Re: [CentralTexasGeocachers] Re: On a day honoring TOLERANCE :(
- I agree with you regarding some of the comments that have been made.However, I disagree with your interpretation of the issue.1. Co submitted a 2013 challenge for review. It's premise is identical to similar challenges submitted for the past 4 years.2. Challenge is approved and published.3. A cacher logs the challenge without completing the 2013 requirements.4. Log is deleted by co since approved requirements aren't met.I'm not seeing how you are making the co out to be the antagonist here rather than the cacher logging the challenge without meeting the requirements. I'm not seeing how this is a NTx vs centex issue; a cacher logged the challenge without meeting requirements and the log was deleted, nothing more.Perhaps the issue is more with this challenge being approved while similar challenges were not. Regardless, my thought is to be glad it's approved and complete the challenge rather than be envious and seek its archive.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 22, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Matthew Manning <bananapoo@...> wrote:
I apologize for the name calling. I can honestly say that not all NTX Geocachers act this way, but those who stand and try to represent NTX the loudest give it the image I described.
My opinion is standing firm, though. There is no room for these malicious logs in the game. There is no room for COs that feel they they are the final authority on a cache, when Groundspeak makes the rules. We are not talking about anything taboo.
. LogThe issue did not start when the CO deleted the first FTF, or even the second FTF. The issue started to happen when the CO refused to acknowledge the rules they need to abide by, and people chimed in to turn it into a "We arrrrrg NTX, and we don't let people from anywhere else tell us how to cache!" scenario.
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