Jump to content

MCL

Members
  • Posts

    476
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MCL

  1. quote:
    Originally posted by Pharisee:

    It turns out that 'McDonald's Chips' is a toy not a bag of cold, soggy fried potatoes icon_biggrin.gif

     


     

    Showing yer age, John. If it was the food they had left they would be called "fries"...

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

  2. quote:
    Originally posted by Dan Wilson:

    I thinks thats an offer of a pint for EVERYONE from MCL, see you down the local matey icon_wink.gif

     


     

    Hey Dan you know I'll buy you a beer anyday.

     

    icon_biggrin.gif

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

  3. I'll throw this in here because it seems as good a place as any...

     

    Has anyone noticed how we all get on in real life, at cache bashes etc, but seem to misread each other's motives and opinions on these electronic fora?

     

    I believe that the meeting of minds at a cache bash is a very good parallel activity to anything that any representative body might do.

     

    I have personally watched while a problem that would take days even weeks to argue out on here, is solved in minutes by the interested parties gathered around a table in a beer garden in the sunshine, with a pint in their hand.

     

    In addition to the GAGB, GC.COM, Friends of the New Forest, or whatever, there is just no substitute to actually going and meeting your fellow cachers. I have found them all to be quite charming people. Plus they can't hide behind sock-puppets, and trolling in a beer garden usually results in the troll buying the next round as punishment!

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

  4. Not hugely interested in "outing" moderators, to be honest, but the name Lactodorum has always made me smile.

     

    Living in Milton Keynes, I often drive through Lactodorum (it is the original Roman name for Towcester, which is pronounced "toaster" for all our international readers...) and every time I pass the sign I imagine that "lactodorum" should be the name of some ointment you rub on your warts or something....

  5. Wonderful news, Mark.

     

    I can understand why you did what you did, and I can also understand why you have changed your mind about it.

     

    I respect a person who is prepared to have their opinion changed on production of a good, reasoned, persuasion.

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

  6. To maybe stray back to the topic, my belief is that a cache page should be treated as belonging to the owner of the cache. Your log is a guest on their site and if you are not wanted they have every right to throw you out.

     

    So no, this persistent guy needs to be made aware that his behaviour on your cache page is not acceptable to you, and as the landlord, you are throwing him out. Thats why you have the power to do that, given unto you by the divine authority of the Jeremy. If you were not meant to exercise this, then why is it given?

     

    The balance needs to be struck between the unreasonable behaviour of a logger, and the unreasonable behaviour of a cache page owner. If a logger is unreasonable, his logs will be deleted and his name will be made mud among the community. If an owner is unreasonable in his administration of his page, then *his* name will be made mud among the community. No-one will want to bother finding his caches and so his purpose for placing them will be thus negated.

     

    In this case, it seems it's the cacher not the cached that is now going to suffer in that no-one will now take him or his logs seriously in the future, maybe causing other owners to delete his logs, and neither will anyone bother hunting his caches. So he's hurt only himself in the long run, and we can all be satisfied with that level of justice.

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

  7. Trouble is, sometimes the cache owner doesn't want you to know how feindish he/she is being to you.

     

    There is one cache which shall remain nameless, that once you have the clues in hand you find it is a two mile walk to teh cache, with no hope of parking any closer. Evil or wot? But thats the point. The cache owner *wants* to let you suffer. Saying the cache is two miles walk after an hour's searching for clues would rather give the game away.

     

    On the other hand, I always have tried to say on my caches how easy/how long they should take, mainly because I *don't* like nasty surprises. All mine so far can be done in under 15 minutes (EACH!!)

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

  8. quote:
    Originally posted by kennamatic:

    when you got caught with all your french verbs written up under your shirt sleeve. icon_wink.gif

     


     

    It wasn't the french verbs I kept up my sleeve, it was more usually the individual french letters...

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

  9. To sort of deal with Pharisee's points above, here is what *I* do at present:

     

    - Plant caches with small-ish logbooks. My ones only have about 32 pages. This means that it is going to fill up within months (hopefully!)

    - Allow logs on my cache pages until such time as I retrieve the full log book.

    - Upon retrieval, The logbook is checked against online logs.

    - Online logs that don't have a corresponding entry in the book cause an email to be sent to the person to ask why there is no log in the book. There is generally only one reason I would accept, and that is if the person has a disability which prevents them from writing an entry. I do this in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (UK).

     

    - If I get no response to the email, another one is sent (in case the first didn't arrive). No response to that causes me to delete the log.

    - If I get a response and the person cannot give me a watertight reason for not logging, then the log gets deleted.

     

    The following Reasons are not valid for my caches:

    - "It was raining" ... Use an umbrella! They are not expensive (not as expensive as GPSr units, and would you forget to take THAT?)

    - "There was nothing to write with". All my caches are supplied with multiple pencils and usually a sharpener (unless it has been swapped out by a cacher, as happened to one of mine!). In any case, carry a writing device with you, along with the umbrella...

    - "The dog ate my homework". ... Oops sorry, wrong forum.

     

    In the case of one of my caches going missing, I would allow the first person to find any substantial part of the cache remains (like the logbook, or the lid etc) to log a find, before disabling the cache prior to eitrher resetting it or archiving it. Subsequent finds would not be allowed until the thing was up and running again.

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

  10. quote:
    Originally posted by crr003:

    "Agonised"?

     

    Here's how you do it- http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=41960

     


     

    Yes, I said agonised and I meant agonised. Look, I was a newbie when I did it last september, and all the while I had only found the location and no physical objects, I did exactly as you said and logged a note. I only felt justified in logging a find once I had some hard remains of the cache in my hand (the lid) The agonising was over whether I could switch the note to a find after finding the lid. At the time, I decided, on the whole, that I would. It was a *combination* of two things which swayed me.

     

    - I found the lid, proving I had done all the right hunting and got to the right place

    - I did seriously want to clear it off my front page

     

    Either one on it's own probably would not have been enough, but the two together just tipped the scales in my opinion back then.

     

    quote:

    And what's this justificaion - getting the cache off your cache page? Now that's weak.


     

    As I said, on it's own it would not be enough for me, but combined with another reason, it is acceptable to throw it into the argument.

     

    quote:

    "But Officer, I was only breaking the speed limit because everyone else was".


     

    I dunno where you get that analogy. I think of it more like "Officer, I am towing away his car because he repeatedly parks it on my driveway and its the only way I have of removing it. I want it off my drive and I want it off now."

     

    quote:

    You say you take the numbers "a bit seriously". Unfortunately not seriously enough.


     

    You think so? OK. If you can find one other person to support your view that I am not taking the numbers seriously enough, then I will gladly switch the find back to a note. I take allegations like that very seriously.

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

  11. I agonised over this problem when I did Lofty at the Grand Prix

     

    The problem was, the cache had been trashed, yet it was possible to know that you had found the exact location because of the fact that a photo of the correct tree was supplied on the web[page by the cache owners. Subsequent trips to look for teh cache eventually turned up the old lid to the now-missing cache. Until that final trip I had decided not to log the thing as a find, which annoyed me since I couldn't get it off my front page, and no-one at the time would archive it (which would have achieved the same effect).

     

    However, at the point where I found the lid, I decided that I had enough moral justification for logging the cache as found, just to get rid of it. Had there been a method of getting rid of it from my cache page *without* logging it as a find, I would have done so and logged is as not found. It was partly the functionality of the GC website that swayed my judgement. I didn't like the situation particularly, but I felt that having the lid was virtually as good as completing the cache "properly".

     

    Having said all that, and on all other caches I have done since the rule is very simple. If I don't write in the logbook, its not counted as a find, since I am one of those who likes to take my numbers a bit seriously. If the cache box is missing, tough, you don't get to log the find. I will also add that this is a rule I will enforce for my own caches. If I find someone has logged one of my caches and not written or marked the logbook in any way, I will delete their log on the site, unless they can give me five dadgum good reasons why I shouldn't.

     

    This then brings up the related subject of cache owners who allow people to log their cache as a find, even when it is known the box is not present. The classic example of this is herewhere the owners state specifically that a photo of you at the location is sufficient to claim a find. I'm not personally happy with this, and don't think that it is right for a cache owner to be able to make such a rule for any type of cache other than a virtual.

     

    I also am not happy with those who have claimed a find under such circumstances, and it is indeed the only reason I have not attempted the cache myself. Some of the people concerned know I am not entirely happy with it, but as they rightly point out, its not something I can do anything about.

     

    Another related situation is that where two people hide a cache, but only one is allowed by the system to actually be the owner. The other person, on their account has the choice between the cache sitting on their cache list for ever, or they just log is as a find to clear it off.

     

    I know of occasions where that has happened too, but in these cases, of course, they have actually held the box in their hands, and may well have also written in the logbook, even though they didn't ever "find" the cache at all. Once again, there is some blame to fall partly on the way the site works in that two accounts cannot be registered as the shared owners of a cache. I still don't like it.

     

    If you ain't found the box, you ain't found the cache. simple as that in my book.

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

  12. quote:
    Originally posted by Motley Crew:

    Er? What does

    quote:
    I can confirm that The Quintet of b4 us all got different answers
    mean?

     


     

    It means it was written by Ben. icon_biggrin.gif

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

  13. How much does it *need*?

     

    I don't believe it *needs* any more promotion to muggles. The sport has grown and will grow quite nicely without media promotion. It has done up till now and there is no ereason why that should change.

     

    I do believe that some promotion is good. The main thing about good promotion is that it should be a hands-on type of thing. So far, there have been two kinds of this: One is the type where each of us introduces a new person by taking them out on a caching trip. The other type is the HCC-event type, once again, where muggles are taken out and shown how it works.

     

    I believe this is the only real and proper way to promote the sport to muggles, and I am all for doing mpre of it.

     

    I am a strong disbeliever in any more tv or radio coverage. These type of coverage are all very well, but they don't give the prospective muggle the real *feel* for the sport. I am a strong advocate of learning by doing. As I was once told, you can't give someone a haircut over the phone!

     

    No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

×
×
  • Create New...