Legit hide or rule violation?

[+Sageboy01]

On 11/14/2017 at 11:18 AM, ZeppelinDT said:

So I came across this placement recently.  Looks to me like the hole was created specifically for this cache and container, especially given the size and proportions of the cache hole and the fact that it in no way resembles any of the much smaller holes in this tree and in the surrounding trees.  But of course unless there happened to be a security camera set up randomly in the middle of the woods that also happened to be running when the cache was placed, there's no way to really "prove" that the hole was created specifically for the cache, and the CO can very easily just claim that the hole was already there.

So really I'm just curious as to what people think about hides like this and how they should be handled.  Do you just shrug and look the other way?  Is it worth reporting?  And even if it is reported, is there anything that can really even be done?

 

"

Now when I say rule breaker I mean, not fair not fair, I would be left puzzled.... lol! Lighten up folks.lol

[+niraD]

9 minutes ago, Sageboy01 said:

Rule breaker!!

Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

[+niraD]

4 minutes ago, Sageboy01 said:

Now when I say rule breaker I mean, not fair not fair, I would be left puzzled.... lol! Lighten up folks.lol

Ah, so you don't really mean that you think it's a rule violation. Got it.

[+Sageboy01]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

Ah, so you don't really mean that you think it's a rule violation. Got it.

Too many possibilities to place my judgement on. I would enjoy being trumped by this. Lol

[+Sageboy01]

I personally like devious caches. Especially the fun ones. I don’t get a lot of favorites, maybe because when it’s devious it’s not a park and grab. .. lol.. honestly, I’m going to start more swag caches because new cachers  need incentive. It’s not rewarding or fun when you go into a forest and a few things are unrewarding like, nasty caches, no swag and unkept caches or hard puzzles with no reward. Even a spider ring would of been rewarding. Lmao

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

You just described how a cache cop works.

It's sad that you think that talking to a CO about a possible problem makes one a cache cop, but if everyone thinks like you do, that would explain why everything seems so messed up to me.

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

If I see a problem, I have no use for "bad assumption" as the problem exists regardless the reason.

The whole point of the case we're discussing is that it's unclear whether there's been a rule violation at all. For all the OP knows, the situation was fully disclosed with the cache submission and has already been approved by a reviewer. Yes, of course, when you're convinced it's a problem, post an NM. But that's still no reason to report it to a reviewer.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

When you leave a log on their cache page they get an email.

In the log, you're only going to say "Should be a small." because, after all, that's all the general population needs to hear. The CO will just say, "Well, I think it should be a micro." The fact that the log gets sent to the CO in e-mail is completely beside the point.

If you really think the size is wrong, I'd expect you to send the CO a note with more details such as describing the container you found in case it wasn't what the CO hid and citing whichever standard you're using to say the posted size isn't right. Only if you've done your homework do I think you have a right to expect the CO to respond.

[+arisoft]

25 minutes ago, dprovan said:

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

You just described how a cache cop works.

It's sad that you think that talking to a CO about a possible problem makes one a cache cop, but if everyone thinks like you do, that would explain why everything seems so messed up to me.

No... I did not mean that.

Yes, report what you see to the CO and talk it over with him. You don't need the reviewer involved unless the CO's response doesn't satisfy you.

That's what I meant. Can you see the difference?

Edited November 15, 2017 by arisoft

[GPS-Hermit]

I think a note to the CO is the best response from the beginning because you need more information!. There is no need in this case to try to 2nd guess his response. Let him speak for himself.  I have hidden 1 cache in a dead tree and 2 in hollow live trees and they all fell down! A dead tree could be a short lived cache location! If it is dead the biggest worry is having it fall over and having to archive or re-hide the cache! The worst response I ever got from a CO is just simply no response at all! Most are well meaning folks! Give them at respectfully thought out inquiry and await the response! Go from there!

[Keystone]

2 hours ago, GPS-Hermit said:

I think a note to the CO is the best response from the beginning because you need more information!. There is no need in this case to try to 2nd guess his response. Let him speak for himself.  I have hidden 1 cache in a dead tree and 2 in hollow live trees and they all fell down! A dead tree could be a short lived cache location! If it is dead the biggest worry is having it fall over and having to archive or re-hide the cache! The worst response I ever got from a CO is just simply no response at all! Most are well meaning folks! Give them at respectfully thought out inquiry and await the response! Go from there!

Correct.  If this cache were brought to my attention as a reviewer, I would need to know (1) whether the tree is alive or dead, and (2) whether the CO had explicit permission for the hide.  The CO knows the answers to these two questions.  I would not, unless the information is on the cache page or in an archived pre-publication reviewer note.

[+dprovan]

On 11/15/2017 at 3:51 PM, arisoft said:

That's what I meant. Can you see the difference?

No.

[+L0ne.R]

On 11/15/2017 at 3:41 PM, dprovan said:

You don't need the reviewer involved unless the CO's response doesn't satisfy you.

What if the owner says "Yeah, I drilled into the tree." Then what would your response be?

[+dprovan]

 

23 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

On 11/15/2017 at 0:41 PM, dprovan said:

You don't need the reviewer involved unless the CO's response doesn't satisfy you.

What if the owner says "Yeah, I drilled into the tree." Then what would your response be?

Well, I wouldn't have brought it up to begin with, but if you're asking the CO because you feel strongly about drill holes, then I assume that response wouldn't satisfy you (assuming it didn't include an explanation for why the reviewer approved it despite the drilling), so then you'd talk to a reviewer.