Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rogue23

  1. I feel like I've explained this several times and am not going to go quote myself. Here's what happened: 1. I did not *consistently* enforce the sunrise requirement of this cache because I (incorrectly) assumed people were following the simple directions and was completely unaware of the ALR rule change. I realize and admit this makes me a horrible CO and a horrible GCer in general. A horrible person too, really. It's true. 2. When I deleted a midday bright-sunshine log recently, the cacher messaged me complaining about other logs that I had missed, so *per his request*, I went back and deleted them too. 3. One of those cachers (log deleted from 3 months ago) was very upset, reported the cache to GS and send me several nasty emails. That should mostly get you caught up on the sequence of events. As for the deleted logs, I know one was mine, because I incorrectly chose "Owner Maintenance" instead of "Archive" so I copy/pasted the text and deleted the duplicate log before Archiving. I know another was a rant from the cacher mentioned in #3 that I presume he or GS deleted. That is all the information I have. So... what changed? Apparently a rule of the game in 2009 that may or may not even apply to webcams according to recent discussion. People USED to follow the directions, so there wasn't much log deleting required. That changed over time, and I was slow to notice (back to the horrible person thing). That's it. It's really all quire simple. Know what's ironic though? There was a bit in the cache description about holding your "GPS high in the air" for the webcam photo to identify yourself. That ALR was added at the request of the reviewer when I first published this cache. I thought it was dumb, because how many people would be posting photos of others at this cache location at sunrise, but I did it anyway and never enforced it. I know, I know... this makes me a horrible person again. But I try not to let my suckiness as a geocacher define me, so I'm ok with that, no matter how much people sure like to point it out.
  2. This argument seems a bit one-sided to me. If the point of geocaching is to have fun and to get outside, then why be upset if a 'Found It' log is deleted? The CO's placed and maintained (usually) the caches for you to find. If a cache seeker can't bother to abide by the cache description, which the CO also spent time creating, then what's so egregious about the CO deleting the cache seeker's log? There are certainly cases where some CO's might be over-the-top in their requirements, like if an EC owner deletes a log because a cacher estimates a distance of 200ft instead of 250ft - but if the CO requests the year from a plaque be emailed to them (Virtuals) or that a webcam be pointing in a specific direction, then I'm not sure I'd call that 'controlling'. Those are not over-the-top requests. +1 Swineflew is being one sided. He stated "You are taking the game way too serious", but from his reply, seems he is the one who is taking this too seriously and is upset. Sure, there are a few control freaks out there who get ridiculous with their thinking. But caches, like the one mentioned in this thread, were not placed with this in mind. These were placed in an effort to offer something a bit different than your every day cache. The CO's webcam was set up to give finders both, a fun little challenge and a unique experience. It's a bit different and i have no doubt, was more enjoyable for those who completed it following the CO's easy requirement. Sure seems the control freaks these days, are the ones that want every cache to be placed in the manner they think they should be. For the majority, easy and quick for smiley count. Unfortunately, this has taken a toll on creative and challenging caches. Amen.
  3. I'm not going to respond insult by insult... but man, some of you guys are just too much. LOL. I love the whining about whining about whining infinite loop. Let's definitely argue about who the biggest baby is. Yeah..... I do apologize if my initial rant was a little harsh, but I was frustrated. If you have never been frustrated and complained about something before, you are a better person than I. And you're right, I'm not the world's greatest geocacher, nor do I aspire to be. I was very active in this game for a while (a decade ago), but my interest waned as the game changed and became more about numbers and P&Gs than about journeys and experiences. That said, I did my best to keep a lot of my hides active and well maintained to the best of my ability. If I was somehow inconsistent in enforcing this cache's ALR over the course of 11 years and that offends you, I am sorry. Scrutinizing years worth of logs looking for inconsistencies in 15 minutes is a lot different than doing so over the course of 11 years. I'm not making excuses, just admitting that things slipped through the cracks. Maintaining this cache has not been the the most important thing in my life for the past 11 years. I was in my 20s when I place it and I'm in my 40s now. I've been single, married, had multiple jobs, started a couple of different companies, been rich and poor, and lived in 3 different houses in that time. Maintaining this cache has not always been of utmost importance to me. I don't know why this offends some of you so deeply, but it is what it is. Despite whatever you think about my competence as a CO and the appropriateness of the cry-baby accusations in my OP, my frustration in this whole ordeal remains. I don't like that that rules were changed mid-game and am frankly surprised that so many people seem to be totally fine with that. I doubt you'd be ok with that during a hand of poker. Changing rules for the betterment of the game *going forward* is fine, but "grandfathering" exists for a reason. And my other frustration was in how this whole thing was handled by the GCer I called out... running straight to GS to report my cache as a violation of their updates rules, rather than contacting me and explaining the situation and making his case. He's sent me several insulting email and even updated his now-reinstated log with a fake sunrise photo titled, "RISE AND SHINE PUMPKIN!!!" Classy guy. None of this matters now though. I do thank those of you who made positive comments in this thread (not only the people who were "on my side," but there were several constructive posts from the other side as well, instead of just finger pointing and letting me know how terribly in the wrong I am). I was hoping GS would reconsider, but it's been a few days and they haven't replied to my email. I entertained the thought of making the "requirement" optional, but that's just not the same to me. I'm ok with compromising, but not when it defeats the entire purpose of my cache. Yeah, getting people to see the sunrise over the ocean was the important part to me - not how they took the photo. I understand some of you don't feel the same way, but that's how I feel, and that's why this cache is now archived. For those of you who mentioned really wanting to visit this cache site at sunrise someday, I hope that you will. I look forward to seeing your logs. Happy hunting.
  4. I know some people think I started this thread to rant about GS rules and complain about whiny GCers (both partially true), but I also did so to get well thought out opinions I may not be considering. And I have received a few of those now, so thank you for yours.
  5. I was informed that webcams can not be transferred to other COs. I guess (my own speculation) the idea is to get them to all die off eventually.
  6. Bah..... reasonable posts like this are the only things making me somewhat question my decision.
  7. It was a fun webcam. I did do sunrise for it, even though I knew that the CO would be unable to enforce the ALR if I had logged it at noon. I have seen caches with "walls of fame" or something on them, where people that complete the fun optional ALR are listed. Why not make the sunrise thing optional, and create a "Early Bird Honor Roll" (or whatever you want to call it) to honor those that decided to do sunrise? So, I've replied to this suggestion (that I like) twice now, and twice my reply had been deleted. The first time, my reply included a somewhat negative word, so I understand the deletion, but the second time, my post was rated G for sure. I'll try one last time, phrasing things slightly differently (I am not sure why this keeps being deleted, unless someone wants it to look like I am ignoring your suggestion).... My questions is: Would GS allow me to do as you are suggestion, but take it one step further, creating two lists, ie: Wall of Fame (meeting the optional requirement) Wall of Shame (not meeting the optional requirement) I am not married to these names in any way, but am using them to illustrate a point. The idea would be to make 2 lists in order to not only recognize the past finders but also to discourage people from taking the easy way out. Think of it like Santa's Naughty List. You don't want to be on that, right? MODS - If the word "shame" is not allowed, please censor it or replace with _____. Or at least answer my question before deleting this post. Thank you.
  8. Not sure i would archive just yet but yes, it would bug me that this happened. I know they're GS's rules but it seems a shame that a cache like this couldn't have been grandfathered as it was originally placed. I sure hate seeing the entitlement card played so often but that seems to be the way the world is heading. Amen.
  9. Funny, 6.5 years later and I feel exactly the same. And I was deleting logs that didn't meet the requirement back then. I am sorry if I missed removing some that didn't meet the requirement over the past 11 years. I find it very bizarre that you are hung up on that, as that really doesn't have anything to do with anything. And yes, I specifically allowed for people to log camera finds at this webcam cache for when it was down. Again, the important part to me was getting people to the beach at sunrise, not the mechanism of taking the photo to prove their visit. I think people who were at the right place at the right time should be allowed to log the cache even if the camera was having technical difficulties. You disagree, and that's fine. But I don't see what any of this has to do with anything?
  10. Correct. Which I have admitted and me "fixing" this is what caused this whole mess. Bear in mind, no one ever notified me when this rule change went into effect in 2009. I wasn't scrutinizing the photos people were posting, because it never occurred to me that people wouldn't follow the simple directions. I am not sure how a few of you are not understanding this. Once I realize what was happening, I took steps to correct it. I understand there are a few more logs in there now that shouldn't be (per my rules), but it's clear that these are within GS's rules (right?), so I am notsure why anyone would be advising me to delete them now...? If they are allowed, they are allowed, right? If you had been enforcing your rules all along, you would have found out about the GS rule change a long time ago, and in the same way you just did find out about it. A cacher who knows the rules would have complained about you breaking GS rules. Ok... so what is the point you are making? That we should have had this conversation 6 years ago? Well, unfortunately my time machine cache was archived, so that's not going to happen. How about if we focus on the present? If you are saying it is my fault that that me deleting logs that didn't meet the requirement ended up leading to a cacher reporting the cache to GS (regardless of what year that happened), then I agree with you. If you are trying to make some other point, I'm missing it.
  11. Correct. Which I have admitted and me "fixing" this is what caused this whole mess. Bear in mind, no one ever notified me when this rule change went into effect in 2009. I wasn't scrutinizing the photos people were posting, because it never occurred to me that people wouldn't follow the simple directions. I am not sure how a few of you are not understanding this. Once I realize what was happening, I took steps to correct it. I understand there are a few more logs in there now that shouldn't be (per my rules), but it's clear that these are within GS's rules (right?), so I am notsure why anyone would be advising me to delete them now...? If they are allowed, they are allowed, right?
  12. That's EXACTLY the point. All else equal, the fewer finds a cache has, the more difficult it is to find. Taking away the sunrise requirement of this cache removes the reason it is special.
  13. If someone places a cache on top of a mountain and I climb the mountain, my accomplishment is not diminished just because someone else might rent a helicopter to deposit them on the summit or because someone eventually builds a ski lift to the top. When I find a cache, the accomplishment is mine to enjoy, regardless of what the future holds. The only people hurt by your actions are the future seekers who no longer have a unique and interesting Webcam cache to bring them to this spot. Sometimes (most times, I dare say) when Groundspeak changes a guideline they grandfather the existing caches. The fact that your cache was allowed to continue after GS stopped allowing Webcams to be published is evidence of this. The removal of ALRs was one of the rare changes that was not grandfathered and existing caches were to be brought into compliance. Frankly, it's surprising it took this many years before someone finally called you out on this. One minor edit to the cache page and the cache could have been around for another 11 years but instead you choose to pick up your ball and go home. From my perspective, someone was wrong in this case but it wasn't Groundspeak. Of course, you were perfectly within your rights as a cache owner to archive your cache so I guess who was right or who was wrong is a bit of a moot point. I haven't pressed the button yet. I am still holding out hope that GS will change their mind (even though I get the feeling that is not going to happen). You make several valid points that I will consider. Thank you.
  14. Example: pictures taken with phones rather than the webcam as intended. I see a few examples on the Listing without looking very hard. I specifically allowed for that (this is explained in the cache description), because way back when, the webcam was a lot less reliable than it is now. To me, the point of this cache was to take people to a beautiful place *at the right time* - not to make them jump through technical hoops to snap a low-res webcam photo of themselves. I'd actually prefer to see people's personal high-res sunrise photos, but of course it is a webcam after all. Ideally, people post both.
  15. The point of this cache was to make a webcam challenging, while taking people to a beautiful place at the most beautiful time of day. When it was published, smartphones didn't exist and it not only required getting there before sunrise, but required you to convince a friend to watch you on a computer at the crack of dawn as well. It was a unique spin on a webcam. Technology has made this cache much easier to Find now, but removing that requirement removes it's uniqueness and challenge. I don't know what you are talking about with the "armchair log" comment.
  16. A pity, really. Seems like such a "big baby move", which I heard someone say once. I WANT to keep the cache online, exactly as it is and has been for more than a decade. Do you honestly think: 1. That is fair to the previous finders? 2. That makes any sense, given the obvious point of this cache? You caught the name, right? "Rise and Sunshine"
  17. Well, retroactively applying "current rules" to an old cache without grandfathering it is dumb. I realize that's just my opinion and doesn't count for anything in this world, and that's ok too. For anyone who thinks I shouldn't archive the cache, I don't feel like I have a choice. My hands are tied. To me, it's the same as if I had a 50 foot tree climb and GC came up with a rule that said all tree climbs need to be less than 5 feet from the ground. If my choices were to move the cache down 45 feet, thereby invalidating the accomplishments of those who had completed the climb, or to archive it, I'd archive it. I hate to see this cache go, but removing the requirement that the whole cache is based on isn't fair to the people who earned it under the original rules.
  18. My "Rise and Sunshine" webcam (GCJN85) has been online since June 8, 2004 - http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCJN85_rise-and-sunshine It's a surf cam pointing at a beach access on the Atlantic Ocean in Florida. The premise was simple: Be there for sunrise, take a photo, and log your Find. If you wanted to visit at a time other than at sunrise, you were welcome to post a photo and leave a Note. For 11+ years, this was not a problem for 167 Finders. Earlier this week, someone logged a "Find" with an obviously mid-morning photo that even had a 10:33 a.m. timestamp on it. I deleted it. This cacher emailed me to complain and said that a few others has slipped through the cracks and I needed to delete their logs too (kind of a big baby move, but fair enough - it was my bad for missing them previously). So I did. One of THOSE cachers, wvcachers3, sent me a nasty email about deleting his log and told me he had already emailed GC to complain that my one requirement of being at the location at sunrise was just too hard for him (insert whiny *wah wah* baby sounds), and I should be forced to remove the requirement - This very simple requirement that not a single other person has had an issue with for 11+ years. And wouldn't you know it, but GC agreed with him! They emailed me and told me to remove the requirement. And with their apparent disdain for webcams (so I am told), I guess this decision is not up for reconsideration or the cache up for grandfathering. Please note that this simple "sunrise" requirement has been there since Day 1 when it was approved. I am told that GC policy about such requirements changed in 2009, 5 years after this cache went online. Obviously, I am not going to comply, as removing the sunrise requirement defeats the entire purpose of this *Rise and Sunshine* cache. The point was to get people to see a beautiful sunrise over the ocean. Removing the requirement and opening this up to anyone and everyone with a cell phone would take away from the accomplishments of all of those who got up before the crack of dawn for more than a decade to make the trip to be at this location at exactly sunrise. So instead, I'm going to archive it, unless the higher ups at GC come to their senses and reconsider (I am not going to hold my breath). Many thanks to everyone who took the time to Find and enjoy this cache over the years. Ironically, GC gave wvcachers3 the smilie that he didn't earn back. But not before he ruined this for everyone else. Man, this game sure has changed since I was actively playing it a decade ago. End Rant. End Webcam.
  19. How is it that what I said gets interpreted this way? I never meant to suggest that we need more R rated caches. I meant only to suggest that if we had a rating system, then you could easily ignore those that you don't want your kids to see. It is obvious that people are pushing the limits. In addition to this thread's subject, there are caches with murder themes which have pictures of (simulated) corpses as "clues" to the "mystery". That might be considered an R rated cache. I agree that caching should be family friendly. So why not be able to eliminate those caches which are "pushing the limits" from your searches so you can insulate your kids from them? My apologies if I misinterpreted what you or anyone else was suggesting. I read through this thread exactly once, and quickly, and had a lot of things I wanted to address.... so that's what I did, without going back and rereading anything or quoting anyone. I understand your suggestion now, but I think it would cause more harm (encouraging R rated caches) than good. All listed caches should be family friendly. If you have a problem with simulated corpses on a cache listing, you should contact GC.com - just like I did for this cache. No response yet, btw.
  20. {Sorry in advance for the long post} I was the first person to "complain" about the title of this cache on the cache page. Let me first say that the word "fag" actually doesn't offend me, but I know with 100% certainty that it offends MANY people in the world, both gay and straight. It is a derogatory word and that's just a fact, despite it's alternate meanings. When I was a kid, my friends and I all used the word - in a derogatory manner - but I grew up. In growing up, I don't think I necessarily became more PC, but I do think I became more respectful of others (and more mature). What really shocks me is when reading this thread, I see a LOT of people who don't find the word offensive (fine), so they think that means no one should (not fine) and it should be ok for GC.com (ludicrous). There also seem to be people who seem to think that geocaching should have R rated caches, and I think that's ludicrous too. Would *I* hunt an R or even X rated or themed cache? Sure - I'm no prude... Far from it. But do I think GC.com is the place for such a cache? Or course not! This is supposed to be a family friendly game. Lastly, for those of you who say kids hear things worse than this anyway, I think that is also a ridiculous argument. Kids hear the N word, kids know what a penis is, kids are aware of things like rape and pedophilia - does that mean we should start using those words (or themes) in our caches? Everyone will agree that using the N word is going too far - so much so in fact, that I have to write "the N word" here, because if I spell it out, the moderators will delete my entire post (see above examples). So clearly TPTB believe that racial slurs are not ok, but have no problems with insulting homosexuals. I find that very interesting.... I guess it's finally not cool to insult minorities based on race, but it's still ok to insult minorities based on their sexual preference. At least here in this forum and on GC.com. Anyway, back on topic. Since we all agree that the N word is crossing the line, how about if I used the word rape? Would it be ok for me to make a profile called R.A.P.I.S.T.S. (maybe even with the acronym) and hide a cache called "R.A.P.I.S.T.S. doing it without permission" or "R.A.P.I.S.T.S. use force" or "R.A.P.I.S.T.S. stick it in when no one is looking"? Those words aren't even insulting to any one particular group of people, but surely you will agree that those are inappropriate names for geocaches, right? And mind you, this is a very weak example, just trying to prove a point. I could make much better examples using acronyms that start with the letters N, F, or even C. Use your imagination. Living in the area of the cache in question, I can tell you that geocaching around here has been inching in a direction that a lot of people aren't happy about. Someone posts something questionable and then someone else one ups them and the process continues. People have been pushing the line inch by inch around here, and soon, we'll be well down the block. I think that's GREAT when it comes to placing high quality caches, but that's not at all what the latest trend is about. And that's why I wrote that first log on the cache page - because I wanted it known that I don't think it's ok for this to keep inching along in this direction. In the past WEEK, for example, we've had caches published here named "UR IN cache" "My Scruffy Balls" and of course the F.A.G.S. series. Individually, none of them are THAT bad (although "F.A.G.S. stick it in the rear end" goes way over the line, IMO), but you can see where things are heading. Is this the example we want to set for new and future cachers? I realize many of you don't care, but try to think about the game as a whole and what's good for it. Someone said it very well earlier - "Why are so many so quick to defend sinking to the lowest common denominator? What's wrong with striving for the highest common denominator?" And to quickly answer a few of the questions that have popped up in this thread: The F.A.G.S. are not even from around here, but were here for an event last weekend and apparently decided to hide a number of caches while on their 95 cache finding spree (they cut and paste the same exact logs nearly 100 times - see May 5 on this cache page for an example of one). This was one such cache that the "group" placed... apparently with all the individuals names on the log sheet in advance, so as soon as it was published, they could all log it. That brings up discussion for another thread, so I'll leave it at that. Anyway, as far as I know, none of them are gay, but I don't see how that matters. Whether they are pro or anti-gay, they aren't supposed to be using GC.com as a platform for their agenda. Quoting the Geocaching Guidelines: "Solicitations are also off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda." As for how this cache was approved - it WAS approved with it's original name (I saw it the moment it was published). This of course doesn't surprise me at all, since the local approver is good friends with the F.A.G.S. group. Go figure.
  • Create New...