+Clothahump Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 As you can see, we "Puritans" never allow our womenfolk to cache alone, we provide protection for the entire caching party by bearing rifles and other scary firearms, and we make Granny lag behind and hunt for the cache in the poison ivy, as our young skins are often too sensitive to the devil's oils, while we scout on ahead for the next cache. And we never post a smiley twice, because this would require the internet, and it just didn't exist in its present form during the 1600's. -Hugh "Puritannical" Jazz ROTFLMAOWMPASTC!!!! Thanks, Hugh. I was feeling somewhat down and I needed a good belly laugh today! Quote Link to comment
+E = Mc2 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 I DO NOT KNOW HOW THIS POST GOT HERE I HAVE NOT EVEN VISITED THIS FORUM BEFORE. In other words... WHY DOES MY POST SAY RINGBONE? Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted December 15, 2005 Author Share Posted December 15, 2005 Thanks for all of your responses. I was happy to see most of you "got" it. Here's a little clarification of what I was trying to do. First of all, I probably shouldn't have titled this "New Rules, to help avoid angst". I'm not really proposing new rules but rather just describing what I think are the current de facto rules. The point of geocaching is to have fun. The idea is that you get the coordinates where a cache is hidden, you go there, and you find the cache. (Notice I don't even require that you use the GPS). There is no requirement to log anything (physical or online) or to trade, in order to have fun; although, these activities are part of the fun for many. I spent a good deal of my original post on rules for posting online logs. The points I was trying to make are: there is no requirement to log anything, there is no "rule" preventing you from logging multiple finds, and the cache owner can delete your online log, if he deems it illegitimate. I was prompted to start this thread because I saw in another thread where a newbie was criticized when she posted that she didn't always log a DNF. I doubt there is much consensus on requiring cachers to log all of their DNFs, yet someone in that thread said something to cause her to think she was breaking the rules. The reference to avoiding angst was a wild hope that if people stopped making up their own rules we could avoid criticizing people and stop calling them cheaters - whether they be a newbie or a high numbers cacher who posted some extra smilies as a way to make light of an unpleasant experience at a cache. I'm sorry if the reference to "purists" offended anyone. My original draft said "anal-rententives" but I figured that might violate the forum guidelines. I thought "purists" would be a pretty neutral term. I put in the "purist" opinion because, even though I think it's an unnecessary extra rule, I sort of agree that this is a good guideline for a newbie who is asking about logging something they are not sure about. I will continue to argue in these forums against the belief that you can compare two cachers by comparing their find counts. I will leave this topic unlocked for another 24 hours or so, for anyone who wants to comment. Don't hold it in, if you know what I mean Quote Link to comment
+wavector Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 I have no angst. I replied because your post was propagating a fundamental misunderstanding that affects many cachers, even very experienced ones. You have to get several rude emails from geocachers who think travel bugs are trade items before you understand why I am angst free on that particular subject. There is no disagreement that I can see. I have no disagreement with agreeing that your summary of the current de facto rules was well done and very tricky Are you being serious now ? And I have no angst. Caches and the travel bugs belong to the people who place them. That is the rule. Quote Link to comment
+Corp Of Discovery Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 My rules: #1: If you find a cache sign the logbook (and log it online if you'd like). #2: Play nice. #3: Be honest and fair. #4: Have fun. Quote Link to comment
+VegasCacheHounds Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 I DO NOT KNOW HOW THIS POST GOT HERE I HAVE NOT EVEN VISITED THIS FORUM BEFORE. In other words... WHY DOES MY POST SAY RINGBONE? The odd thing is is that his post count is Zero....how can that be? Dang Jedi mind tricks Quote Link to comment
+ventura_kids Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 ... I will continue to argue in these forums against the belief that you can compare two cachers by comparing their find counts.... There's NO comparison. There. I did it. I logged my opinion in the forums... now hurry and lock it! Quote Link to comment
+VegasCacheHounds Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 My rules: #1: If you find a cache sign the logbook (and log it online if you'd like). #2: Play nice. #3: Be honest and fair. #4: Have fun. Reading through the forums it seems like the hardest rule for some is rule #4 Quote Link to comment
dryad5160 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 Ya know, I don't think we even have to sign a log book. I have always felt that if someone wants to "fib" about finding a cache they are only hurting themselves. I miss virtual caches and am highly upset one of my caches (Neahkahnie Mountain) was archved since folks are still visiting it and loving it as a virtual until I can find a safer spot to hide the cache. This used to be a rather simple straightforward sport. I see it getting more rule bound and complicated and less fun for that very reason. Keep the old rules. New is not always improved. (Remember "New" Coke?!) Quote Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 My rules: #1: If you find a cache sign the logbook (and log it online if you'd like). #2: Play nice. #3: Be honest and fair. #4: Have fun. Reading through the forums it seems like the hardest rule for some is rule #4 "Failure is a hard pill to swallow until you realize the only failure you can really have in this sport is the failure to enjoy yourself." TotemLake 4/26/04 Quote Link to comment
+clearpath Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 "Failure is a hard pill to swallow until you realize the only failure you can really have in this sport is the failure to enjoy yourself."TotemLake 4/26/04 Yeah, well its a lot easier to swallow than multi-vitamin tablets... some are as big as a hockey puck. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted December 15, 2005 Author Share Posted December 15, 2005 Caches and the travel bugs belong to the people who place them.That is the rule. I have to disagree with this. Placing a cache gives the placer certain responsibilities but no real privilege of ownership. The placer (or adopter) of a cache is called the owner only as a matter of convenience. The owner has the responsibility to maintain the cache. This maintenance includes ensuring the quality of online logs. It also includes disabling the cache if it is unavailable and either archiving it or putting it up for adoption when they no longer want the responsiblities. Travel bug owners have similar responsibilities for their travel bugs. There is no way for a bug owner to enforce that a person who takes the travel moves it according to its goal. There is no way for a cache owner to force people to trade fairly. The cache owner can't force the finder to replace the cache exactly as hidden. The cache owner has no rights if the property owner or land manager removes his cache. He has no rights if the bomb squad blows up his cache. (But he may be held responsible and ordered to pay the cost for removing or blowing up the cache). With regard to your orginal post on whether travel bugs are trade items - I understand the sentiment in the travel bug community to treat travel bug differently, but I don't really care what the travel bug owners/experts think - again I'm stating what I think the de facto situation is. If a geocacher doesn't take a travel bug because they didn't have anything to trade for it there's not much a travel bug owner can do beyond posting that a trade is not required on the travel bug page and expressing their opinions in the forums. Similarly, if a cache owner wants to have a travel bug hotel and require that you leave a travel bug in order to take one, there's not much the bug owner can do except to appeal to the cache to the change the rule. And if a cacher wanted to take bug without leaving one he could probably do that by waiting a few days after logging the find before grabing the bug or just take the bug without logging out of the cache. Still I would be willing to change my rule for travel bugs: 4. Hitchikers/Travel Bugs - Some items in the cache may be hitchikers or travel bug. These items want to be taken from cache to cache often with some goal such as visting another city or country. Hitchikers/travel bugs are not treated like ordinary trade item. Travel bug owners want to see their bugs move and to allow this to happen, most cache owners don't care if you take a travel bug with out leaving something or leave a travel bug without taking something. Some cache owners - particularly of some, but not all, travel bug hotels - require a trade for travel bugs; but the travel bug "purists" frown on this and refer to these travel bug hotels as travel bug prisons. If you take a hitchiker/travel bug you should try to move it according to its goal. If the travel bug has an official geocaching.com tracking number you should go to the travel bug page on geocaching.com to log that you took the bug from the cache (you will need the tracking number). When you leave the bug in another cache you should remember to drop it there when you log the cache online. Other hitchikers and travel bugs may have there own tracking website. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted December 15, 2005 Author Share Posted December 15, 2005 ... I will continue to argue in these forums against the belief that you can compare two cachers by comparing their find counts.... There's NO comparison. There. I did it. I logged my opinion in the forums... now hurry and lock it! Well, I can compare ventura_kids and EMC of Northridge, CA because I've cached with both of them and I know they always follow the rules. Quote Link to comment
+Moose Mob Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 (edited) Caches and the travel bugs belong to the people who place them.That is the rule. I have to disagree with this. Placing a cache gives the placer certain responsibilities but no real privilege of ownership. The placer (or adopter) of a cache is called the owner only as a matter of convenience. The owner has the responsibility to maintain the cache. This maintenance includes ensuring the quality of online logs. It also includes disabling the cache if it is unavailable and either archiving it or putting it up for adoption when they no longer want the responsiblities. Travel bug owners have similar responsibilities for their travel bugs. There is no way for a bug owner to enforce that a person who takes the travel moves it according to its goal. There is no way for a cache owner to force people to trade fairly. The cache owner can't force the finder to replace the cache exactly as hidden. The cache owner has no rights if the property owner or land manager removes his cache. He has no rights if the bomb squad blows up his cache. (But he may be held responsible and ordered to pay the cost for removing or blowing up the cache). With regard to your orginal post on whether travel bugs are trade items - I understand the sentiment in the travel bug community to treat travel bug differently, but I don't really care what the travel bug owners/experts think - again I'm stating what I think the de facto situation is. If a geocacher doesn't take a travel bug because they didn't have anything to trade for it there's not much a travel bug owner can do beyond posting that a trade is not required on the travel bug page and expressing their opinions in the forums. Similarly, if a cache owner wants to have a travel bug hotel and require that you leave a travel bug in order to take one, there's not much the bug owner can do except to appeal to the cache to the change the rule. And if a cacher wanted to take bug without leaving one he could probably do that by waiting a few days after logging the find before grabing the bug or just take the bug without logging out of the cache. Still I would be willing to change my rule for travel bugs: 4. Hitchikers/Travel Bugs - Some items in the cache may be hitchikers or travel bug. These items want to be taken from cache to cache often with some goal such as visting another city or country. Hitchikers/travel bugs are not treated like ordinary trade item. Travel bug owners want to see their bugs move and to allow this to happen, most cache owners don't care if you take a travel bug with out leaving something or leave a travel bug without taking something. Some cache owners - particularly of some, but not all, travel bug hotels - require a trade for travel bugs; but the travel bug "purists" frown on this and refer to these travel bug hotels as travel bug prisons. If you take a hitchiker/travel bug you should try to move it according to its goal. If the travel bug has an official geocaching.com tracking number you should go to the travel bug page on geocaching.com to log that you took the bug from the cache (you will need the tracking number). When you leave the bug in another cache you should remember to drop it there when you log the cache online. Other hitchikers and travel bugs may have there own tracking website. As far as Groundspeak is concerned, the cache container is owned by the person who placed it. They are responsible for it and the online logs. The rest of this is pretty much on track. I may have missed something in all those words. Edited December 16, 2005 by Moose Mob Quote Link to comment
+wavector Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 (edited) I understand the sentiment in the travel bug community to treat travel bug differently I am not sure you do when you refer to it as sentiment. Any representation that is not a fact propagates the misinformation and increases the chance that others will share this fundamental misunderstanding. It is my Travel Bug, I paid for it, I own it. No amount of trade goods makes my travel bug yours. It is not a trade item, it is mine, this is not sentiment, it is fact. Caches and Travel Bugs are the property of the people who own them. This is not a sentiment nor does someone need to be an expert to see this simple fact. Travel Bugs are mishandled because many cachers, even very experienced ones, tend to propagate the fundamental misunderstanding that Travel Bugs are trade items, they are not. Caches placed where there are restrictions on TB movement or TB trading conditions are placed by players who suffer from a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the "general parameters of the game", you do not have to be any type of purist to see this, it should be evident to everyone. When you purchase a Travel Bug it is yours, it does not belong to anyone else, it is not a Trade Item. If cache placers suffer from fundamental misunderstandings then other cachers will suffer also, it cannot be ignored, it is not possible to enjoy geocaching if rude emails are received from cachers who share the "fundamental misunderstanding" that Travel Bugs are trade items. Your defacto summarization was propagating misinformation to every new cacher who happened to wander in and read it, they think there is some disagreement about Travel Bugs being trade items and there isn't, just misunderstanding and misinformation. Edited December 16, 2005 by wavector Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 These are good rules but I object to the use of the term "purist." The correct term is "Puritans." Thank you. Aha! So!!!!!! It was YOUR fault. We still live with that today, even though you've been away for 9 years. Thanks for nothing, you puritan! Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I thought this would be rules about avoiding angst in the forum! In which case there's only one: 1. Don't visit the forum. Easy peasy! I've already broken my one rule. I'm not Batman. ......... ...................knowschad.... Oh my word. I just noticed this thread was from two-thousand-freaking-five! Wow. Thank you for providing today's I-don't-believe-it moment. Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 These are good rules but I object to the use of the term "purist." The correct term is "Puritans." Thank you. Aha! So!!!!!! It was YOUR fault. We still live with that today, even though you've been away for 9 years. Thanks for nothing, you puritan! Yes, but closer examination shows that Hugh Jazz (get it?) was a sock puppet account. No finds and two hides, one being an event. The real person behind the term Puritan may or may not still be around. But I'll tell you what, before just now, if you would have told me anyone other than sbell111 or Toz invented it, I would have told you that you were crazy. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 The actual account behind the sock puppet has more than 1,000 finds, but none in the past three years. He did, however, log into the website within the past month. Bonus points to whomever can connect the sock to its true owner. Quote Link to comment
+cache_test_dummies Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Bonus points to whomever can connect the sock to its true owner. The sock connection. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Well done. Since I knew that post existed, I could put out the challenge that you accepted. There are many other socks whose owners are known only to Captain Clorox, but this one was public. Sort of a transparent sock. Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I thought this would be rules about avoiding angst in the forum! In which case there's only one: 1. Don't visit the forum. Easy peasy! I've already broken my one rule. I'm not Batman. ......... ...................knowschad.... Oh my word. I just noticed this thread was from two-thousand-freaking-five! Wow. Thank you for providing today's I-don't-believe-it moment. I started reading it, and thought to myself...hmmm...this thread looks familiar. And then I looked at some of the accounts posting and it dawned on me to check the dates. Yeah. Quote Link to comment
+fuzziebear3 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I read this thread and thought maybe it was groundhog day ... oh, wait, that was last week. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It is Groundhog Day, in the sense that, just like today's threads, ten years ago we were debating about what constitutes a "find," noting the proliferation of log-only micros, and other common themes. Quote Link to comment
+cheech gang Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It is Groundhog Day, in the sense that, just like today's threads, ten years ago we were debating about what constitutes a "find," noting the proliferation of log-only micros, and other common themes. I'm certainly thankful all that was hashed out and settled 10 years ago. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Indeed. And that is why, today, we have no angst and nobody uses the "P" word. Quote Link to comment
+MountainWoods Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 RULES?!? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING RULES! Quote Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Bonus points to whomever can connect the sock to its true owner. The sock connection. His name is Mark Gessner. He wrote a book, First to Find. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B003R0LNPQ/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/187-3039114-3349611 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=296755 Edited February 10, 2015 by 4wheelin_fool Quote Link to comment
William Webb Ellis Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING RULES! No, just pick up the ball an run with it. Quote Link to comment
GPS-Hermit Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 New Rules: No one can place a cache with .1 miles from any road If the cache is smaller than a shoe box take home with you! Anyone caught trading down loses their GPS or Cell phone! All caches require at 15 minutes of effort to find! If it Leaks destory the cache! All caches must be able to survive a bear attack! Anyone unable to refit the top correctly is out of the game! All Caches Pages must state a Valid reason for the location! Only 15% of the cache can be visible after covered. Bushwacking is required for all caches -at least .1 miles. Noone is allowed to holler "I found it" All trade items have to be agreed upon by 10 other cachers! And blaw Blaw Blaw! Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 All caches must be able to survive a bear attack!Okay, clearly bear canisters can be used. But what about smaller containers that a bear can swallow? If they protect their contents while passing through the bear's digestive tract, then does that count as "surviving a bear attack"? Quote Link to comment
+jellis Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Think one is missing. If you found the cache but can't get to it (like it's up in a tree and you can't reach it) you can not log a find on it unless you sign the logsheet that is in the cache. Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 All caches must be able to survive a bear attack!Okay, clearly bear canisters can be used. But what about smaller containers that a bear can swallow? If they protect their contents while passing through the bear's digestive tract, then does that count as "surviving a bear attack"? Unless the bear swallowed the container just before going into hibernation that would be a moving cache and would not be allowed. An exception might be granted, however, if the bear was in the UK. Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Only 15% of the cache can be visible after covered. I was going to say that should read "at least 15%", but then there'd be an issue with caches left out in the open. Then I thought maybe it should be "at most 15%", but then there'd be the issue that it's too hidden, and caches should be findable by everyone and without unintentionally damaging property or digging holes. Nope, 15% is perfect. And to avoid vague linelessness and slippery slope arguments - not 16%, not 14% - 15% exactly. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 Only 15% of the cache can be visible after covered. I was going to say that should read "at least 15%", but then there'd be an issue with caches left out in the open. Then I thought maybe it should be "at most 15%", but then there'd be the issue that it's too hidden, and caches should be findable by everyone and without unintentionally damaging property or digging holes. Nope, 15% is perfect. And to avoid vague linelessness and slippery slope arguments - not 16%, not 14% - 15% exactly. Except if its a nano cache because then there isn't enough cache to have 15%. Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 All caches must be able to survive a bear attack!Okay, clearly bear canisters can be used. But what about smaller containers that a bear can swallow? If they protect their contents while passing through the bear's digestive tract, then does that count as "surviving a bear attack"? Unless the bear swallowed the container just before going into hibernation that would be a moving cache and would not be allowed. An exception might be granted, however, if the bear was in the UK.Huh... If a cache has to survive a bear attack while complying with the geocache permanence guideline, then even bear canisters are out. I have it on good authority that actual bear canisters tend to travel while surviving actual bear attacks. But they might work for grandfathered traveling caches, as long as we can train bears to post the new coordinates after they've moved the traveling cache. Quote Link to comment
+Chrysalides Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Huh... If a cache has to survive a bear attack while complying with the geocache permanence guideline, then even bear canisters are out. I have it on good authority that actual bear canisters tend to travel while surviving actual bear attacks. Clearly the rules should be amended to ban bears from geocaches. Problem solved. Quote Link to comment
+MountainWoods Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Yeah! No bare cachers! Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Yeah! No bare cachers! No no, that's a different post. Quote Link to comment
+wmpastor Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Could we please change the word "purist" to logical person. I think I speak for the myself and the rest of us Purists. Let's get ready to rumble! Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.