Jump to content

Now You're Getting Nasty


TEAM 360
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

Just received in my email:

 

"CO Admin archived ORIGINAL STASH TRIBUTE PLAQUE (Unknown (Mystery)

Cache) at 6/26/2004

 

Log Date: 6/26/2004

This cache has been archived becasue the owner is too far away to

maintain this cache in a reasonable amount of time

Last log book went missing on may 16th. on may 19th you said you would

take care of it. it wasnt untill June 22

"June 22 by ponyryder (6 found)

Thanks to Team 360 sending it to me, a new mini-cache "Altoids"

container with log sheet has been placed at the Tribute Plaque. I hope this

one lasts longer. "

Over a month is way too long to to wait to replace a missing log book.

I recomend that you let this cache be adopted or obtaine a local cacher

to watch it for you. If you already have a local to watch this I

suggest you find someone else that can do a better Job."

 

"A better job?"

 

I led the drive to get this Plaque placed...I solicited design ideas from the geocaching community...gathered all the PayPal donations...I contacted a local foundry and had it cast...I bought my own plane ticket and car rental to fly to Portland last September...I bought supplies, cement, organized the placement event...my own sweat went into that Plaque base...I flew back (at my own cost) this past May 5th and repainted the Plaque, added a new logbook.

 

How G.D. DARE you archive this cache and tell me I am not "doing a good enough job" maintaining it?

 

I will be calling Jeremy directly the first chance I get. This has gone too far.

Link to comment

:(

 

cloud without a silver lining

you sought

you found

you kept on whining

you weren't the only one

looking for some hope

so you ended your problems

at the end of a rope

it was simple

plain

a plain and simple fact

something you understood

until the day you cracked

saw the summit of your doom

will to live grew fatter

but that you pushed aside

and climbed

rung by rung the ladder

two choices <-----(whispered)

stick around

and work it out

or stand on top

and kick it out

but you chose the latter

two choices <------(whispered)

but you chose the ladder

 

edit: forgot to give proper credit

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment

Is this really true?

 

It was allowed with TPTB knowing full well what was going on.

 

Is there anymore to this than what is reported here? Is this the first contact you got about this?

 

If this is actually the case, then this whole site has gone to hell! The people or person that made this choice can take the Vice President's advice given to a certain Senator from Vermont.

Link to comment
Is this really true?

 

It was allowed with TPTB knowing full well what was going on.

 

Is there anymore to this than what is reported here? Is this the first contact you got about this?

 

If this is actually the case, then this whole site has gone to hell! The people or person that made this choice can take the Vice President's advice given to a certain Senator from Vermont.

Nothing more to this issue than what you are reading here, GrizzlyJohn....unreal, huh? I can't believe how out of control this whole thing is!

Edited by TEAM 360
Link to comment
Nothing more to this issue than what you are reading here, GrizzlyJohn....unreal, huh? I can't believe how out of control this whole thing is!

I know I have shaken my head at the just unreal and stupid things TPTB do here. But this has taken first place by a long shot.

 

These people have become the biggest group of power trippers I have ever seen. God I really hope some of the kool aid drinkers are watching this and will understand what many have been saying for so long.

 

Take your caches to other sites. GC.com is not the sport of geocaching. Every day they are trying to ruin it more and more. Someway somehow a stop needs to be put to this kind of control that only can happen when a monopoly exists.

Link to comment

Actually, TEAM 360, I think you gotta be proud of what's happened, rather than sad.

I mean the cache is still there, and anybody could log it as a find, or post a note.

You are still the owner, and you are firmly on moral high ground.

But certain admins of this site, and Groundspeak as a whole, have just proved that they can live up to the worst of their reputations. Essentially, they've just publicly made vengeaful fools out of themselves, if not worse.

Keep your cool, we are proud of you.

Link to comment

Can not believe this!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

 

This is on my watch list as I plan on making it a highlight of my vacation this year. Still going to stop and visit, sign the log and would have loved to log the find. :D

 

Also if CO Admin. had read the logs for the Original StashCache he would have seen that a log was available on 6/8/04, placed by LilDevil. :(

 

One of nice things about geocaching is that other cachers step up and help maintain caches. I have done it and am thankful when someone does it to one of my caches. :(

 

Sure hope TPTB see fit to correct this misjustice. :mad:

Link to comment

Seems like there is a quick easy solution to this. Ask the oregon geocachers, or someone in the protland area if they would be willing to help maintain it. I bet you would get about 1000 replies. Get that approved adn boom the cache is fully up and running and problem solved. 360 is still the owner, but has the help he needs, and a great cache and idea is preserved.

 

But lets not forget this quote from the geocaching website cache placement guidelines that were agreeed to. "As the cache owner, you are also responsible for checking on your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing."

 

It doesnt look like a power trip or retaliation. It seems more like a squeeky wheel getting some oil. It was brought to attention in another thread, and a reasonable step was taken. Its all about being a responsible cache owner so the rest of us can enjoy a fun cache hunt and the fruit of your work.

 

Lets keep it respectful as a huge fight wont solve anything.

 

MH

Link to comment
This is on my watch list as I plan on making it a highlight of my vacation this year. Still going to stop and visit, sign the log and would have loved to log the find. :(

You shouldn't have any problem logging it as a find. The only thing archival does is removing a cache from searches by area and by name. The finds still count.

3 of my finds are archived caches. One has the owner's request to remove it, so I was LTF. Another one was stolen & archived, then we found it in the woods and returned to the owner, but the owner never replaced it and it remained archived. The last one was re-listed at a competing site, but since I've got a traveller in there, I really had to log it at gc.com.

Your logs are searchable, you count goes up, and your picts are in the gallery no matter if the cache is archived. Go ahead please!

Link to comment

Read the other thread.....sounds like a simple miscommunication of WHEN the logbook was replaced.

 

If cache maintenance IS an issue, a NEW local cacher should be identified who can take better care of it (in a more timely manner). If there was confusion and the log book was replced quicly than this should go away and not be an issue.

 

360, I don't think it;s neccessary to continually talk about the time and money spent on this - that's not the case. If it can't be maintained, it can't - clear and simple.

 

If it CAN, then the resolution should come swiftly.

 

All, be aware that there is probably much more going on here than we are reading in the forums (like most cases).

 

It never fails to make me laugh - the speed at which people jump on the bandwagon to bash others. "this site sucks" " TPTB are power hungry" "blah blah blah".

 

If you don't like it leave. Take your caches elsewhere, don't post here and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

(flamesuit on)

Link to comment
Eh, leave it archived and let people log it. Post the link to the cache in your siggy.

 

Why is it CO Admin is always the one in the middle of the fray?

Funny. Guess it's a glass half full vs glass half empty thing. I was wondering why out of the 1000 new caches approved every week, most of the crybabies seem to hide caches where Co Admin reviews.

Link to comment

Team360......with 31 hides and 13 of them (14 if you count the one from today) archived, I can see where COAdmin isn't too far off in his reasoning about you being able to maintain yet another cache. Some of the ones you have archived now don't even give a reason why they were archived. That's another thread.

Anyway, what I don't understand is why the cache from today was archived. There are no problems with it and it shouldn't have been archived until it was proven that you could no longer maintain it.

 

I'm sorta sitting on the fence here with this whole situation. Sorta confused by it all too.

Link to comment

Let me first say that CO Admins actions on the other subject were logical.

 

This however, is TOTALLY illogical, inappropriate, and outside of the guidelines. The fact that this action was taken just after the prior issue is distasteful and smacks of bad form.

 

June 26 by CO Admin (1 found)

This cache has been archived becasue the owner is too far away to maintain this cache in a reasonable amount of time

Last log book went missing on may 16th. on may 19th you said you would take care of it. it wasnt untill June 22

"June 22 by ponyryder (6 found)

Thanks to Team 360 sending it to me, a new mini-cache "Altoids" container with log sheet has been placed at the Tribute Plaque. I hope this one lasts longer. "

Over a month is way too long to to wait to replace a missing log book. I recomend that you let this cache be adopted or obtaine a local cacher to watch it for you. If you already have a local to watch this I suggest you find someone else that can do a better Job.

 

Within CO Admin's very post is evidence that the cache is maintained and in good shape, "new...container with log sheet has been placed".

 

Within CO Admin's very post is evidence of a volunteer local maintainer, "June 22 by ponyryder".

 

Within CO Admin's very post is evidence of proper maintenance according to the guidelines "a month".

 

This feature is to allow you a reasonable time â  normally a few weeks â  in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time...

 

Five is certainly a few since the norm is MONTHS. A cache around here had filed complaints last summer, was disabled until fall when an approver noted it would be archived in several weeks if not fixed--not until spring was it archived.

 

In this case the cache IS currently in good shape, NOT disabled, fully maintained WITH a local maintainer who has acted to maintain it as well as stated his intention to do so.

 

Again, I believe Co Admin's actions are questionable, arbitrary and outside of the guidelines and practices of geocaching.com.

 

There's absolutely NO reason the cache is still currently archived.

 

Thanks,

 

Randy

Link to comment

I sincerely hope this situation gets worked out. I really want to find and log this cache someday. I know that I can log it even if it's archived, but hopefully it will not remain archived. It's sad that this cache was archived. No judgements made, because there is probably another side to the story. I just wanted to post to show my support for the cache and for Team360 and all he has done to place it.

 

McWeb

Link to comment

It never fails to make me laugh - the speed at which people jump on the bandwagon to bash others. "this site sucks" " TPTB are power hungry" "blah blah blah".

 

 

I don't think that is what's happening here, and I'm one that would be prone to see it if it was, being that I am a 'gc.com toadie'. :(

 

Someone has made a big effort to do something for preserving the 'history' of geocaching, and they are a little more than hurt today by the needless archiving of their cache.

 

And I agree with you, that this is a spillover from another issue.

Link to comment

LOL Kealia. Seems like some people are always looking to for an excuse to jump in and bash others. Geesh seems like such a simple solution was here, but instead of just taking it, look at how it snowballed. Wasnt helped by those that are looking for an excuse to bash and attack those that put in so much work (Most of them for FREEE) so we have a good site to enjoy our hobby. Heck being a moderator or an approver just helps them to have huge bullseyes on them and take so much heat. Are they perfect no way. But is anyone else around here perfect? Hmmmm common and dont lie about it............. hmm pretty quiet..........

 

I know I am thankful for all the work so many others currently do, or have done in the past to give us a hobby that so many of us enjoy. And MOST of them do it for free. Why are they willing to put up with so much, and attacks? Because they want to help give back to the hobby and they also know that so many others appreciate all the work they do. Will there be areas to improve or something people dont like? ALWAYS But its how we approach it respectfully and discuss it with level heads. If you cant do that, and if you dont like it, dont stick around just to make waves or attack others or slam them. Either try to help in proper ways, or just avoid the forums and alot of the site like so many others do. Its all about helping others and giving back to the hobby which so many of us enjoy.

 

MH

Link to comment

You know, I am always called the peacemaker in my family. The one who offers comprise and thinks issues are better resolved when it's a win-win. I am one of the newer cachers here, but I am very active and do my part and support geocaching in a positive way.

 

However, I was following the other thread when this subject came up and next thing you know, this cache was archived. I know there is no RULE that says problems on caches should try and be worked out, but I think it would have been the appropriate move if an email had been sent to 360 telling him he needed to find someone closer to the plaque, or it would be archived because of maintenance problems. Then since this cache had been approved with 360 as the owner, even if in hindsight to some, that was an error, give him a reasonable amount of time to rectify the situation. The cache wasn't putting anyone into "immanent danger", so why couldn't there have been more effort put into resolving the problem? Thing is, it is too far to have good maintenance on it by 360. It's a popular cache, which means it is going to need more maintenance than a cache that is only visited a few times a year. But rather than archive it, maybe he could have had a week's notice to set something up with a cacher (Ponyryder had already said he would/could maintain.)

 

Seems there are many people who are very passionate here about Geocaching. Sure would be nice to see steps taken towards resolving a situation before the plug is pulled. Listing the cache on another sight is just a band-aid fix, it doesn't resolve the problem.

 

This make me very sad, I hope it's resolved soon.

Link to comment
... Some of the ones you have archived now don't even give a reason why they were archived.

No, that is nobody's business. A cache owner is free to archive any of his/her caches at any time without any explanation to anyone.

I just archived one of mine, and it wouldn't let me do it without an explanation of why. I guess you could fill that full of periods or other BS and then delete it, but that seems to go against the purpose of requiring a reason, no? Since the archive won't go thru without a reason, it seems like they do in fact want you to supply one.

Link to comment

1) You can have local help with maintaining a cache and you are allowed to have your name on it as the owner.

2) This cache got special permission with full knowledge of the situation. It got that permission for very good reasons.

3) The geocaching world is not a better place for the point made here today. Neither GC.com nor geocaching benifited from this.

4) Approvers should not generally approve or archived outside their area of reasoanble knowledge. Portland is not CO_Admins area.

 

In other words. What a crock of s***. Team as soon as Hydee notices this I'm sure it will be fixed right up. The rest of my rant will be saved for it's own topic.

Link to comment

I'm a relative newbie and, so far, have thought very highly of TPTB.

 

Now, PTB: You have to resolve this in a way that doesn't tarnish the good image I have of you--because it's not looking good, and I don't want to become a cynic. A crestfallen prettynwitty is no longer pretty or witty :(

 

I have faith that you'll step up to the plate and fix this situation in a way that keeps me proud of my membership. You will, right? Right?

Link to comment
I just archived one of mine, and it wouldn't let me do it without an explanation of why. ... Since the archive won't go thru without a reason, it seems like they do in fact want you to supply one.

I must have missed the guideline that lists the requirements for cache archival explanations. :(

 

Typing the word "archived" into the text box is sufficient "explanation." It's brief, it's accurate, and it gives all the information anyone, including the website owner, is entitled to or needs.

 

And if the cache owner wishes, s/he can then delete the archival notice from his/her cache page. No muss, no fuss.

Link to comment
I'm a relative newbie and, so far, have thought very highly of TPTB.

 

Now, PTB: You have to resolve this in a way that doesn't tarnish the good image I have of you--because it's not looking good, and I don't want to become a cynic. A crestfallen prettynwitty is no longer pretty or witty :(

 

I have faith that you'll step up to the plate and fix this situation in a way that keeps me proud of my membership. You will, right? Right?

You are hearing one side of a story from some people that are always first to step up and bash the Admins. Lets wait until we hear both sides before we make a judgement.

 

The cache that is in question is a very special cache. However it should not be exempt from the rules that other caches are subjected to also. Don't be quick to jump on the band wagon of the discontent until all sides are heard.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
I'm a relative newbie and, so far, have thought very highly of TPTB. 

 

Now, PTB:  You have to resolve this in a way that doesn't tarnish the good image I have of you--because it's not looking good, and I don't want to become a cynic.  A crestfallen prettynwitty is no longer pretty or witty  :(

 

I have faith that you'll step up to the plate and fix this situation in a way that keeps me proud of my membership.  You will, right?  Right?

You are hearing one side of a story from some people that are always first to step up and bash the Admins. Lets wait until we hear both sides before we make a judgement.

 

The cache that is in question is a very special cache. However it should not be exempt from the rules that other caches are subjected to also. Don't be quick to jump on the band wagon of the discontent until all sides are heard.

 

El Diablo

Thanks El Diablo. I have been watching this thread since it started and just could not come up with the message you did. This issue should be waited out and let Admin and 360 work it out. Again there is likely more to this than all of us know.

Link to comment

Unbelievable! :( I'm one of the cachers that donated money to make this plaque and cache happen! I agree with you 360, this is despicable! I normally don't get involved in the "flame wars" and bitching that happens all too frequently on these forums, but I gotta throw in my support for getting this cache un-archived ASAP!! CO ADMIN, Why not make this cache a virtual? If ever there was reason for an exception to the rule, this is it!

Link to comment

I don't think folks want to bash admins, or gc.com here, I know I certainly don't.

 

It just seems so clear to me that this cache archival was a spillover from the 'other' thread and what was going on there.

 

Even if it isn't, it has the appearance of being so, and doesn't help matters any.

Edited by canadazuuk
Link to comment
I don't think folks want to bash admins, or gc.com here, I know I certainly don't.

 

It just seems so clear to me that this cache archival was a spillover from the 'other' thread and what was going on their.

 

Even if it isn't, it has the appearance of being so, and doesn't help matters any.

It indeed may be a spill over. As I pointed out in my earlier post...it is a very special cache. However it is not exempt from the same rules that are applied to all caches.

 

In the earlier thread it was pointed out that the cache went for over a month needing care before it was given.

 

What needs to happen is for the locals where the cache is located to step up and offer to take responsibility for it. There is more going on here than this cache. 360 was unhappy that his latest cache wasn't approved, and according to the guidelines it was the correct decision. During that discussion the fact came out that 360's plaque cache was also being neglected.

 

In other words... he brought this grief upon his self. I for one want to see the cache unarchived. I also want it to adhere to the same rules as all caches. This would be a perfect cache for the local geocaching group to adopt and put all of this to rest.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

There must always be some direct communication from the admin(s) to the cache owner prior to archiving ANY cache unilaterally. This is simply common courtesy. I am not saying this did not take place, although given the tone of Team 360's original post here, I suspect it did not.

 

Additionally, communications should include a request for rectification any issues, and adequate time should be allowed for implementation. I am also not saying this did not take place; it appears it did not.

 

*ONLY* after the contacts/requests from the Admin are ignored and/or rejected, should action be taken to archive the cache unilaterally. I myself was virtually inactive from caching for nearly a year and a half, and one of my own caches fell into serious disrepair. I eventually got around to archiving it at the suggestion of a local cacher, but there was no attempt by local admin to take matters into their own hands and do it FOR me. We are fortunate, I feel, to have at least one admin in our area who understands what decency and courtesy are truly all about. And who understands that caching is really about the people who participate, not simply a few servers and guidelines to be pounded upon and enforced.

 

As for "reasonable" frequency of visits, I would be very interested to hear what would determine this. I have caches that are logged almost daily, as well as some that get visited once a year, if I am lucky, and someone gets really ambitious. Am I required to hike to 12,000 feet every year to check that my cache is still ok? Is it enough for me to contact the most recent finder and ask how it looked? In the situation at hand, it seems to me that it would have been entirely appropriate for this cache to be changed from a traditional to a virtual (I was of the impression that it WAS a virtual) until a logbook could be placed at the site.

 

I am not interested in indicting anyone of anything, but to me, I have a hard time believing that anyone who went to as much trouble as it appears was taken to place this cache in the first place would simply ignore contacts regarding his cache. If, in fact, no effort was made by the admin to rectify the issues prior to archival, then let me be the Nth person to say, "SHAME ON YOU." I would be every bit as incensed as Team 360 appears to be. Let me add my name to the already lengthy list of petitioners for a swift and solid solution to this apparent debacle.

Link to comment

It indeed may be a spill over. As I pointed out in my earlier post...it is a very special cache. However it is not exempt from the same rules that are applied to all caches.

 

In the earlier thread it was pointed out that the cache went for over a month needing care before it was given.

 

What needs to happen is for the locals where the cache is located to step up and offer to take responsibility for it. There is more going on here than this cache. 360 was unhappy that his latest cache wasn't approved, and according to the guidelines it was the correct decision. During that discussion the fact came out that 360's plaque cache was also being neglected.

 

In other words... he brought this grief upon his self. I for one want to see the cache unarchived. I also want it to adhere to the same rules as all caches. This would be a perfect cache for the local geocaching group to adopt and put all of this to rest.

 

El Diablo

Best post I've seen in this thread so far, thanks.

Link to comment

I find it hard to believe he brought the grief upon himself for the plaque cache.

 

Here are the facts I can see that pertain to this cache specifically:

 

1) On June 8, it had a logbook. May 19 shows a note confirming there was no logbook.

 

2) On Jun 22, the logbook sent by TEAM 360 was placed in the cache.

 

3) The cache wasn't archived until TODAY, June 26, after a growing disagreement about other caches, as seen in another thread.

 

That the cache was archived unilaterally, despite currently meeting whatever 'guidelines' it's supposed to adhere to, only leaves one with the impression that a personality clash went too far.

Link to comment
In the situation at hand, it seems to me that it would have been entirely appropriate for this cache to be changed from a traditional to a virtual (I was of the impression that it WAS a virtual) until a logbook could be placed at the site.

Dave, just want to point out that during your hiatus, a few things changed. People started submitting just about anything they could think of as virtuals, like telephone poles and rotting carcasses. As a result, it got hard to get a virtual cache listed. People then started submitting new caches as traditional, then changing them to virtuals after they were approved, so because of them, we no longer have the ability to change the cache type once its approved. So to address your post, the hider couldn't change it to a virtual while the logbook was missing.

I'll go back to my popcorn now. :(

 

EDIT: looks like its all a moot point now.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

I don't know about the "other thread" and I've never bashed TPTB in public other than bitching about that dumb frog. But WAIT A FRIGGIN' MINUTE HERE!!!!!

 

I agree, first of all with all the approvers in Washington and California, what in the world is an approver from Colorado doing stepping into this?

 

In the logs there is total evidence of local support to maintain the cache which is what is required to have a cache away from your local area.

 

This was approved knowing that the hider lives far away. I've sent emails to TPTB about caches right near and ON RR tracks and have been told they are grandfathered in. If those are grandfathered, how in the world can you turn the clock back and take away permission for such an important cache?

 

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY......

if the set rule is going to be a month and there is no leeway on that let me know. I'll provide you a list of at least 30 caches around here where the hiders actually live within 1/2 hour and they have gone longer than a month without new log books when they have been reported as full or wet. I have requested that caches that have gone 6 months without being repaired be archived and the approver has emailed the hider to give them a chance to fix it before archiving it. Why is this a special case where is HAS to be archived even AFTER the log is replaced?

 

For such a ridiculous move to be made I have to think there IS something more to it, but there is no reason to affect everyone that might want to find this cache. Take it outside boys and leave the pi**ing contest off the website. :(

Link to comment
I find it hard to believe he brought the grief upon himself for the plaque cache.

 

Here are the facts I can see that pertain to this cache specifically:

 

1) On June 8, it had a logbook. May 19 shows a note confirming there was no logbook.

 

2) On Jun 22, the logbook sent by TEAM 360 was placed in the cache.

 

3) The cache wasn't archived until TODAY, June 26, after a growing disagreement about other caches, as seen in another thread.

 

That the cache was archived unilaterally, despite currently meeting whatever 'guidelines' it's supposed to adhere to, only leaves one with the impression that a personality clash went too far.

You just outlined the fact that 360 can't maintain this cache.

 

Mopar agrees with me on something??? :(

 

The fact is that 360 is to far out of pocket to maintain the cache. The other fact is that we all want it to be unarchived. It is a very important part of caching history. We all appeciate and applaud 360 for his effforts for giving us that cache.

 

All I'm asking is for the local Geocaching community to step up and adopt the cache. Then we can all go to bed knowing that the most important cache in caching history is being cared for and meets all rules that applies to other caches.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...