Geocache Archive Requests

[+Glenn]

Of course the land manager has final say

 

Yes, the land manager can request previously existing caches to be archived and removed, and Groundspeak must comply. The "final say" part, though, is getting their replacement caches published by Groundspeak. I'm not aware that KVSP, any other park or land management agency, in NJ or anywhere else, has any inalienable right to have their caches published on this website. I really hope GS chooses not to condone these shenanigans, especially if the backroom politics between KVSP and NNJC reported in this thread are accurate.

 

It's doubtful that Groundspeak will do anything now. Groundspeak has always maintained that they are just a listing service.

 

weathernowcast said that he was the one who archived his cache. He may have been coerced but it was his finger on the mouse and not anyone else's when the cache was archived. If he wouldn't have done that and Groundspeak's hand was being forced to archive the cache then we might have seen some involvement from the Groundspeak PR machine.

[+Mudfrog]

A paragraph from Briansnat's post above:

For those who dismiss this as a "local issue", as more and more agencies and land managers embrace geocaching it could become your problem too. When I was a reviewer in Utah, their state parks system had started placing their own caches. Often one of their submissions conflicted with an existing cache. I hesitated at first to send my "Sorry your cache is too close to another" note knowing that they could easily write back with "Sorry, the other cache has to go". They never did and simply found a different spot. I'm sure some agencies may not be as accommodating. That's why those of who are in areas with local geocaching organizations need for those organizations to advocate for US. Even if that means standing up for that guy who owns that micro which will cause them to have to skip .1 mile on their new geotrail.

 

On the bolded part above,

 

Briansnat, what might you have done if the the Utah state parks system insisted you archive the cache? I figure you would have to go along with their wish but, if they then submitted another cache in the same spot or general area,,, would you hestiate to publish it? Could you even deny publishment, if the cache met guidelines?

 

Just curious..

[Mr.Yuck]

If the Resource Interpretive Specialist truly wants their Geotrail out there "for park visitors of all ages to discover during my monthly geocaching programs", they could merely list them on a different Geocaching website. I personally recuse myself from suggesting one though. I am serious though.

 

Or they could not list them at all. There is a park near me that has it's own geocaching program. They hand out a flyer with a list of caches they've hidden in the park. These caches are not listed anywhere else.

 

That too. However, listing them on an obscure alternative Geocaching website would allow for them to be downloaded into GPS units, or even found with a smartphone app in one case. Moot point though, as I'm sorry to say, it appears that an "interpretive Monthly Geocaching program" is not the motive here. Even though it was stated as such a reason in correspondance the OP received in his OP in the thread.

[+briansnat]

A paragraph from Briansnat's post above:

For those who dismiss this as a "local issue", as more and more agencies and land managers embrace geocaching it could become your problem too. When I was a reviewer in Utah, their state parks system had started placing their own caches. Often one of their submissions conflicted with an existing cache. I hesitated at first to send my "Sorry your cache is too close to another" note knowing that they could easily write back with "Sorry, the other cache has to go". They never did and simply found a different spot. I'm sure some agencies may not be as accommodating. That's why those of who are in areas with local geocaching organizations need for those organizations to advocate for US. Even if that means standing up for that guy who owns that micro which will cause them to have to skip .1 mile on their new geotrail.

 

On the bolded part above,

 

Briansnat, what might you have done if the the Utah state parks system insisted you archive the cache? I figure you would have to go along with their wish but, if they then submitted another cache in the same spot or general area,,, would you hestiate to publish it? Could you even deny publishment, if the cache met guidelines?

 

Just curious..

 

If their cache conformed to the guidelines it would have been published. A land manger's wishes trump all. If they decided they only want their own caches in a park, that's their call. If they decided they wanted certain caches out, that's also their call. There is nothing in my job description as a reviewer that gives me the leeway to refuse to publish caches that conform to guidelines because of the way I personally feel about them.

[+gpsfun]

A paragraph from Briansnat's post above:

For those who dismiss this as a "local issue", as more and more agencies and land managers embrace geocaching it could become your problem too. When I was a reviewer in Utah, their state parks system had started placing their own caches. Often one of their submissions conflicted with an existing cache. I hesitated at first to send my "Sorry your cache is too close to another" note knowing that they could easily write back with "Sorry, the other cache has to go". They never did and simply found a different spot. I'm sure some agencies may not be as accommodating. That's why those of who are in areas with local geocaching organizations need for those organizations to advocate for US. Even if that means standing up for that guy who owns that micro which will cause them to have to skip .1 mile on their new geotrail.

 

On the bolded part above,

 

Briansnat, what might you have done if the the Utah state parks system insisted you archive the cache? I figure you would have to go along with their wish but, if they then submitted another cache in the same spot or general area,,, would you hestiate to publish it? Could you even deny publishment, if the cache met guidelines?

 

Just curious..

Briansnat can certainly respond if he wants, but in general please refrain from requesting site volunteers to respond to hypothetical situations. Reality is tough enough to deal with.

[+hallycat]

This whole situation saddens me. CTTS is an event I and my caching pals look forward to every year and have fond memories of. We have decided to do a different hike that day,

[+briansnat]

This whole situation saddens me. CTTS is an event I and my caching pals look forward to every year and have fond memories of. We have decided to do a different hike that day,

Skigirl and I have decided to do the same. It saddens us to skip this because we haven't missed one yet and it was always one of our favorites of the year. But I couldn't attend in good conscience knowing that this event is a big part of the reason the current cache owners were treated unfairly.

[jholly]

Personally, I would do everything I could to make it as uncomfortable and unpleasant as I could for the land manager and the event sponsor to archive my cache. Unless the container was something more than a L'n'L I would leave it in place. Otherwise I would probably replace it with a log in a baggie. Then force them to file the NA that I would respond to so all will know, including the reviewer. Then, with a bit of luck, I'll have 30 days of enjoyment before my listing is archived. Of course I suppose I won't be able to place another cache in this park. But then maybe that is a good thing.

[+Mudfrog]

A paragraph from Briansnat's post above:

For those who dismiss this as a "local issue", as more and more agencies and land managers embrace geocaching it could become your problem too. When I was a reviewer in Utah, their state parks system had started placing their own caches. Often one of their submissions conflicted with an existing cache. I hesitated at first to send my "Sorry your cache is too close to another" note knowing that they could easily write back with "Sorry, the other cache has to go". They never did and simply found a different spot. I'm sure some agencies may not be as accommodating. That's why those of who are in areas with local geocaching organizations need for those organizations to advocate for US. Even if that means standing up for that guy who owns that micro which will cause them to have to skip .1 mile on their new geotrail.

 

On the bolded part above,

 

Briansnat, what might you have done if the the Utah state parks system insisted you archive the cache? I figure you would have to go along with their wish but, if they then submitted another cache in the same spot or general area,,, would you hestiate to publish it? Could you even deny publishment, if the cache met guidelines?

 

Just curious..

Briansnat can certainly respond if he wants, but in general please refrain from requesting site volunteers to respond to hypothetical situations. Reality is tough enough to deal with.

 

I don't see that my questions to Briansnat were out of line. Allthough i have never met him, he is a person i respect who offers opinions that i value. He stated that he had experienced similar situations where luckily, the outcomes worked out. The feeling that he thought it was wrong was easy to deduce so i was just curious what options he might have if the state park system held it's ground and insisted the existing cache be archived, against wishes of it's owner, so that another cache could be placed.

 

His reply to mine was that he would have to go through with the archiving and then published the new if it met guidelines. Please correct me if i'm wrong but, i get the feeling that this is pretty much because his (all reviewers) hands are tied.

 

I also realize that it's not as simple as doing the right thing. Groundspeak could step up and say no to the new cache placed but unfortunately, them doing so could cause negative repurcussions. Being that this is the case, it's a no win situation for the existing cache and it's owner.

[Keystone]

If their cache conformed to the guidelines it would have been published. A land manger's wishes trump all. If they decided they only want their own caches in a park, that's their call. If they decided they wanted certain caches out, that's also their call. There is nothing in my job description as a reviewer that gives me the leeway to refuse to publish caches that conform to guidelines because of the way I personally feel about them.

This is an excellent answer. I've been faced with the same dilemma on a smaller scale, and the land manager's wishes win. I say "smaller scale" because it was just one or two caches, and there was no perceived or actual collusion between the land manager and any geocacher or group. Our review procedures are set up on this assumption. It's the allegations of collusion that make this discussion so interesting.

 

There are many occasions when a reviewer is compelled to publish a cache that they don't personally "like," because the cache meets the listing guidelines. Otherwise I would never publish a puzzle cache, since I'm too stupid to do them. This is one reason why they call us "reviewers" rather than "approvers."

 

In my review territory there are many land managers with formal permit policies, many of which have permit expiration dates of one or three years. On those lands, there is "natural turnover" of caches over the years, facilitating return visits. I wonder whether the situation in New Jersey would have been different today had such policies been in effect for several years.

[+Mudfrog]

If their cache conformed to the guidelines it would have been published. A land manger's wishes trump all. If they decided they only want their own caches in a park, that's their call. If they decided they wanted certain caches out, that's also their call. There is nothing in my job description as a reviewer that gives me the leeway to refuse to publish caches that conform to guidelines because of the way I personally feel about them.

This is an excellent answer. I've been faced with the same dilemma on a smaller scale, and the land manager's wishes win. I say "smaller scale" because it was just one or two caches, and there was no perceived or actual collusion between the land manager and any geocacher or group. Our review procedures are set up on this assumption. It's the allegations of collusion that make this discussion so interesting.

 

There are many occasions when a reviewer is compelled to publish a cache that they don't personally "like," because the cache meets the listing guidelines. Otherwise I would never publish a puzzle cache, since I'm too stupid to do them. This is one reason why they call us "reviewers" rather than "approvers."

 

In my review territory there are many land managers with formal permit policies, many of which have permit expiration dates of one or three years. On those lands, there is "natural turnover" of caches over the years, facilitating return visits. I wonder whether the situation in New Jersey would have been different today had such policies been in effect for several years.

 

A cacher would know from the get go that his/her cache would expire. The park could plan their own placement around that expiration date but they should not come in before that date and tell someone they have to archive an existing cache because they think they have a better idea and want to place one of their own.

[4wheelin_fool]

As stated in my previous communications, other cache owners were asked to honor the same official request to make room for this family-friendly educational trail featuring geocaches that respect the interpretive themes of the park, namely its history and natural resources. I think you'll find that these geocaches will be more suitable for park visitors of all ages to discover during my monthly geocaching programs.

If the Resource Interpretive Specialist truly wants their Geotrail out there "for park visitors of all ages to discover during my monthly geocaching programs", they could merely list them on a different Geocaching website.

 

That's one thing I don't understand. Should every single cache in a park be made findable and fun for a 5 year old? How about variety? Weathernowcast was asked to archive every one of his hides in the park. Also is it really necessary to start training the young ones to be number hounds so early? I am aware of other caches with micro hating themes being denied as having an agenda, but this series is full of cookie cutter powertrail agenda. There also was no option available for listing the archived caches on another website.

Edited November 29, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Traditional Bill]

This whole situation saddens me. CTTS is an event I and my caching pals look forward to every year and have fond memories of. We have decided to do a different hike that day,

Skigirl and I have decided to do the same. It saddens us to skip this because we haven't missed one yet and it was always one of our favorites of the year. But I couldn't attend in good conscience knowing that this event is a big part of the reason the current cache owners were treated unfairly.

 

Being from south Jersey, I'm not too familiar with a lot of the cachers up north. I had posted a "will attend" log on CTTS #10, as I had just recently met some north Jersey cachers at the most recent LBI event. I thought it'd be neat to branch out and meet some other cachers up north, but I've since rescinded my "will attend" log. It's a shame that the actions of the few have effected so many.

 

With the backlash portrayed by both the local and non-local cachers through this thread as well as other outlets, I'm hopeful that the leaders of this group will rethink the way they go about situations like this in the future. They've already set the precedent for quality and responsible caching in north Jersey, as far as I've heard. They just need to follow their own example and respect their fellow cachers.

[+MKFmly]

Cache placement has always been a first placed/first cache approach and you then work around the saturation guideline.

 

Two issues are at play here:

 

The first is the apparent conflict of interest of a "land owner representative" who is also a geocacher, allegedly using that privileged position to further the interests and agenda of a notable group (and/or their own) via coercion; to the perceived detriment of other cachers and against the generally accepted first placed/first cache approach.

 

The more wide ranging issue is that any notable groups ongoing (generally perceived to be beneficial) relationship with multiple parks (based on this instance) seems to provide the notable group a "monopoly" on the park space for geocaching, certainly in this case the notable group appears to provide a further (binding) level of review above that of Groundspeak.

 

Thus extrapolating to where groups and active individuals carve out their "own" areas and woe to those that poach on "their" preserves. It’s a notable change much like the family farm morphing into large corporate agricultural conglomerates. The forums often discuss the detrimental "large scale" caching approach in series, geoart, groupings, and the oft maligned power trail.

[Keystone]

I just thought of another good example.

 

Several years ago, a local park district wrote to me. Their park system was about to celebrate a big anniversary, and they wanted to place an official land manager geocache in each of their 50 or so parks, so that geocachers could be part of the celebration. How cool is THAT?

 

The problem was, this is a nice park system so many of the parks already had caches in them, and the parks were small local neighborhood parks. I explained the cache saturation guideline to the manager and we also involved Groundspeak in advance of launching the program. Here is what we did:

 

1. The land manager was given a free premium membership so they could easily keep track of the existing caches in their parks.

2. We established a permission policy for future cache placements in the parks. No permit request has been turned down, to my knowledge.

3. The land manager was encouraged to find locations for their official caches that were at least 528 feet away from any "regular" geocaches.

4. If no spot was available that was at least 528 feet away then the cache would be placed as far away as reasonably possible, and Groundspeak preapproved any reasonable exceptions to the cache saturation guideline. I granted many such exceptions with a special publication note saying that it was done by "special arrangement between Groundspeak and the land manager."

 

The program was a big success, and not a single pre-existing cache had to be archived.

 

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing just about anything in geocaching.

[+Traditional Bill]

I just thought of another good example.

 

Several years ago, a local park district wrote to me. Their park system was about to celebrate a big anniversary, and they wanted to place an official land manager geocache in each of their 50 or so parks, so that geocachers could be part of the celebration. How cool is THAT?

 

The problem was, this is a nice park system so many of the parks already had caches in them, and the parks were small local neighborhood parks. I explained the cache saturation guideline to the manager and we also involved Groundspeak in advance of launching the program. Here is what we did:

 

1. The land manager was given a free premium membership so they could easily keep track of the existing caches in their parks.

2. We established a permission policy for future cache placements in the parks. No permit request has been turned down, to my knowledge.

3. The land manager was encouraged to find locations for their official caches that were at least 528 feet away from any "regular" geocaches.

4. If no spot was available that was at least 528 feet away then the cache would be placed as far away as reasonably possible, and Groundspeak preapproved any reasonable exceptions to the cache saturation guideline. I granted many such exceptions with a special publication note saying that it was done by "special arrangement between Groundspeak and the land manager."

 

The program was a big success, and not a single pre-existing cache had to be archived.

 

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing just about anything in geocaching.

 

What a fantastic way to have handled that situation.

 

Working together with EVERYBODY involved in the situation instead of just the land manager is the way to go. Hopefully the leadership at NNJC will consider something of this nature in their next endeavor, instead of the route they've recently chosen.

[+weathernowcast]

I just thought of another good example.

 

Several years ago, a local park district wrote to me. Their park system was about to celebrate a big anniversary, and they wanted to place an official land manager geocache in each of their 50 or so parks, so that geocachers could be part of the celebration. How cool is THAT?

 

The problem was, this is a nice park system so many of the parks already had caches in them, and the parks were small local neighborhood parks. I explained the cache saturation guideline to the manager and we also involved Groundspeak in advance of launching the program. Here is what we did:

 

1. The land manager was given a free premium membership so they could easily keep track of the existing caches in their parks.

2. We established a permission policy for future cache placements in the parks. No permit request has been turned down, to my knowledge.

3. The land manager was encouraged to find locations for their official caches that were at least 528 feet away from any "regular" geocaches.

4. If no spot was available that was at least 528 feet away then the cache would be placed as far away as reasonably possible, and Groundspeak preapproved any reasonable exceptions to the cache saturation guideline. I granted many such exceptions with a special publication note saying that it was done by "special arrangement between Groundspeak and the land manager."

 

The program was a big success, and not a single pre-existing cache had to be archived.

 

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing just about anything in geocaching.

 

Very creative. Very nice. Very friendly.

[+CondorTrax]

I just thought of another good example.

 

Several years ago, a local park district wrote to me. Their park system was about to celebrate a big anniversary, and they wanted to place an official land manager geocache in each of their 50 or so parks, so that geocachers could be part of the celebration. How cool is THAT?

 

The problem was, this is a nice park system so many of the parks already had caches in them, and the parks were small local neighborhood parks. I explained the cache saturation guideline to the manager and we also involved Groundspeak in advance of launching the program. Here is what we did:

 

1. The land manager was given a free premium membership so they could easily keep track of the existing caches in their parks.

2. We established a permission policy for future cache placements in the parks. No permit request has been turned down, to my knowledge.

3. The land manager was encouraged to find locations for their official caches that were at least 528 feet away from any "regular" geocaches.

4. If no spot was available that was at least 528 feet away then the cache would be placed as far away as reasonably possible, and Groundspeak preapproved any reasonable exceptions to the cache saturation guideline. I granted many such exceptions with a special publication note saying that it was done by "special arrangement between Groundspeak and the land manager."

 

The program was a big success, and not a single pre-existing cache had to be archived.

 

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing just about anything in geocaching.

This is the sort of creatively diplomatic approach that would have gone a long way. Not too late to have NNJC adopt this for any of their future initiatives.

[Mr.Yuck]

As stated in my previous communications, other cache owners were asked to honor the same official request to make room for this family-friendly educational trail featuring geocaches that respect the interpretive themes of the park, namely its history and natural resources. I think you'll find that these geocaches will be more suitable for park visitors of all ages to discover during my monthly geocaching programs.

If the Resource Interpretive Specialist truly wants their Geotrail out there "for park visitors of all ages to discover during my monthly geocaching programs", they could merely list them on a different Geocaching website.

 

That's one thing I don't understand. Should every single cache in a park be made findable and fun for a 5 year old? How about variety? Weathernowcast was asked to archive every one of his hides in the park. Also is it really necessary to start training the young ones to be number hounds so early? I am aware of other caches with micro hating themes being denied as having an agenda, but this series is full of cookie cutter powertrail agenda. There also was no option available for listing the archived caches on another website.

 

This is correct, Weathernowcast was not given the option to list his caches on another website. Archive them, or they become the property of The State Park, take it or leave it. And the president of the NNJC is a known user of alternative Geocaching websites. Does this mean the 1,000 find a year Geocacher land manager is behind the archival demands? That's just speculation, I suppose.

[+CondorTrax]

As stated in my previous communications, other cache owners were asked to honor the same official request to make room for this family-friendly educational trail featuring geocaches that respect the interpretive themes of the park, namely its history and natural resources. I think you'll find that these geocaches will be more suitable for park visitors of all ages to discover during my monthly geocaching programs.

If the Resource Interpretive Specialist truly wants their Geotrail out there "for park visitors of all ages to discover during my monthly geocaching programs", they could merely list them on a different Geocaching website.

 

That's one thing I don't understand. Should every single cache in a park be made findable and fun for a 5 year old? How about variety? Weathernowcast was asked to archive every one of his hides in the park. Also is it really necessary to start training the young ones to be number hounds so early? I am aware of other caches with micro hating themes being denied as having an agenda, but this series is full of cookie cutter powertrail agenda. There also was no option available for listing the archived caches on another website.

 

This is correct, Weathernowcast was not given the option to list his caches on another website. Archive them, or they become the property of The State Park, take it or leave it. And the president of the NNJC is a known user of alternative Geocaching websites. Does this mean the 1,000 find a year Geocacher land manager is behind the archival demands? That's just speculation, I suppose.

No speculation. It's very clearly stated in her note to WNC:

 

"The archiving of GC2JJCE (Xmas Presents for Sue&Barry), GC2JFXX (Xmas Presents for Treequest), GC2JFY6 (Xmas Presents for klizich), and GC2JFXR (Xmas Presents for Briansnat) needs to be completed by Friday, November 28, 2013 to allow enough time for the reviewer process of the new geocaches. You have until the end of the calendar year to remove the actual containers, after which they will become property of KVSP."

 

Along with WNC 4 caches, at least 3 other caches were also force-archived: GC38FF8, GC1ZT3K, GC1R7CG.

[+Hippychick1620]

I am a member (as well as treasurer) of the Washington State Geocaching Association (WSGA). Last year we rolled out a statewide State Parks Geotour, in conjunction with the State Park Rangers & land managers. As part of them allowing us to do the Geotour we had to promise to help them clean up caches that were illegally placed (in WA you have to fill out a permit & get approval). As we placed our 103 caches we never once asked someone to archive their already existing cache, as both our group & the park Rangers want all the caches to be brought into compliance rather than be archived. Since I am on the opposite coast I can't speak directly to the matter, just want to show that many states are starting to implement the permit system. That being said, and looking at the history of WSGA I definitely think this situation stinks of hidden agenda. I honestly feel that if this was for the greater good of geocaching the land manager would work to keep the current caches (or finding a way to incorporate them in).

[Keystone]

I honestly feel that if this was for the greater good of geocaching the land manager would work to keep the current caches (or finding a way to incorporate them in).

Great point. In neighboring Pennsylvania, several Geotrails set up by land managers, tourism agencies, etc., made use of existing caches simply by asking their owners to cooperate in the project. All they needed to do was change the cache name slightly to include the series identifier (for example, "AGT") and maybe put a clue, stamp, or special log in their container.

 

Cache owners seemed to like being a part of the bigger project. Their caches are far more popular now, placing high up in the statistics for the most "found it" logs in our state.

[+CondorTrax]

I was just informed why I and another NNJC member were banned from the NNJC Facebook site. Keep in mind that all I did was post this thread on that site with no editorial commentary other than "this is interesting reading", or something to that effect". NNJC directive, apparently is to remove any questionable information relating to their activity from appearing.

 

From their FB moderator:

 

"Last week (NNJC President - name redacted) asked me to take over as moderator of the FB page, which I accepted. I also moderate 3 additional forums and another FB page. When accusations and tempers flare, I moderate. When someone tries to flame another I step in to provide a buffer and cool things off. Right now all that the posting and links are doing is to create more dissent and anger. Those who insist on posting the same thing multiple times, after having it deleted, will be removed from this page until they cool off or cooler heads prevail. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated."

 

My position:

1. I posted the thread twice. The initial post and then after it disappeared. I suppose that can be considered multiple times. Guilty.

2. The posting was meant to be informative and expressed concern over archiving of caches.

3. No emotion was evident and cooler heads were prevalent. No flaming, no tempers flaring

4. There were no personal attacks of any kind.

 

Clearly, NNJC officers decided I was to be cast out as the bad apple. Interesting.

Edited November 30, 2013 by CondorTrax

[+gpsfun]

Topic summary: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton

[+CondorTrax]

Topic summary: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton

 

Ya kill me. I've been having that run through my head all day. The other one is "Cult of Personality"

[+cerberus1]

I was just informed why I and another NNJC member were banned from the NNJC Facebook site. Keep in mind that all I did was post this thread on that site with no editorial commentary other than "this is interesting reading", or something to that effect". NNJC directive, apparently is to remove any questionable information relating to their activity from appearing.

 

From their FB moderator:

 

"Last week (NNJC President - name redacted) asked me to take over as moderator of the FB page, which I accepted. I also moderate 3 additional forums and another FB page. When accusations and tempers flare, I moderate. When someone tries to flame another I step in to provide a buffer and cool things off. Right now all that the posting and links are doing is to create more dissent and anger. Those who insist on posting the same thing multiple times, after having it deleted, will be removed from this page until they cool off or cooler heads prevail. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated."

 

My position:

1. I posted the thread twice. The initial post and then after it disappeared. I suppose that can be considered multiple times. Guilty.

2. The posting was meant to be informative and expressed concern over archiving of caches.

3. No emotion was evident and cooler heads were prevalent. No flaming, no tempers flaring

4. There were no personal attacks of any kind.

 

Clearly, NNJC officers decided I was to be cast out as the bad apple. Interesting.

Pretty boring conversations if everyone has to agree with each other or face "time out".

[+Traditional Bill]

I was just informed why I and another NNJC member were banned from the NNJC Facebook site. Keep in mind that all I did was post this thread on that site with no editorial commentary other than "this is interesting reading", or something to that effect". NNJC directive, apparently is to remove any questionable information relating to their activity from appearing.

 

From their FB moderator:

 

"Last week (NNJC President - name redacted) asked me to take over as moderator of the FB page, which I accepted. I also moderate 3 additional forums and another FB page. When accusations and tempers flare, I moderate. When someone tries to flame another I step in to provide a buffer and cool things off. Right now all that the posting and links are doing is to create more dissent and anger. Those who insist on posting the same thing multiple times, after having it deleted, will be removed from this page until they cool off or cooler heads prevail. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated."

 

My position:

1. I posted the thread twice. The initial post and then after it disappeared. I suppose that can be considered multiple times. Guilty.

2. The posting was meant to be informative and expressed concern over archiving of caches.

3. No emotion was evident and cooler heads were prevalent. No flaming, no tempers flaring

4. There were no personal attacks of any kind.

 

Clearly, NNJC officers decided I was to be cast out as the bad apple. Interesting.

 

A time out? Really? You tried to open the doors for debate on an issue happening in the NNJC community and in return you are issued a time out.

 

The members of NNJC have the right to be informed of what's happening in THEIR community as well as agree or disagree respectfully. There's absolutely no reason why this issue should be hidden from the members of NNJC.

 

There's a display of power happening within this group which I believe should have no place within a geocaching community. It's a community, after all. Leadership? Yes, but not a dictatorship.

 

"There must be no balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but organized peace."

-Woodrow T. Wilson

[+kelkavcvt]

The new moderator of the NNJC FB page just deleted the current conversation after someone said: "The initial post should stand so the rebuttal above makes sense to the NNJC community. PS: The NNJC has no right messing with a cacher's privilege. I am so disappointed in the NNJC officers' approach." The moderator's response: "K****n you are right, so this post is being deleted." ... and poof it was gone. No chance of NNJC members hearing about what's going on via FB.

[+CondorTrax]

So after NNJC members expressed their concern and dissatisfaction with the NNJC officers' methodology and banishment practice, the FB Moderator hit the archive key and deleted the conversation (my wife is an active member and former officer and still has access to NNJC so I could still see what was going on). Seems ironic that they not only archive caches they don't like or are in their way, but do the same when FB conversations (which were very polite) weren't going their way.

[+Traditional Bill]

So after NNJC members expressed their concern and dissatisfaction with the NNJC officers' methodology and banishment practice, the FB Moderator hit the archive key and deleted the conversation (my wife is an active member and former officer and still has access to NNJC so I could still see what was going on). Seems ironic that they not only archive caches they don't like or are in their way, but do the same when FB conversations (which were very polite) weren't going their way.

 

At least they don't have the right to archive geocachers entirely. I'm sure if that was the case....most of the cachers in this thread would have already been purged.

[+CondorTrax]

I was just informed why I and another NNJC member were banned from the NNJC Facebook site. Keep in mind that all I did was post this thread on that site with no editorial commentary other than "this is interesting reading", or something to that effect". NNJC directive, apparently is to remove any questionable information relating to their activity from appearing.

 

From their FB moderator:

 

"Last week (NNJC President - name redacted) asked me to take over as moderator of the FB page, which I accepted. I also moderate 3 additional forums and another FB page. When accusations and tempers flare, I moderate. When someone tries to flame another I step in to provide a buffer and cool things off. Right now all that the posting and links are doing is to create more dissent and anger. Those who insist on posting the same thing multiple times, after having it deleted, will be removed from this page until they cool off or cooler heads prevail. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated."

 

My position:

1. I posted the thread twice. The initial post and then after it disappeared. I suppose that can be considered multiple times. Guilty.

2. The posting was meant to be informative and expressed concern over archiving of caches.

3. No emotion was evident and cooler heads were prevalent. No flaming, no tempers flaring

4. There were no personal attacks of any kind.

 

Clearly, NNJC officers decided I was to be cast out as the bad apple. Interesting.

 

A time out? Really? You tried to open the doors for debate on an issue happening in the NNJC community and in return you are issued a time out.

 

The members of NNJC have the right to be informed of what's happening in THEIR community as well as agree or disagree respectfully. There's absolutely no reason why this issue should be hidden from the members of NNJC.

 

There's a display of power happening within this group which I believe should have no place within a geocaching community. It's a community, after all. Leadership? Yes, but not a dictatorship.

 

"There must be no balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but organized peace."

-Woodrow T. Wilson

What bothered me, and maybe I expressed this earlier, was that my attempt to inform was purged without notice or warning and that the rebuttal from their President was allowed to stand. It left the NNJC membership with a defensive argument (the rebuttal) without a clear premise of why the long explanation and assumed justification of archiving was put in place to begin with.

 

I sincerely hope that NNJC officers have had an opportunity to absorb the salient points made here (assuming they were allowed to visit this forum) and understand that their tactic is not beneficial to anyone. I also hope that they will apologize to the affected cachers who had their caches force-archived, apologize to those who were banned for expressing an opinion and informing their membership, and finally, re-think their practice of forcing a "privilege" onto those who have rights as cachers.

 

This is a game. Period. Let's all play nice.

Edited November 30, 2013 by CondorTrax

[Mr.Yuck]

The new moderator of the NNJC FB page just deleted the current conversation after someone said: "The initial post should stand so the rebuttal above makes sense to the NNJC community. PS: The NNJC has no right messing with a cacher's privilege. I am so disappointed in the NNJC officers' approach." The moderator's response: "K****n you are right, so this post is being deleted." ... and poof it was gone. No chance of NNJC members hearing about what's going on via FB.

 

I don't have a FaceSpace account. And I actually do know that term is no longer relevant, since MySpace is dead. But it was funny in like 2010, wasn't it? Dudes. You cannot be deleting threads, or whatever they call them over there. Own up to this one. Ya' done screwed up. Tell us it won't happen again.

[+cheech gang]

It appears the Grand Poobah's Facebook statement has now been removed as well. Everything is all butterflies and unicorns again over in Northern NJ.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Obviously land managers have the final say. Yes, geocaching in these places is a privilege and not a right.

 

I agree. On the other hand, listing geocaches on the geocaching web site is a privilege and not a right. Land managers may be able to force the archival of caches on the property they manage but that can't force Groundspeak to list their new caches.

 

 

[+nikcap]

.... I honestly feel that if this was for the greater good of geocaching the land manager would work to keep the current caches (or finding a way to incorporate them in).

 

Three of my caches were victim to archival for the Geo-Trail placed in Griggstown, This was my believe too. While I did have permission from the parks department and collaborated on the cache page write ups with the park manager, when the time came to create the Geo-Trail, I was informed that my caches had to go after living there for happily for 6 years.

 

I'm under the impression now that there is a hidden agenda, on top of a lot of unsavory and childish behaviors going on with that group.

At this point, I really regret that I gave into the archive request so easily without a proper discussion with the land manager again. While ultimately, archiving my caches was best for me, it wasn't best for the community and I apologies to my local communities for setting this precedent

[+gpsfun]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

I've been around a while and have seen many geocaching organizations. My observation is that increasing the level of structure increases the level of drama in a directly proportional manner. The very loosely knit organizations (and communication mechanisms) have the least interpersonal conflict because the control oriented individuals can be easily ignored.

[4wheelin_fool]

.... I honestly feel that if this was for the greater good of geocaching the land manager would work to keep the current caches (or finding a way to incorporate them in).

 

Three of my caches were victim to archival for the Geo-Trail placed in Griggstown, This was my belief too. While I did have permission from the parks department and collaborated on the cache page write ups with the park manager, when the time came to create the Geo-Trail, I was informed that my caches had to go after living there for happily for 6 years.

 

I'm under the impression now that there is a hidden agenda, on top of a lot of unsavory and childish behaviors going on with that group.

At this point, I really regret that I gave into the archive request so easily without a proper discussion with the land manager again. While ultimately, archiving my caches was best for me, it wasn't best for the community and I apologies to my local communities for setting this precedent

 

The agenda is rather obvious as the intent is to sanitize the area from all other placements, and prevent anyone else from playing there. Here is a map of the Griggstown caches The hides are splayed around grid style every 528 feet for the sole purpose of preventing future hides by anyone else. I fail to see how this is better for the environment in any way. The 4 caches that were there did not cause any problems, they just did not fit the vision of what someone thinks a cache should be. They are saying that your permissions from the park department and collaboration on the cache page from the park manager either did not exist, or was not as good as theirs.

 

Franklin wanted all previous geocaches removed as they want to be in charge of their park and in their opinion they were unauthorized and they wanted the geotrail to cover the entire park.

 

This isn't the end of it either.

 

There are more ahead, I have been in meetings with peaquest fish and wildlife and they want a lot of micro caches removed, 2 weeks ago I was asked to attend a Randolph town planning meeting as they want all geocaching placements to stop after a powertrail ran all through their town,

 

Are these towns reaching out because they are having genuine issues? Or is someone first contacting them and telling them what the "problem" is, and offering to fix it? In Kittany Valley, the placements had permission as well, but suddenly they were no good.

[+cheech gang]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

I've been around a while and have seen many geocaching organizations. My observation is that increasing the level of structure increases the level of drama in a directly proportional manner. The very loosely knit organizations (and communication mechanisms) have the least interpersonal conflict because the control oriented individuals can be easily ignored.

 

Agreed. More folderol results in more foofaraw. Our Northwest Ohio Geocachers Organization has that word in the name and that is about it...

[+Packanack]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

 

Oh, don't be so quick to conclude that. NNJC has some very fine people in its membership. We coult some really great humans behind the geocaching names. It is in an evolutionary transition and perhaps has lost sight of its goal of promoting quality caching experiences for cachers locally. There is no doubt in my mind that the gang of four ( jokingly named) will see fit to admit that they were heavy handed in their approach, their motivations were pure in that they wanted to put together an event, but overdid it.

If NNJC were to disappear tomorrow, I would be left with the idea that some lifelong friendships were made through shared experiences imitated through caching. I can always look to my home town park, High Mountain Reservation for proof of the impact of NNJC , taking it from a trashy mess to a beautiful hiking spot.

 

This is a misstep , that is all, brought about by insufficient attention to the community culture of mutuality of civility and respect. It will be made right and there will be no repeat.

 

Geocaching originated with a sandlot quality, hey let's go for a hike. that it now has to have a formulaic approach perhaps is the reason this situation arose. Feeding the maw of the insatiable numbers cachers at the expense of a quality experience is now subjected to overdue scrutiny . NNJC is just first to confront it headon.

 

we will get back to the let's go for a hike approach soon enough, returning to doing service to broader community, introducing others to our game, enjoying the outdoors and above all each other. It is a squabble not a war.

[+JBnW]

I was just informed why I and another NNJC member were banned from the NNJC Facebook site. Keep in mind that all I did was post this thread on that site with no editorial commentary other than "this is interesting reading", or something to that effect". NNJC directive, apparently is to remove any questionable information relating to their activity from appearing.

 

From their FB moderator:

 

"Last week (NNJC President - name redacted) asked me to take over as moderator of the FB page, which I accepted. I also moderate 3 additional forums and another FB page. When accusations and tempers flare, I moderate. When someone tries to flame another I step in to provide a buffer and cool things off. Right now all that the posting and links are doing is to create more dissent and anger. Those who insist on posting the same thing multiple times, after having it deleted, will be removed from this page until they cool off or cooler heads prevail. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated."

 

My position:

1. I posted the thread twice. The initial post and then after it disappeared. I suppose that can be considered multiple times. Guilty.

2. The posting was meant to be informative and expressed concern over archiving of caches.

3. No emotion was evident and cooler heads were prevalent. No flaming, no tempers flaring

4. There were no personal attacks of any kind.

 

Clearly, NNJC officers decided I was to be cast out as the bad apple. Interesting.

 

A time out? Really? You tried to open the doors for debate on an issue happening in the NNJC community and in return you are issued a time out.

 

The members of NNJC have the right to be informed of what's happening in THEIR community as well as agree or disagree respectfully. There's absolutely no reason why this issue should be hidden from the members of NNJC.

 

There's a display of power happening within this group which I believe should have no place within a geocaching community. It's a community, after all. Leadership? Yes, but not a dictatorship.

 

"There must be no balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but organized peace."

-Woodrow T. Wilson

What bothered me, and maybe I expressed this earlier, was that my attempt to inform was purged without notice or warning and that the rebuttal from their President was allowed to stand. It left the NNJC membership with a defensive argument (the rebuttal) without a clear premise of why the long explanation and assumed justification of archiving was put in place to begin with.

 

I sincerely hope that NNJC officers have had an opportunity to absorb the salient points made here (assuming they were allowed to visit this forum) and understand that their tactic is not beneficial to anyone. I also hope that they will apologize to the affected cachers who had their caches force-archived, apologize to those who were banned for expressing an opinion and informing their membership, and finally, re-think their practice of forcing a "privilege" onto those who have rights as cachers.

 

This is a game. Period. Let's all play nice.

 

Completely agree with this. Sorry to the folks who've been railroaded during this ordeal, but it seems this train's been rolling for quite a while:

 

From The Groundspeak Blog, nomination for September:

the success of NNJC is a testament to Old Navy’s wizardry “behind the curtain."

 

This was apparently written after the Griggstown episode of the same sad story.

 

What's really odd is why this behavior gets so publicly rewarded?

 

edit: quotation code

Edited November 30, 2013 by JBnW

[+giddeanx]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

I've been around a while and have seen many geocaching organizations. My observation is that increasing the level of structure increases the level of drama in a directly proportional manner. The very loosely knit organizations (and communication mechanisms) have the least interpersonal conflict because the control oriented individuals can be easily ignored.

Having worked for an international fraternal organization I agree wholeheartedly. Structured organizations need strong bylaws otherwise members have no recourse for leadership's wrong doing.

[+hallycat]

 

This is a misstep , that is all, brought about by insufficient attention to the community culture of mutuality of civility and respect. It will be made right and there will be no repeat.

 

 

I certainly hope you are right. I think we are all a little shocked and saddened by the way this was handled. Even though I am on Long Island, I consider myself a part of this NNJC community where I have made many friendships including the folks who (mistakenly) overstepped in this instance. I think I speak for many in this community when I say we'd accept an apology and a pledge to take this incident into consideration when planning future endeavors. Then we can all get back to walking in the woods sharing good times.

 

 

[+briansnat]

It appears the Grand Poobah's Facebook statement has now been removed as well. Everything is all butterflies and unicorns again over in Northern NJ.

 

You'd think so from looking at that FB page, as all discussion of the subject is apparently verboten. It's odd that a page meant for discussing geocaching in northern NJ is suppressing all conversation about this important issue. The heavy handed moderating and this circling of the wagons by the NNJC hierarchy is only making things worse. If they think that the issue will go away simply by preventing discussion in that forum, they are wrong. By preventing an frank discussion there, it's spawning FB pages where the issue can be discussed without censorship. Unfortunately those who might benefit the most from knowing how a large part of the geocaching community feels about what happened won't see a word.

 

You only have to move to the nearby region's FB pages (Lower Hudson for one) to find out things are far from butterflies and unicorns and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Edited November 30, 2013 by briansnat

[+SwineFlew]

I smell conflict of interest(s).

[+briansnat]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

 

Oh, don't be so quick to conclude that. NNJC has some very fine people in its membership. We coult some really great humans behind the geocaching names. It is in an evolutionary transition and perhaps has lost sight of its goal of promoting quality caching experiences for cachers locally. There is no doubt in my mind that the gang of four ( jokingly named) will see fit to admit that they were heavy handed in their approach, their motivations were pure in that they wanted to put together an event, but overdid it.

If NNJC were to disappear tomorrow, I would be left with the idea that some lifelong friendships were made through shared experiences imitated through caching. I can always look to my home town park, High Mountain Reservation for proof of the impact of NNJC , taking it from a trashy mess to a beautiful hiking spot.

 

This is a misstep , that is all, brought about by insufficient attention to the community culture of mutuality of civility and respect. It will be made right and there will be no repeat.

 

Geocaching originated with a sandlot quality, hey let's go for a hike. that it now has to have a formulaic approach perhaps is the reason this situation arose. Feeding the maw of the insatiable numbers cachers at the expense of a quality experience is now subjected to overdue scrutiny . NNJC is just first to confront it headon.

 

we will get back to the let's go for a hike approach soon enough, returning to doing service to broader community, introducing others to our game, enjoying the outdoors and above all each other. It is a squabble not a war.

 

I agree with this. I actually think John & co. meant well. I blame in part the numbers obsession and the pursuit of that sacred +1 that so many cachers have. It creates a climate that that makes event sponsors believe they need to provide plenty of new caches to find, lest people not attend. I believe John thought he was providing a service by swapping out old caches that most of the usual event attendees had already found with fresh ones for them to find. This has been a common practice in the past when the event returned to a previous venue. The only difference in the past was that the other cache owners were on board with the cache churning. This time they ran into one who liked his cache placements just fine thank you and they handled it thoughtlessly.

Edited November 30, 2013 by briansnat

[Clan Riffster]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

 

Oh, don't be so quick to conclude that.

Given the recent history, I think that's a perfect conclusion.

There is no room in this hobby for this kind of behavior.

 

NNJC has some very fine people in its membership.

I have no doubt. I have yet to see a geocaching group which didn't have some very fine people in its membership. The issue here is not the members. Due to the heavy handed censorship of their Faceybook page, it is possible that most members don't even know the full story here. From their perspective, all they'll see is roses in bloom, butterflys flittering and birds singing, as they sign the logs on the caches across the park.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the gang of four ( jokingly named) will see fit to admit that they were heavy handed in their approach, their motivations were pure in that they wanted to put together an event, but overdid it.

Not a chance. Assuming, for argument's sake, that an individual, or small group of individuals, believes that forcing out established, long surviving caches, so they fill the park with their caches, is good for the community, there is no way such an individual or group could even view their actions as wrong, much less admit such publicly.

 

This is a misstep , that is all, brought about by insufficient attention to the community culture of mutuality of civility and respect. It will be made right and there will be no repeat.

Sorry. But this was so much more than a 'misstep'. This was a deliberate misuse of authority, trampling the little guy in a bid to promote one particular vision regarding how this game should be played. Your attempts at minimizing what the leadership of <group name redacted> did is an insult. There is a way this could be 'made right', though I doubt those responsible will do so.

 

First, the <group name redacted> leadership needs to be completely open about what has occurred. All sides of this sad tale needs to be told to the members. So long as they practice selective censorship, this won't happen. Then, the archived caches need to be restored. This is not subject to debate. So long as the archived caches are not restored, nothing will be 'made right'. Lastly, any leader in the <group name redacted> who did not actively oppose this behavior needs to resign, effective immediately. This awesome caching group does not deserve to have this type of leadership.

 

It is a squabble not a war.

Again, with the minimizing? While I grant you this trouncing of other cachers is not a war, I think it is certainly more than a squabble. I would rate this as an insulting violation of a small handful of cachers. This must not be allowed to stand. Whatever steps the members need to take to get rid of those who allowed this abomination to occur should be welcome.

 

(Edit to remove group names and geographic labels)

Edited November 30, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[+hallycat]

[sorry. But this was so much more than a 'misstep'. This was a deliberate misuse of authority, trampling the little guy in a bid to promote one particular vision regarding how this game should be played. Your attempts at minimizing what the leadership of NNJC did is an insult. There is a way this could be 'made right', though I doubt anyone with a large enough ego to engage in shenanigans like this will do so.

 

First, the NNJC leadership needs to be completely open about what has occurred. All sides of this sad tale needs to be told to the members. So long as they practice selective censorship, this won't happen. Then, the archived caches need to be restored. This is not subject to debate. So long as the archived caches are not restored, nothing will be 'made right'. Lastly, any leader in the NNJC who did not actively oppose this heavy handed bullying needs to resign, effective immediately. This awesome caching group does not deserve to have this type of leadership.

 

It is a squabble not a war.

Again, with the minimizing? While I grant you this trouncing of other cachers is not a war, I think it is certainly more than a squabble. I would rate this as an insulting violation of a small handful of cachers. This must not be allowed to stand. Whatever steps the members need to take to get rid of those who allowed this abomination to occur should be welcome.

 

.

People make mistakes, this isn't the US government here, these are our friends and caching companions.

CR, this is not your community nor your friends. Get over yourself, you are acting like you have a horse in this race.

 

 

[+BAMBOOZLE]

For some time now its been grieving me that folks think they have to put out plenty new caches for an event to be successful....maybe to get lots of folks to come , you do, and if so that's sad. I look forward to events to visit with friends that , in many cases, I haven't seen in a year or two and good food is always great. I must admit, though, its not long until we're sitting by our self's as everyone goes out for the caches. I can cache anytime but socializing with cacher's is rare......many times my wife has to remind me to log the event.

It is what it is and I don't think things are likely to change.

[Keystone]

Yes, Clan Riffster, I ironically need to ask you to dial it back a notch. It's ironic because you're now on the opposite side of the "defend the group / attack the group" argument as the last time I asked you to dial it back a notch.