Hi Bob,
I'm pretty much a lurker on this list, but I'm going to offer something
with the disclaimer that a) I'm not a very experienced cacher, b) I
don't have any hides of my own yet, and c) I can see both sides of the
issue, so I honestly don't have a strong opinion as to what should or
shouldn't be allowed here.
What I do know is that it looks like they're not going to allow it.
That's what you have to work with.
Other than the principle of the whole thing, it sounds like your biggest
reservation to opening the new cache is giving people a chance at
logging what would amount to a repeat find. My thought is that this
detriment is outweighed by the benefit of allowing the find for new
cachers/people who haven't found this cache yet. This is assuming that
this cache is worth finding, which I'm assuming it is, otherwise you
would have stopped all the worry long ago. :)
The reality is that people who get an artificial second find either a)
don't/won't have a lot of finds, in which case their numbers are out of
the realm of noticeable, anyway, or b) they do have a lot of finds, in
which case this "artificial second" will be statistically
insignificant. I figure if it's a cache worth putting all of this worry
to in the first place, then it's worth placing a new cache. Just my $.02.
Cheers,
-Lisa "PoledraDog"
Bob & Linda Smith wrote:
> Dear Listserv,
>
> Below is the note I got back from Mr. Michael LaPaglia. As you can
> see, he will not budge off the subject of "Adoption of an archived"
> cache. His entire argument seems to be contained in the last line of
> the "Terms of Use" statement. I know very well that he has the
> techknowledgy to un-archive this cache.
>
> I just called Ground Speak and talked with a very nice young lady who
> checked with someone else in the office who said the same thing. Once
> archived it can not be un-archived, remind me to never archive any of my
> hides. She also told me that Michael LaPaglia is a paid employee and
> there is no one higher than him for an appeal.
>
> Very depressing.... I'm going to think on it a bit longer and see if I
> want to place a new cache there. If I do it will be a carbon copy of
> the previous one, just using a different container that I think will
> stay a little longer. My reservation in opening a new cache is giving
> some old finders a shot at a second find of the same thing. This is why
> I wanted to keep the old logs.
>
> I hope Mr. LaPaglia does not need anything in my neck of the woods as I
> have some serious disagreement with him.
>
> Bob Smith, Team Petite Elite
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geocaching Reviewers" <appeals@geocaching.com>
> To: <Lrsmith@cableone.net>
> Cc: <dbledutch@cox.net>; <listserrv@azgeocaching.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 9:24 PM
> Subject: [REV #KDB-385091]: Unarchive and adopt a cache
>
>
> Its not just the missing container. Once a cache is archived it can not
> be unarchived to be adopted. That is the way it is. If you need to see
> it in a "rule" I quote to you the following from the Terms of Use:
> Please notice the last line printed below.
>
> Groundspeak may change, suspend, or discontinue any portion of the Site,
> or any service offered on the Site, at any time, including but not
> limited to any feature, database, application, or content. Groundspeak
> may also impose limits on certain features offered on the Site with or
> without notice.
>
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
> Groundspeak - The Language of Location
>
>
> Ticket Details
> ===================
> Ticket ID: KDB-385091
> Department: Reviewers
> Priority: Low
> Status: Closed
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
>
>
>
(text/plain)