Re: [CentralTexasGeocachers] Re: On a day honoring TOLERANCE :(
- Oh my .. I guess I need to chime in and offer my two cents worth ....The logs were deleted to hopefully move the focus from what was to what is. They were not deleted as a result of what someone did or did not post. They were deleted with the hopes that cachers will focus on the intent of the cache: to get you out there to cache!Regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with the challenge being published as a 2013 challenge, it was and is a challenge for 2013. The requirements are well stated - log 91 caches surrounding a set of 13 requirements. But again, all said caches need to be logged in 2013. Even if you disagree with the date stipulation, in the spirit of the challenge, abide by the cache guidelines. This is a challenge for 2013, just like the challenge for 2012, the challenge for 2011, and so on."barking Chihuahuas" - really? I am not sure why we, as a group, need to get into name calling. Yes I have seen it before and will probably see it again. Granted, there were a few posts on the cache page that were strong worded. Rather than post something like this, why not contact the cachers who said it directly? Just a thought. Since I am from North Texas when I see those cachers again I will make my concerns known, in person."winged-monkey minions" - seriously?Yes I agree that this is a game. And that it should be fun. But posts like this and others detract from this. I am not convinced they are necessary.This challenge is fun: 2013 Geocachers to do list. Go cache and get 91 caches in 2013. Way cool I think. For the record, I have three events left before I can log it! I have had a lot of fun trekking around town making sure I have met the requirements. I suggest yall take the time to do it too - it is a unique challenge.The early log. The challenge is for caches logged in 2013; hence the name: a challenge for the year 2013. The cacher used logs from past years. Bottom line is the cacher did not meet the challenge requirements. If she truly wanted to log such a challenge, then log the 2012 challenge, if these caches were from 2012. This current year is still quite young with plenty of opportunity to meet the 2013 requirements. From talking with a Central Texas cacher earlier it seems that part of the issue at hand is that some centex caches with date restrictions were not approved, but this one was. It is unfortunate that not all caches are approved as we like them to be, but the fact that this one was approved should be a good thing, not a source for everyone to point and bicker. It was not sent for review with the intention of throwing sour grapes at anyone. It was sent for review with the intention of setting up a challenge cache for 2013. With this, if you feel you need to make this an issue, contact Groundspeak and complain. Get it archived if thats what needs to happen. But, if this does happen, does this make us all better? Does this action make this a better place to cache? Will it make all the CENTEX cachers happy that now there isnt a cache around Dallas with a date restriction? I dont think so. I think we should embrace the fact that we do have a cache with a unique challenge available to all of us.Personally, I think its just time for us to behave like adults. To quite a game you enjoy, or to say off the wall things to others because they dont agree with you... well we all know it happens but it still doesn't make it right. If my words offend anyone on here I am truly sorry - this is not my intention.Just my thoughts.
--- bananapoo@... wrote:
From: Matthew Manning <bananapoo@...>
Subject: [CentralTexasGeocachers] Re: On a day honoring TOLERANCE :(
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:19:42 -0600
I may not be the most active Geocacher right now, but what I saw on that cache page reminded me so much of the crap I dealt with during my time on the TXGA board when it was majority NTX ran. It was disgusting. I hope that everyone noticed that when I called for its archive, the CO deleted all the logs. If I am not mistaken, a notice still gets sent to PR about it.
I say, Tony, go claim it again. Don't back down from those barking Chihuahuas. All bark and no bite. I hate to drag name calling I to this, but those were threats in those logs. Empty threats, but still. If that cache is still up in a week, I will email Groundspeak about it myself.
All in all, you definitely have a right to claim it. If you are not allowed to claim it, no one should. Its a damn game, a hobby, a sport. It isn't a reason for gang warfare. I know some of these NTX cachers follow this group, so read this carefully to those that apply. Stop making geocaching unpleasant for others! If it isn't enjoyable, then stop doing it!
UnlikelyPirate aka Bananapoo
This is my last post in this thread for the sake of ending this debacle. Sorry, I've got a lot going on in my life right now so I'm limited on time in which I can respond.
CO started off just stating that the requirements had not been met but then went back and chimed in their own two cents about two times with everyone else. It was not as belittling as what others had been saying, but it was negative and hurtful as well.
The last post anyone made before I posted a need archive was about how there were 52ish people watching the cache and that Toni should really be careful about how she 'is antagonizing NTX and trying to force them to cache her way."
And the only opinion I will offer to this now... good. The best way to move past this in the first way is to do the fair thing, prevent further debate over it, align to what Groundspeak says, and if that means archive the cache, do so.On Jan 22, 2013 7:07 PM, "GrnBeret2B" <grn.beret.2b@...> wrote:
Can someone please point me to yahoogroups functionality, should it exist, that allows me to unsubscribe from a single thread so that I don't have to continue receiving emails that consist of little more than internet arguments (I quit moderating F2P MMO forums for a reason....), but can still receive the emails that contain the quality posts that I know the members of this group are capable of making?TIA!~~Nathaniela.k.a. GrnBeret2BOn Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Wade Mercer <wade1@...> wrote:Well I guess y'all got your wish and the challenge cache has been archived. I hope y'all feel some vindication with your "victory". Apparently Tori's log has been restated too even though she did not complete the challenge.What a sad turn of events. It's sad that a group of cachers made such a big deal out of this one simply because their caches with dates restrictions were not approved. This seems to be the real issue.As far as I am concerned Tori's log is not valid. It wasn't logged with respect to what the cache was intended or approved. From the messages I have received outside of this list there's lots I could say with respect to this, but it would serve no purpose here.Again, congratulations in winning. Apparently its what y'all wanted. Unfortunately it's a loss for the caching community, but I don't think that is, or ever was, a concern.Just my two cents worth.Wade
On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:55 AM, "bigguy9211116" <bigguy9211116@...> wrote:
On a day set aside to honor a man that stood up for tolerance and equality I am saddened by all the hoopla circling around our own tfbrown and a cache in the Dallas area.
I dont' know how many of you watch the cache GC432W3 - "2013 Geocacheers To Do List" by zeppo!, but maybe you should go there and read the ugly, mean, nasty, and even threatening posts made by so many.
I am saddened by the whole affair and I can only imagine what tfbrown must be feeling.
I have tried to make some sense out of the whole thing and have tried very hard not to get involved (except one post in her defense) but I just had to vent somewhere.
After much reflection, I have come to a realization that Prime Reviewer allowed this cache to be published as a 2013 finds only cache! That must be why the cachers up there are so upset. They are not aware that down here we were not ALLOWED to do that!
I listed GC4291X - The @#$%& ABC Challenge even before zeppo! did (mine published 12/28/12, his was published 12/31/12) and was explicitly told that this was not allowed by Groundspeak.
Well, I guess this truly means that we are NOT all equal!
Please know that I mean no disrespect to anyone involved with this cache. I represent no opinions other than my own and I speak for no one except myself. Thank you for the opporutnity to speak.
A sad day indeed,
Esther/ Bigguy In Texas