Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

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

 

I hope it never flies.

You seem to be articulating the extreme position that the owner retains ALL rights to how the cache is logged.

 

Would I be correct, then, in saying that you would support an owner who would only allow white people to log his caches?

 

If not, then you have agreed to community control over how an owner allows his cache to be logged. It has already "flown." The discussion here is about where to draw the line, not whether the line should be drawn.

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

 

I hope it never flies.

You seem to be articulating the extreme position that the owner retains ALL rights to how the cache is logged.

 

Would I be correct, then, in saying that you would support an owner who would only allow white people to log his caches?

 

If not, then you have agreed to community control over how an owner allows his cache to be logged. It has already "flown." The discussion here is about where to draw the line, not whether the line should be drawn.

Another attempt to bring race into the ALR debate to raise emotions.

 

That kind of cache would be stupid, I'd never log it, I'd hope nobody else did either, but I'd think it shouldn't be up to me or you to tell the owner he couldn't own such a cache.

Link to comment
Another attempt to bring race into the ALR debate to raise emotions.

 

That kind of cache would be stupid, I'd never log it, I'd hope nobody else did either, but I'd think it shouldn't be up to me or you to tell the owner he couldn't own such a cache.

I suspect that the Reviewer would also deny that hypothetical cache using the 'agenda' guideline, so there is no point in discussing it in this thread.

 

Come to think of it, I think all ALRs should be listed except for those that are clearly discriminatory (sp?) such as the examples I gave in my earliest post to this thread. Those caches could be denied using the 'agenda' guideline.

 

Problem solved.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
You want some sort of community control over how an owner allows his cache to be logged?

 

I hope it never flies.

You seem to be articulating the extreme position that the owner retains ALL rights to how the cache is logged.

 

Would I be correct, then, in saying that you would support an owner who would only allow white people to log his caches?

 

If not, then you have agreed to community control over how an owner allows his cache to be logged. It has already "flown." The discussion here is about where to draw the line, not whether the line should be drawn.

Another attempt to bring race into the ALR debate to raise emotions.

 

That kind of cache would be stupid, I'd never log it, I'd hope nobody else did either, but I'd think it shouldn't be up to me or you to tell the owner he couldn't own such a cache.

 

It is absolutely the cache owner's right to create a geocache that only white people can log, just as it is Groundspeak's right to refuse to list such a cache.

 

Ownership of the listing page is ceded to Groundspeak, but the logs have generally been held to belong to the cache owner with input from Groundspeak only in extreme circumstances.

 

This issue does not rise to the level of circumstance where Groundspeak need get involved in managing such logs.

 

You're not one of those mean discriminating sexist pigs who won't let me use the girl's bathroom, are you? I'm an American! I have rights! I should be able to use any bathroom I want! B) If y'all want to make a REAL difference vote pro-choice on public toilets!

 

Ed

Link to comment
Ownership of the listing page is ceded to Groundspeak, but the logs have generally been held to belong to the cache owner...

 

Wow! I did not know this. Can you point to anything that could substantiate this?

 

The reason I ask is I though this part of the TOU "...remain the property and copyright of the original author" means that the text I write remains my property. Groundspeak is granted certain rights to use it, but my words and data remain mine.

 

Now, a log I write may be associated with a particular cache and even "fair use" may--or may not, I don't know--be able to be invoked if you publish the cache elsewhere as a history of known visits. These are complex issues, but I certainly wouldn't have thought the log belonged to the cache owner.

 

Further, the fact that a cache owner can not edit the log of another illustrates it doesn't belong to him--you can't change another person's words.

 

Given your point about the listing page is ceded to Groundspeak and the online log is part of the listing page, then logic would follow the log is only part of the listing page. Groundspeak then tasks you with moderating the logs to make sure they meet the guidelines. Then it follows that a cacher who has found a particular cache is allowed by the site to log with the appropriate log-type.

Link to comment
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?

 

Nope! General and terrain difficulties are a different type of challenge meant to make it more challenging to find the cache. This thread deals with caches that have already been found.

 

I do see what CR is saying and i almost want to agree with him on this. You find the cache, you sign the logbook, it's a find. Well, i did say almost! I myself do not see a problem with ALRs in general and i do think they have their place in geocaching. Some of them add a fun twist to our game and can be very enjoyable. I look at these as being another type of cache (virtual, micro, etc,,,) that some people are just not going to find to their liking. Like those who despise micros, you just have to weed em out and avoid them.

 

The OP however brought up the real problem here, discriminatory caches. I know not everyone agrees but i've read all the arguements for and against and i still find that the "99 or else cache" discriminates. Seems clear to me since the owner clearly states that certain cachers are not allowed to log a find on it.

Link to comment

The way the site is set up, cache owners have the ability to delete logs. This is meant to allow logs that are spoilers or logs that are abusive or obscene to be deleted quickly by the cache owner. I suppose instead we could have a report button like on the forum and a log moderator could delete the offensive log. Owners may also be given the capability to delete "bogus" logs so that briansnat's friend won't drive out of his way to find a cache that is not there. Since owners have the ability to delete logs it is inevitable that they would use this power to enforce additional logging requirements. CR may believe this is wrong and Jeremy may believe this is silly, but the power is not likely to be taken away since the concern over monitoring the website for spam or offensive material in logs is probably more important than whether a type "A" person can use the site to record their finds. I have seen where Groundspeak has used their power to lock logs so that the owner can not delete them. But this has only been in extreme cases where logs were deleted simply because cacher A didn't like cacher B. The only way that the type "A" persons who want to get a find on the cache where they didn't do an ALR would be to ban non-optional ALR caches altogther. If the owner deletes your log you could log an SBA since non-optional ALRs would be against the guidelines. That would probably put an end to these caches in a hurry. Seems that the only choices are

  1. Allow cache owners to enforce ALRs by deleting logs
  2. Ban all ALRs that are not optional

You can invent all kinds of additional log types but they only serve to make ALRs optional.

Link to comment

The way the site is set up, cache owners have the ability to delete logs. This is meant to allow logs that are spoilers or logs that are abusive or obscene to be deleted quickly by the cache owner. I suppose instead we could have a report button like on the forum and a log moderator could delete the offensive log. Owners may also be given the capability to delete "bogus" logs so that briansnat's friend won't drive out of his way to find a cache that is not there. Since owners have the ability to delete logs it is inevitable that they would use this power to enforce additional logging requirements. CR may believe this is wrong and Jeremy may believe this is silly, but the power is not likely to be taken away since the concern over monitoring the website for spam or offensive material in logs is probably more important than whether a type "A" person can use the site to record their finds.

 

 

What I get out of that is that the only reason cache hiders have the ability to delete logs is so that spoilers and abusive or obscene logs can be deleted. Some cache owners have decided to abuse that power by deleting logs that don't meet ALR's, but the site has not taken the power to delete logs away becaue they need to be able to delete the abusive/obscene/spoiler logs.

 

In other words, deleting logs for failure to comply with an ALR is NOT what is intended by allowing the hider to delete logs, but some people have decided to do it anyways. If that is the case, then deleting the logs would be an abuse of the system, and should or could be disallowed on those grounds.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
What I get out of that is that the only reason cache hiders have the ability to delete logs is so that spoilers and abusive or obscene logs can be deleted. Some cache owners have decided to abuse that power by deleting logs that don't meet ALR's, but the site has not taken the power to delete logs away becaue they need to be able to delete the abusive/obscene/spoiler logs.

 

In other words, deleting logs for failure to comply with an ALR is NOT what is intended by allowing the hider to delete logs, but some people have decided to do it anyways. If that is the case, then deleting the logs would be an abuse of the system, and should or could be disallowed on those grounds.

Many people are forgetting what the guidelines say:

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

In my opinion, this clearly makes the cache owner responsible for deleting logs. The guidelines clearly task the cache owner with the responsibility to delete logs that are 'not within the stated requirements'.

 

Given that ALR caches meet the guidelines and are, therefore, listed. I don't buy anyone's argument that the requirements of an ALR do not fall under this rule.

 

Therefore, ALRs are fine and it is the cache owner's responsibility to delete logs that don't comply. The only remaining question is whether there are ALRs that should not be listed. I submit that this question is not important because the Reviewers already deny such caches under the 'agenda' guideline.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
The guidelines clearly task the cache owner with the responsibility to delete logs that are 'not within the stated guidelines'.

 

Given that ALR caches meet the guidelines and are, therefore, listed. I don't buy anyone's argument that the requirements of an ALR do not fall under this rule.

 

Well, except for Jeremy's statement. I believe that would run completely counter to what you're saying.

 

The reason the "stated requirements" (note it's not "stated guidelines." You can find it here.) is in the guidelines is to accommodate virtuals. Virtuals don't have logbooks and some other form of verification is required.

 

Regardless of what you can read into the guidelines, Jeremy has made it clear ALRs are not sanctioned by the site. Nor are they prohibited. This means ALRs exist because of a loophole. That certainly does not put you on the side of "right," only you can get away with it.

Link to comment
The guidelines clearly task the cache owner with the responsibility to delete logs that are 'not within the stated guidelines'.

 

Given that ALR caches meet the guidelines and are, therefore, listed. I don't buy anyone's argument that the requirements of an ALR do not fall under this rule.

Well, except for Jeremy's statement. I believe that would run completely counter to what you're saying.
Jeremy made two statements regarding ALRs. First, he personally thinks they are silly. Many of us share this opinion, but our personal opinions do not mean they shouldn't exist. Second, he stated that ALRs were not sanctioned by Groundspeak. This is where you are having trouble. You see, when something isn't sanctioned, it doesn't mean that it is verboten. When something is sanctioned, it is given formal approval. Just because that formal approval has not been given, doesn't mean that that thing may not exist. Just because Jeremy is not willing to provide features of the site (attributes) that specifically support ALRs, does not mean that ALRs are not allowed. In fact, the very fact that these caches are listed on the site is proof that they are allowed.
The reason the "stated requirements" (note it's not "stated guidelines." You can find it here.) is in the guidelines is to accommodate virtuals. Virtuals don't have logbooks and some other form of verification is required.
First, thanks for catching the error in my post. I've fixed it and I believe that correction makes my argument better.

 

Second, You are making a leap in logic by presuming that the only thing that 'stated requirements' refers to is virts. I submit that it does cover any requirement listed in a virts description, but also covers any other 'stated requirement'.

Regardless of what you can read into the guidelines, Jeremy has made it clear ALRs are not sanctioned by the site. Nor are they prohibited. This means ALRs exist because of a loophole. That certainly does not put you on the side of "right," only you can get away with it.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'sanction'. Regardless, you admit that ALRs are not prohibited. They are allowed to exist. Since you are now in agreement with the other posters to this thread, let's move it forward and discuss whether any specific ALRs should not exist for whatever reason, although it is still my belief that this further discussion is not necessary because these 'bad' ALRs will be denied through the use of the 'agenda' guideline.

 

<Edited to mention that I haven't proofed this post for typos. If CR could take care of this and let me know of any, I'd appreciate it.>

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

It's a logical leap from "not prohibited" to "it's a right" or "it's perfectly okay."

 

Circular logic doesn't cut it, never mind the fact you keep arguing points I'm not making.

Huh? Your point (apparently) was that because ALRs are not sanctioned, they must not be allowed (although, you later admitted that they are allowed). I merely explained to you what 'sanctioned' actually means.

 

You also made the leap in logic that 'stated requirements' means only what you decide it means. I opined that it means whatever requirements are stated.

 

Please 1) point out any circular logic that I used to confuse you, 2) point out any instances where I failed to address 'points' that you made, and 3) explain why I am only allowed to address 'points' that you made.

Link to comment
It's a logical leap from "not prohibited" to "it's a right" or "it's perfectly okay." ...

This statement deserved more attention than I gave it in my prior post.

 

If something is not prohibited, it is allowed. Proof that they are allowed is given by the fact that they are listed.

 

You appear to be arguing from a position that if something wasn't in the original idea of what a geocache is, then it must be forbidden. This goes directly against the FAQ, which states:

Are there any variations in the game?

 

YES! We strongly encourage it, actually. Geocaching is a game that constantly reinvents itself, and the rules are very flexible. If you have a new idea on how to place a cache, or a new game using GPS units, we'd love to hear about it.

Are you arguing from a position of 'Change is bad'? Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I have a direct question for CR, but anyone else that is against ALR caches is free to answer too. But I'd really like to hear CR's answer.

 

Jeremy has stated that the ALRs are silly, and not sanctioned, but he hasn't changed the site to disallow them and hasn't even requested that the owners make the tasks optional.

 

My question is, why are you trying to get the ALR cache owners to change their caches?

Link to comment

It's a logical leap from "not prohibited" to "it's a right" or "it's perfectly okay."

 

Circular logic doesn't cut it, never mind the fact you keep arguing points I'm not making.

Huh? Your point (apparently) was that because ALRs are not sanctioned, they must not be allowed (although, you later admitted that they are allowed).

 

No, I don't make such logic leaps.

 

Different points on an issue prove different angles. "Not prohibited" means just that. Because there is no reason for a reviewer to hold up the publication of a cache because a particular aspect does not mean that aspect is right.

 

Just because an aspect is not sanctioned does not automatically mean it is prohibited, I make no such leaps. What it does mean is that you can't use loopholes to show it is perfectly acceptable.

 

See, it's different points and aspects that one puts together like a jigsaw puzzle to see the big picture.

 

The two above are not the only points. Add the fact we allow accidental finders to log a find, along with those who stumble over the cache, muggles, etc. This has long been a highly accepted notion.

 

This site's flow provides another clue. "Log your visit" and "Found It" show that it is the find that you are logging and not any other activity. This holds true for the point just above this one. If you found it, you found it. Nowhere is there anything that mentions additional actions.

 

Sending emails with verification information for virtuals does not validate ALRs. Such requirements are for verification purposes. You are saying "I found it and here's my proof." There was even guidance to what was acceptable as verification, mainly it was supposed to be some information able to be garnered only at the site and not via online research. Given the wide assortment of ALRs the two are not similar much less the same.

 

Additionally, cache owners can not simply do anything they want with their caches as evidenced by the fiasco a few months back with pocket caches. The owner wanted to allow the finds, this site said "no." So, no "ultimate cache owner power" exists. It's a fallacy pure and simple.

 

Some of the above points prove a notion, other negate a notion. I would have thought one or two would have stood on their own, but even if not, other points support it.

 

Now, there could be more but take all of the above points and see where they all over lap. That's where I get my opinion ALRs are not right.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
My question is, why are you trying to get the ALR cache owners to change their caches?

 

I not trying to get ALR cache owners to change their caches, only remove the threat and follow through of log deletion for non-compliance of an additional requirement beyond signing the log.

 

Suggestions are fine. Challenges are fine. Deleting logs where the finder signed the logbook because of something silly is wrong.

Link to comment
My question is, why are you trying to get the ALR cache owners to change their caches?

 

I not trying to get ALR cache owners to change their caches, only remove the threat and follow through of log deletion for non-compliance of an additional requirement beyond signing the log.

 

Suggestions are fine. Challenges are fine. Deleting logs where the finder signed the logbook because of something silly is wrong.

But that IS changing their caches.

 

Let me rephrase and ask it again...

 

If the site isn't insisting (or requesting) that cache owners remove the threat of log deletion for failure to comply with an additional requirement beyond signing the log, why are you trying to get the cache owners to?

Link to comment
My question is, why are you trying to get the ALR cache owners to change their caches?

 

I not trying to get ALR cache owners to change their caches, only remove the threat and follow through of log deletion for non-compliance of an additional requirement beyond signing the log.

 

Suggestions are fine. Challenges are fine. Deleting logs where the finder signed the logbook because of something silly is wrong.

 

so...fluff and obfuscation aside...you're trying to get cache owners to changes their caches... :)

 

Jamie - NFA

Link to comment
...Additionally, cache owners can not simply do anything they want with their caches as evidenced by the fiasco a few months back with pocket caches. The owner wanted to allow the finds, this site said "no." So, no "ultimate cache owner power" exists. It's a fallacy pure and simple. ...

There was much to your post, but nothing in it that convinced me that you were correct and ALRs are inherently wrong. I do, however, want to address the pocket cache example that you threw out.

 

Pocket caches are against the guidelines. ALR caches are not against the guidelines. Therefore, pocket caches are not relevent to this discussion.

 

The simple bottom line is ALRs do not violate the guidelines, therefore they are listed. Cache owners have the right to delete logs that violate the stated requirements, whether CR thinks they should be able to, or not.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Cache owners have the right to delete logs that violate the stated guidelines,
Yes, but ALR's are not what is meant by "the stated guidelines"
Darn it, I can't believe I typed 'stated guidelines' again. I have now fixed it.

 

Anyway, I believe that the verbiage in the guidelines was kept intentionally broad. If they wanted to address only virt verification, they would have limited thusly. I further believe that they meant that verbiage to include any requirements in the cache description, as long as they did not violate the guidelines. Were they specifically thinking of ALRs? Of course not. However, ALRs have existed long before the most current version of the guidelines was put into place. If TPTB really cared about this issue, it would have been addressed. Given that no action has been taken and that ALRs continue to be listed, I feel good about my interpretation.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Guidelines, requirements, whatever, I wasn't trying to pick nits. I knew what you meant.

 

I agree tha the language was intentionally broad so that it could cover other issues without having to have a 25 page document to cover every possibility.

 

However, since Jeremy has clearly stated that ALR's are not "sanctioned" by the site, It seems obvious to me that the "stated requirements" are not meant to apply to ALR's, whether intentionally or otherwise. If it was meant to apply to ALR's, then that would be sanctioning them- which he has said is not something that the site does.

 

I wonder if anybody has ever appealed a log deletion for non-ALR compliance? I would be curious to see what would happen if somebody did and TPTB was placed in a position to either allow or not allow the deletion.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
What it does mean is that you can't use loopholes to show it is perfectly acceptable.

Perhaps you can. If Jeremy didn't want them, (as opposed to thinking they are silly), all it would take is a simple note down the chain of command, and ALR's would effectively cease to exist. Maybe "loophole" isn't an adequate description? They are allowed because he hasn't outlawed them. Maybe that's because he thinks they are an acceptable twist to the game, rather than they squeezed through a loophole? Jeremy certainly is not shy about closing loopholes and putting his foot down when geocaching drifts away from his inherent vision. The pocket cache debacle taught us that if nothing else. If Jeremy want's some current aspect of geocaching to go away, it will.

 

Yes, but ALR's are not what is meant by "the stated guidelines"

Did you write those guidelines? No? Are you best buddies with the person who did? No? Don't you think it's arrogant to assume you know what is, and what is not meant, by a purposely vague guideline?

Link to comment
Guidelines, requirements, whatever, I wasn't trying to pick nits. I knew what you meant.

 

I agree tha the language was intentionally broad so that it could cover other issues without having to have a 25 page document to cover every possibility.

 

However, since Jeremy has clearly stated that ALR's are not "sanctioned" by the site, It seems obvious to me that the "stated requirements" are not meant to apply to ALR's, whether intentionally or otherwise. If it was meant to apply to ALR's, then that would be sanctioning them- which he has said is not something that the site does.

Just because he isn't going to make any changes to the site to accomodate them, doesn't mean that the current guidelines don't apply.

Link to comment

He not only said that he wouldn't make changes, he said that they are not sanctioned in the first place.

 

If they are not sanctioned, then how can it be argued that an admittedly vague reference about "the stated requirements" applies to them? The current guidelines were never MEANT to apply.

 

Obviously, if the ALR's are not sanctioned, then he would not have put something in the guideline to allow them. If he did put something there to allow them, then he is santioning them.

 

If you truly beleive that the "stated requirements" language applies to ALR's, then Jeremy was lying when he said they are not sanctioned.

Link to comment

 

Yes, but ALR's are not what is meant by "the stated guidelines"

Did you write those guidelines? No? Are you best buddies with the person who did? No? Don't you think it's arrogant to assume you know what is, and what is not meant, by a purposely vague guideline?

 

I didn't write them, and I am not buddies with jeremy, but I CAN read.

 

Jeremy stated in another thread that ALR's are "not sanctioned" by the site.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
If you truly beleive that the "stated requirements" language applies to ALR's, then Jeremy was lying when he said they are not sanctioned.

The guidelines apply to all geocaches, including ALR's. Don't confuse "unsanctioned" with unauthorized. By allowing them, Jeremy grants implicit consent for their existence. If Jeremy didn't want them on his site, they would be gone.

Link to comment

I think you need to read the thread. We are not talking about the guidelines in general here.

 

I'll try to get you back on track-

 

The particular guideline that is being discussed is this one:

 

"The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

Some people feel that the "not within the stated requirements" language is applicable to ALR logs and deleting logs that don't comply with the ALR is therefore approved.

 

However, Jeremy has made the clear statement that ALR caches are "not sanctioned" by the site.

 

My argument is that if ALR caches are not sanctioned, then saying that that the "not within the stated requirements" verbiage tacitly approves ALR log deletions is obviously incorrect.

 

Further, in that same post he goes on to say "Suggestions would be fine but forcing someone to do a little dance for a "find" is, IMO, silly. If you found it you found it."

 

If the "not within the stated requirements" language is applicable to ALR logs, then not only would deleting non-compliant logs be not "silly", it would actually be REQUIRED by that guideline. By that logic, Jeremy would be saying that following his own guideline is "silly". Somehow, I doubt he would call his own guidelines "silly".

 

BYW- According to the dictionary:

 

Adjective: unsanctioned ún'sangkshund

 

1. Without explicit official permission

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
If the "not within the stated requirements" language is applicable to ALR caches, then not only would deleting non-compliant logs be not "silly", it would actually be REQUIRED by that guideline. By that logic, Jeremy would be saying that following his own guideline is "silly". Somehow, I doubt he would call his own guidelines "silly".

 

BYW- According to the dictionary:

 

Adjective: unsanctioned ún'sangkshund

 

1. Without explicit official permission

 

"Guidelines don't REQUIRE anything. They suggest - or guide.

 

I don't have explicit official permission to do a lot of things. I do them anyway.

Link to comment

.....And yes, I meant to use the word "jerk."

 

I thought this post was interesting, as I had thought it was about choices. If they chose to ignore the cache owners page requirements, the owner could equally choose to delete the log. Of course, the cacher could choose to ignore the listing, which would be better. Logically, the person would not be a jerk.

 

But then remembered that I recieved a non-complying log on a ALR cache I had listed.

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

The cacher has to post a new title as the requirement. The title can be anything as log as it is family friendly. Even if they posted "I HATE ALR caches", or "4wheelin_fool is an idiot" I would post it. I sent a e-mail notifying them to change the log and heard nothing back. Even though I knew that it was my duty to uphold the standards of ALR caches, when it came time to delete the log, I just didnt. Why? I knew at that point that if I did, I would feel like a jerk. Usually when I feel like a jerk, I am.

 

Perhaps they did not understand there were ALR caches, or they were somehow "others" out there with requirements to pave the way. The simple solution would be recognize, and create a separate icon for these caches. The problem, is that with a new icon cachers would get excited and rush to create a whole slew of these caches. Turmoil would erupt between the 2 sides and in the end it wouldnt really matter who was right. In order to prevent THAT from happening, Groundspeak would have to put a very sharp limit on these type of caches. Additional Logging Requirement caches would also have to be Additional Listing Requirement caches. In order to be listed on this website, the cache owner of a ALR cache would have to comply with a custom requirement, or choose one from a list: (I'll suggest some)

 

- Submit proof that you have found five 5/5 caches in five different countries on 5 consecutive days.

 

- Win a medal in the Olympics (any)

 

- Live on the road with a traveling circus for at least 90 days and learn to fly off of a trapeze through a flaming hoop of fire.

 

-Submit proof that you are genetically linked to either: A (former or present) president of the United States, The pharoah Ramses, or Krusty the clown .

 

-Obtain a note from a psychatrist certifying you are sane. List all medications you are taking, and agree to (and pay for) random drug tests, as well as random DNA tests. Afterwards, visit the stadium of a local sporting team and run naked during halftime onto the field. Paint your body the color of (and cheer) the name of a team that is not playing that night.

 

-Submit an actual photograph of an alien from another planet no less than 106 light years away. The alien must be sitting on a mechanical bull and holding a pint of Jack Daniels.

 

-Prove that at one time you have been the victim of a Nigerian money scheme. Submit the full police report, as well as your past (and current) bank account and credit card numbers, as well as your birthdate and your SS# for a complete "investigation".

 

 

After all, whats fair is fair... Just my 3 cents :)

Link to comment

I've read all 12 pages of this monstrously arduous thread. I don't think I need to do that again, but thanx for the offer. :)

Some people feel that the "not within the stated requirements" language is applicable to ALR logs and deleting logs that don't comply with the ALR is therefore approved.

 

However, Jeremy has made the clear statement that ALR caches are "not sanctioned" by the site.

Those two statements don't contradict each other. Obviously, folks have the right to delete any logs made on their cache pages. The cache belongs to them, the control of the contents of the cache page logs likewise belong to them.

 

My argument is that if ALR caches are not sanctioned, then saying that that the "not within the stated requirements" verbiage tacitly approves ALR log deletions is obviously incorrect.

That's where you give a violent twist to logic. You can't begin to assume what the Illustrious Potentates were thinking when they wrote the guidelines, and your attempted interpretations of their thought process leaves much to be desired. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that neither of us has a clue regarding the specific text and how that text applies to ALR's.

 

If you found it you found it."

I think all three of us are in agreement on this point. Jeremy, you & I all agree that a find is a find, and folks should not delete logs because the finder didn't jump through a particular set of hoops, but it's at this point where we diverge. I would never delete what I considered to be a legitimate find, but I also wouldn't wish to impose my values on others. Since Jeremy hasn't updated the guidelines, perhaps he feels the same way?

Link to comment
My question is, why are you trying to get the ALR cache owners to change their caches?

 

I not trying to get ALR cache owners to change their caches, only remove the threat and follow through of log deletion for non-compliance of an additional requirement beyond signing the log.

 

Suggestions are fine. Challenges are fine. Deleting logs where the finder signed the logbook because of something silly is wrong.

 

so...fluff and obfuscation aside...you're trying to get cache owners to changes their caches... :)

 

Is it changing the cache?

 

Are does it have more to do with the way you "run" your cache page?

 

For instance, you place a cache and list it on two different sites. The cache, the description, everything is same except on one site you impliment and enforce an ALR. Are you suggesting there are actually two different caches?

Link to comment

Additional Logging Requirement caches would also have to be Additional Listing Requirement caches. In order to be listed on this website, the cache owner of a ALR cache would have to comply with a custom requirement, or choose one from a list: (I'll suggest some)

:)

 

I don't understand why you think that an ALR cache would have to have a custom listing requirement, but whatever.

 

If I wanted to list an ALR cache, and the site required something simple and easy, or even fun, before I could, then I'd do it. If I thought the requirements were absurd (like those above) then I wouldn't. It would be my choice.

 

I can either play the game on this site with the rules of the site, or I can go play somewhere else. Isn't that how it should be?

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment
Pocket caches are against the guidelines. ALR caches are not against the guidelines. Therefore, pocket caches are not relevent to this discussion.
Right back to cherry picking issues.

Ummmm... You try to muddy the waters with something that clearly isn't related. I call you on it and I'm cherry picking issues??? :)

 

Are you aware of what you are typing?

Link to comment

CR, you seem to have skipped over my question. You picked at the semantics of the first question without addressing the meaning behind it, so I rephrased it.

 

If the site isn't insisting (or requesting) that cache owners remove the threat of log deletion for failure to comply with an additional requirement beyond signing the log, why are you trying to get the cache owners to?

Link to comment

For instance, you place a cache and list it on two different sites. The cache, the description, everything is same except on one site you impliment and enforce an ALR. Are you suggesting there are actually two different caches?

 

Yes, a cache is more than the box. It's the experience. There may be only one box, but there are two distinct experiences to be had. One is just the box, the other involves a quest and the box.

 

Some folks recognize this by having an Extra Log Requiremnt (ELR) on a standard cache. The ELR gets you a second smilie. The first is for the box. The second is for what might have been an ALR on another cache but on this one it allows the second find. That's another area of controversy though.

 

I don't know why but this discussion is starting to remind me of dating.

Link to comment
Pocket caches are against the guidelines. ALR caches are not against the guidelines. Therefore, pocket caches are not relevent to this discussion.
Right back to cherry picking issues.

Ummmm... You try to muddy the waters with something that clearly isn't related. I call you on it and I'm cherry picking issues??? :)

 

Are you aware of what you are typing?

 

I am and the pocket cache point was to show owner clearly don't have absolute control over their own caches. It refutes the "because I want to" retort when someone asks to justify putting an ALR on a cache.

 

This very sub-thread illustrates the nit-picking of one particular point to try to disprove the main issue.

Link to comment
I am and the pocket cache point was to show owner clearly don't have absolute control over their own caches. It refutes the "because I want to" retort when someone asks to justify putting an ALR on a cache.

 

This very sub-thread illustrates the nit-picking of one particular point to try to disprove the main issue.

Then why did you create this subthread???? :)

 

Anyway, your logic is flawed. Everyone is aware that a cache cannot violate the guidelines. Therefore, TPTB will take action against those caches that violate the guidelines. ALRs don't violate the guidelines, so no action has been taken.

 

Your point was simply another of your red herrings. Cheese and crackers!

Link to comment

CR, you seem to have skipped over my question. You picked at the semantics of the first question without addressing the meaning behind it, so I rephrased it.

 

If the site isn't insisting (or requesting) that cache owners remove the threat of log deletion for failure to comply with an additional requirement beyond signing the log, why are you trying to get the cache owners to?

 

I think I already answered it. I can't help it you didn't like the answer I gave. The "semantics" is so you wouldn't try to come back and twist my words.

 

Your "rephrasing" makes the new question irrelevant in that there are a lot of things in this hobby that are not considered right, frowned upon, or what ever you want to call it, yet this site says nothing about it. Trading fairly comes to mind.

 

So, no, I'm not going to attempt to answer a loaded and irrelevant question.

Link to comment
I am and the pocket cache point was to show owner clearly don't have absolute control over their own caches. It refutes the "because I want to" retort when someone asks to justify putting an ALR on a cache.

 

This very sub-thread illustrates the nit-picking of one particular point to try to disprove the main issue.

Then why did you create this subthread???? :)

 

Anyway, your logic is flawed. Everyone is aware that a cache cannot violate the guidelines. Therefore, TPTB will take action against those caches that violate the guidelines. ALRs don't violate the guidelines, so no action has been taken.

 

Your point was simply another of your red herrings. Cheese and crackers!

 

:)

Link to comment

...I am and the pocket cache point was to show owner clearly don't have absolute control over their own caches. It refutes the "because I want to" retort when someone asks to justify putting an ALR on a cache...

 

We don't have absolute control over our own lives. A cache can't be expected to be any different. However the lack of total control doesn't change the intent. I want to conrol my cache as well as my life. "Because I want to" is a good answer. I really don't know that a better one is needed for things for which you are recognized as "in charge" or as "the owner".

 

Assuming a certian loss of control to achieve something you desire (like good logs on the cache you hid) is valid but it's also not a reason to wrest yet more control from the cache owner. They are trying to provide a cache experience. That experiene can be good bad, or indiferent. It's the way of things and it's fine. Flexability and freedome are how cache owners innovate and come up with newer and better ideas. ALR caches are a phase that some cacher owners need to go through. Those that survive may take caching to the next level. I say survive because finders do provide negative feeback on ALR caches.

Link to comment

CR, you seem to have skipped over my question. You picked at the semantics of the first question without addressing the meaning behind it, so I rephrased it.

 

If the site isn't insisting (or requesting) that cache owners remove the threat of log deletion for failure to comply with an additional requirement beyond signing the log, why are you trying to get the cache owners to?

 

I think I already answered it.

You thought wrong.

 

You didn't answer it, you side stepped it. Are you beginning to realize you have no basis for your campaign CR?

Link to comment

Is it changing the cache?

 

Are does it have more to do with the way you "run" your cache page?

 

For instance, you place a cache and list it on two different sites. The cache, the description, everything is same except on one site you impliment and enforce an ALR. Are you suggesting there are actually two different caches?

 

The cache listing is, of course, a part of the cache...as is the cache container...

 

Without the listing, my brilliant and tortuous puzzle caches are merely ammo-cans in the woods that nobody would ever find...without the cache containers, my listings are just an assemblage of words that don't lead to anything {{{something like this thread, some would say}}}...

 

I'm in the pool for 15 pages, so keep going guys...

 

convince me that my approved cache is against the rules because you don't like ALRs...

 

convince me that you know what TPTB be meant when they wrote the guidelines for listing and maintaining caches, and that my interpretation is wrong...because you interpret them differently...

 

convince me that geocaching needs more rules to protect it from my stupid rule cache...that you speak for the masses...and that geocachers, are leaning out of their windows all over the world and yelling, "I'm Mad as Hell, and I'm Not Going to Take it Anymore!"...

 

my stupid rule cache has been visited dozens of times, and I've never had to delete a log, and everyone has had a fun time doing it...it's possible that some people didn't want to follow the stupid rule...they must have skipped the cache and found one of my other ones...is this really as big a problem as you are making it out to be?

 

Jamie - NFA

 

{{{remember...15 pages, and I'm on easy street :) }}}

Link to comment

Since NFA's got money on the thread reaching 15 pages, I'll ask:

  • Are ALRs really a widespread phenomenon? I don't recall encountering any.
  • What are some of the additional requirements? Pictures? Number of finds (as in the OP)?

Please forgive me if these Qs have been answered. I'm late to the thread, and tried to skim for these subjects, but my eyes glazed over at the legalistic wrangling :)

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...