Jump to content

Forum Posting Privilege Revoked For Doing Nothing More Than Hosting a Civil Conversation.

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Forum Posting Privilege Revoked For Doing Nothing More Than Hosting a Civil Conversation.

  1. It is beginning to sound as though you are upset at the 528' rule and are looking for creative ways to "push" out caches so that you can hide new ones nearby. Maybe I am wrong but that seems to be the gist of your argument.

    Yes, you are wrong. The issues are irresponsible and/or inactive cache owners, the caches they leave behind, and how the problem should be addressed. Nothing more; nothing less.


    Cache saturation is off-topic for this thread, but you are right; I don't like the 528 ft rule ... I think cache separation should be at least a quarter mile, and preferably 1/2 mile or greater. While I have no desire to place any caches at this time, it would not sadden me in the least to read that any or all of the dozens of abandoned caches in my region had been removed and archived.

  2. ...Besides all of the above, it's unethical to recycle the content of a cache page without the permission of its author.

    Simply give credit where credit is due.


    Something like: Originally hidden and posted by JoeSmith - edited by me on Jan 1 2005.

    That would be a nice thing to do on the newly created cache listing ...."This cache was inspired by the cache originally placed in this area by Joe Smith on xx/xx/xxxx."

  3. ... Finally, about 3 months later I've gotten word from a friend that she's been in contact with the owner. She's not really even on the internet anymore, and I'm hoping she'll decided to put all of her caches up for adoption. She has caches hidden all over the state and many are in need of maintenance. If she doesn't I'm afraid they'll all just sit there as geo-trash sometime in the future.

    The responsible thing to do, then, would be for the local geocaching community to remove the caches and submit SBA logs that clearly state that the caches were removed.

  4. If the cacher kept up with his responability and took the litter away himself there wouldn't be an issue so why should we try to be nice to him about?

    Responsible cache owners have 'done the right thing' all along, so I see no reason why a responsible cache owner would argue against the OP. The problem is that so many cache owners fail to fulfill their obligations as cache owners. That is the issue being addressed in the OP. Clearly, it is practically impossible to force responsibility upon an unwilling/uncooperative person, so I suggest strong, objective policy needs to be established that deals with the mess they leave behind ... the mess that reflects so poorly upon geocaching and its participants.


    whats the difference between archieving and starting a new cache in the same exact spot versus adopting?


    Would the adopted cache necessarily be hidden in "the exact same spot" in the exact same manner as the original? If not, it is not the same cache. Would the adopted cache feature the original container and the original logbook? If not, it is a different cache. (It must be noted that many, if not most, of the abandoned caches people seek to 'adopt' are missing or are in a deplorable state; in many cases, the cache container, its contents (and logbook) have already been replaced several times by members of the geocaching community.) I see little point in preserving the former listing for what is essentially a new cache.


    Makes more sense to adopt rather than make a willing cacher do lots more red tape over something a less thoughtful cacher left behind.


    No, it doesn't. Besides all of the above, it's unethical to recycle the content of a cache page without the permission of its author.

  5. I do not support the concept of "cache adoption" unless the (original) owner of the cache has given explicit permission for the cache to be adopted.


    If the owner of a cache denies permission for the cache to be adopted, but has made (over a prolonged period of time) no 'visible' effort to maintain the cache or remove it, the cache should be removed and archived by the local geocaching community.


    If a cache has been reported to be in need of maintenance and its owner cannot be contacted through the e-mail address provided to geocaching.com, the cache should be removed and archived by the local geocaching community.


    An attempt should be made (I suggest by a local reviewer) to contact any cache owner who has not logged into the geocaching.com website in the preceding six months. If the e-mail 'bounces,' the cache owner fails to respond, or is unable to demonstrate that s/he retains interest in and responsibility for the cache, the cache should be removed and archived by the local geocaching community.

  6. The problem is one of history. ... The forum software was installed "out of the box" and it has some limitations built into it ... TPTB had to customize things a bit in order for the forums to accept the login info. from the website. I'm amazed it works as well as it does! ...

    I'm aware of the history; I'm sure newer members will appreciate that information.


    I agree that the forum software and geocaching.com software 'cooperate' fairly well, but your post does mention that a certain amount of customization was necessary in order to successfully achieve that level of 'cooperation.'


    I suspect the number of people affected by the problem mentioned in the OP is quite small, so while the problem probably wouldn't be terribly difficult to eradicate (and would almost certainly affect far fewer people than were affected by the "special character" issue), I suppose it might not be worth the time and effort to correct.

  7. ... That would mean that the login is just restricting the number of characters through html.

    Yes, that is as I expected. I would think fixing the field length in the forum log in would be a simple task, but if not, I suppose the number of characters allotted for geocaching.com usernames should be restricted to match the forum software.


    I agree that shorter usernames are more practical, but that doesn't really address the problem.

  8. I recently changed the username I use for posting to the forums to one that contains 41 characters. Gc.com accepted the change without a hitch.


    I notice that all of the old posts I made to these forums also correctly display the 41-character username, but when I attempt to log into the forums using it, I receive an error message that the username is too long.


    I realize the simplest solution would be to truncate the 41-character username, but I was wondering whether the username is actually too long, (because the username apparently updated properly on old posts), or if the field length for the log-in name is simply set too short in the forum software?

  9. quote:
    Originally posted by Davros:


    But rather than start a flame war if anyone has any questions about what the Maryland Geocaching Society, and what it stands for feel free to email me I'll tell you.


    You mean it won't be clear from the opening paragraphs on the MDGCS's main page? ... No, I guess it won't:



    ... We are a group of active Geocachers who use the resources of the Maryland Geocaching Society to socialize with other members. We strive to work cooperatively with land managers to support geocaching in our area. ...


    Our goal is to promote the sport of Geocaching and gain acceptance of the game within Maryland. We work as closely as possible with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and other property management officials to protect your rights to participate in this rapidly growing sport.


    It is clear from that excerpt that the MDGCS is primarily a social group. We then read two self-serving statements that purport to describe the group's activities, but which appear to actually be disclaimers. ("We strive to work cooperatively... " and "We work as closely as possible with...") Neither statement remotely suggests that the society or its individual members adhere to guidelines or suggestions from the named agencies that they happen to disagree with; in fact, they suggest the opposite.


    I don't understand why such a society is needed to help a "rapidly growing sport" "gain acceptance within Maryland" if that sport is already popular enough in Maryland to warrant the creation of a social group.


    I can see how the original poster came to the conclusion that the statement "We strive to ... support geocaching in our area" could also be read "We strive to work cooperatively ... to control geocaching in our area."


    Especially, as someone eluded to earlier, when a guy called "Davros" is leading the effort. icon_wink.gif


    *Tongue Out of Cheek*


    It's clear to me that The Maryland Geocaching Society is a positive influence and valuable resource in their geocaching community. Keep up the good work. icon_smile.gif


    [This message was edited by ACME geocachers on December 21, 2002 at 06:21 AM.]

  10. quote:
    Originally posted by Trudy & The Beast:

    ACME If you had been there, your remarks might not be as critical. As a finder, I can say that the cache placement was not inappropriate. The hunter had actually seen cachers retrieve the cache on the previous day and then decided he would go back.


    You are probably right. The hunter sounds like a jerk, and the cachers the hunter saw retrieving the cache deserved a taste of Dave's wrath. Cachers really must be alert and aware of their surroundings.


    It sounds like it was a very nice cache, but I don't think that one star difficulty caches (which I assume was hidden in plain view) are a good idea in areas that routinely receive off trail use, like hunting. I think people who place one star difficulty caches should expect the cache will inevitably be discovered by accident, though hopefully the discovery would only amount to a note in the logbook.

  11. quote:
    Originally posted by Cheesehead Dave:

    While I'm happy that Team Cachebarr was OK, and that a plunderer was caught with container in hand, I've got to wonder... how dumb can some people be? icon_confused.gificon_mad.gif


    I agree; you don't get it.


    You should be directing a large dose of that anger at yourself for not hiding the cache better, especially since you knew the area was open to hunters.

  12. I looked up some profile numbers, and the turnover appears to be staggering. Go to your profile page and look at your number (A= xxx) in the address bar, and check the numbers around yours. Following are some numbers of finds and hides from profiles I picked at random.


    For example, This member registered in June, 2000 and has 72 finds and 6 hides. I think that user might still be active in geocaching. icon_wink.gif


    (For that user, the address should appear on your address bar as http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.asp?A=3. Try your own or any other profile # after the "A=" to investigate further.)


    For example,

    A=40 joined in 9/2000 and found 8, hid 1.

    A=1111 joined in 12/2000 and found 1 cache.

    A=30001 joined in 11/2001 and found 4, hid 1.

    A=45001 joined in 3/2002 and found 0, hid 0.

    A=65000 joined in 7/2002 and found 9, hid 0.


    [This message was edited by ACME geocachers on November 10, 2002 at 06:35 PM.]

  13. quote:
    Originally posted by Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats:


    so I could log in 1440 times and just find, and give up hiding.


    It's your choice. If you are saying that you will give up hiding caches if the idea isn't implemented, then go ahead. I think it would be foolish.




    One of the more convincing posts from earlier in the thread, joedohn was talking about MOC's effect on plundering.


    Where did his post say he suspected his caches were stolen by unregistered lurkers? I agree with joedohn 100% that most caches are intentionally stolen. His post made a strong statement about the effectiveness of MOCs. His post was clearly not an endorsement for the hidden coordinate idea. The way I read his post, he didn't like the idea.


    Since we can't find someone on this thread with the level of knowledge on the subject that you deem necessary to comment


    That's not what I said. There are active cache placers who have lost a lot more caches than most of the proponents have placed. You are right that I would value their input.

  • Create New...