The End Of Micros?

[Mushtang]

You are using "type" like that of a cache which is "illegal" is a type. That doesn't fly.

I never said "type".

 

Yeah, whatever.

 

It's not a Cache Type, but it is a type of cache. If you don't like that word because it's used in another way, how about I say it's a kind of cache? Better? Okay, I'll say it again so you're not confused. CR is calling for a ban on a kind of cache that requires additional logging requirements.

 

Now who is twisting words here??

 

You are.

 

You are using "type" like that of a cache which is "illegal" is a type. That doesn't fly.

 

That must have been some other Mushtang.

 

Liar liar liar. I never said "type". You lie.

 

The difference between you and me is I can quote you verbatim and you, well, you can only twist.

No, what I said was "type". You're just twisting my word.

 

(Psst, CR. Doesn't it just suck when someone claims they didn't say something that you've actually quoted them as saying, and then they STILL claim they didn't say it? Makes you wonder if they really believe what they're saying.)

[+BlueDeuce]

darn, the picture won't post.

 

Edit:

 

This'll do

 

 

Man, I never thought I'd be happy to see a new 'Help me pick a GPS' thread. How long can this go on?

Edited June 26, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+bwmick]

In my local group as is apparent in the rest of the caching community there is growing criticism of the increasing number of micros being published as many of you that have been following the issue are all too aware. I'll refrain from using the popular "trademarked" word for it.

 

If history can be an indicator I think I can with some relative assuredness predict that in the probably not too distant future we will see Groundspeak stop publishing them.

 

Why? Because in the absence of a rating method or some type of mechanism that prevents the majority of caches in a certain category from reaching "lametood" archival is how it is dealt with.

 

Perhaps we are looking at the problem in the wrong way. Instead of limiting the creativity and growth of the hobby by wholesale archival and eliminating another venue, we need to look at the criteria for how any cache is published or allowed to remain published.

 

In my neck of the woods there are 2 (used to 3 but one diasappeared) micros out of 150 or so possible within 100 km (60 miles or so) Therefore I have very little experience hunting them. Tell the truth my experience with micros is mostly from reading the opinions of others in the forums. While I am clever enough to take opinion as exactly that I am confused as to how a cache container can cause so much strife.

 

Having said that I have read lots of posts saying my finds aren't as valuable as somebody elses because I started after the poulation explotion of those little caches. they are welcome to there opinion without any argument from me. it may be something they need to believe, and who am I to take that away from them. But to tell the truth I am confused by the back and forth I have seen in this and several other forums. especially when the bickering is so far away from the origional topic (quoted above)

 

It appears that there are lots of people out there who like to do lots of caches in a day and the explosion of micros is good for them. It also seems that there are probably lots of people who don't appreciate a micro in a walmart parking lot or a cracker barrel. As lots of others have said and will continue to say please hunt the caches you enjoy. Hide a cache that you would like to find, because no matter how you hunt I am pretty sure that there will be others who enjoy to do it the same way. And as far as micros taking up space that could be used to place a trading cache, multies do that too. part of the hiding game is to place what you like within the framework of the caching society. As aasop said if you can't get what you want making lots of noise about it just sounds like sour grapes. To all involved if you are ever in my neck of the woods let me know I would love to hide or seek a cache with you. People as passionate about there hobbies as ya'll seem to be, would be a hoot to hang out with.

 

good luck in the hunt

 

bwmick

[+KBI]

So, I should just allow such an outrageous lie stand without challenge? I can debate someone who can keep to the facts. There is no debating lies.

It's been shown that I didn't make it up. I DID keep to the facts. I linked you to just a few of your own very many existing posts indicating that I DIDN'T lie.

 

Yes, you made it very clear in that thread that you thought such caches should be eliminated. That's been well established. Accept it.

 

Now, if that is no longer your opinion -- if you have, in fact, changed your mind since then, well hey, no problem, we all change our opinions from time to time -- why not be mature enough to admit it? What's wrong with saying: "Yes, at that time I insisted that certain kinds of caches should be banned, but I no longer feel that way." I could respect that. It would show open-mindedness. It would be MUCH more impressive than all the back-pedalling and the strange denials. You wouldn't even have to explain why you changed your mind -- although I know I'd be interested to hear your thinking.

 

What I still don't understand is why you seem to have such heartburn when another cache hider chooses a different-sized container that you would have chosen. You've demonstrated over and over in these forums that the option to simply avoid a cache you don't like just isn't quite good enough for CoyoteRed -- you feel the inexplicable need to continuously lecture everyone else on how the game should be played. Why? Why not go out and cache the way you choose, and leave the rest of us alone? I really think you'd be much happier.

 

Don't like the cache with additional logging requirements? Don't do the cache! Don't like the little-cache-in-a-big-place? Don't do the cache! You've yet to adequately explain why that isn't good enough for you.

[+tozainamboku]

I have not seen yet a reasonable argument for why you should place the largest cache an area can support.

 

I think the issue boils down to the fact there are so many posts complaining about micros. Why is that? Clearly micros don't outnumber larger caches hardly anywhere, yet they have a bad rap. Why?

 

It's kind of hard to address caches where nothing but a micro will fit, but placing a larger-than-a-micro where one would fit could go a little ways in taking the pressure off. If the cache still sucks then it's not the fault of it being a micro. I think that boils my argument down to a nutshell. Fewer crappy micros, less angst.

 

I'd love to go back to discussing crappy trades instead.

 

So are you saying that a reasonable argument for placing a larger cache in location that could support either a micro or a larger cache is to reduce angst in the forums? Might I suggest just not posting in the forums any more.

 

So, I see you, too, are not interested in a solution. You and others shout down mine but don't offer any of your own.

 

I'm not the one complaining about micros. I've said this and demonstrated this time and time again. I'm not the one causing angst in the forums, or the community, over micros.

 

I'm not rejecting your solution. I'm rejecting the notion that there is a problem. A few loud mouths in the forums complain over something that truely doesn't affect them does not make it a problem. It's a perception that micros are a problem - perhaps made stronger because those that should know better continue to post this.

 

...or are you saying that I shouldn't post in the forums so the loud mouths and bullies can get their way and cram their way of caching down everyone else's throat?

 

Edited June 26, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+Runaround]

How long can this go on?

 

If the Additional Logging Requirements thread is any indication, this one is just getting warmed up.

[+CheshireFrog]

I'm not rejecting your solution. I'm rejecting the notion that there is a problem. A few loud mouths in the forums complain over something that truely doesn't affect them does not make it a problem. It's a perception that micros are a problem - perhaps made stronger because those that should know better continue to post this.

 

EXACTLY! Do these people have no life outside the forums? Do they truly believe that the same handful of people shouting in this echo chamber represent the attitudes of the caching community at large?

[+KBI]

I have not seen yet a reasonable argument for why you should place the largest cache an area can support. The best one is that there are cachers who like to trade swag or who want to move travel bugs. I just don't see micros as leading to the elimination of other sized caches. I've seen in this thread the use of statistics to show that micros are a minority of caches to prove that most people don't like micros. So there are plenty of small, regular, and large caches that you can find to do trades and move TBs. I find the argument that you should place larger caches "for the good of the community" offensive. There are people who actually seek out lamppost and guardrail micros. I am not one of them. But I am one who likes the challenge of finding a micro or small cache along the trail on a hike. I even prefer it to find an ammo can hidden under a bush. In almost every case, a micro has meant less bushwhacking, as it was hidden on or near the trail. Unlike KBI and Mushtang, I don't mind hearing from CR and others what kind of caches they like to find. I do mind anyone saying the we should hide only the kind of caches they like to find.

I can't speak for Mushtang, but you misrepresent my position. I pretty much agree with your position as stated above. "CR and others" are welcome to their opinions. I also like to hear a variety of thought. It's only when "CR and others" start trying to impose their version of the game on everyone else that I have a problem -- like you, I find the argument that one should place larger caches "for the good of the community" offensive.

 

 

I was hoping that either Fizzymagic or The Jester would use their magic and make this thread disappear.

Unfortunately, Fizzymagic seems to have made himself disappear.

[CoyoteRed]

How long can this go on?

 

If the Additional Logging Requirements thread is any indication, this one is just getting warmed up.

 

Nah, I'm done. If no one wants to actually discuss the topic at hand, then there's no need to continue.

[+BlueDeuce]

How long can this go on?

 

If the Additional Logging Requirements thread is any indication, this one is just getting warmed up.

 

Okay, I'll put on another pot of coffee.

 

Knowing my luck somebody will tell me how I should throw the grind into a filter.

 

 

[Keystone]

I am closing this thread because it's degenerated into back and forth name calling over tangential issues. In future threads I'll deal with this by issuing warnings to the bickering parties to take their tangents to a different thread or to private conversation. But this one's too far gone.

 

The topic of the thread asked whether microcaches might be eliminated due to the amount of complaints and controversy associated with this cache size. Jeremy answered that they would not be eliminated, because they are geocaches, and there are tools provided to filter out types of geocaches that a geocacher does not wish to seek out.