Kouros

d'oh! ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

I think the question is misleading, and takes the original statement out of context in an attempt to belittle the original speaker. I abstain. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

If I put a lot of time, money, and effort into placing a cache, I also accept the fact that it might well be moved. A non-cacher might stumble across it, and move it without knowing what it was supposed to do (I know of a cache that moved almost three miles that way). Likewise, someone might trash it - it happens, and I'd be willing to deal with it, just as the first cacher who stumbled across a trashed cache would be (probably) willing to deal with the fact that the cache isn't there. But Pirate Cachers, to my own mind at least, are insulting on two levels. 1. They profess to be a part of the game that they are undermining. They understand and accept the general expectations of Geocaching, and then completely flout those maxims. The FAQ explicitly stipulates that finders should not move a cache unless the owner has said it is part and parcel of the cache to do so. Also the guidelines suggest that a finder should take something, and leave something - not take everything and leave sod all but the logbook. 2. They suggest that in some way the caches which I have put a lot of time, money and effort into placing can, by hiding the cache elsewhere, be improved without my permission, and disregarding the fact that the cache may well have been placed in its location for a very specific reason. I don't care about the petty arguments of whether or not Pirating a cache is theft or not, but I do care that these individuals have the gall to suggest that they know better than other cache owners how visitors should enjoy their caches. So what if someone enjoyed the Pirate Cache? What about the people that can't do the cache the way it was intended, and are left disappointed? What about the cache owners who put the effort in in the first place? If it's a viable game then make a specific cache out of it, but don't do it with mine, or anyone elses. Go get your own toys. EDIT: Spellchecked dumb error ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there." [This message was edited by Kouros on September 24, 2003 at 10:56 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by Snoogans:As much as I can't stand a witch hunt, <snip> Thanks for sharing Snoogans - what an interesting way to prove ones own innocence! I can really understand their point of view on the matter now! ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

Did nobody on the other side of the Atlantic have the joy of the Speccys? All C-64 boys? Dang, I miss my Sinclair Spectrum 128k +3. Best computer I ever had, along with the best games too... Dizzy, anyone? Am I alone? I'll get me coat. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

quote:Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):Well, known. Respected may be a stretch. They wouldn't perchance have left the forums admidst a mass of huff and steam at any point, would they? ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

Well done Jeremy, and I can completely understand your upset. But I'd be against outing them just yet - perhaps it should just serve as a wake-up call, and they could realise the castigation they'd get from other forum members. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

quote:Originally posted by M15a4spr:For G-d's sake, Kouros is even in a panic about the word "cleansing". Well, I'm not really - but "cleansing" to mean "changing" is a somewhat nasty word, you must agree. It's just another word for censorship, but with a PC title. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

I voted "No", but largely because I disagree with the specificity of your question. I do not agree that the only way to stop the Pirates is by "cleansing" (oh, what a horrid, horrid word!) the forums, but I do agree that something should be done. That therefore leave me in something of a quandry - I cannot vote "Yes" because I do not agree with your proposal, but I cannot vote "No" because I do think that we should "fight back". I cannot vote for the third option because it is silly. I therefore vote "No" and make this proposal instead - we stop the Pirates by choosing not to get worked up about them, replacing caches that go missing, and not giving them the benefit of success. But to completely obliterate all record of them, in my own eyes, is not the way to go - for one thing, it would give a signal that they are important enough to fret that much about (which they most definately are not) and secondly, it would require a far greater amount of work than the situation requires. I would suggest that it would be more beneficial (and productive) to simply replace cache contents that get held for ransom (cutting any losses that might be accrued) and carry on as normal. As long as we don't rise to any of the bait, he'll get bored. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

I think we all take it for a given that there are some items in a cache that aren't for trade. The pen and logbook, for example. Or cache camera. In my opinion, I don't think that it's much more of a stretch to see some items as "not for trade" alongside these - such as items intended for anyone else. quote:Should a geocoin or travel bug (traveler) be placed in a cache by someone other than the traveler's owner with a note that it be saved for someone specific who is not, in someway identified in the traveler's instructions? I don't see that it shouldn't be. After all, whoever comes across it will know its for them, and anyone else will know that it's not. quote:res2100 posted an unanswered suggestion, very roughly paraphrased: "Who owns a traveler? Is it the original owner, the placer (or within the confines of this subject) the recipient?" I don't think that anyone "owns" a traveller, but travellers have goals, and its a part of the game we play to help travellers to reach those goals. If the goal of a traveller is to reach someone, whether named or not, then we as players should help it complete that goal. quote:Is a geocoin or travel bug (traveler) fair game once it has been placed in a cache that is not an intermediate or final destination as designated by the traveler owner? Yes, unless it had a highly specific goal which I could not fulfill - like having to reach cache X by the following day, or was intended for someone else. quote:If you found this traveler would recording its number, leaving it in a cache, then logging it as a find feel like a "real" find to you? Yes, but if I didn't need to move it, I would probably not log it. quote:Would you feel denied if you could not take the traveler to place in another cache or otherwise be consistent with the traveler owner's instructions? Not at all quote:Does the recipient have the obligation to beat the competition to the cache? I don't think they do at all - indeed, they might well be on holiday, and not even know the thing is waiting for them until they got home. quote:Note: We might need to assume that the traveler was placed after the finder's cache page print out or data download and without attached instructions. If I took a traveller as in your situation by accident, without knowing it was intended for someone else, I would in my best endeavors take it back and leave an apology in my log. Or, if that were impossible, I'd contact the person that left it, and try and get it back out that way. If it happened to me (and I'm sure something like that has on many occasions - we are all human), just because it was a justifiable error, doesn't detract from the idea that it was an error, and I would try to correct it. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

Surely it would just be a common courtesy to get the land owners permission, even if the mjority of the time they're never going to know the cache would be there? After all, even if a public right of way, you're using their land. I must admit that my first two caches were hidden without permission (though now covered by the HCC acceptance), and sometimes it is impossible to know who to contact in that regard. But if there is a way to play by the book (especially if the authorities are willing to be very welcoming when you do) then we should? If the FC say no when asking permission, then no harm is done - if you place a good cache, with good items, and a good location, and the FC remove it, all your hard work would be for nowt. You never know, they might just let you place it. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

A travel bug hotel is a cache near a major port or airport that is placed with the sole intention of holding travel bugs for visitors to pick up, and take with them on their journey. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

Hindsight is always 20/20, but I would love to think know what the Cops' thought process was. "That man is alone in the woods. He's completely by himself, no-one else. Dag-nabbit, he's got ter be one of them Homosexuals!" Oh, and read in the good humour it was intended, please! ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

Eh GotGPS? Are you saying that I can't continue an on-topic discussion I was having with Zaphod because I'm not allowed to quote him? How would he know that I was directing my opinion towards him, and not anyone else? ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

quote:Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:He isn't cutting his nose off to spite his face if he continues to look for caches listed here. My argument is that he will be by moving his existing caches - by shifting them over there, a drastically reduced number of people will find them. By getting upset, and moving them in the heat of the moment, and in a blur of forum-licity, he's basically stopping people from visiting his caches - which is the whole point of putting the effort into placing them, surely? Of course, he could have had the best of both worlds by posting to both sites. By continuing to hunt for caches through this site, he proves my point - nobody hunts for caches using the other site. But it appears that we have differing opinions on this matter. Live and let live, I guess. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

quote:Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:But I would hardly say that Team 360 is "cutting off his nose to spite his face" ... his post stated that he will list his caches on the *N* site I think that this may be the very difficulty that he will run into. I've discussed it with 360 via email, and elsewhere on other forums, but frankly the other site is useless. I've listed a cache on there before, as well as listing it on GC.com and by accident duplicated it (ie, there are two versions of the same cache listed on the other site). In the 17 months it has been active on the dark side, no one has found it (while 53 logged visits have been to its GC.com counter-part). But more to the point, the moderators there have yet to realise that there are two caches with exactly the same names, at exactly the same co-ords. Approval process leaves something to be desired, methinks. My point being this (and again, I have clarified this with 360) - he will get his finds from this site, because it is the more trafficked site. He will lose visitors to his own caches, for the simple fact that less people visit the other resource. The reason less people visit the other resource is up to you, but experience has taught me what I believe. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

Haven't we been here before? I'm truly sorry to see you leave 360 - please don't get me wrong on this. But perhaps someone would enlighten me as to why whenever someone feels that they should leave, they also feel the need to kick up a fuss at the same time? So what if someone else on the forums whom you've never met doesn't agree with you, or is a pain in the butt. Deal with it. So what if this site doesn't do the Virtual thing as it did before... list them on another site. Heck, list ALL your caches on another site, but whats stopping you from listing those standard ones here too? That way, you'll have your Virtuals listed for those who want to find them, and maximum visitor potential for your standards. Furthermore, when (if?) GC.com get round to setting up a new section for Virtuals only, then you could list those here too. Everytime someone leaves in a huff, taking all their toys with them as they go, I can't help but think that half the time they're cutting their nose off despite their face. After all, there's always other toys. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

Hmm... if No 5 isn't Lathamam, there's only one other person it could be. Thing is, what did they do with Silent Bob? ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

Part of me can't help but think that it must be a nice way to live... if anyone knows of the area, could they comment on the effect he was having? We have a chap near us who lives in a self made tent-like dome. He's always courteous to walkers, and seems to take care of the area around him. Any guesses if this guy was the same, or was he more of a nuisance? ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

Excellent! I especially liked the line: "We're gonna need some more accuracy here." Don't know why, just made me smile! ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

I never follow anyone else, which is why I'm usually lost. The person below me got conned by a 419 scammer ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

Camelbak, everytime. Carries plenty of water (three litres in a Blowfish), with plenty of pouches, compartments, and hooks for everything else. Waterproofs (if lightweight 'raks) with fit in the spare cache box, whic if a tupperware box fits snugly at the bottom of the bag. Swaps, Pen, Logbook etc will easily fit in the rest of the main pocket, as long as size is kept down (smaller maglites, for example). Food, camera and GPS fit in the little elasticated pouches (unless I'm holding the GPS, which I usually am). Camelbaks tend to be quite accessible, with different pockets for diffferent things, meaning less routing, and water via tube whenever you need it. FWIW, I'd argue this isn't advertising - I've genuinely never found a bag as good as a Camelbak. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

A thought from the UK... I remember it happening. I remember the "whats" and the "whys" and the "hows". I remember the shock, and the anger. I remember the terror - and I am hundreds of miles away. I remember the sadness, and I remember the honour. I especially remember the honour - the bravery of the few that went back in to save others, but did not come out. But there are times when it all gets too much, and I don't remember anymore. Like ten days ago (what were you doing ten days ago?) or three months from now. It would be much too clinical to say that life has moved on but it did continue, if not on the same path. For three thousand families, September 11 will always be a day of sadness. I refuse to let it be so. I will remember, but I will not let them win. Find a reason to smile today. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

Good show, Mark! Once again, I am now heartily looking forward to the event! ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

FWIW I'm not going to get involved in the arguement, but in light of the cacnellation of the CIN event, I would like to say this: I am still going to give my donation to CIN. I see no reason as to why I shouldn't. I am also going to ride to the local BBC centre as I promised I would. So I won't have the thrill of the chase, nor the rather distinct possibility that I will miss Mark at the designated coordinates, but no doubt I'll still have a fair bit of fun, and CIN will still get my money, and that's surely what really matters at the end of the day? That is all. ------ "There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."