I'll agree with you that Saberfan7 went too far. I wouldn't like it if it were me on the receiving end though he is expressing a view I have heard among "just regular member" s about the event in person,
Some do come here after rejection of a cache elsewhere, what's wrong with that?
If a cache is rejected on one site it doesn't mean that all sites would or should reject it.
Each site is their own and it is their decision.
I don't think that OCNA would reject a listing for any reason,
WRONG. I know you don't see them now but there are several in the "pending" list that were declined simply due to proximity to other caches listed elsewhere and possible confusion. Since you were last looking at them there are a few (but then we don't get that many anyway as you know) that were flat out rejected and not over how close they are to other caches.
What is the objection to a "photo only" cache. It proves you were there better than an un-checked signature log and some locations would not permit a traditional cache. If it is a "traditional" then there is a container and a log to sign. Again this is an alternative cache on an alternative site with different rules.
Granted THEY are the big players here in Geocaching but they are not the only game in town. We are our own site with our own policies. They don't even think of checking their listings against us but we check ours against theirs as a result of their dominance. You want us to be our own site yet seem to hold us to accommodating their policies and if a dissatisfied "customer" of theirs explores our site they are relegated to being rejects of the other.
You had some great caches listed here. I challenge you to bring them back and wait for finds after doing all you can to encourage finds of those caches rather than pulling them after an extended period of disuse. Cachers seeking alternative sites have few options and fewer opportunities once they find us if there are no caches to find near them. Provide them with that opportunity. Caching in general seems to be on the decline (to me anyway) but if they are looking around for an alternative, the lack of caches from any alternative site limits any chance of them giving any of them a try (us or any other).
I have a majority of the OCNA caches in Charlotte. They sit idle MUCH of the time but occasionally I get a log on one or several from someone that is first trying out the site. Usually this occurs when I introduce myself to a new cacher directly or am involved in a local contest that utilizes all caching sites. Do I need to check on my caches? Sure, when opportunity or a question arises just as I do with my others. I want them to be available if and when someone decides to give them a try.
You found my Futuro Spaceship at the Carolina coast. Things have changed at the site dramatically since I listed it including the addition of a GC traditional cache placement. At last look I could not confirm you were there. A photo is required since this is a virtual. None was included at the time of logging. Now it comes down to the discretion of the CO. What am I to do? delete the find? wait for a photo and check back? compare your log date to that of the other guys?
My choice, huh?
Your log is still there isn't it?
The CO has a part to play in this too. A photo verifies the find of something unique with no container (on this site)
I'm not asking for a deletion. I don't want one but I would like a photo if for no other reason than for my own personal comparison of the current status of the newly painted and re-situated Futuro.
Stick around, don't abandon OCNA
List caches here for future finders regardless of when they start to look
Don't bash the site for not being GC
Use it for what it is, a site with alternative options
Allow OCNA to be OCNA without comparison to others
You have a view of geocaching. It may not always correspond to what we or any other site does, that does not mean they are entirely wrong nor are you.
Accept it and play along with the parts you like on each.
It's just a game