Some COs don't take kindly to NM, and then the NA (because the NM was ignored)

[+IceColdUK]

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I would say a Jasmer checker should consider a user qualified if they found a cache in every month that currently active geocaches have been published.

Just to play devil’s advocate, might that not encourage a few remote NA requests?  As it stands, I’m very unlikely to qualify, but under those rules, if a few of those oldies are archived... ?

[+BethDaddyKaty]

41 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

Just to play devil’s advocate, might that not encourage a few remote NA requests?  As it stands, I’m very unlikely to qualify, but under those rules, if a few of those oldies are archived... ?

Presumably a reviewer would do as they do now, and decide a remote NA might have less weight than someone logging a NA at GZ. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for reviewers to treat every NA as having equal weight. Apart from anything else, new cachers might assume "archive" means the more traditional "put away for later retrieval", more akin to GC disable, than GC archive which is effectively removal.

 

E.g. at work if I send a record to the archives it's with the expectation of using it in future, but not now.

Edited January 14, 2020 by BethDaddyKaty

[+thebruce0]

Remember, no precedent

Yep, a reviewer isn't required to act equally unilaterally across the board. They can grant exceptions, or act pre-emptively. And those exceptions can't be used in a future argument for or against a similar action.  So, yeah, archivals on old caches could individually be held off on the judgment of a reviewer or HQ.  BUT, hopefully whatever the decision of TPTB, it's a reasonable one, in any case. (and reasonable doesn't mean every single person has to think it's a good one)  Obviously some don't like that old caches are being given more leniency. But there is a difference between a popular 20 year old geocache and a new 20 day old geocache in suburbia.  Now whether the age of a cache can outweigh the issues, in the mind of TPTB, when deciding whether to proceed as standard or grant an exception, well that's entirely up to the ones who make the call.

[+colleda]

10 hours ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

Presumably a reviewer would do as they do now, and decide a remote NA might have less weight than someone logging a NA at GZ. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for reviewers to treat every NA as having equal weight. Apart from anything else, new cachers might assume "archive" means the more traditional "put away for later retrieval", more akin to GC disable, than GC archive which is effectively removal.

 

E.g. at work if I send a record to the archives it's with the expectation of using it in future, but not now.

Think of it this way. It's not the cache container that is being archived it's the listing, which is still there for future reference, just like your example.