Power Trails

[ARsearcher]

I was thinking about putting out a "power trail" in my area and had noticed recently on here there were some guidelines for this. Was looking just now to go over them again and cant find them. Maybe I saw them somewhere else? If anyone can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. Thanks.

[AR-HICK]

I thought I knew where that thread was, but I cannot see it any more. I wonder if it got deleted :?:

[specialteacher]

I saw it on here somewhere but don't remember where.

I have looked and looked

but am wondering if it has disappeared :wink:

like the Fox thread did a few months ago???????????? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

:? :? :? :? :? :? :?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

8O 8O 8O 8O 8O

[Gaddiel]

It wasn't me this time! :)

[ChuckWalla]

The information was deleted at my request. The rules / limitations were not official Groundspeak rules / limitations and therefore should not have been publicly displayed since they gave the impression that it was a general change in policy. However, as a reviewer, I have discretion in what is allowed and not allowed locally with regard to power trails, especially as it relates to saturation of an area. If you are considering placement of a power trail, I recommend that you contact me by email to tell me your plans so that we can work through the details and avoid any issues before you go through the effort of placing the caches.

Chuck Walla
Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

[likestocanoe]

I am probably sticking my hand in the fire ant hill with no way to get it out - But - I personally feel it is wrong to remove posts from this forum just because you have the power and do not agree with the opinions stated or the information given. The postings were not inappropriate or vulgar in any manner. I would love to hear the opinions of my fellow cachers on this subject. :?:

[QuartzCachers]

Sigh.....
I didn't want it to come to this, but I agree with L2C. I think it is wrong to delete the thread with the rules with no explanation. However, that was Chuck's own thread. What I find absolutely reprehensible, is that a thread by another cacher has been deleted. This cacher is not from this state, so in the opinion of some, their thoughts and ideas don't matter. That very much flies in the face of all that we as Americans hold dear.
On the subject of power trails, they are not something that I want to do every day, but I sure like to run them out when they pop up. I have other caches hidden in the National Forest, in some truly awesome spots. My favorite has been in place since Jan. 13th of 2008, and has been visited a total of 16 times. (one wasn't logged) On the other hand, my Mainhaul series has been out since August, and has been visited 39 times, by cachers from AR, MO, LA, TX, ME, OK, MS, and others. I try to hide what cachers want to find. I don't understand why I and others are getting such grief for trying to place caches that cachers want to find! This makes no sense to me. I have done my absolute best to keep our reviewer in mind while placing these and turning them in. Even when doing so, it seems that I have been treated with a sense of being done a favor, instead of trying to make this state a better place to play our game. I don't understand using "saturation guidelines" to enforce this obvious dislike of this type of caching. I don't feel it is right to dictate the way this game is played in this state with the power of the reviewer, to the point of making it different than the way it is played in other places.
I know that I may never get another cache hidden in this state again for stating my opinion, but that is what it is. My opinion. I shouldn't have to fear stating my opinion in this country, but apparently, the tenets that we hold dear (free speech in this case), don't hold much water on this site, if someone's thread can be deleted, because someone in power doesn't like what it says, eh' comrade?
There, I said what others are thinking, but don't want to say. I don't want to be rude, because I have considered our reviewer my friend, but I just think this is wrong. I thought it would blow over, and be a thing of the past, but when it didn't, I felt like it was time to speak up.
Y'all call and check on me every once in a while to make sure I am still breathing. :evil: :D :evil: :D

[ChuckWalla]

The "other" posting in question was deleted because the website user re-posted the full text of the rules / limitations that previously had been deleted at the request of the originator. This was inappropriate on the part of that website user. They should have limited their posting to the response they received from Groundspeak on their inquiry and any personal opinions on the topic, without reposting the deleted material.

[QuartzCachers]

This was inappropriate on the part of that website user. They should have limited their posting to the response they received from Groundspeak on their inquiry and any personal opinions on the topic, without reposting the deleted material.


Who deemed it "inappropriate"? If you felt that it was inappropriate, should you have just made a posting saying so? To delete this post was CENSORSHIP at its finest. I don't see any excuse for it! People were asking for the information. Perhaps when the original thread was deleted, there should have been some explanation.
Chuck, I don't understand. This is way out of character for you. You have always been up front and consistent. What is going on?

[Lexmano]

In my opinion it was cowardly on the part of the original poster to simply delete the rules with no comment.

An appropriate response would seem to have been to indicate that these rules have been rescinded, yet leave them there for discussion of the issues presented by power trails. The reviewer says the policies advanced are still valid, they just were not expressed appropriately, and future hiders need to confer with him regarding power trails.

What a Catch 22 for hiders.

I will be quiet now.

[likestocanoe]

I have to stand behind QC on this matter. If you throw it out on the web, it should stick. Nothing written by another person should be deleted without their full knowledge and permission unless it stands outside of the law or general ethics. There was nothing lewd or vulgar stated in that message.

Another person does not have the rights to censor because they do not agree with the information. It is my opinion that what was done was inappropriate and illegal. I, also, believe that there have been better men than any of us (including my brother) that have given their lives to make sure we have the right to free speech. That freedom of speech gives me the right to have an opinion and to express said opinion freely and without censorship


Thank you for allowing me this forum to express my opinions.

[mountainborn]

Well, like I said in another thread:
When someone is anonymous, and autonomous, and, they get all "full of them selves" and begin to establish a "tougher standard" that may be applied to some, but not everyone.
It is a violation of a simple, basic human right, one of equality.
Then, the only avenue of recourse is the "court of public opinion".
I guess that's about where we are at now.
Hello court of public opinion !

[AR-HICK]

I suggest to LOCK this thread.
My reasons are simple that the longer this thread is allowed to go on it will become more angry, turning malicious.
I am not suggesting to LOCK this thread to censor in anyway, just have a cooling off period at the least.
Tempers are starting to rise and everyone may become ever more frustrated and the possibility for malicious post will increase.

I don't like the tone in which this thread is heading and my fear is that it is only going to escalate if it is not put in check.

Please think before you post on this thread.

Ar-Hick
Mike

[likestocanoe]

Is not locking the thread further censorship?

[SJClimber]

Regardless of who decided to remove the post, it should have remained for reference.. I'll bet the "message" has been received. Probably not worth "beating the horse" anymore?!? 2 cents worth..

[ArkGeo_Board]

Your ArkGeo Board of Directors are very aware that this is a very passionate subject and we encourage open debate. The thread is not locked and will not be locked as long as the posts adhere to the "Forum Posting Guideline" that each member agreed to when they registered as an ArkGeo member. If it has been awhile since you read the guidelines, we encourage you to revisit them HERE (http://www.arkgeocaching.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=3).

Please remember that this is an open forum and be respectful with your posts. State your position and give examples of why an idea or action is good or bad, but general attacks on a person will not be tolerated.

The idea of censorship and the deletion of post is a subject that your ArkGeo Board of Directors is currently addressing. As stated earlier, we encourage open debate and will work to set up guidelines to ensure that censorship will never be an issue.

We appreciate everyone's help in maintaining a forum that is both informative and open.

[TheRascals]

I would agree with SJ. Beating the horse any more will not do any good. If there is a problem lets figure out a way to correct it and move forward.

[likestocanoe]

Have had a few folks call me today - they have agreed to not go any farther with this...

[Dentful1]

I have not been on in a while, got a new hobby. But when there was a post about "another player" getting mad and starting his own caching website I knew immediately who that was referring to. This subject confirms what I have heard from many cachers about our reviewer. I know and fully understand that our reviewer is a volunteer but there has to be some breathing room for this state.


As a voting member of this great organization I call for a vote of no confidence of our states reviewer and present this to groundspeak. WAY TOO MUCH POWER.

[cachemates]

The last time I checked woodwalker9 is the current President of Arkgeo who I have complete confidence in.

[arkfiremedic]

The last time I checked woodwalker9 is the current President of Arkgeo who I have complete confidence in.I agree 100%

[astrodav]

Although I have belonged to this site since shortly after I started caching, I do not frequent it for the same reason that I quit participating in the GroundSpeak forum.....this ISN'T a good representation of the "Geocaching Community" which I belong to & love so much.

In regards to he last 2 posts....Dentful was refering to the state's REVIEWER, not the ArkGeo President. He might have edited the post to give it a bit more clarity as to exactly WHICH position of authority he was mentioning, & his original post MAY have seemed it was about WW9. I dunno....I didn't see the post before today. But it quite clearly, at least to me, now refers to the reviewer.

I'm not going to go as far as to agree with what he said....nor am I going to disagree with it. I have a strong Type A Compulsive personality, which is a negative attribute which I admit to & realize. Being as I DO agree with much of what has already been stated on this subject, but also feel that nothing done on this site will change any of that, it's probaly best that I don't even engage in the discussion.

What I will say however, without getting into suggesting any type of action, is that:

1. It is rapidly & almost always unneccesarily becoming much more difficult to enjoy the sport of geocaching in this state....a fact that has even been noticed by several cachers from OTHER states.

2. There has been instances of unprofessional behavior & double-standards related to this specific topic.

3. Reviewers are given WAY too much lee-way by GroundSpeak, as far as in making up their own rules & adding to those which already exist. Ideally, this should never have BEEN a problem. A reviewer should have only one goal in mind, in my opinion....to make geocaching in his assigned area as enjoyable as possible for other geocachers, while staying within the guidelines that have been set, but not abusing the position by regularly inventing his/her own rules as they see fit.

4. Lastly, and I debated on even posting this one, but it has become a VERY common phrase to be used. Yes, reviewers are volunteers. But that shouldn't be used as a leverage device or excuse. A volunteer reviewer should be doing his job because he loves the sport & seeks to increase it's reach & make it consistently more enjoyable to everyone involved. If this isn't something they feel they can do, or if they have to consistently stress the fact that they aren't getting paid, that the position places an extreme burden upon them, & that they find it difficult to find enough time to do everything the position requires of them ....... then they most likely need to resign & hand the responsibility over to another cacher, of which the position DOESN'T cause such a burden for.

To all cachers .... Enjoy our sport, always try to make it even BETTER than it already is, and don't let squabbles such as this ruin it for you.

To all reviewers .... Do the same as above. But also, since a certain amount of authority has been entrusted to you, with which you can make decisions which affect us ALL, don't resort to abusing that trust & making it even harder for the above things to occur.

[mountainborn]

And, with three carefully spaced and somewhat ominous sounding taps of the gavel, . . . . . The Court of Public Opinion is in session . . . .
Remember fellow geocachers, we are all in this sport togather. Temper your comments with equality in mind. Our reviewer also loves geocaching. This whole commentary should be about improving geocaching, and keeping it FUN, not about bullying by some members wanting change, or about a single individual's abuse of power.
Attack the issues, not the individual.

[SJClimber]

Astrodav wrote:


1. It is rapidly & almost always unneccesarily becoming much more difficult to enjoy the sport of geocaching in this state....a fact that has even been noticed by several cachers from OTHER states.

Doing a bunch of traveling, it is fun to keep up with several State sites and geocaching organizations. This group is by far the most reasonable we have encountered and much more agreeable, fun and outgoing than many. The cachers are fun to work with and an enjoyable bunch at gatherings. Their caches are fun to find, inventive and rarely is there any reticence to open up with advice on the hunts. This cannot be said for some in "other" states. Guess it takes all sorts to make things interesting and we have to chose accordingly, no??

[Clark~Griswold]

Astrodav wrote:


1. It is rapidly & almost always unneccesarily becoming much more difficult to enjoy the sport of geocaching in this state....a fact that has even been noticed by several cachers from OTHER states.

Doing a bunch of traveling, it is fun to keep up with several State sites and geocaching organizations. This group is by far the most reasonable we have encountered and much more agreeable, fun and outgoing than many. The cachers are fun to work with and an enjoyable bunch at gatherings. Their caches are fun to find, inventive and rarely is there any reticence to open up with advice on the hunts. This cannot be said for some in "other" states. Guess it takes all sorts to make things interesting and we have to chose accordingly, no??

I have to agree. After living in Mississippi for two years I can tell you the Caching and the Cachers are much better in Arkansas.