Docapi

Not 2 finds- 2 icons. One found it and one panty. Only the one would count as a find. I think this is the fairest suggestion yet. Type "A's would get their find for the find, and Type "B"s would get credit for doing the ALR.

I would support any discriminatory or exclusionary caches being disapproved. All of those on that list would fit that guideline (even the foot hopping one- at especially if it is phrased that way) All geocaches should be available for all geocachers, with the exception of PMO caches. By available to all, I mean that any ALR's must be something that can be accomplished or at least attempted by any geocacher within the framework of the cache itself or in the logging of that cache. (Don't worry, sweetie isn't home yet. I have the Acorn Squash in the oven, the salmon ready to go on the grill, and the wine chilling)

In that case, there might be room in there for you to convince me to agree with you. Aw, man! You just had to leave that little crack there for me, didn't you? My wife is gonna be mad at you! It is our anniversary and now I am going to be thinking "I got him to wiggle a little- I gotta stay on him" all night instead of sucking up to her the way I am supposed to be!

Discriminatory caches? Absolutely. ALR caches? No. I'l rephrase to make more sense to the rephrasing of the question LOL. Yes, I do think that discriminatory ALRs should be disallowed. ALRs in general I have no problem with. Some can be pretty fun, others not so fun, but I do agree that my defenition of fun is not neccesarily the same as the next guy's. It is only when it crosses the line to discrimination that I have a problem with them. I do think deleting otherwise legitamate logs is kinda silly, but I wouldn't want to make a rule that you couldn't do it.

Okay, I think understand what you mean now. If I do understand correctly, them I'm moved to ask the obvious question: If you understand that you can choose to ignore a cache with "discrimination that is already present," then why do you CARE how the cache is set up? What's the point in even thinking about it? What larger point are you driving at? Did I miss something? Why do I care? Because it is wrong. There are lots of things in life that, while they may not effect me personally, I still care about. I would venture to guess that most people have things that they care about that don't personally effect them.

I'm afraid I still don't understand what you are trying to say (I don't say that as a debating tactic, I truly don't get your point). That's OK, though. It is turning into a bit of a side discussion anyways and I don't want that frog dude getting any more mad at us, so I will drop it.

Exactly. Thank you. The hypothetical restaurant owner cannot tell you how to eat if you never set foot in his establishment. The real-life ALR owner cannot tell you that your find log is no good if you simply bypass his cache in the first place. Refer to you post where you made this statement: The restaurant scenario by your own admission is not discriminatory. It has nothing to do with discrimination. You are arguing apples and oranges. Whather or not you choose to enter the restaurant you will not be discriminated against. A discriminatory cache, on the other hand, is discriminatory whether you choose to hunt it or not. Choosing to log it does not make it discriminatory, it just challenges the discrimination that is already present.

I have a thread about that subject over in the Off Topic Forum. I'd link to it but someone reading this post might not have given $30 to Groundspeak this year, and won't have access to the Off Topic topic. I guess the web site is dicriminating against those that haven't paid. Maybe they're discriminating against the poor? Don't you have to use a GPS in order to hide a cache? Wait a minute... the game discriminates against people that don't own GPS receivers. How can I log a find on the web site if I don't know how to use a computer???? The website discriminates against those that aren't computer literate (or those that don't have friends that are)!!!!! Wow, that is a lot of straw.

Look at it this way: Suppose a restaurant owner tells you that you may NOT substitute a different side item for your tossed salad, that you should either accept the meal as described on the menu, or go someplace else. Suppose a restaurant owner tells you that you don't qualify for the free pie until you buy 99 meals, as described on the menu ... but you're welcome to go someplace else and try. Bad business practice? Maybe. Discriminatory? No. Should a law be passed requiring restaurants to respond to whatever the current mob rule thinking is on side items or desserts? Well, to be precise, that's the definition of pure democracy -- but that doesn't make it right. You don't give the restaurant owner the power to "tell you how to eat" until you decide for yourself that that's where you're going to eat your lunch. You don't give the cache owner the power to "discriminate against you" until you choose to hunt the cache. You defeated your own analogy in that post. You state yourself that the scenario is not discriminatory. Discrimination does not start at the point of enforcement. It starts when the rule is made. Challenging that discrimination does not cause it to exist- it was already there. That is really not what I was trying to do, I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was trying to use the most clear cut example that I could think of as to why the idea of "I's not discrimination until somebody challenges it" is inaccurate. You lost me here. What does that have to do with the argument? Does the fact that the cache owner has more power over the logs somehow make it less discriminatory? Might makes right?

This whole argument makes my head spin. Cache A makes a rule that you can't log his cache unless you do "X" Cacher B says there should be a rule against making rules like that in caches. Cacher A says That cachers should not make rules about how other cachers choose to play. Cacher B says that cachers should not make rules about how others choose to play. Of course, cacher B would not need to argue for his rule if cacher A hadn't made his rule. So what is needed is a ruling on whether or not there should be a rule about making rules. And whether or not telling somebody else how they should play the game is enough reason for somebody to tell somebody else how they should play the game. I'm confused, where was I? What came first, the chicken or the egg?

That's been suggested, and it's a good suggestion. I like it. The definition would have to be reworded, however. That, or a new "ALR" cache type introduced. I kinda like the idea that somebody posted about having a different icon for fulfilling the ALR requirement. You could still get the smiley for finding ther cache even if you don't do the ALR, but you get another Icon for doing it. Maybe a smiley with a halo, or something similar. Seems like a good compromise. The find is a find people get their smiiley, and the people that want to do the ALR get something, too.

Could you explain what is wrong with the Rosa parks analogy? I thought it a pretty accurate one. Your brother stated "you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache." What I got out of his statement is that he feels it is not discrimination because they can avoid the cache. I stated "By that logic, Rosa Parks didn't give the bus driver the power to discriminate against her until she chose to get on that bus" It is the same type of scenario. Rosa knew there were rules against her sitting in that section of the bus. She chose to sit there anyways. Are you seriously implying that she was not discriminated against, or that the discrimination was somehow her fault for not complying with the rule?

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that thinking. By that logic, Rosa Parks didn't give the bus driver the power to discriminate against her until she chose to get on that bus.

I don't think anybody has posted a link to the cache itself. If anybody knows the link to the cache in question, I would be curious to actually see what we have been debating about.

I asked my wife, my mother-in-law, my sister, and my brother-in-law if they thought the requirement in this cache added to the fun. The response was was 4 votes for "no" and 0 votes for "yes". Therefore, I can say that my scientific poll shows that 100% of people (with a 98% margin of error) don't feel it adds to the fun. I couldn't resist.

Irrelevant speculation. True. That is exactly what I said about that post myself about half an hour before you posted.

True, in the first post he did ask for the thread to be locked. In the second, though, he gave permission for it to stay open. If it got off on mudslinging or obscure debating points, thenhe would want it locked again. Just as a re-cap, we seem to have several stances here: Some people feel that ALL ALR caches are cool, and they should be enforced by deleting the found logs if neccesary. Some feel that some of them are dumb, but the owner should be able to delete non-compliant logs if they want. Some feel that it is fine to have the ALR, but that logs should not be deleted for non-comliance. The "find is a find" crowd. Some feel that ALRs should not be allowed at all. Did I miss any? I don't seem to fit in any category myself. I feel that ALR's in general are ok, but I don't like the idea of deleting logs for non-compliance. On the other hand, I feel that ALR's that are discriminatory or exclusionary in nature should not be allowed at all.

I disagree- I don't see how being told you are not allowed to play is a whole lot of fun, but I was on a bit of a tangent with that post anyways. The fun factor is really irrelevant. I just noticed- 888 posts! Isn't that like 1/3 more evil than 666?

I'm sorry, you lost me here? BTW, Quiggle- What are we doing wrong? I thought we were being good now. I don't mean to argue, I just am not sure where we are failing to follow the rules.

The same could be said about micros, really hard puzzles, multis, caches that I can't find, caches hidden in or near cemetaries, et al. Do you really want to travel down that road? With the possible exception of cemetery caches, none of those on that list are considered objectionable by anybody that I have noticed. Annoying, frustrating, even irritating maybe, but not objectionable. Taken in context, they are referring to things which are offensive in nature due to being racist, insulting, or otherwise discriminatory. Cemetary caches, etc. are none of those. This one, however, is being objected to for exactly that reason- it discriminates against those with fewer than a certain number of caches. You must be joking. There have been numerous threads of people objecting to micros, really hard puzzle, mulits, caches that I can't find (because the hint is useless, the coords are bad, the cache was misrated, etc.) and caches hidden in cemetaries. That is taking the term "offensive" outside of the context of the TOS. Those objections were all based in "I don't like that". "I don't like micros" "I don't like really hard puzzles", etc. Not offensive due to being racist, insulting, or discriminatory. Whether or not the requirement in this cache is discriminatory is somewhat debatable. Personally, I feel it is. Other people have said the same. Some people, like yourself, feel differently. Earlier I brought up a silly example of a "no fat chicks" cache, where ladies over a certain weight would have their log deleted. Some ladies would be able to log it right away. Others might take a week, months or years to get down to the maximumm allowable weight. Would that be allowed, or would it be discriminatory? Personally, I would feel it was discriminatory.

Hmmm... The "fun" factor. Lets explore that in the cotext of this cache. Does the 99 find requirement make this cache any more fun for people with more than 99 finds? Nope. The requirement doesn't even apply to them. This would just be another cache. Does the 99 find requirement make this cache any more fun for people with less than 99 finds? I don't think so. Being told "you are not allowed to play yet" is never fun. How about somebody with exactly 99 finds? Maybe, I guess. But it wouldn't be any less fun if the cache was just called "Century cache" and the threat of deletion was left out. I would suspect that if somebody wants to do a special cache for a milestone, however, that they would choose a cache that is particularly "good" to them based on the cache itself and not just a plain old cache with a silly exclusion on the page in an attempt to make itself sound better. The only people I really see getting any "fun" out of making it a requifrement Vs. a request are the cache owner, because he gets to use the delete button "Whee! I pusha da button and da post it goes 'poof!'" And forum posters like us that love any excuse for a debate.

Sbel111- After re-reading our latest exchange, I think I see where our miscommunication is. I am not arguing against all ALR caches. Just this one. I think that ALR caches are fine in general. My issue is with this one in particular. I feel that this one by not allowing people with less than a certaikn number of finds to log it crosses the line between "annoying to people that don't like these kind of caches" and "discriminatory against people that don't have many finds".

KBI has also added the issue of whether a cache meets the guidelines. He may not have stated that in the particular post you responded to, but he has in previous posts in this thread. I think we all agree that caches that do not meet the guidelines should not be listed. You still miss my point. (perhaps intentionally?) The point is that at one time not all that long ago, both codeword and virtual caches were allowed. Now thay are not. If TPTB used his logic of "you can avoid it" then they would still be allowed.

The same could be said about micros, really hard puzzles, multis, caches that I can't find, caches hidden in or near cemetaries, et al. Do you really want to travel down that road? With the possible exception of cemetery caches, none of those on that list are considered objectionable by anybody that I have noticed. Annoying, frustrating, even irritating maybe, but not objectionable. Taken in context, they are referring to things which are offensive in nature due to being racist, insulting, or otherwise discriminatory. Cemetary caches, etc. are none of those. This one, however, is being objected to for exactly that reason- it discriminates against those with fewer than a certain number of caches. Micros discriminate against those who like quality caches. Really hard caches discriminate against those who can't solve them. Multis discriminate against those who don't like multis. Caches that I can't find discriminate against me. Caches in or near cemetaries discriminate against SC legislators. BTW, 'objectionable' is defined as 'causing disapproval or protest'. We could just shut the website down if we were going to remove all caches that someone found objectionable. LOL! You are kind stretching there Discriminate: # To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies. I don't care for Diet Pepsi, maybe you do. That doesn't mean that Pepsi Cola company is discriminating against me, though. Now, if they told me that I wasn't allowed to buy it because I have brown eyes, that would be discrimination. I know what the defenition of Objectional is, as I said before, it needs to be taken in context.

These items are forbidden not because they might be found by geocachers, but because they might be found by non-cachers. A non-cacher finding an ALR cache does not present 'a danger to the game'.Perhaps those were poor examples. How about codeword caches, virtuals, etc? Those could have been avoided, and caused no harm to anybody, yet they were made to be against the rules KBI's assertion above is that if you can avoid the cache, then it is OK, it doesn't hurt you. My point is that just because you can avoid it doesn't necessarily make it OK. You're correct. The cache would not be OK, if it violated the guidelines. ALRs are not in violation of the guidelines. You missed my point. I was referring to KBI's post above: His assertion is that if a cache can be avoided, and that they can't be harmed if they avoid it, then they are therefore OK and there is "absolutely no reason for you (or anyone) to call for the elimination, removal, deletion, outlawing (or whatever you want to call it)". My point is that virtuals, codewords, etc, could have been avoided, and caused no harm to anyone if they avoided it. Yet they were both at one time allowed, and now they aren't. Therefore, the "You can avoid it" argument for allowing a cache is irreleveant. Past practice shows us that even caches that can be avoided are sometimes deemed not OK.