Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Docapi

  1. I just have to ask- What would the difference between this cache and the one being discussed HERE be? Both are not-for-profit organizations, and the "donation" is avoidable in both. Actually, it is easier to avoid the donation in this one- just don't do it. In this one, it is just a donation- in the other one, it is a "fee". In this thread, the posters are convinced beyond any doubt that it is not allowed, but in the other one they are just as convinced that that cache is. I don't understand that. It seems to me that the reasons that are stated in the other thread for that cache to be allowed are just as applicable to this suggestion, and the problems stated in this thread would apply just as easily to the other thread. If this cache is not allowed, theI don't understand why the other one is, and if the other one is allowed, then I dont see why this one would not be.
  2. Personally, I would state the equipment required. It would realy stink to get all the way to the cache site and find out then that you need something to complete the cache that you don't have.
  3. Often, the parks allow the temporary caches if they are removed after the event. What they won't allow is leaving permanent caches in the park. In most cases, the temporary caches are known about by the park officials and allowed. They aren't "deliberately hiding temporary caches where they are not wanted or welcome". This debate has been going on forever. Logging temp caches is not against the rules and I doubt it ever will be. TPTB has not only refused to disallow it, they have actually told organizations in the past to log the temp caches on the event page as an alternative to making a cache page for each cache.
  4. As far as I can tell, there is no site rule. TB prisons are still routinely approved. However, the one time that somebody tried to enforce the TB prison's rule and it was appealed, the deletion was overturned by TPTB. "Just because we haven't made a rule against it doesn't mean it is OK"- TPTB BTW, I actually like most ALR caches, and have no problem with complying with them. It's just that I can see where others might not want to do it, and I see no benefit in denying them their logs.
  5. I think we might be arguing 2 different points. What I am arguing is that cache hoders do not have the authority to put any silly rule on their cache page and delete any logs that don't meet that rule. I know we have kinda wandered all ovwer the place, but that was my intent. In the only case that I am aware of that an ALR log was deleted and appealed, the log was reinstated by TPTB. As I mentioned once before, I would be very interested to see what would happen if, for example, your brother deleted a log on his poetry cache and the finder appealed it to TPTB, forcing them to take a stand one way or the other. Of course, then what would we talk about?
  6. The appeal of the TB Prison log deletion is mentioned HERE
  7. I've seen threats on TB Hotel pages of deleted logs if TBs are taken without a TB trade. It happens. From reading that thread, though, it appears that that has been challenged in the past. From what I can tell, (and I don't recall the incident so I could be wrong) a prison hider had the threat on his page, and deleted somebody's logs for failire to follow the ALR on that cache. It was appealed, and TPTB reinstated the find log.
  8. But I DID refuse to the the "task" on the night cache. I went during the day. I still logged it, and I got my all important smiley. Same with a puzzle cache. I remember a big hulabaloo about somebody with a website giving out solutions to puzzles. If somebody goes to that website (if it is even still around) and gets a solution and then finds the cache using that solution would the hider delete his find? I've never heard of it happening. I see on another thread they are talking about Travel bug "prisons". That debate has been going on for years. Jeremy thinks they are "silly", too. (I notice he uses that term a lot). The rules in a TB prison are just another form of ALR. Usually, the majority of the posters on those threads say they ignore the rules becauser they think they are stupid. Are Prison hiders allowed to delete find logs on those? (That trap wasn't as bad as I expected. A couple of bandaids and I will be fine. )
  9. That's a great example!! I'll go along with it. So tell me what would happen if you tried to find it during the day but couldn't, and you decided that because of her injury you couldn't take part in the additional task (of going at night and using the reflectors to lead the way to the cache)? If you came home without completing the cache and logged a Found It anyway, and the owner found out you never actually found the cache, would you expect him to delete your find? Absolutely! A find is a find. Conversely, a DNF is a DNF. In this case, I found the cache. If I hadn't found it and signed the log book, it would have been a DNF. If I had not found it and tried to log it as a find, then it would be well within the hiders rights to delete my false find. (I know, it is a trap of some kind. I'll play along and wait for the jaws to spring shut LOL)
  10. The same reason that for puzzle caches the puzzle isn't optional. I can't read a puzzle cache, go to the posted coordinates, sign whatever I find there, and come back and log the cache anyway. 2 major differences between a puzzle cache and an ALR cache: First, the puzzle is all about finding the cache. If you don't figure out the puzzle, then you won't be able to find the cache. You are welcome to try, though. Once you find the cache and sign the log, you get to log it, though. An alr is about making you jump through hoops after finding the cache. Even though you have found the cache and signed the logbook, you still have to jump through the hoops to be able to log it. At that point it is no longer about geocaching, it is about forcing people to do what you want to get what they have already earned. Second, There are many ways to bypass the puzzle. Brute force, guessing the coords, asking somebody for the solution, or even just going with somebody elst that has solve the puzzle. I have never heard a case, though, of somebody cheating that way and having their log deleted. It just doesn't seem to be done.
  11. The other day I did a "night" cache. However, since my wife has a torn ACL and some cartilage damage we decided to try to do it in the daytime. There was no way she was going to try walking around in the woods in the dark with her bum knee. We did the cache, made the hike, found the little reflectors (BTW, those things are hard to find in the daytime!) and followed the trail through this beautiful park to the cache. We thoroughly enjoyed the cache, even though we technically didn't do it "correctly". Would it have been more "fun" for us to have had the log deleted since we technically didn't follow th "rules"? No. Would it have been more fun for the hider to delete our log for not following the rules? I doubt it. Would it have been any fun for either me or the hider if I had decided to skip the cache? I don't see how. Would it have been even more fun if we had done it at night (assuming she was not injured and able to do it that way)? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see how it makes it any less fun for anybody else that we did it "wrong". Taking away our smiley would not have added anything, it is just taking away.
  12. For some people, that is more fun. Why take it away from them? For some people, the panty on the head thing is more fun- for some people it isn't. Why not let the ALR be optional, and appeal to both types? The people that like the ALR can put the panties on their head and have their fun, and the people that just want to find a cache with no strings attached can do their thing, too. Why wave RK's stick around at all? That is what I don't understand- how does it add to the fun for anybody to have the threat? The people that want to do the ALR will do it and have fun. The cache hider gets to have his fun by seeing the logs from the people that do the ALR. The ALR that people don't like isn't fun to them, so the threat of deletion forces them to do something they don't see as fun to get the find. The threat certainly doesn't add to their fun. The hider ends up deleting the logs from the non-compliant ones, which (unless they really do have control issues) can't be a lot of fun for them, either.
  13. I have to admit, I agree with NFR on this particular sub-point. The cace page does make the cache in many cases. Removing the ALR does change the cache. On the other hand, removing the threat of deletion for failing to comply would not change the cache at all. The "fun factor" would stilll be there, just not forced on people that don't think it is all that fun.
  14. That's where you give a violent twist to logic. You can't begin to assume what the Illustrious Potentates were thinking when they wrote the guidelines, and your attempted interpretations of their thought process leaves much to be desired. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that neither of us has a clue regarding the specific text and how that text applies to ALR's. I think this gives us a pretty good clue- "Additional Logging Requirements is not sanctioned by Groundspeak. Suggestions would be fine but forcing someone to do a little dance for a "find" is, IMO, silly. If you found it you found it." I'm pretty sure he knows what they were thinking when they wrote the guidelines. The guideline in question reads: "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." If, as is being suggested here, that guideline is meant to cover ALR logs, why would Jeremy say it is "silly" to delete them? Why would he write a guideline saying that cache hiders are to delete the logs, and then later say it is "silly" to do so? That doesn't make any sense. The only thing that would make sense is that the guidelone was never meant to cover the ALR logs in the first place.
  15. I think you need to read the thread. We are not talking about the guidelines in general here. I'll try to get you back on track- The particular guideline that is being discussed is this one: "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." Some people feel that the "not within the stated requirements" language is applicable to ALR logs and deleting logs that don't comply with the ALR is therefore approved. However, Jeremy has made the clear statement that ALR caches are "not sanctioned" by the site. My argument is that if ALR caches are not sanctioned, then saying that that the "not within the stated requirements" verbiage tacitly approves ALR log deletions is obviously incorrect. Further, in that same post he goes on to say "Suggestions would be fine but forcing someone to do a little dance for a "find" is, IMO, silly. If you found it you found it." If the "not within the stated requirements" language is applicable to ALR logs, then not only would deleting non-compliant logs be not "silly", it would actually be REQUIRED by that guideline. By that logic, Jeremy would be saying that following his own guideline is "silly". Somehow, I doubt he would call his own guidelines "silly". BYW- According to the dictionary: Adjective: unsanctioned ún'sangkshund 1. Without explicit official permission
  16. Did you write those guidelines? No? Are you best buddies with the person who did? No? Don't you think it's arrogant to assume you know what is, and what is not meant, by a purposely vague guideline? I didn't write them, and I am not buddies with jeremy, but I CAN read. Jeremy stated in another thread that ALR's are "not sanctioned" by the site.
  17. He not only said that he wouldn't make changes, he said that they are not sanctioned in the first place. If they are not sanctioned, then how can it be argued that an admittedly vague reference about "the stated requirements" applies to them? The current guidelines were never MEANT to apply. Obviously, if the ALR's are not sanctioned, then he would not have put something in the guideline to allow them. If he did put something there to allow them, then he is santioning them. If you truly beleive that the "stated requirements" language applies to ALR's, then Jeremy was lying when he said they are not sanctioned.
  18. Guidelines, requirements, whatever, I wasn't trying to pick nits. I knew what you meant. I agree tha the language was intentionally broad so that it could cover other issues without having to have a 25 page document to cover every possibility. However, since Jeremy has clearly stated that ALR's are not "sanctioned" by the site, It seems obvious to me that the "stated requirements" are not meant to apply to ALR's, whether intentionally or otherwise. If it was meant to apply to ALR's, then that would be sanctioning them- which he has said is not something that the site does. I wonder if anybody has ever appealed a log deletion for non-ALR compliance? I would be curious to see what would happen if somebody did and TPTB was placed in a position to either allow or not allow the deletion.
  19. Yes, but ALR's are not what is meant by "the stated guidelines"
  20. If you take Jeremy's comment about ALR's not being sanctioned into consideration, then it seems obvious to me that the "not within the stated guidelines" verbiage is not intended for ALR's.
  21. What I get out of that is that the only reason cache hiders have the ability to delete logs is so that spoilers and abusive or obscene logs can be deleted. Some cache owners have decided to abuse that power by deleting logs that don't meet ALR's, but the site has not taken the power to delete logs away becaue they need to be able to delete the abusive/obscene/spoiler logs. In other words, deleting logs for failure to comply with an ALR is NOT what is intended by allowing the hider to delete logs, but some people have decided to do it anyways. If that is the case, then deleting the logs would be an abuse of the system, and should or could be disallowed on those grounds.
  22. What is being advocated here is a compromise between the hiders rights and the finders rights as regards to the logs on the cache page. The hider owns the cache, but he doesn't own the page or the logs on that page.
  23. Just so I can keep up, so far the options being brought up are: 1. Outlaw all ALR caches 2. Outlaw deleting logs that don't meet ALR's 3. Make a special attribute for the alr's 4. Get a smiley for finding the cache, get a different smiley for complying with the ALR. Only the regular smiley counts toward your find total. 5. Get a half smiley for finding the cache, full smiley for complying- only the full smiley counts towards your find total 6. Allow hiders to delete all logs that don't meet the ALR. Did I miss any? Are there any other suggestions? IMHO, 1,2, and 6 are all on the "extremist" (for lack of a better word) end. That leaves 3, 4, and 5. TPTB has already spoken that 3 will not be happening, which leaves 4 and 5. From reading between the lines on his comments, I think that he would be more likely to support 4. I think is is the beter option myself, but I could live with 5 as well. Puzzle caches are not what are being discussed, and nobody has suggested that we should be able to log caches that we haven't found.
  24. Nobody ever made that comparison. It is pretty tacky to imply that I did. Besides, you are about 50 posts behind. That argument has been discussed, resolved, and put away long ago.
  • Create New...