Jump to content

Lawcomic

Members
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lawcomic

  1. Wow, a knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk reaction! Classic! ...and yet the irony of your post escapes you. (No smilie included).
  2. Don't blame the reviewer. They are likely just following the rules. Blame the rules, as they are artificially draconian for no rational reason.
  3. All compelling reasons why virtuals should not be frowned on as much. Just saying.
  4. No no. The use of technology enhances those sports as you set them out. But such technology is not required to play. For example...in NASCAR, a car is operated to compete. Hence, not a sport. A bat manufactured by a new process is not the same thing. Nor is a glowing hockey puck, etc. Biking is ok, because it is man-powered machinery (yes, I am changing the rules on the fly).
  5. Not a sport. A sport must involve: 1. Physical exertion (true for some, but not all, caches) 2. Must involve competition in which there is a defined winner and a loser. 3. If it requires the use of machinery or technology, its not a sport (I'm looking at you, NASCAR). And, finally, if I can reasonably participate in it....it ain't a sport.
  6. You all realize that the kind of arguments you are making here give creedence to the argument that Geocaching is a nerd activity, right? Lighten up. It was a TV show where Geocaching was a plot point. It wasn't a freakin' documentary.
  7. That would explain why Storch no longer uses this site.
  8. I'm a low number cacher....a whopping 6. I like the ability to keep track of my numbers. It's a fun stat. What I don't get are the folks who are somehow upset by what numbers other people post. If people are "cheating", how does it hurt anyone else?
  9. And why, exactly, do we care how many caches other people claim to have found? Is there a prize I am unaware of?
  10. While I disagree with the OP's tone and unneccesarily offensive comments, I do tend to agree with his overall point. The cache approval rules do seem overly techinical for no good reason. I've had to put a multi-virtual cache on another site because of the frustrating approval process here. (First no virtuals allowed. Then, when I agreed to add a physical end point, I am told that oh, wait, you can't have a requirement be that the seekers e-mail me for coordinates....despite the fact that there's an excellent series of caches in my area that requires e-mail communication to get coordinates). I understand the frustration....if not the offensiveness....of the OP.
  11. Just to be obnoxious.....why are these ok while virtuals are not?
  12. I am on another site because they aren't as uptight about virtuals, and I wanted to post my game/virtual that I had worked pretty hard on putting together. Obviously, GC.com has a heck of a lot more participants and caches. If this site weren't so inexplicably rigid in its rules, I doubt very many people would be at the other sites. I do like the rating system at TC...just wish they had more caches in my area.
  13. So are you saying a stadium should not allow baseball games if it also allows football games? You can go to the stadium only on the days they play football...or, if so inclined, attend all activities there. Are you saying the venue should only be limited to one specific activity...or should it actually be more functional and provide opportunities for fans of many variations of sport?
  14. Which begs the question....Why isn't part 3 in effect?
  15. So what. Unless I am mistaken, no one is required to seek out any cache, virtual or otherwise. So, if you don't want to look for 'em, you don't have to. Your line of argument reminds me of an evangelical atheist. No one tells you that you have to believe, and yet you feel compelled to convince those who do believe that they should not. Frickin' why? Simple solution to the virtual issue: 1. If you don't like them, don't seek them out. 2. Virtuals should be approved. 3. Virtuals should not count against traditionals that are or could be placed in the same or nearby location. Why is this such an issue?
  16. Yes. A box full of worthless trinkets hidden under a rock is far more interesting than a well thought out virtual. It should all be part of the game. The potential tent is big...why seek to limit it?
  17. It's a principle, for one thing. Why should I have to construct a web site for this? If the cache information up front says there are multiple stages, and after each you'll have to e-mail me for a clue, then people who don't want to do that don't have to. Let the consumer decide. Now, maybe it is a boneheaded idea. Maybe no one will want to do this (which I know for a fact is not the case, but I digress). But, so what? As long as there is full disclosure up front, where's the harm in allowing this concept to go forward?
  18. You raise some fair points. I understand why certain caches would need to be nixed. A dead animal as a waypoint is not permanent (or semi-permanent); railroad property is off limits legally and so on and so forth. That's why I think the reviewers should have the authority to use common sense to reject a cache when there's truly a problem....not just when it doesn't fit into some overly broad guidelines.
  19. I know I am being dense, repetitive, and argumentative here.... But.... With the advent of the ignore feature, why is this even an issue? Shouldn't virts be allowed, so long as they are clearly labelled as virts, and let those that don't like them ignore them? The regulations against virtuals now seem to have zero purpose whatsoever.
  20. Thanks to all who offered advice. I still believe my idea was perfectly valid, as long as it was disclosed on the front end what the requirements would be. Unfortunately for me, I enthusiastically spent two days finding locations, and another day researching and writing this hunt. Combine that with the changing requirements after submission...being told the problem is there is no physical cache....then after agreeing to add one being told, oh and the whole e-mail thing is wrong....well, it just makes little sense. What's with the regulations? I am trying to take part in a game....not open a hazardous waste dump. Suffice to say this process has sapped my enthusiasm for the game. I've said it elsewhere and before. The guidelines seem wholly unneccesary for the most part. When the sites FAQs say the game encourages creativity and the guidelines and their application stifle it, it makes little to no sense to me. No, this cache would not have been everyone's cup of tea. But, as long as I clearly explained the concept on the front end to participants via the cache page, that's not relevant. Don't like the idea? Don't do the cahce? Love the idea? Do it. I understand there are guidelines for valid reasons...such as not dessecrating property or violating the law. But, if someone wants to do something creative and interesting, shouldn't the approval response be enthusiastic and supportive instead of rigid and bogged down by rules? In short, the game seems over-lawyered for no readily apparent reason. Call me a newbie who doesn't know what he's talking about. Say my cache is stupid and not something you'd want to do. Say I am argumentative for the sake of arguing. But, at the end of the day, ask yourselves if, at the core, my point is correct. I think you'll find it is.
  21. I'm brand new, and my opinion has been criticized based on that. But, in my limited experience, the cache guidelines seem ridiculously restrictive to begin with, for no readily apparent reason...particularly in light of the fact that there is now an ignore feature. Don't like a cache? Don't do it. Why have this arbitrary set of rules as to what is and is not a valid cache? I am all for a cache that encourages women to participate. I'm am also all for allowing for creative freedom for cache designers....as it stands, the guidelines don't do that. We shouldn't be arguing about "exceptions". In fact, cache rejections should be only in exceptional cases, not the rule. I'm just bitter. And bring on the women.
  22. No. No. Re-read Keystone Approver's comments. The new guidelines weren't meant to drastically change the old ones on this point.
  23. Ok. Let's stick to the application to my cache. Why would it apply here but not to others?
  24. It should also be noted that I submitted my initial cache idea before 2/14.
×
×
  • Create New...