Multicache Not Approved

7.2k · January 8, 2004

Subigo, I defended you in another topic. You were called a troll. I came to your defense. I would recommend that you go back and read the link to the definition of an "Internet Troll".

It appears that I was wrong to come to your defense. I'm sorry Prime Suspect. You appear to have been absolutely correct.

At this point subigo, it would be nice it you told us what your main GC.com user name is. You have admitted that you have another user name and are in fact not new to the game. Maybe if you used your real nick then you could regain some credibility.

5.3k · January 8, 2004

Actually after 1000 finds, my ***** did get bigger.

You bought those pills off the internet?

January 8, 2004

ChrisCindy, you make a good point about the newbie thing. That could well be one reason subigo brought up the whole self-righteous thing.

Edited January 8, 2004 by cacheKidds

1.4k · January 8, 2004

Don't bash them all based on one person. The new people with ideas are the future of the game. You are going to make them not want to post and share their ideas with us or ask questions. It's not fair to use newbie in a negative way as we are all newbies at one time.

If you want to bash Subigo then say Subigo (I am not bashing you Subigo just making a point) don't just say newbie.

I feel you are correct to a point.

Having new ideas and sharing them is great. It will help people think outside of the box (pun intended) and keep geocaching fresh. On the other hand, having opinions that are based on ignorance are not. What's even worse is making an un-informed statement and defending it beyond all reason.

I don't think this "Dogpile on the new kid" is going to keep any other "Newbies" (a phrase I have used 7 times in 16 years to describe someone) from posting ideas, opinions and thoughts. What it will show is that tact and an understanding of the subject matter is necessary for an intelligent discussion.

January 8, 2004

Okay. There are more rules and politics on this site than D.C.

I thought this was a game and I was helping it to grow in my area. I can understand why people are not lining up to hide caches if they have to go through so much trouble to have it posted.

My gps said it was closer, but it could be wrong. Even if it was 367 feet, the difference is what, 20 seconds?

I saw a post a while back about other geocaching sites, and a lot of people laughed at the idea. But who decided that geocaching.com makes the universal rules? I think since they hold such a monopoly on the game right now that they should be a little more laid back.

All I know is that in my area right now, I can only go geocaching based on the places and rules geocaching.com tells me I have to follow (and because of this the caches in my area are limited). I am trying, I'm trying real hard to follow along, but it's hard when you only have one option.

I will shut up now.

When you submitted your cache, you had to check the box that said you had read and would follow the guidelines. In those guidelines are all of the reasons your cache was rejected.

Were you lying when you checked the box?

Unfortunately, folks are lining up to hide caches. 'Unfortunate' because too often some of them are doing so before they know all of the guidelines and the reasons for them. Every week we have new threads complaining about a rejected cache, almost always for reasons clearly laid out by geocaching.com.

In this case, your approver no doubt used the coordinates you provided and those listed for the other cache to determine the distance between the two. You could (and probably should) have done the same. If you think you are close, definitely check your 'official' numbers, not the estimate your GPSr is currently reading.

Geocaching.com actually was more 'laid back' once. But along came a few people lacking common sense, and so new guidelines were developed. As Keystone Approver has already mentioned, they were created in response to foolish cache hides. If this makes you unhappy, perhaps it would be better to be part of the solution rather than the problem.

It seems to me that if there are as few caches in your area as you say, there should be no difficulty in finding locations much further than 0.10 miles away from the existing ones.

January 8, 2004

This was a $150 cache I made and it doesnt get posted because of this. If I have to redo all this work I am just going to remove it all together.

I understand rules are rules, but this is retarded. I was actually out there to see how far it was, I bet the approver looked on mapquest. Heh.

Subigo,

Sounds like you put in some work on this cache. Good for you. After reading the entire thread, it sounds like *gln was trying to work with you on getting this approved. KA also offered some advice. Numbers of finds/hides aside, this game takes some patience. Back in the old days, approvals were quick (not many caches), but now, it takes some time.

1.4k · January 8, 2004

Don't bash them all based on one person. The new people with ideas are the future of the game. You are going to make them not want to post and share their ideas with us or ask questions. It's not fair to use newbie in a negative way as we are all newbies at one time.

If you want to bash Subigo then say Subigo (I am not bashing you Subigo just making a point) don't just say newbie.

I feel you are correct to a point.

Having new ideas and sharing them is great. It will help people think outside of the box (pun intended) and keep geocaching fresh. On the other hand, having opinions that are based on ignorance are not. What's even worse is making an un-informed statement and defending it beyond all reason.

I don't think this "Dogpile on the new kid" is going to keep any other "Newbies" (a phrase I have used 7 times in 16 years to describe someone) from posting ideas, opinions and thoughts. What it will show is that tact and an understanding of the subject matter is necessary for an intelligent discussion.

I made that statement more to let the other new folks know that we are not out to "dogpile" them. It was for their benefit that I said that. I wouldn't want them to think we are going to jump them just for asking a question.

I didn't intend you to think I was flaming you, so if it seemed like that I am sorry.

To all new people: Feel free to post as for the most part we don't dogpile mew people. Well except on Tuesday's and Major Aztec holidays.

6.4k · January 8, 2004

At this point subigo, it would be nice it you told us what your main GC.com user name is. You have admitted that you have another user name and are in fact not new to the game. Maybe if you used your real nick then you could regain some credibility.

Yes, please do. Seems that this is EXACTLY what a troll (or sockpuppet) is.

January 8, 2004

I understand rules are rules ...<snip>... My gps told me I was about 465-515 feet from the other cache.

But the rule DOES say 528+ feet from other caches, and you apparently DID think to check....

I took the time and effort to make laminated business cards with the clue and location of the final cache on them. I placed them in the 2nd cache... now in order to get this cache approved I am going to have to get rid of those cards, make new ones and move my final cache a pathetic 50-100 feet? This was a $150 cache I made and it doesnt get posted because of this. If I have to redo all this work I am just going to remove it all together.

Umm... I had a laminated business card made and bought a micro pen at an office supply chain less than a month ago. Cost less than $1 for both! And with a new cache, you might well have to go reconfirm coords anyway, so a couple of brief trips for a new hidy hole and a quick visit to swap a card shouldn't be too onerous. After all, you stated that you'd be happy to visit caches awaiting approval in person, and we're talking about the maintenance of your OWN cache here! If the cost and effort was truly so great to create the cache, surely a small inconvenience is worth the effort to actually see it in action?

Seems a bit much to be quite so bent over....

6.4k · January 8, 2004

One more thing:

If what mtn-man said is true (and I have no reason to doubt it isn't), then I think the "Subigo" account (an obvious troll or sockpuppet name to someone who took latin in school) should be banned (in accordance with the forum guidelines) and his obviously faked finds deleted. I would also suspect, that based on this info, the cache he submitted under this name does not even actually exist, and surely isn't worth $150, as he claims. I think the real account also deserves to be banned, or at the least, given a real stern warning from TPTB. This sorta nonsense should not be tolerated.

Edited January 8, 2004 by Mopar

1.3k · January 8, 2004

Edited January 8, 2004 by SBPhishy

24.7k · January 8, 2004

So you have a guy annoyed enough to make sparks, and then everyone jumps on board to pour gas onto the situation.

Great job. Nobody on either side of the fence on this one is scoring points.

January 8, 2004

There have been about 60 caches placed in Missouri over the past 30 days. <snip> The volunteer reviewer for your state would *love* to visit every cache before it's approved. Tack on 30 days to the review time and we'll be happy to accommodate your idea.

The time delay is only part of the deal, of course. In addition to the 30+ day approval period, please also submit your $85 fee for salary replacement, your $25 fee for benefit replacement, and your $35 expense offset fee to help cover the cost of traveling to your cache site. Fees must be paid by cashier's check. Of course expense fees may go up if the approver suffers divorce, child abandonment charges, child support costs as a result of said divorce or abandonment, court fees, and extra costs for job-related medical and mental health care. I can think of at least 3 approvers who might actually wind up with a larger salary this way, but I don't know that it would be worth giving up their lives for...

January 8, 2004

It's a good thing he's not that bright. It seems clear that he has an axe to grind, and could have been much more effective at achieving mischief had he not come across as such a jerk. (you can usually tell the genuine jerks from the genuine jerks who are trying extra hard to come across as a genuine jerk - this guy is the latter). I concluded quite quickly that this person was likely not sincere, and hence I felt that it was acceptable to allow myself to get a little personal by subtly throwing back the "retarded" adjective his direction.

I do however agree, that his type should be banished for good. He adds nothing whatsoever to these forums.

(edit : spelling)

Edited January 8, 2004 by seneca

1.2k · January 8, 2004

The time delay is only part of the deal, of course. In addition to the 30+ day approval period, please also submit your $85 fee for salary replacement, your $25 fee for benefit replacement, and your $35 expense offset fee to help cover the cost of traveling to your cache site. Fees must be paid by cashier's check. Of course expense fees may go up if the approver suffers divorce, child abandonment charges, child support costs as a result of said divorce or abandonment, court fees, and extra costs for job-related medical and mental health care.

Don't forget the surcharge for multiples, and - very important - a compensation for the FTF claim waiver. We wouldn't want ALL our caches to be first-found by the reviewers, would we?

January 8, 2004

There sure are a lot of unmoderated personal attacks in this thread. Glad to see the guidelines are being applied in their usual fair and consistant manner.

________________

Gorak

Geo 105

January 8, 2004

A) Cachers should be very aware of cache placements in their home area, especially if they plan to hide. I live near downtown San Antonio, which is just of late starting to get pretty cache-dense. I haven't logged finds on anywhere near half of them, but I know the general vicinity in which they are all located. I think of myself as a hider before a finder. I own half the caches in that same area, and I don't like to have to move or archive anything I've planted unless there's a REALLY good reason.

B )I take it as a personal challenge if an approver doesn't want to let something I've planted past him. That means I've got to work a little harder. I spent weeks fixing two puzzle micro multi caches until they were to the liking of the approver. It had to do with the cache container being large enough to hold a log. . .no log is against the rules. I had overlooked that wee factoid in the quest for the smallest micro I'd ever planted. If you forget the rules, trust me. . .an approver WILL remind you.

C) I have a six-stage multi out that is an absolute beeotch to maintain. Stages keep going missing, and I continually have to go out and replace the missing redirectors and then alter the previous stages to reflect the new coordinates of the replaced redirectors. Multis are no piece of cake. In short, if you finally DO get approved, this current bump in the road will seem like nothing compared to what you will be up against just to keep the darned thing active. Good luck to you.

D)I'm interested in how you managed to spend $150 on a cache. I suppose it's possible, but I personally find that a bit over the top. I pride myself in being able to plant caches that cost me almost nil. I've had too many caches go missing to want to invest real money in them. I put nothing in a cache that it would kill me to lose and I don't build cache containers out of diamonds and gold, though I do get deeply offended when my containers go missing. . .especially the ones I buy rather than scavenge. Despite this, I manage never to put junk in a cache. Geocaching, IMO, should be an inexpensive hobby, outside the purchase of the initial GPS equipment.

At any rate, I hope your multi eventually does get approved after you do what you have to do to get it approved. Once it is approved, I hope you maintain it well, and I hope it gets lots and lots of finds. HAVE FUN and lighten up. This is a game, after all. Everyone else who is busy snarling at you right now would do well to remember that, too. . .back down, folks. Of course this person is going to snap and get all defensive when you guys go on the attack, especially when this person has expressed a lot of self-investment upfront. Shame on ya'll for intentionally throwing wood on the fire!

MJ

Edited January 8, 2004 by stellalunag

January 8, 2004

There sure are a lot of unmoderated personal attacks in this thread. Glad to see the guidelines are being applied in their usual fair and consistant manner.
________________

Gorak

Geo 105

I thought there was an unwritten guideline that the rules against personal attacks didn't apply to obvious trolls (particularly when the troll allegation is confirmed by TPTB)! I hope I don't get my first warning meter indication.

21.9k · January 8, 2004

There sure are a lot of unmoderated personal attacks in this thread. Glad to see the guidelines are being applied in their usual fair and consistant manner.

________________

Gorak

Geo 105

Because of prior complaints, moderators in the Geocaching Topics forum now make an effort not to exercise their moderator powers in the same topic where they have entered into the discussion in an adversarial fashion. Two of the moderators for this forum, myself and mtn-man, have chosen to take issue with the original poster... doing so in a manner consistent with the Forum Guidelines. Therefore I will not now moderate any posts in this topic on any side of the debate. That's why there are five moderators (plus Hydee) for the Geocaching Topics forum.

If you see a post which you believe violates the Forum Guidelines, use the "report this post" feature, and one of the four other moderators will have a look at it. Thanks.

6.4k · January 8, 2004

I thought there was an unwritten guideline that the rules against personal attacks didn't apply to obvious trolls (particularly when the troll allegation is confirmed by TPTB)! I hope I don't get my first warning meter indication.

I agree. I don't see this as a personal attack, so much as "the self-policing by the community" that so many have called for. Since it seems like a few people have not read the entire thread before posting, they may have missed the part where it was brought up that this is not, in fact a newbie, but a %^&^* sockpuppet/troll, who, judging by all the topics he's started, is purely interesting in stirring up trouble. Such people, according to the forum guidelines, are supposed to be banned. A true newbie, with a legit question, is usually answered honestly and respectfully. This user has disrespected the site, the cache reviewers, and the other users here, all while hiding behind a fake account. He deserves no respect.

Edited January 8, 2004 by Mopar

January 8, 2004

I read the whole thread. I didn't realize that there was such a thing as moderator-sanctioned personal attacks. Nor did I realize that the moderators can sidestep their responsibilities by contributing to the thread. You learn something new every day.

______________

Gorak

Geo 39FY 65

January 8, 2004

Gorak, if I have somehow offended you by saying some not so nice things about Subigo the Sockpuppet, then I apologize.

21.9k · January 8, 2004

I read the whole thread. I didn't realize that there was such a thing as moderator-sanctioned personal attacks. Nor did I realize that the moderators can sidestep their responsibilities by contributing to the thread. You learn something new every day.
______________

Gorak

Geo 39FY 65

Go back and read the topics on the need for a Code of Conduct to govern the volunteers who review caches and moderate in the forums. You were a participant in those discussions. The concept I described above will appear in the Code of Conduct (at least as presently drafted). You asked for it, you got it.

I do not give up my right to an opinion as a cache reviewer when the actions of a cache reviewer are criticized, particularly in a disrespectful manner (by calling them "retarded", etc.). It is appropriate to express those opinions under my volunteer account since they relate to my work as a volunteer for Groundspeak. What is INappropriate is if I then used my moderator powers to delete posts that disagreed with my opinion, or started handing out warnings to people participating in the same discussion. So, I choose upfront whether I'm going to participate in the debate and, if so, whether I ought to do so under my volunteer account or my personal geocacher account.

I have not sanctioned any "personal attacks" and, for the reasons explained above, I offer no opinion on whether, in fact, any personal attacks have occurred.

4k · January 8, 2004

Anybody else in this thread get the feeling that Subigo is probably out caching now, laughing up the fact that he's got everyone's panties in such a bind? Maybe it's just me.....but it has been awhile since we've heard from him.

1.4k · January 8, 2004

Anybody else in this thread get the feeling that Subigo is probably out caching now, laughing up the fact that he's got everyone's panties in such a bind? Maybe it's just me.....but it has been awhile since we've heard from him.

Maybe he is out caching for the next four days? I would see if he show's up on the 12th.

January 8, 2004

Gorak, if I have somehow offended you by saying some not so nice things about Subigo the Sockpuppet, then I apologize.

No, Seneca, you did not offend me. In fact, non of the personal attacks offended me. To be honest, subigo probably deserved a few of them. I am offended by the inconsistency of the application of the forum guidelines. IMHO, if subigo is a sockpuppet and/or a troll, then the thread should have just been closed or deleted. Since the "unwritten" guidelines have just been pointed out to me, I will refrain from being offended by these inconsistencies in the future.

______________

Gorak

Geo 105

4k · January 8, 2004

I read the whole thread. I didn't realize that there was such a thing as moderator-sanctioned personal attacks. Nor did I realize that the moderators can sidestep their responsibilities by contributing to the thread. You learn something new every day.
______________

Gorak

Geo 39FY 65

I personally think it's a good choice by KA and mtn-man to not be moderating a topic in which they are taking an active, opinion-driven role. Regardless of the reason, they would be drawn and quartered by the forum members if they did step in as moderators at this point and either warn, ban, or close the thread. By "side-stepping" their responsibilities, they are showing that there are times, too, when they are in agreement or disagreement of the topic at hand, not just robotic yes-men to TPTB. That said, I respect each of them for giving their opinion as forum members and choosing not to follow those opinions up by moderating anyone.

2.3k · January 8, 2004

Gorak, if I have somehow offended you by saying some not so nice things about Subigo the Sockpuppet, then I apologize.

No, Seneca, you did not offend me. In fact, non of the personal attacks offended me. To be honest, subigo probably deserved a few of them. I am offended by the inconsistency of the application of the forum guidelines. IMHO, if subigo is a sockpuppet and/or a troll, then the thread should have just been closed or deleted. Since the "unwritten" guidelines have just been pointed out to me, I will refrain from being offended by these inconsistencies in the future.

______________

Gorak

Geo 105

To prevent further offending Gorak with the moderators acting like people and not automatic warning machines I am closing this thread. I am personally chastising the moderators that posted opinions in this thread for thinking they were allowed an opinion on anything. Since I have not posted personally to this thread it falls to me to be that automatic warn machine.

Gorak I hope that the closing of this thread in someway appeases you and repairs the harm that befell you with its apparent inconsistencies.

Multicache Not Approved

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment