Additional Logging Requirements

[+KBI]

But let's use your own logic: nobody is forcing you to list your cache on geocaching.com. Listing them here is voluntary. Make your own site, say, CacheMyWayOrElse.com, and list your caches there. I'm sure it will be a runaway success. But the whole "everyone is trying to make me do it their way! Waah!" whine is getting kind of old.

I don't follow you. Are you suggesting that it's somehow wrong for me to defend the existence of my ALR cache from those who would have it banned? Are you suggesting that it's somehow wrong for me to point out that one might be happier avoiding the caches one doesn't like instead of complaining about them here? Are you suggesting that I should take my listing elsewhere simply because you don't like it? Please clarify. I've read that several times, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I never said "Everyone is trying to make me do it their way." It seems to me that quite the opposite is true -- I think it's YOU who is feeling oppressed. You seem to object to ALR caches primarily because you feel that the purpose of such a cache "is more about exerting control over the actions of others than it is about giving them an interesting and enjoyable experience." There are almost 100 finders of my poetry cache (so far) who would seem to disagree with you. How can you be "controlled" by a geocache, Fizzy? Aren't all caches voluntary? Does it bother you that others are actually enjoying something that you'd rather they find annoying?

 

My primary objection is to those who would have ALR caches like mine banned (or otherwise forcibly restricted) simply because they don’t like them, don’t know how to avoid them, or insist that they are somehow "bad for the sport" despite the fact that plenty of other cachers regularly enjoy hunting them. My objection is to people insisting the game be modified to their particular vision of how others should behave, even if it limits other people’s enjoyment -- or, in your words, people who exhibit "controlling behavior."

 

 

Oh, and BTW, are you going to completely avoid this post ... or are you still working on a response?

I was making fun of you for contradicting yourself within one sentence. That you can't even see it is even funnier. Why should I ruin the fun by explaining it to you?

Cound it be you have nothing to explain because there is no contradicion? I've given you two opportunities now to detail how your accusation is anything other than empty, meaningless babble, yet you've produced nothing. If you are unable to clarify I will assume it was merely the equivalent of you yelling "NEENER NEENER NEENER!" after running out of logical or otherwise meaningful debate points. You were the one complaining about how "this argument long ago lost any semblance of being a discussion." If you really believe that, then please explain: How is what you're doing now supposed to help?

 

Remember this?

A "lively discussion" generally involves both sides at least paying attention to each other, instead of just pounding at the same point again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Making a point? It would seem you haven't even managed that much, Fizzy. Give me something I can respond to instead of meaningless babble and unsupported claims of contradictions ... if you can.

[+fizzymagic]

You seem to object to ALR caches primarily because you feel that the purpose of such a cache "is more about exerting control over the actions of others than it is about giving them an interesting and enjoyable experience."

Ah, this thread is a never-ending source of amusement.

 

Here's a free hint: if you want to try to engage somebody, it helps to have actually read what they have written. I have no objection to ALR caches. In fact, as I wrote, I have a couple myself.

 

My contribution to this thread was my observation that the kind of people who would delete a log that didn't meet the requirements of the ALR cache are generally more interested in controlling others than they are in giving others an enjoyable caching experience.

 

I appreciate that you have provided ample evidence to support my claim. I am sorry that you feel so persecuted by people who think it's a little pathological for a cacher have such a need for control that he's willing to delete the logs of anyone who doesn't comply with his commands to the letter.

 

As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to your little cache. It doesn't threaten me at all. In fact, if I logged it I would certainly comply. No skin off my nose. I just thought maybe you'd like to know how your behavior is perceived by others.

 

In fact, as a result of this thread, I went and changed the wording on my own ALR caches to remove any threats to delete the logs of anyone who did not comply. Why? Because I saw that making such a threat made me look like a complete jerk, and I didn't like it.

 

I suppose I should be sorry that I got so amused by the bad logic and faulty arguments that I got sucked further into the thread. It's a weakness of mine. I'll go away now.

[+Happy Humphrey]

No-one complains that there is a challenge BEFORE you sign the log book, for the obvious reason (I don't think I need to spell it out).

Why? I ask again -- Why should the sequence (challenge-before-find vs. find-before-challenge) make any difference to you?

 

I guess you DO need to spell it out.

Normally, without solving the puzzle or following the trail, I simply can't gain access to the log book.

The "Find" is what counts as the reward: it motivates me to solve the puzzle or follow the trail to the cache. Once I've found the hidden treasure and pocketed the silver coins , the motivation to take on a challenge isn't there any more (except to get back safely).

 

Going back to the hurdles ...

each of those hurdles comes at a different point in the process

- no they are both before the find, so are essentially in the same place.

No, they are not. I explained that point very carefully.

 

Look at it another way: An earlier objector in this thread wanted to know why an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache owner should be allowed to "hold his smiley hostage" until he satisfied the post-logging requirement. Using that logic, he might as well have also asked why a puzzle-cache owner should be allowed to "hold the coordinates hostage" until he solved the puzzle. Where's the difference? There is none. The cache owner in each case is merely trying to spice up the caching experience by tossing in an additional -- and required -- challenge beyond the act of simply locating the container.

The challenge is to find the cache log book, overcoming any obstacles placed in the way. The coordinates are not "held hostage" in the case of a puzzle cache: the puzzle is a gateway to the cache which has to be passed through.

 

I have come across puzzle caches and multicaches where the puzzle or stages is optional, in that it's easy to find the cache and sign the log without completing the tasks (unlike niraD's example, where the puzzle has still to be solved before you can register a legitimate find). To me this just appears to be a weakness, and the cache would be better tightened up. You could find the cache and solve the puzzle (before or after) - but why bother? Most would just find it, log it and regard the setup as a bit lame.

Thank you. You've just perfectly described my reasoning for making the poem-log for my Roses Are Red cache mandatory instead of optional.

...as I pointed out, these caches were set up like this by mistake. The solution is to make the puzzle or multi-stage watertight so that the extra challenge cannot be bypassed. You're suggesting compounding the error by saying "I'm not revising my cache to make it work properly, so I'll just insist that you prove that you found it using the method specified". So we end up with a flawed challenge AND an annoying threat.

 

I'm not calling for a ban on this type of cache, but I'm still not convinced that you have a sound justification for deleting non-compliant "Found it" logs. I still maintain that the cache would be better if ALR meant Additional Logging Requests instead of Requirements .

It's my cache -- that's all the justification I need.

 

(Are you a smoker? If not: Do you request that people not smoke in your house ... or do you require them to refrain? It's your house. Same same.)

 

I'm not a smoker, but I would certainly request that people not smoke in my house, not require .

 

HH

[+KBI]

You seem to object to ALR caches primarily because you feel that the purpose of such a cache "is more about exerting control over the actions of others than it is about giving them an interesting and enjoyable experience."

Ah, this thread is a never-ending source of amusement.

 

Here's a free hint: if you want to try to engage somebody, it helps to have actually read what they have written.

What's this, MORE empty accusations? I DID read what you wrote, Fizzy. In that line of mine you just quoted (the one I just made bold), I was quoting YOU.

 

Truth is, you don't seem to be absorbing much of what I had to say.

 

 

I have no objection to ALR caches. In fact, as I wrote, I have a couple myself....

 

.... In fact, as a result of this thread, I went and changed the wording on my own ALR caches to remove any threats to delete the logs of anyone who did not comply.

Then it is not, by definition, an Additional Logging Requirement cache -- and your comment is therefore irrelevent.

 

 

My contribution to this thread was my observation that the kind of people who would delete a log that didn't meet the requirements of the ALR cache are generally more interested in controlling others than they are in giving others an enjoyable caching experience.

 

I appreciate that you have provided ample evidence to support my claim. I am sorry that you feel so persecuted by people who think it's a little pathological for a cacher have such a need for control that he's willing to delete the logs of anyone who doesn't comply with his commands to the letter.

Pure speculation, and completely incorrect. In response, my contribution is to observe that your irrational and irrelevant obsession regarding the motivations of others has distracted you from participating in the debate itself.

 

 

As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to your little cache. It doesn't threaten me at all. In fact, if I logged it I would certainly comply. No skin off my nose. I just thought maybe you'd like to know how your behavior is perceived by others.

 

In fact, as a result of this thread, I went and changed the wording on my own ALR caches to remove any threats to delete the logs of anyone who did not comply. Why? Because I saw that making such a threat made me look like a complete jerk, and I didn't like it.

I'm curious, then: Why are you so concerned abot appearances regarding your cache, yet you can't see how making empty and indefensible accusations makes you look here in the forums?

 

 

I suppose I should be sorry that I got so amused by the bad logic and faulty arguments that I got sucked further into the thread. It's a weakness of mine. I'll go away now.

No need to run away so soon -- you STILL forgot to explain those accusations! You just blew your THIRD chance!

 

Or maybe there really WAS nothing to them?

[+KBI]

Normally, without solving the puzzle or following the trail, I simply can't gain access to the log book.

The "Find" is what counts as the reward: it motivates me to solve the puzzle or follow the trail to the cache. Once I've found the hidden treasure and pocketed the silver coins , the motivation to take on a challenge isn't there any more (except to get back safely).

Your definition of "normally."

 

In the earliest days of caching, MOST of the entertaining twists that exist today would NOT have fallen into the description that existed at the time -- the one that began with "normally" in the year 2000. An enforcement of your such logic six years ago instead of today might well have prevented the evolution of fun variations like multis, puzzles, micros ...

 

No attempt can be made to draw borders around what is "allowed" in this game without consequently restricting the potential fun. To be sure, a line has to be drawn somewhere -- and several things that really don't qualify as Geocaching have been allowed in the past, only to be eliminated later -- but that decision is not in the hands of Happy Humphrey, CoyoteRed or KBI. As long as my type of cache is allowed under the rules, I will, by definition, have the right to maintain it -- which puts it squarely within the definition of "normal."

 

 

Look at it another way: An earlier objector in this thread wanted to know why an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache owner should be allowed to "hold his smiley hostage" until he satisfied the post-logging requirement. Using that logic, he might as well have also asked why a puzzle-cache owner should be allowed to "hold the coordinates hostage" until he solved the puzzle. Where's the difference? There is none. The cache owner in each case is merely trying to spice up the caching experience by tossing in an additional -- and required -- challenge beyond the act of simply locating the container.

The challenge is to find the cache log book, overcoming any obstacles placed in the way. The coordinates are not "held hostage" in the case of a puzzle cache: the puzzle is a gateway to the cache which has to be passed through.

My point exactly.

 

It therefore follows that the 'Found It' log is not "held hostage" in the case of an ALR cache: the requirement is merely a gateway to the completion of the cache challenge which has to be passed through. Same same.

 

 

...as I pointed out, these caches were set up like this by mistake. The solution is to make the puzzle or multi-stage watertight so that the extra challenge cannot be bypassed. You're suggesting compounding the error by saying "I'm not revising my cache to make it work properly, so I'll just insist that you prove that you found it using the method specified".

Not at all. You misunderstood. I wasn't suggesting that a faulty puzzle cache or multi should be "patched" in such a lame manner. I wasn't talking about those caches at all -- I was explaining that in the case of my poetry cache, I made the poem mandatory for the reasons you described. Please read it again.

 

 

So we end up with a flawed challenge AND an annoying threat.

As explained above, the challenge isn't flawed if it's required. (And BTW, the "threat" is only annoying if you allow it to be.)

 

 

I'm not calling for a ban on this type of cache, but I'm still not convinced that you have a sound justification for deleting non-compliant "Found it" logs. I still maintain that the cache would be better if ALR meant Additional Logging Requests instead of Requirements .

It's my cache -- that's all the justification I need.

 

(Are you a smoker? If not: Do you request that people not smoke in your house ... or do you require them to refrain? It's your house. Same same.)

 

I'm not a smoker, but I would certainly request that people not smoke in my house, not require .

That's a matter of preference. Your statement would seem to put you in the minority among non-smokers. I was only making an analogy, and I think you understood the point.

[+niraD]

These are the points of view that I think have been expressed regarding additional logging requirements:

• Ban Them: Optional requests are okay, but once you sign the physical log, you should be able to log the find online. Can GC.com prohibit additional logging requirements?
  
• Ignore Them: Once you sign the physical log, you are able to log the find online. GC.com doesn't need to change anything.
  
• Avoid Them: Some may enjoy caches with additional logging requirements, but others don't. Can GC.com provide a better way to avoid such caches than just ignoring them one by one?
  
• Identify Them: Can GC.com provide a way to identify caches with additional logging requirements, so cachers can search for or avoid them as desired? (And especially help keep them off lists of "traditional" caches when their additional logging requirements make them more like puzzle/mystery/other caches?)
  

Are there any other points of view that need to be expressed before I close this topic? I don't see fans of such caches converting those in the Ban Them or Ignore Them camps, or vice versa.

[Mushtang]

Are there any other points of view that need to be expressed before I close this topic?

Sure. You added your viewpoint to "keep them off lists of "traditional" caches when their additional logging requirements make them more like puzzle/mystery/other caches" so I'd like to add a last minute viewpoint too.

 

Under the current definitions they actually are "traditional" since they have a location, a puzzle solution isn't necessary to find them, they're at the posted coordinates, etc.

[+CrazyCucumber]

 

[*] Identify Them: Can GC.com provide a way to identify caches with additional logging requirements, so cachers can search for or avoid them as desired? (And especially help keep them off lists of "traditional" caches when their additional logging requirements make them more like puzzle/mystery/other caches?)

 

 

This has to be the best option , save all the bitching and picking holes in arguments , its a very simple , yet effective solution to have an added category or means of identification of ALR caches.

 

Maybe get a mod to start a vote , then as you say ...topic closed.

[+niraD]

Under the current definitions they actually are "traditional" since they have a location, a puzzle solution isn't necessary to find them, they're at the posted coordinates, etc.

So do you want to add the following?

• Status Quo: Caches with additional logging requirements are identified only by reading the description, and are categorized as "traditional" caches if there's a container with a log book at the posted coordinates.
  

[+niraD]

Maybe get a mod to start a vote , then as you say ...topic closed.

So is there a protocol for this, or do I just send a PM to Jeremy and/or Moun10Bike?

[+KBI]

Are there any other points of view that need to be expressed before I close this topic? I don't see fans of such caches converting those in the Ban Them or Ignore Them camps, or vice versa.

I think the discussion has been very valuable. Has anyone's mind been changed? Speaking only for myself, I know that many of the points made here have really made me think. A good, rational debate should help one to either change one's mind (where logic dictates), or to comfirm the rationale behind one's original position. For me it has been the latter, with one important exception: I was quickly convinced of the need to add a filtering method of some type, my preference being a new "ALR" attribute. It's not a perfect solution, but if enough owners were to use it, it could only help.

 

Sounds like maybe the thread is winding down? In that case, I'd like to thank niraD -- for starting the thread, for demonstrating maturity and patience in moderating the discussion, and for persistently attempting to gain the attention of the Powers That Be. Maybe something will change for the good, whether now or down the road; either way I believe this will NOT have been a waste of time.

[+Happy Humphrey]

At least Fizzy changed his caches to AL requests rather than requirements, so it's been of practical use as well as getting a few people to think the concept through a bit more.

 

HH