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

Ignoring the unregistered lurkers, if there are 15,000 registered users, and logging in takes an additional 2.5 seconds each time they log on, and each user visits the site an average of twice a day, how many man hours a month will be wasted for no clear benefit? quote:Point 2... How many citizens have to vote to make an election democratic??? I don't know. Are polls and elections comparable? Has there ever been an election where only .2% of the registered voters voted? But unintentionally, you raised a good point. Sample ballots are mailed to the address of every registered voter. To reach a true consensus, maybe Jeremy should include questions he deems of potential merit in a survey mailed with the new cache list every week. Non-binding, of course. quote: If 28 unique visitors posted notes on this subject, 63 voted and 42 were in favor of this option being provided to THOSE THAT CARE TO HIDE CACHES I'd say that the majority of voters who cared to pipe up and vote was a significantly higher percentage than those who put Mr. Bush in office. I'd rather hear what the people who have placed the most caches think about the matter. quote:Point 3 Obviously no one can prove that without some idiot logging on and becoming a user after the fact just to say, Hey I'm the Troll who plundered your cache. While I won't wait around for that guy, you may want to, that way you could be _really sure_ it would be worth making Let me make sure I've got it straight: Someone placed six caches, perhaps badly because of their inexperience. Two of the caches were subsequently stolen, and that person imagines, because there is no proof, that they were stolen by Trolls, and dreams up a scheme that will inconvenience a huge number of people, and probably won't protect anyone's cache one iota. I'm sorry; you people are right. It's a great idea. [This message was edited by ACME geocachers on July 09, 2002 at 07:02 AM.]

Ignoring the unregistered lurkers, if there are 15,000 registered users, and logging in takes an additional 2.5 seconds each time they log on, and each user visits the site an average of twice a day, how many man hours a month will be wasted for no clear benefit? quote:Point 2... How many citizens have to vote to make an election democratic??? I don't know. Are polls and elections comparable? Has there ever been an election where only .2% of the registered voters voted? But unintentionally, you raised a good point. Sample ballots are mailed to the address of every registered voter. To reach a true consensus, maybe Jeremy should include questions he deems of potential merit in a survey mailed with the new cache list every week. Non-binding, of course. quote: If 28 unique visitors posted notes on this subject, 63 voted and 42 were in favor of this option being provided to THOSE THAT CARE TO HIDE CACHES I'd say that the majority of voters who cared to pipe up and vote was a significantly higher percentage than those who put Mr. Bush in office. I'd rather hear what the people who have placed the most caches think about the matter. quote:Point 3 Obviously no one can prove that without some idiot logging on and becoming a user after the fact just to say, Hey I'm the Troll who plundered your cache. While I won't wait around for that guy, you may want to, that way you could be _really sure_ it would be worth making Let me make sure I've got it straight: Someone placed six caches, perhaps badly because of their inexperience. Two of the caches were subsequently stolen, and that person imagines, because there is no proof, that they were stolen by Trolls, and dreams up a scheme that will inconvenience a huge number of people, and probably won't protect anyone's cache one iota. I'm sorry; you people are right. It's a great idea. [This message was edited by ACME geocachers on July 09, 2002 at 07:02 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by cachew nut: If anyone can offer any convincing evidence that Jeremy said "no" I would line up support to get them a new pair of glasses. I've said before that I think most caches aren't plundered by "unregistered lurkers," but by the regular, registered users. You make rude statements like that all the time to people who disagree with you in the forums. If you interact with your other local cachers like that, then there should be no surprise why your caches get plundered.

Do you mean, have I ever found a can of beans in a cache, borrowed the cache container, dumped the beans into it and then heated the beans over a campfire? Yes, but the tupperware melted. That's why ammo cans are better.

quote:Originally posted by Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats: It's only to be hidden when trolls who have no username/password are skulking about, or for some reason, legitimate users don't _LOGIN_. Haven't we witnessed enough incursions by Trolls into this login only forum to see how effective the login system is at inhibiting bad behavior? I almost always login, but when I use a public computer I don't. I don't think I should automatically be denied access to cache coordinates, because I've done nothing wrong. quote:Originally posted by Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats: OK, only 60ish responded, but a 2 to 1 margin in favor of the idea, not what I'd call "few", but your idea of "few" may be different. That works out to about .2% of the registered users. You are correct. It is less than a few. quote:Originally posted by Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats: That's why it's an idea, you can't prove any idea without trying it ... Why make a fundamental change when no actual need has been demonstrated? There has not been even one example offered of a cache plundered by an unregistered person.

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: Almost EVERY feature here can be easily circumvented. You are absolutely right. And because most people haven't done bad things to other people's caches, there is obviously no need to hide coordinates. There has been no persuasive argument presented that any cache has been plundered by any so called "unregistered lurker." None. Zero. Zip. quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: At the very least, this new feature will make a good number of geoacachers happier (just to know that Jeremy is listening to, and responding to our requests). That in itself should be worth something. I thought Jeremy's original "no" was a response to the request, and only a couple of people weren't happy with it. Few people voiced any support for this idea, and I don't like the idea that a fundamental change would be made to the site solely because someone was a "squeeky wheel." Fundamental changes should provide quantifiable benefits to all users, not just the one or two who squeek the loudest and lobby the hardest. If anyone had offered any convincing evidence that caches were being plundered by "unregistered lurkers," I would line up in support of your idea. That has not been the case. If anyone had shown how a required login would protect a cache, I would line up in support of your idea. That has not been the case. Who needs smoke and mirrors? Too many users would be inconvenienced.

There's nothing worse than pervert snakes.

There's nothing worse than pervert snakes.

The whole topic is old news. I agree that it seems Jeremy dismissed the idea back in May.

quote:Originally posted by Prime Suspect: Sorry, but I don't blame the cache owner for being a little PO'ed. After it was taken the second time, they wanted to do the smart thing, cut their losses, and be done with it. Be done with it, maybe, but since the cache had been replaced two times by others, it was not their losses they were cutting. I agree that someone else should be free to establish a cache at the former cache location.

Geocachers expect to find a 1/1 cache without any difficulty, and also those are the caches that receive the most visits. It sounds like you got what you wanted.

Geocachers expect to find a 1/1 cache without any difficulty, and also those are the caches that receive the most visits. It sounds like you got what you wanted.

Not funny.

Because a lot of people think the cache was placed just for them and they don't care a bit about anyone else.

quote:Originally posted by WhereRWee?: I am the cache owner and I live in the neighborhood directly below the cache and saw nothing wrong with the excursion. In my opinion the cache hunter ran into a homeowner who paid a $50,000 lot premium and feels THEY own the mountain and no one should hike there. Well that’s what you get for paying all that $$$$$ for a view of public property. You're probably right, but his log said the entire neighborhood came outside to see what was going on.

Read Shadyfigure's log for yourself here.

quote:Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite: I'd love to be treated as a customer instead of having to search around for a site that will help us locationless fans. I would just like to know why people who share your interest in locationless caches are "fans" and those who don't are "whiners."

quote:Originally posted by blind-dog: You got a right to be ticked off, people should log there finds online. I mean why be a sneak, is being stealth-cacher that important to people? Come on its just a game.Jeremy should change the way people search or view caches, you should have to have an account and log in to view or get co-ords. How would that force anyone to log online if they don't want to?

quote:Originally posted by blind-dog: You got a right to be ticked off, people should log there finds online. I mean why be a sneak, is being stealth-cacher that important to people? Come on its just a game.Jeremy should change the way people search or view caches, you should have to have an account and log in to view or get co-ords. How would that force anyone to log online if they don't want to?

The article said the men had "exposed themselves to undercover" cops. If you were in the park but neither engaging in sexual activity, exposing yourself, nor engaging in other lewd or illegal activity you wouldn't be of interest to the cops. Is the area really dangerous? Probably not. Was Gwho propositioned? Did anyone threaten him as a result of his turning down a proposition? I wouldn't bring my kids to this park, but I don't think I would have anything to fear. If someone is trying to find out if you're interested, tell them no and they'll go away.

The date on this cache page shows it "was" placed on 3/28/2003. A typo. I tried to add a note log to the page using the same date but I got an error message and my note was rejected. Maybe this feature should be applied to the date field when creating the cache too.

quote:Originally posted by Hawk-eye: As always ... the lady. Steak N Eggs "is a fine man, and so is his wife."

quote:Originally posted by The Heavenly Host: isn't a Travel Bug a separate category? Sometimes I have taken a Travel Bug and not left anything. I have then taken the travel bug out for a night on the town only to replace it in another cache the very next day, complete with pictures. I agree. People don't take travel bugs. They just help move them along.

That's what's happened so far.

That's what's happened so far.