Docapi

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.

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.

Using that reasoning, why is it that gun, knife, and porno (GKP for short)caches are against the rules? They can be avoided if you don't like them, too. By asking you "why can't you just avoid" caches, I'm asking you to prove that a person is unable to avoid caches they don't want to do. You haven't done so. No one has. I submit to you that it can't be proven. By asking you "what's the harm" in the mere existence of GKP caches, I'm asking you to prove that a person -- any person -- is harmed by the very existence of a cache they can provably avoid. You haven't done so. No one has. I submit to you that it can't be proven. Saying "you can avoid it if you don't like it" is not a valid reason for it to be allowed. You could avoid a porno cache, but that doesn't mean that they are OK. If Groundspeak used your logic, it wouldn't be against the rules to place one. On another point, I do find this in the TOS: You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to: (a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity. It could be argued that because people have stated on this thread that the ALR in question is objectionable to them, that the ALR in question would then be against the TOS. Or this from the page listing the benefits that premium members get for their $3 a month: Member-Only Caches Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches "subscriber only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out. (Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each cache is managed by their cache owner.) It could be argued that by telling people with less than 99 finds that they are not allowed to log this PMO cache, that the cache owner is denying PM's from getting the benefits that they have paid for. It could be construed as breach of contract. On the "ownership" issue- The cache does belong to the hider. The cache PAGE, however, is the property of Groundspeak. Since the ALR in this case is not in question until the time to log it on the page, saying "he owns it" is incorrect.

Just a reminder- This thread isn't about ALR caches in general. This thread is about one individual cache that some people think the logging restriction is unacceptable. It may have been derailed in the direction of all ALR caches, but the "nobody under 99 caches" thing is what the thread is supposed to be about.

LOL! True.

No, I don't think so. After seeing your latests tactics, and the kind of twisted logic that you used in your latest post, My enthusiasm for the debate has waned. I see now that you have your own way of viewing things, and no amount of logic is going to change that. You will just continue to ignore the obvious, and twist the rest around to try to make it fit your defenition of reality. I'm reminded of the old saying: Never wrestle with a pig. You both get full of (poop), and the pig likes it. (Profanity edited by moderator)

Still trying to ignore the obvious, eh? Do you really thing anyone is going to be stupid enough to fall for it? The account name is "Sissy-n-CR". Notice the "-n-CR" part of it? It doesn't say "Sissy". It says "Sissy-n-CR". As in Sissy AND CR. He also states quite clearly in the above quote from his profile that he shares that account with his wife. He also states clearly that all geocaching is done with that account. BTW, for anyone reading this, "Sissy-n-CR" is not a regular account, it's not even a premium account it is a CHARTER account. Kind kills that whole "refuses to contribute to geocaching financially" BS you were spewing. BTW, I share this account with my wife and son, too. Does that mean that I am not a premium member? Or is it only in the "get CR using any means neccesary" vendettas that you have the the distinction is made?

Sigh. OK. Since you fail to see the obvious, notice this little blurb on there: "All of my finds I have made and log with the account I share with my wife, Sissy. See it here." Now, go to his profile, and Click on the word "Here".

I never said or implied that CR is any less worthy. I never said or implied that his opinion is any less worthy. My point was that I was surprised to discover that, though he feels free to tell others how to play, he DOESN'T feel like he needs to help the game financially. Doesn't that surprise you? It wasn't intended as a debate point. I stopped debating CR when he chose to concede. I was simply reacting to a surprising piece of information. Obviously, since you choose to make the imlication twice more in this post, you still haven't checked your "facts". A friendly suggestion. Put down the shovel, and check his profile. Check it closely. Then you can come back and post your apology.

I noticed you didn't answer your own query. You side stepped the answer and left only an implication. Typical. Most, if not all, of your arguments are the same. You are not the "great debater" you think you are. If you were then you'd not have to resort to personal attacks, now would you? Now, go ahead. Answer your query. Tell us if I'm a Premium Member and if I'm not, then tell us what my status really is. Personal attack? Let's see, so far you've: Claimed that I can't read; called me a troll; insinuated I was a sock puppet; accused me of lying about my job; ... and because I have now dared to repeat something factual about you that another person pointed out to me ... it's YOU who's been attacked? You're exactly right: I'm no great debater. I'm an amateur. If I were any good at this I'd be able to figure out some way to get you to re-engage, to put up some arguments, to stop making irrelevant noise and to answer those critical questions you keep refusing to face. Nope, I've been forced into the unsatisfying position of watching you choose to lose by default. I'd much rather hear something -- ANYTHING -- to convince me of the soundness of your position. Fact is, I was bummed when you conceded. No reason for you to get defensive, CR. Pointing out publicly posted facts is hardly an attack. Your profile clearly shows that you choose not to support the website with annual dues the way many of the rest of us are happy to do. If I were truly interested in making that into some sort of an "attack," I'd have looked up your status long ago. I've only seen your profile a couple times, and hadn't looked at in quite a while. The way you talk of your love for the game, the way you do your best to impose your version of game play on others, the resources you consume on the forum server while preaching Proper Caching -- I naturally assumed that you would pony up in one of the few places where that attitude really matters. The fact that you don't says quite a bit about your values: You feel it's your place to tell everyone else how to behave, yet you're not willing to help out with the heavy lifting. Many folks volunteer to help the website by paying their way. Some of us are even happy to pay double. You prefer to pay zero. Nice to know I've been subsidizing someone else all this time. That's fine. Your choice. I just thought it was surprising, that's all. I think it's interesting to imagine a controversial issue like ALRs being put up to a vote among the premium members. Think you might want to propose any caching legislation CR, knowing that I'd get TWO votes to your ZERO? I doubt such a thing is ever likely to happen, but who knows ... If you really want tp continue with this line, you might want to check his profile a little more closely. You are shoveling pretty fast, but you fail to notice that you are standing in the hole. <edit> I see what happened now. Even though you said trhat you checked his profile, you didn't. Instead, you went with a statement made by somebody else, and used that mistaken statementy to go on a personal attack. Kinda like one of those lazy cachers that don't read the cache page before hunting that you railed on earlier in the thread, you didn't bother to research before you went off.

I noticed you didn't answer your own query. You side stepped the answer and left only an implication. Typical. Most, if not all, of your arguments are the same. You are not the "great debater" you think you are. If you were then you'd not have to resort to personal attacks, now would you? Now, go ahead. Answer your query. Tell us if I'm a Premium Member and if I'm not, then tell us what my status really is. I have to agree- that was pretty tacky. First, to imply that CR is somehow less worthy because he might not be a premium member is be beneath you. Then, to check and find out his actual status and then let the implication stand even when you know the truth is worse. Even though I disagree with your conclusions and feel your logic is flawed, I was somewhat impressed with your debating skills, until this.

So you're saying it's okay with you for there to be a challenge involved in the caching process -- just as long as it falls where you say it should fall in the sequence of events? Now who's being arbitrary? I'm not saying it has to be in any particular sequence, but the challenge involved should take place within the cache itself. It should? By whose rule? Yours? Sounds mighty arbitrary to me. If you aren't happy with where the challenge falls in the sequence when performing the elements required to claim a find for my cache, then you are welcome to: NOT hunt my cache, and/or whine about it in the forums, and/or Hide a cache of your own, and set it up the way YOU think it should be done Just don't presume to tell me how to run MY cache. I was responding to this: Sounds to me like you think your GC account gives you some kind of 'right' to log a find for every cache that exists. If not, what exactly did you mean? Now you are being obtuse. I didn't say that every cacher has the right to log every cache. What they should have, however, is the right to make an attempt to seek every cache if they choose. Nobody should be telling them "you are not allowed". Really? Then is the website also wrong to allow "Premium Members Only" caches? If I place a cache, it's MY CACHE. It doesn't suddenly belong to the membership at large. If I want to go so far as to retrieve the container and archive the listing, it is my right to do so at will. I can place any limits or challenges on my cache as I see fit, as long as those limits and challenges comply with the currently posted rules and are accepted by the powers that be. ALRs currently comply with the posted rules and are accepted by the powers that be. Sorry, I don't have the time to respond properly. (16 hour days for the next few days). So I wll have to simply resort with the ever effective "I'm right and you are wrong- neeener, neener, neener"

If you look back at my posts, you will find that I haver not commented on the Delorme cache. That is because that is not the cache in question here. Using the comparison between the two is a straw man. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "irreperable damage", but if somebody finds the cache, they should be able to log it. Do deny somebody the ability to log a cache that they found because they don't meet a certain standard for suitability is in my opinion against the principles of geocaching. In my example above of a "no Fat chicks" cache, it would be wrong to say that no female over x pounds will be allwed to log it. On the other hand, if I made it a terrain 5 with several tight squeezes to get through, few of the gravity challenged ladies would be able to find it. If they did make it to the cache and sign the log book, then their log should stay. There is a big difference between making it difficult to find a cache with puzzles, etc. and telling somebody they are not allowed to log it even if they do find it.

You can't be serious. That's apples and oranges. Completely different. How about comparing something closer? A cache that requires 99 finds compared to one prohibits more than 99 finds? Are they any different? Sure they are. In the first example if you don't have 99 finds you will eventually be able to log the cache. In the second, if you have more than 99 finds you'll never be able to log the cache. In both, you can find the cache, but not be able to log it until the requirement is met, if ever. How about closer yet? How about a "no Fat chicks" cache? One where no female over a certain weight can log it? It would be a "fun challenge" to get those hefty gals to lose some weight. If they work hard, eventually they would meet the requirements to log it.

What's "right" and what's "wrong" is a subjective judgment here. Many folks in this thread have expressed that they see the cache in question as a fun challenge. If I were a newbie I would probably agree with them. After a quick tally of the posts in this thread, I come up with 29 posters that think the requirement in this cache is Stupid and many of those feel it should not be allowed. I come up with 10 that feel it is ok, and few of those are saying that they think it is "fun" or "interesting, just that they feel it is fine for a hider to add the requirement. While those 4 or 5 that say they think it souonds like fun may be considered "many" depending on how you look at it, there are many more in orders of magnitude that feel the opposite. Yet another reason why the polls are disabled in the forum software. Counting responses to this thread is by no means a scientific sample. I don't believe than most geocachers would feel that restricing a cache to cachers with at least 99 finds is any different than restricting a cache to cachers that have found the requisite caches to do a Delorme Challenge cache. Edit: wrong post quoted. If you read the post I quoted, I was responding to the assertion that "Many folks in this thread have expressed that they see the cache in question as a fun challenge." My response wat to point out that very few of the people in this thread have said anything of the sort and many, many more have said the opposite. As far as it being a scientific sample, you are correct. It was never meant to be. However, it is a whole lot more scientific than saying "I don't beleive". That is where the lack of polls helps you out. You can say "I don't beleive" all you want, and there no way to show that your belief is in the minority- other than counting responses, which of course is "unscientific". Nice attempt at a straw man, though. That is another "problem" with polls- they restrict the responses to the question at hand. No way to change the question to make it fit your desired response.

What's "right" and what's "wrong" is a subjective judgment here. Many folks in this thread have expressed that they see the cache in question as a fun challenge. If I were a newbie I would probably agree with them. After a quick tally of the posts in this thread, I come up with 29 posters that think the requirement in this cache is Stupid and many of those feel it should not be allowed. I come up with 10 that feel it is ok, and few of those are saying that they think it is "fun" or "interesting, just that they feel it is fine for a hider to add the requirement. While those 4 or 5 that say they think it souonds like fun may be considered "many" depending on how you look at it, there are many more in orders of magnitude that feel the opposite.

So you're saying it's okay with you for there to be a challenge involved in the caching process -- just as long as it falls where you say it should fall in the sequence of events? Now who's being arbitrary? I'm not saying it has to be in any particular sequence, but the challenge involved should take place within the cache itself. In this case, the "challenge" involved has nothing to do with the cache. Wait a minute. Now I'm less worthy because ... I'm less senior? Nice to know you're trying to set a good example by not being "elitist." Well, if Joe Noob is somehow less worthy to find a cache because he doesn't have as many caches under his belt, then obviously it would also stand to reason that you would be less worthy than I am because I have been caching longer, right? I was responding to this: Sounds to me like you think your GC account gives you some kind of 'right' to log a find for every cache that exists. If not, what exactly did you mean? Now you are being obtuse. I didn't say that every cacher has the right to log every cache. What they should have, however, is the right to make an attempt to seek every cache if they choose. Nobody should be telling them "you are not allowed". No, the cache is not public property. If you place a cache and list it on the website, the cache still belongs to you. So, it is OK for me to put booze, girlie mags, and a switchblade in my cache? It belongs to me, after all. There is nothing arrogant about saying that everybody should be able to play the game. What is arrogant is placing a cache, listing it for all to see, and then saying "you are only allowed to play if you meet my standards".

That much, at least, I agree with you on.

I can understand the there may be limits for many reasons on the number of people that can be accomidated at an event, but the way the guideline reads, you can't place any exclusions on who is allowed to attend. Otherwise, I could set up a weekly event at my dinner table and say that only people that live at my address are allowed to attend. If you need to limit numbers, there are ways to do it without excluding certain groups or types of cachers. How about putting on the event page "Due to the size if the building, only the first x number of people that write a "will attend" note on the event page can be accomidated"? Big difference between your examples and the case here is that those are all examples of protecting the public. They are in place for a reason. This case has none of that. This is exclusion for the sake of exclusion. <edit> I really need to learn to type.

The hider has every right to determine how his cache is managed. It's his cache. That's like saying "No person should have the right to tell me that I am not invited to a dinner party at their home just because they don't want me on their guest list." People have parties all the time in their homes without inviting you or me. That doesn't mean they hate us, and it doesn't mean they're trying to make us feel excluded. It's just that it's their house, you see, and they have a right to invite or exclude anybody they like. Same with a privately owned Geocache -- and every Geocache, BTW, is privately owned. This website is merely the listing agency. First, That is precisely what they ARE saying- If you don't meet their arbitrary criteria for finding their cache, then you are not allowed to log it. Challenges are fine- puzzles, quizzes, logging requirements, trading requirements, mysteries, multiple stages, raw guesswork, or any other manner of wild goose chase- as long as they are part of the cache. As long as you have the option of attempting to overcome those challenges during the cache hunt, then they are fine. That isn't what is happening here. This is a cae of having to meet a requirement that has nothing to do with the cache in question before you are deemed "good enough" to log it. Yes, the cache owner has the right to manage his cache however he wishes. The community also has the right to say he is being a jerk if he does it in a manner like this. I think maybe you are the one that has difficulty understanding the spirit of the game if you actually support excluding geocachers from geocaching. I realise I am kinda new here- I've only been around for aboout 5 1/2 years compared to your... Oops, nevermind. Nobody is asking for a free pass- (in case you hadn't noticed, I would also meet the "gold standard" to be able to log it) all that is being said is that it is wrong to exclude a certain group for a purely arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with the cache itself. What is rude is saying in essence "You rookies are not good enough to log my cache". The dinner party analogy doesn't wash. This isn't a private party at a privte place. It is a public cache, listed on a public service. If it is posted on a public service, then it should be open to the public. Not to the public- except certain people that you don't like.

Why, thank you dcrepeau! Just for that, I will allow you to come and find and log my upcoming "people that have complimented one of my posts on the forum" cache! ;-) It will be a very elite cache- chances are, you will most likely be the only one will meet the requirement to log it.

Here is where I disagree. The hider didn't give an obstacle to overcome in the cache. The requirement has nothing to do with what you have to do to find this cache. All the requirement is is a standard that has to be met before even looking for the cache. As far as I can tell, there is nothing more to this cache than any other- just an arbitrary limit on who he feels is "qualified" to search for it. To me, it is no different than setting up a cache and saying that "Only people that have bought me dinner are allowed to log this cache". I also find it ironic that some of the same people that are on here saying it is OK for this cache hider to made arbitrary standards for who he/she will "allow" to log this cache are on another thread bashing a cache hider that hid a PMO cache and doesn't want to allow the FTF to go to a non-PM.

There is a difference between the scenarios you mentioned and what is happening here. All of those deal with challenges in finding the individual cache. While I might not be in good enough shape to do a level 5 terrain cache, The cache owner is not saying I am not allowed to try. If you need a boat to get to a cache, that is fine. I can buy a boat, borrow one, rent one, whatever. I could try swimming, parachuting, being flown in by a chopper, whatever. That is up to me. Now, if the cache owner had said I was only allowed to log the cache if I owned a boat myself, then I would have a problem with it. The challeng is in getting to the cache, not in meeting the owners standars for suitability. Rock climbing, same thing. I don't have the training or knowledge to do one, but If I wan't to try, I can, and the Cache owner is not going to delete my log If I make it. I am not saying that every cache has to be possible to do by every cacher, but they should all be allowed to try.

Those are all things that could be done by anybody, anywhere, right now, today. For a beginning cacher, 100 caches isn't going to be done that fast. Unless of course, you are in a cache saturated area and want to hit a bunch of lamp post micros just to fullfill some arbitrary prerequisite. I suppose I could go get a sex change, change my religion, and dye my hair, too, but I shouldn't have to. It isn't a question of being beyond their capacity. It is a question of making a cache off limits to certain people because they belong to a certain group- whether that is the "under 100"club or the "under 5000" club. If you want me to do something silly when I find it or take an extra step in logging a cache, that's fine. But to tell somebody that they are not allowed to log you cache because they don't meet your personal criteria is wrong. Geocaching is meant to be for everybody. If I sign up as a geocacher, then I should be allowed to find the caches. If I sign up and pay the $3 to become a Premium Member, then I should be allowed to find the premium caches as well. No hider should have the right to tell me that I am not allowed to find their cache just because I don't meet their personal stndards of what they want for finders.

Actually, why couldn't you? With the increasing numbers of cachers who can ovewhealm a persons ability to host an event and drain them financially and with the sheer work (we lost an annual event because of that). Why not use some arbitary means of weeding people out? It's not personal. You could go pick up 99 Micro Spew caches and make the cut in a busy weekend before the event. Why couldn't you? How about the very first sentence in the guidelines for Event Caches: (Emphasis added)