Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

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?

I wonder if his silence is a yes?

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?

I wonder if his silence is a yes?

Hardly.

 

I answered the question you asked. "Tough nuts" to you if you didn't like the answer. Also, "Tough nuts" to you that you didn't word it the first time in such a way to trap me in a word game. "Tough nuts" to you that you don't get second chances.

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

 

So, you are saying the cache I presented above is in fact two caches? Is that what you are saying?

 

The "what-if" you presented has essentially nothing to do with this discussion (except that you mention the term ALR), while my answer to you did...why do you insist on clouding the discussion with tangents? {{{I have some thoughts on that...}}}

 

Read my answer and respond to it, not to your own OT meanderings...or don't...I don't really expect you to...

 

Jamie - NFA

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
The "what-if" you presented has essentially nothing to do with this discussion (except that you mention the term ALR), while my answer to you did...why do you insist on clouding the discussion with tangents?

 

It's not a tangent. You said that removing the threat of log deletion would change the cache. I presented an example to illustrate or debunk that notion.

 

My assertion is removing the threat and follow through of log deletion would not change a cache. You said it would. I presented a test, so to speak, to see if that would hold true.

 

Two listings, identical in every way except for the ALR. Of course I had to use a cross listing scenario to make the two listings completely identical, or as much as possible on two different sites.

 

So, does removing the ALR change the cache?

Link to comment

 

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.

 

 

I think this gives us a pretty good clue-

 

"Additional Logging Requirements is not sanctioned by Groundspeak. 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."

 

I'm pretty sure he knows what they were thinking when they wrote the guidelines.

 

The guideline in question reads:

 

"Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

If, as is being suggested here, that guideline is meant to cover ALR logs, why would Jeremy say it is "silly" to delete them?

 

Why would he write a guideline saying that cache hiders are to delete the logs, and then later say it is "silly" to do so?

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

The only thing that would make sense is that the guidelone was never meant to cover the ALR logs in the first place.

Link to comment
So, does removing the ALR change the cache?

 

As I stated in my earlier response, yes. Changing the cache would...change the cache...

 

it is my opinion that the container and the listing make up the cache, so changing the listing would change the cache...

 

if this were not so, if the listing were not an integral and important part of the cache, gc.com could be a list of coordinates leading to boxes in the woods...

 

the variety of cache listings I have seen, and enjoyed, as a part of my caching experiences make me glad that this is not the case...

 

Jamie - NFA

Link to comment

I have to admit, I agree with NFR on this particular sub-point.

 

The cace page does make the cache in many cases. Removing the ALR does change the cache.

 

On the other hand, removing the threat of deletion for failing to comply would not change the cache at all. The "fun factor" would stilll be there, just not forced on people that don't think it is all that fun.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

I have to admit, I agree with NFR on this particular sub-point.

 

The cace page does make the cache in many cases. Removing the ALR does change the cache.

 

On the other hand, removing the threat of deletion for failing to comply would not change the cache at all. The "fun factor" would stilll be there, just not forced on people that don't think it is all that fun.

 

This is my point.

 

An ALR is made up of two parts; the challenge and the threat of log deletion. Remove the threat of log deletion then it not an ALR, it's just a challenge, suggestion, or whatever you want to call it, just not a requirement.

 

I apologize for being clear that I meant only removing the threat and not removing the challenge.

 

...and I agree with you whole heartedly. Not deleting a log changes nothing of the cacher's experience.

Link to comment

I have to admit, I agree with NFR on this particular sub-point.

 

The cace page does make the cache in many cases. Removing the ALR does change the cache.

 

On the other hand, removing the threat of deletion for failing to comply would not change the cache at all. The "fun factor" would stilll be there, just not forced on people that don't think it is all that fun.

 

This is my point.

 

An ALR is made up of two parts; the challenge and the threat of log deletion. Remove the threat of log deletion then it not an ALR, it's just a challenge, suggestion, or whatever you want to call it, just not a requirement.

 

I apologize for being clear that I meant only removing the threat and not removing the challenge.

 

...and I agree with you whole heartedly. Not deleting a log changes nothing of the cacher's experience.

 

if the threat of log deletion is taken away, the cache has clearly been changed, as some people (like you I assume) will not complete the cache as designed by the cache-owner...the ALR is a part of the cache...people are always free to skip caches that have parts that they don't think will be fun for them, I do it all the time...

 

here are some portions of my earlier message that you skipped right over...

 

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

 

please 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...

 

please 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 about ALR caches, 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 all the logs indicate that 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

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
if the threat of log deletion is taken away, the cache has clearly been changed, as some people (like you I assume) will not complete the cache as designed by the cache-owner...the ALR is a part of the cache...

 

Puzzles are part of a cache yet if they are somehow able to sign the logbook while skipping a step then they've not completed the cache as designed. Do you delete their logs?

 

Your logic would mean that everyone would have to complete every cache as designed and if they skipped a step then the find is not valid. They'd have to go back and do that step in order to log it.

 

What about those who have not solved a puzzle yet accompany someone who does? Would they then not be completing the cache as designed? Do you delete their logs?

Link to comment
if the threat of log deletion is taken away, the cache has clearly been changed, as some people (like you I assume) will not complete the cache as designed by the cache-owner...the ALR is a part of the cache...

 

Puzzles are part of a cache yet if they are somehow able to sign the logbook while skipping a step then they've not completed the cache as designed. Do you delete their logs?

 

Your logic would mean that everyone would have to complete every cache as designed and if they skipped a step then the find is not valid. They'd have to go back and do that step in order to log it.

 

What about those who have not solved a puzzle yet accompany someone who does? Would they then not be completing the cache as designed? Do you delete their logs?

 

My logic would only mean that if my other cache listings said that you had to do solve the puzzle in order to log the cache or risk of having your log deleted...only my stupid rule cache has an ALR...c'mon CR, you can do better than that...

 

Jamie - NFA

Edited by NFA
Link to comment

I have to admit, I agree with NFR on this particular sub-point.

 

The cace page does make the cache in many cases. Removing the ALR does change the cache.

 

On the other hand, removing the threat of deletion for failing to comply would not change the cache at all. The "fun factor" would stilll be there, just not forced on people that don't think it is all that fun.

 

This is my point.

 

An ALR is made up of two parts; the challenge and the threat of log deletion. Remove the threat of log deletion then it not an ALR, it's just a challenge, suggestion, or whatever you want to call it, just not a requirement.

 

I apologize for being clear that I meant only removing the threat and not removing the challenge.

 

...and I agree with you whole heartedly. Not deleting a log changes nothing of the cacher's experience.

 

The key thing about an ALR isn't the log deletion. It's the experience. If you don't do the cache challenge you miss out on the intended experience. The log deletion (threatened or not) is the only stick that a cache owner has. It would be so much simpler if they could only show the cache to the type of people who would honor the challenge. Life gets easier when the owner realizes that they can usually tweak the cache so they use a carrot instead of the stick. Meaning the experience happens before they get the cache coordinates in some way.

Link to comment

 

if this were not so, if the listing were not an integral and important part of the cache, gc.com could be a list of coordinates leading to boxes in the woods...

 

the variety of cache listings I have seen, and enjoyed, as a part of my caching experiences make me glad that this is not the case...

 

But we keep seeing the posts from people who insist it is more fun just to load the coordinates into their GPS and go caching blind - without the description on the cache page. So to these people gc.com is just a list of coordinates leading to boxes in the woods (or 35 mm film cans in lampposts). These are the same people who will log a find on an ALR cache and be upset when their log is deleted.

Link to comment

 

if this were not so, if the listing were not an integral and important part of the cache, gc.com could be a list of coordinates leading to boxes in the woods...

 

the variety of cache listings I have seen, and enjoyed, as a part of my caching experiences make me glad that this is not the case...

 

But we keep seeing the posts from people who insist it is more fun just to load the coordinates into their GPS and go caching blind - without the description on the cache page. So to these people gc.com is just a list of coordinates leading to boxes in the woods (or 35 mm film cans in lampposts). These are the same people who will log a find on an ALR cache and be upset when their log is deleted.

 

That's a choice on their part that will inevitably lead to some DNF logs, and in the case of ALR caches, some deleted logs...but it is their choice to go into their cacing adventures with incomplete information...

 

Jamie - NFA

Link to comment

For some people, that is more fun. Why take it away from them?

 

For some people, the panty on the head thing is more fun- for some people it isn't.

 

Why not let the ALR be optional, and appeal to both types?

 

The people that like the ALR can put the panties on their head and have their fun, and the people that just want to find a cache with no strings attached can do their thing, too.

 

Why wave RK's stick around at all?

 

That is what I don't understand- how does it add to the fun for anybody to have the threat? The people that want to do the ALR will do it and have fun. The cache hider gets to have his fun by seeing the logs from the people that do the ALR.

 

The ALR that people don't like isn't fun to them, so the threat of deletion forces them to do something they don't see as fun to get the find. The threat certainly doesn't add to their fun.

 

The hider ends up deleting the logs from the non-compliant ones, which (unless they really do have control issues) can't be a lot of fun for them, either.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
What are some of the additional requirements? Pictures? Number of finds (as in the OP)?

I've got three caches that could conceivably be considered as ALR's.

One requests that the finder post his log in Sesame Street's Swedish Chef lingo, and provides a link to an on-line translator.

One requests that you take a camo'ed decon kit, hide it, and post a link to your new cache. (a breeder cache)

One requires that you sign the logbook.

(sign the log? How could that be an ALR?)

Cuz the guidelines don't require it.

 

Sorry Docapi, I really tried to formulate an answer that wouldn't get me in trouble with the Moderators, but it just wasn't meant to be. You believe one thing, I believe another. That's good enough for me.

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?

I wonder if his silence is a yes?

Hardly.

 

I answered the question you asked. "Tough nuts" to you if you didn't like the answer. Also, "Tough nuts" to you that you didn't word it the first time in such a way to trap me in a word game. "Tough nuts" to you that you don't get second chances.

Why are you so afraid to answer the question I wonder? Surely my mad debating skills aren't THAT impressive that I've scared you off.

 

I asked why you're trying to get people to change their caches, you answered that you're not, you're only trying to get people to change their caches.

Edited by Quiggle
Link to comment

That is what I don't understand- how does it add to the fun for anybody to have the threat? The people that want to do the ALR will do it and have fun. The cache hider gets to have his fun by seeing the logs from the people that do the ALR.

The same reason that for puzzle caches the puzzle isn't optional. I can't read a puzzle cache, go to the posted coordinates, sign whatever I find there, and come back and log the cache anyway.

 

Sure it's possible to bypass some puzzles (if they're not very well done, if the answer is easy to guess, if the actual cache is in a well travelled location, etc), but by design the owner is attempting to make you solve the puzzle before you're able to log the find. Is there a standard way for us to decide we don't want to do the puzzles and demand to be given the chance to log the cache by visiting the posted coords instead?

 

ALR caches are the same thing. The owner wants to put another challenge into the cache experience, and those that decide to hunt for it accept the challenge. The only difference is that with ALR caches where the task isn't optional, the finder really has no way to bypass the task. He can certainly get help with a lot of them, but the point is that the reason an owner puts a task on an ALR cache is the same reason an owner puts a puzzle on a puzzle cache.

 

Or a long hike in front of a 4 star cache.

 

Or a lake all around a 5 star cache.

 

Or a good camo job on a container he wants you to really hunt for.

 

Or a few steps in a multi he wants you to work for.

 

etc etc etc

 

Caches that are not plain jane are enjoyed by a lot of people. Those that don't like them are not required to hunt for them. Nowhere is it promised that all caches will be available to all cachers.

Link to comment

The other day I did a "night" cache. However, since my wife has a torn ACL and some cartilage damage we decided to try to do it in the daytime. There was no way she was going to try walking around in the woods in the dark with her bum knee.

 

We did the cache, made the hike, found the little reflectors (BTW, those things are hard to find in the daytime!) and followed the trail through this beautiful park to the cache. We thoroughly enjoyed the cache, even though we technically didn't do it "correctly".

 

Would it have been more "fun" for us to have had the log deleted since we technically didn't follow th "rules"? No.

 

Would it have been more fun for the hider to delete our log for not following the rules? I doubt it.

 

Would it have been any fun for either me or the hider if I had decided to skip the cache? I don't see how.

 

Would it have been even more fun if we had done it at night (assuming she was not injured and able to do it that way)? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see how it makes it any less fun for anybody else that we did it "wrong".

 

Taking away our smiley would not have added anything, it is just taking away.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

The other day I did a "night" cache. However, since my wife has a torn ACL and some cartilage damage we decided to try to do it in the daytime. There was no way she was going to try walking around in the woods in the dark with her bum knee.

 

We did the cache, made the hike, found the little reflectors (BTW, those things are hard to find in the daytime!) and followed the trail through this beautiful park to the cache. We thoroughly enjoyed the cache, even though we technically didn't do it "correctly".

 

Would it have been more "fun" for us to have had the log deleted since we technically didn't follow th "rules"? No.

 

Would it have been more fun for the hider to delete our log for not following the rules? I doubt it.

 

Would it have been any fun for either me or the hider if I had decided to skip the cache? I don't see how.

 

Would it have been even more fun if we had done it at night (assuming she was not injured and able to do it that way)? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see how it makes it any less fun for anybody else that we did it "wrong".

 

Taking away our smiley would not have added anything, it is just taking away.

That's a great example!! I'll go along with it. So tell me what would happen if you tried to find it during the day but couldn't, and you decided that because of her injury you couldn't take part in the additional task (of going at night and using the reflectors to lead the way to the cache)?

 

If you came home without completing the cache and logged a Found It anyway, and the owner found out you never actually found the cache, would you expect him to delete your find?

Link to comment

That is what I don't understand- how does it add to the fun for anybody to have the threat? The people that want to do the ALR will do it and have fun. The cache hider gets to have his fun by seeing the logs from the people that do the ALR.

The same reason that for puzzle caches the puzzle isn't optional. I can't read a puzzle cache, go to the posted coordinates, sign whatever I find there, and come back and log the cache anyway.

 

 

2 major differences between a puzzle cache and an ALR cache:

 

First, the puzzle is all about finding the cache. If you don't figure out the puzzle, then you won't be able to find the cache. You are welcome to try, though. Once you find the cache and sign the log, you get to log it, though. An alr is about making you jump through hoops after finding the cache. Even though you have found the cache and signed the logbook, you still have to jump through the hoops to be able to log it. At that point it is no longer about geocaching, it is about forcing people to do what you want to get what they have already earned.

 

Second, There are many ways to bypass the puzzle. Brute force, guessing the coords, asking somebody for the solution, or even just going with somebody elst that has solve the puzzle. I have never heard a case, though, of somebody cheating that way and having their log deleted. It just doesn't seem to be done.

Link to comment

The other day I did a "night" cache. However, since my wife has a torn ACL and some cartilage damage we decided to try to do it in the daytime. There was no way she was going to try walking around in the woods in the dark with her bum knee.

 

We did the cache, made the hike, found the little reflectors (BTW, those things are hard to find in the daytime!) and followed the trail through this beautiful park to the cache. We thoroughly enjoyed the cache, even though we technically didn't do it "correctly".

 

Would it have been more "fun" for us to have had the log deleted since we technically didn't follow th "rules"? No.

 

Would it have been more fun for the hider to delete our log for not following the rules? I doubt it.

 

Would it have been any fun for either me or the hider if I had decided to skip the cache? I don't see how.

 

Would it have been even more fun if we had done it at night (assuming she was not injured and able to do it that way)? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see how it makes it any less fun for anybody else that we did it "wrong".

 

Taking away our smiley would not have added anything, it is just taking away.

That's a great example!! I'll go along with it. So tell me what would happen if you tried to find it during the day but couldn't, and you decided that because of her injury you couldn't take part in the additional task (of going at night and using the reflectors to lead the way to the cache)?

 

If you came home without completing the cache and logged a Found It anyway, and the owner found out you never actually found the cache, would you expect him to delete your find?

 

Absolutely! A find is a find. Conversely, a DNF is a DNF. In this case, I found the cache. If I hadn't found it and signed the log book, it would have been a DNF. If I had not found it and tried to log it as a find, then it would be well within the hiders rights to delete my false find.

 

(I know, it is a trap of some kind. I'll play along and wait for the jaws to spring shut LOL)

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

The other day I did a "night" cache. However, since my wife has a torn ACL and some cartilage damage we decided to try to do it in the daytime. There was no way she was going to try walking around in the woods in the dark with her bum knee.

 

We did the cache, made the hike, found the little reflectors (BTW, those things are hard to find in the daytime!) and followed the trail through this beautiful park to the cache. We thoroughly enjoyed the cache, even though we technically didn't do it "correctly".

 

Would it have been more "fun" for us to have had the log deleted since we technically didn't follow th "rules"? No.

 

Would it have been more fun for the hider to delete our log for not following the rules? I doubt it.

 

Would it have been any fun for either me or the hider if I had decided to skip the cache? I don't see how.

 

Would it have been even more fun if we had done it at night (assuming she was not injured and able to do it that way)? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see how it makes it any less fun for anybody else that we did it "wrong".

 

Taking away our smiley would not have added anything, it is just taking away.

That's a great example!! I'll go along with it. So tell me what would happen if you tried to find it during the day but couldn't, and you decided that because of her injury you couldn't take part in the additional task (of going at night and using the reflectors to lead the way to the cache)?

 

If you came home without completing the cache and logged a Found It anyway, and the owner found out you never actually found the cache, would you expect him to delete your find?

 

Absolutely! A find is a find. Conversely, a DNF is a DNF. In this case, I found the cache. If I hadn't found it and signed the log book, it would have been a DNF. If I had not found it and tried to log it as a find, then it would be well within the hiders rights to delete my false find.

 

(I know, it is a trap of some kind. I'll play along and wait for the jaws to spring shut LOL)

Yeah, I'm the Great Forum Trapper. :unsure: I set my logic traps and dare all fools to try and wiggle out of them.

 

Anyway... back to the conversation...

 

My point is, if you refuse to do the task on the night cache, you wouldn't expect to be able to find the cache. Puzzle caches are intended to be the same way. It's a task that the owner puts into the cache to make it more fun for the cacher. The only difference between those tasks and the ALR cache tasks, is where the task is located in the sequence. One is before the cache is located, and the other is after. However, both are BEFORE the cache is logged online (or in the case of a poetry log cache, during).

 

You asked how it could possibly add fun to the game to require someone to do the task and I'm trying to answer that. If the threat of log deletion weren't there, the task would be optional. The task isn't intended to be optional on many other caches, so why is it required that the task be optional with ALR caches?

 

I hope I made sense. And I hope you didn't get hurt when the trap sprang shut. Heh heh heh.

Link to comment

But I DID refuse to the the "task" on the night cache. I went during the day.

 

I still logged it, and I got my all important smiley.

 

Same with a puzzle cache. I remember a big hulabaloo about somebody with a website giving out solutions to puzzles. If somebody goes to that website (if it is even still around) and gets a solution and then finds the cache using that solution would the hider delete his find? I've never heard of it happening.

 

I see on another thread they are talking about Travel bug "prisons". That debate has been going on for years. Jeremy thinks they are "silly", too. (I notice he uses that term a lot). The rules in a TB prison are just another form of ALR. Usually, the majority of the posters on those threads say they ignore the rules becauser they think they are stupid. Are Prison hiders allowed to delete find logs on those?

 

(That trap wasn't as bad as I expected. A couple of bandaids and I will be fine. :unsure: )

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

The other day I did a "night" cache. However, since my wife has a torn ACL and some cartilage damage we decided to try to do it in the daytime. There was no way she was going to try walking around in the woods in the dark with her bum knee.

 

We did the cache, made the hike, found the little reflectors (BTW, those things are hard to find in the daytime!) and followed the trail through this beautiful park to the cache. We thoroughly enjoyed the cache, even though we technically didn't do it "correctly".

 

Would it have been more "fun" for us to have had the log deleted since we technically didn't follow th "rules"? No.

 

Would it have been more fun for the hider to delete our log for not following the rules? I doubt it.

 

Would it have been any fun for either me or the hider if I had decided to skip the cache? I don't see how.

 

Would it have been even more fun if we had done it at night (assuming she was not injured and able to do it that way)? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see how it makes it any less fun for anybody else that we did it "wrong".

 

Taking away our smiley would not have added anything, it is just taking away.

That's not an ALR cache. The work is up front to get to the find. It's actually the kind of thing I'd reccomend cache owners do instead of ALR's. Generally it's acepted that if you can figure out the puzzle, or clue, or whatever and gain the coordintes on your own even if it's a lucky stumble, it's a find. A bit different from an ALR. However some people just get the final coordinates from someone else and skip everthing. Those folks are rather undeserving.

Link to comment

But I DID refuse to the the "task" on the night cache. I went during the day.

No you didn't, you still used the reflectors to find it. And going during the day made it even MORE difficult.

 

I still logged it, and I got my all important smiley.
Yay. I like night caches a lot. Off topic - I've got a night cache that I've been sitting on for about 2 years that is impossible to find during the day (except for the accidental find method). I wish I could find the time to get it set up.

 

Same with a puzzle cache. I remember a big hulabaloo about somebody with a website giving out solutions to puzzles. If somebody goes to that website (if it is even still around) and gets a solution and then finds the cache using that solution would the hider delete his find? I've never heard of it happening.
When I mentioned the puzzle caches, I was careful to use the word "intended". As in, the hider intended for you to use the puzzle to find the cache. The point about puzzle caches being found via other methods is valid as far as getting you to the cache, and some of those other methods can be used to complete the tasks in ALR caches. For instance, if you get help solving a puzzle, you can also get help writing your poem to log a poetry cache. If you get the answers to a puzzle from a cheat website, you can also get poems from web sites. It's possible to reduce the amount of difficulty for puzzles and many ALR caches several ways. So why are people suggesting that an ALR cache be FORCED to have the task optional, and puzzles and other types not?

 

I see on another thread they are talking about Travel bug "prisons". That debate has been going on for years. Jeremy thinks they are "silly", too. (I notice he uses that term a lot). The rules in a TB prison are just another form of ALR. Usually, the majority of the posters on those threads say they ignore the rules becauser they think they are stupid. Are Prison hiders allowed to delete find logs on those?
I've seen threats on TB Hotel pages of deleted logs if TBs are taken without a TB trade. It happens. I never said ALL ALR caches are completely reasonable. Several examples of really stupid ALR cache suggestions have been given in this thread (I'm seriously considering making an ALR cache and calling it Straw Man). If someone wants to find a cache but refuses to follow the stated requirements, it really shouldn't be a surprise when the log gets deleted. But then again, nobody said they HAD to go for that cache.

 

(That trap wasn't as bad as I expected. A couple of bandaids and I will be fine. :unsure: )
I'm glad. My logic traps have been known to clip the legs right out from under some lesser beings. You're pretty brave.
Link to comment

 

I see on another thread they are talking about Travel bug "prisons". That debate has been going on for years. Jeremy thinks they are "silly", too. (I notice he uses that term a lot). The rules in a TB prison are just another form of ALR. Usually, the majority of the posters on those threads say they ignore the rules becauser they think they are stupid. Are Prison hiders allowed to delete find logs on those?
I've seen threats on TB Hotel pages of deleted logs if TBs are taken without a TB trade. It happens.

 

From reading that thread, though, it appears that that has been challenged in the past. From what I can tell, (and I don't recall the incident so I could be wrong) a prison hider had the threat on his page, and deleted somebody's logs for failire to follow the ALR on that cache. It was appealed, and TPTB reinstated the find log.

Link to comment
The task isn't intended to be optional on many other caches, so why is it required that the task be optional with ALR caches?

 

That doesn't negate the fact a "stumble" is still log-able. Been that way for a long time.

So? Again, the task is just in a different sequence for a ALR cache, which makes them harder to complete in a "stumble".

 

All caches aren't equal. Some are WAY easier to find than others. Some are WAY easier to log than others. Nothing says that all caches have to be able to be found by all people.

Link to comment

 

I see on another thread they are talking about Travel bug "prisons". That debate has been going on for years. Jeremy thinks they are "silly", too. (I notice he uses that term a lot). The rules in a TB prison are just another form of ALR. Usually, the majority of the posters on those threads say they ignore the rules becauser they think they are stupid. Are Prison hiders allowed to delete find logs on those?
I've seen threats on TB Hotel pages of deleted logs if TBs are taken without a TB trade. It happens.

 

From reading that thread, though, it appears that that has been challenged in the past. From what I can tell, (and I don't recall the incident so I could be wrong) a prison hider had the threat on his page, and deleted somebody's logs for failire to follow the ALR on that cache. It was appealed, and TPTB reinstated the find log.

 

That's interesting. I've always worked under the assumption that if I take a bug from a Prison to help it on it's goal, I'd have my find log deleted but the thanks of the TB owner. It would have never even occured to me to appeal because I didn't meet the ALR (distastful as it may be).

Link to comment

 

I see on another thread they are talking about Travel bug "prisons". That debate has been going on for years. Jeremy thinks they are "silly", too. (I notice he uses that term a lot). The rules in a TB prison are just another form of ALR. Usually, the majority of the posters on those threads say they ignore the rules becauser they think they are stupid. Are Prison hiders allowed to delete find logs on those?
I've seen threats on TB Hotel pages of deleted logs if TBs are taken without a TB trade. It happens.

 

From reading that thread, though, it appears that that has been challenged in the past. From what I can tell, (and I don't recall the incident so I could be wrong) a prison hider had the threat on his page, and deleted somebody's logs for failire to follow the ALR on that cache. It was appealed, and TPTB reinstated the find log.

That's cool. The web site apparently has taken a stand where their TBs are concerned. It's their web site, so why shouldn't they?

 

If the web site comes out and says ALR tasks HAVE to be optional, this thread dies and the subject is closed. Nobody that's in favor of ALR caches being requirements would have anything left to say.

 

But they haven't, and ALR caches are allowed (even though the owner thinks they're silly).

Link to comment

I think we might be arguing 2 different points.

 

What I am arguing is that cache hoders do not have the authority to put any silly rule on their cache page and delete any logs that don't meet that rule. I know we have kinda wandered all ovwer the place, but that was my intent.

 

In the only case that I am aware of that an ALR log was deleted and appealed, the log was reinstated by TPTB.

 

As I mentioned once before, I would be very interested to see what would happen if, for example, your brother deleted a log on his poetry cache and the finder appealed it to TPTB, forcing them to take a stand one way or the other.

 

Of course, then what would we talk about?

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

Well, I'd say that they do have that authority, with the exceptions where the law is broken, or where the rules of the site are broken.

 

Obviously you can't have a cache that requires you to hold up a bank before you can log your find. That's an over the top example of breaking the law.

 

And you apparently can't have a cache that requires a TB trade (I hadn't heard of this until now) because of a site rule you mentioned.

 

In each cache there is something specific that has been stated that forbids it.

 

For poetry caches, 99 find caches, etc., there's nothing that says they're not allowed, and until there is I'm sure ALR caches will continue to be submitted and approved.

 

"Just because something is possible doesn't make it right" - CR

 

"Just because CR, Docapi, and others don't like something, it doesn't make it wrong" - Mushtang

Link to comment
And you apparently can't have a cache that requires a TB trade (I hadn't heard of this until now) because of a site rule you mentioned.

 

As far as I can tell, there is no site rule. TB prisons are still routinely approved. However, the one time that somebody tried to enforce the TB prison's rule and it was appealed, the deletion was overturned by TPTB.

 

 

"Just because we haven't made a rule against it doesn't mean it is OK"- TPTB :unsure:

 

BTW, I actually like most ALR caches, and have no problem with complying with them. It's just that I can see where others might not want to do it, and I see no benefit in denying them their logs.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
And you apparently can't have a cache that requires a TB trade (I hadn't heard of this until now) because of a site rule you mentioned.

 

As far as I can tell, there is no site rule. TB prisons are still routinely approved. However, the one time that somebody tried to enforce the TB prison's rule and it was appealed, the deletion was overturned by TPTB.

 

"Just because we haven't made a rule against it doesn't mean it is OK"- TPTB :unsure:

I wonder what would happen if someone appealed an ALR deletion? CR, go log KBI's cache without a poem and let's find out.

 

"Because the world is round, it turns me on" - Lennon/McCartney

Link to comment

My .02 cents, please: I am a paying member, and I fully support the member cache option. Even though I should at times, so far I chose not to use it on my hides. I prefer to have cache available to new cachers. I would rather they have the option to find and log my caches while they are still learning about what geocaching is all about. Then, hopefully they will join as a paying member. There is only 1 member cache in the 180 caches surrounding my zip code. Should there be more? Probably so!

 

The original post pertained to a requirement of having 99 finds in order to log a find on a particular cache. I think the whole geocaching thing is an optional sport. For me, it gets me off the couch, and gets me outside, and it allows my wife and I to spent some QT, while geocaching. Which particular caches we hunt are secondary. I am doing this for me, not for the person hiding the caches. That being said, I agree with someone's request to want a 99 cache minimum. What is really wrong in that? Nothing. Either you meet the criteria, or you will soon. Then accept the challenge as a rewarding milestone. Many people select certain caches to be there milestone number caches. If it bothers you that much, then skip over it don't do it. There are some caches that I just skip over and refuse to do. I go geocaching with my wife, and for some reason there are caches in some very rough neighborhoods that nobody wants to go into anyway, and I refuse to expose her to the risk of being there simply searching for a cache. It's just a plastic box, a log sheet, and smiley face. We can find another one somewhere else. The point is, even though the area is a known rough area, should it be banned from hiding caches? No.

 

I relate to what I call extreme caches. I also believe in Extreme Caches, that might be hidden 120 yards in cave, that is 2 miles in the woods, or might be on top of a 8 mile mountian trail. Or it might be underwater somewhere. Obviously not everyone can or will go after these, as they have certain requirements that have to met before logging them as finds. The question is, do you meet the requirements, are you willing, and conditioned, to hike 2 miles throught the woods to crawl 120 yards into a spider infested cave to look for a plastic box, and a log sheet, just to get a smiley? Not everyone meets the requirements.

Still, the cache has a right to be.

 

Some caches are hidden with children in mind. Some caches are themed. Some caches are wheelchair accessable. Some caches are for puzzle solvers. While different caches exist for most people to enjoy, there should also be caches for those who like more difficult, or even extreme challenges.

 

Now, in geocaching, as in probably every other daily interaction, you will find all sorts of people. Some who are playful. Some who are retentive. Some who are willing to help others. Some who just want to get a head of all others. Some who hide for others. Some who hide for themselves. You will be challenged by personlity indifferences, you will have to rise above it and remember to have fun at all times. Don't let the small, petty things get to you.

Link to comment

When the logbook is signed the hunt is over. As a common courtesy, you replace the container and make it ready for the next person.

 

But also as a common courtesy to the cache owner and fellow cachers you report your visit. The log is not required. It's a courtesy. The programmers of this site could have just as easily make it so someone could simply check off they found a cache or made the visit notes private, but they didn't. They made it into something social.

 

However, some want to hold what others say "hostage" to their petty little whims.

 

It's ironic though that they get upset when I suggest an alternative. Could it be because it takes away their power? After all, who are they to deny a legitimate find? It doesn't belong to them. It belongs to the finder.

 

<Post edited as per request.>

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
... In the only case that I am aware of that an ALR log was deleted and appealed, the log was reinstated by TPTB. ...

Could you give more information on this specific instance. I'm not aware of it and I didn't read that into the previously referenced post. I read it to say that peer pressure caused a TB hotel owner to remove restrictions, not that TPTB reinstated a log.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
It's ironic though that they get upset when I suggest an alternative. Could it be because it takes away their power? After all, who are they to deny a legitimate find? It doesn't belong to them. It belongs to the finder.

 

I've found that you seem to get upset when others suggest leaving things the way that they are, but I don't find it ironic...

 

I was ceded the responsibility and the right to delete a find that seems bogus and/or doesn't meet the stated requirements of my cache by gc.com (...as per the guidelines of the site, and as approved by the reviewers {with full disclosure about the ALR in the cache listing BTW}...my cache is even named, "Stupid Rule Cache"...this isn't about fooling people...it's about having fun with a cache).

 

It's clear that we disagree aboout ALRs and about the reasoning/guidelines/motivation/fun behind them...I feel unlikely to convince you, and am similarly certain that you cannot convince me to switch viewpoints...I can agree to disagree, and go on my way...can you?

 

 

Jamie - NFA

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
...I can agree to disagree, and go on my way...

 

In the meantime cache owners can continue to feel it perfectly okay to deny legitimate finds on a whim.

 

I'm sure a lot of good has been done in the past because people just looked the other way. Uh-huh. :unsure:

Whether or not you continue to rail in this thread, cache owners can continue to delete finds if they do not meet the stated requirements.

Link to comment
...I can agree to disagree, and go on my way...

 

In the meantime cache owners can continue to feel it perfectly okay to deny legitimate finds on a whim.

 

I'm sure a lot of good has been done in the past because people just looked the other way. Uh-huh. :)

Whether or not you continue to rail in this thread, cache owners can continue to delete finds if they do not meet the stated requirements.

 

Tis true. It also let's others see there is an opinion contrary to those who think it okay.

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 :)

 

this is the best thing i've read in a while. when is this cache going to be posted?

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?

 

Yes. It's about choices, and there are plenty.

 

If a truly obsessed cacher really wanted to list their ALR cache and needed to meet one of the absurd requirements to have it listed on this website, my guess is that they would first submit a FAKE photograph of an alien from a planet at least 106 light years away riding a mechanical bull and holding a pint of Jack Daniels. (and swear that it was real)

Groundspeak could then choose to publish the cache, even if they suspected the photo was a fake. If it turned out that an actual log WAS deleted on the ALR cache, or that the cache caused problems in any way, the cache photo would recieve an "audit" to determine it's authencity. The cache could be archived with a note:

 

Hello. We received a request to do an audit on the Additional Listing Requirement that you submitted for your Additional Logging Requirement cache to be originally published. It was determined that the photo was a fake and you will need to resubmit your ALR cache and comply with one of the other requirements if possible. We spoke to the actual alien in the picture, and he insisted that at the time of the photograph he was actually holding a carton of Minute Maid "no pulp" orange juice and NOT a pint of Jack Daniels as requested. Thank you for your patience in this matter.

 

Now how could you argue with that? :)

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...