Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Goldenwattle

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

Recommended Posts

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... 😉

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 by BethDaddyKaty

Share this post


Link to post

Remember, no precedent :P

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Helpful 1

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...