Predictable results based on the note posted on the cache page.
*You have been told who owns the juke-box, and who will decide which
records will be played on it.*
I can't help believing that there is something more to the story,
something you (we) apparently don't need to know. Although I have
realized long ago that Groundspeak/geocaching.com is not a democracy
(nor even a republic!), this 'because I'm the Mommy' attitude is highly
unusual and reeks of 'special situation'.
Lisa/poldradog has really hit the nail on the head!
If you think it's a worthy location, hide the new cache and move on.
Personally, if you ask previous finders of the old cache not to post
finds, I would comply...others may not. It would probably be best to let
it go if previous finders of the old cache (number pumping whores) post
new finds despite your request not to (if you decide to go that way),
because deleting all those found logs will not make you feel good (trust
me on this).
OK, I just ran out of parentheses, so that's all I have to say (I
think). ;-)
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)