MCL

quote:Originally posted by Dan Wilson:I would rather be moderated by a fish. Dan Wilson - http://www.Buckscaching.co.uk ...is THAT why 'Watermead Wetlands 3' is where it is! No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Incidentally, calling yourselves Team Minim and saying you hold on twice as long implies of course that the rest of us are all crotchety... No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

quote:Originally posted by Team Blitz (Michael):Although it goes against my views of free discussion, i think for peace's sake, that seems the best thing to do. Nah. Isn't closing a thread precisely what the former moderator just did, thinking it was the best thing to do in order to keep the peace? And did it? Nope. It got us this entire thread instead, and lost us DodgyDave. Learn from history, Michael! It is just about the *worst* thing the moderators could do. Besides, I've only just finished spongeing off the last lot of spitting from the carpet! No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Thanks Tim&June. I am satisfied with you answer as I think the points I have made have been taken on board. Thats the best I can hope for. I always try to debate on here in focussed, relevant terms, and I will never shout anyone down no matter how outrageous I might think their point of view. One of our great political leaders once said words to the effect that "Though I violently disagree with your point of view I will defend to the death your right to speak it" Me too. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Not the leicester one, but if a way can be found to do it, I would be very happy to take over "On high in Low" for you since it is one of only four caches in Milton Keynes so far and is right on my doorstep. The other option is for you to remove the cache and me to "place" a brand new one there, but either way I would hate to see such a good cache go. It was in fact the first cache I ever visited, so it has sentimental value to me. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Oh thank goodness others feel the way I do. I totally agree with both Washboy above and Jeremyp above that. New people, for one, have no way of knowing that RL is a nono (and having read the threads from last year I can well understand why he *is*) SO FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE TELL EVERYONE SO, ON THE LIST OF HOUSE RULES. Thanks to Tim & June for posting the list of threads and the "house rules", but I note that those house rules are not available separately and obviously as a link, and even having read them, can someone point out the bit that says thou shalt not post a link to a TV website that has a link to an RL website? It doesn't say does it? In fact the moderators leave newcomers like myself in total ignorance of the subject, then just stretch out their arms and snuff out a thread with an intelligent post in it like little tin gods on wheels. No wonder we leave the forum, disgusted and discouraged. We still have not had any response from the moderator explaining exactly why he did what he did. But then, maybe it is their intent to confuse, and drive away newcomers. After all, we come in and ruin their little empires don't we? Let's just re-emphasise here that we have had our free agency curtailed by someone who is not democratically accountable to us. Would we put up with a government or council that did this? No. This has *nothing* to do with RL, and *everything* to do with freedom of expression. How hard can it be to see that? I am *still* waiting for the opportunity to reply to Huga's post. I am still waiting for the moderator to come here and explain his actions, (being: to both edit the post as well as lock the thread when only one of those two would have been sufficient) I am perfectly prepared to leave the forum if it is the democratic wish of the people. If you think I should go away and stop moaning then say so, and I will leave you all in peace. Votes please... I'm spitting, I tell you, spitting... No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

quote:Originally posted by Geo Weasel:I mean it quite clearly states in the rules you aren't allowed to do this sort of thing Does it? where? Don't get me wrong, Ben, I'm not saying it *shouldn't*, I'm just saying I can't find where it *does*. I would be pleased if you could enlighten me. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Slytherin, Totus41 has no basis for denying you the right to remove any item from a cache. As long as you don't remove the logbook and camera, you can take anything else you like! Tell them that and tell them to stop spamming you with emails. Its that easy. Morality and ethics actually are a spurious sideline to this and should not be allowed to cloud otherwise clear thinking. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

quote:Originally posted by Chris n Maria:Here we go again... Perhaps it would have been better that an explination is provided whenever a thread is closed - might save the moderators appearing heavy handed. As ignoring Mr L seems to be almost impossible (open any cache near to the M4 to see what I mean) the mods seem to have no choice but to close down threads that appear to be heading towards the dark side. I personally don't give a monkeys uncle about Mr L and his nefarious activities. Edit him out of messages if you like. What I was mad about is the fact that I could not reply to a post from Huga about the subject of limited media coverage. It had nothing to do with RL, and frankly I am just apalled at the heavy handed way that the thread was closed AFTER the message was edited. Mr Moderator, look, do one *or* the other! Either edit the offending stuff out and leave the thread open for a real discussion about the subject that was obviously picked up on by Huga, OR.. close the thread but leave the offending meassage unedited so that everyone can see why the thread was closed. I am only standing up for free speech and openness. I have been a moderator myself (elsewhere), but I *moderated* not *censored*. What happened on that closed thread was censorship not moderation. I strongly disagree with your moderation in this instance. You should have at least explained yourself so that we could see what you were doing. *That* would have been responsible moderation. Your message editing was good. It left a message that contained a good point, and also eliminated references to RL. It just baffles me why you then went and screwed it up by closing the thread. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

quote:Originally posted by SimonG:Nope. We're not allowed to talk about it. If you followed Dodgydaved's link before it was removed, search for the person's name in the forum archives and you'll soon work it out. Ah but if we aren't allowed to talk about it, we aren't allowed to search for it either, because otherwise we might learn something the moderators don't think we ought to know. My search engine might explode or something, so no, I'm not going to risk searching for it. I'll just have to muddle along in blissful, moderator-assisted ignorance and be thankful that I am so well protected from unsavoury ideas and characters. I think it is wonderful that the onerous burden of free speech has been lifted from my shoulders. It can be *so* worrying when compiling a post, running the risk of saying something that someone else might disagree with. A system of rigorous sanitisation is absolutely essential to make sure that no-one has to read anything but the proper authorised party line, so thank God we have the best moderators in the world to look after us.... No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Although I can see both sides here I am inclined to agree with Huga on this one. I think we have to be careful for the following three reasons: 1- We don't know how often at present our caches are discovered by accident, if the discoverers don't fill in the log book. It may be the case that they are found quite often (by people with dogs out walking for example), but because we are relatively unknown, people tend to leave them be after reading the info inside the box. If we were much better known, I can imagine the scenario whereby finders do one of three things "for a laugh"...(i) leave it be, (ii) move it to a new location ("ahh lets see what their wonderful GPS units make of THIS..haha") or (iii) trash it or remove it completely I suspect that (ii) might be a higher probability than the other two because to the finder, moving it would not in theor eyes be doing any damage, but of course to us its as good as trashed. This option kinda slips in under the guilty-conscience radar. 2- It takes a GPS unit for a cacher to find his prize. But what if you have a few thousand pairs of eyes in the area and no GPS? I think it would be quite likely that one of them would eventually stumble on one. Especially if they were the sorts of people who often inhabit woods and fields and publiuc park areas....like teenagers. I remember well the late 80s craze for the VW car badges that swept through the teenage population following the wearing of one by the Beastie Boys. All it takes is for us to be well known enough for the sport to be featured in Eastenders or something, and the subplot being about some yobs who trash one (a throwaway line in a soap is a masively powerful thing) and suddenly every teenager of like mind will want to do the same. This is dangerous exposure and I don't think we want it just yet. 3- It strikes me that a new sport could be created by people who don't like us being "big" and "successful" and "in the media". Some loony could decide that the new sport of "geosnatching" is a fun game. You buy a GPS, and then set about - with your mates in competition - destroying as many caches as you can. Of course there is a balance here since the more get destroyed, the fewer there are for everyone else. But hey, after a bit the sport can evolve in a new direction, the "how fast can we pounce on a new cache" idea. Eventually, even further down the road, geocachers cotton onto this and stop planting caches. Once all the remaining caches are discovered, BOTH sports will die. Now you may ask youself who would do that? do people go about acting in ways that ruin their own futures as well as that of others? Has this sort of thing happened before? Well, lets ask a friendly historian why there are no trees on Easter Island (OK there may be *now* after reintroduction in recent years)? Lets talk about the Dodo. Or even Cod fishing in the North Sea. Lets talk about global warming if you like, although some scientists are not fully convinced yet. Get the picture? No, at the present lets keep growth to steady, sustainable levels, and not try and grow to far and too fast. Otherwise i think we will end up regretting it. We need to develop, in years to come, ways of "policing" the cache sites if the sport is going to have tens of thousands of followers in the future. I don't have any ideas as to how this might be done, I am just saying we will need to work on it if the sport is to grow to huge numbers. Having said all that, I am open to persuasion on the whole topic! No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

I too read the topic which has now been closed. Can someone please explain to me who it is we cannot read about and why? I am new to these forums and maybe someone can explain to me the history. Just what can I and can't I post on here please? I would like to know for future reference. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

I'm up for it in January, but not 12th though. Winchester is fine by me too. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

quote:Originally posted by Huga:Was just slightly taken aback my MCL's 'tone' (as much as there can be in plain text), moaning about credits Apologies if my genuine opinion came across as "moaning". It wasn't meant to. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

quote:Originally posted by Huga:Whilst I do agree with MCL on many points, I think he's missing the point slightly, in that Geocaching isn't about 'gettting credits for boxes found'. Well, I both agree and disagree. *Some* people like to value the count highly, and some don't. To say that Geocaching is one or the other is both right and wrong in that what is right for one person might not be the way someone else does it. Since Geocaching is essentially a personal thing, I suppose it is up to each individual as to whether he/she places importance on one aspect or another. We were asked for opinions and I gave mine. I do like hard caches, but not too many of them! I just don't much like multicaches, unless (he says, grovellingly) they are like the ones Huga does.. And I do happen to set myself personal goals in terms of numbers (just for myself, no-one else) and so to me the numbers are quite important and a plethora of multicaches skews the numbers somewhat. For me, the goalsetting is part of the fun of the sport, and if I am the only one with this opinion then so be it. Surely I am entitled to hold it? You can all think me weird if you like, but hey, its my sport as well as yours.... No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

quote:Originally posted by Huga: ...I hate it if I have to scrabble around for 1/2 an hour because I failed to find exactly the right tree in a huge great forest, with rubbish GPS reception, and the clue says "Look by the tree on your left". Whose left? Which tree? Argh! Oh I totally agree with Huga on this one. Bear in mind that some people may have come hundreds of miles to attempt a cache, and you would rather like them to do the same again for your other caches, so it probably pays not to piss them off too much. Finding a cache is money and time investment. The cache planter ought to respect that if he wants to become known as a planter of "good" caches, and gain a reputation for it. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Personal opinions here: I hate multicaches that don't credit you with a find for each of the boxes you unearth. Sorry, but I just do. The only exception to this is when the multicaches are all within a couple of minutes walk of each other (eg Huga's "A Walk In The Park"). Others (like "A Clapper's Caper") are great in that as you do each one you get to log a find, yet they are part of a series. Its the ones like "Mission Impossible" that I seem to be surrounded with. (Having said that, Mission Impossible is actually quite a fun one to do, but one is enough...) My first page seems to have a plethora of multicaches such that in order to clock up 20 finds you actually have to find about 30 boxes. I know this rather depends on where you live, and I know that I don't have to clear all the caches on my front page before going on to the rest, but I still feel that having so many multicaches so close to me has rather put me off them. (multicaches, that is) I love caching, and I must say the best type of cache to me is one I can drive to, experience a bit of country I haven't been to before, maybe learn one or two things about the place (but not shedloads!) and experience an interesting sight or view or a pleasant walk. Also, I believe that a cache should be meant to be found. If people want to make them so hard that no-one bothers to find them then what a waste of money and effort! I want people to *find* my cache, so I make it reasonably possible to find. I don't see any merit in placing a cache on the moon or glueing it to the underside of St Paul's cathedral dome. Yeah bloody clever but if you need a spacecraft to get to it or permission from the church to erect a 200ft scaffold then franky I don't think that is geocaching any more. I get fun out of finding. I do not get fun out of not finding. The other point I'd like to make is to do with seasonal changes. I did a cache a few months back in the summer which was unreachable by any normal standards because in summer, the land is thickly overgrown and the woods are dense and dark even in daylight. In winter when the cache was placed, its a nice open woodland area, plenty of light, and easy to navigate. I think the planter of the cache should always think what might happen to their cache some months after they have planted it. Its no use having a cache thats is difficulty 1 in winter, and goes up to a 4 in summer, without at least changing the difficulty rating on the cache page as the season's change. It will put people off doing others of your caches if they think you might be misleading them on your other sites. I like a mix of easy and hard caches, but with the simpler ones (notice I said simpler, not necessarily quite the same as easier) in the majority. It seems every new cache popping up on my list now has to be more fiendish, more complex, more obscure, more inventive and brain-racking than all the others within 20 miles. I think the trend is getting out of hand now. Caching (to me) is about sticking numbers in your GPS and finding a plastic box. If I want an IQ test I'll join Mensa. Thats just the way I feel folks. Sorry if you don't agree with it. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

quote:Originally posted by Geo Weasel:Recently on one of our caches a person logged the find without any comments on the page. I think this is just arrogant not sharing any thoughts with others. I am seriously contemplating deleting his log. What do you guys think? Ben Piddington http://www.buckscaching.co.uk I don't think you should delete the log for the following reasons: - It would affect his numbers. If he is someone who values his number score (and some of us do, some of us don't) then you are "stealing" a legitimate point back off him. - Since the object of the geocaching game is to find caches, (ultimately), then by deleting his log you are effectively saying he did not find your cache, and that he is lying. To call someone a liar by implication when it is not true is very bad. - He may have absolutely hated your cache, but is too polite to say what he thought of it in public. In which case he is better off saying nothing, to save everyone's feelings, his and yours. So, I agree with the idea of emailing him and asking him what he thought of your cache and then asking if he would like to put those comments on the cache page (or offer to do it for him perhaps). No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.... [This message was edited by MCL on November 11, 2002 at 10:17 AM.]

Why? Well people are doing it and I wanted to know if it was OK. The problem would appear to be that if you plant a cache with someone else, and they take the plant then on your page of "unfounds", that cache will apear. The only way to get it off you list of "caches not found" is to log it as a "find". A "note" will not do, it must be a find. Which seems daft to me. What we really want is a facility to "hide" or "ignore" caches that we are not going to do, to keep the list tidy. That why I was asking. Its got nothing to do with who takes credit for the plant, its about whether the other planters get a credit for a find. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Thats not quite what I was asking, Monz. What I want to know is if the other person can claim the plant as a find under their own name, assuming they have not chosen to create a team name for that purpose. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Question for anyone who knows please... When you plant a cache and you do it as part of a team, only one person can actually log themselves as the planter. So what about the other person? Can they log it as a find? or a note? or what? Whats the rules? No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

As Pid suggested above, MCL is up for it. Just tell me where and when. Since my starring appearance in the Channel Four News, about 5 years ago, my TV career has been going downhill a bit so it could do with a bit of a boost.... No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

...I wanna know how you are going to fit the saucer of water into the ammo box without spilling it! I suppose you could use cling film.... No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Now here is a thought... What one new killer-function would we like to see added to our GPS units? (Its gotta be one not yet available on any model) C'mon, get wishing!

quote:Originally posted by Geo Weasel:Try pressing the 'stop' button next to refresh on you browser. Always works for me and takes 2 seconds sorry to have bothered you so much. That is one way of doing it yes, but by that time the system has already set the fader back up to maximum again on the synth channel. Also, the problem with SimonG's suggestion above is that there are some web pages where I *do* want the sound... Ah well, life ain't perfect is it? No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....