Mushtang

And a PM to me now that you all have got me so very curious.Jim See post number 29.

I've seen alot of people spell words wrong, even on purpose. If that name is offensive then you must not get out much at all, lol. There's a great old rock tune called, "Cum on Feel the Noise" and there's also the classic, "Come on Eileen" tune too. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned them as they might go the "Money for Nothing" route and get taken off the radio now. I get offended by stuff, lots of stuff, but do I make it my mission to let the whole world know? Nah....I just turn the channel or station or ignore it, etc. Everyone wants their turn in the spotlight I guess. I find it funny that some people burned some book at a protest today because the title was offensive, lol. As long as they paid for the book, I'm sure the author doesn't give a dadgum what they did with it. Probably loved the publicity too. Funny thing too, it was named after a historical document. Wow, you sure read a lot into my post don't you? For the record, the name didn't offend ME in the slightest. However, I can see that it probably doesn't fit in here with the "family friendly" web site that we all enjoy. Names of rock music songs that have the same word in them, on the other hand, fit in just fine with the rock music world, where things are very seldom described as "family friendly". There's a time and place for everything, and this game isn't the place for that cacher name. But like I said, there's a very difficult line to define there. What is acceptable and what is not? I'd think you'd even agree that there are some super offensive words that shouldn't be used. Right? Or is there no word at all that you think shouldn't belong in a cacher's name?

WARNING!!! Here is the name in question. Click the link only if you're not super sensitive. This, to me, is a name that I'd agree probably needs to be changed. Not to keep from offending someone necessarily, but once you define a site like this as "family friendly" there's reasonable lines that shouldn't be crossed. I really don't think that seeing this name is going to hurt anyone, or scar them for life. So I linked to it with a warning so folks that were curious would know what is being discussed. But I wouldn't want to allow kids on a site that allowed a lot of similar type cacher names. That's a hard line to define for sure, what should be allowed and what shouldn't.

I tried. I looked at a few dozen caches close to you, and never saw a cache name that seemed like someone could be offended by it. Can you be more specific?It's not a cache name, it's a cachers name.I looked. Not too difficult to find who it may be. Whilst not 'offended' -the name is a little risque, and may be pushing the boundary a little! My bad, I meant to say that I'd looked at a lot of caches and didn't see any cachers names that would be offensive. PM me what you found? I'm curious.

I tried. I looked at a few dozen caches close to you, and never saw a cache name that seemed like someone could be offended by it. Can you be more specific?

It's not "just an icon". It's not. The people that wanted to find it know it. The people that have already found one and now have something even more special know it. And even Groundspeak knows it. I say that Groundspeak knows it because they're unwilling (rightfully so in my opinion) to allow the cache to be replaced so that the icon can still be earned. It's a special icon for a special series. If it were truly "just an icon" and it didn't really mean much then they would allow this one and all the other APE caches to be replaced. But they know that it's special. It's a part of geocaching that by design was rare to begin with, and as they disappeared they became more and more rare and special. So no, it's not "just a cache", and it's not "just an icon". It's a very special cache, and a very special icon. And that particular cache is now gone, the jerk that took it is loving it, and now the only way for anyone that doesn't have an icon to get one is to head to Brazil. That one is special too.

*sigh* I've been to Jamaica twice, and I still haven't done that cache, even though it was on my list of caches to do. I found that one back in Feb of 2004. There was a small bag of pot in it that I left behind. I always wondered if it was Jamaican Gold or not.

The next time you hide a cache, put it in a different location and make it a Premium Members Only cache. Hopefully the Cache Snatch idiot isn't paying $30 a year to steal caches and he won't be able to see the coordinates.

I'm talking about the users posting here. Personally, I couldn't care less if my name appears in any audit log. I wouldn't even opt out if I could. But that doesn't keep me from having an open mind and understanding and acknowledging the fact that some people don't like their name to pop up in somebody's audit log, for whatever reason. Removing the audit log completely probably would upset some COs, so that's not a good option. But giving users to option to opt out and be "invisible" would probably make everybody happy. But no, instead of being in favor of this option, the people here have the "gotta live with it" attitude, because they see it as something that couldn't possibly ever be changed, or something. I don't get it. Nobody so far could give a good reason of having the audit log in place, the best so far was "it's a fun thing to have". I agree with that, but letting people opt out isn't gonna destroy that, is it? To me this is the same thing as the history of ALR caches. People could just not do them and self opt out. Nobody HAD to find an ALR cache and once they realized it was one they had the option to not find it. But eventually the company decided that the whiners weren't going to stop, and so they changed the rules. Perhaps someday, if enough people whine about their cacher name being on a log with a lot of other cacher's names, just because they looked at a cache page, the company will change the site and remove the Audit Logs. Nevermind the fact that no damage is being done and it didn't even bother most people until they found out about it. Why would they keep something that some people enjoy if some other people don't enjoy it. We can't have that can we????

It's a feature that was added many many years ago as a result of cache pirates. Back then you didn't even have to have an account to see the coordinates of a cache, and anyone could browse the cache pages and go find them anonymously. These idiots would go find caches in an area just to destroy them, because they thought it was fun. They also liked seeing their work talked about in the forums. So one of the tools that was developed to try to reduce the damage done by the cache pirates was the PMOC. The idea was that someone just interested in destroying caches wouldn't pay money to the company in order to get information about a few caches when there were so many other caches to see for free. It pretty much worked, and the areas where a pirate was working would get lots of PMOC caches and the pirates would lose interest. It was never a profit generating thing. Cachers over the years have made up reasons as to why the PMOC exists (revenue, elitism, to give back to the community, etc) and these reasons were repeated enough to eventually be taken as the truth. The reasons, in my opinion, why it's still around (since other developments have reduced it's effectiveness against pirates to nearly zero) are for posterity (it's not hurting much so why take it away?) and because it would take some programming effort that could better be used elsewhere. There's a lot of improvements to the site each month but maybe someday they'll get around to removing it.

Well, in that vain, you could just quit caching altogether. That's guaranteed to keep you out of anyone's audit log as well.I honestly don't see the problem with being on someone's audit log. Can you help me understand this? Explain what the objection you have with it please?How about its nobody business what cache I visit and when?Is that good enough? No, it's not good enough. It's a very silly reason. The Audit Log doesn't tell anyone what cache you visit and when, it only lists the number of times you viewed a single cache page, and when the last time was. It doesn't allow anyone to track you, or give any information about you that you're not already giving when you visit ANY page on the internet. You do realize this don't you? And by the way, I know that you were looking at this forum page today at 7:18 am. That's about as intrusive into your life as the Audit Log is but you don't seem to care about that. Also, unlike the Audit Log I can search the forums and find the exact time of every single post you made here. Oh no, I'm tracking you!

Well, in that vain, you could just quit caching altogether. That's guaranteed to keep you out of anyone's audit log as well. I honestly don't see the problem with being on someone's audit log. Can you help me understand this? Explain what the objection you have with it please?

If a BM logs a PMOC and the CO deletes BM's log because it's a PMO, then FYI, I would think the CO would be SOL and soon find his other caches MIA.

Not quite, there's a subtle difference. When you post a log to a cache listing or make a forum post, it's an explicit action you take. You choose to do that and you choose to make yourself visible in the way that you do, knowingly opening the door to other members replying to you or contacting you. But looking at a cache listing is not an explicit action, it's something passive. You might not even know that it's a PMO cache ahead of time, so you have no chance to keep yourself out of the audit log. That's why it's not appropriate for a CO to contact random users who have looked at their listing, even if it's just out of curiosity. Having the audit log is a privilege, randomly contacting users from it is an abuse thereof. Well I guess I'll do like others are doing, and just acknowledge that we don't agree. I see no abuse when contacting someone as long as the email sent isn't rude in nature and I would hope that most people would accept the email with a smile rather than to be upset about something so innocent. Perhaps I'm naive about how people can be.

Actually, that doesn't matter at all. A CO has no business emailing people and asking them why they looked at his cache listing, no matter what the circumstances are. No business? We're not allowed to contact other cachers with friendly questions? I've looked at Audit Logs before and have seen people from far away, and have been curious about how they got to my cache, but I didn't ask only because my curiosity wasn't high enough. Not because I didn't think I would have stepped over some line of appropriateness. I've had people email me asking about how I did something on a cache, or asking about something I mentioned in the forums. I've emailed people from the forums asking about something they'd mentioned. These, to me, are all examples of the same thing: contacting a fellow cacher with a friendly question. I just think in the above example that the email was worded in such a way that it was possible to be misunderstood. And possibly the reader was already predisposed to take things in a bad tone. But to say that someone has no business emailing with a question is just beyond my understanding of what is acceptable for friendly people to do.

And I've been calling BS on this for years. And I just did it again. I doubt very much the Mr Yuck would make up such a story. The BS I'm calling isn't on if someone emailed him or not. What I think is BS is his interpretation of WHY they emailed him. I have no doubt he got an email that was something like, "Hi there. This is XXX and I noticed on my audit log that you were looking at my cache page. Can you tell me why you were looking at it?" His reaction was in line with someone emailing him and instead saying, "What the HELL do you think you're doing looking at MY cache page?!?! You have no business looking at it and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your fat nose out of any of my cache pages in the future". And that's what I think is BS. Nobody was upset that he'd been looking at their page like he's making it sound. What almost certainly happened was that someone was looking at their audit log and maybe noticed a name that they didn't recognize as being from the area. So out of curiosity they checked his profile and saw that he was 4 states away. They thought to themselves, "Cool! Someone really far away is looking at my cache. That's pretty neat. Gee I wonder what led them to the page? It might have been a friend of theirs that lives nearby that mentioned my cache was a good one. Or maybe it was mentioned in the forums? Perhaps they just randomly look at pages around the world for ideas. Since it could be anything, I think I'll email him and ask. This might be fun". And so they sent their email which was taken in the worst possible way. I'll see your BS and raise you one. I call.

Why are you calling BS on Mr. Yuck when he isn't presenting his interpretation and just mentioned that an incident had happened? The quote from above: Now, if he does present his interpretation AND you have first-hand facts that contradict his statement, not an uninformed opinion...then it might be reasonable response (if it'd done within the forum guidelines on civil behavior). Thanks for quoting him, it kept me from having to do it. He's told the story before, and I'd heard it before. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. I called a BS on it before and I'm calling a BS on it again.

And I've been calling BS on this for years. And I just did it again. I doubt very much the Mr Yuck would make up such a story. The BS I'm calling isn't on if someone emailed him or not. What I think is BS is his interpretation of WHY they emailed him. I have no doubt he got an email that was something like, "Hi there. This is XXX and I noticed on my audit log that you were looking at my cache page. Can you tell me why you were looking at it?" His reaction was in line with someone emailing him and instead saying, "What the HELL do you think you're doing looking at MY cache page?!?! You have no business looking at it and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your fat nose out of any of my cache pages in the future". And that's what I think is BS. Nobody was upset that he'd been looking at their page like he's making it sound. What almost certainly happened was that someone was looking at their audit log and maybe noticed a name that they didn't recognize as being from the area. So out of curiosity they checked his profile and saw that he was 4 states away. They thought to themselves, "Cool! Someone really far away is looking at my cache. That's pretty neat. Gee I wonder what led them to the page? It might have been a friend of theirs that lives nearby that mentioned my cache was a good one. Or maybe it was mentioned in the forums? Perhaps they just randomly look at pages around the world for ideas. Since it could be anything, I think I'll email him and ask. This might be fun". And so they sent their email which was taken in the worst possible way.

And I've been calling BS on this for years. And I just did it again.

Micros aren't caches in the true sense of a cache, which is supplies hidden to be recovered and used at a later time. You can't hide anything in a micro size container, so it fails to fit the meaning of a cache - hidden supplies. John You're talking about a cache. Not a geocache. They're different words with different definitions. A geocache needs to be a container, and that container should contain a logbook.

Some like power trails, some don't. Some like long hikes with an ammo can hidden under a pile of sticks, some don't. If you don't like em, don't do em.

sd

sdf

dfgdfg

Isn't there a name for what happens when someone brings in a Dictionary Definition as evidence, similar to how Godwin's Law applies to those that bring up Nazis? You said it yourself, definitions change, so why would you spring the definition of Cache on us as evidence that a geocache must be large enough to hold goods? It would be more appropriate if you'd refer to the definition of a geocache instead of a cache. And a geocache need only contain a logbook to meet the guidelines.