Disabled Marracache - Why?!

[Andreas260477]

In Marrakesh there are serveral Marracaches. One of 'em is GC5112X. 

A few weeks ago a no name member asked this cache to be archived: GL1B6Y8B2

Quote

Unfortunately the owner uses it in his shop to attract customers and forces them to buy from his shop as Condition before giving access to the cache it happened multiple times and he was warned but nothing changed I think this cache should be removed permanently from this owner or location.

Let's habe a look on it: The account has no logs. It is an account created ob 13 of december 2023. The log is from 13th-D 23.

 

A week later a reviewer disabled the cache. But why?

 

Only the plaintiff, a blank slate, was heard. Witnesses - people who have actually logged this cache(!) - comment favourably on the cache. And the judge (reviewer) condemns the defendant (cache). I don't understand it.

Since the "plaintiff" has obviously only registered to have the cache deactivated and archived, it can be assumed that he/she/it is a cacher who does not want to appear under his/her/its actual cacher name. How can it be that such a person - contrary to the opinion of those who have logged the cache - is granted so much "power"?

 

 

[Andreas260477]

The owner in the quotation ist not the cache owner (who appears to be German) but the owner of the institution.

[+Max and 99]

47 minutes ago, Andreas260477 said:

A week later a reviewer disabled the cache. But why?

Because there was a report that the geocache violated the guidelines.

 

A favorable opinion of the geocache by those who have found it has absolutely no bearing. It doesn't matter who reported it or how many finds they have, if it violates the guidelines then it needs to be addressed.

[Keystone]

1 hour ago, Andreas260477 said:

A week later a reviewer disabled the cache. But why?

 

Because it's quite clear from the log history that a finder must enter a business, and interact with an employee, in order to log the cache.  That is the end of the analysis - these are not allowed in a cache design, and have not been allowed for many years (earlier than 2014 when this cache was published).  If the cache isn't moved outdoors so it can be found without talking to the shop employees, it will be archived.

 

The cache owner was questioned prior to publication about the "no commercial caches" issue, and the cache was published only after those concerns were addressed.  Either the situation changed sometime after publication (like moving the cache container into the shop), or the cache owner's pre-publication communications with their Reviewer were not fully transparent.

[+JL_HSTRE]

2 hours ago, Andreas260477 said:

it can be assumed that he/she/it is a cacher who does not want to appear under his/her/its actual cacher name.

 

Possibly because the whistle-blower expects retaliation from geocachers who care more about their idea of "fun" than about following the Guidelines. 

[Andreas260477]

18 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Possibly because the whistle-blower expects retaliation from geocachers who care more about their idea of "fun" than about following the Guidelines. 

But why should the "whistle blower" expect retaliation? From whom?

[Andreas260477]

18 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

Because it's quite clear from the log history that a finder must enter a business, and interact with an employee, in order to log the cache.  That is the end of the analysis - these are not allowed in a cache design, and have not been allowed for many years (earlier than 2014 when this cache was published).  If the cache isn't moved outdoors so it can be found without talking to the shop employees, it will be archived.

 

The cache owner was questioned prior to publication about the "no commercial caches" issue, and the cache was published only after those concerns were addressed.  Either the situation changed sometime after publication (like moving the cache container into the shop), or the cache owner's pre-publication communications with their Reviewer were not fully transparent.

That makes sense. Thank you.

[+CheekyBrit]

On 1/11/2024 at 6:04 AM, Andreas260477 said:

But why should the "whistle blower" expect retaliation? From whom?

We hopefully shouldn't expect retaliation, but I'm sure they could picture it as a possibility. For the small effort of making a new account from scratch for anonymity weighed against the low chance, high unpleasant risk of possible retaliation, I'm guessing it must have been worth it to err toward caution.

But I agree with you, we shouldn't expect retaliation for trying to keep things within guidelines and do the right thing. The webcam that archived near me due to selfies whilst under maintenance was sad, but it was against the rules. No whistle blower - HQ caught it on their own, and I wish they hadn't archived it, but I understand why. Different situation but parallel.