Cache Cops At It Again.

June 13, 2006

A short time ago there was a cacher who posted a question on the forums. He seemed to be a nice enough fellow. Just had a question about Pocket caches. It went on for days. I learned alot, so much so that I deleted all of my pocket cache logs so my find count would be legit. He kept saying he just wanted to know what it was.

Here's the problem,

It appears (I did say APPEARS) to be going around sicking the moderators on PC's. even actual caches that are also logged as pcs.

I don't like to name people in here. You know who you are.

What's up man?

Is there anything else you could be doing than scouring the website finding "unacceptable" caches or logs?

erikwillke

(BTW) I know you are going to check out my profile. please let me know if there is anything that needs attention.

1.5k · June 13, 2006

It is doing what to the mods?

2.3k · June 13, 2006

June 13, 2006

Some people in these forums have nothing better to do than spend time finding fault with others. I am sure you will get dogpiled for your comment. Sadly, it seems to be the way things are done in here.

My take on pocket caches: a great idea to help geocachers get to know each other that unfortunately got out of hand. End result: over-reaction to the 10th power.

I hope this thread doesn't degenerate into character assaults like some of the others.

Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity. Anybody who takes it so seriously as to start a witch hunt or name calling needs to lighten up. What we do not need is cache cops. What we do need is a lot less P&M and a lot more FUN!

I consider myself a reasonable man. I figure it's reasonable to hear another viewpoint and give it due consideration. I also think it's reasonable for others to hear my viewpoint and give it due consideration. What is not reaonable is to claim the moral high ground and proclaim that other positions are invalid. That IMO is what the so called cache cops have done. I hope future issues can be settled without all the angst and bad feelings. It's not at all good for geocaching.

38.2k · June 13, 2006

If you mean that some geocachers are exposing caches that don't comply with the guidelines, then I say great.

2.1k · June 13, 2006

I consider myself a reasonable man. I figure it's reasonable to hear another viewpoint and give it due consideration. I also think it's reasonable for others to hear my viewpoint and give it due consideration. What is not reaonable is to claim the moral high ground and proclaim that other positions are invalid.

There have been lots of reasonable comments voiced by people that feel PC's are not appropriate. I suspect many have given the PC concept "due consideration" and still believe it is a flawed concept.

It has little to do with "moral high ground" and a lot to do with the basics of geocaching.

24.7k · June 13, 2006

...(BTW) I know you are going to check out my profile. please let me know if there is anything that needs attention.

Never let Mickey come between you and your wife. Especially when Minnie's not around.

1.5k · June 13, 2006

If you mean that some geocachers are exposing caches that don't comply with the guidelines, then I say great.

What I find interesting is that some of the best well known caches of yesterday could never make it to approval today based on current guidelines.

Still not sure what the person who started this thread meant...mods are logging pocket caches? or what?

I might have still been young and stupid, but I do not remember the fall out last year after GW3 like I've seen this year

24.7k · June 13, 2006

...Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity. ...

Anyone who says this usually always follows up with something that isn't fun. It's almost guaranteed.

When you get right down to it, some positions that people take are bad, wrong, invalid or simply a lost cause as is the case wiht pocket caches. No amount of posturing, will ever change a pocket cache to something other than a moving cache. Since those are not allowed on this site, pocket caches are not valid caches on this site.

There is plenty of room to debate a pocket cache and if this site should allow them. That's different from validating the ones that exist only by breaking current rules and which by those rules get archived.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Renegade Knight: Champion of many a lost cause on this site.

June 13, 2006

There is plenty of room to debate a pocket cache and if this site should allow them. That's different from validating the ones that exist only by breaking current rules and which by those rules get archived.

I disagree. When I saw anyone speaking FOR pocket caches - they were immediately dogpiled with no consideration given for the positive aspects they brought up. I don't believe there was room for debate. I compromised my initial position after reading the opinions of the anti-pocket cache contingent. I didn't see anyone trying to meet me in the middle so there I still sit.

The problem I see is that all caches that were labeled "pocket caches" were immediately archived in a manner that was inappropriate. This is not just my opinion, it is an opinion shared by many others including those that are in a position of authority in Groundspeak. I do not mean to defend someone who dusted off an archived cache and carried it to an event. I can see that does not fall within the guidelines even though it was done in the open for the past 2 years in sight of representatives of Groundspeak and with their knowledge. That in itself lends credibility to the practice. Again, I am not defending the practice, I'm just saying that there was a much better way to go about stopping the practice (which admittedly had gotten out of hand) than a witch hunt followed by the summary archival of caches by out of state reviewers. Lots of toes got stomped on and feelings hurt without need. There must be a better way! To me that way is with manners and respect. Two things sorely lacking in these forums IMO.....

Jim

P.S. My last comment regarding manners and respect is not directed to you RK - they are meant to be general comments. :drama:

June 13, 2006

Jeremy: You want answers?

erikwillke: I think I'm entitled to them.

Jeremy: You want answers?

erikwillke: I want the truth!

Jeremy: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has caches. And those caches have to be policed. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for locationless caches and you curse the pocket caches. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that urban micros, while tragic, probably saved Geocaching. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves Geocaching...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that cache patrol. You need me on that cache patrol.

We use words like maintenance, permanence, saturation...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a gps and find a cache. Either way, I don't give a sat-lock what you think you're entitled to!

erikwillke: Did you order the cache archived?

Jeremy: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.

erikwillke: Did you order the cache archived?

Jeremy: You're goll-darn-right I did!!

edit to change character names

Edited June 13, 2006 by hikergps

2.7k · June 13, 2006

What I find interesting is that some of the best well known caches of yesterday could never make it to approval today based on current guidelines.

The guidelines have evolved over the years. However just because you missed the days when the guidelines allowed those types of caches doesn't mean you have the right to igore the current guidelines. If you feel that a certain type of cache should be allowed then you need to petition TPTB for change. Blatantly igoring the guidelines is only going to cause hate and discontent.

The reviewers do not have the time to police approved caches for changes that violate the guidelines. The Geocaching community needs to be and is self policing.

June 13, 2006

Jeremy: You want answers?

erikwillke: I think I'm entitled to them.

Jeremy: You want answers?

erikwillke: I want the truth!

Jeremy: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has caches. And those caches have to be policed. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for locationless caches and you curse the pocket caches. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that urban micros, while tragic, probably saved Geocaching. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves Geocaching...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that cache patrol. You need me on that cache patrol.

We use words like maintenance, permanence, saturation...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a gps and find a cache. Either way, I don't give a sat-lock what you think you're entitled to!

erikwillke: Did you order the cache archived?

Jeremy: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.

erikwillke: Did you order the cache archived?

Jeremy: You're goll-darn-right I did!!

edit to change character names

Brilliant, I love it :drama:

June 13, 2006

Allow me to clarify. I no longer think Pocket Caches are legit caches. I have deleted some 17 PC finds from my log total. When the person I mentioned in my original post brought it up I did some "soul searching" and decided to no longer participate or condone PC's. I'm not questioning the legitimasy (sp?) of PC's.

The problem is that I have seen some legit caches that are at the coords stated and that do not move archived because the owner has let someone log a find at an event. Is a PC bad form? Yes. Should it stop? Yes. Should a Moderator (or Reviewer) archive a cache without trying to get the cache owner to change his or her Modus Operandi? No.

What would I do? If I was one of TPTB I would inform the cache owner that his or her actions in allowing PC logs on a legit cache is going to endanger their cache. if they don't take action then shut it down. By action I mean something like a note on the main page stating no PC logging or change the pc logs to "write note"

What bothers me is that it is like little Billy going to the teacher "Johnie has gum, He's not supposed to have gum. Tell him to get rid of it." I think "tattletell" comes to mind.

edited for clarity

Edited June 13, 2006 by erikwillke

7.2k · June 13, 2006

Jeremy: You want answers?

Excellent!

While cruising Google Video I've seen a trend of folks making little mini movies using popular games as their stage. It's quite entertaining and there is some real talent out there.

Here is the a remake of the scene from "A Few Good Men."

On topic tie-in with geocaching.

3.9k · June 13, 2006

. . .Here's the problem,

It appears (I did say APPEARS) to be going around sicking the moderators on PC's. even actual caches that are also logged as pcs. . .

Say what? I find your statement (above) to be very confusing, and have little idea what you are trying to say. If , as you seem to report, this man (or woman) is really trying to make moderators sick, I am sure that someone will have brought the matter to the attention of law enforecment authorities. And, you seem to jump to the topic of personal computers (PCs), but I am not sure where or how that leap of faith was made, nor why. You may wish to try to explain what you are really trying to say.

Thanks!

3.9k · June 13, 2006

If you mean that some geocachers are exposing caches that don't comply with the guidelines, then I say great.

I agree much with Brian, although I am not at all sure what the OP was trying to say.

3.9k · June 13, 2006

I consider myself a reasonable man. I figure it's reasonable to hear another viewpoint and give it due consideration. I also think it's reasonable for others to hear my viewpoint and give it due consideration. What is not reaonable is to claim the moral high ground and proclaim that other positions are invalid.

There have been lots of reasonable comments voiced by people that feel PC's are not appropriate. I suspect many have given the PC concept "due consideration" and still believe it is a flawed concept.

It has little to do with "moral high ground" and a lot to do with the basics of geocaching.

And to add a few more observations here: no one has been claiming that pocket caches themselves are undesirable (it seems like a nice little harmless social game to me), but rather that the logging of such social ice-breaker entities as "finds" for some kind of "geocache" has very little to do with geocaching, and is also not in compliance with current geocaching.com guidelines.

21.9k · June 13, 2006

I hope this thread doesn't degenerate into character assaults like some of the others.

I think that noble goal was lost in the initial post. I caution everyone to avoid personal attacks, whether open or veiled. I am not very sure why we have to have another thread to rehash pocket caches, but provided that the discussion can take place without personal attacks, it can certainly take place.

I can see that does not fall within the guidelines even though it was done in the open for the past 2 years in sight of representatives of Groundspeak and with their knowledge. That in itself lends credibility to the practice. Again, I am not defending the practice, I'm just saying that there was a much better way to go about stopping the practice (which admittedly had gotten out of hand) than a witch hunt followed by the summary archival of caches by out of state reviewers. Lots of toes got stomped on and feelings hurt without need. There must be a better way! To me that way is with manners and respect. Two things sorely lacking in these forums IMO.....

I do need to rebut two of your assertions. First, when a Groundspeak volunteer such as myself attends an event, we are entitled to enjoy ourselves *as geocachers.* Imagine how popular we would be at events if we needed to blow a referee's whistle each time we saw something we felt violated the rules and guidelines of geocaching. Please do not draw any conclusions about whether Groundspeak approves of a practice by reason of my attendance at an event, or my observing a questionable cache out in the field, and not screaming "foul."

Second, I am unaware of any caches that were archived by "out of state reviewers." My understanding is that all of the archivals were done by Groundspeak directly.

2.6k · June 13, 2006

To me that way is with manners and respect. Two things sorely lacking in these forums IMO.....

Speaking of people who think they occupy a moral high ground.

June 13, 2006

If you mean that some geocachers are exposing caches that don't comply with the guidelines, then I say great.

I agree much with Brian, although I am not at all sure what the OP was trying to say.

There is a cacher going around scouring the cache pages looking for Pocket Caches(PC's) and then telling a moderator(or reviewer) and getting them to act. Sicking them on it (eg. sick 'em fido)(not infering mods and reviewers are dogs)

2.6k · June 13, 2006

There is a cacher going around scouring the cache pages looking for Pocket Caches(PC's) and then telling a moderator(or reviewer) and getting them to act. Sicking them on it (eg. sick 'em fido)(not infering mods and reviewers are dogs)

The words you are looking for are "sic" and "siccing".

And I say, way to go, anonymous vigilante!

June 13, 2006

The problem is that I have seen some legit caches that are at the coords stated and that do not move archived because the owner has let someone log a find at an event. Is a PC bad form? Yes. Should it stop? Yes. Should a Moderator (or Reviewer) archive a cache without trying to get the cache owner to change his or her Modus Operandi? No.

Why not? If the practice is becoming rampant, as it was recently, with pocket caches, retirement cards, switch-and-bait caches from all over the world, a crack-down was in order. It was done, and I doubt that pocket caches and the like will be on the rise anytime soon. Jeremy has also instituted a reasonable "meet and greet people" logging system (sans smiley, of course) to replace the practice pocket caches were supposedly performing. The reviewers cannot read every log to see which is legitimate or not, and I think that the community as a whole has an obligation to keep the game clean, lest it degenerate into a free-for-all mess. I'm glad you did some soul-searching and chose to change; however from the debate in the other threads, there are a lot who won't, and will continue to try to stretch the boundries, until they snap.

Am I searching out bogus logs? No. Would I rat out a cacher who used one of my caches, alive or archived, for the lame purposes many did at GW4? You bet. If a cacher is misusing his or her caches, whether they have 50 or 15000 finds, they should be given a speeding ticket, not a warning to follow the rules they agreed to when they chose to participate in Groundspeak.

21.9k · June 13, 2006

If you mean that some geocachers are exposing caches that don't comply with the guidelines, then I say great.

I agree much with Brian, although I am not at all sure what the OP was trying to say.

There is a cacher going around scouring the cache pages looking for Pocket Caches(PC's) and then telling a moderator(or reviewer) and getting them to act. Sicking them on it (eg. sick 'em fido)(not infering mods and reviewers are dogs)

Once again, your information is (1) inaccurate and (2) out of date. Forum moderators have no power over geocaches. And reviewers typically do not take action outside their own territory except in cases of emergency or when asked to help out as a backup. The pocket caches were archived by Groundspeak.

Groundspeak is now offering affected cache owners the opportunity to restore their caches in one of two ways, by either creating a new cache (if there was a permanent cache with coordinates) or by unarchiving the old cache and cleaning up the pocket cache finds. So your information is also a week out of date in terms of Groundspeak's approach to this issue.

Affected cache owners should contact their volunteer cache reviewer if they wish to explore the above alternatives.

June 13, 2006

I hope this thread doesn't degenerate into character assaults like some of the others.

I think that noble goal was lost in the initial post. I caution everyone to avoid personal attacks, whether open or veiled. I am not very sure why we have to have another thread to rehash pocket caches, but provided that the discussion can take place without personal attacks, it can certainly take place.

I understand and fully agree that these posts should not be personal. I did not mention anyone by name. I think what has happenned is immature and the practice brought to light. I have an opinion. I respect others but I still have mine. As I understand it this is the purpose of these forums, to voice our opinions. If I was going to make it personal I would have said who it was. There have been a couple of times I had a direct question to this person and I asked it off list.

I'm not attacking the individual, I'm attacking the practice of snooping and tattleing.

edited for clarity

Edited June 13, 2006 by erikwillke

June 13, 2006

If you mean that some geocachers are exposing caches that don't comply with the guidelines, then I say great.

I agree much with Brian, although I am not at all sure what the OP was trying to say.

There is a cacher going around scouring the cache pages looking for Pocket Caches(PC's) and then telling a moderator(or reviewer) and getting them to act. Sicking them on it (eg. sick 'em fido)(not infering mods and reviewers are dogs)

Once again, your information is (1) inaccurate and (2) out of date. Forum moderators have no power over geocaches. And reviewers typically do not take action outside their own territory except in cases of emergency or when asked to help out as a backup. The pocket caches were archived by Groundspeak.

Groundspeak is now offering affected cache owners the opportunity to restore their caches in one of two ways, by either creating a new cache (if there was a permanent cache with coordinates) or by unarchiving the old cache and cleaning up the pocket cache finds. So your information is also a week out of date in terms of Groundspeak's approach to this issue.

Affected cache owners should contact their volunteer cache reviewer if they wish to explore the above alternatives.

Thank you Keystone. One of my issues has been addressed. As far as who was doing the actual archiving I didn't know the exact position but I new one person had to tell on them first. That is my chief concern. not who, or why, but how.

June 13, 2006

To ensure this does not become a personal thread like Keystone said it would I am closing it down. If you would like to send me hate mail you are welcome to use my profile address.

Erik

Cache Cops At It Again.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment