South Carolina Legislation Meeting

[magellan315]

We saw everything on cable, Cieps DID say that someone spraypainted a gravestone.

There is a word I would like to use right now, unfortunatlely if any of the mods know yiddish I'd be banned from the forums

Edited May 11, 2005 by magellan315

[+sbell111]

So now the question becomes how do you get the word out that a lot of the basis for this bill is untrue? Let's not forget carefully edited cache logs, pictures purported to be taken in graveyards at night (that weren't) etc.

By contacting each one by phone and email.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

You know, I hate to be a big poop, but the SC house is absolutely one of the most disorganized institutions I've ever seen. How can anyone vote accurately or informedly (is that a word?) with everyone up running around chit-chatting, making faces at each other, snide remarks (Scarborough is incredibly unprofessional), etc?

 

That's why they say you should never watch sausage or law being made!

 

As far as the Jewish cemetary / paint issue, I don't know if she knows the truth, that it was a painted cache in a tree, because she was reading a letter from the cemetary owner that stated a marker had been painted. She may not be lying, just misinformed.

 

I don't live in SC, but if I did I would be providing a true explanation for each of these points to each representative in writing.

 

And where is Groundspeak in all this - why have they not put together a presentation of the game for this body? Or have they and I missed it?

[+carleenp]

So where / when will we get a copy of this bill as it now stands?

The House Journal will be updated in a few hours. It should include the amendments.

[+KeithTS]

We saw everything on cable, Cieps DID say that someone spraypainted a gravestone.

If she believes this, then why was the issue not turned over to law enforcement for investigation of violation of current laws?

[+sbell111]

...And where is Groundspeak in all this - why have they not put together a presentation of the game for this body? Or have they and I missed it?

Early in the game, she made the point the 'somebody was making money off of this'. If GC.com got into the fray as a principle, it would only substantiate this comment and make it easier to vote for this worthless bill.

[CoyoteRed]

The harmful part was in spray-painting the grave marker.

She said that?

I'm not sure, video kept cutting out. I think all she did was read a letter from the synagoge supporting the amendment.

David Haller is the same person who wrote a C&D letter for the cemetery she referenced. While I couldn't see that whole section of the video from just after she started reading to well after, I wouldn't be a bit surprised she didn't mention any "defecation" because she would have known it to be a lie.

 

What is going on is someone is going around to different groups telling lies and encouraging them to contact their legislator.

[+pghlooking]

Ceips also informed the house that we have "targeted" the jewish cemetary. Nice choice of words. Also claims we have begun running around on indian burial mounds, as well as a place referred to as the shell rings? Apparently SC is the new nahsville for cache density. Can't turn around without a grave stealing, geocacher with UV paint in hand standing on top of a black jewish indian burial mound running into you. Love the way she refers to everything as South Carolinas Treasures, yet we cant treasure hunt. We should have everything locked behind a gate where no one can see them.

[+Deliveryguy428]

I got a headache from all this

[magellan315]

SisyCr for the sake of clarification. I went back and read the archived cache in the Jewish Cemetary. For those of us are not familiar with it how did each stage work. In the description one stage is listed as the only way to see the coordinates were to use a black light and they were on the back of something.

[+sbell111]

There was a small object hidden in the tree near the entrance that had the coords for the next location written on it in UV ink.

Edited May 11, 2005 by sbell111

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The question was asked of Ms. Cieps "What spurred you into action on this bill" (paraphrased) and she wandered all around, no real answer but that some constituents contacted her.

 

Nobody acts with this level of passion, determination and effort without a strong motive - listen to her when she speaks, she is truly upset and offended, but by something that has as yet come to light.

 

This appears to be very personal with her.

 

Wonder what really set her off?

[+Divine]

Nice choice of words.

My favorite was callous intentions OSLT.

[+Deliveryguy428]

I want to make a request of our steering committiee to provide information to all Reps that proves that she has been trying to work on this for a year with no results which forced her to bring about the bill. She said that she has been trying to work this problem out for a year and I just want to know who in geocaching she contacted to work this out. Just want to make sure we know for sure if it is a lie or a truth and if it is a lie prove it for what it is.

[+sbell111]

...Wonder what really set her off?

I wonder if it is simply her pride.

 

I suspect that she was either misinformed at the beginning or made a faulty leap of logic to assume that geocachers were involved in damaging local black cemetaries. Once she dived in to the fray, she didn't see an easy way out, so she just kept on digging in.

[+sbell111]

... She said that she has been trying to work this problem out for a year and I just want to know who in geocaching she contacted to work this out. ...

If I recall correctly, in the beginning of all this, the state archeologist claimed that he was tring to contact TPTB for a year. I'm not sure if this has ever really been proved or disproved.

[Team Min-Pin]

I know Groundspeak never returns my emails, so I guess it is within the realm of possibility.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If I recall correctly, in the beginning of all this, the state archeologist claimed that he was tring to contact TPTB for a year. I'm not sure if this has ever really been proved or disproved.

 

Yes, I'd have to go way back in the thread, but I think it was proven true, unfortunately.

[+pghlooking]

I suspect that she was either misinformed at the beginning or made a faulty leap of logic to assume that geocachers were involved in damaging local black cemetaries.

No way. She is on record confessing that there has been no vandalism or damage as a result of geocaching. she has been pursuing this for a year so nothing major can pop into light for her to say she missed the jewish cemetary or something. she has contacted over 50 churches and cemetaries as well as the jeish and black communities and no onoe there has reported this to her. so no damage has been done. She isn't getting what she wanted so she is trying to swing the votes out of people who were against her by playing the race card. That in itself is dispicable. I hope they all see this before she has another chance to speak. i heard 3 weeks left till summer break. with the rate at which this bill gets viewed, i wonder if it will make it through a 3rd reading before break?

[CoyoteRed]

SisyCr for the sake of clarification. I went back and read the archived cache in the Jewish Cemetary. For those of us are not familiar with it how did each stage work. In the description one stage is listed as the only way to see the coordinates were to use a black light and they were on the back of something.

There was two stages.

 

The first stage was a small container about the size of a makeup compact. It was black with some UV paint on it. Inside was a black piece of paper on which was the final coordinates written in invisible UV ink. The container was placed in a tree at about head height--about 5½ feet. It was held in place by the vines growing on the tree. The tree is about 15 from the drive way. The drive way is a loop--it goes in one gate and out the other. All the way in the rear, where there is no graves on the outside of the loop is where you parked. The tree is on the inside of the loop.

 

The second stage was towards the front side. If you parked in the logical spot you walked along a grassy path to some woods. It was a short distance into the woods.

 

While I was not the one that palced it, I'm intimate with it because we found it and then adopted it when the previous owner moved away. The sole purpose of the cache was a short lesson in physics which is a bit unfortunate because we learned something there.

 

Have you ever gone to a cemetery and found small rocks placed on the markers? It's a custom in the Jewish community--and I suppose some others, as well--to place something on the marker to show that you've visited. We didn't know that at the time. Sissy researched it. She also wrote to Mr. Haller about her experience in the cemetery. If she would like she can write about it herself. In the end, I don't think Mr. Haller thinks of us a bad folks, but remains adamant that we don't geocache in his cemetery and I think that's fine. There is no hard feelings on my part.

[+pghlooking]

If I recall correctly, in the beginning of all this, the state archeologist claimed that he was tring to contact TPTB for a year. I'm not sure if this has ever really been proved or disproved.

 

Yes, I'd have to go way back in the thread, but I think it was proven true, unfortunately.

yes it was true BUT he has since spoken with GC and is on our side from what i have read. Ceips said today though, that all the state archeologists are supporting her bill. This doesn't add up to me.

[Paulcet]

I know Groundspeak never returns my emails, so I guess it is within the realm of possibility.

Clicking on the "Notify us" link on the Contact page goes to an email form which has a drop-down menu box.

 

There should be a choice in that drop-down for "inappropriate cache placement" or something to that effect.

 

While they may be busy, TPTB should get on it, like, yesterday.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Paulcet

[+hydee]

... She said that she has been trying to work this problem out for a year and I just want to know who in geocaching she contacted to work this out. ...

If I recall correctly, in the beginning of all this, the state archeologist claimed that he was tring to contact TPTB for a year. I'm not sure if this has ever really been proved or disproved.

I have been in close contact with the State Archaeologist since I was informed about the contact attempt last year. He has even sent me a copy of his letter, I don't recall receiving the letter.

 

At this point there is no way anyone in good faith could say that they are unable to contact someone in regards to geocaching in SC. There is a direct line of communication that is received by multiple individuals. Currently, the State Archaeologist uses this as a method of communication and it has been offered to many others.

 

Communication is not the issue.

[Jeremy]

I know Groundspeak never returns my emails, so I guess it is within the realm of possibility.

I take offense to this. If an email you sent was not responded to I'd like to know why. Please provide the tracking number from the email we did not respond to and I'll investigate it.

[CoyoteRed]

I find it hard to believe that she picked 50 churches and not a single one had permission--was that written permission or did no one with the church know about it?

 

I wonder if any churches that did give permission mysteriously fall off the list. Because if she had contacted the folks where this cache was hidden, she would have found one.

 

I mean come on. You know dadgum good and well that because we owned the dreaded Jewish cemetery cache our profile was brought up and every cache we owned was scrutinized. Give me a break.

[Team Min-Pin]

Sorry Jeremy, but it is true. I didn't save the tracking number because I honestly didn't think I would need too.

 

The general topic of the most recent email was what is the procedure in place for choosing cache approvers.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Team Min-Pin

[Jeremy]

Sorry Jeremy, but it is true. I didn't save the tracking number because I honestly didn't think I would need too.

 

The general topic of the email was what is the procedure in place for choosing cache approvers.

So nothing to back up your accusation. Sounds familiar.

[Team Min-Pin]

Just answer the question smart a**. It is idiots like this that give people like Ceips the ammo to do the things they do. Smart move buddy.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Team Min-Pin

[Keystone]

I know Groundspeak never returns my emails, so I guess it is within the realm of possibility.

Clicking on the "Notify us" link goes to an email form which has a drop-down box.

 

There should be a choice in that drop-down for "inapropriate cache placement" or something to that effect.

 

While they may be busy, TPTB should get on it, like, yesterday.

I will give you an example of how the contact process works for inappropriate cache placements.

 

Last week, Groundspeak received an e-mail at the contact address from a land manager somewhere in the territory where I review caches. He asked that two caches be archived because they're in an off-limits area. Groundspeak's e-mail management system assigned a tracking number to the inquiry, and responsibility for the issue was assigned in the system to me. Groundspeak forwarded the e-mail to me. One of the caches I recognized as one that I reviewed recently, and the other was a very old cache. It turns out that Mapquest was wrong; it showed the off-limits area ending at a county border, with the caches on the "right" side of the border. Topozone didn't show the area at all... just woods and streams. But, an examination of the property's map on its website map showed me that the caches were placed in an off-limits area. I archived the caches immediately, per the guidelines. All of this happened within 48 hours or so. I will follow up shortly with an explanation to the land manager, telling him what action had been taken, and confirming that I am aware of his agency's policy. I have successfully screened out several other caches placed in other properties subject to the same policy and I will tell him that, too.

 

Other examples like this one are handled in the same way, every single day, all over the world. The system works, at least from where I'm sitting.

[+Deliveryguy428]

I do not know where the contact of Groundspeak/GC went or stood.

[+Prairie Dog]

Here is the archived streaming video of H.3777

debate from 5-11-05.

Running time is 52:49

Ms. Ceip's comments begin about 32 minutes into the video.

 

A recent copy of Windows Media Player is required to view this video.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Prairie Dog 76

[Jeremy]

I have been in close contact with the State Archaeologist since I was informed about the contact attempt last year. He has even sent me a copy of his letter, I don't recall receiving the letter.

I'd also add that the letter itself did not ask for any particular action to be taken that wasn't already done with the web site (e.g. the cache guidelines, asking about permission, etc). Even if we did receive the letter there was no action to take. Ceips gives the impression that repeated attempts were made to contact the web site - but about what?

[+vree]

thanks for the link, prarie dog!

[Team Min-Pin]

Can you show me the letter????

[Jeremy]

Just answer the question smart a**. It is idiots like this that give people like Ceips the ammo to do the things they do. Smart move buddy.

You're not exactly endearing anyone to your point of view.

[+carleenp]

Here is the archived streaming video of H.3777

debate from 5-11-05.

Running time is 52:49

Ms. Ceip's comments begin about 32 minutes into the video.

 

A recent copy of Windows Media Player is required to view this video.

Thank you! I will view this when I get home this evening.

[+sbell111]

The general topic of the most recent email was what is the procedure in place for choosing cache approvers.

Just answer the question ...

 

I'm thinking that this is not the way to become an approver.

Edited May 11, 2005 by sbell111

[Jeremy]

Can you show me the letter????

The person who wrote the letter didn't give us permission, but we asked.

[Team Min-Pin]

Well people like you do not exactly endear people like Ceips to your point of view too, obviously. Can't produce the letter for me? You must be a liar then.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Team Min-Pin

[+hydee]

Can you show me the letter????

I have requested permission to publish the letter but at this time I have not been given permission.

[Team Min-Pin]

Thank you hydee for your responce.

[cexshun]

I'm just dumbfounded that instead of working with us to find a solution, an all out witch hunt of biblical proportions breaks out. I think most of us would agree that a solution would have easily been reached by both sides if Ceips would have just asked.

 

I guess she's one of those "shoot first, ask questions later" type people.

[+hydee]

Thank you hydee for your responce.

Your welcome.

 

Thanks for the kind reply. Let's avoid calling people names in the future please.

[+carleenp]

This thread involves some pretty serious issues with this legislation. I don't think bickering and calling people names helps and it is rather distracting. Perhaps personal greviences that appear to involve things not actually related to the issue at hand could be taken to PM or email? If not then perhaps at least to its own thread? Usually I just skip reading such things, but considering the serious nature of this topic, I and others are reading every post. Please consider taking it elsewhere, toning down the personal jabs, or keeping it on topic. Thanks.

[+Deliveryguy428]

Just answer the question smart a**. It is idiots like this that give people like Ceips the ammo to do the things they do. Smart move buddy.

wow good move calling the founder of all this a name.....

 

If you see Signal outside your house tonight dressed as a ninja, run!

[Team Min-Pin]

I would be more scared of the Navicache guy, he is pretty stout.

[+Deliveryguy428]

This thread involves some pretty serious issues with this legislation. I don't think bickering and calling people names helps and it is rather distracting. Perhaps personal greviences that appear to involve things not actually related to the issue at hand could be taken to PM or email? If not then perhaps at least to its own thread? Usually I just skip reading such things, but considering the serious nature of this topic, I and others are reading every post. Please consider taking it elsewhere, toning down the personal jabs, or keeping it on topic. Thanks.

She is right and I know at times I have posted things not needed to be posted or said and I regret it,and either removed the post or edited it to something more professional.

[Jeremy]

I have to apologize for two things.

 

First, I did not mean for this thread to go off-topic. Whenever I get those jibes that emails aren't responded to it gets my fur up. I believe we do far better than much larger companies when it comes to responding to email and I get ill knowing they're not getting responded to.

 

Secondly, there was an email in the general queue that was moved to the reviewer queue since the person above asked to be a volunteer and we have someone else to respond to this inquiry. However that email was not responded to and for that I apologize. It will be responded to shortly.

 

Now you can get back to the original discussion at hand. Thanks.

[+Renegade Knight]

We saw everything on cable, Cieps DID say that someone spraypainted a gravestone.

Then the vandalizm charge would suffice as proof that was done, but it would also be proof that bill is not needed.

[+Renegade Knight]

Why this bill is bad. (Brainstorming the Why's)

 

Geocachers are harmless recreational land users.

 

The bill harms families. A 3 year old caching with their parents can be found guilty.

 

The bill forces people to become aware of where protected locations are which violates federal law requiring secrecy, and which allows treasure hunters and relic thieves to better find locations to work.

 

The bill removes land use decisions from both due process, and from the land managers responsible.

 

The bill will create a pressure to recover archeological sites and thereby open the lands up for public use. This is counter to preservation in place principals.

 

The bill punishes the innocent and does nothing for the guilty.

 

The bill bans sight seeing and self guided GPS tours of historic districts.

 

The bill does not recognize that some locations are a cultural traditional place and a cache merely brings people who would participate in a tradition to the location they can participate at.

 

The bill harms the tourism industry.

 

The bill harms small business who relies in part on geocachers for the purchase of supplies, food, equipment, accommodations and gas.

 

The bill discourages and activity that state health agencies would agree can help people reduce their weight and increase their fitness level.

 

The bill reduces state tax collections.

 

The bill creates and unfunded mandate for land managers to review requests for specific written permission for both the cache and to seek the cache, and to be a tourist or professional seeking a specific location.

 

The bill increases the amount of litter that state agencies will contend with since geocachers will by necessity not be removing trash from areas that used to contain caches.

 

The bill is redundant to other laws on the books that also protect what it seeks to protect, while adding no additional protection.

 

The bill will cause geocachers who choose to defend themselves to hire archaeologists who in turn will use shovel probes to further refine a site boundary. This is an invasive but valid method to determine the extent of a site.

 

The bill will create legal challenges on sites and properties listed improperly. Some of which will lose and thereby less locations this bill seeks to protect will be protected by the bill or existing laws.

 

The bill will increase the workload of the State Archaeological office as they deal with information requests by citizens trying to comply with the law, as they deal with the legal challenges, and as they deal with other issues arising from the law. Other projects will be delayed due to unforeseeable demands on staff time.

 

The press will get a hold of that 3 year old example and use them as the poster child for geocaching and government invasiveness into family life.

 

The bill will require increased staff, or dropping other programs and services when land managers have to deal with specific written requests for all things instead of dealing with the rare exception.

 

The police will be forced to arrest geocachers engaged in a harmless activity while remaining understaffed to deal with real crimes such as vandalism.

 

The bill will waste valuable court time on cases that sound like this. “Yes your honor I did in fact hide a container and place a log book in it. I was not aware that the location was protected from containers, as it was not marked in any way, nor did the state provide me with information when asked about where I should not place my Tupperware”. This person of course will have their 3 year old with them because they are next to be tried and sentenced to community service.

 

This bill does nothing to actually help anyone who would enforce the laws enforce the laws. It just makes more laws that they will have to enforce. If we are embarrassed to report a stolen cache just think about the officer having to arrest a family for seeking one. “Yes mam, I know this is no way to treat tourists, but am just doing my job making the world safe as our legislature has decreed, you can appeal for clemency to the governor.”

 

This bill removes the members of the public most likely to report a real problem from the locations where it would do some good.

 

I really tried to think about what the bill does that is good. This is all that I came up with.

 

This bill sounds good (until you actually think about it).