JPreto

Yet another one, actually mine: [FS] Carandiru After a riot in the São Paulo State Prison, the Military Police took action and 111 prisoners were killed.

Coisas curiosas se encontram quando se olha para caches arquivados... Veja-se este cache: http://coord.info/GC4XR67 Principalmente este log: http://coord.info/GLE7EEY0 E a resposta: http://coord.info/GLE7ERGQ Afinal não sou o único CACHE COP no Brasil!!!!

The Throwdown (TD) theme as been recurrent here in the forum, at least in the last few months. For me, a TD is any case that a player places a new cache: 1) Not being the CO and without CO approval, 2) Not being the CO, with CO approval but without knowing the exact place where to place it. Usually in these cases, the player that makes the TD also logs a FOUND IT. The cases where a player places a cache but he had previously found the cache and has CO approval are not TD for me, just helping with maintenance. tozainamboku and odder elder (not by age but by experience) geocachers have put their opinion on this subject but still doesn´t solve some issues: 1) To whom belongs (property) this new cache? 2) Who is responsible for the maintenance? So there are 2 big situations: A- The CO is alive and kicking, playing the game. B- The CO is absent from the game, MIA or just doesn´t find a cache or log in for a long period of time. In the case of A (CO is playing) there shouldn´t be many problems, the CO is aware of the Throwdown and according to the guidelines he should check the cache ASAP! So, the CO should always go to the place and check it. Until that moment, it is my opinion, that the cache should be disabled but this is a CO´s choice. So for me, there is no big issues in the case A, where the CO is playing the game. For me, the big issues are in case B (CO is absent from the game) and in these cases the best solution, in my opinion, is to follow the DNF/NM/NA protocol and never put a Throwdown. If in this case a community geocacher wants to help maintain the cache but he gets no answer from the CO I feel that the best is to archive the cache and he can put a new cache and listing, in the same place if he wants, after the archiving process is concluded. It would be easier if GS would allow adoption of abandoned caches but it doesn´t, and I understand why: "The caches are property of the CO, so if any cache would be adopted by the CO without his permission it would be stealing". Simple as that! So, i understand that sometimes geocachers want to help others but, they think they are helping but they are not, actually they are just forcing the COs to visit the cache ASAP to verify the TD. So again I say, in my opinion, there are no reasons or excuses to place a TD, it is just bad geocaching attitude.

In any case scenario, if the CO knowns about a Throwdown in his cache shouldn't he at least put a note saying there is Throwdown there? Or just disable the cache until he does the proper maintenance? If it is the case of the CO still Boeing parte of the game...

Yup, the choice to disable or archive a cache is only made by either the CO or the reviewer, nobody else has that power...

It would be really nice to see Sheldon in the woods.... And Penny finding the cache!

I can understand that difference of opinions but in most of the cases in this country, Brazil, Throwdowns are placed by foreigners and not local geocachers so, I guess the community is not worried about those caches, otherwise they would have done the trhowdown themselves. No? Like this one, from 2011 that needs maintenance http://coord.info/GC1ZT97 or this one http://coord.info/GC1JAKQ And a different case that the reviewer actually archived the cache after I placed a NA log: http://coord.info/GC3WZK1 But there are other cases that the CO accepts the Throwdown because he helps him in the maintenance work, like some said: "allowing someone to make a throwdown is for lazy CO" these are not my words but I agree with them. Then things like this happen: http://coord.info/GLE2KRYR http://coord.info/GLE2KVMH http://coord.info/GLD6V6D0 Maybe if GS would have a clear ruling about throwdowns there would be less problems for the reviewers, COs and players... maybe...

The forum moderator, adviced two things: 1. The community should ignore your behaviour (considered agressive by them) and keep on playing the game. 2. If the community consider your behaviour inappropriate, it is hypocrite to rush to every new cache you place. If they can handle your caches, they can handle the owner. Both of this would hardly be considered instigation. Alerting other geocachers about some unpleasant and doubtful things you write about them in the foruns it is not instigation also... but there are an easy solution for it. Stop spreading lies. You are the Brazil forum moderator and I have saved the messages you wrote in the Brazilian Geocaching Facebook page... but Groundspeak has no "jurisdiction" under Facebook and they even can´t access it because it is a restrict group, invitation only. I´m not going to put them here, just letting you know that I have them, even tho everything was erased the following day. I´m not part of the group and never was because it is managed by the same geocachers that say: "the rules that Groundspeak writes in the guidelines are to be broken if it matches our needs" and they also publish caches that seem ok and when the reviewers publish them they change them so they can be found with hints like "talk to person A or B from the store" because they know that they had put that in the beginning the cache would never be published. Lies, i don´t think so... Eye opener, maybe... but only for the ones that want to see!

The problem with doing that is that it doesn't get anybodies attention, it is just another Found log that is not going to raise any concerns unless somebody reads into it. Logging a NA brings it to the attention of reviewer/reviewers and somebody must then actively make a decision about it's future. I emailed all reviewers and they told me: "nothing we can do, it is the CO responsibility to keep the cache. If he is inactive it is not our problem." So, even if I post a NA they will just leave it there since my reviewers, in my opinion, fell that there is no difference between a throwdown and replacement cache placed by the CO. In both cases the cache is ok to be found so no harm done. I don´t agree with this but, it´s their call... maybe in other countries, with different reviewers my behavior would be different.

I know someone whose legal signature is a self-inking stamp. If it's good enough for the government, her bank, her mortgage company, etc., etc., etc., then I think it's good enough for a mildewed log sheet in a plastic container hidden as part of a game. I´m not saying it is not a valid way to log a cache, I´m saying I consider it impersonal, like some logs mentioned in the thread.

Logging a find in a cache you didn´t open doesn´t seem right to me, but it is your call. There is a great tool I use very often PROJECT-GC that checks what caches from a specific user might need attention or maintenance. Notes are not counted on this but DNFs are, so this is a good reason for me for people to post DNFs or NMs in caches with problems rather than notes.

I totally agree with this ans this is exactly what is happening to me in Brazil. I arrived to Brazil last year and started geocaching. After participating in some events I realized that: 1) most of them don´t use DNF because, as they said: "discourages people to visit the caches" 2) most of them don´t regularly visit their caches to see if they are OK to be visited 3) some of them, after I post a NM they just log a OM saying: "The geocacher that asked for maintenance did it in an incorrect way..." just to find out that after no one else visiting the cache for 3 months the CO posts another OM saying: "the cache is gone and has been replaced". 4) some of the caches were disabled for over 6 months without any act from the reviewers. All this was until I started acting like a cache cop early this year... and since then all changed. Most of them post DNFs; all problematic caches where disabled by reviewers and after 2 months of disabling they were archived if the CO didn´t repair the cache; COs are quicker in doing Maintenance and more caches are ready to be found and not abandoned. All this had costs, most geocachers bully me and my caches (sometimes a series of caches, in a route, is just gone), many Facebook threats and posting offensive posts in Groundspeak Brazilian Forum, even instigated by the forum moderator. So, sometimes acting like a cache cop just gives you more problems because people fell that you are forcing them to follow the rules of the game and they don´t want to. Some people just prefer to have 100 caches and 20 of them are not ok to visit but "at least" they are active, than having 80 caches and all of them perfect for a visit and 20 disabled.

Here is one more: Vasp 168 [CE] Plane crash site, 137 people died!

I´ve seen claiming FTF!!! Bu anyway, I think that if you know where the cache is hidden how can you find it?!?!? If you want a +1 sure, say you´ve found the cache you have helped hide otherwise just help to maintain the cache you helped to hide and never log a FOUND IT. Just my opinion.

When I saw the "." log in one cache, fortunately not mine, I asked myself, why?!?!?!? But, putting some wood in the fire, what about stamps?!?!? Aren´t those impersonal too? I think people should sign the logbook, it´s what the guidelines say... they don´t mention stamp the logbook... But than again, maybe it´s just geogaching "devoluting"...

You are right, there is no flat rule on this situation! Write a note, write a DNF... but write anything if you commit to one cache and couldn´t find it for whatever reason. This is, in my opinion, the registry of that cache´s story!!!!

Well, here in Brazil I have many cases like this. I talked to the local reviewers and they advise me not to do anything. In their opinion it´s the CO responsibility, and not a reviewer, to take care of the cache so a Throwdown is not a reviewer problem, it´s a CO problem. In my opinion, and going against the reviewers opinion, I would pick up the cache and tell the guy that did the throwdown that I had his cache and the one he was supposed to find is probably not there and he should have kept it that way. But, I respect the reviewers opinions, even tho I don´t agree with them, so when I find a situation like this I log a FOUND IT and say specifically: "I found the throwdown placed by "#$$$#$ and the CO is inactive for x months" this way if a different reviewers sees my logs he can deleted them if he thinks they are not according to the GS rules. I hate throwdowns!!!!

I write a DNF anytime i propose myself to find a specific cache and: 1) I can´t get to GZ because there is some obstacle (road closed, impossible to reach, ...) 2) I get to GZ and can´t find the cache 3) I get to GZ, find the cache bu t can´t sign the logbook (gadget cache I can´t solve, on top of a big tree,...) I only write notes if something "special" happened like: was going to the cache and in the road to the cache had a flat tire or started raining and turned back... Anytime I leave my house, or the previous cache, and go to a new one I always post something... Always!!!!

Excelente motivo, a sério! Este comentário não é irónico, é mesmo o que penso... que bom! Podia dar mais exemplos de "boa conduta" e "ética" no geocaching e alertar também outros geocachers no incumprimento das regras, já que neste caso nem foi isso, foi apenas a sua opinião do que deve ser o geocaching, os jogadores não "quebraram" nenhuma regra do jogo. No entanto, como você também sabe, existem outras formas de alertar os jogadores para atitudes que considera incorrectas para um geocacher, ainda que sejam legais, nomeadamente através de mensagem privada aos jogadores em causa. O Júnior é muito boa pessoa, não sei se o conhece pessoalmente, eu sim conheço e já falei com ele algumas vezes. Ele é adulto e se "estrangeiros abusam dele", é porque ele deixa ou quer. É uma questão que acho não lhe compete a si ou a nenhum outro geocacher, apenas ao próprio Júnior, não?

I agree on Groundspeak making it easy on people... really do. The problem is that people abuse that generosity and start on paths that were not supposed to be made. Then again, all evolution comes from crossing unbeaten paths so... the ones I criticize are the ones that make the game evolve.

Bom dia a tod@s! Ontem vi uma coisa que já tinha comentado antes no Forum Geral da Geocaching mas que apenas hoje vi acontecer no Brasil, um jogador para ter um FTF num país diferente (possivelmente por causa de algum cache desafio) pediu a um jogador local para colocar um cache, foi com ele colocar o cache e registou imediatamente um FTF. http://coord.info/GC54B06 Este tema foi muito falado aqui (em inglês): http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=320706 As conclusões gerais foram (poupo trabalho em ler todos os post já que eu li): 1) FTF é um jogo paralelo não oficial e não reconhecido pela Groundspeak; 2) A partir do momento em que o cache é colocado no local pode ser descoberto, independente de estar publicado ou não; 3) Qualquer jogador tem legitimidade para reclamar um FTF quando queira, existe até o caso curioso de um cache em que todas as pessoas podem reclamar FTF porque são o FTF numa determinada condição (Exemplo: Eu fui o FTF porque fui o primeiro que usava calças verdes, o outro o FTF porque foi o primeiro que foi com dois amigos, o outro o FTF porque foi o primeiro a descobrir num dia de chuva...etc...) 4) Apenas o dono do cache pode dizer regras específicas para este jogo paralelo, por exemplo pode definir que o FTF apenas pode ser registado depois de o cache ser publicado, e todos os registos que não cumpram podem ser apagados. Apesar de não concordar com a atitude do jogador em causa por dois motivos: 1) porque ele foi com o dono do cache, viu onde o dono colocou o cache e registou um FOUND IT. 2) porque para mim o jogo começa quando o cache é publicado. Ele não fez nada de mal, segundo as regras oficiais do jogo. Mas estas minhas regras são aminha forma de jogar geocaching, cada um pode ter a sua, essa é a dele. Na realidade, segundo a Groundspeak, não há nenhuma regra que impeça o jogador de fazer o que fez.

This is my exact way of geocaching! On my Yamaha Fazer 250 I placed a mixed tire type so I can go Off-road but since here in Brazil you are allowed to ride on most tracks... let the fun begin!!! Imagine yourself in the middle of the jungle in a 3m wide gravel/dirt path going 40-50 km/h and enjoying the ride!!!

I like the idea of football (or soccer for the Americans) be played with the feet and not with the hands (except for the goalkeeper, of course). If a group of people, a group of friends, play soccer with their hands is it legitimate to say they are playing soccer? I think if everybody knew that after a month an archived cache is locked their wouldn´t be a problem. It was just a matter of people knowing this and if they forgot to log it, well, they forgot... I would support this "one month rule". True, with technology nowadays it would be kind of simple to see if a IP address of 2 different users matches but think about a family with 4 kids and they all geocache? They all have the same IP and they usually log one next to the other so it´s kind of difficult that way... Of course they usually also log the same caches, and my point goes here. Maybe this is the only way to see if the same person is using or not multiple accounts. Same IP, same or similar caches, OK! Same IP, caches 8000km appart in the same day, NOT OK! The thing is when cases like this http://coord.info/GC3YEVE happen and you post a note on the cache, inform the reviewers and they say: "can´t do anything about it". Then you talk about this user to some Portuguese geocachers and everybody knows what he is doing to the game and no one does anything about it...

On other people´s caches: no I can´t... On my caches: yes I can, if they don´t go against the guidelines of the game... I mention that Groundspeak allows people to log on archived caches (it´s a fact, not a rule), and sometimes Groundspeak blocks some caches if they are abused and the CO is absent (also a fact, not a rule).

I agree with that. Seems to cheapen geocaching. Sad. No it´s much more simple than that, they just have problems in distinguishing Geocaching from Waymarking!!!!