF.

-If I don't leave any gift, does it matter at all? Nope.

-Does the "game" of "FTF" mean anything? Nope.

 

You're doing a lot of talking but very little if any listening. I am not nor was I ever discussing the FTF game, I was questioning the reviewers actions for which similar actions, just on a much larger scale a reviewer lost his status for.

 

If you think his actions were acceptable, great, I don't. That's it, that's all, good night.

 

Yes you are. You mention FTF in every single post. How can it be about anything but the FTF? The reviewer is allowed to publish caches. The reviewer is allowed to find caches that he published. The reviewer did nothing wrong. You are accusing him of using his status to get an unfair advantage to a game he isn't even playing. A game that is not sanctioned or regulated by the entity that gave him that reviewer status.

 

You may as well say that the reviewer used his reviewer powers to get a banana. It has the same relevance.

 

I will agree with you as far as the divisiveness dismissive attitude of the others toward those that play the FTF game. I have relatives that have that same attitude towards me in regards to the main game. "Why are you looking for silly boxes", is really not that different than "why do you want to be the first to find the silly box".

 

Edit: Sabotaged by the spell checker

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

You're doing a lot of talking but very little if any listening. I am not nor was I ever discussing the FTF game, I was questioning the reviewers actions for which similar actions, just on a much larger scale a reviewer lost his status for.

OK, in that case, the answer is that the cases you cited are entirely different. In the one, the reviewer gets an FTF, which you repeatedly say isn't what you're worried about in this case. In the other case, the reviewer gets a find for a puzzle cache he never would have found. In the case in question, the reviewer gets absolutely nothing of value -- as far as any of the rest of us can see, and you repeatedly refuse to explain what it is you see -- so there's no conflict of interest.

 

Furthermore, as I said before, the other cases you bring up are of habitual, repeated infractions. The fact that this was an isolated incident in itself would make me consider it a minor violation, not at all grounds to say the reviewer isn't worthy of the position, even if it were actually as bad as the other examples you bring up.

Link to comment

Furthermore, as I said before, the other cases you bring up are of habitual, repeated infractions. The fact that this was an isolated incident in itself would make me consider it a minor violation, not at all grounds to say the reviewer isn't worthy of the position, even if it were actually as bad as the other examples you bring up.

 

As I've said, if it's not OK everytime it should not be OK once. Should the reviewer loose his status, absolutely not, in fact I'll agree that the situation was kinda neat but my point was and is was that it was not the right thing to do for a reviewer.

 

The "he should be fired" comment was an extreme reaction typical of online forums to get a discussion going which it did.

Link to comment

The "he should be fired" comment was an extreme reaction typical of online forums to get a discussion going which it did.

Oh, OK. So your point is only that it was tacky but "kinda neat", and the rest was just trolling, I guess. I don't think it was tacky, myself, but I can see how someone else might.

 

So what should the reviewer have done differently to avoid the tacky conflict of interest?

Link to comment

I think it's fine to log a find, but definately not to take a FTF. FTF has to occur after publishing, IMHO.

 

FTF is a linear state. You either are or you are not. It's occurrence in relationship to be published or not has no bearing.

 

Maybe that's the definition for you, but it's not for me and any others. A FTF for me has to be after publishing. Otherwise it's a FTF gained by cheating, which, for me, is not a FTF I would personally recognize. According to my definition, a FTF can also be shared, if several cachers are searching GZ at the same time, 1 person finds it and offers to 'share' their FTF with the others. That's how I play the game. You can play it how you want to.

Link to comment
The group decided hey let's place a cache, whip up a quick cache page, submit it and get it published while we are all standing here.

 

He should have said no.

Why?

 

That's old news, time to move on.

Wow. SQUIRREL! Funny that you keep trolling the forums like this. I'm counting at least 3 threads where you are trolling for "discussion", you call it? Trolling. Plain and simple.

 

Still waiting for your answer. Also, how did your inquiry with Groundspeak and Reviewers go to get another opinion?

Link to comment

Not tacky, inappropriate would be a better word.

I have to admit, I used "tacky" as a synonym for "inappropriate".

 

The group decided hey let's place a cache, whip up a quick cache page, submit it and get it published while we are all standing here.

OK. Nothing unusual about that. Happens every day.

 

He should have said no.

So you think he should have ignored his responsibility to published a legitimate cache submission?

 

As for trolling, I'd say more like over emphasizing.

Well, not to make a big deal about it, but you've admitted you over emphasized because you'd knew that would get people fired up. I think that's the definition of trolling. The reason I mention it is because I think you should notice that several people wasted a page or so worth of comments disagreeing with the point you subsequently denied you wanted to defend or even discuss.

Link to comment

Not tacky, inappropriate would be a better word.

I have to admit, I used "tacky" as a synonym for "inappropriate".

 

The group decided hey let's place a cache, whip up a quick cache page, submit it and get it published while we are all standing here.

OK. Nothing unusual about that. Happens every day.

 

He should have said no.

So you think he should have ignored his responsibility to published a legitimate cache submission?

 

As for trolling, I'd say more like over emphasizing.

Well, not to make a big deal about it, but you've admitted you over emphasized because you'd knew that would get people fired up. I think that's the definition of trolling. The reason I mention it is because I think you should notice that several people wasted a page or so worth of comments disagreeing with the point you subsequently denied you wanted to defend or even discuss.

 

I still feel the reviewer had a lapse in judgement and IMHO it needed to be pointed out.

 

Honestly, I never thought my initial comment would have caused such a stir but it sure was interesting learning about peoples acceptance of right and wrong.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I still feel the reviewer had a lapse in judgement and IMHO it needed to be pointed out.

Yes, I understand that. I'm trying to isolate what this lapse in judgement was. We've established that you think he shouldn't have published the cache, but I'm trying to understand what it is about the situation that outweighs his responsibility as a reviewer to publish caches submitted in his area.

 

Honestly, I never thought my initial comment would have caused such a stir but it sure was interesting learning about peoples acceptance of right and wrong.

Honestly, you've already admitted that you phrased your initial comment as you did precisely because it would cause a stir, so just drop that junk. Now that we've established that you don't really think the reviewer should be fired, I don't understand why you don't want to help us see why you think his actions were wrong. It's not as if my questions are argumentative.

Link to comment

I still feel the reviewer had a lapse in judgement and IMHO it needed to be pointed out.

Yes, I understand that. I'm trying to isolate what this lapse in judgement was. We've established that you think he shouldn't have published the cache, but I'm trying to understand what it is about the situation that outweighs his responsibility as a reviewer to publish caches submitted in his area.

 

Honestly, I never thought my initial comment would have caused such a stir but it sure was interesting learning about peoples acceptance of right and wrong.

Honestly, you've already admitted that you phrased your initial comment as you did precisely because it would cause a stir, so just drop that junk. Now that we've established that you don't really think the reviewer should be fired, I don't understand why you don't want to help us see why you think his actions were wrong. It's not as if my questions are argumentative.

 

Hate it, ignore it, discredit it, FTF is a part of geocaching. The reviewer used his status as a reviewer to get an FTF for which (although done multiple times) another reviewer lost his status. If it wasn't OK for a reviewer to do multiple times how can it be OK for a reviewer to do once?

 

All I'm saying is the reviewer either acted inappropriately or made a mistake, either way his actions were not appropriate.

Link to comment

FTF is a linear state. You either are or you are not. It's occurrence in relationship to be published or not has no bearing.

 

Maybe that's the definition for you, but it's not for me and any others. A FTF for me has to be after publishing. Otherwise it's a FTF gained by cheating, which, for me, is not a FTF I would personally recognize. According to my definition, a FTF can also be shared, if several cachers are searching GZ at the same time, 1 person finds it and offers to 'share' their FTF with the others. That's how I play the game. You can play it how you want to.

 

It is actually the definition for everyone, either you are first or you are not. Possibly you are hiking and stumble upon it while it is waiting for reviewer to publish. You may have been given the coords directly by the CO or seen them on Facebook or someone may have mentioned they were placing a cache in the area and you are sure you have an idea where it is. Possibly it is cross listed on another site. All are valid finds, even GS would let the logs stand if you disputed them and there was a signature in the logbook.

 

It simply is amazing that people will try to twist things to their definition in a game with few rules and then further for a side game they have made up that has no rules and many (including GS) do not recognize and then try to impose them on others by implying they are somehow cheating.

Link to comment

I still feel the reviewer had a lapse in judgement and IMHO it needed to be pointed out.

Yes, I understand that. I'm trying to isolate what this lapse in judgement was. We've established that you think he shouldn't have published the cache, but I'm trying to understand what it is about the situation that outweighs his responsibility as a reviewer to publish caches submitted in his area.

 

Honestly, I never thought my initial comment would have caused such a stir but it sure was interesting learning about peoples acceptance of right and wrong.

Honestly, you've already admitted that you phrased your initial comment as you did precisely because it would cause a stir, so just drop that junk. Now that we've established that you don't really think the reviewer should be fired, I don't understand why you don't want to help us see why you think his actions were wrong. It's not as if my questions are argumentative.

 

Hate it, ignore it, discredit it, FTF is a part of geocaching. The reviewer used his status as a reviewer to get an FTF for which (although done multiple times) another reviewer lost his status. If it wasn't OK for a reviewer to do multiple times how can it be OK for a reviewer to do once?

 

All I'm saying is the reviewer either acted inappropriately or made a mistake, either way his actions were not appropriate.

 

You are stating your opinion of the reviewer's actions, and this situation. You are entitled to have this opinion. You are in the minority of those who have posted to this thread with this opinion.

 

I'm happy to share some of my views of this situation with my reviewer hat on.

Yes, there is a confidential reviewer Code of Conduct.

It's something originally created for reviewers by reviewers.

Groundspeak has adopted the COC as part of new reviewer onboarding and training.

Yes, there is some mention of how to handle FTF and new publications.

Groundspeak doesn't recognize FTF as anything official.

There isn't anything in the COC that would prohibit this situation. Per the COC reviewers shouldn't be FTF on non-traditional hides.

Since FTF isn't officially recognized by Groundspeak, and since being FTF isn't an issue in the COC, there wasn't any inappropriate act nor any mistake made in this situation. That's just the opinion of this reviewer, most likely the opinion of just about everyone else on the volunteer review team, and the lackeys we work with. Since I haven't discussed it with them direction I cannot say for certain. But we have had similar discussions about similar situations.

The FTF situation about another former reviewer that you have referenced several times in this thread was much more complicated. That's all I will say about that situation.

Satisfied?

Link to comment

Honestly, I never thought my initial comment would have caused such a stir but it sure was interesting learning about peoples acceptance of right and wrong.

 

You are stating your opinion of the reviewer's actions, and this situation. You are entitled to have this opinion. You are in the minority of those who have posted to this thread with this opinion.

 

I'm happy to share some of my views of this situation with my reviewer hat on.

Yes, there is a confidential reviewer Code of Conduct.

It's something originally created for reviewers by reviewers.

Groundspeak has adopted the COC as part of new reviewer onboarding and training.

Yes, there is some mention of how to handle FTF and new publications.

Groundspeak doesn't recognize FTF as anything official.

There isn't anything in the COC that would prohibit this situation. Per the COC reviewers shouldn't be FTF on non-traditional hides.

Since FTF isn't officially recognized by Groundspeak, and since being FTF isn't an issue in the COC, there wasn't any inappropriate act nor any mistake made in this situation. That's just the opinion of this reviewer, most likely the opinion of just about everyone else on the volunteer review team, and the lackeys we work with. Since I haven't discussed it with them direction I cannot say for certain. But we have had similar discussions about similar situations.

The FTF situation about another former reviewer that you have referenced several times in this thread was much more complicated. That's all I will say about that situation.

Satisfied?

Thanks for chiming in, NCReviewer. I knew there had to be more to the story. I'm not interested in knowing what the rest is. I am, unlike some in this thread, content knowing that it was much more complicated than simply logging FTF on self-published caches.

 

Also, thank you for letting the general "us" know that there is a CoC/Best Practices process for Reviewers. It is nice to know that the sub-game of "FTF" is not specifically addressed in that CoC. I mean, why would it be? Groundspeak/Geocaching.com does not recognize it as a true part of the game of Geocaching.

 

Are the collective "we" allowed to play our own sub-games? You bet.

Are opinions that are formed because of a fanatical love of said sub-game "wrong"? Nope.

How about apathy toward the sub-game? Is that "wrong"? Nope.

How about an aversion to playing that sub-game? Is that "wrong"? Nope.

Is it worth coming to the forums to troll about these opinions, and refuse to understand that the sub-game doesn't apply to Groundspeak guidelines? Nope.

 

Cue the music. Start the outro. Roll credits.

Link to comment

Honestly, I never thought my initial comment would have caused such a stir but it sure was interesting learning about peoples acceptance of right and wrong.

 

You are stating your opinion of the reviewer's actions, and this situation. You are entitled to have this opinion. You are in the minority of those who have posted to this thread with this opinion.

 

I'm happy to share some of my views of this situation with my reviewer hat on.

Yes, there is a confidential reviewer Code of Conduct.

It's something originally created for reviewers by reviewers.

Groundspeak has adopted the COC as part of new reviewer onboarding and training.

Yes, there is some mention of how to handle FTF and new publications.

Groundspeak doesn't recognize FTF as anything official.

There isn't anything in the COC that would prohibit this situation. Per the COC reviewers shouldn't be FTF on non-traditional hides.

Since FTF isn't officially recognized by Groundspeak, and since being FTF isn't an issue in the COC, there wasn't any inappropriate act nor any mistake made in this situation. That's just the opinion of this reviewer, most likely the opinion of just about everyone else on the volunteer review team, and the lackeys we work with. Since I haven't discussed it with them direction I cannot say for certain. But we have had similar discussions about similar situations.

The FTF situation about another former reviewer that you have referenced several times in this thread was much more complicated. That's all I will say about that situation.

Satisfied?

Thanks for chiming in, NCReviewer. I knew there had to be more to the story. I'm not interested in knowing what the rest is. I am, unlike some in this thread, content knowing that it was much more complicated than simply logging FTF on self-published caches.

 

Also, thank you for letting the general "us" know that there is a CoC/Best Practices process for Reviewers. It is nice to know that the sub-game of "FTF" is not specifically addressed in that CoC. I mean, why would it be? Groundspeak/Geocaching.com does not recognize it as a true part of the game of Geocaching.

 

Are the collective "we" allowed to play our own sub-games? You bet.

Are opinions that are formed because of a fanatical love of said sub-game "wrong"? Nope.

How about apathy toward the sub-game? Is that "wrong"? Nope.

How about an aversion to playing that sub-game? Is that "wrong"? Nope.

Is it worth coming to the forums to troll about these opinions, and refuse to understand that the sub-game doesn't apply to Groundspeak guidelines? Nope.

 

Cue the music. Start the outro. Roll credits.

 

Actually, I'd love to know the story, but I understand that it's not my business and am cool with that.

 

Everything in NCReviewer's post confirmed what I already believed to be true.

Link to comment

Honestly, I never thought my initial comment would have caused such a stir but it sure was interesting learning about peoples acceptance of right and wrong.

 

You are stating your opinion of the reviewer's actions, and this situation. You are entitled to have this opinion. You are in the minority of those who have posted to this thread with this opinion.

 

I'm happy to share some of my views of this situation with my reviewer hat on.

Yes, there is a confidential reviewer Code of Conduct.

It's something originally created for reviewers by reviewers.

Groundspeak has adopted the COC as part of new reviewer onboarding and training.

Yes, there is some mention of how to handle FTF and new publications.

Groundspeak doesn't recognize FTF as anything official.

There isn't anything in the COC that would prohibit this situation. Per the COC reviewers shouldn't be FTF on non-traditional hides.

Since FTF isn't officially recognized by Groundspeak, and since being FTF isn't an issue in the COC, there wasn't any inappropriate act nor any mistake made in this situation. That's just the opinion of this reviewer, most likely the opinion of just about everyone else on the volunteer review team, and the lackeys we work with. Since I haven't discussed it with them direction I cannot say for certain. But we have had similar discussions about similar situations.

The FTF situation about another former reviewer that you have referenced several times in this thread was much more complicated. That's all I will say about that situation.

Satisfied?

Thanks for chiming in, NCReviewer. I knew there had to be more to the story. I'm not interested in knowing what the rest is. I am, unlike some in this thread, content knowing that it was much more complicated than simply logging FTF on self-published caches.

 

Also, thank you for letting the general "us" know that there is a CoC/Best Practices process for Reviewers. It is nice to know that the sub-game of "FTF" is not specifically addressed in that CoC. I mean, why would it be? Groundspeak/Geocaching.com does not recognize it as a true part of the game of Geocaching.

 

Are the collective "we" allowed to play our own sub-games? You bet.

Are opinions that are formed because of a fanatical love of said sub-game "wrong"? Nope.

How about apathy toward the sub-game? Is that "wrong"? Nope.

How about an aversion to playing that sub-game? Is that "wrong"? Nope.

Is it worth coming to the forums to troll about these opinions, and refuse to understand that the sub-game doesn't apply to Groundspeak guidelines? Nope.

 

Cue the music. Start the outro. Roll credits.

 

Isn't it? How about this line:

 

Yes, there is some mention of how to handle FTF and new publications.

 

 

Anyways, I appreciate the post from NCreviewer, seems some people learnt a thing or two and that's always a good thing and I accept the fact that you feel his action were OK.

Link to comment

 

Thanks for chiming in, NCReviewer. I knew there had to be more to the story. I'm not interested in knowing what the rest is. I am, unlike some in this thread, content knowing that it was much more complicated than simply logging FTF on self-published caches.

 

Also, thank you for letting the general "us" know that there is a CoC/Best Practices process for Reviewers. It is nice to know that the sub-game of "FTF" is not specifically addressed in that CoC. I mean, why would it be? Groundspeak/Geocaching.com does not recognize it as a true part of the game of Geocaching.

 

Are the collective "we" allowed to play our own sub-games? You bet.

Are opinions that are formed because of a fanatical love of said sub-game "wrong"? Nope.

How about apathy toward the sub-game? Is that "wrong"? Nope.

How about an aversion to playing that sub-game? Is that "wrong"? Nope.

Is it worth coming to the forums to troll about these opinions, and refuse to understand that the sub-game doesn't apply to Groundspeak guidelines? Nope.

 

Cue the music. Start the outro. Roll credits.

 

Isn't it? How about this line:

 

Yes, there is some mention of how to handle FTF and new publications.

 

 

Anyways, I appreciate the post from NCreviewer, seems some people learnt a thing or two and that's always a good thing and I accept the fact that you feel his action were OK.

 

What about the rest of what NCReviewer said?

Yes, there is some mention of how to handle FTF and new publications.

Groundspeak doesn't recognize FTF as anything official.

There isn't anything in the COC that would prohibit this situation. Per the COC reviewers shouldn't be FTF on non-traditional hides.

 

Trolling, and cherry picking. I'm sensing a trend. How about you admit that you had it factually wrong. You can still keep your opinons, however. I see nothing wrong with your feeling of wrongdoing. But the air is cleared, and, factually, your tirades are poorly aimed.

Link to comment

Read yiur comment i highlighted, cherry picking is exactly what you're doing. FTF is addressed, just the reviewer. Feels nothing was done wrong.

I think I translated what you typed...can't be sure.

 

You misread what I said, and meant by my comment. If you read what I said, and use the context of other posts--as well as NCReviewer's post--you see that the CoC doesn't address "FTF" as a recognized part of geocaching. It addresses how Reviewers should not use their positions to help them find multis or mystery/puzzles, yes. Related, but very, very different.

 

Your (and my version of the) FTF sub-game is not recognized by geocaching.com/Groundspeak as part of the game of Geocaching. I'm not cherry picking; I'm reading and understanding the facts presented to the rest of us. (Still avoiding responsibility for trolling and having a tantrum unrelated to the greater game of Geocaching, I see, as well as the questions everyone asked you in this thread to explain yourself.)

Link to comment

Hate it, ignore it, discredit it, FTF is a part of geocaching. The reviewer used his status as a reviewer to get an FTF for which (although done multiple times) another reviewer lost his status. If it wasn't OK for a reviewer to do multiple times how can it be OK for a reviewer to do once?

Wow, it's really hard to track you. Earlier in this thread you got really mad at us and insisted this wasn't about FTFs. It's not my opinion of FTFs here, it's the fact that you just told us that you weren't worried about the FTF. I'm all for FTFs.

 

If the issue was FTFs, then why did you say he shouldn't have published the cache? Why wouldn't it be enough for him to not claim FTF?

 

All I'm saying is the reviewer either acted inappropriately or made a mistake, either way his actions were not appropriate.

We all get that you feel that way, and I'm fully prepared to believe that you are absolutely right and I'm missing some terrible transgression. The problem is that you're not helping me see what action he took that was a mistake or inappropriate. So could he just have not taken the FTF? Or does his path to righteous action require more than just that?

Link to comment

First it's tacky and wrong. Then we must "fire for conflict of interest". Then cheating. And cheating and bad taste. Abuse. Wrong. Abuse of a side-game. Cheating cachers out of a FTF. Abuse of power. Inappropriate. Unacceptable. A "kinda neat situation" that should not lose a Reviewer their status, with admission of trolling. Inappropriate, with a dash of overemphasizing. A lapse of judgement. An inappropriate mistake.

 

So, is it all of the negatives, or is it "kinda neat"? It seems that the facts show that FTF isn't something that matters at Geocaching.com. A find is a find is a find, so long as pen goes to paper on a log. Side games don't fall under any guideline, save the singular mention in the Reviewer CoC that they should not use their ability to see final coordinates give them a leg up in finding multi or mystery/puzzle caches.

 

Yet, when it was finally addressed by a Reviewer as requested, it didn't end there? Jester mentioned 2 other Reviewers that took part in this quick-fire cache listing-publishing-logging event. Roman, you feel that, because you are aware of a Reviewer who was removed from their volunteer position, that it is a precedent? Even though NCReviewer made it clear that there is much more to the story? At what point to you scale back your heated, trolling rhetoric, and say that you got it wrong?

 

If a cache is published, it can be found. If someone, as has been noted elsewhere in this thread, happens upon a cache by accident, is along for the hide, finds a cache by brute force solving, is present at a publication occuring on site, etc, they may--according to the guidelines--log a find. A "FTF" even. And that, I'm guessing, goes against the highly competitive nature of some FTF hounds and "it's all about the numbers" proselytizers. Therefore, we get the bloated, heated, trolling rhetoric displayed above. It's just a game.

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...