JPreto

Totally agree, the cache still belongs to the person who hide it, in these cacse, either the CO or the TD owner!

Very nice analogy... some "so called" hunters do that... as some "so called" geocachers do that also!

Não foi isso que percebi, mas nem por isso fiquei chateado, irritado ou nervoso com a sua possível contradição. Por vezes existem mesmo formas diferentes de pensar sobre as mesmas palavras, por isso os foruns são úteis, precisamente para expor diferentes opiniões sobre os mesmo temas e demonstrar como cada um interpreta as mesmas palavras. Mas olhe, se quiser discutir filosofia, algo que também gosto, porque não fazemos pessoalmente ou mesmo por email? Neste tópico apenas queria deixar claro que cada jogador pode, e na minha opinião deve, ser um cache cop. Outras pessoas têm opiniões diferentes e não tenho nenhum problema com isso, é saudável saber partilhar opiniões. No entanto, nem o cache cop, nem os outros, nem mesmo os moderadores do forum, têm capacidade ou autoridade para desabilitar um cache, ou arquivar um cache, apenas os revisores e os lackeys e a ultima palavra cabe sempre a eles. Cache cop ou não é irrelevante, tudo está nas mãos do dono do cache, dos revisores e da Groundspeak. Apenas eles podem tomar decisões sobre um determinado cache.

For me the reporting person is not responsible but the one who did the TD, it´s his/her cache!!! Neither the CO or the reviewer have nothing to do with it. If I drink half of a can of coke and leave it on the floor it´s still my can of coke, right? Or the moment I place it on the floor it´s no man property. In some African countries it is actually like this (don´t want to offend the Africans but it is a fact in some less developed African countries), it is only yours if it´s in your hands but, we are not in Africa and the cache, even tho the listing belongs to the CO, the physical cache belongs to the person that did the TD... so it´s his/her responsibility! Imagine a TD as a gift to the CO. If the CO doesn´t clearly accepts the TD, the property of the gift it is still of the one that tried to give the gift, not the CO.

Since your NA reports a problem with the physical location of the cache, it meets my requirements for being focused on the cache itself. Anyone can go to GZ and confirm what you've reported. Even though the CO keeps reporting something else, others seem to be confirming your assessment. Now, as you say, it's up to the reviewer to decide whether what you're reporting is a reason to archive. Seems like it would be, but who knows? I'm sorry to hear you're getting hassles about it. All I can say is that, whatever the reviewer decides, be sure to accept the decision with grace and move on, satisfied you've done your part. Exactly my point, and up until now both Reviewers and CO think it is OK (the NA post was made in Feb 16th 2014, more than 3 months ago) and so the cache is still active. I am just putting out my opinion, i am not a reviewer nor a lackey to act upon this cache. I feel I did my part... and will always respect the reviewers decisions, for me they are the referees of this game, even tho sometimes, I may not agree with some decisions. A different case now: COPA 2014 Timão. In this case a NA was not even needed. The first person that found the cache posted that the place was dangerous and the CO immediately disabled the cache saying the player was right and the cache would be put in a different place. After a while the CO changed the cache for more than 1km away, with reviewers approval. This for me is the way to do it!

It's "cool" to bring a proximity issue to the reviewer's attention. The final coordinates of a geocache are subject to the proximity rules, and are supposed to be visible to the reviewer. Nahh... just ignore the cache and say: "FOUND IT, TFTC" It´s much better... NOT!!!! It´s not a matter of being "cool" or not, it´s a matter of respecting the rules of the game or not. If I see one of these I would put a NM and say that is closer than 0.1 mi from another cache. The CO just has to put the cache back to where it was before he changed the coordinates... not a big deal!

I do agree. Some geocaches are worth keeping alive by the community, so resetting or repairing a cache is very common. I would guess most of us carry a extra log in our cache bag. It irks me more to see someone play cache cop and think we must all play accordingly to the guidelines, which are not laws or rules, only guidelines. So is it cool to post NA on a cache because it is less than 528ft from another geocache? Maybe this thread could be merged with the wannabe reviewer thread. So for you, Groundspeak does all the work on trying to put the game together and you say: "Those are only guidelines, no one has to follow them..." so I guess you never complained about anything regarding geocaching, right, because for you there are no rules... is that it? I am not the "anarchist" type of person, but you are free to be! Just respect other players and the game organizers that do all these guidelines/rules to protect the game you like to play.

Yup, this is my interpretation of this sentence, written in the guidelines I wrote on the first post: I am actually quoting the ASAP from the guidelines themselves...

Thanks, this is exactly my point here in this topic! Even tho I do not agree with other TD scenarios...

I do not fully agree with your interpretation which I regard as too strict without any necessity. If someone would hide a throwdown for one of my caches which involves a longer hike, I would not run out at the first available moment to check the situation. [...] Do not get me wrong, I would not ignore the issue, but do not think that disable logs or even needs archived logs are appropriate in such a situation. Thanks for the opinion, the thing is you will not ignore the issue meaning you are aware of the situation. The problem is when the CO is absent. Who will be aware of the situation and responsible for it? The person that made the TD? The reviewer? The CO even if he/she is not actively playing the game?

You should come to Brazil and explain this to some geocachers... or maybe it is just a problem of what is considered a "honest" or "dishonest" Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive... The question of honesty is actually a core issue with the class of NA that was the topic of the original thread. When someone says, "The cache isn't there" or "The container's completely failed and the log is mush," then any dishonesty can be easily revealed by inspection, so there's very little reason to think anything nefarious is going on. When we accept objections that focus on something other than the physical cache -- "he doesn't maintain his caches", "I've had trouble with him not responding", "someone left a throwdown that wasn't explicitly approved", or "this cache is stopping someone else from planting a cache here" -- suddenly the NA has a wide latitude for making accusations that can never be confirmed, and we have to start worrying about whether something else is going on. That doesn't mean such NAs are automatically dishonest, it just means that they leave room for it. I really wouldn´t like that this topic would be a follow up of the other topic, that´s why I, respecting the other topic, oppend a new one... and now we are getting back to it. Both topic are related but one is talking about TD and the other about "honest" or "dishonest" NM or NA. OK? I am going do quote this one and answer on the other topic, here.

You should come to Brazil and explain this to some geocachers... or maybe it is just a problem of what is considered a "honest" or "dishonest" Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive... The question of honesty is actually a core issue with the class of NA that was the topic of the original thread. When someone says, "The cache isn't there" or "The container's completely failed and the log is mush," then any dishonesty can be easily revealed by inspection, so there's very little reason to think anything nefarious is going on. When we accept objections that focus on something other than the physical cache -- "he doesn't maintain his caches", "I've had trouble with him not responding", "someone left a throwdown that wasn't explicitly approved", or "this cache is stopping someone else from planting a cache here" -- suddenly the NA has a wide latitude for making accusations that can never be confirmed, and we have to start worrying about whether something else is going on. That doesn't mean such NAs are automatically dishonest, it just means that they leave room for it. I copied this quote from another topic because it is more related to this one rather than the other... You like examples, so here is one for you all: Praça Barão de Tiete In this cache I posted my first ever NA, after my 4th visit to the cache and after sending an email to the CO saying I was going to request it to be archived because I think it is placed in a dangerous place, where some pretty strange homeless people live. Sorry that some logs are in Portuguese but nothing a Google translate can´t solve, all my logs are in english tho. Even with 4 different geocachers, reported the same issue "can´t look for the cache because I don´t feel safe" and after posting the NA, the cache is still active because both the CO and the reviewers feel that it is not the case to be archived. I made my part and GS felt that my NA log should be there so they undeleted it after an inmediate deletion by the CO. This was one of the caches that raised more discutions between me and some fellow brazilian geocachers. My NA is honest for me, but dishonest for them... but, above all, the reviewers or lackeys have the last call.

Great type of caches... but usually more expensive! But they should last long... There is one like this near my house: Cofrinho na 23 Enjoy!

Mas no seu post anterior diz: A partir do qual desenvolve o seu argumento. Eu apenas segui a sua linha de pensamento...

Come on man, if you find the cache and replace it because it´s cracked, don´t you think is different than a Throwdown or for you it is all the same? Actually when someone does any maintenance in another CO cache he should always tell it in the online register because, even tho the maintenance guy is trying to help, the CO might not like the changes. This, for me, are good geocaching practices.

Moderador de Forum é diferente de ser Revisor... e eu aliás, como disse anteriormente, não tenho nada contra os jogadores serem cache cops, aliás acho que é uma forma de ajudarem os revisores a fazer o seu trabalho. De todas as formas nem um cache cop (nem um moderador de forum) podem desabilitar nem arquivar nenhum cache, apenas um revisor ou um lackey podem efectuar esse papel. Você, e aparentemente outras pessoas, pensam assim mas eu prefiro qualidade a quantidade já que agradar a gregos e a troianos tem os seus problemas. Em portugal diz-se: "poucos, mas bons!". Mas cada um é livre de escolher a forma de como quer viver. E assim como no mundo empresarial há empresas que têm muitos clientes de todo o tipo, outras que têm poucos mas bons. Eu, até no mundo empresarial, sempre optei por ter poucos clientes mas dar-lhes a atenção que acho que merecem.

You should come to Brazil and explain this to some geocachers... or maybe it is just a problem of what is considered a "honest" or "dishonest" Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive... But then again, any user can post a NM or a NA, it´s up to the reviewer to do any action... but no, the cache cop is to blame! I think that leaving all the responsibility to the CO has some issues, specially if the CO is absent from the game. In these cases the responsibility should pass to the reviewers but fact is, there are no guidelines on this subject so there are two main choices, as example I use the Americas: 1) a TD in a North American cache where the CO is absent is usually "Archive", 2) a TD in a South American cache where the CO is absent is "Game On, nothing we can do". This is dual criteria and, in my opinion, should be avoid.

I thinks this deserves a new topic so I put my comments here.

This is just a copy from this post, that I thought deserved a response in different topic. I totally agree on this point that a guideline is only of any use if it is respected but, it´s like photologs, are they forbidden? No, they aren´t by the guidelines but still you, as a CO, are allowed to delete photologs. So, actually what I see GS tries to do is to redirect people´s thoughts on how they see the game, and actually not forcing people to play it like they fell it should be played. The pro-DNF marketing campaign is, in my opinion, a good example of this. GS doesn´t say: "You must log every cache you visit" but it really tries to show how important you actions are for other geocachers by saying: For the little time I am playing geocaching, the only strict rules are in regard of cache location and laws, about everything else GS just suggests the way the game should be played. The problem, for me, with Throwdowns is that they can really raise some serious property problems... apart from players possibly finding 2 caches or only the TD and not being able to distinguish the real from the TD.

Well... again with this subject... I know! The thing is, right now, the position of Groundspeak (GS), the entity that manages the listings and the caches listed in their website, says this about Throwdowns (TD): My interpretation is: When a TD is placed the CO must check the cache ASAP to verify if the original container is there or not, and remove the TD. But what if the CO is absent/MIA/not responding he will not be able to perform the proper maintenance, as said by GS guidelines. So, without proper maintenance, the cache should go through a process of Disable and if so Archive, like all other maintenance issues are dealt. This is the way I interpret this guideline, but I recon there isn´t a word that prohibits a TD just advice on how to deal with them. But doesn´t GS uses this language on most of the rules/guidelines, does GS ever uses the word forbidden? So, all this is left open for the reviewer to choose the acceptance or not of the TD in the cases where the CO is absent, because in the cases the CO is active and playing the game it is his responsibility to check the cache, even tho he is not forced to do it, it is just recommended. I also am aware that this is just a game/hobby/pastime but TD can be a big issue when property rights start to arise. What interpretation you make about this guideline? Are TD allowed and/or approved by game rules/guidelines?

Ok, so you are saying that if a CO is absent from the game, thus he will not check if there is a Throwdown or not, or if the original cache is there or not, you still think that the cache/listing shouldn´t be archived? The guidelines aren´t clear eneough for you, about this specific subject? I´m going to repeat myself again, if the CO is absent/MIA/not responding it is clear that he will not check the cache nor he will remove the Throwdown and by that not fulfilling his CO responsabilities and if the cache/listing is having problems it is, for me, a clear case of DNF/NM/NA situation. Come on... Am I the only one to read this? What rules are being made up?

No problem at all, and throwdowns are no problem either. Both are just ways of playing a game called geocaching. Sorry to disagree with you here... Throwdowns are not a way of playing the game, at leat by GS rules.

And what difference does that make? Are you posting "needs archived" on all his caches in Oregon simple because he doesn't appear to be living there? I just can´t get one thing, if the CO is gone and the cache is also probably gone is there any other coherent proceadure other than archiving the cache? I really can´t see it any other way without being a Throwdown, with all the letters! Right?

So, now Throwdowns are maintenance proceadures not dissaproved by GS... Just being a Cache Cop, any problem with that? I really apreciate his/her efforts to play by the rules and guidelines. If more like him would play the game for sure there would be much less Throwdowns on abandoned caches and people would play the game more honestly... right?

Leaving personal issues behind, I try to go back to the topic... If there was no problem about leaving 2 containers why did GS made a specific, very clear guideline for the COs on how to deal with a Throwdown? And what if the cache isn´t actually missing and they write a "TFTC" log and then someone actually finds the cache and posts a picture of the logbook without their signature? What is better, to make a throwdown and mentally say: "I was trying to help the CO" or logging a "TFTC" and then other geocachers knowing that it is actually a lie and he/she never did find the cache? The thing is not about getting their knickers in a twist but about the truth to the game. There is one basic rule of the game: "Find the cache. Sign the log. Register online." and with a throwdown you are not finding the cache, you are placing it.