ClayJar
-
Posts
962 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ClayJar
-
-
Okay, time for a thread summary by an uninvolved third party. I am not claiming to have a complete lack of opinion; I am only claiming that I have read the entire thread and that I posess the language skills to have understood what has been said. Now for my summary:
The Opponents' View:
The opponents of the "hide a cache to log this cache" idea have one basic objection. Simply stated, their opinion is, "If you find a cache, you have the right to log a find on that cache." This belief proceeds directly from the belief in the absolute sovereignty of the Find.
The opinion of the opponents is, basically, that any extra steps that are required to log a cache should only exist to verify that the alleged find actually occurred. Requiring a picture, the name on a plaque, or any such thing falls into this category.
To the opponents, requiring a new cache hide in order to log is fully distinct from requiring validation of a find. Validation exists to attempt to ensure that you to have been to the cache location, but placing a new cache at X distance from the cache to be logged is completely orthogonal to the fact or fiction of an alleged find.
The Proponents' View:
The seeming majority of the posts advocating the hide-to-log cache idea are completely irrelevant. The question posed was not whether J. Random Cacher is a good cacher; the question was whether hide-to-log caches should exist. It is irrelevant that Ron Streeter is a vintage cacher in good standing, and it is equally irrelevant whether those people who search for his caches are as nice as Jesus, Ghandi, Mohammed, and the Dalai Lama or as bad as Attila the Hun, Hitler, or your favorite political entity. That said (*phew*), let's move on to the facts at hand.
The general contention of the proponents of hide-to-log caching is as simple as that of the opponents. The proponents believe that, "*Any* condition may be required by a cache owner in order to allow a log on the cache." This belief proceeds directly from the belief in the absolute sovereignty of the Hider.
The opinion of the opponents is basically that a hider can do as a hider pleases, and that if the hider wants to require conditions to call a find a legal find, that is the hider's business. A "find", according to this line of thinking, is a loosely-defined concept that can be specified by the hider at the hider's discretion.
Closing Remarks:
In this short post I have explained, to the best of my momentary ability, what the root disagreement actually is. It would seem wise to pause the current discussion, at least for a few moments, and ponder this root disagreement.
Only one can be sovereign, the Find or the Hider. We need to decide which philosophy we want to adhere to. Either the Find is sovereign, in which case external requirements violate that sovereignty and must therefore be disallowed, or the Hider is sovereign, in which case "finding" a cache can mean whatever the hider wants.
My *OPINION* (in italics):
In my *opinion*, the Find *should* be sovereign on Geocaching.com. That is the only thing that makes sense *to me*. The essence of geocaching, to me, is:
- go somewhere
- find something
- leave something if I take something
- log the cache
Again, the part in italics (for easy reference) was purely my opinion. Now let the level-headed, logical, and enlightening discussion commence.
-
Okay, time for a thread summary by an uninvolved third party. I am not claiming to have a complete lack of opinion; I am only claiming that I have read the entire thread and that I posess the language skills to have understood what has been said. Now for my summary:
The Opponents' View:
The opponents of the "hide a cache to log this cache" idea have one basic objection. Simply stated, their opinion is, "If you find a cache, you have the right to log a find on that cache." This belief proceeds directly from the belief in the absolute sovereignty of the Find.
The opinion of the opponents is, basically, that any extra steps that are required to log a cache should only exist to verify that the alleged find actually occurred. Requiring a picture, the name on a plaque, or any such thing falls into this category.
To the opponents, requiring a new cache hide in order to log is fully distinct from requiring validation of a find. Validation exists to attempt to ensure that you to have been to the cache location, but placing a new cache at X distance from the cache to be logged is completely orthogonal to the fact or fiction of an alleged find.
The Proponents' View:
The seeming majority of the posts advocating the hide-to-log cache idea are completely irrelevant. The question posed was not whether J. Random Cacher is a good cacher; the question was whether hide-to-log caches should exist. It is irrelevant that Ron Streeter is a vintage cacher in good standing, and it is equally irrelevant whether those people who search for his caches are as nice as Jesus, Ghandi, Mohammed, and the Dalai Lama or as bad as Attila the Hun, Hitler, or your favorite political entity. That said (*phew*), let's move on to the facts at hand.
The general contention of the proponents of hide-to-log caching is as simple as that of the opponents. The proponents believe that, "*Any* condition may be required by a cache owner in order to allow a log on the cache." This belief proceeds directly from the belief in the absolute sovereignty of the Hider.
The opinion of the opponents is basically that a hider can do as a hider pleases, and that if the hider wants to require conditions to call a find a legal find, that is the hider's business. A "find", according to this line of thinking, is a loosely-defined concept that can be specified by the hider at the hider's discretion.
Closing Remarks:
In this short post I have explained, to the best of my momentary ability, what the root disagreement actually is. It would seem wise to pause the current discussion, at least for a few moments, and ponder this root disagreement.
Only one can be sovereign, the Find or the Hider. We need to decide which philosophy we want to adhere to. Either the Find is sovereign, in which case external requirements violate that sovereignty and must therefore be disallowed, or the Hider is sovereign, in which case "finding" a cache can mean whatever the hider wants.
My *OPINION* (in italics):
In my *opinion*, the Find *should* be sovereign on Geocaching.com. That is the only thing that makes sense *to me*. The essence of geocaching, to me, is:
- go somewhere
- find something
- leave something if I take something
- log the cache
Again, the part in italics (for easy reference) was purely my opinion. Now let the level-headed, logical, and enlightening discussion commence.
-
The network used to be called irc.openprojects.net
Now it is irc.freenode.net
The channel in which we gather is #Geocache, although you can also go to #Geocaching if you want some peace and quiet, as nobody really goes there.
If you're an IE/Windows semi-Luddite, you can always go to http://gcchat.clayjar.com/ and take the easy way in, provided for your convenience.
-
quote:
Which is exactly why they put the markers there, eh?
Originally posted by Team Shuey:...the one that I looked at, and couldn't find...
-
The FCC doesn't notice signals weaker than a given whatever, but if you were to make a jammer, you would indeed be running afoul of the regs. There's a company that's been trying to get FCC approval for a cell phone jammer for theaters and such, and the FCC's basically been telling them that any intentional jamming is illegal. (It's that old "can't cause interference; must accept interference" or whatever thing from those fine print sheets with all the electronics.)
-
The standard call-and-response should *obviously* be...
GCFRS1: Marco!
GCFRS2: Polo!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:Titanium sort of lost its wind.
Actually, I expected that. Personally, I'd very much like to have a Titatium/Coal fleece vest, but if we'd more evenly split the Hunter/Navy votes with Titanium/Coal, the Goldenrod/Anthracite vote would have completely run away with the totals.
I imagine at least a few people are voting for Hunter/Navy over Titanium/Coal because they'd rather have Hunter/Navy win than Goldenrod/Anthracite.
-
Well, I've been pondering and listening and chatting and such, and I'll concede my Hunter/Navy vote to Goldenrod/Black. Since I won't be wearing this as formal attire (what's that?), and it's good to be visible in the colder months, I've been convinced that Goldenrod/Black is a reasonable choice. (GAACK! Did I just say I'd vote for yellow?!?
) -
My opinion on the red and goldenrod is as quite similar to my feelings on salt while cooking. It's a lot easier to add garishness than to take it away.
Seriously, though, I *wouldn't* buy/wear a red or goldenrod fleece by any stretch of the imagination (and in a Christmas play, it'd be a stretch). I can add blaze orange to my outfit really easily, but I can't take excessive brightness away. I voted for hunter/navy out of respect for those who would say I wear too little color already, but going to goldenrod or red... please no.
ClayJar the Earthtoned
-
(I posted this to the other thread, but this appears to be the only active thread now, so I'll update that post here.)
Taking inspiration from the existing logos, I decided to come up with one that, in my opinion, takes the best parts of the existing ones and reworks them into something I like a bit better. What I came up with, I dubbed SmoothGx:
Internationality: While this incorporates the "G" in geocaching as the "spiral", the dual meaning of the spiral (i.e. the pictographic representation of the hunt for the cache) lends itself to having meaning even in places where the "G"/geocaching relationship does not exist in the local character set. (See, I thought of that, too.)Anyway, there. Now I've done a bit of explaining about what I had in mind when I whipped this up. Can I have a reply now, please?) (Okay, okay, I'll wait my turn.)
Enos_Shenk's better looking prototype.
-
Okay, I've seen what people are doing with the "Gx" logo, and I've read the commentary and seen the "GeoX" logo.
Well, I'm no artist, but here's my take on a logo. I admit this is somewhat inspired by the previous logos, but I hope this is at least original enough to be useful... and now, without further delay... SmoothGx:
[This message was edited by ClayJar on October 14, 2002 at 08:18 PM.]
-
I was mainly interested in knowing if any of the caches in my state were archived, created, or moved. All of this is in the pocket query files, so...
I made a little web page that asks for two pocket query .loc files and compares them. The resulting page shows you the new, archived, moved, and renamed caches. (It's basically the pocket query analogue of the UNIX diff program.)
Anyway, it doesn't do anything with the text on the cache pages, as that's not in the .loc files, but it *will* tell you a cache has moved, left, or come. (I could pretty it up a bit and make it public if people think it'd help... hehe, it could even be made into a standalone program.)
-
quote:
Excellent choice... rubber outside, great for chewing, and IPX7 certified for the drool factor.
Originally posted by cachercarry:And get him a Merigold for the crib
Congrats, by the way.
-
quote:
Excellent choice... rubber outside, great for chewing, and IPX7 certified for the drool factor.
Originally posted by cachercarry:And get him a Merigold for the crib
Congrats, by the way.
-
So, what's the story from the Kisatchie area? If the event isn't on, I think I'll head out and see if "We need more monkeys!" (Apologies to John Lasseter)
-
In Baton Rouge, we basically missed even most of the rain. Some trees down and stuff, and my block lost power for several hours, but all in all, fine over here.
I'd like to hear alexm's commentary, though, as he lives right around where Lili came through.
-
In Baton Rouge, we basically missed even most of the rain. Some trees down and stuff, and my block lost power for several hours, but all in all, fine over here.
I'd like to hear alexm's commentary, though, as he lives right around where Lili came through.
-
I have (or have had or will have had) four hydrocaches in Louisiana:
- one plundered hydrocache (NOMAN),
- one existing hydrocache (Halfling a la Cache),
- one Schroedinger's hydrocache (Ferengi Wormhole), and
- one not-yet-approved hydrocache (False Profits).
Still, I've actually hunted some non-hydrocaches recently. My last 13 finds have been 3 normal caches, 3 event caches, and only 7 hydrocaches. (Well, I did visit my archived hydro, attempt my Schroedinger's hydro, and drop off my new hydro, so it's more like 10, but hey).
-
There once was a chat with a 'Jar.
To get there you needn't go far.
Just type gcchat
Dot clayjar com, that
Is all you need. Come as you are.
(8:30pm CDT, #Geocache on irc.openprojects.net)
-
(hehe, I can hear all you Animaniacs fans finishing that line...)
-
(hehe, I can hear all you Animaniacs fans finishing that line...)
-
Well, let me see... 24-ish MB versus 64 + 128 MB... No contest. Next!
-
Well, let me see... 24-ish MB versus 64 + 128 MB... No contest. Next!
-
quote:
Technically, it is IRC.
Originally posted by NJ_Tonto:Is this chat about geocaching like the IRC chats?
quote:
If you're on Windows, you can just go to http://gcchat.clayjar.com/ to log on simply and easily.
Does it require some other programs?quote:
Everyone is welcome.
I would like to join in, if that is OK(If you want to use any old IRC client, it's #Geocache on the irc.openprojects.net IRC network.)
Place a cache to log a cache?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Regarding logging something other than a find at a cache that I did, in fact, find... I would consider that to be as dishonest (to myself and the world) as if I didn't log a "not found" or if I skipped out on logging a note. *That* is what bothers people. They consider the fact that they found the cache to be grounds for logging a find, and if they are not allowed to log that find, they feel as if they have been wronged. It not so much the find *count* as this find in particular.
So, the question (to steer this back to the topic at hand) is whether or not finding the cache (and validating that find, if necessary) is indeed enough to count as a find. While I don't particularly care for long lists of rules, I think this is one case where a line *must* be drawn. Will we, from this time forward, decide that finding a cache counts as finding a cache, or should we come up with a different name for the process formerly called a "find"?
Basically, I just have a problem with people being allowed to redefine "Find". I *don't* have *ANY* problems with making caches that, by design, require you to do whatever the cacher wants, but once the cache is found, that is *by definition* a find.
[This message was edited by ClayJar on October 17, 2002 at 01:57 PM.]