Additional Logging Requirements

[+KBI]

This illustrates a point. Where do you draw the line?

YOU don't draw the line. It's pretty much up to the judgment of the cache owner to consider the feedback he/she gets from other cachers, and in this case it sounds like it was handled fairly well.

[+NotNutts]

As an career military SrNCO, one thing I can detect is whining. Seriously, think about it. KBI and others (even the father-son guy, though that may be a bit far) took the time, effort, and money (maybe not much, but so what!) to plan and place a cache. All he asks is a poem. You have the choice of ignoring or sucking it up and doing it.

 

It's too bad Jeremy isn't reading the thread anymore, because the red tape icon is a good idea. Other than that, my response (were it my cache) would be either 'suck it up', or if I felt really salty, 'I'll call the waaambulance... waa, waa, I don't want to write a poem!!!'.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't see any thing particularly wrong with the father/son cache. The cache owner doesn't prevent anyone from finding his cache. He simple says the requirements for logging a smilie are to post pictures of father and son doing something together. Those who can't meet his requirements can still find his cache and post a note. Granted he eliminated divorced fathers, widowers, or unmarried fathers who take responsibility to help in raising their sons along with women, childless men, and men who only have daughters. I think this was just carelessness on his part in writing the requirements, otherwise he has a religious agenda and this violates the guidelines

I wonder what would've happen if everyone could log a find and you could post a bonus found it with your father/son picture? - Well I know what the puritans would say to that Once again the problem seems to be that some cachers are unable to understand that a smilie ≠ finding a cache.

[+fizzymagic]

Once again the problem seems to be that some cachers are unable to understand that a smilie ≠ finding a cache.

With that attitude, it's no wonder that cache owners are treating smilies like some kind of currency, and that so many people log smilies when they haven't found the cache.

 

In actual fact, I believe you have it completely backwards: A smiley comes from a "Found It!" log, so that a smiley only means that you found the cache. Nothing more.

 

Wherever did you get the absurd notion that a "found it" log does not correspond to having found the cache?

[+tozainamboku]

Once again the problem seems to be that some cachers are unable to understand that a smilie ≠ finding a cache.

With that attitude, it's no wonder that cache owners are treating smilies like some kind of currency, and that so many people log smilies when they haven't found the cache.

 

In actual fact, I believe you have it completely backwards: A smiley comes from a "Found It!" log, so that a smiley only means that you found the cache. Nothing more.

 

Wherever did you get the absurd notion that a "found it" log does not correspond to having found the cache?

 

A smilie means you posted a found it log. Many people never post on line - but they did sign the log book. Does the lack of a found it log mean that they didn't find the cache? Bonus logs, extra logging requirements, logging multiple times to get credit for temporary event caches, logging multiple times for bonuses that involve finding a second cache, changing DNF to find with the cache owner's permission, etc. may not be what found it log was intended for originally, but some people believe there is a gray area.

[+fizzymagic]

A smilie means you posted a found it log. Many people never post on line - but they did sign the log book. Does the lack of a found it log mean that they didn't find the cache?

Huh? This is first year logic, my friend.

 

A implies B does not mean that not A implies not B.

 

Choosing not to log a "found it" log when you found the cache is not the same as denying someone who found the cache a "found it" log.

 

Bonus logs, extra logging requirements, logging multiple times to get credit for temporary event caches, logging multiple times for bonuses that involve finding a second cache, changing DNF to find with the cache owner's permission, etc. may not be what found it log was intended for originally

 

Right. Because a "found it" log means that you found it.

 

Is there something about that phrase "found it" that you don't understand? Is there some official explanation somewhere that you based your above claim that a "found it" log means something different that that you found the cache and signed the log? Because I've never seen one.

[+KBI]

A implies B does not mean that not A implies not B.

 

Choosing not to log a "found it" log when you found the cache is not the same as denying someone who found the cache a "found it" log.

Even though you and I generally oppose each other in this debate I gotta agree with you on that point, Fizzy. I caught that one too.

 

 

Is there something about that phrase "found it" that you don't understand? Is there some official explanation somewhere that you based your above claim that a "found it" log means something different that that you found the cache and signed the log? Because I've never seen one.

In the specific case of my poetry cache it means you found the cache, you signed the log ... and you wrote a poem. That's the way the cache is set up -- that's the way the logging requirement is clearly described. The poetry theme was my whole reason for hiding the thing in the first place.

[+ChileHead]

I have additional logging requests on Leaping Limericks, but I would never delete somebody's found it log if they didn't comply.

 

Most have posted their logs as limericks, and I haven't carried through on posting nasty limericks for those who don't post by the request.

Edited May 20, 2006 by ChileHead

[+tozainamboku]

A smilie means you posted a found it log. Many people never post on line - but they did sign the log book. Does the lack of a found it log mean that they didn't find the cache?

Huh? This is first year logic, my friend.

 

A implies B does not mean that not A implies not B.

 

Choosing not to log a "found it" log when you found the cache is not the same as denying someone who found the cache a "found it" log.

 

Bonus logs, extra logging requirements, logging multiple times to get credit for temporary event caches, logging multiple times for bonuses that involve finding a second cache, changing DNF to find with the cache owner's permission, etc. may not be what found it log was intended for originally

 

Right. Because a "found it" log means that you found it.

 

Is there something about that phrase "found it" that you don't understand? Is there some official explanation somewhere that you based your above claim that a "found it" log means something different that that you found the cache and signed the log? Because I've never seen one.

 

I did not state that not logging a smiley implies not finding the cache. What I said was finding a cache was not equivalent to a smiley. Therefore I only needed to prove either that a => b is false or b => a is false.

 

I believe that the statement that someone can find a cache and not log to get a smiley proves that finding a cache does not imply getting a smiley for it. Ergo finding a cache does not equal a smiley.

 

You of course you may still want to believe that getting a smiley implies finding a cache. Even KBI believes this, for him to give you a smiley you must both find his cache and write your log in poetry.

 

However, in reality we can find many smileys that have no legitimate find behind them (depending on where you draw the line for shades of gray). Perhaps the people who claim these smileys are liar and cheaters - and what's more believe you can divide by zero - but so long as the system allows this there will be cache owners that provide opportunities for people to log smileys without finding a cache.

[Mushtang]

I have additional logging requests on Leaping Limericks, but I would never delete somebody's found it log if they didn't comply.

 

Most have posted their logs as limericks, and I haven't carried through on posting nasty limericks for those who don't post by the request.

 

Are you trying to say that because you chose to run your cache a certain way then everyone else should do it the same way?

 

If not, then what are you trying to say?

[CoyoteRed]

As an career military SrNCO, one thing I can detect is whining. Seriously, think about it. KBI and others (even the father-son guy, though that may be a bit far) took the time, effort, and money (maybe not much, but so what!) to plan and place a cache. All he asks is a poem. You have the choice of ignoring or sucking it up and doing it.

 

It's too bad Jeremy isn't reading the thread anymore, because the red tape icon is a good idea. Other than that, my response (were it my cache) would be either 'suck it up', or if I felt really salty, 'I'll call the waaambulance... waa, waa, I don't want to write a poem!!!'.

 

Ah, the old "don't complain because at least they tried" routine. With that thinking there would be all manner of things still around that were bad for the hobby.

 

You know, the "suck it up" thing is being said today about other issues that were bad for the hobby. Many folks liked code word caches, but it was bad for the hobby. There were a lot of popular things that have now gone be the wayside, because it was pulling the hobby too far away from what geocaching really is. Obviously, a number of us think logging requirements is one of those things.

[CoyoteRed]

...but so long as the system allows this there will be cache owners that provide opportunities for people to log smileys without finding a cache.

 

"The system." What do you mean by this? The software that runs this site or the decorum for how geocachers conduct themselves?

 

If you mean the former, then the only real way to fix it is to wire each cache to Groundspeak somehow--maybe swipe cards and card readers?

 

If it's the later, then that's what we're talking about. If logging requirements are sanctioned by TPTB in the form of an icon or new cache type, then a smilie becomes "officially" something other than finding the cache. While we all know folks do make a smilie mean something other than finding the cache, it is supposed to mean that you've found the cache. Giving a nob to logging requirements by accommodating them will open the flood gates and then were do you draw the line? There will have to be a line drawn. Just where would that be?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Even KBI believes this, for him to give you a smiley you must both find his cache and write your log in poetry.

 

This is where I think some of the misunderstanding creeps in. If I found KBI's cache and logged the find on the site, I don't believe that I'm expecting KBI to "give me a smiley". I just get it.

 

It's a geocaching.com rule that if you find the box and sign the log, then you have the right to log a "found it" and get the smiley. KBI may act as referee for the cache (as far as the geocaching.com rules and guidelines are concerned), and remove my log if he finds that it's false or breaks the rules: but that's all. I'm a member of geocaching.com, and will abide by these simple rules (no logbook found = no smiley, logbook found = smiley).

 

Otherwise it would be like playing an official league football (er, "soccer" ) fixture where the referee declares that he will disallow any goal scored in the game unless the scorer performs a somersault afterwards. No, if I score a legitimate goal, according to the rules (of what is another artificial pastime), then the referee has no power to strike the goal from the record. Even if he hired the pitch, arranged the transport, and made it clear that he would insist on the somersault "rule".

 

Ideally (and I know that this probably isn't practical), deletion of logs should only take place via a third party (moderator), when the cache owner can demonstrate that the log entry breaks the rules and guidelines. I've placed 42 caches, and have never felt the need to delete any logs (so far).

 

HH

[+beejay&esskay]

Even KBI believes this, for him to give you a smiley you must both find his cache and write your log in poetry.

 

This is where I think some of the misunderstanding creeps in. If I found KBI's cache and logged the find on the site, I don't believe that I'm expecting KBI to "give me a smiley". I just get it.

 

It's a geocaching.com rule that if you find the box and sign the log, then you have the right to log a "found it" and get the smiley. KBI may act as referee for the cache (as far as the geocaching.com rules and guidelines are concerned), and remove my log if he finds that it's false or breaks the rules: but that's all. I'm a member of geocaching.com, and will abide by these simple rules (no logbook found = no smiley, logbook found = smiley).

 

Otherwise it would be like playing an official league football (er, "soccer" ) fixture where the referee declares that he will disallow any goal scored in the game unless the scorer performs a somersault afterwards. No, if I score a legitimate goal, according to the rules (of what is another artificial pastime), then the referee has no power to strike the goal from the record. Even if he hired the pitch, arranged the transport, and made it clear that he would insist on the somersault "rule".

 

Ideally (and I know that this probably isn't practical), deletion of logs should only take place via a third party (moderator), when the cache owner can demonstrate that the log entry breaks the rules and guidelines. I've placed 42 caches, and have never felt the need to delete any logs (so far).

 

HH

 

HH -

 

 

I think you have clearly expressed what a lot of us feel. The smilie comes from Groundspeak when we submit a find log. Groundspeak's stated requirement is find it/sign the log.

 

The cache master should not take away a Groundspeak smilie because we didn't jump through his hoops.

[+NotNutts]

Even KBI believes this, for him to give you a smiley you must both find his cache and write your log in poetry.

 

This is where I think some of the misunderstanding creeps in. If I found KBI's cache and logged the find on the site, I don't believe that I'm expecting KBI to "give me a smiley". I just get it.

 

It's a geocaching.com rule that if you find the box and sign the log, then you have the right to log a "found it" and get the smiley. KBI may act as referee for the cache (as far as the geocaching.com rules and guidelines are concerned), and remove my log if he finds that it's false or breaks the rules: but that's all. I'm a member of geocaching.com, and will abide by these simple rules (no logbook found = no smiley, logbook found = smiley).

 

Otherwise it would be like playing an official league football (er, "soccer" ) fixture where the referee declares that he will disallow any goal scored in the game unless the scorer performs a somersault afterwards. No, if I score a legitimate goal, according to the rules (of what is another artificial pastime), then the referee has no power to strike the goal from the record. Even if he hired the pitch, arranged the transport, and made it clear that he would insist on the somersault "rule".

 

Ideally (and I know that this probably isn't practical), deletion of logs should only take place via a third party (moderator), when the cache owner can demonstrate that the log entry breaks the rules and guidelines. I've placed 42 caches, and have never felt the need to delete any logs (so far).

 

HH

 

HH -

 

 

I think you have clearly expressed what a lot of us feel. The smilie comes from Groundspeak when we submit a find log. Groundspeak's stated requirement is find it/sign the log.

 

The cache master should not take away a Groundspeak smilie because we didn't jump through his hoops.

 

However, the cache is the cache-owner's property. He's expected to maintain it. He also created the web page listing it. I don't think it's Groundspeak's smilie to give away--it's the owner's. GS is more of a listing agent. That's why reviewers are not called approvers. If you don't like the logging requirement, don't do it and ignore the cache. The right to a smilie is not in the bill of rights.

[Mushtang]

Even KBI believes this, for him to give you a smiley you must both find his cache and write your log in poetry.

Otherwise it would be like playing an official league football (er, "soccer" ) fixture where the referee declares that he will disallow any goal scored in the game unless the scorer performs a somersault afterwards. No, if I score a legitimate goal, according to the rules (of what is another artificial pastime), then the referee has no power to strike the goal from the record. Even if he hired the pitch, arranged the transport, and made it clear that he would insist on the somersault "rule".

 

 

HH

Nah, it's more like a game of poker where there are different variations on the game. In soccer all the rules are spelled out in a rule book, and they're pretty specific about what is a goal or not. And there are no "somersault games" in soccer that a lot of people are playing that others are trying to get removed.

 

A neighbor of mine hosts a poker game at his house every other Saturday, and if one night as he's dealing he decides to call dueces wild then that's what we'll play that game. If I end up with what would normally be the winning hand, except someone else with a couple of 2s gets the pot instead, do I have any reason to whine about the stupid rule of the wild card? Do I go on and on and on in the poker forums about the silly made up house rules of my neighbor and complain that they're bad for the game?

 

I've placed 42 caches, and have never felt the need to delete any logs (so far).

Okay. So what does this mean? Are you trying to say that because you choose to run your cache a certain way then everyone else should do it the same way?

 

If not, then what are you trying to say?

[+KBI]

Even KBI believes this, for him to give you a smiley you must both find his cache and write your log in poetry.

This is where I think some of the misunderstanding creeps in. If I found KBI's cache and logged the find on the site, I don't believe that I'm expecting KBI to "give me a smiley". I just get it.

 

It's a geocaching.com rule that if you find the box and sign the log, then you have the right to log a "found it" and get the smiley. KBI may act as referee for the cache (as far as the geocaching.com rules and guidelines are concerned), and remove my log if he finds that it's false or breaks the rules: but that's all. I'm a member of geocaching.com, and will abide by these simple rules (no logbook found = no smiley, logbook found = smiley).

 

Otherwise it would be like playing an official league football (er, "soccer" ) fixture where the referee declares that he will disallow any goal scored in the game unless the scorer performs a somersault afterwards. No, if I score a legitimate goal, according to the rules (of what is another artificial pastime), then the referee has no power to strike the goal from the record. Even if he hired the pitch, arranged the transport, and made it clear that he would insist on the somersault "rule".

 

Ideally (and I know that this probably isn't practical), deletion of logs should only take place via a third party (moderator), when the cache owner can demonstrate that the log entry breaks the rules and guidelines. I've placed 42 caches, and have never felt the need to delete any logs (so far).

 

HH

HH -

 

I think you have clearly expressed what a lot of us feel. The smilie comes from Groundspeak when we submit a find log. Groundspeak's stated requirement is find it/sign the log.

 

The cache master should not take away a Groundspeak smilie because we didn't jump through his hoops.

However, the cache is the cache-owner's property. He's expected to maintain it. He also created the web page listing it. I don't think it's Groundspeak's smilie to give away--it's the owner's. GS is more of a listing agent. That's why reviewers are not called approvers. If you don't like the logging requirement, don't do it and ignore the cache. The right to a smilie is not in the bill of rights.

Exactly, and I've already explained as much. It's MY cache!!! The person who came up with the idea and went to the trouble to put it there was ME. The only reason I put it there at all was to have a fun cache with a poetry challenge. If I hadn't put it there there'd most likely be no cache at that location! I'm not against the existence of uninspired drive-up 1/1 micros, but I have no wish to be the owner of one. Therefore I've also made it clear that if TPTB ever concede to CoyoteRed's demand that they totally outlaw logging requirements, I will immediately: (1) archive the cache, (2) remove the container, (3) stop accepting 'Found It' logs, and (4) post a link to this thread on the cache page so that all future potential finders -- the next 100 who would have enjoyed the cache -- will understand why it was taken away from them.

 

So I ask again: Which do you prefer, a cache with a poetry logging requirement, or no cache at all? If the former, then why can't you just ignore it if you don't like it? (I've asked this question a couple dozen times by now. Still no intelligent answer.) If the latter, then please explain: How, exactly, does taking fun away from others enhance the game for YOU?

 

In the case of my poetry cache, each individual cacher has the option to either (A) accept the challenge by logging it online with a poem, or ( reject the challenge by skipping the 'Found it' log, or by avoiding the cache entirely. Each geocacher makes this choice freely. There is no scientific way to gauge how many have chosen option ( to date, but one thing's for sure: almost 100 cachers (so far) have happily chosen (A). So what's the problem? I've been called a "control freak" for daring to enforce my logging requirement. Those of you who want to outlaw logging requirements are the TRUE control freaks! You want to impose choice ( on everybody!!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Nah, it's more like a game of poker where there are different variations on the game. In soccer all the rules are spelled out in a rule book, and they're pretty specific about what is a goal or not. And there are no "somersault games" in soccer that a lot of people are playing that others are trying to get removed.

 

A neighbor of mine hosts a poker game at his house every other Saturday, and if one night as he's dealing he decides to call dueces wild then that's what we'll play that game. If I end up with what would normally be the winning hand, except someone else with a couple of 2s gets the pot instead, do I have any reason to whine about the stupid rule of the wild card? Do I go on and on and on in the poker forums about the silly made up house rules of my neighbor and complain that they're bad for the game?

 

Not a good example: there are endless variations on a game of poker, just as there are endless ways to score a goal or find a cache. Deuces wild is a known variant - even if it wasn't, it's still essentially poker: but the point is that when you win the hand according to the agreed rules, even in your example, you scoop the pot. To make it more like the "additional logging requirements" cache, your neighbour would have to insist that you now have to perform an extra task, like sing a song (for instance) - or else the pot would not be claimed.

 

Are you trying to say that because you choose to run your cache a certain way then everyone else should do it the same way?

 

If not, then what are you trying to say?

I don't actually "run" my caches: they are just there to be found.

All I'm trying to say is that log deletion is a rare and unusual last resort, in my own experience. Thankfully!

 

I think you have clearly expressed what a lot of us feel.

Thanks for the support.

 

HH

[+KBI]

Are you trying to say that because you choose to run your cache a certain way then everyone else should do it the same way?

 

If not, then what are you trying to say?

I don't actually "run" my caches: they are just there to be found.

So then ... you ARE saying that everyone else should do it the same way?

 

All I'm trying to say is that log deletion is a rare and unusual last resort, in my own experience. Thankfully!

Log deletion is a rare and unusual last resort in the case of my poetry cache as well. Out of almost 100 smileys so far I have deleted a grand total of: one. Since I'm in line with your standard does this mean you approve of my cache now?

[Mushtang]

Nah, it's more like a game of poker where there are different variations on the game. In soccer all the rules are spelled out in a rule book, and they're pretty specific about what is a goal or not. And there are no "somersault games" in soccer that a lot of people are playing that others are trying to get removed.

 

A neighbor of mine hosts a poker game at his house every other Saturday, and if one night as he's dealing he decides to call dueces wild then that's what we'll play that game. If I end up with what would normally be the winning hand, except someone else with a couple of 2s gets the pot instead, do I have any reason to whine about the stupid rule of the wild card? Do I go on and on and on in the poker forums about the silly made up house rules of my neighbor and complain that they're bad for the game?

 

Not a good example: there are endless variations on a game of poker, just as there are endless ways to score a goal or find a cache. Deuces wild is a known variant - even if it wasn't, it's still essentially poker: but the point is that when you win the hand according to the agreed rules, even in your example, you scoop the pot. To make it more like the "additional logging requirements" cache, your neighbour would have to insist that you now have to perform an extra task, like sing a song (for instance) - or else the pot would not be claimed.

You missed my point. In the poker game it's his house, his game, and his rules. Dueces wild is an agreed upon variation before the game was started.

 

If your soccer game was played and everyone was told before they started that they'd have to do a somersault after a goal for it to count, and they played anyway, why would they think they could get the credit for a goal if they didn't do one? I have no doubt that if I started a soccer game with this rule and told you about it before we started, you'd think it was dumb and not even play. You'd look for another soccer game to join. It's the same with caches dude. If you don't like to play with house rules, don't play, but don't try and dictate how everyone else should play.

 

Don't you play games with house rules ever? In Monopoly people often get money for landing on Free Parking, although it's not a rule of the game, and it's not played that way in tournaments. People make up this rule when they play it to make it more fun.

 

Are you trying to say that because you choose to run your cache a certain way then everyone else should do it the same way?

 

If not, then what are you trying to say?

I don't actually "run" my caches: they are just there to be found.

All I'm trying to say is that log deletion is a rare and unusual last resort, in my own experience. Thankfully!

You do "run" them. You wrote the description, you placed it, you maintain it, you read the logs and I'm sure if someone posted something vulgar or posted a spoiler you'd delete the log. So you do decide what to delete and what not to delete. Even if you never delete any logs, you've still decided to run your cache that way.

 

I'm just saying that when you post something like that, you come across as telling us that because you don't delete logs for various reasons, then nobody else should either. It's a very CRappy thing to do.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'm just saying that when you post something like that, you come across as telling us that because you don't delete logs for various reasons, then nobody else should either. It's a very CRappy thing to do.

Well, I have an opinion that logs shouldn't be deleted for these reasons. I'm voicing them here: I don't want to upset anyone, but that's my opinion. It's not because I don't do it and therefore think that I'm superior: I just think that it's a mistake to delete the on-line log of someone who has found a cache, except when they are breaking common-sense rules. Can I not say that?

 

HH

[+KBI]

It's not because I don't do it and therefore think that I'm superior: I just think that it's a mistake to delete the on-line log of someone who has found a cache, except when they are breaking common-sense rules.

Common-sense rules?

 

You mean like the common-sense rule of simply avoiding caches you don't like instead of thumbing your nose at the cache owner by ignoring clearly stated logging requirements?

 

You mean like the common-sense rule of simply avoiding caches you don't like instead of griping and whining in the forums that you're troubled by their very existence?

 

 

I don't want to upset anyone, but that's my opinion.

For the record: I'm not upset. Nothing in this thread so far has offended me.

 

I think this continues to be a useful and valuable discussion. Many important points have been debated here.

 

Stating your opinion is important to the debate -- just be ready to defend it! (As opposed to, say, running away and hiding from your opposition like CoyoteRed does. )

[+Ambrosia]

I think you're mistaken. I've read the entire thread, and so far nobody has even come close to explaining how not reading the cache page is a valid excuse for not knowing what’s on the cache page.

The hamster did that earlier in the thread. Quite eloquently I might add.

If by "eloquently" you mean "tried weakly, but soon conceded," then yes, I remember (and since nobody else can link this stuff, I guess I will):

 

1. 'The hamster' made his argument against being responsible for reading the cache page here.

2. I challenged the logic of that argument here.

3. In this post he told me: "Saying "read the cache page" does have merit. It is a good discussion."

 

Granted, it's not a clear concession, but (1) it sure sounds that way, (2) he hasn't made any further attempts to argue against my position, and (3) it's a whole lot closer to being a concession than a winning argument, as you seem to claim.

Maybe people stop arguing their points and stop reading threads such as this, because they realize that it's pointless and the reading of said thread gives them such a big headache and they have enough other things going on in their life to waste it in a stressfull place like this.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't think it's Groundspeak's smilie to give away--it's the owner's.

 

Wrong.

 

First, he didn't say Groundspeak gave the smile. He said it comes from Groundspeak when the appropriate log is written. There is a huge difference. Don't twist words like the trolls here.

 

Second, smilies are not the cache owner's to give away, either. The cache owner only makes sure those who write a Found It log has actually found the cache. Nothing more.

 

Denying legitimate logs is just as wrong as allowing bogus finds.

 

If you don't like the logging requirement, don't do it and ignore the cache.

This argue doesn't fly either. This very same argument could be used on a caches in inappropriate places, illegal caches, or any other cache that is bad for the hobby. It could have been used on moving caches, buried caches, code word caches, or whatever. Ignoring caches doesn't make the problem go away. It's the same reason unavailable caches aren't hidden in the Nearest Caches list.

[+KBI]

I don't think it's Groundspeak's smilie to give away--it's the owner's.

Wrong.

 

First, he didn't say Groundspeak gave the smile. He said it comes from Groundspeak when the appropriate log is written. There is a huge difference. Don't twist words like the trolls here.

CoyoteRed's apparent definition of "troll:" Anyone who dares to disagree with CoyoteRed.

 

Name-calling's a lot easier than actually debating, eh CR?

 

 

Second, smilies are not the cache owner's to give away, either. The cache owner only makes sure those who write a Found It log has actually found the cache. Nothing more.

Wrong.

 

The cache owner accepts the "Found It" log based on whatever requirements, liberal or strict, that he/she decides. My poetry cache's logging requirements are spelled out quite clearly.

 

CR, I've already invited you to try logging my poetry cache online without even the lamest attempt at a poem. Go ahead, try it! Let's see what happens!

 

 

Denying legitimate logs is just as wrong as allowing bogus finds.

"Legitimate log" is clearly defined on my cache page for the purposes of logging my cache. You run your caches your way, I'll run mine my way. Don't like it? Then simply avoid the cache. Don't tell me how to play the game, and I'll repay you with the same courtesy.

 

 

If you don't like the logging requirement, don't do it and ignore the cache.

This argue doesn't fly either. This very same argument could be used on a caches in inappropriate places, illegal caches, or any other cache that is bad for the hobby. It could have been used on moving caches, buried caches, code word caches, or whatever. Ignoring caches doesn't make the problem go away.

Yet ignoring certain people in the forums makes problems go away? Still got me on your 'ignore' list, CR? How convenient for you not to be bothered with certain points and arguments you seem to be unable (afraid?) to answer.

 

For example, I've already responded to the point you just made. Haven't seen any rebuttal from you yet!

[+kentuckygirls]

Wow!! I've been reading this thread from the beginning and I must say that it is one of the most well-behaved threads that I have ever read.

 

Now as far as my opinion. I have always read the description of the cache before I hunted it and I am a paperless cacher. I don't really understand why people don't. It can cause tons of problems if you don't have the proper info, such as times the cache should be hunted, whether it is ok to enter private propery, access from which roads, etc. There is lots of info there that could give you or geocaching a bad rep if it is ignored. I do understand that it is a challenge to go without reading the description, but to me it is not worth the trouble it could cause.

 

If I hunted the Poetry cache, just for an example, it would be no big deal to write my log in the form of a poem. For goodness sakes it ain't got to be TS Eliot or Robert Frost. Its not like its asking alot. I would do the cache and log in the form of a poem.

 

Now if the owner was asking me do something I simply can't do or would be uncomfortable doing then I would ignore it. It does not bother me. There are lots of caches that we have chosen not to do for now and some that we will never do. Not every cache is for everbody but I don't sweat the ones that I choose not to do for whatever reason.

 

I am not advocating additional logging requirements but I'm not going to get up tight if there are additional logging requirements on a cache.

 

Do I think there should be some way to identify this type of cache? Yes!

[+kentuckygirls]

You know, we were just discussing this topic alittle further amongst ourselves and we have a cache with an additional requirement. IF you read the cache page, it tells you what to do before hunting the cache. It says that you must check in at the visitors center before attempting to hunt this cache. Do you have to check in, YES! If not, you are probably going to get in trouble. Why would you not read the cache page? So, this can be considered an additional requirement.

Edited May 21, 2006 by kentuckygirls

[+ChileHead]

I have additional logging requests on Leaping Limericks, but I would never delete somebody's found it log if they didn't comply.

 

Most have posted their logs as limericks, and I haven't carried through on posting nasty limericks for those who don't post by the request.

 

Are you trying to say that because you chose to run your cache a certain way then everyone else should do it the same way?

 

If not, then what are you trying to say?

 

Not sure how you read that into what I posted. I posted how I prefer to run my caches with additional logging "requirements". I want people to visit and find the cache. I made requests like this just for fun. If people don't want to play along, then fine, as long as they found the cache.

[+ChileHead]

GS is more of a listing agent.

 

Kind of like a pimp, right?

[+jimear1e]

It's quick, it's embarrassingly lame, and it is two hikers carrying a log.

 

Attribute sketch:

 

 

A B&W version might be a single hiker holding a log on his shoulder...

A Bandaid perhaps...

[+Team Neos]

I have additional logging requests on Leaping Limericks, but I would never delete somebody's found it log if they didn't comply.

 

Most have posted their logs as limericks, and I haven't carried through on posting nasty limericks for those who don't post by the request.

 

Are you trying to say that because you chose to run your cache a certain way then everyone else should do it the same way?

 

If not, then what are you trying to say?

 

Not sure how you read that into what I posted. I posted how I prefer to run my caches with additional logging "requirements". I want people to visit and find the cache. I made requests like this just for fun. If people don't want to play along, then fine, as long as they found the cache.

I "get" what you are saying ChileHead. It's like hosting a Holloween party and asking everyone to come in costume. You don't tell your guests they can't come in if they show up dressed in ordinary clothes, but you enjoy it more if they wear a creative costume.

[+NotNutts]

I don't think it's Groundspeak's smilie to give away--it's the owner's.

 

Wrong.

 

First, he didn't say Groundspeak gave the smile. He said it comes from Groundspeak when the appropriate log is written. There is a huge difference. Don't twist words like the trolls here.

 

Second, smilies are not the cache owner's to give away, either. The cache owner only makes sure those who write a Found It log has actually found the cache. Nothing more.

 

Denying legitimate logs is just as wrong as allowing bogus finds.

 

If you don't like the logging requirement, don't do it and ignore the cache.

This argue doesn't fly either. This very same argument could be used on a caches in inappropriate places, illegal caches, or any other cache that is bad for the hobby. It could have been used on moving caches, buried caches, code word caches, or whatever. Ignoring caches doesn't make the problem go away. It's the same reason unavailable caches aren't hidden in the Nearest Caches list.

 

Nope, not buying it. Notice you said cache owner . An owner can do anything he wants with his stuff, within the bounds of the law, and for the games sake, the game's rules. Since nothing specifically prohibits logging requirements, it's allowed. Not liking it doesn't make it so. In fact, here's a quote from the Groundspeak GC Listing requirements/guidelines "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements ." I'd say this makes logging requirements well within the rules.

 

As to the comparison between logging requirements and inappropriate/illegal caches, this is whats called a faulty analogy. The difference is the legality of the cache, and I explained that above. You can't compare legally listed caches with illegal ones, no matter how much you dislike the idea. Don't confuse your opinions with the rules.

[+NotNutts]

GS is more of a listing agent.

 

Kind of like a pimp, right?

Maybe 'pusher' or 'candy man' would be better. GC supplies the needles and helps us prepare the smack. We supply the drugs, do the injecting, and ...OK, this comparison is getting disturbing.

[CoyoteRed]

So, this can be considered an additional requirement.

 

No, it's not the same. That would be little different than speeding to get to the cache or violating some rule the land manager has posted.

 

What we're talking about are "Additional Logging Requirements." These fall into two general categories; find verification and something other than find verification.

 

I don't understand why someone would require find verification on a cache unless it is very, very hard to get to. Then I have to question the owner's ability to maintain the cache. Find verification is really a hold over from virtuals. I know I've thought of find verification on a cache I've been wanting to place, but it's more of a "challenge word" that the finder kept secret if I wanted to challenge the find. I discarded the idea after talking with some geocaching veterans and come to the understanding that actually visiting the cache to verify the find in the logbook was part of my responsibility.

 

The other type of logging requirement has nothing to do with finding the cache or verifying the find. It is simply a artificial obstacle to providing the proper feedback. If you've signed the logbook in the cache and it's your first visit to the cache, then the proper log-type to use is "Found It." However, some owners--a very, very small percentage--have chosen to deny reporting a found cache with the proper log-type if you don't do some arbitrary action not related to finding the cache.

 

As for reading the cache description, yes, we generally read the description, but mostly it's only to see if it's worth us going after it. Plenty of times the whole description is not read. Cache descriptions can get pretty wordy. A lot of times it is history of the area or stuff that is not all that interesting. Whatever it is, I can see a lot of instances where the cache description is not read in its entirety.

 

It's already been detailed how a cache can easily be found without reading the cache description. Once you've signed the log you shouldn't be required to then read the description to see what else you have to do.

 

Don't be fooled by the whining that those who are against logging requirements are trying to force everyone to play their way. In fact, it's the other way around. The folks who support logging requirements are the ones who are trying to force everyone to play their way by making seekers read the cache descriptions on every cache--even simple 1/1's--or risk not being about to properly and accurately track their own activity on this website.

[+kentuckygirls]

The other type of logging requirement has nothing to do with finding the cache or verifying the find. It is simply a artificial obstacle to providing the proper feedback. If you've signed the logbook in the cache and it's your first visit to the cache, then the proper log-type to use is "Found It." However, some owners--a very, very small percentage--have chosen to deny reporting a found cache with the proper log-type if you don't do some arbitrary action not related to finding the cache.

 

I see what you are saying here, CR. Our cache is differnt. It is not a logging requirement it is more of a hunting requirement. I would like to have the option to flag it some way so that everyone would read the page before they hunted it, though. Might save us some trouble in the long run.

[CoyoteRed]

Since nothing specifically prohibits logging requirements, it's allowed.

Speaking of faulty logic...

 

There's nothing that's I've found in the guidelines detailing trading fairly, but we all know about it. So, you're saying that because it's not stated in the Groundspeak guidelines then it's okay? Well, let's apply your reasoning and change your above statement. "Since nothing specifically prohibits me taking everything from the cache and leaving a gum wrapper, then it's allowed." See how ridiculous that is?

 

Okay, let's take a real example. Codeword caches. There used to be no rule against them. Did that, in itself, make them okay for the hobby? No, of course not as they are now dis-allowed with good reason.

 

Not liking it doesn't make it so.

Right back atcha, pal.

 

In fact, here's a quote from the Groundspeak GC Listing requirements/guidelines "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements ." I'd say this makes logging requirements well within the rules.

I was wondering when someone was going to try to throw that into my face. The answer: Virtuals. Virtuals require a form of verification considering if it had a logbook then it wouldn't be a virtual.

 

So, taking your interpretation of the rule literally, then what about a requirement to write a glowing log about a lame cache?

 

I can think of all kind of things a cache owner could require that would be wrong; "Post this on your favorite cache list," "Post a solution to a puzzle cache," "Drop a TB/coin/whatever," the list can go on and on.

 

It also doesn't jive with posting a note for a find if you don't want to jump through the hoops. Not within stated requirements is not within stated requirements regardless of the log-type unless specifically stated.

 

As to the comparison between logging requirements and inappropriate/illegal caches, this is whats called a faulty analogy. The difference is the legality of the cache, and I explained that above. You can't compare legally listed caches with illegal ones, no matter how much you dislike the idea. Don't confuse your opinions with the rules.

Dude, what about grandfathered caches? I am comparing legally listed caches that where deemed not good for the hobby and since are no longer listing new ones? How does that fit?

[CoyoteRed]

I see what you are saying here, CR. Our cache is differnt. It is not a logging requirement it is more of a hunting requirement. I would like to have the option to flag it some way so that everyone would read the page before they hunted it, though. Might save us some trouble in the long run.

We had a cache similar to yours in this respect. There are so many folks who don't read the descriptions that I wouldn't do it again--I've learned my lesson. Taking your cache as an example I'm might post the coords to the office where you check it as the listed coords and make it a multi. It really feels like a multi if there is a required stop before the final stage. The problem though is if there is more than one cache in the area that requires an office visit, so a different solution may be needed.

 

Back when the attributes were first being discussed I advocated a "Commando*" and "Read Description" tag. The "Commando" attribute would be the designation that the cache could safely be found without reading the description while the other was obvious. Of course, there is the "unknown/not set" middle ground. I thought this was an important attribute to have. It would certainly fit in your case.

 

It doesn't, however, have anything to do with logging requirements other than alert folks there is one. It doesn't negate the inappropriateness of the activity.

 

 

*I would define "Commando" as any cache where all you need is the coordinates and a writing utensil. Finding the coordinates is up to the seeker, generally a GPS. The writing utensil so you can sign the logbook--no need for a BYOP in the description.

[+niraD]

I can think of all kind of things a cache owner could require that would be wrong

I've seen several caches in the area with additional logging requirements, and IMHO they've all been fun and appropriate. I just don't think the caches should be listed as traditional caches, except possibly for those with requirements that can be met by simply editing the log entry.

[+KBI]

I "get" what you are saying ChileHead. It's like hosting a Holloween party and asking everyone to come in costume. You don't tell your guests they can't come in if they show up dressed in ordinary clothes, but you enjoy it more if they wear a creative costume.

And to extend the analogy:

 

There's also a guy one block away hosting a very similar Halloween party, but at his party he DOES require a costume. In fact this guy turns away two or three folks who show up at his door in jeans, t-shirts and sneakers (after gently reminding them that the invitation clearly explained this IS a costume-required party, and suggesting easy ways to cobble together a quick costume). Hey, it's his house, right? The host does this once or twice -- until Police Constable CoyoteRed shows up, flashes his badge, and shuts the party down, citing a recently passed law (one that he personally muscled through the City Council) on the charge that such parties are "bad for the holiday."

[+KBI]

The other type of logging requirement has nothing to do with finding the cache or verifying the find. It is simply a artificial obstacle to providing the proper feedback.

Puzzles, poems, multiple stages, camouflage, decoys – they’re ALL "artificial obstacles," CR! It’s just a freaking GAME!!!

 

 

The folks who support logging requirements are the ones who are trying to force everyone to play their way by making seekers read the cache descriptions on every cache--even simple 1/1's--or risk not being about to properly and accurately track their own activity on this website.

Whine, whine, whine.

 

Nobody's trying to "force" ANYBODY to read cache descriptions, CR. It's simply an inarguable truth: Whenever you choose not to read the description the cache owner has written out for you, you have thereby chosen to face whatever randomly bad consequences happen as a result of your choice.

[+KBI]

As for reading the cache description, yes, we generally read the description, but mostly it's only to see if it's worth us going after it. Plenty of times the whole description is not read. Cache descriptions can get pretty wordy. A lot of times it is history of the area or stuff that is not all that interesting. Whatever it is, I can see a lot of instances where the cache description is not read in its entirety.

"Mostly it's only to see if it's worth us going after."

"Cache descriptions can get pretty wordy."

"A lot of times it is history of the area or stuff that is not all that interesting."

 

Thanks. I'll add those to the list of other lame excuses for choosing to ignore important information the cache owner needs you to know.

 

And feel free to continue ignoring good advice such as this:

Now as far as my opinion. I have always read the description of the cache before I hunted it and I am a paperless cacher. I don't really understand why people don't. It can cause tons of problems if you don't have the proper info, such as times the cache should be hunted, whether it is ok to enter private propery, access from which roads, etc. There is lots of info there that could give you or geocaching a bad rep if it is ignored. I do understand that it is a challenge to go without reading the description, but to me it is not worth the trouble it could cause.

And this:

I never said you have to "prepare my way." I merely pointed out a truth -- that if you hunt and log a cache WITHOUT reading the cache description, you risk problems. Seems like such a basic common sense rule to me that I've never even thought to question it. I go on spontaneous cache outings, too, but if you're going to go on a spontaneous cache outing without reading up on the caches then you must understand and accept the risks involved. As has been pointed out before, there are LOTS of important tidbits of information in those descriptions, some of them CRITICAL to finding the cache, some of them CRITICAL to preventing it from being muggled, some of them CRITICAL to preserving the hide method, some of them CRITICAL to your very SAFETY.

And this:

A lot of discussions because cachers are too lazy to read the cache description. I cache paperless, yet I always read the cache descriptions either online or on my PDA before headng out.

 

If people are in such a friggin hurry to get a smiley that they can't read the cache description and requirements, then they get what they deserve if they don't post appropriately.

And this:

The "Unknown" cache-type can also be used if you don't want to tell what flavor of hunt it is. It already can handle the "catch all." It's unfortunate that the description didn't reflect this when it was changed.

 

From the Wayback Machine. It used to be clear that you could mark a cache as Unknown if you didn't want to give away the hunt--this could include traditionals.

Hey, as long as we're yearning for the way things used to be, I just noticed something else on that that old page, CoyoteRed! In the definition of "Traditional Cache" it says "Some caches are themed, so make sure to read the description before going on a hunt."

And this:

Why on earth would someone not want to read the description? Quite a lot of owners put a lot of effort into their descriptions and it's a plain insult towards those owners not to read the description. The description itself can also give you far more information about a cache than any increasing number of the cachetypes or attributes will ever be able to tell you. If you are not into reading, try podcaching.

And this:

What about warnings or owner requests that are specific to the cache? How many times have you seen details like "there is no need to search on the south side of the fence -- that is private property, and off limits" or "please don't destroy the cache container -- part of your challenge is figuring out the secret to getting it open."

 

I still say there is NO excuse for NOT reading a cache's description before heading out on the hunt.

And this:

I believe that you should have read the cache page. Not only could it avoid problems while searching for the cache, but I think you owe it to the cache owner. We've all seen cache pages that obviously took quite a bit of effort to research and write. Some give the history of the area. Some will tell you to go a little further and check out a monument or a view when the hider couldn't place the cache there.

The minute that you spend reading the cache page could not only solve problems before they come up, and could make the find more fulfilling, but it's a sign of respect and appreciation for the hider's effort.

Recognize that word "respect," CoyoteRed?

 

Allow me to quote directly from your "CoyoteRed's Code Of Ethics:"

 

...be considerate of others.

• Treat other geocachers civilly - in the field, in the forums, or wherever your paths may cross.
  
  

Two questions for CoyoteRed:

1. Is it "considerate of others" to arbitrarily blow off reading an owner's cache page description when choosing to do so directly causes you, or the cache owner, or someone else some kind of avoidable trouble?

 

2. Demanding that the website completely eliminate some particular type of cache that others obviously enjoy but YOU don't happen to like ... is that "treating other geocachers civilly, wherever your paths may cross?"

 

 

Actually, my best advice to you CoyoteRed is to stop completely ignoring everyone who dares to disagree with you. By simply repeating your indefensible pronouncements instead of actually responding to those who point out your fallacies, you're only making yourself sound silly. Hey, it keeps ME entertained, but it doesn't do much for advancing your position.

[+KBI]

Since nothing specifically prohibits logging requirements, it's allowed.

Speaking of faulty logic...

 

There's nothing that's I've found in the guidelines detailing trading fairly, but we all know about it. So, you're saying that because it's not stated in the Groundspeak guidelines then it's okay? Well, let's apply your reasoning and change your above statement. "Since nothing specifically prohibits me taking everything from the cache and leaving a gum wrapper, then it's allowed." See how ridiculous that is?

Speaking of faulty logic...

 

That's called a 'strawman argument,' CR. Nobody here has advocated that position. You made it up just to have something to argue against instead of debating the real issue.

 

 

Well, let's apply your reasoning and change your above statement. "Since nothing specifically prohibits me taking everything from the cache and leaving a gum wrapper, then it's allowed." See how ridiculous that is?

Yes that happens, and yes, it IS ridiculous. Whether something is allowed and whether it can get 'ridiculous,' however, are two completely different concepts. Yes, there are 'special logging requirement' caches, and yes, they are allowed. Is it possible for a 'special logging requirement' cache to be ridiculous? Certainly! You yourself list several theoretical examples in your second strawman argument later in your post. Is it possible for any other cache type to be ridiculous? Absolutely! How about a 1,727-stage multi-cache? Or a puzzle that only a quantum physicist could solve? Ridiculous? Yes. Could you easily avoid those caches? Yes. Should an entire category be banned simply because someone somewhere thinks a few of the caches in that category are 'ridiculous?' Absolutely not.

 

Guidelines are important, but you cannot legislate common sense, CR. Geocaching runs itself just fine 99% of the time when players are left to their own judgment. The few who don't quite get it are easily dealt with on an individual basis, usually from their friendly fellow cachers. Once a hide is officially approved, it's up to you to decide whether to do it or avoid it. No need to go forcing everyone else to avoid it just because it's "bad for the hobby" ... in YOUR opinion.

 

 

Okay, let's take a real example. Codeword caches. There used to be no rule against them. Did that, in itself, make them okay for the hobby? No, of course not as they are now dis-allowed with good reason.

Different issue, different reasons. Not everyone agreed with that rule, either, BTW.

 

 

In fact, here's a quote from the Groundspeak GC Listing requirements/guidelines "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements ." I'd say this makes logging requirements well within the rules.

I was wondering when someone was going to try to throw that into my face. The answer: Virtuals. Virtuals require a form of verification considering if it had a logbook then it wouldn't be a virtual.

… the word "virtuals" does not appear ANYWHERE in that quote. That’s YOUR interpretation, and it’s only consistent with YOUR specific version of how you insist the rest of us SHOULD be playing the game.

 

 

So, taking your interpretation of the rule literally, then what about a requirement to write a glowing log about a lame cache?

 

I can think of all kind of things a cache owner could require that would be wrong; "Post this on your favorite cache list," "Post a solution to a puzzle cache," "Drop a TB/coin/whatever," the list can go on and on.

I can think of lots of inappropriate stuff, too. What's the point? Why invent bad stuff to complain about that doesn't even exist?

 

Thanks for once again demonstrating a 'strawman argument' for us.

 

 

It also doesn't jive with posting a note for a find if you don't want to jump through the hoops. Not within stated requirements is not within stated requirements regardless of the log-type unless specifically stated.

If the cache page description requires it, it's a specifically stated requirement.

 

 

As to the comparison between logging requirements and inappropriate/illegal caches, this is whats called a faulty analogy. The difference is the legality of the cache, and I explained that above. You can't compare legally listed caches with illegal ones, no matter how much you dislike the idea. Don't confuse your opinions with the rules.

Dude, what about grandfathered caches? I am comparing legally listed caches that where deemed not good for the hobby and since are no longer listing new ones? How does that fit?

Speaking of faulty logic...

 

The 'grandfathered' thing is a specific exception to the rule. It's still a rule. Your comparison is still a faulty analogy.

[CoyoteRed]

I can think of all kind of things a cache owner could require that would be wrong

I've seen several caches in the area with additional logging requirements, and IMHO they've all been fun and appropriate. I just don't think the caches should be listed as traditional caches, except possibly for those with requirements that can be met by simply editing the log entry.

 

Yes, I understand your position. You've made it very clear. However, we've not established where to draw the line of what is "appropriate" and what is not. I've given some far-out-there examples that are clearly inappropriate. You've found some that you feel are "appropriate." There's been a real world example posted here of a cache that has been considered to have crossed the line so it's not just a theory it happens.

 

Just where do you draw the line?

[+KBI]

Actually, my best advice to you CoyoteRed is to stop completely ignoring everyone who dares to disagree with you. By simply repeating your indefensible pronouncements instead of actually responding to those who point out your fallacies, you're only making yourself sound silly. Hey, it keeps ME entertained, but it doesn't do much for advancing your position.

[CoyoteRed]

I may have a solution.

 

It would require some new programming of the site, but it would also be a benefit beyond additional logging requirements.

 

It would be an addition similar to the way benchmarks are an addition--these aren't caches. They are challenges. I was thinking about the DeLorme Challenges and similar. These challenges are actually shoehorned into a geocache because there is no other mechanism for them to fit. It would fit better as a different line item on personal stat pages. "Challenges Met"

 

It would work better in that there is no geocache to maintain simply in order to make a challenge. The challenger only has to maintain and police the challenge.

 

It would also fix a problem with some challenges, like the DeLorme Challenge, where the cache actually violates a guideline, specifically the requirement that all information and clues be available on the cache page to complete the cache.

 

Another thing is a challenge wouldn't have a set of coordinates, it's about a sub-set of caches found or other activities completed.

 

Some examples of challenges:

• Cached in all 50 states
  
• Broken 1000 caches found
  
• DeLorme Challenge
  
• Found one each of every D/T combination
  
• Wrote a poem on a KBI's cache.
  
• ...this list could go on and on.
  

This is similar to a locationless and I'm sure the first inclination would be to try to make it a waymark category, but I'm afraid that wouldn't help the issue here. The Challenges would be geocaching challenges, not Waymarking challenges.

 

Thoughts?

[+The Leprechauns]

I think you're mistaken. I've read the entire thread, and so far nobody has even come close to explaining how not reading the cache page is a valid excuse for not knowing what’s on the cache page.

The hamster did that earlier in the thread. Quite eloquently I might add.

If by "eloquently" you mean "tried weakly, but soon conceded," then yes, I remember (and since nobody else can link this stuff, I guess I will):

 

1. 'The hamster' made his argument against being responsible for reading the cache page here.

2. I challenged the logic of that argument here.

3. In this post he told me: "Saying "read the cache page" does have merit. It is a good discussion."

 

Granted, it's not a clear concession, but (1) it sure sounds that way, (2) he hasn't made any further attempts to argue against my position, and (3) it's a whole lot closer to being a concession than a winning argument, as you seem to claim.

Maybe people stop arguing their points and stop reading threads such as this, because they realize that it's pointless and the reading of said thread gives them such a big headache and they have enough other things going on in their life to waste it in a stressfull place like this.

That's precisely right. I've quit following this thread for the same reasons that Jeremy did. My silence should not be construed as a concession of my valid opinion, nor should my respectful recognition of opposing points of view be taken as agreement with those views. I believe that nothing will change on this issue as a result of this thread, so after offering my views I moved along.

[+KBI]

I may have a solution.

 

It would require no new programming of the site.

 

It would employ what some might consider a slight bending of the unwritten rules of caching, but no more so than is currently generally accepted my most participants.

 

It would allow those who dislike 'additional logging requirements' caches a way to hunt them as plain Traditionals, only without having to be inconvenienced by any of the extra 'jumping through hoops' when claiming their smiley. I was thinking about my poetry cache and similar. These challenges are actually fun for most of the folks who do them, but others might prefer my workaround.

 

It would work better in that there is no dilemma on the part of the cache owner when finders either fail to read the description, or for whatever reason choose to ignore the requirements.

 

It would also fix the problem with CoyoteRed's insistence that such caches should actually be banned, which violates a guideline, specifically his requirement that all cachers "be considerate of others" as spelled out in his own personal Geocacher's Code Of Ethics.

 

 

Here, then, is my solution: When you find a cache featuring special logging requirements with which you do not wish to comply -- simply log the smiley ('Fount It' log) on one of your own caches!

 

The benefits:

• Your find count remains unaffected
  
• Nobody can delete the smiley but you
  
• No need to change the game as it currently exists
  
• No need for any new attributes
  
• No need for redefining cache categories
  
• No need for creating entirely new categories
  
• No need to trouble yourself reading cache descriptions (assuming you really want to ignore the remaining risks of ignoring them, that is)
  
• No need to issue demands that fellow cachers' hides be banned
  
• You get to write whatever explanation you like in your Found It log, including your full, unrestricted and uncensored opinion of the cache owner and his %*@ logging requirements.
  
• There is absolutely nothing the cache owner with the %*@ logging requirements can do about it
  
• ...this list could go on and on.
  

The drawbacks:

• You'll need to be a cache owner already, or convince a friend to let you use theirs.
  
• Some people frown on folks logging smileys on their own caches, but hey, is IS your cache, it IS a workaround we're talking about here, and there is nothing in the rules or guidelines to prevent it.
  

Depending on who you are, this one is either a drawback or a benefit:

• Every time someone bends the rule in this way, CoyoteRed will sense a disturbance in the force and will sit bolt upright in bed with an unexplainable and uncontrollable urge to put someone on his Ignore List.
  

Thoughts?

 

 

[EDIT: Thought of even more benefits.]

Edited May 22, 2006 by KBI

[+KBI]

That's precisely right. I've quit following this thread for the same reasons that Jeremy did. My silence should not be construed as a concession of my valid opinion, nor should my respectful recognition of opposing points of view be taken as agreement with those views. I believe that nothing will change on this issue as a result of this thread, so after offering my views I moved along.

First, I'm very happy to hear you say you believe this thread will not change anything. I wouldn't be much opposed to a new attribute or category, but I think a total ban on 'additional logging requirement' caches by Groundspeak would be a travesty.

 

Let's be fair with each other. As I said: It was NOT a clear concession you posted then, but it sure sounded like one. Many others have made very similar pronouncements here, yet once they were rebutted with logic they also quickly disappeared from the thread. You didn't leave us with much to go on, did you?

 

Even your latest post doesn't really clarify your viewpoint, does it? Now that you're back, would you care to weigh in on whether you DO still think that NOT reading the cache page is a valid excuse for not knowing what’s on the cache page? I'm still thinking that's a tough one to defend.

[+The Leprechauns]

That's precisely right. I've quit following this thread for the same reasons that Jeremy did. My silence should not be construed as a concession of my valid opinion, nor should my respectful recognition of opposing points of view be taken as agreement with those views. I believe that nothing will change on this issue as a result of this thread, so after offering my views I moved along.

First, I'm very happy to hear you say you believe this thread will not change anything. I wouldn't be much opposed to a new attribute or category, but I think a total ban on 'additional logging requirement' caches by Groundspeak would be a travesty.

Read the words carefully. I said that *this thread* will not change anything. A thread that isn't a train wreck might produce different results. I plan to work towards that using other means available to me.

 

Let's be fair with each other. As I said: It was NOT a clear concession you posted then, but it sure sounded like one. Many others have made very similar pronouncements here, yet once they were rebutted with logic they also quickly disappeared from the thread. You didn't leave us with much to go on, did you?

 

Even your latest post doesn't really clarify your viewpoint, does it? Now that you're back, would you care to weigh in on whether you DO still think that NOT reading the cache page is a valid excuse for not knowing what’s on the cache page? I'm still thinking that's a tough one to defend.

I am quite satisfied that I presented my views and explained my position. Many people agreed with me. Others disagreed. I don't feel compelled to repeat myself ad nauseam.

 

And yes, I continue to believe that I ought to be able to go to the coordinates for a traditional cache, find the container, sign the log and log a "found it" online -- all without looking at the cache description. Caches with additional logging requirements ought to be flagged as such, either through an attribute or by placing them in the mystery/unknown category.

 

In other words, just what I said several pages ago.

[+niraD]

Yes, I understand your position. You've made it very clear. However, we've not established where to draw the line of what is "appropriate" and what is not.

Why do we need to draw a line?

 

There's been a real world example posted here of a cache that has been considered to have crossed the line so it's not just a theory it happens.

And the real world example has been resolved.