4wheelin_fool

Unfortunately I've noticed the same thing. However the tendency to litter is probably much less among geocachers than the general population, but it still happens. I suggest that the original poster should post a CITO event at the geocache, and ask for geocachers to clean up the area. This will raise awareness and probably result in much more being cleaned up than what was left.

I agree with Sbell111, although logically Team Tisri is correct. However different scenarios may create different opinions. Suppose a bomb squad gets a call on a throwdown, and they want to hold the placer responsible. The CO might deny any responsibility of the "gift", even if they have been made aware of it. I'd say that that if the CO makes some acknowledgement of acceptance, then it's theirs. If not, then it's either litter or property of the throwdown placer.

No, because even yeast is more intelligent than that Yes, surprisingly, it keeps you from getting drunk. http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/food-for-men/how-not-to-get-drunk?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_170974&dom=zerg&src=syn&mag=esq

Personally, I would let that slide. There are so few left, and if I live long enough, and still post to these forums, I'll be sitting here some day talking about the last remaining Webcam Cache. It's true that VERY FEW people read cache pages, including the Volunteer reviewers (i.e caches with ALR's, blatant admissions of "vacation caches", travel bug prison language), but in the case of old Grandfathered cache types, I think most people do read them. EDIT: P.S., as far as I know, you cannot change the coordinates of a webcam cache. Period. Groundspeak can, and they have, as we have seen in another thread.

That would be like trying to solve a puzzle..

Off topic is a Members Only feature, not available to the unpaid masses. This being a double premium thread, would only imply that it should be doubly off topic anyway.

For starters, a DNF on an unremarkable traditional is always a good sign that the cache needs a visit. Any cache owner can audit the logbook in a cache at any time. In the case of a garbage throw-down cache, there's simply no need to provide people like that with an explanation. They don't deserve the acknowledgement. Throw the garbage away, and delete the finds that aren't in the actual cache. The end. Well I looked at the cache page and there isn't any way the throw downer could be identified, and most who signed it had no idea it was a throwdown. There are no DNF patterns either. If someone checks their cache after every single DNF, they are being a little obsessive.

That seems: Unnecessarily harsh - The finders may not have had any way of knowing they were signing a throwdown rather than the original. Why punish them for something they didn't do? Contrary to the advice given by Groundspeak - See the last portion of the second paragraph here. Related to 1. above. Likely to gain you a lot of enemies - Mass-deleting logs will likely not go over well in your local caching community. Oh well. You can certainly try it if you wish, because the website will allow you to delete logs to your heart's content, but don't be surprised if you get a lot of nasty-grams and logs reinstated by GSHQ. I'm not terrible concerned about: 1. The opinions of people who place, sign, or defend throw-downs. Good geocachers don't behave in this manner, and they're the only ones whose opinion counts for anything. 2. The likelihood of this ever happening to any of my caches, since I monitor the logs closely and only maintain as many caches as I can comfortably watch. Chances are, at the first inkling of a "throw-down" I would delete the log of the perpetrator, and disable the cache until the throw-down was thrown-out. 3. Log reinstatement, since I've been a strict cache owner for as long I've owned caches, and never had a blank log or no-response Earthcache finder complain about deletion. So imagine you were the OP. Exactly which online log would you identify as from the throwdowner. Exactly which log in this case would give you that "inkling"? Also tell us how any of the finders were supposed to know it was a throwdown. Your mass deletion plan would only have merit if you retrieved the throwdown and positively identified the culprit, and then let everyone know who was really responsible for their log being deleted.

Generally it has been accepted practice that geocaches are not abandoned property, but owned by the CO. This is how the game often is described to land managers and non cachers. The owner is responsible for their property. However in the case of throw downs, who would the owner be considered to be? Does the cache owner acquire this new property by inheriting it? Or does the throw downer maintain control over it? Or is it just really abandoned property? If the CO accepts it, is it theirs? How does anyone know exactly? Often throwdowns are somewhere between generous gifts meant to help cache owners and finders, and worthless garbage meant to selfishly get a find rather than a DNF, and tends to cause angst between cache owners and finders. I've found a variety which falls on both ends of the scale. Who owns it?

What's odd about this throwdown is that there are no logs admitting to it, nor any long strings of DNFs. I suspect someone found the pill bottle and assumed it was the cache and added a log sheet. People that place micros in place of missing ammo cans should be beaten.

Intelligence is like underwear. Important that you have it, but not necessary to show it off.

+1 What is the phrase? Illustrating absurdity with absurdity, or something like that? The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it's limits. I think our host is quickly learning that you can't herd cats. Even if he got pointers on doing that from Keystone at the Block Party, it won't help - not with this crowd! There's a difference between trying to herd cats and walking around with an open can of tuna fish in your pocket. Pocket tuna is goooooood! Sometimes, most times, for the average folk its very had, if not impossible to recognize brilliance. For the brilliant ones it's a struggle but knowing that the day will come when the average folk will see the folly of their ways and realize how lucky they were to have someone not only brilliant, but tenacious as well resulting in a better world for all make the struggle worthwhile. You're welcome. Thank you, we bow to... wait, do you have a blue bow? The man of true knowledge must not only be able to love his enemies, but hate his friends.

+1 What is the phrase? Illustrating absurdity with absurdity, or something like that? The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it's limits. I think our host is quickly learning that you can't herd cats. Even if he got pointers on doing that from Keystone at the Block Party, it won't help - not with this crowd! There's a difference between trying to herd cats and walking around with an open can of tuna fish in your pocket. Pocket tuna is goooooood! Sometimes, most times, for the average folk its very had, if not impossible to recognize brilliance. For the brilliant ones it's a struggle but knowing that the day will come when the average folk will see the folly of their ways and realize how lucky they were to have someone not only brilliant, but tenacious as well resulting in a better world for all make the struggle worthwhile. You're welcome. Um, are you referring to this thread? The pendulum of the thread oscillates between sense and nonsense, rather than right and wrong.

+1 What is the phrase? Illustrating absurdity with absurdity, or something like that? The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it's limits. I think our host is quickly learning that you can't herd cats. Even if he got pointers on doing that from Keystone at the Block Party, it won't help - not with this crowd! There's a difference between trying to herd cats and walking around with an open can of tuna fish in your pocket.

+1 What is the phrase? Illustrating absurdity with absurdity, or something like that? The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it's limits.

The only log that people delete on those is the first one in the throwdown. However, I've noticed on one that I found, someone writing a fake name in the first spot, as what appears to be an intentional way to avoid that.

Yeah, I was bummed that some were maxed out & I couldn't get in on the fun. The trick is to remove the innermost quote. It would be awesome if there wasn't a 10 quote limit though. That would be a nice double premium member feature.

Crowd psychology and mesmerizing quote trees. The scenario is more addictive than crack! It's like getting drawn into a black hole. There is no force to stop. You still have at least 10 more posts to go before you win the thread.

There appears to be a common belief that safety and adequate permission can be entirely disregarded and that it's a-okay to put a cache anywhere we darn well please. I can agree with that, although they are separate subjects. Any cache can be unsafe.

There appears to be a common belief that a geocache placement entitles a seeker to not be completely responsible for their actions. That is plainly incorrect.

What if you lacked adequate permission for placement, and that permission was denied by the land owner based on safety concerns? If you went ahead and placed the cache anyway, would you feel bad if someone was hurt? That is a Straw Man attack. I am not going to answer that. It's not meant to be an attack, it's a hypothetical situation. I am not suggesting that you, personally, would do such a thing. I'm just suggesting that, at a certain point, there is a level of responsibility. OK, so you will try to use the Slippery Slope fallacy instead? Anyway, there may well be legal implications in the hypothetical situation you laid out. I do not pretend to know what they may be, and I would guess they would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Permission aside, if I had mentioned that there are hidden dangers, I wouldn't feel guilty. Feel bad, sure. I think you're misinterpreting my comments and taking them personally when they were meant to be general discussion points, not attacks. My point, once again, is that regardless of the caveats and warnings we may write in our cache descriptions, if a land owner says it's too dangerous to place a cache somewhere, all the warnings and descriptions in the world don't make it okay to do so. That's correct, the warnings don't make it okay to do so, but any responsibilities still fall completely on the seeker.

Feeling bad and feeling responsible are two completely different topics. A sociopath by definition would not feel bad, but they might feel responsible. By contrast someone who feels bad, may not feel responsible at all. Years ago I was making a left turn on a street where the speed limit is 25. A kid, 19 years old with a bad hangover and driving an SUV without a seatbelt on, approaches from the other direction doing double the speed limit, flipping the truck over to narrowly avoid me. Now I feel really bad over what happened, but responsible? Although I was doing everything legal, I wish I could have changed something to stop it, but there was really no way to prevent it. Honestly however, if he had hit me and caused injuries, I would have probably wanted to kill him. He went into cardiac arrest after being partially ejected. I've also noticed in other situations, that for some reason when people feel that someone else can be held partially responsible for their actions, it tends to make them lose the instinct for self preservation. Getting hit by a train isn't something that can happen very easily without some very basic loss of thought process.

Great analogy, if I pay for the Ferrari (e.g. Double Premium) I should be able to drive off in it. It's more like that there are a few people in first class who want to pay double so they could obtain all of the images from the NSA body scanners of everyone on the plane. This is after everyone has boarded of course, that the announcement is made.

People don't want to meet the Lackeys, they just want the icon. And in their backyard. That's what's sad. The icon should stay unique to the location.

And would this conversation exist if there was no unique icon? Whether it's Planet of the Apes, or the block party, all that matters is obtaining the unique icon. I propose a golden calf for the next unique icon.