Kai Team

Tools=>Options=>General, and take a look at what you have for "Method for matching placed and hidden caches" (see the help file for how the various options work. My guess is that you are using the gc.com number but have entered in the wrong number. Or, you are using "user name", perhaps with the wildcard function, and someone else has a similar name. It took me a while to find the attached (it's in the GSAK help files), which explains how to find and use your gc.com logon ID. I've had no problems with correct matches since I did this (since I had changed my user name):

The rest of the code is not written in the first person ("I Will") - for consistency and brevity, might I suggest: Only place caches you can maintain. If a problem with your cache is reported to you, investigate and fix the problem as soon as you can. If you decide to stop maintaining a cache, ensure that the container is removed, and explain the disposition of the cache in your archive log. Works for me, assuming other listing sites support that feature (I don't know if they do, since I've never listed or logged anywhere but gc.com). Which leads me to wonder if that's just a way to encourage brainstorming on the short, concise text or what? And if so, at what point will it be accepted that the code of ethics itself is "done". As far as I'm concerned, the code itself is done, because no one has commented on that part in quite some time, but since CR started the thread, it's up to him to decide when to officially declare that part done. Do you think that part is done, CR? CR added "(The below is not actually part of the Code)" to clarify when we were working on the code itself - I hope that parentetical will be deleted from the final version - the first sentence says what the rest is - there's no need to say what it isn't!

Relax! By "promoting the code", I meant making it visible to others, especially newcomers. I didn't mean "evangelizing". No one has proposed using the code as a bully pulpit in this entire, long post. Since the code was conceived as independent of gc.com, I presume we would want to try to have it visibly posted not only on gc.com, but also on other geocaching related sites (e.g. State associations, that "other" listing service, etc). I thought CR might want help in identifying and approaching those other sites. Once the code is published, we can't control how people use it, but perhaps we should add a one paragraph introduction, something like: "The Geocacher's Code describes how geocachers in general act. It's intended as a set of guidelines, not as "laws" or "rules". Please be considerate of others when sharing the code, and avoid trying to dictate how others must act".

I think CR intended the order of precedence merely to resolve conflicts between the tenets - i.e. if minimizing the impact on the environment meant endangering yourself or others, you go with safety. However, the other way to look at this is that if minimizing the impact on the environment means endangering yourself or others, you should adhere to both tenets, rather than choosing between them. That would be the case if all points are equal, and it makes sense in this context - it's not like geocachers are forced to choose between conflicting tenets - they can just walk away. Frankly, the code isn't worth much if we don't promote it - i.e. those who need it most (newbies and narcissists) will be the least likely to see it. How we promote the code is key - i.e. we should promote it consistent with the tenets of the code - be considerate of others. This means we don't "dictate", but we certainly can refer to the code if we think someone is unaware of it. Obviously there is no enforcement mechanism except peer pressure, which is pretty powerful in defining community norms. (Taking a cache would, of course, be a blatant violation of the code). You're right - we are beginning to over-think this. CR - how about posting a final version and let's move on to talking about how to promote it.

FYI, it shows up as an "Excel file" because the Comma Separated Values (CSV) file association in Windows is set to Excel. You can change this setting in Windows (Open "My Computer", click on "Tools", "Folder Options", "File Types" and scroll down to "CSV" under extensions), but you needn't bother unless you want another program to open this file when you double click on it. As Clyde pointed out, you can't open it in S&T anyway, you have to import it. Edit: Typo

Geez - that thread cites examples that takes "spoilers" to a whole new level - fortunately I've never encountered that blatant an example. Let me amend my suggested wording to add something about marking caches: Don't spoil the cache hunt for others - allow them to experience the cache as its owner intended. Avoid leaving tracks to the cache ("leave no trace"). Never deliberately mark the location of a cache. Minimize giving unsolicited clues that reveal the cache (i.e. "spoilers"). Don't provide any hints if the cache description asks you not to. In all other cases, be cryptic, or encrypt, any hints or spoilers you enter in online logs. Always edit your online log if the owner requests it because you gave away too much information. Edit: Fewer words to say the same thing.

How could we word this to take into account the area it is in. You wouldn't want to leave items with the same risk factor in a cache next to a children's park as you would in a remote cache. Or should there be an additional sub-item instead? How about something like (still a little wordy): Don't leave dangerous items in a cache. Recognize that a cache, your own or the one you're trading out of, could be found by children or even a prisoner work crew: don't leave any item that you wouldn't just walk up and hand them. Consider the location of the cache and those likely to find it when deciding what to leave.

I see your point, but I'm having mixed feelings about this. A clever (obtuse) clue in a log can add to the fun of finding the cache, and if the owner doesn't object, I see that as part of the fun of the interchange with other geocachers. On the other hand, no one wants to read a log that says exactly what and where the cache is. Owners can and should be clear about their wishes by saying something in the cache description if they want absolutely no hints in the logs. They can also request that someone edit an online log that gives away too much. The owner's wishes should always be respected in those cases. If their wishes aren't respected, the owner can always delete the offending log (extreme measure, but there as a last resort). This is a tricky balance: what do we mean by "minimize" spoilers? Where do we draw the line - e.g. are corrected coordinates spoilers? What about really clever, cryptic hints or those that are encrypted in the online logs? It probably varies by the cache and by the owner. What if we combine both of your ideas under the "considerate" tenet, i.e. something like (a little wordy, but I couldn't figure out how to make it shorter yet still clear about the balance): Don't spoil the cache hunt for others - allow them to experience the cache as its owner intended. Minimize giving unsolicited clues that reveal the cache (i.e. "spoilers"). Respect the owner's wishes if the owner requests that previous finders not help later ones. In all other cases, be cryptic, or encrypt, any hints or spoilers you enter in online logs. Respect the owner's wishes if the owner requests that you edit your online log because it gives away too much information.

Let's talk about this a minute. If anything, we might want to mention something in the "endanger" tenet about minumixing risk with the trade items--"if the cache allowes a potentially dangerous item minimize risk like tape a folding knife shut or remove batteries from powerful flashlights or lasers." Something like that. I was reacting to: "...a cache...could be found by children or even prisoner work crew". On second thought, I agree we should move this to the "endanger" tenet. Since illegal items are fairly self explanatory, I'd suggest moving the first sub-example as well, i.e. put the following under the endanger tenet: Don't leave dangerous items in a cache. Recognizing a cache, your own or the one you're trading out of, could be found by children or even a prisoner work crew, don't leave any item that you wouldn't just walk up and hand them. The one under the "observe all laws" would then read: Don't leave illegal items in a cache. Some drought stricken areas have forbidden matches and lighters. Pay attention to the area the cache is in and trade appropriately.

CR - This is really looking great! When you see it all together, it's very impressive! A couple of additional wording suggestions on the examples (in italics below): ...Observe all laws and rules of the area. Don't leave dangerous or illegal items in a cache. Rationale: Not all potentially dangerous items (e.g. knifes) are illegal. ...Minimize my and others' impact on the environment. Practice "Lift, Look, Replace" - put all of the stones or logs back where you found them. Rationale: Introduces an easily remembered idiom. Makes clear (especially for external audiences) that we don't toss things around and then run around and try to put it all back. ...be considerate of others. Move [hitchers] hitchhikers along with their goal if possible. Don’t hold them for too long. Contact owner if you hold them for more than a couple of weeks. Rationale: Typo. BTW, I agree that we shouldn't be any more specific about a time frame - "a couple of weeks" communicates the idea without being too prescriptive. Don't copy unique themes and techniques, or add to an existing series of caches, without permission. Rationale: I know a local cacher who was four caches into a numbered series when someone hijacked the series by placing the next cache in number sequence without permission. The originator had already placed the next cache, but the series was hijacked before he could post it! That's all I have to suggest - from my point of view, the writing is done (and done well)!

CR, I believe the main tenets of the code are the way we want them. There have been only positive comments on the main tenets, with the exception of a minor tweak I suggested (ignore me - I don't know when to stop ). People are moving on to tweaking the examples because they don't feel the need to comment on the main tenets - i.e. they're satisfied with them. It almost seems too easy, but I think you've nailed the main tenets down! You're right that "the bullet points and examples aren't really part of the code, nor are they 'rules,' merely suggestions that if followed rarely will you go wrong". We should craft an introduction to the examples that says something to that effect. However, the examples are more than minutiae - they will help people understand and interpret the code, which is important to creating the kind of culture we're striving for! I'd vote for spending some time on them, now that the code is in place. Edit: Ooops - I was crafting this (and was interrupted several times by my family ) while you posted the preceding posts!

That's my concern too - your wording is better!

Some wording suggestions, as promised/threatened above. These are rewordings to try to make the examples clearer or stronger, not new points - thought I'd pass them along for your consideration: ...Not endanger myself or others. As a placer, give enough information in your cache description for people to decide if they can handle any dangers involved, and arrange the hunt to minimize hidden dangers. ...Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm. Don't create a cache that could be mistaken for a terrorist device (e.g. a pipe bomb). ...Minimize my and others' impact on the environment. Follow Leave No Trace ethics whenever possible. ...Protect the integrity of the gamepiece. Use caution and judgment when hunting a cache to prevent onlookers from discovering the location of the cache. [i combined two, and would delete: Use caution and your better judgment when confronted with a curious onlooker.] If you suspect the cache is not in the proper hiding spot, hide it the best you can and alert the owner immediately. [The way this was originally worded, I fear it could be interpreted as permission to relocate a cache if you don't think it's in the best spot!] Do not collect hitchhikers or other traveling items meant to stay in the wild. This is tantamount to stealing. ...be considerate of others. Treat other geocachers civilly – in the field, in the forums, or wherever your paths may cross. If you trade, trade kindly: Consider what future finders would like to trade for, and leave something equal to or better than what you take. Move hitchhikers along towards their goal if possible. Don’t hold them for more than a week or two. Promptly alert the owner of any issues with their cache. Make minor repairs if you can, it will save the owner a trip.

Deleted double post.

CR, Good work! The main will tenets cover any situation I can think of. There may be a need to add a bullet point example or two, especially for newbies, but we should wait until you've reviewed and added the suggestions since your last posting before commenting on that. In terms of the order, I'd suggest switching the last two - i.e. putting "Be considerate of others" before "Protect the integrity of the gamepiece". The message being: people before things. I have some wording suggestions (of course ) for the examples in the current version - I'll add those in a separate post. Thanks for keeping this going - it's looking like it will be well worth the effort!

CR - I see "protecting the integrity of the game piece" as part of "be considerate of others" - all of the things listed under the former are intended to accomplish the latter, but...I'm beginning to feel like we're debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I think it's time to look at a complete draft, and can certainly live with the two items you suggested. Why don't you post a new draft with all the changes discussed thus far and let's see what it looks like? Edit: Should it be "Protect the integrity of the game" rather than the "gamepiece"? Or is that too open to interpretation (i.e. "integrity")?

It is an interesting point, although I don't think it's an "either/or" situation. I use a trekking pole and take care about where I place my feet when traversing difficult terrain. The pole doesn't "save" me from clumsy foot placement, it helps me when there is no good footing!

I like the concept, but wouldn't want to serve on that board! Interesting idea. So the list you're talking about has more to do with the ethics of how we make caching integrate with world. Makes sense to me. Avoids all the debate that internal lists have of groups telling other groups what the "right way" to play is. There should be at least one tenet in the code that applies to the ethics of how we play, which is different than the mechanics of how we play. We do need to be careful about imposing "style" on people, e.g. the examples listed with the code might include something about placing interesting and fun caches, but should not say anything like "micros on lamp posts are lame". But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water by excluding any reference to how the game is played. The content and examples for this part of the code should be things that most (i.e. 80%) geocachers would agree with because these are the things that make the game family-friendly and fun. In other words, these are the things that create an equitable social exchange, and prevent frustration and hard feelings that always leave a bitter taste and sometimes drive good people out of the game. I want a code to point to when someone is playing inappropriately - e.g. keeping a travel bug that was intended to remain in the wild, or logging a cache on line that they haven't found. Right now it boils down to "That's YOUR opinion, and I don't agree with it". Having a code that addresses internal ethics allows us to say, "No, that's the opinion of most geocachers - see the code". Although not "peer review", such a code does allow us to exert some peer pressure. Newbies and open minded folks will join the ethical consensus. Some jerks might look at the code and decide this game isn't for them and move on without hassling everyone else. Other jerks will still do what they please, but at least they won't do it convinced that they represent the general sentiment of the geocaching community!

While I respect your effort to mediate, you're assuming that a rule change is desirable. A careful reading of the thread shows that many of those who've posted do not accept your assumption. The rule is fine with many geocachers who don't want to be solicited on gc.com. You can't come up with "a solution that would be acceptable to just about everyone" when it's clear that many don't want to have the cache pages and logs cluttered with solicitations. Beyond that, gc.com already offered a solution - link to another site, and post your solicitation there. That fact that people are unwilling to accept that solution suggest one of two things (or both): 1) people want their solicitations to be "in your face" (detracting from the primary purpose of the stie, which is to support geocaching). 2) people don't want to expend more than minimal effort supporting their favorite charity.

It's an issue for the reasons listed over and over and stated in multiple ways in the preceding posts! Anyone who "doesn't understand" why this is an issue either hasn't read the thread or doesn't want to understand! ("My mind is made up - don't confuse me with the facts") Well, "the way things are done" is that solicitations are not allowed on gc.com, so I guess you're saying that the "whiners" are the people who think they should be allowed. So stop whining and let's get on with geocaching, which is why this site exists! Thank you!

Hmm... I agree with CR that the last one needs more specificity but not too much specificity (I think it's much broader than trading). I'm not as convinced of the need to divide it, but I'm open to it - maybe we should start with one, have CR list all of the related examples when he posts the latest version, and then see if they hang together or beg to be divided? The last one (or two) have to do with integrity, respect, fairness, kindness, courtesy... "Cache kindly" captures much of it, but seems almost as vague as "Treat others as I want to be treated". I keep thinking of things like "Respect the friendly spirit of the activity/game/sport" or "Be a good citizen of the geocaching community" but... We're talking about capturing both the formal guidelines (like those posted on gc.com) and more informal practices or customs (like helping to maintain another person's cache, not poaching, etc). How about something like: The Geocacher's Code Safe · Legal · Ethical When placing or seeking geocaches, I WILL: > Not endanger myself or others. > Observe all laws and rules of the area. > Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate. > Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm. > Minimize my and others' impact on the environment > Cache kindly by knowing and respecting geocaching guidelines and customs Too long, but I put it out there for editing!

Precisely!

My opinion: I see newbies seeking guidance on how the game is played. I'd be more specific. I don't want to get too specific in the tenets themselves. You are right about specificity, but that is where each of the tenets will be further explained. We will have room on a web page or a brochure to display these further explanations, but I think it important to keep the tenets short, but not overly broad. Kai Team made a good point. The next update with display the Code just by itself. Below that we will repeat it with the bulleted items. The way I have it now, I think some people are getting confused and thinking the whole thing is the Code--it's not. Excellent idea, CR - this approach should help those who want to see more specifics and those who want general guidelines without too much specificity. I know your idea is to structure this similar to the Leave No Trace website, where the code is very brief and general, followed by "more details and information". I'd probably call the bulleted items "Examples of How to Apply the Code" so that it's clear that these are examples of safe, legal and ethical behaviors, not a long list of "rules". This provides the specificity needed for newbies without making it feel too preachy. Edited to clarify the last sentence.

At the risk of getting caught in the crossfire I don't think you are that far apart. CR is appropriately trying to keep the topic on the content of the code, not whether there should be one (we're lost if we go down that road). IMHO, Puzzler's early posts were more focused on the idea of a code being bad, but his last couple of posts (before the flame war started) have focused more on the content - i.e. in his last post, I think he was largely agreeing with CR's statement that "I don't want to get too specific in the tenets themselves.." However, The Puzzler's focus on content was easily lost because there was a lot of distracting verbiage of the general rant variety (e.g. "This whole issue just gripes me to no end". "...no sane person needs to read this to know it!!" etc). This is the kind of verbiage trollers frequetly use, and there is a great risk that using it will derail the topic with counter rants that take us off into the wilderness (and not the geocaching kind). I'd like to suggest that The Puzzler tone down his rhetoric and CR relax his trigger finger, just a little, so we can get on with the task at hand. Smile guys, this is supposed to be fun!

I like it! I would like to see an updated version posted, to see how the title/subtitle effects the text...Here's my suggestion (just can't resist tinkering with the wording - these are just the tenets, further detail would be linked/attached as you suggested): The Geocacher's Code Safe · Legal · Ethical When placing or seeking geocaches, I WILL: > Not endanger myself or others. > Observe all laws and rules of the area. > Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate. > Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm. > Minimize my and others' impact on the environment > Treat others as I want to be treated. Now to contradict myself, with these broad statements I'm thinking it might be better to fold the hitchhiker's piece and the piece on interferring with another cacher's placement under that last one. For the purpose of printed documents, it might make sense to list the key tenets first, and then list them again with the subpoints for each. Obviously just my suggestions - feel free to ignore me (many people do).