Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Doc_musketeers

How to deal with negligent CO

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I’m unclear if this is meant facetiously, or you still don’t understand that (a) I don’t want these caches to disappear,

As far as I know, you have done everything what you can do to get rid of these caches. I have misunderstood your intentions because you say that this is not what you wanted. My false premise has lead to assumption that you want to participate and bring you own responsively maintained caches instead to increase the number of findable caches.

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Stop viewing it from your point of view, or guessing at mine. Nomex explained that this “issue” as he phrased it, is something that he has to deal with and it can be overwhelming. This is an issue that effects the game.

This is interesting:

4 hours ago, Nomex said:

This batch only involved Disabling.

It was not long ago when I wrote:

On 10.2.2018 at 0:17 AM, arisoft said:

I am very surprised that you are more interested about the time used to fix the cache after it is disabled than time used to disable the cache when it is needed. The latter one should be more important factor when you identify negligent COs.

My interpretation is that Nomex focused on precisely the issue which I prefer more important than you. Your answer was something like this:

On 10.2.2018 at 0:28 AM, Doc_musketeers said:

I’m not the cache police. I don’t need a way to identify negligent cache ownership. “I know it when I see it.” There is no way for me to gauge “how long” it took a CO to Disable a Cache. 

Anyway, whatever the intentions really was or wasn't is not important. The important thing is that the halt in the supervision has ended and things are going on as expected. Franky, I would not have guessed that the situation which bothered you was fundamentally an administrative blunder.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 Franky, I would not have guessed that the situation which bothered you was fundamentally an administrative blunder.

I think my (multiple) previous explanations have made my real concerns clear to most readers. But this last statement has to be addressed:

”Administrative blunder?” How do you figure that? Whose blunder? Surely you aren’t implying Nomex is somehow not on task? The only “blunder” is the lack of response from COs. The fact that Nomex is simply unable to focus on 300-500 troubled caches doesn’t reflect on him, it reflects on the non-responsive owners of those caches.

(Incidentally, of the 20 or so caches apparently disabled in my area, I am only aware of 2. I posted NMs on these two, not NAs.)

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

”Administrative blunder?” How do you figure that

I got the idea from this:

5 hours ago, Nomex said:

I'll readily admit that my usual PQ's kind of miss the Northern sections of the State where the OP is from, due to the large metropolitan and urban areas around SF and Sacramento that tend to consume most of my available time.

I have no reason to suspect this statement. It is resonable explanation and easy to fix.

20 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Incidentally, of the 20 or so caches apparently disabled in my area, I am only aware of 2. I posted NMs on these two, not NAs

You have been too kind with your NAs. More NAs may have called for help before the situation escalated.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I got the idea from this:

5 hours ago, Nomex said:

I'll readily admit that my usual PQ's kind of miss the Northern sections of the State where the OP is from, due to the large metropolitan and urban areas around SF and Sacramento that tend to consume most of my available time.

I have no reason to suspect this statement. It is resonable explanation and easy to fix.

it IS easy to fix. COs can maintain their caches in a timely manner.

Nomex’s admission shows that the issue of poorly maintained caches and non-responsive owners forces him to prioritize certain areas. If more of those COs were taking care of their own responsibility, Nomex would be able to focus on what should be outliers: truly inactive owners, guideline violations, etc. throughout his whole area of responsibility.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

it IS easy to fix. COs can maintain their caches in a timely manner.

I think that here is the issue. I have a pragmatic view for the topic and you have an idealistic view. In my reality, there is no way to make CO to fix a cache faster that he is able and willing to do. In your reality there might be some way, such as condemn the owner in social media. The main problem in my view is that the negligent CO is not communicating. Most likely he is not reading any logs posted to his caches. Not even TDl or PRN logs not to even mention A type logs. That geocacher may be active in other parts of the game but problems in communication lead to premature archiving which is pity but inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, arisoft said:

You have been too kind with your NAs. More NAs may have called for help before the situation escalated.

Why would I post an NA when what was needed was maintenance? I was under the impression you thought postponed maintenance shouldn’t be a concern. Your statement practically blames me for allowing “the situation to escalate.”

The situation escalated when the COs ignored descriptive DNF logs and NM logs for months. I did my “duty” by calling attention to the situation as I had experienced it. I have no obligation nor desire to make the next assumption, that the cache should be archived. My suggesting that by posting an NA would be exactly the sort of “cache police” action that we both agree isn’t productive. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

The truth is Rules are only needed when people refuse to follow the principles of Guidelines. If you want your “right” to choose how and when to maintain your cache, do so in a responsible way that shows you understand and respect the guidelines.

Maintaining existing caches doesn’t become less important as the number of cachers (and caches) grows, it becomes more important!

Very insightful. Well said. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I think that here is the issue. I have a pragmatic view for the topic and you have an idealistic view. In my reality, there is no way to make CO to fix a cache faster that he is able and willing to do. In your reality there might be some way, such as condemn the owner in social media. The main problem in my view is that the negligent CO is not communicating. Most likely he is not reading any logs posted to his caches. Not even TDl or PRN logs not to even mention A type logs. That geocacher may be active in other parts of the game but problems in communication lead to premature archiving which is pity but inevitable.

If a CO isn’t reading logs- even noticing NM’s and Reviewer notes, for months on end, they should not own the cache! There could be legal or safety issues involved.

And yes, I’m at least optimistic if not idealistic about the potential for players to properly care for THEIR game. I definitely would hope that the more of us that express ourselves, and the more we understand how negligence effects the Reviewers, we might take maintenance a bit more seriously.

I have never intended to condemn anyone, especially in public. But I can’t ignore expressions that practically encourage an apathetic attitude without commenting.

Ive had wrong viewpoints in this game, misunderstandings of guidelines and the ignorance of a newbie. I learn from being corrected. It’s a good thing.

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Why would I post an NA when what was needed was maintenance? I was under the impression you thought postponed maintenance shouldn’t be a concern. Your statement practically blames me for allowing “the situation to escalate.”

dadgum, you can read between the lines. :DAlthough there is only one line.

Yes, in my reality I could blame you for your negligence. Why didn't you fix the cache when it was possible? You knew that the owner did not do it, you were not any better. I know you to are not committed to maintaining it but neither is the CO as you see from the hard evidence. Do not be scared, but I'm not going to do this. It's just my imagination - a parallel reality.

 

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

If a CO isn’t reading logs- even noticing NM’s and Reviewer notes, for months on end, they should not own the cache! There could be legal or safety issues involved.

Here in Finland I have seen that reviewers tries to check that the new cache owner has the ability to communicate before they publish the first cache.

No legal issues should exists due to disclaimers and safety has been never guaranteed. People have died while searching a cache. Do not trust the CO in that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Yes, in my reality I could blame you for your negligence. Why didn't you fixed the cache when it was possible? You knew that the owner did not do it, you were not any better. I know you to are not committed to maintaining it but neither is the CO as you see from the hard evidence. Do not be scared, but I'm not going to do this. It's just my imagination - a parallel reality.

 

To quote from the guidelines:

Quote

To keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

  • Visit the geocache regularly.
  • Fix reported problems (such as replace full or wet logbook, replace broken or missing container).
  • Make sure the location is appropriate and change it if necessary.
  • Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived.

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

I see nothing in there about cache seekers or reviewers being responsible for maintaining caches.

Oh, and in an ideal world, the reviewers should only have to spend their precious time doing what they're paid to do, which is to review and publish new caches. What a sad and sorry mess this has all become, and maybe it's time for cache owners who don't maintain their existing caches in a timely manner to start losing the right to list new caches as a matter of course.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, arisoft said:

dadgum, you can read between the lines. :DAlthough there is only one line.

Yes, in my reality I could blame you for your negligence. Why didn't you fixed the cache when it was possible? You knew that the owner did not do it, you were not any better. I know you to are not committed to maintaining it but neither is the CO as you see from the hard evidence. Do not be scared, but I'm not going to do this. It's just my imagination - a parallel reality.

 

Actually we go out if our way to repair others’ caches when it is appropriate. Bison tube or match container has cracked o-ring? We are trying to build a collection so we can fix that. Wet log? We have a rite-in-the-rain notebook and leave a sheet. But broken or missing container? We don’t do throw downs. It’s not even “not my problem” it’s “not my right.”

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I see nothing in there about cache seekers or reviewers being responsible for maintaining caches.

When I refer to my imagination it is not supposed to be found from the Bible nor the Guidelines. :P

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, arisoft said:

When I refer to my imagination it is not supposed to be found from the Bible nor the Guidelines. :P

When playing a game that involves other people and has guidelines, imagination is not the best source of procedural information

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Nomex said:

Finished up a 50 mile radius in the OP's area.  Hopefully that will improve the situation a bit.

I also dedicated the weekend to reviewer's cache maintenance duties.

Number of new caches reviewed or published, Friday to Sunday:  2

Number of maintenance logs (archive, disable, reviewer note) placed on existing caches, Friday to Sunday:  71

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Actually we go out if our way to repair others’ caches when it is appropriate. Bison tube or match container has cracked o-ring? We are trying to build a collection so we can fix that. Wet log? We have a rite-in-the-rain notebook and leave a sheet. But broken or missing container? We don’t do throw downs. It’s not even “not my problem” it’s “not my right.”

Yes, I know this and appreciate a lot. Throwdown is the case when there is no cache at all and you plant a new one into a random hide. I wouldn't say it a throwdown if you change a broken container to a good one. Some geocachers do not encourage cache repairing this way because they want a new cache and a new find to the statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, arisoft said:

No legal issues should exists due to disclaimers and safety has been never guaranteed. People have died while searching a cache. Do not trust the CO in that matter.

Excuse me? When an angry property manager is demanding a particular cache be removed and the CO is not responding, and the cache stays in place far too long, no disclaimer is going to stop the negative reputation that gives to our game.

Not to mention, legal disclaimers are meant to cover UNINTENTIONAL oversights and unpredictable results, not to excuse negligence.

As for safety, there is a chasm of difference between me slipping and falling off the 5/5 cliff and someone getting hurt or killed because a CO didn’t respond to concerns about a specific unexpected issue (e.g. “lamppost is shorting out!”).

again, refusing to accept liability for the unpredictable is one thing, ignoring warnings of the probable is a legal and moral error, especially when accompanyied by a flippant attitude.

 

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Excuse me? When an angry property manager is demanding a particular cache be removed and the CO is not responding, and the cache stays in place far too long, no disclaimer is going to stop the negative reputation that gives to our game.

Not to mention, legal disclaimers are meant to cover UNINTENTIONAL oversights and unpredictable results, not to excuse negligence.

Because you like guidelines I would like to quite this agreement here

Use of Our Services

  1. Inherent Risks. Geocaching and other location-based activities facilitated by our services (e.g. Waymarking and Wherigo) can be dangerous and may take you to difficult to access or potentially treacherous locations. When hiding or seeking geocaches or taking part in other location-based activities, you risk property damage, bodily injury or death. There are many variables that must be considered prior to seeking or placing a geocache or engaging in other location-based activities, including: weather, fitness level, terrain features and outdoor experience. Be prepared and be sure to check the current conditions before heading outdoors. Always exercise common sense and caution. YOU ASSUME ALL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HIDING OR SEEKING A GEOCACHE AND OTHER LOCATION-BASED ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH OUR SERVICES AND AGREE TO RELEASE AND HOLD HARMLESS Groundspeak, LANDOWNERS ON WHOSE PROPERTY GEOCACHES ARE LOCATED, AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO SERVE AS REVIEWERS, TRANSLATORS AND FORUM MODERATORS/ADMINISTRATORS FROM ANY LIABILITY FOR INJURY OR LOSS SUFFERED BY YOU THROUGH THE USE OF OUR SERVICES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.

 

You may be right. There is no disclaimer for the CO. They can be sued for any reason. Be aware cache owners!

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Yes, I know this and appreciate a lot. Throwdown is the case when there is no cache at all and you plant a new one into a random hide. I wouldn't say it a throwdown if you change a broken container to a good one. Some geocachers do not encourage cache repairing this way because they want a new cache and a new find to the statistics.

Regardless of definition, my point was that up to a point, volunteer community maintenance is a great thing. It might kindly save a CO an unnecessary trip if cache is otherwise fine. Taken too far, you are tampering with their property, perhaps second guessing their intent (“moved cache a few feet to a better spot ...”), and enabling the exact issue being discussed.

FYI if we can’t find a cache and see some evidence it may be missing, we post a detailed DNF and often message owner with spoiler details about our observation.  If cache is damaged beyond simple repair, or its clearly misplaced (IPS) we do our best to mitigate the situation and again notify CO. If it clearly needs attention and the condition interferes with signing the log, we post an NM.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, arisoft said:

You may be right. There is no disclaimer for the CO. They can be sued for any reason. Be aware cache owners!

Yep. COs do, indeed need to accept some responsibility for their hides. While I’d hope accepting that responsibility would have more noble motivation, if legal action gets COs out the door, that’s a start.

Edited by Doc_musketeers
Meant to be general

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Keystone said:

I also dedicated the weekend to reviewer's cache maintenance duties.

Number of new caches reviewed or published, Friday to Sunday:  2

Number of maintenance logs (archive, disable, reviewer note) placed on existing caches, Friday to Sunday:  71

I’m just going to quote this for emphasis without additional commentary.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

...the reviewers should only have to spend their precious time doing what they're paid to do...

Yes, I've been saving up all my precious Quatloo's from HQ so that I can upgrade the flux capacitor in my Tardis ;)  Thanks for the laugh bfj.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Nomex said:

Yes, I've been saving up all my precious Quatloo's from HQ so that I can upgrade the flux capacitor in my Tardis ;)  Thanks for the laugh bfj.

You are paid in our sappy expressions of appreciation. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The following question came to my mind while reading this thread:

Problems occur after more than three months after a cache is published. The only "maintainance" that happens is that the listing is archived by the owner and (remains of) the container is (are) removed as soon as possible. Would that count as "resposible cache ownership"?

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Rebore said:

The following question came to my mind while reading this thread:

Problems occur after more than three months after a cache is published. The only "maintainance" that happens is that the listing is archived by the owner and (remains of) the container is (are) removed as soon as possible. Would that count as "resposible cache ownership"?

If I understand your premise, then: Of course. 3 months of availability and something changes that leads the CO to believe the cache is no longer a good idea. Even if it’s just “I decided I’m not into this” that is their prerogative and they took the correct steps. The location is open for other players, no Reviewer time was wasted dealing with non-responsiveness and no player wasted time searching for the cache or trying to alert CO/Reviewer of a problem.

sure, we are supposed to plan “long term hides” but, especially hypothetically, stuff happens.

edit to add: guidelines list steps to take when an owner decides to Archive a cache- for any reason. In fact if anything they encourage this action rather than letting it languish. 

I do want to clarify (since apparently it’s been vague before) I’ve never advocated some sort of public label or score. Long ago I expressed regret at the thread title I chose for that exact reason. And I informed Arisoft that I don’t mean to point fingers. Actions can be judged without condemning individuals. Expressed attitudes all the more so!

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Why would I post an NA when what was needed was maintenance?

I thought your complaint was that the maintenance wasn't done. You post an NA when needed maintenance isn't completed in a timely manner.

I have to admit, I'm completely confused now, but from what I can see, what just happened is that you refused to file NAs, so Nomex was forced to scan your area and, in effect, post NAs for you. And you seem to think that's a good way for the system to work.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

I wouldn't say it a throwdown if you change a broken container to a good one. Some geocachers do not encourage cache repairing this way because they want a new cache and a new find to the statistics.

No, some geocachers don't encourage cache repairing this way because it's the CO's responsibility. You know, something the CO agreed to do when they ticked the box at the bottom of the cache submission page.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I thought your complaint was that the maintenance wasn't done. You post an NA when needed maintenance isn't completed in a timely manner.

I have to admit, I'm completely confused now, but from what I can see, what just happened is that you refused to file NAs, so Nomex was forced to scan your area and, in effect, post NAs for you. And you seem to think that's a good way for the system to work.

My original “complaint” back in December did focus on specific caches. I was unsure how to deal with a situation and came to the community for advice. When this thread was “resurrected” a few days back the discussion quickly turned to the attitude behind cache maintenance and whether neglected caches had effects on the game as a whole.

Nomex’ sweep today may have been inspired by our continued discussion, but didn’t involve any caches I had a personal issue with. 

My point in the quote above was in response to the implication that I WANTED caches archived, primarily so I could place a cache in that location. The caches I posted NM’s on were not on some hit list. A few posts back I explained our team “flowchart” for dealing with cache issues. These caches Need Maintenance. I DON’T want to decide it’s been too long. I’ve never advocated a deadline. I just don’t think COs should ignore the situation until a Reviewer has to step in.

I have posted NAs: 3 in fact. These were caches where the CO placed a statement on their profile inviting players to adopt their caches, and we were personally asked to adopt some of them. Months later the CO hadn’t initiated the adoption, nor responded to us, and the caches had become basically unfindable. And yes, we are ready to basically “adopt” these if (when) they are archived.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

No, some geocachers don't encourage cache repairing this way because it's the CO's responsibility. You know, something the CO agreed to do when they ticked the box at the bottom of the cache submission page.

That is just a stupid misconception that is not based on anything. Selfish thinking lacking a group spirit.

Share this post


Link to post

I keep finding myself alternately explaining that no, I’m not taking every possible action to force everyone else’s caches to be Archived and no, I equally am not shirking my personal responsibility just because I don’t post NAs on everybody’s caches.

Eventually I need to learn how to post emoticons because I could sure use a few. And a drink. Need a drink. I can figure that one out without input from The Forum ... (insert rolling eyes emoticon)

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, arisoft said:

That is just a stupid misconception that is not based on anything. Selfish thinking lacking a group spirit.

Selfishness starts at home.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I keep finding myself alternately explaining that no, I’m not taking every possible action to force everyone else’s caches to be Archived and no, I equally am not shirking my personal responsibility just because I don’t post NAs on everybody’s caches.

Eventually I need to learn how to post emoticons because I could sure use a few. And a drink. Need a drink. I can figure that one out without input from The Forum ... (insert rolling eyes emoticon)

Clipboard01.jpg.67040d0213c03471226ccacf76dce520.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, arisoft said:

That is just a stupid misconception that is not based on anything. Selfish thinking lacking a group spirit.

So now I'm selfish for thinking a CO should comply with the guideline that says "the cache owner must fix reported problems (such as replace full or wet logbook, replace broken or missing container)". Note that it says "the cache owner must", not "the cache owner can if he feels like it" or "the cache owner can leave it to someone else to". It's called taking personal responsibility for your caches.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So now I'm selfish

Only if you are the "some" geocacher you referred in the earlier post. I do not think so.  Maybe some geocachers do not breath because there is no such guideline? Do not be one of them!

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Clipboard01.jpg.67040d0213c03471226ccacf76dce520.jpg

Thanks Arisoft, sincerely. But I’m on my iPhone. Besides, my comments are usually either self-righteously zealous or all-out sarcastic. Try reading them one way, if that doesn’t sound right try the other.

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post

Let's be careful in our tone when debating with one another.

For the record, "throwdowns" are officially discouraged.  (A "throwdown" being a replacement cache that is placed without the cache owner's advance consent.)

Suppose I disable a cache page due to maintenance issues, or I remind the owner that their cache has been owner-disabled for too long.  Then, someone places a throwdown cache.  I then look to the CO to decide whether to "accept" the throwdown, by re-enabling their page.  If the owner remains unresponsive, I will archive the cache page - even though there's at least one container in place - because the owner is not performing their maintenance obligations.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Keystone said:

because the owner is not performing their maintenance obligations

I think this is very enlightening phrasing from someone whose opinion deserves some respect. 

Share this post


Link to post

 

45 minutes ago, arisoft said:
54 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

No, some geocachers don't encourage cache repairing this way because it's the CO's responsibility. You know, something the CO agreed to do when they ticked the box at the bottom of the cache submission page.

That is just a stupid misconception that is not based on anything. Selfish thinking lacking a group spirit.

So when my lawn becomes overgrown I should just leave it to the community to mow, right? Dang, and I just paid all that money for a new lawnmower.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Suppose I disable a cache page due to maintenance issues, or I remind the owner that their cache has been owner-disabled for too long.  Then, someone places a throwdown cache.  I then look to the CO to decide whether to "accept" the throwdown, by re-enabling their page.  If the owner remains unresponsive, I will archive the cache page - even though there's at least one container in place - because the owner is not performing their maintenance obligations.

This is the key. The game is not worth the candle when the situation is already escalated. Help when you see the cache is worth of it, before it is too late.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I thought your complaint was that the maintenance wasn't done. You post an NA when needed maintenance isn't completed in a timely manner.

I have to admit, I'm completely confused now, but from what I can see, what just happened is that you refused to file NAs, so Nomex was forced to scan your area and, in effect, post NAs for you. And you seem to think that's a good way for the system to work.

Just goes to show yet again that there's a flaw in the NA system. It's a difficult log to post. No one hoists the NA'er up and thanks them for their service. Any time I've said I've posted dozens of NAs in a year, never did anyone say, 'Great. More people need to do this and I've stepped up to the plate too.'  Instead it is suggested (openly and underlying) that the community should maintain neglected caches and I am a 'cache cop', and apparently, according to arisoft NA'ers are into the numbers and want caches archived so they can hide more. I've retrieved and archived about 10 caches in the last 3 years partly because I don't want to be part of the numbers game and devolving character of this pastime (now game). 

I understand why NAs haven't worked and why because of the lack of NA reports reviewers sweep for long runs of DNFs, and NMs. No one gets upset at reviewers when they do the job. At least I've never seen anger in the forums directed at reviewers, or anger on the online logs directed at reviewers. I've been the recipient of anger or snide remarks for posting NAs both in the forums and on cache pages and via email/message center. 

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So when my lawn becomes overgrown I should just leave it to the community to mow, right?

Of course if they see that it is worth of it. Do they? I tried this at last summer and no one even mentioned that I should mow my lawn. No NM or NA posted. I can not understand these people here.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Of course if they see that it is worth of it. Do they? I tried this at last summer and no one even mentioned that I should mow my lawn. No NM or NA posted. I can not understand these people here.

More likely they will call City Hall to force you to cut your lawn. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

according to arisoft NA'ers are into the numbers and want caches archived so they can hide more

You must be referring to this, right?

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

Some geocachers do not encourage cache repairing this way because they want a new cache and a new find to the statistics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Just goes to show yet again that there's a flaw in the NA system. It's a difficult log to post. No one hoists the NA'er up and thanks them for their service. Any time I've said I've posted dozens of NAs in a year, never did anyone say, 'Great. More people need to do this and I've stepped up to the plate too.'  Instead it is suggested (openly and underlying) that the community should maintain neglected caches and I am a 'cache cop', and apparently, according to arisoft NA'ers are into the numbers and want caches archived so they can hide more. I've retrieved and archived about 10 caches in the last 3 years partly because I don't want to be part of the numbers game and devolving character of this pastime (now game). 

I understand why NAs haven't worked and why because of the lack of NA reports reviewers sweep for long runs of DNFs, and NMs. No one gets upset at reviewers when they do the job. At least I've never seen anger in the forums directed at reviewers, or anger on the online logs directed at reviewers. I've been the recipient of anger or snide remarks for posting NAs both in the forums and on cache pages and via email/message center. 

Yeah. Especially to a newer player NAs seem a bit heavy handed.

NMs are a statement of condition. They are communication between the hunter and the CO, at least in theory. NAs are a statement of judgement. They are communication between a hunter and a Reviewer.

If I couldn’t sign the log because it’s full, or wet, even if it was my first Cache, I’d know it Needed Maintenance. But If I’m the fourth consecutive DNF over a three month period with no owner response? Post an NA? Who am I as a newbie to make that judgement. Sure, it’s the Reviewer who flips the switch but I’d still be playing the role of prosecuting attorney.

What confuses me is that a couple people here have argued that long delays in maintenance shouldn’t be seen as negligence, and in fact have little effect on the game. Yet some of the same voices are now claiming that posting NAs is the obligatory “solution” to the very situation they claim wasn’t an issue to begin with...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I understand why NAs haven't worked and why because of the lack of NA reports reviewers sweep for long runs of DNFs, and NMs. No one gets upset at reviewers when they do the job. At least I've never seen anger in the forums directed at reviewers, or anger on the online logs directed at reviewers. I've been the recipient of anger or snide remarks for posting NAs both in the forums and on cache pages and via email/message center. 

Actually NMs and NAs work pretty well here and the reviewers haven't (yet) seen the need to sweep for caches with DNFs or NMs. As a CO I'd welcome any NMs on my caches as it means there's something I wasn't aware of that I'd better attend to, and if someone logged a valid NA on one I'd archive it immediately and save the reviewer the trouble.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Actually NMs and NAs work pretty well here and the reviewers haven't (yet) seen the need to sweep for caches with DNFs or NMs. As a CO I'd welcome any NMs on my caches as it means there's something I wasn't aware of that I'd better attend to, and if someone logged a valid NA on one I'd archive it immediately and save the reviewer the trouble.

Nomex has confirmed that, unfortunately, our area isn’t quite as exemplary.

I totally concur. A properly-used NM is supportive, encouraging, not a critique.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

incidentally a well-respected local cacher received an NM and she instantly disabled the cache and, within 24 hours, she assessed the situation and just archived the cache, stating: “Alas, this location isn't as secure as it once was, so we'll open up the area to other hiders.”

THAT is my definition of responsible Cache Ownership; Arisoft’s respect for fast Disabling, my plea for fast practical response, and Rebore’s hypothetical Archival based on changing situation.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

What confuses me is that a couple people here have argued that long delays in maintenance shouldn’t be seen as negligence, and in fact have little effect on the game. Yet some of the same voices are now claiming that posting NAs is the obligatory “solution” to the very situation they claim wasn’t an issue to begin with...

I have seen very rarely NA logs to disabled caches. The purpose seems to be speed up the procedure for some unknown reason.

More frequently I have seen NA logs to caches which have many  DNF logs and maybe some NM logs. In some cases the NA log text explains that it is not really request for archiving but request to disable cache. This seems to be the most frequent use just to alert the authority.

I have posted one real NA to a cache which was missing for sure and I knew that it will not be back. My intention was that the owner would archive the cache but he disabled it and the reviewer archived it later. I have seen that archiving has quite big threshold for the cache owner's and most caches will be archived by the reviewer. It must be some psychological phenomenon.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I have seen very rarely NA logs to disabled caches. The purpose seems to be speed up the procedure for some unknown reason.

More frequently I have seen NA logs to caches which have many  DNF logs and maybe some NM logs. In some cases the NA log text explains that it is not really request for archiving but request to disable cache. This seems to be the most frequent use just to alert the authority.

I have post one real NA to a cache which was missing for sure and I knew that it will not be back. My intention was that the owner would archive the cache but he disabled it and the reviewer archived it later. I have seen that archiving has quite big threshold for the cache owner and most caches will be archived by the reviewer. It must be some psychological phenomena.

So you were being facetious in your prior post? The one where you implied I was too kind in not posting NAs? Was that based on your idea that I wanted those caches archived (I don’t) instead of simply maintained (I do!)? Because back then you stated I’d allowed the “situation to escalate” by not following my NM with an NA after some period of time.

The process that needs “speeded up” is CO response. In 99.99% of the cases I think Maintenance is the preferred response. In the other rare cases, Archival is the only other option discussed in the guidelines or by the Reviewers that apply those guidelines. Are you still arguing that procrastination is a legitimate third option? Because that’s the only debate I really have on this thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

So you were being facetious in your prior post? The one where you implied I was too kind in not posting NAs? Was that based on your idea that I wanted those caches archived (I don’t) instead of simply maintained (I do!)? Because back then you stated I’d allowed the “situation to escalate” by not following my NM with an NA after some period of time.

In the last post I just listed my observations. The most important observation is that NA is factually ND. It may be too late to change the official title of the log type put this is the most used reason to post a NA. (Of course it is not too late as it was not too late to change field notes to drafts)

Think about the effect. Posting a ND instead of NA could be the psychological breakthrough in the process. No cache cop effect.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...