Fish Eagle's Response

[+Fish Eagle]

Fish Eagle's response to the following threads on this forum -

 

Cheating the Rankings - Faux pas, Who ya trying to kid?

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=133998

 

and Logging Missing Caches as "found" - an unethical practice?

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=128726

 

As you are all probably well aware, we are newbies to the SA forums - we only found out about them a few weeks ago when QFC added a link to za.net.

 

We were not aware of any of the history of what's been said regarding cheating - and a recent surf into the (hopefully) exciting and stimulating history of the SA forums left us totally HORRIFIED !!!!

 

Now we understand why we experienced some "stand-offish" behaviour and funny reactions from some other cachers.

 

We intend to remedy this - we will not tolerate being branded as "cheaters" and "unethical geocachers" just chasing stats. That's rubbish - we're passionate geocachers, who actually don't give a hoot about the stats. In fact - wipe our stats to zero - that'll give us an excuse to go find them all again, and hide them all again.

One post said why not kick them off the stats? Well, why not? It would have avoided a lot of contention, and not been an issue for us.

 

What is disappointing is that while all this was being said behind our backs, everyone assumed we were "in the know" but didn't care, and nobody bothered to let us know whats happening. Well, we do care - we care a lot!!

 

To all the cachers who had opinions on this subject - no hard feelings whatsoever. Well done for expressing your feelings. It's just sad that it was "winking in the dark" at the time.

 

There is one main issue in the thread, but there are several other lesser ones too. So, we have tried to identify all these issues, and will address them all, whether they were aimed at us or not.

 

We have revisited every found log that we've ever written, and have identified all logs that are in any way out of the ordinary. We have judged the validity of these logs against what we have learnt recently, will amend or delete them where necessary, and lay it transparently on the table for all to comment on. Our objective is to be seen as 100% clean and ethical by the end of this process, whatever it takes.

 

Our response is extensive (relative to the size of the issue as we perceive it), covers several posts on this thread, and is laid out as follows:

 

1. Fish Eagle - who are we, and what we stand for.

2. Cheating - intent and objective.

3. Review of "Found" logs:

3.1 Traditional caches

3.2 Multi caches

3.3 Virtual caches

3.4 Event caches

3.5 Puzzle caches

3.6 Webcam caches

3.7 Locationless caches

3.8 Earthcaches

4. Our cache hides.

5. Our "meteoric" climb

6. Travel Bugs

7. Stats

8. Our FTF's

Edited August 12, 2006 by Fish Eagle

[+Fish Eagle]

1. Fish Eagle - who are we?

 

Fish Eagle is Andy and Lindy of Nelspruit, occasionally accompanied by two of our kids, aged 17 and 14.

 

Andy (53), self-employed part-time financial and systems consultant, previously MD and chairman of SPAR Mpumalanga, semi-retired in 2003. I've lived my life clean and tidy and within the law, and I'm really proud of my ethic - in business, and in my private life. I don't jik the taxman (really - yes, really!), I don't screw customers or suppliers, and I've been a successful businessman running a billion rand a year business. I believe that there is no pillow as soft as a clear conscience, and live by the maxim that you don't have to cheat to win.

 

Lindy (55), self-employed in e-mail marketing and advertising, previously owned a hairdressing salon and a chainsaw business. Lindy has also lived her life clean and tidy and within the law, and is also very proud of her ethic.

 

We have flexible working hours, take a lot of time off, are blessed with good health and being able to afford to travel quite frequently for fun. We found out about geocaching in Oct 2005, got totally hooked despite there being almost nothing here, and set out on a mission to get GC off the ground in MP.

 

Our reaction to what has been said is extreme - we are totally horrified.

[+Fish Eagle]

2. Cheating - intent and objective:

 

Cheating is an intentional action, and cannot happen by accident. It inevitably has an objective, the pursuit of which causes the cheater to break the rule.

 

So, let's examine intent and objective in our context -

 

Intent - certainly not. We do not intentionally break law or rules - ever. If we overstepped the mark (which we will establish later on), it was due to ignorance, wrong interpretation, or using the wrong rule book.

 

Objective - this can only be the rankings, which are interesting, but not important to us.

 

Enough said - but that's only our word. So, we looked for some factual substantiation of these statements.

Here's some examples where we have intentionally walked past caches on ethical grounds. Caches that we know exactly where they are, are easy to get to, and we could simply have made a dart in to nail them. If we are the stats-hungry opportunists that we are accused of being, surely we would have done these caches. We chose not to, unlike several other cachers who have had reservations, but still did them. We invite you to read the logs, especially ours, for the following caches:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

GCRH9J Nkuhlu - KNP (we recently opened a thread about this cache) - we pass this cache regularly, as recently as last Sunday, have stood within 25m of the cache, and we chose not to break the park's rules.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

GCTM25 Booze Box - Benoni - We stood at the fence and chose not to climb over and trespass on private property.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

GC1CF0 West Coast Flowers - we didn't even bother to write a log for this one, but again we stood at the fence, and chose not to climb over and trespass on private property.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

GCN863 Suburban Rock - Pretoria - we were within 60m of the cache, but we chose to turn back at the locked gate - we could have climbed over and got the cache.

(Yep, might not be that young anymore, but a palisade fence is no real obstacle)

 

There are probably more examples if we scratched for them. And, we have never cached after dark - not that there's anything wrong with caching after dark. But, if we were so stats-hungry, surely we would have?

 

No - don't gloss past here. We took the effort to put these links in and expect you to visit them and read the logs.

 

Now we'll touch on a different subject (also one of the sensitive issues), but it's relevant here too.

 

DNF's - we have 31 DNF logs on record. This should make it quite clear that we are not afraid to walk away from a cache unfulfilled, and log a DNF.

Our last caching weekend in Gauteng produced 15 found logs, and 7 DNF logs!! Not a good "batting" average.

 

At this point we hope to have convinced you that we are honest and ethical folk, don't have an obsession about stats, and don't break rules intentionally.

[+Fish Eagle]

3. Review of "found" logs.

 

We have revisited each and every "found" log that we have written since we started geocaching, and have identified every log that is out of the ordinary in any way.

We will not only specifically address the issues raised, but put all the "odd" logs on the table for scrutiny and comment, as there might be more rules and ethics that we are not aware of.

 

At this point, we have not amended or deleted any logs - they are all still there untouched, and you are welcome to scrutinise them. When this debacle has been put to bed, we will amend logs as necessary.

 

We have 334 found logs, made up as follows:

235 Traditional

21 Multis

37 Virtuals

2 Events

12 Puzzles

2 Webcams

24 Locationless

1 Earthcache

 

Here are the "out of the ordinary" cases in each of these categories, with <our opinion and intended action> :

[+Fish Eagle]

3.1 Traditional caches review (235 items)

 

3.1.1 GCVJ6C City Hall (Pretoria - micro) - we found the empty container lying on the grass, inserted a new logsheet, logged a find, replaced the cache where we thought it should be, and logged what we had done on GC.com <OK>

 

3.1.2 GCVTPQ Punta de Parra (Chile) and GCVRJ Vista de Volcan (Chile) - two new caches in southern Chile hidden by our daughter "Biltong", who Lindy introduced to caching. There are very few caches there. Lindy helped her to put together the caches, advised her regarding how to hide them, and immediately after they were hidden, before they were published on GC, went to check them, and logged finds. This was her contribution to trying to get caching going in that area. A Chilean geocaching pioneer from Santiago (a long way away) logged the following:

Hey, hey, hey thats cheating. You are right behind the placer.

After an email to him, this was his response:

I was joking ). You are very welcome to claim any FTF you can !!!. I am glad you, recruited Kristy and Fritz for the game and hope they will be very active geocachers.

I, myself logged a FTF when only I had the coords ). I am from Santiago, and the game have been growing slow but steadily. I placed the first geocache in 2001 and we have now more than 140 caches and around 15 active geocachers. I `ll try to grab the TB in Vista del Volcan before anyone else ... I hope you can visit Chile again soon. <Think OK>

 

3.1.3 GCV9RT Jurassic Park (Nelspruit - micro) - our daughter's first cache hide. 1st visit DNF (co-ords out), 2nd visit DNF (couldn't find it), 3rd visit found it, saw it, but had 100% security attention and couldn't sign the log without compromising the cache. No way going to log a 3rd DNF on daughter's first cache, so logged a find and sort out the logsheet later. (which we haven't done yet, but will next time we are in that area). <Not right, but not going to change it due to specific circumstances. We'll sign the log soon. Sadly, she'll possibly read this, and all the other dirty washing anyway>

 

3.1.4 GCP1PQ SCL -- Aeropuerto de A Merino Benitez (Chile) - cache gone, location obvious due to spoiler photo, logged a DNF. Owner emailed us (not our request) and said he wants to change it to a virtual, and said that we can log with a photo of the location. We did, and now see that we never deleted the DNF log, so there's a found and a DNF log. Here's his email:

Thank you for visiting my caches in Concepcion! I hope you'll aslo go for "El Torre". If you have time don't forget to visit "Salto de Itata"---> According to me this waterfall is more beautiful than the one of Laja! (and you'll be alone there) I will retrun to Chile in september in the meantime i am thinking of changing "SCL A Benito Meridez" into a virtual one. You can log this if you want because you were on the right spot! Please is you can post a picture of yourself in the neighbourhood of the tree. <Not OK, we'll delete the found log>

 

3.1.5 At this point, we must mention that we cached simultaneously in SA and Chile. Lindy found about 7 in Chile, while I did 5 or 6 back home. We also cached simultaneously a few weeks ago - Lindy did a few caches up top, while the I did 4 caches on the extreme hiking trail below. <Think OK>

 

3.1.6 GC55A5 Anglamarken (Sweden) - this is listed as a traditional, but we'll deal with this one later, together with the other Haggishunter armchair caches.

 

3.1.7 GCJ67A Lone Creek Falls (Sabie) - we replaced this muggled cache for GPSJane (not a local, and with her permission), and logged a find at the same time. <Think OK>

[+Fish Eagle]

3.2 Multi-caches review (21 items)

 

3.2.1 GCWQ48 Robbers cache (Pilgrims Rest) - We intentionally missed the first waypoint. In fact, we tried to find the cache without co-ords before it was even published. The owner told us about her new cache somewhere on Robbers pass. We tackled the ultimate challenge, and got to within 1m of it. When we came back later, we knew we had been in the right area and did some guesswork. Signed the log. <Think OK>

 

3.2.2 GCT0DF Beverley's Motoring Cache (W/Cape) - Resolved it without getting the first waypoint. Signed log. <Think OK>

 

3.2.3 GCR643 Speedboat Ornithology (W/Cape) - Missed first waypoint, did some guesswork. Signed log. <Think OK>

 

3.2.4 GCNCB3 A Walk in the Gardens (W/Cape) - Found the cache, touched it, could have retrieved and logged, but decided not to as it was a Saturday and there were plenty muggles, and the cache would probably have been compromised (again). Logged a find based on a fingerprint (ha-ha) with the owners consent.

[+Fish Eagle]

3.3 Virtual caches review (37 items)

 

This is the biggest contentious issue.

We have included Anglamarken (traditional), and 2 webcam caches under this heading, giving a total of 40 items.

Having read all the postings and opinions in the thread, we have split these into the following groups:

 

3.3.1 Virtual caches that we have visited, and fully complied with the owners' requirements to log. 9 items - these are unquestionably <OK>. (8 in the Cape, 1 in Nelspruit - GC numbers A538, AF35, GA0Z, GA10, G8D4, 3E5D, 42DC, 4160 & 31AA)

 

3.3.2 Armchair caches on Haggishunters list of known and published armchair caches. 15 items. General consensus appears to be that these are <OK>. (GC numbers 55A5, GWVP, B750, 44D9, GXJF, A7AD, GF9G, 8453, G5WV, D3DF, CFD9, C349, 6D43, HK8P & F55A)

However, we need to answer a few questions here - why did we do these?

Several reasons :

a. for extended periods we've had nothing to satisfy our GC craving closer than Pretoria. We go cold-turkey when all we get is a dismal red error message when asking for caches from home co-ords. We do prefer getting out, but if you ain't got nothing to do within a reasonable distance, then 2nd prize is also attractive.

b. they are great fun, and we've learnt a lot about topics we would never have explored, and learnt many new skills doing them.

c. a few are easy, most are extremely challenging. We have solved, received the owner's confirmation, and logged 15. There are 52 items on Haggishunter's list, which leaves 37. We have attempted every one of these, and failed (so far). We have not given up on them, and will continue to pursue them whenever we have nothing to find within a reasonable distance. Anybody else only got a 15 out of 52 success rate with anything to do with GC?

d. we enjoy a good puzzle, and a challenge. We have every puzzle cache in SA on our puzzles bookmark list, have found 12 to date, have another 12 solved and ready to pick up, and are busy working on every other puzzle in the northern half of the country.

 

If the general feeling in the SA caching community is that these armchair caches are a No-No, we will not delete our logs. They are our claim to success and achievement at solving challenging puzzles, have the owners' blessing, and they will stand no matter what. However, we will change the logs to notes to appease the stats-threatened if we have to.

And, by the way, a lot more effort and frustration goes into one of these finds than finding 10 tuppers in the bush.

 

3.3.3 Other virtual caches that do not fall into the above two groups. 16 items. These are regular virtual caches where there could be a reasonable expectation that the site should be visited, and would fall under the GC rule which we learned about on the 10th April thanks to a fellow geocacher who pointed it out to us. Sadly, he did it so delicately that no alarm bells started ringing (or we were too "dof" to get the message). The rule says: "Because of the nature of these geocaches, you must actually visit the location and acquire the coordinates there before you can post". This did confuse us somewhat, because up to that stage we believed that the cache owner has the final say about whether you can log it or not, and this rule clearly contradicts the armchair caches a la Haggishunter which are obvious, well-known, and tolerated by the powers that be. Anyway, we stopped doing these caches at that time (last log in this category was 9th April), because they sounded marginal.

 

Our modus operandi with them was to make it quite clear to the cache owner in our e-mail submitting the answer that we had solved the puzzle online, and had not visited the site. We only logged a find if the cache owner was OK with this. And we did have some who said no, which we didn't log. We even had some owners that said fine, but don't tell anyone, and some curious owners asking us how the hell we managed to solve it online. Anyway, that's the theory - we have every e-mail filed, and we've checked up on them. The practice is that there were a few that we slipped up on, and didn't make it obvious to the owner - oops. But, we NEVER wrote logs saying that we had visited the site when we had not, and we have never tried to hoodwink the owner into believing we were there - our logs remain open and unaltered for your inspection until this issue has been finalised. Most of them say interesting, found out something we didn't know, etc, etc, and thanks.

 

After reading all the opinion on the thread, it's quite clear that consensus is that the cache owner does not have the final say, and the GC rule applies, so we now view all of these as <Not OK>. But with some reluctance - at that time, we believed that we were working within the rules and ethics of the game, we applied a lot of effort, and derived a lot of pleasure (which no-one can take away), and we have no conscience. Within the framework of our knowledge and experience, we weren't doing anything wrong.

 

Same as the previous group, we will not delete our logs. They are with the owner's consent, and are our claim to success and achievement at solving challenging puzzles, and they will stand no matter what. However, we will change the logs to notes to appease the stats-threatened.

 

There is an exception where we didn't get confirmation, but were there before we started caching. This log will be deleted, and not changed to a note.

[+Fish Eagle]

3.4 Event caches review (2 items)

 

3.4.1 GCT9FC Lowveld Liftoff - We logged our own event. Before doing this, we did some research looking at top cachers' event logs and found that it is common practice. <Think OK>

 

3.5 Puzzle caches review (12 items)

 

3.5.1 GCW1F4 TNT (Pretoria) - While preparing for this Pta trip, we saw that the cache had been fried, so we contacted the owner and asked him if he would like us to drop off a temporary replacement if we got there before him. He said yes please, so we found the remnants, dropped off a temp, and we logged a find. Saw your log GR - we intentionally put the temp under the bricks out in the open - the pile of bricks was already there, and we thought it would be less conspicuous than bricks under the log. We also didn't want to disturb the cache remnants so that the owner could see them. We expected the cache to be replaced that weekend anyway. <Think OK>

 

3.6 Webcam caches review (2 items) - both Haggishunter armchair caches - dealt with under virtuals.

 

3.7 Locationless caches review (24 items)

 

So sad to see these go - we had great fun doing them and wish they could be re-instated, but understand the difficulties with them. We don't believe that we logged any that had been previously logged, because nobody had logged any in our area (although it was quite difficult to check). <OK>

 

3.8 Earthcaches review (1 item)

 

Was there, fulfilled owner's requirements. <OK>

[+Fish Eagle]

4. Our cache hides

 

We've heard some backhanded comments that our 55 cache hides is chasing stats, which implies that their quality is questionable. Well, nuts to whoever said that. We don't chase stats, but we have gone to great effort (and cost) to try to get geocaching going in our area, and make the Lowveld an attractive geo-tourist destination, but you can't sell something that doesn't exist, so we had to give GC some critical mass in the Lowveld. Our first cache hides were very amateurish, but these have all since been replaced and upgraded. We put a lot of effort into our hides, try to find great locations, try to make them as interesting as possible, and maintain them whenever necessary, and often also when not necessary. To date, we have not archived a single cache (but will sadly have to probably archive two shortly for reasons outside our control).

 

Anybody who wants DNF stats on our caches - just ask. We've cached Gauteng and the Cape, and had far higher DNF stats than any visitor has experienced on our caches. We take great satisfaction in seeing all the logs flood in over weekends, don't remember ever having had a "bad" log, and love this part of the game. Every one of our caches has the keenpeople rating link in it, so if you want to tell us that we've got weak stats-hungry caches, then that's your opportunity. We also invite anyone who has visited our caches to comment here - we're not scared to take criticism, especially if it leads to improvement.

 

Are we going to stop hiding caches? Certainly not - we have two "under construction" right now, and we will continue hiding until we reach our limits of being able to maintain them effectively, or are convinced that they're rubbish. We are blessed to live in an area with massive potential - there are still hundreds of great cache locations in the Lowveld, and feel sorry for cachers in parts of the country that have fewer opportunities.

[+Fish Eagle]

5. Our "meteoric" climb

 

Simple - we are totally hooked, have plenty time on our hands, have few commitments, can afford to travel, and get a lot of opportunities to go caching. And, it's going to get better (worse for some) because we're probably off to Wales shortly (if the UK airport problem gets resolved quickly) to see our daughter, who works 8-5, and we aint gonna sit in her flat in Cardiff and watch TV. For sure, we'll be out there enjoying our holiday, seeing all the sights that the local GC tour guides think we should see, and the stats-threatened better start worrying.

 

Regarding comments about rushing around making many finds in a day - for the record, our highest is 13 (Langebaan area), next best 11. The number of caches we do in a day is directly related to how good they are, or rather how long they entice us to stay. However, even some of the very best caches are "been there, seen it, done it, wow, was brilliant, thanks, and move on" caches.

[+Fish Eagle]

6. Travel Bugs

 

We've also seen and heard comment about virtual TB's. Yep, we've logged one, and don't intend to delete the log. We had some yank cachers drop a virtual TB into our event in March, and were ecstatic about it. It was a "gift" from them, and it was received as such. It created great interest with the few cachers in the Lowveld at that time because most of them had never even seen a real TB or geocoin. The Lowveld used to be almost devoid of TB's until we raided the Cape in Feb (dropped off 8 of our own, and brought back about 15) - sorry, but we needed them up here, although they didn't last long - the Lowveld tends to get cleaned out quickly by visitors whenever we have a few TB's around (but, right now, it's looking good - thanks Cache-fan, QFC, Myth and others). Then, in good faith, we asked the yanks to pass it on to the Cape's CITO event (as a "gift" from the Lowveld?). Sadly, the yanks went overboard, and a storm erupted about virtual TB's - sad, because they meant well, and probably got their fingers burnt.

 

At present we own 18 TB's, and would have 100 more if they were available. We get great pleasure out of watching our TB's move around the country and the world. We believe that TB's are toys, to be played with, and enjoyed, so please QFC, don't even think of publishing stats about TB's, else there'll be more issues for sure.

[+Fish Eagle]

7. Stats

 

QFC - your stats are great, and it sounds like the new, improved version will be even better - well done!!

 

They certainly have stimulated geocaching in SA, so we are very supportive of what you do, but the fact is that it has it's downside. If there were no stats, there would be no issues, because nobody would be "competing", and watching what everyone else is doing. We would all be getting along with our own caching, enjoying the outdoors, and/or the puzzles and virtuals, whatever's your fancy, occasionally meeting other cachers and exchanging stories, and everybody would grow old happily. But, there'd be fewer caches, fewer cachers, and probably a lot less caching activity. In the balance, the stats get a tick from us for sure, and any issues must be dealt with, but there's a lesson here, let's make sure that the "issue-ees" know what the "issue-ors" have "issue-s" about - winking in the dark and making assumptions doesn't work.

 

And regarding Fish Eagle's stats - the abovementioned log changes will reduce our finds from 334 to 317, and demote us from position 7 to position 7 on the rankings(Aaaish!!)

[+Fish Eagle]

8. Our FTF's

 

We have also heard comment about our 77 FTF's. Well nuts again. Some are due to good luck because there have been so many new caches in the Lowveld and the opportunities have been good, but a lot has been due to effort - we have actually had to get into the car, drive a distance, walk a distance, and find the cache before anyone else, often at inopportune times, and at a cost - they didn't just happen.

 

And yes, some of them are joint FTF's - our FTF bookmark list is public, feel free to inspect it. You will also notice FTF's in Gauteng and the Cape - they also didn't just happen.

[+Fish Eagle]

Finally, in closing this verbose and extensive response - we hope to put any Fish Eagle issues to bed, and invite your candid comments. ie: Speak now (now that we're listening), or forever hold your peace. And if there's "any other business" that we haven't covered, please say so.

 

And now we're going to get ourselves psyched up to go nail some great caches tomorrow.

 

Happy caching everyone.

[cache-fan]

Hi Fish Eagle,

 

At least one reply is owned to you regarding your very extensive observations and let me say I am not too shy to answer it from my point of view.

 

You are very correct in saying that until one year ago there was no activity in the Lowveld to Geocaching, you are the Ambassador to this region, never mind what is said.

 

The quality of caches in your region is in my opinion much higher that in regions as Gauteng, sorry to say but many new cacher’s in Gauteng are hiding caches on rubbish dump’s (especially the JHB East Rand region).

 

In the last few weeks / months I have doubts regarding the rankings, do we really want and need it?

 

In the last few weeks I am not happy at all with caches in Gauteng (location, quality, accessibility, …).

 

Beginning July 2006, at a more spontaneous Geocacher get-together in Berlin, I mentioned some of my observations I had in Germany, unfortunately as the sport takes off here we are facing the same.

 

For Cache Fan, no stats, do the ones interesting, hiding maybe?

 

Cache Fan

 

[cache-fan]

Noneseless to mention that my today’s logs, DNF’s, remarks on rubbish dump’s etc. will not appear on GC today, nor in future!

[+batsgonemad and his squirrel]

Good for you Fish Eagle tell them like it is.

Stats or no stats caching will still be done, although it does make it that much more fun,seeing who does what and by how much.

I think some people get alittle carried away about the stats, Im after position 2 in Natal but i'll get there when i get there i'm not worried.

It's about getting out there to see your country in the end.

[+M@X Meerkat]

How the heck did all this start?

 

People geocaching is about getting out there and having fun, not about competition. So what if someone else is ranking higher than you? That should only inspire you to do better, not bad mouth the competition. And sure, some people are luckier than others, that's life, move on.

 

Fish Eagle, If passion is a crime, then you're guilty as charged. We only wish more people could share your passion. We travel frequently to your neck of the woods. We love the area and geocaching has just made it even better.

 

We have seen the results of Fish Eagle's cache placing in Mpumalanga. Caching activity has increased there, More people are becoming involved in caching, and We have been to places that we never knew existed on that side of the world. That should be the point of caching, not a race to see who's the best.

 

As for locationless caches, of which I think we have only done two, we're glad we did them. If it wasn't for geocaching we would never have seen the ISS or learnt about a really huge globe in the US. For us this is the point of geocaching, and Waymarking; the fun of going to new places, seeing new things, learning things you didn't know, stuff you would not normally do.

[+GlobalRat]

While scrounging around for something else on the forums I came across a post by DocDiTTo and his signature stated the following:-

 

Numbers are pointless, but memories are priceless. If you've got more finds than fond memories, you're playing this game backwards

 

Wise words.

 

Just for the record. Armchair caches were never voted as no-no's... it was the virtuals which were treated as armchairs when they are not that were under debate.

[+Fish Eagle]

Here's some "food for thought"

 

Opinion appears to be that "armchair caches" are OK, but that "other virtuals" are NOT.

But they are all virtual caches - the listings look similar, and the owners' logging requirements are similar?

A few of the "armchair caches" say that you don't have to visit the site, but most of them don't say that.

Then, what defines the difference between these two categories?

Because it's on Haggishunter's list?

There are several lists of armchair caches other than Haggishunter's, that have a lot of commonality, but they all differ - see also -

http://www.frankvoi.de/caches/caches7.html

http://home.eplus-online.de/real/gc/couch_potatoes.htm

http://www.kammneves.co.uk/kacher/virtuals.htm

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada/couchpotato.html

http://home.comcast.net/~geocacherbb/Locat...ssArchived.html

 

In answer to the question above - what defines the difference?

We venture that it is whether the owner chooses to accept virtual finds or not.

We wonder whether Haggishunter would welcome some additions to his list?

Would they then fall into the OK category?

 

Anyway, it's just food for thought. We'll change the virtual logs tonight, and move on.

 

And by the way, if you did explore our logs you might have wondered about some of them that are written in German and Spanish - who were we trying to fool?

We (one of us) actually does understand German reasonably well, although quite rusty, and we have written German logs - why?

Because we can, and it's fun. We even wrote a Spanish log with daughter's help.

Think about this - who are you writing the log for? Not for yourself - you can claim the find for your stats with a blank found log.

The log is actually to give the owner pleasure and encouragement, to tell him that he's got an interesting and enjoyable cache, and that you had great fun doing it.

And, if he gets a laugh out of reading our bad grammar and spelling, and we've had fun trying to write a log in a foreign language, then that's cool too.

 

Happy caching all.

[perdix]

Sjoe, quite a reply - sorry I did not wade through all of it. It is nice to see that it seems that you want to do the right thing - that truly is great.

 

I just have to point out that the comments I made on the referred threads were not aimed at any cacher specifically, but rather at practices. I am equally sure that you are not the only one, if indeed you were, dong this sort of thing.

 

I think I made the point, in one of the posts, that the thread could serve as a indication to newbies of what the community frowns upon and what not. I also pointed out that "to each his own", this is a hobby. The only rules are those imposed by GC.com and then also only if you make use of this site. The wonderful thing about it all, is the shear diversity - in caches, in locations, in how you play the game.

 

I think we all share the sentiment that we would like to have good quality caches around as opposed to strategically placed litter.

 

As far as the rankings are concerned - I love them. It certainly helped in growing the sport.

 

Again, if you feel you were the victim of a witch hunt due to my comments then I apologise, but I still maintain that logging finds when you (and here I refer to any cacher) did not find squat, defeats the object. Not because you are getting ahead of me in the rankings, but because the next cacher looking for it never noticed it was gone, because you logged "found it".

 

Happy caching all!

[+Fish Eagle]

Hi All,

 

This will be our last forum posting - from now on we "don't have our ears on".

 

Our short and sharp sojourn into the SA forums didn't work for us, so we choose to retreat back to the comfort of the geo-world that we knew before.

 

Should anyone wish to contact us, please do so via e-mail.

 

Happy caching everyone, may you experience the same joy, challenges, and fun out of the game that we do.

 

Regards,

Andy & Lindy

[+QFC]

This is a pitty, it is always nice to welcome a new face to the forum, even if it is through fire.

 

Sad to see you go Fish Eagle, will have to head back to the land of 50 + cache hides to chat again. Hope that you keep on finding and hiding those caches in Mpumalanga!!!

 

Till next time.

QFC

[+vespax]

Geez...

 

What one misses when Telkom knocks you offline for a week.

 

Fish Eagle, if you are reading this, come back. We enjoyed our breakfast together at NY Bagels in Sea Point and I am sure I will enjoy your caches if I make it to your side of the country.

 

Everyone else, talking behind backs only damages the community. We can all find something to critize about someone else's habits (I have been found guilty here before) but in the end it is not worth the bad feelings.

 

Lets just place solid caches and work to build the community up. Rather than drag it down.

 

Spring is coming......

[Azaruk]

 

Lets just place solid caches and work to build the community up. Rather than drag it down.

 

 

Quite right.

If the rankings are causing hassles, do as I did - ask to be removed from the listings. As I said to QFC when requesting removal, rankings are of no interest to me - it's not why I play the game.

 

Quality caches in superb locations is what it's all about for me.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Azaruk