Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

So Sissy thinks that a ALR cache owner that doesn't want to make his task optional, would be satisfied if there were 2 "finds" handed out instead of 1, and the task would be optional. Hmmm...

That's not what she said.

 

She also suggests that credit be given twice, even though only one cache is found. How many dozens of times have we heard CR (and others) complain about multiple logs for event caches? This "solution" would create more "problems" than it eliminates.

That's not what she said.

 

She said you'd get "credit." Here, I'll refresh your memory of what you asked and her reply.

 

Are you suggesting getting credit twice? One for the find, and another for the task?

If that is what it takes. The traditional yellow smilie would be to acknowledge the fact that the cache was found. The panty-smilie would be to acknowledge that some additional task was completed.

 

It's not two finds. It's one find and one panty. Two credits.

 

The end result would be:

  • Folks would be able to keep their online logs accurate.
  • Panty hounds can show off how many additional tasks they've completed.

A much easier way has been suggested several times. If the cacher could somehow identify that there is a ALR on a cache BEFORE he searches for it, he'd know to avoid it if he didn't want to do the task.

No, a much easier way is to not threaten to delete logs.

Link to comment

 

So Sissy thinks that a ALR cache owner that doesn't want to make his task optional, would be satisfied if there were 2 "finds" handed out instead of 1, and the task would be optional. Hmmm...

 

 

Not 2 finds- 2 icons. One found it and one panty. Only the one would count as a find.

 

I think this is the fairest suggestion yet. Type "A's would get their find for the find, and Type "B"s would get credit for doing the ALR.

Link to comment
So Sissy thinks that a ALR cache owner that doesn't want to make his task optional, would be satisfied if there were 2 "finds" handed out instead of 1, and the task would be optional. Hmmm...

That's not what she said.

Sure she did. If there are two credits available, one Found It and one Task Completed, she's saying that people that found the cache but didn't complete the task would only log the Found It, and not the Task Completed.

 

How does that not make the task optional?

 

Here, I'll refresh your memory of what Fizzy wrote and what she replied:

 

I believe the arguments here revolve around exactly the same issue that has been central to the discussions of pocket caches, multiple find allowances, and other controversial logging behaviors.

 

Here's the problem: there are two groups of cachers, each of whom has a different definition of the meaning of the "found it" log.

  • Group A believes that a "found it" log is a record of a fact -- the fact that the cacher found the cache and signed the log.
  • Group B believes that a "found it" log is a reward that is given by the owner of the cache to seekers for finding their cache.

Unfortunately, those two definitions are not compatible. From the perspective of people in Group A, additional logging requirements make no sense. For people in Group B, lots of things seem natural, including additional logging requirements, multiple finds awarded to people who do extra tasks, giving finds when the seeker didn't actually find the cache, pocket caches, etc.

 

 

The only way I see for this issue to be resolved to satisfy both camps here is for a new kind of cache log. One that acknowledges that the finder performed some additional task.

 

She pretty clearly says that the ALR cache owner would be satisfied if there were a new log for the task, thereby making the task optional.

 

If I've misunderstood her, and she's somehow suggesting a new log type and the requirements still have to be met in order to claim a Find, please explain how the new log type will make a difference to anyone.

Link to comment
So Sissy thinks that a ALR cache owner that doesn't want to make his task optional, would be satisfied if there were 2 "finds" handed out instead of 1, and the task would be optional. Hmmm...

That's not what she said.

 

She also suggests that credit be given twice, even though only one cache is found. How many dozens of times have we heard CR (and others) complain about multiple logs for event caches? This "solution" would create more "problems" than it eliminates.

That's not what she said.

 

She said you'd get "credit." Here, I'll refresh your memory of what you asked and her reply.

 

Are you suggesting getting credit twice? One for the find, and another for the task?

If that is what it takes. The traditional yellow smilie would be to acknowledge the fact that the cache was found. The panty-smilie would be to acknowledge that some additional task was completed.

 

It's not two finds. It's one find and one panty. Two credits.

 

 

 

So Sissy thinks that a ALR cache owner that doesn't want to make his task optional, would be satisfied if there were 2 "finds" handed out instead of 1, and the task would be optional. Hmmm...

 

 

Not 2 finds- 2 icons. One found it and one panty. Only the one would count as a find.

 

I think this is the fairest suggestion yet. Type "A's would get their find for the find, and Type "B"s would get credit for doing the ALR.

 

While Sissy probably didn't intend that you would get two find credits, I find it quite understandable the type "A" people would get their panties up in knots by such a suggestion. After all they believe that the find count should be an accurate count of the caches that they found. Of course their find count would be accurate, since they wouldn't use the panty-smilie log to log their find even if they completed the ALR. Once again the puritans seem to be more concerned with someone else's find count then their own. People who want to get credit for doing the ALR, might have a find count that doesn't represent the actual number of caches they found. To the type "A" puritan this is as bad as making someone sit in the back of the bus because of her skin color and will certainly lead to the demise of geocaching. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

To the type "A" puritan this is as bad as making someone sit in the back of the bus because of her skin color and will certainly lead to the demise of geocaching. :rolleyes:

 

Nobody ever made that comparison. It is pretty tacky to imply that I did. Besides, you are about 50 posts behind. That argument has been discussed, resolved, and put away long ago.

Link to comment

....While Sissy probably didn't intend that you would get two find credits, I find it quite understandable the type "A" people would get their panties up in knots by such a suggestion. After all they believe that the find count should be an accurate count of the caches that they found. Of course their find count would be accurate, since they wouldn't use the panty-smilie log to log their find even if they completed the ALR. Once again the puritans seem to be more concerned with someone else's find count then their own. People who want to get credit for doing the ALR, might have a find count that doesn't represent the actual number of caches they found. To the type "A" puritan this is as bad as making someone sit in the back of the bus because of her skin color and will certainly lead to the demise of geocaching. :rolleyes:

 

Man did you ever lose me with tha post.

 

The way I see it there are two kinds of finders on ALR caches. Those who honor the ALR and deserve a smilie and those who don't and think they deserve one anyway. The fomer are stand up cachers. The latter are something else, as they have decided that they hate the rules imposed on them and in turn impose their NSR (No Special Requirment) rules on the cache owner. Rather backwards if you ask me.

 

ALR cache owners get stuck either deleting all the NSR logs to honor the ALR logs as the logs that met a higher standard, or allow all the find logs and thereby cheapen the finds of the stand up cachers who met the ALRs.

 

For those who think it's as simple as "Found It, I can claim it" you should do some more digging in the forums. Some think that a log has to be signed, but there were and still are logless caches. There are a thousand disagreements on when exactly you have "found the cache" and a thousand hairs to split. Hell not everyone agrees that when the owner says you found it, you found it either. There is at least one cache with an Alternate Logging Method and not everone agrees with that either and that one you can find without any ALRs, just go find it and treat it as a NSR, or use the ALM it's all the same.

Link to comment

Let's abandon the analogies that are not directly related to geocaching and keep the thread moving toward a resolution.

 

That's funny.

 

The resolution from this thread will be what already exists. Some owners enforce ALR's some Cachers ignore ALRs and log anyway. Win some lose some. People should read the cache page before they seek for reasons beyond ALRs but if they did they would find the ALRs just the same.

 

My personal resolution was to make the ALR's something you have to do to even find the cache. People work hard to find a cache, they just won't work hard to log it.

Link to comment
Once again the puritans seem to be more concerned with someone else's find count then their own. People who want to get credit for doing the ALR, might have a find count that doesn't represent the actual number of caches they found. To the type "A" puritan this is as bad as making someone sit in the back of the bus because of her skin color and will certainly lead to the demise of geocaching.

Calling Group A people "puritans" or Group B people "number pigs" is not helpful.

 

Accusing people who have a different definition of what a "find" means of only caring about other peoples' numbers is likewise disrespectful and inappropriate.

 

I would suggest re-visiting the forum guidelines.

Link to comment
So Sissy thinks that a ALR cache owner that doesn't want to make his task optional, would be satisfied if there were 2 "finds" handed out instead of 1, and the task would be optional. Hmmm...

That's not what she said.

Sure she did. If there are two credits available, one Found It and one Task Completed, she's saying that people that found the cache but didn't complete the task would only log the Found It, and not the Task Completed.

 

How does that not make the task optional?

 

...because you're not going to get a panty if you don't do the task? Maybe?

Link to comment
While Sissy probably didn't intend that you would get two find credits, I find it quite understandable the type "A" people would get their panties up in knots by such a suggestion.

 

Actually, I believe the first person to suggest it is a Type A. Sissy is a Type A. I'm a Type A.

 

I think you're a bit off base.

Link to comment
This is another reason I oppose ALRs outright. I believe I mentioned this in another thread.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

I think it's perfectly clear where I draw the line, if you're able to sign the logbook then you can log a find. Beyond this the line can become so fuzzy that it would make the "Virtual Wow Factor" pale.

I get that you're not going to be happy with any resolution that would allow ALRs. Clearly, you are not willing to be part of this solution, so please just step away from the thread and let those that are interested discuss the issue.

Link to comment
If that is what it takes. The traditional yellow smilie would be to acknowledge the fact that the cache was found. The panty-smilie would be to acknowledge that some additional task was completed. ...

I'll ask you the same questions that I asked you in the other thread when you championed this idea:

 

What would be the point of this 'super-smilie'? Would a cache owner be able to delete it? What if your name wasn't in the log book? Can it be deleted? If not, it has no value. I could log a 'super-smilie' on all of your caches and never even go to your state.
Link to comment
This is another reason I oppose ALRs outright. I believe I mentioned this in another thread.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

I think it's perfectly clear where I draw the line, if you're able to sign the logbook then you can log a find. Beyond this the line can become so fuzzy that it would make the "Virtual Wow Factor" pale.

I get that you're not going to be happy with any resolution that would allow ALRs. Clearly, you are not willing to be part of this solution, so please just step away from the thread and let those that are interested discuss the issue.

 

Actually, I believe the core question is "is it right?" My position is it is not.

 

Any "solution" that would allow ALRs as they are would still be trying to jam a square peg in a round hole. Additionally, any "solution" would be attempting to redefine the notion of what a "find" is. Any "solution" would be attempting to redefine the game to fit your wants and desires.

 

Sorry, no, I'm not going to back away and let a small few steamroll the hobby into something else.

 

My preference is pretty simple: leave the definition of a "find" as signing the logbook.

 

Speaking of "no more rules," leaving the definition as is would certainly follow as it wouldn't be adding yet another caveat "except when the owner has some silly additional requirement."

 

You want "no more rules" then leave the definition of a find as it is and don't be trying to find a new "solution" i.e. rules to govern ALRs.

Link to comment
So Sissy thinks that a ALR cache owner that doesn't want to make his task optional, would be satisfied if there were 2 "finds" handed out instead of 1, and the task would be optional. Hmmm...

That's not what she said.

Sure she did. If there are two credits available, one Found It and one Task Completed, she's saying that people that found the cache but didn't complete the task would only log the Found It, and not the Task Completed.

 

How does that not make the task optional?

 

...because you're not going to get a panty if you don't do the task? Maybe?

Um... so under the new "panty rule" you're saying the task wouldn't be optional.... but you're saying it would be possible to log the cache without doing the task.

 

You've reached a new level.

Link to comment

Sorry, no, I'm not going to back away and let a small few steamroll the hobby into something else.

I agree. Let's not let a few people make any changes.

 

[looking around]

So who exactly are the "few" that are suggesting the hobby changes into something else? Is it the people that want to change the rules to disallow something that currently exists, and brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people?

Link to comment
If that is what it takes. The traditional yellow smilie would be to acknowledge the fact that the cache was found. The panty-smilie would be to acknowledge that some additional task was completed. ...

I'll ask you the same questions that I asked you in the other thread when you championed this idea:

 

The thread that you closed before I had a chance to reply.

 

What would be the point of this 'super-smilie'? Would a cache owner be able to delete it? What if your name wasn't in the log book? Can it be deleted? If not, it has no value. I could log a 'super-smilie' on all of your caches and never even go to your state.

 

My reply:

 

The panty-smilie would be a new log type. If you find the cache, but for whatever reason do not comply with the ALR, you log it as "FOUND IT" and get the traditional smilie. If you find the cache AND complete the ALR, Then you log it as hmmm...."FOUND IT + "? and get the panty smilie. I am not advocating two separate finds or that the ALR be recorded alone.

 

Will this make the ALR optional?

Perhaps, but the distinction gets made as to whether the finder participated or not. If the hider is trying to provide more fun to the community, and the community agrees that this ALR is more fun, most logs will be "FOUND IT +". If the finder can't or won't perform the ALR, then that would tell me that this is not something he thinks will be more fun.

 

The argument for ALR's includes that the placer is just intending the cache be more fun for the finder. It seems petty to delete a "FOUND IT" log if the cache has indeed been found, but the finder disagreed with whatever the fun was. How is it more fun for the finder if the ALR is something he cannot or will not do?

 

I know the intention can't be to try to make the cache more fun for only some finders.

Link to comment
If that is what it takes. The traditional yellow smilie would be to acknowledge the fact that the cache was found. The panty-smilie would be to acknowledge that some additional task was completed. ...

I'll ask you the same questions that I asked you in the other thread when you championed this idea:

 

The thread that you closed before I had a chance to reply.

 

What would be the point of this 'super-smilie'? Would a cache owner be able to delete it? What if your name wasn't in the log book? Can it be deleted? If not, it has no value. I could log a 'super-smilie' on all of your caches and never even go to your state.

 

My reply:

 

The panty-smilie would be a new log type. If you find the cache, but for whatever reason do not comply with the ALR, you log it as "FOUND IT" and get the traditional smilie. If you find the cache AND complete the ALR, Then you log it as hmmm...."FOUND IT + "? and get the panty smilie. I am not advocating two separate finds or that the ALR be recorded alone.

 

Will this make the ALR optional?

Perhaps, but the distinction gets made as to whether the finder participated or not. If the hider is trying to provide more fun to the community, and the community agrees that this ALR is more fun, most logs will be "FOUND IT +". If the finder can't or won't perform the ALR, then that would tell me that this is not something he thinks will be more fun.

 

The argument for ALR's includes that the placer is just intending the cache be more fun for the finder. It seems petty to delete a "FOUND IT" log if the cache has indeed been found, but the finder disagreed with whatever the fun was. How is it more fun for the finder if the ALR is something he cannot or will not do?

 

I know the intention can't be to try to make the cache more fun for only some finders.

Two issues:

 

First, the other thread was closed eight hours after I asked you to clarify. CR posted in that thread twice during that time, so I have to believe that you decided not to respond to my questions and that you are being disingenuous by making it appear that I asked you a question and then slammed the thread closed before you could answer.

 

Second, your long response to my questions in this thread didn't anwer any of them.

 

Either way, your plan would not resolve anything to anyone's satisfaction except those that hold CR's scortched earth philosophy.

Link to comment

Unfortunately, my schedule is a little different from CR's. It is also not what most normal people have. I have to sleep at odd times to be able to work. I do not know from day to day what time I have to report. I will not know what time I have to be at work tomorrow until around 4pm today. I do not spend nearly as much time on these forums as CR does.

 

The main issue as I see it is how to satisfy logging the fact that you found the cache vs. logging the found cache with ALRs.

 

I have endorsed the only solution that I can see that would satisfy both camps.

 

Was there another question I was supposed to answer?

If so, could you repeat it?

 

Edited for a better choice of words and spelling.

Edited by Sissy-n-CR
Link to comment
If that is what it takes. The traditional yellow smilie would be to acknowledge the fact that the cache was found. The panty-smilie would be to acknowledge that some additional task was completed. ...

I'll ask you the same questions that I asked you in the other thread when you championed this idea:

 

The thread that you closed before I had a chance to reply.

 

What would be the point of this 'super-smilie'? Would a cache owner be able to delete it? What if your name wasn't in the log book? Can it be deleted? If not, it has no value. I could log a 'super-smilie' on all of your caches and never even go to your state.

 

My reply:

 

The panty-smilie would be a new log type. If you find the cache, but for whatever reason do not comply with the ALR, you log it as "FOUND IT" and get the traditional smilie. If you find the cache AND complete the ALR, Then you log it as hmmm...."FOUND IT + "? and get the panty smilie. I am not advocating two separate finds or that the ALR be recorded alone.

 

Will this make the ALR optional?

Perhaps, but the distinction gets made as to whether the finder participated or not. If the hider is trying to provide more fun to the community, and the community agrees that this ALR is more fun, most logs will be "FOUND IT +". If the finder can't or won't perform the ALR, then that would tell me that this is not something he thinks will be more fun.

 

The argument for ALR's includes that the placer is just intending the cache be more fun for the finder. It seems petty to delete a "FOUND IT" log if the cache has indeed been found, but the finder disagreed with whatever the fun was. How is it more fun for the finder if the ALR is something he cannot or will not do?

 

I know the intention can't be to try to make the cache more fun for only some finders.

This is nothing new. This is the old argument of "ALR caches are okay if we make the task optional, that way, people that don't want to do the task can still enjoy the cache".

 

This completely disregards the cache owner's intent. If I decide to place a cache that states it can only be found by people with 1,000 finds or more, then I'm going it because of whatever reason I have to do this to my cache. Right?

 

Who are you to come along and say it's not right, and force me to change it? I wouldn't mind if someone recommends I change it, or even asks me nicely to, but to force me to by changing the site rules simply because you don't like the cache is absurd.

 

It's not like I'm holding a cache hostage that people HAVE to log. Folks that have less than 1,000 finds are free to ignore it. Those with more than 1,000 are free to find it, or ignore it too.

Link to comment

 

This is nothing new. This is the old argument of "ALR caches are okay if we make the task optional, that way, people that don't want to do the task can still enjoy the cache".

 

This completely disregards the cache owner's intent. If I decide to place a cache that states it can only be found by people with 1,000 finds or more, then I'm going it because of whatever reason I have to do this to my cache. Right?

 

Who are you to come along and say it's not right, and force me to change it? I wouldn't mind if someone recommends I change it, or even asks me nicely to, but to force me to by changing the site rules simply because you don't like the cache is absurd.

 

It's not like I'm holding a cache hostage that people HAVE to log. Folks that have less than 1,000 finds are free to ignore it. Those with more than 1,000 are free to find it, or ignore it too.

 

And if someone stumbles across this cache (didn't read the cache page, found out walking the dog, whatever)

what are they to do?

I know your answer has been to not log it as a find, but that does not help those who use the site to track actual finds.

 

With the additional log type, that person could log it as found, while one who has over 1000 finds would log it as found plus.

Edited by Sissy-n-CR
Link to comment

To the type "A" puritan this is as bad as making someone sit in the back of the bus because of her skin color and will certainly lead to the demise of geocaching. :anicute:

 

Nobody ever made that comparison. It is pretty tacky to imply that I did. Besides, you are about 50 posts behind. That argument has been discussed, resolved, and put away long ago.

 

I didn't mean to imply that anyone in particular was comparing getting two finds on cache for completing an ALR was equivalent to discriminating. However, I still feel that comparing restricting a cache to people with 99 or more finds to bus discrimination is just as silly. You may feel it is a discriminatory requirment. I am even more certain that any cacher, if they wanted could go and find 99 caches and then do this cache. The ALR on this cache is not discriminatory. Some people often confuse a difficult obstacle as discrimination.

 

While Sissy probably didn't intend that you would get two find credits, I find it quite understandable the type "A" people would get their panties up in knots by such a suggestion.

 

Actually, I believe the first person to suggest it is a Type A. Sissy is a Type A. I'm a Type A.

 

I think you're a bit off base.

Which is why I said that Sissy probably didn't intend her suggestion to mean two find counts. Nevertheless it got interpreted that way by some of the type "B" people. My post was simply that I was not suprised that the Type "A" people would object to a double find count for completing an ALR. I could have just as easily posted that I was not suprised that the type "B" people would read into Sissy's sugestion that you should get two finds. Since she clarified her suggestion, I agree that she did not intend it to mean you get two finds.

 

Calling Group A people "puritans" or Group B people "number pigs" is not helpful.

 

Accusing people who have a different definition of what a "find" means of only caring about other peoples' numbers is likewise disrespectful and inappropriate.

 

I would suggest re-visiting the forum guidelines.

 

I apologize to fizzymagic. I know from a previous thread that he is a type "A" person that realizes that there are also type "B"'s and he is not overly concerned that a type "B" person's find count is not correct. Not all Type "A" persons are puritans that try to force their interpretation of a find on everyone else.

Link to comment

Calling Group A people "puritans" or Group B people "number pigs" is not helpful.

 

Accusing people who have a different definition of what a "find" means of only caring about other peoples' numbers is likewise disrespectful and inappropriate.

 

I would suggest re-visiting the forum guidelines.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, I remember you calling people with ALR caches jerks a couple of days ago...

 

I could live with a shift of my ALR cache to becoming a puzzle cache if that would make people happy, but it won't...they will still want to be able to log the cache without having completed the requirement...

 

Jamie - NFA

Edited by NFA
Link to comment

And if someone stumbles across this cache (didn't read the cache page, found out walking the dog, whatever)

what are they to do?

If they found it without reading the cache page, then who's fault is it? Why should I change the rules of my cache just because someone else decides to play the game different? This has also been debated to no end. It's not much different than there being a combination lock on the cache box and the combination being available in the description. If you don't read the page and can't open the box, are you really going to insist you get to log it as a find?

 

I know your answer has been to not log it as a find, but that does not help those who use the site to track actual finds.
That's true. And in that case I'd say to the cacher that stumbled across it, didn't take a picture with a panty on his head, and then read later that he was supposed to, that he could always go back and take that picture and log the cache. Or if it's a 1,000 find requirement he can wait and log it after completing his 1,000th find. You can only log a requirement cache after completing the requirement.

 

This isn't much different than the person that stumbles across a combination locked cache box and finds the combination later after he gets home and reads the cache page. He still gets to go back and unlock the box before he can log it online.

 

With the additional log type, that person could log it as found, while one who has over 1000 finds would log it as found plus.
Which is fine for the caches that have a suggested task, but doesn't do anything for the required task.
Link to comment
I have endorsed the only solution that I can see that would satisfy both camps.

That's a risky assumption. Though I appreciate your attempt at a helpful suggestion (we may never get anywhere with this topic without some fresh ideas), I for one would not be happy with that answer ... unless ...

 

The panty-smilie would be a new log type. If you find the cache, but for whatever reason do not comply with the ALR, you log it as "FOUND IT" and get the traditional smilie. If you find the cache AND complete the ALR, Then you log it as hmmm...."FOUND IT + "? and get the panty smilie. I am not advocating two separate finds or that the ALR be recorded alone.

If I understand you correctly, each finder of an ALR cache would therefore have two options:

  1. Comply with the ALR and get a special smiley, OR
  2. Find the cache, bypass the ALR, and get a standard smiley.

Is that right?

 

The problem I see with this proposal is that it would forcibly remove the owner's intent to create a non-cheatable and non-bypassable challenge.

 

The only fair way to implement your idea would be to apply the same system across the board, including puzzles, multis, five-star terains -- any type of challenge that someone might conceivably object to.

 

Example

 

New puzzle cache options:

  1. Solve the puzzle to obtain the cache coordinates and get a special smiley, OR
  2. Inform the owner that you're invoking the Challenge Avoidance Rule, obtain the cache coordinates from the owner, and get a standard smiley.

Link to comment

I think the slippery slope can also lead to a 3rd option...where I choose not to leave my house, but thought about the cache for awhile, so I can choose to get a couch-potato-smiley-icon... :anicute:

 

Seriously though, my cache is within the gc.com guidelines, as is my right/responsibility to delete the log of somebody who does not meet the requirements...the cache was reviewed and approved by a gc.com volunteer...why are we entertaining a discussion about graduated cache completion levels?

 

If TPTB or the community decides that the ALR means that my cache should be listed as a puzzle/mystery cache instead (or should carry an attribute warning off those who don't like ALR caches), I'll go along with that...but I will still reserve the right to delete logs that do not meet the plainly stated requirements...

 

Jamie - NFA

Edited by NFA
Link to comment

i think maybe the problem is that too many people think everyone should be able to get every cache.

 

i find the reqired 99 finds rule to be distasteful; i would not seek that cache no matter how many finds i have.

 

but really. if i can't solve a puzzle or meet other requirements, i just don't do the cache. if every cache were possible for everyone, it would take some of the sport out of it.

 

i have some caches with stupid rules. REALLY stupid rules. they're meant to be stupid. they're meant for people who would have fun with such rules. if you don't like my rules, you can do other caches.

 

we did NFA's stupid rule cache this weekend. we got a laugh out of it. i think that's what he intended.

Link to comment
Not all Type "A" persons are puritans that try to force their interpretation of a find on everyone else.

Thanks. Yes, I know I called people who would delete an otherwise legitimate find "jerks." And I still think that. But it was not appropriate to express that in the forums, and I apologize.

 

I am definitely a "Group A" person. For me personally, my find count reflects the number of caches I have actually found and signed the log. For my puzzle caches, if somebody finds them and signs the log without doing the puzzle, I would never delete that find. Because, for me, the find log represents a fact, not an award.

 

But I understand that there are people with a different definition of what a "find" means, and since there is no officially sanctioned definition, it doesn't make any sense for me to impose mine on them.

 

Unfortunately, ALR caches owners are imposing their definition of what a find is on the people who seek their caches. I find it weird that the ALR owners in this thread are complaining about others seeking to impose their views on them (the ALR owners), when it is exactly the right to impose their definition of "find" on which ALR owners insist!

 

For me personally, I choose not to seek ALR caches where I don't want to comply with the additional requirements. There are plenty of caches out there and it is no big deal. But from a completely logical point of view, as a Group A person, ALR caches don't make any sense to me. As I said in an earlier post, many ALR caches seem to me an attempt by owners to impose requirements that would not be allowed for a puzzle cache.

Link to comment
but I will still reserve the right to delete logs that do not meet the plainly stated requirements.

 

But do you have the right to do that? That's the core of the issue.

 

Sure, no one is arguing you don't have the ability to delete the log, that's a given. It's the mistaken notion that it's simply okay to delete a log for any arbitrary reason.

 

Face it. Your typical ALR is arbitrary. One person wants a certain number of logged finds, another wants a picture with a pair of panties on your head, yet another wants the log written in verse. They all are arbitrary and have nothing to do with whether you found the cache or not. Quite frankly, it's little different than simply deleting a log "just because."

 

Really, calling the ability to delete logs a "right" is no different than calling the ability to log a find on a cache without actually finding it a "right." You can do it, doesn't mean it's right.

Link to comment

If they found it without reading the cache page, then who's fault is it? Why should I change the rules of my cache just because someone else decides to play the game different? This has also been debated to no end. It's not much different than there being a combination lock on the cache box and the combination being available in the description. If you don't read the page and can't open the box, are you really going to insist you get to log it as a find?

 

Does there always have to be someone at fault?

 

When someone was clever enough to by-pass some stages of one of my caches and found the final, that was my fault. If I post the actual coords on the most popular caching site, and I know that some folks take advantage of the benefits of being a premium member....

When caches are found by muggles, or by cachers scoping out a place for a new cache....

 

This isn't much different than the person that stumbles across a combination locked cache box and finds the combination later after he gets home and reads the cache page. He still gets to go back and unlock the box before he can log it online.

 

I guess being a purist, I would call the first instance a NOT FOUND. He didn't sign the logbook.

 

Which is fine for the caches that have a suggested task, but doesn't do anything for the required task.

 

I guess this is where I realise that we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue and hope I never have to personally deal with the situation in real life.

Link to comment
I have endorsed the only solution that I can see that would satisfy both camps.

That's a risky assumption. Though I appreciate your attempt at a helpful suggestion (we may never get anywhere with this topic without some fresh ideas), I for one would not be happy with that answer ... unless ...

 

You are right, I should have added the word "possibly" after the word "would".

 

The panty-smilie would be a new log type. If you find the cache, but for whatever reason do not comply with the ALR, you log it as "FOUND IT" and get the traditional smilie. If you find the cache AND complete the ALR, Then you log it as hmmm...."FOUND IT + "? and get the panty smilie. I am not advocating two separate finds or that the ALR be recorded alone.

If I understand you correctly, each finder of an ALR cache would therefore have two options:

  1. Comply with the ALR and get a special smiley, OR
  2. Find the cache, bypass the ALR, and get a standard smiley.

Is that right?

 

The problem I see with this proposal is that it would forcibly remove the owner's intent to create a non-cheatable and non-bypassable challenge.

 

The only fair way to implement your idea would be to apply the same system across the board, including puzzles, multis, five-star terains -- any type of challenge that someone might conceivably object to.

 

Example

 

New puzzle cache options:

  1. Solve the puzzle to obtain the cache coordinates and get a special smiley, OR
  2. Inform the owner that you're invoking the Challenge Avoidance Rule, obtain the cache coordinates from the owner, and get a standard smiley.

 

I suppose the new smiley could also denote those who solved the puzzle vs. those who phoned-a-friend or intuited the cache spot. You would have to rely on people's honesty. Personally, I do not care how they find my puzzle or multi-caches, if the logbook is signed, it has been found.

 

For obstacle caches (boat, difficult) If the logbook isn't signed, then this is not an issue. I thought this was about caches being found and the finders not being able to use this site to record that fact. Not about caches not being found and attempters wanting credit for a find.

Link to comment
but I will still reserve the right to delete logs that do not meet the plainly stated requirements.

 

But do you have the right to do that? That's the core of the issue.

 

Sure, no one is arguing you don't have the ability to delete the log, that's a given. It's the mistaken notion that it's simply okay to delete a log for any arbitrary reason.

 

Face it. Your typical ALR is arbitrary. One person wants a certain number of logged finds, another wants a picture with a pair of panties on your head, yet another wants the log written in verse. They all are arbitrary and have nothing to do with whether you found the cache or not. Quite frankly, it's little different than simply deleting a log "just because."

 

Really, calling the ability to delete logs a "right" is no different than calling the ability to log a find on a cache without actually finding it a "right." You can do it, doesn't mean it's right.

You're using the word "right" here almost like it's a basic human right, protected by the constitution, and promised to all Americans.

 

It's just a game. And in this game I own a few game pieces. As the owner, I have the "right" to do whatever I want with my piece. It's not something the community needs to get involved with, keep an eye on, approve of, or disallow.

 

It's just a game. Games have rules. The ALR caches obey the rules (for now). If a few people want to change the rules of the entire game to suit themselves, forcing a change on the way the rest of the players are allowed to play, then that's what might happen. Until that happens (and I hope it doesn't) the ALR caches will exist and non-compliance logs will get deleted if the owner thinks it's "right" to do so.

 

Right?

Link to comment

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that made me think of this thread, and CR in particular...it said: "Eschew Obfuscation!"

 

I too am entirely happy with our agreeing to disagree on the topic of ALR caches...

 

Jamie - NFA

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
The panty-smilie would be a new log type. If you find the cache, but for whatever reason do not comply with the ALR, you log it as "FOUND IT" and get the traditional smilie. If you find the cache AND complete the ALR, Then you log it as hmmm...."FOUND IT + "? and get the panty smilie. I am not advocating two separate finds or that the ALR be recorded alone.

If I understand you correctly, each finder of an ALR cache would therefore have two options:

  1. Comply with the ALR and get a special smiley, OR
  2. Find the cache, bypass the ALR, and get a standard smiley.

Is that right?

 

The problem I see with this proposal is that it would forcibly remove the owner's intent to create a non-cheatable and non-bypassable challenge.

During lunch, I was talking over this issue with some lawyer buddies of mine. One of them gave what I thought was a nice solution. Instead of allowing those cachers who didn't comply with the requirements a find and the cachers that did comply some special log, the cachers that complied with the ALR should get a smiley and those that didn't should be able to log it in some other way. That way, those cachers that complied will have a correct find count, those that didn't would be able to easily calculate their finds by adding their smileys and their 'didn't want to complies'. The cache owners would be happy because the value of a find on their caches would not be diluted.

Link to comment

I think that's a great idea...people who follow the rules and fulfill the ALR can log the cache as found, and people who don't can log it as a special kind of note designed specifically for people who didn't follow the stated ALR...a "diet find" log...it could be a thin, half-smiling smiley... :anicute:

 

J

Link to comment

I think that's a great idea...people who follow the rules and fulfill the ALR can log the cache as found, and people who don't can log it as a special kind of note designed specifically for people who didn't follow the stated ALR...a "diet find" log...it could be a thin, half-smiling smiley... :anicute:

 

J

A half smiley, philosophically, must ipso-facto half not be.

Link to comment

I think that's a great idea...people who follow the rules and fulfill the ALR can log the cache as found, and people who don't can log it as a special kind of note designed specifically for people who didn't follow the stated ALR...a "diet find" log...it could be a thin, half-smiling smiley... :anicute:

 

J

A half smiley, philosophically, must ipso-facto half not be.

 

My point!

Link to comment
The panty-smilie would be a new log type. If you find the cache, but for whatever reason do not comply with the ALR, you log it as "FOUND IT" and get the traditional smilie. If you find the cache AND complete the ALR, Then you log it as hmmm...."FOUND IT + "? and get the panty smilie. I am not advocating two separate finds or that the ALR be recorded alone.

If I understand you correctly, each finder of an ALR cache would therefore have two options:

  1. Comply with the ALR and get a special smiley, OR
  2. Find the cache, bypass the ALR, and get a standard smiley.

Is that right?

 

The problem I see with this proposal is that it would forcibly remove the owner's intent to create a non-cheatable and non-bypassable challenge.

During lunch, I was talking over this issue with some lawyer buddies of mine. One of them gave what I thought was a nice solution. Instead of allowing those cachers who didn't comply with the requirements a find and the cachers that did comply some special log, the cachers that complied with the ALR should get a smiley and those that didn't should be able to log it in some other way. That way, those cachers that complied will have a correct find count, those that didn't would be able to easily calculate their finds by adding their smileys and their 'didn't want to complies'. The cache owners would be happy because the value of a find on their caches would not be diluted.

Interesting. Would people also be able to skip a puzzle on a puzzle cache because they didn't want (or were unable) to solve it, and log the puzzle cache with the "Didn't Want To Smile" log as well?

Link to comment

I think that this could also work for other non-participatory cache-issues like those people who solve my puzzles, but can't be bothered to make the drive up to northern NY...it could facilitate warm and fuzzy feelings for legions of found-it-didn't-find-it cachers...

 

this could also be the answer for people who log finds based on owner permission after they search unsuccessfully for awhile...

 

{{{gently sarcastic smiley}}}

 

Jamie - NFA

Link to comment

Just so I can keep up, so far the options being brought up are:

 

1. Outlaw all ALR caches

 

2. Outlaw deleting logs that don't meet ALR's

 

3. Make a special attribute for the alr's

 

4. Get a smiley for finding the cache, get a different smiley for complying with the ALR. Only the regular smiley counts toward your find total.

 

5. Get a half smiley for finding the cache, full smiley for complying- only the full smiley counts towards your find total

 

6. Allow hiders to delete all logs that don't meet the ALR.

 

Did I miss any? Are there any other suggestions?

 

IMHO, 1,2, and 6 are all on the "extremist" (for lack of a better word) end.

 

That leaves 3, 4, and 5. TPTB has already spoken that 3 will not be happening, which leaves 4 and 5. From reading between the lines on his comments, I think that he would be more likely to support 4. I think is is the beter option myself, but I could live with 5 as well.

 

Puzzle caches are not what are being discussed, and nobody has suggested that we should be able to log caches that we haven't found.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

A few more observations. First, let me reiterate what I see as the fundamental isue here:

There are two groups of cachers, each of whom has a different definition of the meaning of the "found it" log.

  • Group A believes that a "found it" log is a record of a fact -- the fact that the cacher found the cache and signed the log.
  • Group B believes that a "found it" log is a reward that is given by the owner of the cache to seekers for finding their cache.

Unfortunately, those two definitions are not compatible.

An extreme version of the Group B position, which has been argued by a couple of people in this thread, is that the cache owner has complete authority to define a "find" on his or her cache. The cache owner has all the rights here; the only right that the cache seeker has is the ability to not seek the cache in the first place.

 

Of course, in a reductio ad absurdum, this position leads to some pretty unacceptable results. For example, if the owner has complete control over what constitutes a find, then why do the requirements for the find even need to be placed in the cache description? Consider the possible variants:

  • A cache where the owner deletes the logs of anyone who he doesn't like.
  • A cache where the owner allows people to log 1000 smileys if they want to.
  • A cache where only women are allowed to log finds.

To those who would object to these behaviors, the standard reply would just be "if you don't like it, then don't seek the cache."

 

I believe that the majority of cachers would find the above-mentioned caches unacceptable. Thus, there must be some balance of rights between the cache hiders and the cache seekers. Much of the discussion in this thread appears to be between people who set the balance of those rights in different places. Let me try to articulate the two most common positions:

  • Position 1: The cache hider has the right to impose obstacles to finding the cache. But once the cache has been found and the log signed, the seeker has the right to log a "found it" online. (This position is mostly held by people in Group A, above).
  • Position 2: The cache hider has the right to impose obstacles to logging the cache, as long as they are made explicit on the cache page. The seeker's right is to ignore the cache if they don't like the requirements. (This position is mostly held by people in Group B, also above).

I don't find either position unreasonable, given the conflicting definitions of what consistutes a "find." My own personal preference (and practice on my own caches) is Position 1, but, since there is no official guidance, it is impossible to say that Position 2 is invalid.

 

I do find it offensive, however, that people who articulate Position 1 have been accused of trying to force their version of the game on everyone else. That's disingenuous. They simply advocate a different balance of rights between the cache hider and the cache seeker. Since I don't think anyone would advocate the extreme position that the cache seeker has no rights at all, the question here is where the balance should lie.

Link to comment

Just so I can keep up, so far the options being brought up are:

 

1. Outlaw all ALR caches

 

2. Outlaw deleting logs that don't meet ALR's

 

3. Make a special attribute for the alr's

 

4. Get a smiley for finding the cache, get a different smiley for complying with the ALR. Only the regular smiley counts toward your find total.

 

5. Get a half smiley for finding the cache, full smiley for complying- only the full smiley counts towards your find total

 

6. Allow hiders to delete all logs that don't meet the ALR.

 

Did I miss any? Are there any other suggestions?

 

IMHO, 1,2, and 6 are all on the "extremist" (for lack of a better word) end.

 

That leaves 3, 4, and 5. TPTB has already spoken that 3 will not be happening, which leaves 4 and 5. From reading between the lines on his comments, I think that he would be more likely to support 4. I think is is the beter option myself, but I could live with 5 as well.

 

Puzzle caches are not what are being discussed, and nobody has suggested that we should be able to log caches that we haven't found.

 

#6 is the way it is today and hopefully the way it will remain.

 

Groundspeak has been very careful not to step into or onto a cache hider's ownership rights so far.

 

That is as it should be.

 

What is being advocated here is a diminishment of ownership rights and property controls.

 

The cache owner states "Do the ALR or no smilie for you!" and you want some way to force him to accept your find, even partially?

 

You want some sort of community control over how an owner allows his cache to be logged?

 

I hope it never flies.

 

Ed

Link to comment

Holy Carp! 11 pages!

A buddy of mine once said that a mutual acquaintance "would argue with a fencepost just to hear himself talk". I never understood that till now.

 

A requirement that ALR's be listed as puzzle caches won't change most of the anti-ALR complaints. Folks will still find the caches, and will still log them without jumping through hoops. Creating a new cache type will have exactly the same result. The only benefit to either idea is that those folks smart enough to avoid something they don't like would then be able to selectively avoid them through their PQ's. If this were seen as a worthy goal, Groundspeak could accomplish it by simply adding a new attribute as has been suggested previously.

 

You can't legislate common sense. Discrimination, in and of itself, is not always a bad thing. Prior to getting into law enforcement, I was discriminated against. I was told I could not drive around in a marked police car, whilst wearing a gun. Oh, the horror! How will I ever live that discrimination down? Hmmm.... Well, there's one way..... I went to the academy, graduated, applied to prospective employers, passed their review boards, and passed their in-house training, and now I can drive around in a cop car wearing a gun. The "discriminatory" rule is still there, lurking, but I found a way around it. The "99 finds" ALR discriminates against folks with less than 99 finds. OK, and this is bad because? (let's not confuse silly with bad) Even the most Liberal handwringer should be able to see that it's an obtainable goal.

Link to comment

 

What is being advocated here is a diminishment of ownership rights and property controls.

 

Ed

 

What is being advocated here is a compromise between the hiders rights and the finders rights as regards to the logs on the cache page. The hider owns the cache, but he doesn't own the page or the logs on that page.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...