Roman!

Well, no, it shows that's it's OK if it goes with the wishes of the CO. In other words, it's not OK simply because the CO doesn't express an opinion one way or the other. I didn't think this was news. I thought we already knew GS didn't care if COs allowed 3-card monte. Guess we will see, I'll update this thread everytime I link to it while replying to someone complaining in generL how three cache monte is not geocaching or how it's cheating. Just because some lackeys do something doesn't make it acceptable. You are just kicking the ball into the neighbor's yard, and you know it. Lackeys should partake in geocaching as embassabors to the sport, since they are employed by the company they should be held to higher standards. Obviously they saw nothing wrong with TCM. Funny thing, I am supporting them for the way they cached, I don't consider their actions not geocaching or cheating.

Post #10 Post #20 Post #23 I think we got it now. Best of luck P.S. to add, I like the bridge analogy The forum regulars more or less see TCM as either cheating or not geocaching but the way I see it if lackeys are using the technique then in my opinion it is geocaching and is not cheating or the wouldn't/shouldn't be doing it so I will partake in it as well. Now if the lackeys were to jump off a bridge most likely plummeting to their death, well that's not geocaching is it, there would be no reason to copy them. It's a silly analogy because you've got nothing better.

I suppose that makes sense, if finding caches is the only thing that defines geocaching. To me, geocaching is more than that. Several years ago, a number of local caches were found by people who filled them with excrement. By your definition above, they were geocaching. After all, they were still finding caches listed on GC.com. That's not a widely accepted way of caching and I suspect should a lackey do that they wouldn't be a lackey much longer.

Must be referring to post #3! (Don't get me wrong, I am also completely opposed to the three card monte concept, but that has no bearing on the fact that the "logic" being used here by the OP is bogus.) BTW, the munzee analogy reference makes perfectly good sense to me. If an employee plays geocaching a certain way he is geocaching and one would assume he is playing in an accepted fashion,if he plays munzee he is not geocaching, he is playing a different game and has no bearing whatsoever on geocaching. So by your logic, a bank employee steals money then it's ok for us to rob a bank? Once caught the bank employee would not be an employee any longer and would be in jail, I see Moun10Bike still is an employee and not in jail, now if one could rob a bank and keep their job and not land in jail after being caught I'd be applying at all the local banks.

Okay, I'll try to spell it out. I don't consider the three cache monte to be geocaching because it violates the basic "return the geocache to its original location" concept that IMHO defines geocaching (at least as far as physical geocaches go). Certain lackeys use the three cache monte, but that does not make me think that the three cache monte is therefore geocaching. I don't consider Munzee to be geocaching because it lacks the container and log that IMHO defines geocaching (at least as far as physical geocaches go). Certain lackeys play Munzee, but that does not make me think that Munzee is therefore geocaching. Does that help you understand my point? No, finding caches using TCM you're still finding caches listed on GC.com and according to most you are geocaching, playing munzee is a totally different game. Most accept TCM as geocaching, no one claims munzee to be geocaching. Besides, if it's good enough for Moun10Bike, it's good enough for me.

I'm going to stick with if it's good enough for you it's good enough for me. And I didn't know it was more than one lackey, two makes it that much better

Well, I still don't consider the three cache monte to be geocaching (that whole "return the geocache to its original location" thing). The fact that certain lackeys have chosen to do it doesn't change that. Just as certain lackeys playing Munzee doesn't make it geocaching either. There, now my opinion will be included every time you link to this thread. If it's good enough for GS employees it's good enough for me and your munzee reference makes no sense. Let's hope a lackey doesn't decide to jump off a bride. That's a big assumption assuming all GS employees play geocache that particular way. If you found out one lackey had blue eyes, does that mean all lackeys have blue eyes? The I way I read it is that Moun10Bike and his friends choose to log that particular Power Trail series the way they did. I wouldn't try to read into it anymore than that. Just my opinion. I've jumped off a bride before and luckily just in time. Well, if three cache monte was cheating I don't think it would be appropriate for GS employees to be cheating, they should be examples of proper geocaching etiquette.

Must be referring to post #3! (Don't get me wrong, I am also completely opposed to the three card monte concept, but that has no bearing on the fact that the "logic" being used here by the OP is bogus.) BTW, the munzee analogy reference makes perfectly good sense to me. If an employee plays geocaching a certain way he is geocaching and one would assume he is playing in an accepted fashion,if he plays munzee he is not geocaching, he is playing a different game and has no bearing whatsoever on geocaching.

o·pin·ion əˈpinyən/ noun a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Well, I still don't consider the three cache monte to be geocaching (that whole "return the geocache to its original location" thing). The fact that certain lackeys have chosen to do it doesn't change that. Just as certain lackeys playing Munzee doesn't make it geocaching either. There, now my opinion will be included every time you link to this thread. If it's good enough for GS employees it's good enough for me and your munzee reference makes no sense.

For me, what makes the challenge interesting is that satisfying it allows me to find the physical cache in the same way solving a puzzle allows me to find the physical cache. In the end, geocaching to me is all about going to a specific location to find a cache. While I might do challenges that were decoupled in either of these ways from the physical find, I'd consider it something other than geocaching so I don't find the idea as appealing. But honestly, the ENTIRE point of the challenge cache is to go find caches and use those finds in some way to fulfill certain specific requirements. Are you saying you wouldn't get any satisfaction from filling your "Jasmer" grid if there weren't a camouflaged pill bottle in a light post to find at the end of it all? I wouldn't want a smiley that I could log from my bathroom simply for meeting a challenge, the point of a challenge cache is to find the cache and meet the challenge. If they turned all existing challenge caches into locationless virtuals you could log if you met the challenge I could spend months logging thousands of them without ever leaving home, this is not caching, this is basically what their failed challenges are. My fear is whatever they come up with will quickly degenerate to cheap smilies requiring no effort.

Well, no, it shows that's it's OK if it goes with the wishes of the CO. In other words, it's not OK simply because the CO doesn't express an opinion one way or the other. I didn't think this was news. I thought we already knew GS didn't care if COs allowed 3-card monte. Hmmm, just read the description on E.T. 0001 and their web page and although they state they are ok with cachers replacing missing caches nowhere do they even hint at that they approve of (or disapprove of) three cache monte.

Well, no, it shows that's it's OK if it goes with the wishes of the CO. In other words, it's not OK simply because the CO doesn't express an opinion one way or the other. I didn't think this was news. I thought we already knew GS didn't care if COs allowed 3-card monte. Guess we will see, I'll update this thread everytime I link to it while replying to someone complaining in generL how three cache monte is not geocaching or how it's cheating.

What it boils down to is they used it on a power trail and as they work for GS then it must be OK to use on power trails unless it goes against the wishes of the CO.

I know I'll forget where I read it so I'm creating this thread so it won't get lost, direct from one of the Lackeys, Moun10Bike, proof that three cache monte or container swapping is an accepted practice. Here is a link to the original post linking to a video where he and his friends are doing the E.T. Highway using the three cache monte technique. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. Below is the post: It's quite doable. The group I was with took things easy (sleeping in, relaxing lunch stops, short detours for sight-seeing, etc.) and still made it to 877 caches on our biggest day on the E.T. Highway. is a short summary of our excursion.

A second find will not be acceptable to the big majority. If everyone can log a found it for a challenge cache, then one of the major motivations for many challenge owners to hide and maintain their cache will get lost. Similarly many finders will not be motivated to work for qualifying. It's the container aspect of challenge caches that makes them appealing to the majority of those who like them. Really? I always assumed it was the challenge aspect that made them appealing... It's the combinations hat made them popular, seperate them or give each its own smiley and you destroy what they are.

A second find will not be acceptable to the big majority. If everyone can log a found it for a challenge cache, then one of the major motivations for many challenge owners to hide and maintain their cache will get lost. Similarly many finders will not be motivated to work for qualifying. It's the container aspect of challenge caches that makes them appealing to the majority of those who like them. Oh my god, yesterday I was agreeing with the dog (knowschad), today I'm agreeing with cezanne, Groundspeak, what have you done?

I find it hard to believe that with a few (minor) changes/clarifications the goal can be achieved. I rather guess there will be major changes leading to the result that those who presently like challenge caches (or at least of them) will predominantly do not enjoy them any longer. The greatest mistake that can happen in my opinion is to replace challenge caches by a system of achievement badges or decouple physical caches and qualifying for a challenge cach. The outcome then would be a similar failure as challenges or tasks that are boring and trivial in many areas like the tasks behind the 15 years souvenirs. It simply does not work out to come up with reasonable goals for the whole world - finding a cache with 10 FPs is ridiculously simple in my country and ridiculously hard in some countries with almost no cachers at all. The expertise and judgement of reviewers knowing the area will always be necessary. The ironic part is in those areas where it IS difficult to find caches with more than 10 FPs, achieving this goal actually will cause folks to change their caching behavior to achieve it, leading many to refrain from logging those caches until the opening date arrives...something that COs are not allowed to require in the challenges they create. There was an earthcache recently published near my house I was going to go get but now I'm holding off as I have no other nearby easy earthcaches.

What makes you think decoupling the physical cache from the qualification for a challenge would be a mistake? It depends how it's made... If everyone can log the physical cache and all you get if you qualify for the requirements is a little star, yes it could be demotivating. But what if your qualification entitles you to a second find on the same cache? Or what if the challenge caches are now virtual and only those who qualify can log them? Two finds for one cache? personally I'd never log a challenge as completed to get the second smiley and I'd never publish another either. Very, very, very bad idea. Virtual as in locationless, that's just cheap smilies I can log from my bathroom for nothing, again, I'd never log one or publish one. Another bad idea. The kiss the frog challenge that initially got you a smiley was proof that cheapening finds is not a good idea.

I agree completely. But have I missed the clear statement of the problem? All I remember is a general statement that reviewing challenge caches causes a lot of work for both reviewers and the appeal channel, but I haven't noticed any description of what kinds of problems generate the excess work. Can the problems be characterized more specifically than "people submit stupid challenges and then get upset when the reviewers won't approve them"? Can examples be presented to illustrate he typical reviewing challenges generated by challenge caches? If so, I'd suggest a new thread for discussing those issues since, according to the title, this thread is supposed to be about the pause, not about the solution. Tough to agree on a solution when we can't even agree on what the problem is. Good thing it's not our problem to solve.

Get an email from an new cache notification and alter it to represent your cache then send it to yourself while you are on your way to another cache nearby and say look honey, a new cache only a few minutes away. Better yet, don't get married.

I volunteer

Quite frankly, I'm surprised you didn't realize this line translates to "Challenge caches can be a significant burden for reviewers." But now that we've cleared up, you can be more accepting of the moratorium. So that's good. The way I read the opening thread was that the main issue is the extra work created for HQ, maybe it could have been worded better because I know for a fact I am not the only one that read it that way. Just for the record I am a big supporter of our reviewers.

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore. Reviewers are volunteers, bud. It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak. That's some nice compartmentalization. The reviewers try to work with owners to get these caches published before it gets to the appeal stage. The fact that volunteer reviewers AND paid staff are spending so much time on this issue is a pretty clear sign that the system needs some refinement. At my job, when I have to spend an unexpected amount of time on a task that used to take much less time, it's a problem and it detracts from the other work I have to do. I always work with my employer to make improvements so I can use my time more efficiently. Hmmmmm: While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ. Seems the issue is appeals to HQ. So reviewers take a quick glance, say NOPE, and pass it on to Groundspeak? Really? That straight from the horses mouth in post #1. To be clear: your assertion is that reviewers do not, in fact, make any attempt to work with cache owners and that challenge caches have not noticeably increased the burden of their volunteer workload. I'm sure they do but the moratorium is the result of the excessive workload placed on HQ according the the first post in this thread which was made by HQ. Quite frankly I'd be more accepting of this moratorium if HQ stated it was due to the fact that created a significant burden on the reviewers because they are volunteers.

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore. Reviewers are volunteers, bud. It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak. That's some nice compartmentalization. The reviewers try to work with owners to get these caches published before it gets to the appeal stage. The fact that volunteer reviewers AND paid staff are spending so much time on this issue is a pretty clear sign that the system needs some refinement. At my job, when I have to spend an unexpected amount of time on a task that used to take much less time, it's a problem and it detracts from the other work I have to do. I always work with my employer to make improvements so I can use my time more efficiently. Hmmmmm: While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ. Seems the issue is appeals to HQ. So reviewers take a quick glance, say NOPE, and pass it on to Groundspeak? Really? That straight from the horses mouth in post #1. To be clear: your assertion is that reviewers do not, in fact, make any attempt to work with cache owners and that challenge caches have not noticeably increased the burden of their volunteer workload. I'm sure they do but the moratorium is the result of the excessive workload placed on HQ according the the first post in this thread which was made by HQ.