GC2H5HD Cache Destroyer

[labrat_wr]

I am just guessing but I would think that Groundspeak had sent SG an explaination regarding their decision to archive this cache.
If they just said “it uses a “Flash” application and must be archived” then an appeal may be in order if CJ is correct in his interpretation of the rules.

also “appeal” sounds much better than “complaint”

its the whole “Honey/Vinegar” thing….

Disclaimer : Always answering to a higher power.

[CodeJunkie]

@Team Deejay wrote:

I don’t make the rules (or even interpret them in this case). I would strongly suggest you direct your complaints to Groundspeak.

A) I wasn’t insuating that the WI reviewers had any involvement. In fact it’s pretty clear that it came from “outside sources”. In fact I think our WI reviewers do a pretty damn good job.
B) I wasn’t complaining, whining or otherwise. Just stating my interpretation of the rules to spur some discussion on whether it’s just my view or others would see this the same way.

[CodeJunkie]

I also think the whole “download” thing is a cacher beware issue. To me it’s not much different than doing a cache inside a roundabout or on a cliff. You choose to participate or not. With a file download you can choose to download or not. If you choose yes, then you accept the associated risks. Just because someone puts a virus disclaimer on the cache page doesn’t guarantee anything.

[-cheeto-]

They are called guidelines not rules.

It is always up for interpretation. Nothing is set in stone (well proximity seems pretty close). Some things are not documented. And everything can be appealed. Oh and all of this can change without notice. Does that some it up? (Been cynical these past few days it seems.)

Again, another observation and not even close to resembling an official opinion.

Back on topic… it’s unfortunate to lose another creative “type” of puzzle cache due to guidelines. It sounds like a neat idea for a puzzle and the found it logs all sound pretty positive to the puzzle.

[Walkingadventure]

I did the puzzle late one night on a break at work but since it was “too far away” I tossed out the solve. No big deal, the experience by itself was fun. I did have to look up some help for the solves as I was waayyyyyy to ig’nernt to figure it out on my own.

Following the signals from space.

[glorkar]

You can always re-list it on opencaching.us *nudge, nudge* 😉

[Walkingadventure]

or on opencaching.com (intentional poke) 😈

Following the signals from space.

[gotta run]

@-cheeto- wrote:

They are called guidelines not rules.

Have you ever had a gc guideline not enforced as a rule?

On the Left Side of the Road...

[cheezehead]

@gotta run wrote:

@-cheeto- wrote:

They are called guidelines not rules.

Have you ever had a gc guideline not enforced as a rule?

Ummm…..yes, yes I have. A couple of times. ( Ya just put some cash in a cache… Only you and the reviewer know it’s location…. 😉 8) )

[cheezehead]

@cheezehead wrote:

@gotta run wrote:

@-cheeto- wrote:

They are called guidelines not rules.

Have you ever had a gc guideline not enforced as a rule?

Ummm…..yes, yes I have. A couple of times. ( Ya just put some cash in a cache… Only you and the reviewer know it’s location…. 😉 8) )

Oh CRAPS! I think my rate just went up! 😯 ME and my big mouth! 🙄

😉

[Smashing Ground]

Hi all this was the initial denial response I got from a Groundspeak lackey:

Hi Clayton,

I’m afraid that GC2H5HD should not have been published and will have to be archived. You are welcome to keep the location and submit a traditional cache for it, or create another puzzle listing. I will wait until tomorrow to archive it so you can have a little time to decide what you want to do with the location. Unfortunately, this also means that GC2JRGD cannot be published because it takes you to a flash site as well.

Sorry this isn’t the good news you were hoping for, and thank you for your understanding.

Bummer not much of explanation huh?so I wrote the reviewer last night:

Hi I was the one that had the cache with the game that led to the flash site:and
Im just curious why flash sites are a no no?
I brought it up on our local caching forum and no one could find it in the rules
that we cant link to a flash site.
thanks for your time again;
Clayton aka Smashing Ground

reviewer replied with this today:

Hi Clayton,

Flash sites are covered under executables: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#guide
“In the interest of file security, caches that require the downloading,
installing or running of data and/or executables may not be published.”

[huffinpuffin2]

.swf = .exe ?

[GForce]

The game sure sucks you in. Ended up playing it for awhile . . .

[Smashing Ground]

Im still up for Cachers to log as a find just as long as you send me the Password to open the pdf file.I know its considered an armchair log and thats frown against….but I feell like it ran to short of a life.
Code junkie also makes some good points.
Maybe I should just put out 1/1 traditional’s that seems the way the game wants to go.”but thats just me”…well there are still a lot of good trees to climb.

[-cheeto-]

@gotta run wrote:

@-cheeto- wrote:

They are called guidelines not rules.

Have you ever had a gc guideline not enforced as a rule?

I have appealed and “won”. I have appealed and “lost” (to a loosely interpreted guideline). I have read about several other applications of the guidelines over the years that led me to my observation. I would rather not re-live those things here. This is one of many reasons why I am not interested in publishing new caches anymore. You’re other thread starter really hits the nail on the head for me.

The wording of the guidelines leaves many things open for interpretation. Take this thread as an example. “executable” seems to be open for interpretation.

[Author]

Posts