SylvrStorm

quote:Originally posted by fizzymagic:It's not "pirating" when the cache owner agrees. The term does not apply. Applying it merely confuses the issue. I know there's a lot of baggage with the term 'pirate'. I'm still open to suggestions for other names, but what else do you call it when everything about it has a pirate theme? quote:This new so-called "variant" is just the cache owner being a jerk to the finders, but that is already a part of the game now. Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by this. Do you think finders won't like finding a cache like this? What do you see as the problem? SylvrStorm

quote:Originally posted by enfanta:Too soon, too soon, too soon. Let's hear an apology from the pirates first for all the bother they've caused. Hmmm - an interesting perspective. I agree that would be nice, but realistically it's not going to happen. I think there are (at least) two categories of pirates here. First are the pirates who get their jollies from ruining other peoples' fun. We're not going to get an apology, and this discussion won't change their behaviour. Second are the pirates who honestly never meant any real harm, but were somewhat misguided (in some cases very misguided) as to what other geocachers would see as fun. We're not going to get an apology (anyone who admitted to it now would be eaten alive), but we might be able to offer them more acceptable alternatives for their creative tendancies. An apology would be nice, but in lieu of that maybe we can at least move future 'piracy' into an acceptable format. Then there are people who have never even dreamed of pirating a cache, but who are intrigued by some of the ideas being presented here. It's these last two groups that this discussion is for. And for that reason, I don't believe it's too soon. In fact, the sooner the better, before someone else decides to go and apply his own unacceptable version to some unsuspecting cache. No, it's not going to solve the entire problem, but it may alleviate it somewhat, and might just add a fun new dimension to geocaching in the process. SylvrStorm

quote:Originally posted by fizzymagic:It's blindingly obvious that the _vast_ majority of cachers think that pirating is unacceptable. That you cannot see that is worthy of marvel. Fizzymagic, as I said a couple of posts up, I agree that it's clear that the heavily discussed bad pirating is, well, bad. In this thread, we have heaved out the bad aspects, and are looking for ways to introduce the non-bad aspects into valid variants of geocaches. If you don't understand what I mean, please read my earlier posts to this thread. If you have read them and still don't understand, please ask for clarification - I want everyone to understand what this discussion is really about. If you do understand and still think that this form of 'pirating' is unacceptable to the majority of cachers, please elaborate. The whole point is to make it acceptable, so if there are issues that have been missed, please bring them to light. Thanks, SylvrStorm

quote:Originally posted by Pantalaimon:... but I simply haven't seen the evidence that, a Jeremy said, a majority of geocachers (or forum posters) dislike all forms of pirating. Before people jump all over this and say that Pan must be blind if he hasn't noticed all the negative posts about pirating - remember he said "all forms of pirating". Yes, it's clear that there are many people in these forums who don't want their caches stolen. I'll even go out on a limb and say I don't think there's ever been a cacher who wanted their cache to be stolen. That's the bad pirates. This thread is about the good pirates, who don't do anything without permission. I don't think there's been any clear indication that this specific form of pirating has a strong weight of cachers against it, forum posters or otherwise. And as I've said repeatedly, if you don't like it, don't participate. You won't be bothered. No harm, no foul. Continue caching as always.

quote:Originally posted by fizzymagic: quote:Furthermore, I think its clear that anyone who supports, or even elusively comments positively on "pirating," in the forums, has to be prepared for a world of grief.Roughly, it goes like this: "They persecuted Galileo, and he was right. I feel persecuted, so I must be right, too." Actually, I think the meaning was more like, "They persecuted everyone who said 'pirate' without saying 'I hate them', so I'd better keep my mouth shut or I'm doomed. quote:I suggest that people go back through these threads and marvel at the rationalizations and dismissal of other peoples' feelings exhibited. It's unusual that a pathology is so clearly exposed. Respectfully, as I know your comments are made with the idea that you're protecting a game you love, I'd ask you to do the same - please go back and read this thread. We are not rationalizing or defending anyone who makes any change whatsoever to any cache without the owners' permission. We are trying to come up with ways to improve the game, to add some interesting new elements, without changing it in the least for those who don't like them. SylvrStorm

I'm glad I started this thread - there has been some good discussion. Permit me to summarize some of the ideas, and bring the focus back to getting something productive out of this. I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but there's just so much to say. First and foremost, there's general agreement that no cache is to be tampered with without the owner's consent. Done. That was part of my original premise, but for some reason people feel the need to keep saying, "leave my cache alone". Understand we have no real control over what others do, but the purpose of this thread is to discuss and develop ideas for variants that are acceptable. That means no 'tampering' without the cache owner's express permission. Note that in my area, this is already happening - some cache owners are giving blanket permission for Captain Urchin to 'plunder' their caches. That doesn't mean anyone else has to do so. The default is that caches will NOT be changed unless the owner gives prior approval. Any pirates that violate this agreement are acting outside the 'law', and are not what we're discussing here. People are saying "if they get permission, it's not really pirating." Absolutely right. No more than a kid dressing up like Long John Silver for Hallowe'en deserves to be thrown in the brig. But the treasure maps, booty, and other affectations can be fun. With all due respect to Jeremy and his dictionary quote, people are getting too hung up on the label. Still, as I said before, it might be good to give it another name. But regardless what we call it, the 'pirating' being discussed in this thread is similar in some respects to the bad pirating, but fundamentally different in that the 'pirate' is doing nothing against the rules, without permission, or intending to generate negative feelings. It seems that part of the fun for the pirates is the surprise factor. You never know what cache will be 'hit' or when it will happen. Requiring permission doesn't need to change that. All a pirate needs to do is get permission from half a dozen prolific cache-placers, and he could have a list of 50 caches open for 'plundering'. Permission is granted, yet still nobody knows where he's going to appear next. Granted, this aspect may make it less likely to work in cache-sparse areas, but even then there's potential. There is one point that has been brought up that I think bears closer scrutiny, and I'd like to see what TPTB have to say about it. That is the requirement of admin approval. I can definitely understand the rationale of those in favour of it - the same reasons caches have to be approved in the first place. But we don't currently have an approval process for owners changing their own caches. How is this any different? If a cache owner approves the changes a 'pirate' (or leprechaun, or any other person) makes, that's not really any different from if they'd made the change themselves. Requiring admin approval would/could add a huge burden to the admins. Like I said - I'd like to hear some opinions from Admins. On to some lighter issues (I think). I'm not sure the 0.1 mile rule applies. We're talking about a cache extension, like a multi, and there's no requirement that the stages in a multi have to be over 0.1 mile apart. I don't think these need to be either. Southdeltan brought up the impact to the cache finder, who's not expecting this change to a cache. The idea as it presently stands is that the original cache, with the logbook and some 'booty', would still be present at its normal location, and participation in the extension would be entirely optional. 2oldfarts, despite obviously not wanting to participate in 'pirating' (absolutely fine), did pose an insightful question: If someone adds a 'linked cache' to one of my caches who is responsible for the maintenance of it? I'd say that by default it falls to the pirate, but any agreement can be made between the two parties. Other thoughts? Team AshandEs suggested taking the discussion to the pirate's forum on their website. I did that back when the pirate discussion got going on the Canada forum here. In fact, that's what led to Captain Urchin agreeing that getting permission from cache owners was not such a bad idea, and I understand that is how he's operating now. The point of holding this discussion here is that we're talking about variants to OUR game, and how to make it acceptable to US. It wouldn't do much good to ask them that, would it? Another point of discussion - would there be any changes that could be requested of TPTB to facilitate this? I think in most cases, the answer is no. Cache extensions/changes can be done by cache owners already - this variant doesn't require anything special in that regard. However, there may be some things that could be done: - Expand FAQ to educate would-be pirates on an acceptable approach. - Incorporate a "Pirated" (leprechauned/etc.) logo, similar to TBs (I don't personally agree with this one, but it was suggested, so it may have merit) - Allow separate ownership of stages in a multi. (This would have much broader applications than the pirate concept.) As a final note, I think the sample requests posted by J&MBella were a great illustration of how this would work. (Basically, love your cache, I'd like to add an extension, what do you think.) The only thing I'd maybe add is a request for any special placement knowledge the cache owner may have (permission required, sensitive/dangerous terrain, etc.) That, and it may be written in pirate/leprechaun/etc. lingo. For those who had the patience to read this far, I thank you for your time. SylvrStorm

There have been plenty (!) of comments against pirating of caches, and several in favour of it if done right. The problems with the 'bad' pirates are obvious. We don't need any more car analogies to understand that nobody wants their caches' contents stolen. The problems with the 'good' pirates may be a little more nebulous, but that's been talked to death in other threads as well. What I'd like to do in this thread is see if there's any hope of evolving this into something that is an acceptable new variation to the game. For anyone tempted to shout "NO!" without reading further, think of those who condemn all geocaching because of the unfortunate misguided actions of a small minority of cachers. We all believe that geocaching is good if done right, so let's go ahead with the assumption that any new variation will be good if done right. We also have to accept that any new variation will not appeal to everyone, and that's fine so long as they can continue to experience geocaching as they've done to date. First off, I think we'd need to agree that nobody's cache is modified in any way without prior permission from the cache owner. This seems to be the biggest gripe with the recent pirate activity, and by setting this as the prevailing rule, it should alleviate the primary concerns. With that out of the way, the next thing we need to do is come up with a name other than pirating. That label has too much baggage tied to it. I'm open to suggestions. I think for this to work, it has to be an accepted variation here on this site. Having a separate site like piratecaching.com invited the sort of people who liked to defy accepted standards, and also made it more difficult to prevent the negative behaviour. While we can never stop such sites from operating, we may be able to influence those who really did just want to improve the game by letting them do so in an acceptable way. One more critical rule would be that the original container, with the original log book (at a minimum) be left in the original cache location, thus allowing cachers who don't like the variant to still find and enjoy the cache as it was originally intended. So, what would such a variation look like? I think it amounts to an extension of or variation to an existing cache. One of the things we'd need to discuss would be whether they are permanent or temporary. Maybe there's room for both. A permanent one would essentially turn a traditional cache into a multi. People might ask why not just place a separate cache? Indeed, why not? But then why aren't all multi's set up as separate caches? Sometimes another cacher might have an idea that just fits really well with the original; they collaborate, and it becomes a multi. No problem with that. This variation would just make it official. A temporary addition would amount to the placing of a special note in an existing cache with instructions to finding something more. When the additional prize is found, it's kept by the finder. This has apparently been done in some areas already, and I haven't seen any complaints about it. Does the cache contents stay in the original container, or move to the new end point? I'd say this should be discussed and agreed between the original cache owner and the cache extender. Cache owners won't want their caches left empty, but I can see there could be times they'd agree for some or all of it to be replaced by the extender's new swag. Some cache owners might even like the idea of their cache contents being moved according to the rules on the piratecaching.com site, essentially making their traditional temporarily into a puzzle-multi, with a prize for the next finder. Again, any change like this is only done with full knowledge and approval of the cache owner. Who owns the extension? This is probably moot for a temporary extension, but what about a permanent one? I can think of reasons for both sides, but I think I'll leave it open for discussion. Maybe it needs to be decided case-by-case by the individuals involved. Sorry this is so long, but I think there's room for a valid variation to the game while addressing the concerns of the pirate-haters. Looking for the Sylvr lining... SylvrStorm PS - For those who like to point fingers - no, I haven't been involved in any of the pirating activities. I'm merely an interested bystander who sees the potential for improving the game, but who also understands that it must be done right for it to work.

Prime Suspect cachew nut sept1c_tank Team GPSaxophone Stunod geospotter beckerbuns Prime Suspect Doc-Dean carleenp BrianSnat Gorak Planet Prime Suspect scoobie10 Team Og Rof A Klaw SLCDave clearpath Prime Suspect Team Geo-Remdation Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking Pantalaimon BrianSnat enfanta Jeepers_Keepers JoeCthulhu Prime Suspect Micqn Woodsters Outdoors Strapped-4-Cache StarshipTrooper umc RuffRidr Seneca CT Trampers WildGooseChase The Cache Couple southdeltan Prime Suspect Pluckers Team Tecmage Btouch Prime Suspect SirRalanN mtn-man Bull Moose breaktrack Sissy-n-CR Mark 42 Cybo SylvrStorm

I had to vote 'No' on this one, more because I don't agree with the approach than because I don't think something should be done. First off, the proposal as it stands represents a huge undertaking. Even if there were willing volunteers to do most of the work, this solution implies an added burden to everyone who posts here or logs a cache, in that they may be asked at a future date to modify or delete their post because it violates some protocol. (It did say that the original poster would have to give permission, right?) And then what happens when people refuse to modify their posts? Or people can't be reached? The references will still be there, and all the work will be for naught. Basically, it's a lot of work for a solution that I don't believe will be effective. Another major drawback is that new cachers would not be aware of pirating activity. Discussing all the aspects of geocaching, good, bad, and ugly, is what the forums are for. There's also the whole censorship issue, but others have already mentioned that. But really, the big one, before all of these, is that we need to define the problem before suggesting a solution. So far, it sounds like the problem is defined as "cache pirating is bad". The problem with a statement like that is it's too generalized. Like all forms of zero-tolerance, it's an excuse to avoid thinking. Not all pirates were created equal, and neither should they be treated equally. Certainly most of the pirating I've read about in this forum is bad. It reduces the enjoyment of the game for everyone but the pirate. However, as Jomarac5 mentioned earlier, we have a new breed of pirate in BC, going by the name of Captain Urchin. He is like the bad pirates in name only. He leaves the cache container, logbook, and writing implement in place. If I understand correctly, he adds 'booty' to the cache, so traders (especially children) can still trade without doing anything more than the cache hunt originally intended. He moves the rest of the cache contents to a new container, which he hides within 30 metres (100 feet) of the original cache. He puts a map in the original cache so the new container can be found. The first person to find the new container puts the swag back in the original cache, takes the 'booty', and gets to keep the new container too (so far it's been Lock 'n Locks). And to top it off, he's now agreed to only 'plunder' caches of owners who give him permission ahead of time! Bottom line is, the original cache is still there and cachers can ignore the 'pirating' if they wish without it affecting their game. Cache owners who don't want to participate won't be bothered. He's being pretty generous in what he's giving out. Doesn't sound much like a 'real' pirate, does it? Banning this sort of 'pirating' would be like telling your kid he can't dress up as a pirate for Hallowe'en because pirates are bad. He calls himself a pirate, but I'd no sooner arrest him for piracy than I'd arrest Santa Claus for trespassing. That's the problem with a blanket policy, like all zero-tolerance, it lets you ignore what's really happening by slapping an opaque label on something. So yes, something should be done about the really bad pirates, but let's focus on the specifics, not the generalizations. If a cache is actually removed, call it a stolen cache, and deal with it as such, regardless of whether the thief calls himself a pirate and hides behind jaunty lingo. SylvrStorm

quote:Originally posted by Jomarac5:The pirate scenario doesn't work if everyone knows who it is. I know sock puppets are frowned upon, but I'd see this as a valid use of one. I know there are ways for TPTB to track you down if there's a problem, but that's as it should be. The pirate would be able to remain anonymous from regular cachers while still asking permission. quote:Originally posted by Jomarac5:Where's the problem with putting a graphic on the cache page to indicate that you're not interested in having your cache plundered? Yes, that works for those people who don't want the pirate to 'plunder' their caches no matter what. While we could never enforce it, this new breed of pirate strikes me as the sort of person who would respect that. But does that mean that any cache page without the graphic would welcome the pirate's activity? Obviously not. It's likely the majority of cache owners wouldn't even know about the graphic. On the other hand, using a graphic like that on some cache pages means there's an implied 'please plunder me' sign on other cache pages. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's the sort of message we want to portray. While the two instances we've seen recently have been benign, and I wouldn't mind seeing that happen to one of my caches, I would like to ensure the pirating were benign before it happened, rather than hope it's okay afterward. So far this form of pirating hasn't caused any real problems. It seems the pirate thought it out carefully and planned it that way. I think it's fair to assume the pirate is specifically trying not to cause problems, and we can assume s/he is a basically good-willed person. How do you think they will feel when a cache they've 'plundered' really does go missing, because of what they've done? That's why I think it's a better idea to run it by the cache owner first. Still wishing the pirate, who I'm sure is following this discussion, would chime in. SylvrStorm

quote:Originally posted by Jomarac5:Asking to pirate a cache is not going to work -- what pirate is going to agree with that? You may be right, and, as has been mentioned countless times, when it comes right down to it we can't stop people from pirating in whatever way they want. But I don't see how asking them to ask the cache owner could hurt. As I said, this new form of pirating is directed at cache finders, not cache owners. You're right that the surprise element is the big draw for the pirate, but it's the reaction from the next finder he/she's looking for, not the owner. Letting the owner in on it shouldn't detract at all from the fun. This new pirate is clearly taking steps to have their fun in a non-offensive way. It looks to me like they've gone out of their way to ensure the original cache and its owner are not negatively impacted. S/he's not like the old pirate(s), trying to get a rise out of people with no regard for the original game. This new pirating is really between the pirate and the next finder. The cache owner is a third party, not part of the stunt, yet having a very definite vested interest. I still like the idea of this new pirating, as long as it's done correctly. And the best way to ensure that (I believe) is for the pirate to contact the cache owner ahead of time. I'd love for the pirate to voice an opinion. Create a sock puppet if you need to, then give us your take on this discussion. SylvrStorm

Not that my opinion matters in this, but I'd agree that the bug with the most provinces logged should take the prize. But what about that clause about modifying the date if circumstances should dictate? I'm curious if the race committee has discussed changing the date, and if they do, what do they change it to? Or do we make it sudden death, so it goes on until a bug hits 8 provinces regardless of how long that takes? I understand that could be a problem if it takes too long, but I think we could extend it a fair bit yet. Would 1 year from the race start be too long? I know winter will effectively shut some caches down, but with some of the bugs now in Eastern Canada I'd think we could have a 'real' (8 province) winner before next summer. Thoughts? SylvrStorm

quote:Originally posted by Acuracura:Or at least have the decency to ask the original cache owner first before pirating the cache. I think Acuracura hit the nail on the head here. The pirate should get permission from the cache owner. Obviously stealing, plundering, or otherwise seriously damaging the original cache is bad. But in general, I think this new form of pirating is a positive addition to the game if it's done right. So far, of the two we've heard about, it sounds like it was done right. The new pirate cache was easy to find, nearby, didn't harm the environment, etc. I would not be upset if this happened to one of my caches, and I think it would be great to find a cache like that. However, I can also see a real potential for big problems, some of which others have mentioned. The cache owner might have gotten special permission to place a cache in a certain way or at a certain location. The pirate may not be as knowledgeable about the area as the original hider, and may inadvertently leave the cache contents more open to geo-muggle plundering. Or the cache owner may have other reasons for not wanting his/her cache 'pirated', or have information to share so the pirate can do so responsibly. If the pirate asks permission from the cache owner first, I don't see any problem at all. It shouldn't reduce the fun for the pirate, as (at least this new version of 'pirating') is aimed at the next finder, not the cache owner. Telling the owner ahead of time shouldn't matter, and can only serve to reduce hard feelings. As it seems this new pirate is trying to have fun while being generous and add something to the game, this should be a good solution. Thoughts? Opinions? Flaws in this idea? Suggestions for improvement? SylvrStorm

I think that would depend on how it is marked. Most Canadians without military training wouldn't know what it was, and wouldn't be any more threatened by an ammo box than any other cache container, unless it still has the ammunition labelling in plain view. Even those who know what it is are less likely to call the police if the original labelling has clearly been replaced by a geocache label. SylvrStorm *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

I've got a basic yellow Garmin Etrex. None of the fancy features that would be nice to have, but it does the job and has taken me to many caches. Sure, it would be nice to upgrade, but I don't see it happening any time soon as this unit does all I need. *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

A relatively small impact to me. Some parks in the lower mainland of BC are closed due to the extreme fire risk, so I had to postpone a planned cache hunt and a maintenance visit to one of my caches this past weekend. Other parks have cautionary signs up, but are still open, so luckily I was able to change my plans and hunt for different caches. We got a few drops of rain yesterday. Not enough to make any significant difference, but hopefully things are turning around. SylvrStorm *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

I wonder if dogs can hear it? SylvrStorm *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

Hooo yeah, my wife scrapbooks. She got this special case to carry all her stuff around. When that overflowed she got a bigger one. When that overflowed, she got a big box. When that overflowed, she got a big cabinet that's sitting in the corner of our dining room. She's now got the cabinet, a couple portable cases, a few boxes, and a table in the living room that's constantly covered. More often than not she takes over the whole dining room table too. She has 'scraps' (like a cache event, but for scrappers) at home and elsewhere. She does paper piecing, punch art, quilling, rubber stamping, journalling, etc. She makes toppers, borders, tags, crocheted and metal embellishments, corners, etc. She teaches classes on it all for continuing ed. She makes things to sell on eBay (and does pretty well, too). She's part of the design team for a scrapbooking store out east. She's spending hundreds of dollars to attend CKU this fall. In short, yeah, she's hooked. But what can I say? She tolerates me dashing off to hunt tupperware in the woods. SylvrStorm *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

quote:Originally posted by Dinoprophet:He is also 190-240 lbs, likes beer, and has a beard. If he's married, his wife likes to scrapbook. Sure, now you're upping the requirements for average. Now I'm gonna have to gain back the weight I lost from geocaching, develop a taste for beer, and grow a beard! Nah. Guess I'll just settle for being "almost average". But my wife does scrapbook. A lot. *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

My apologies too, for hijacking this thread. The keychains do look pretty cool. Too bad I'll probably never get over to that area to find one. Sorry, no pics of my sig chainmail available right now. It's nothing fancy, just a flat piece of chainmail. I can post a pic this evening, after I have a chance to snap one with the digital camera at home. Here's a photo of a chainmail travel bug called Canadian Pride that I recently released for the Canadian TB race. It's made with much lighter wire than I usually use. SylvrStorm *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

quote:Originally posted by umc:My very first find I passed over a handmade victorymike chainmale keychain. Does anybody happen to have a picture of one of these? I'm curious as my sig item is also handmade chain mail (not a keychain though). SylvrStorm *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

quote:Originally posted by Search1128:The funny thing is they said in CSI that her car's GPS told her to make a wrong turn and that is the reason why she hit the wrong building in her attempt to "get someone". In reality the GPS simply can't tell you to make a wrong turn, it is you the user interpreting the calcutions, and that may result in a wrong turn if you don't know what you are looking at. You're right in that it's the user ultimately deciding which way to go, but she was using the GPSr mapping features to plot a route in an area she wasn't familiar with. She put in the address, and it plotted a route for her, and she drove where it told her to drive. So in effect it did tell her where to turn, and it turned out to be a wrong turn. As for why it directed her to the wrong building, they hypothesized two possible reasons. One is that the mapping software was slightly off, and from what I understand, that is not particularly common, but happens often enough to be plausible. The other, (more likely) possibility is that she entered the wrong address by mistake, since the addresses were identical except for exchanging 'North' for 'South' in the street name. As it happened, the reason for the error wasn't important to the investigation, so that's as far as they took it. *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:The average geocacher is a married male, 37.3 years old with 1.2 children and is employeed in the IT field. Okay, I'm a married male, less than a year to go to hit 37.3 years old, and am employed in IT. I guess to really achieve average though I'm gonna have to sell off 1.8 kids. Any takers? *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

Male - at least the last time I checked. Hang on a sec. Yep, male. 36. 31-40 is leading; what's the prize if we win? *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

My gut response when I read this was that no, you can't do that. If you have a bug in the race, you can't move any race bug over 50 miles. But then I went back and re-read the rule, and you're right, that one only applies to other racers' bugs. So I'd say yes, you could move your own race bug as far as you want. Of course, the restriction on consecutive moves still applies, so you'd have to drop it off in one place and leave it there. Just my opinion, and you should get an official ruling on this, but I'd say you're right.