Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

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?

If that's the way the owner wants it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

To expand the analogy: Suppose some puzzle cache owner considered the possibility of an accidental find here and there, and, wanting to preserve the challenge, decided to ensure that the only way to log his cache online was by completing the find by way of the puzzle. His description essentially says that, in order to be fair to those who have actually solved the puzzle and found the cache as designed, any finder who admits bypassing the puzzle (by accompanying another cacher who solved it, etc.) OR any finder who the owner can prove bypassed the puzzle, can expect their find log to be deleted.

 

Admit cheating? Lose your smiley. Get caught cheating? Lose your smiley.

 

This "stated requirement" now becomes a criteria for the owner to use when deciding who gets credit for finding his puzzle cache ...

 

... NOT his "bypass the puzzle if you can" cache ...

 

...... his puzzle cache.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

 

Were I to accidentally stumble across such a cache container I would either (1) post a note on the cache page, or more likely (2) dive into the puzzle and do my best to solve it. I'd be too embarrassed and ashamed to even consider (3) logging the find in clear violation of the plainly stated cache rules. Why would I want to intentionally annoy the owner AND all of the cache's legitimate finders?

 

There are lots of caches. There are lots of different kinds of caches. If there's one I don't like the sound of, or that I simply can't do for some reason, it is fully within my power NOT to go after it, NOT to let it bother me, and NOT to grumble about the mere fact that it exists.

 

The fact that one particular type of cache challenge can, by its nature, be accidentally bypassed through dumb luck while another particular type of cache challenge cannot does not give either type any more right to exist than the other.

 

Some puzzles caches can be found to the satisfaction of the owner without solving the puzzle.

 

Some ALR caches cannot be found to the satisfaction of the owner without meeting the ALR.

 

So what?

Link to comment

All the "speculation" about what Jeremy meant when he said _____________________ (<~~~fill in blank), reminded me of a debate I had with a Pastor many years ago;

 

Rev: Boy, it says right here in this Bible that them contraceptive thingys is a sin.

 

Me: Kewl! Can you show me?

 

Rev: (finally finds Genesis 1:28 with my help) See? Right there in red letters, son.

 

Me: No Sir, what it says is, "Be fruitful and multiply".

 

Rev: Well, God meant that y'all shouldn't be usin' contraceptives. Can't you see that?

 

Me: If that's what God meant, why didn't she say that? Does God have trouble writing? Is She unable to get her point across? A heavanly learning disability, perhaps?

 

The conversation kwickly devolved when the Pastor couldn't show me a Bible verse mentioning God's male private parts. :)

 

(See Crim, I was even "snarky" as a kid) :)

Link to comment

We can speculate forever about Jeremy's intent regarding any particular statement, however I think we can be reasonably sure about one thing: This discussion is not being ignored. Too many moderators have made their presence known in these threads (this is not the first ALR thread) to think that this debate is going on "under the radar." Jeremy himself has been asked point blank on more than one occasion (or maybe lots of times -- I'm only aware of a few) to make some sort of ruling on ALRs and/or a new ALR attribute, ALR cache type, etc.

 

They're well aware of the controversy. It's been raging for months now, yet VERY little has been said by Groundspeak officials on the subject.

 

I think it is fairly safe to conclude at this point that the "official response" from Groundspeak on the question of the appropriateness, properness, or rightness of enforcing ALRs is: No Response.

 

Which (to me, anyway) means: "Play nice, live and let live, and try to enjoy the game. We've got more important things to spend our time worrying about."

 

If I'm right, then I'm happy with that. It's nice to know that certain needlessly restrictive rules aren't about to be imposed on certain finders and owners whose fun isn’t hurting anyone in the first place.

 

Also:

 

If I'm right, then for me to continue blathering any further on this subject serves no useful purpose. Since I'm fairly convinced that I AM right (about Groundspeak's non-response position), then I think it's well past time for me to take a break from this debate. I've waited a long time for someone to convince me that we ALR owners are somehow wrong to enforce our Additional Logging Requirements. Maybe someday someone will; for now, however, I'll just keep enjoying my cache; keep watching others enjoy it; happily find (and comply with) a few ALRs myself; and happily avoid the ones I don't want to do.

 

Thanks to everyone who has kept an open mind on this topic, and thanks especially to everyone whose very reasonable arguments have forced me to think my own position through a little more thoroughly.

 

It's been fun! <_<

Link to comment

I suppose using KBI's logic of "no response from Groundspeak" all other community-based standards should be tossed out the window as well.

 

What about the community based standard of trading. I could be wrong, but no where I've found has Groundspeak said anything about trading fairly. They've only mentioned if I take something then I should leave something. Using KBI's logic someone could feel it perfectly within their rights to run around with a pocket full of pea gravel and trade out a nice trinkets for pieces of rock.

 

There's other accepted practices the community has adopted which Groundspeak says nothing about. Does that mean those accepted practices are wrong? Does it mean they can be flouted at will?

 

I suppose the retort to that is "what about flouting the will of the owner?" I think it fairly clear if you look at a parallel "cache owner rules" issue of TB prisons, if the cache owner is going against the community then it perfectly acceptable to disregard cache owner rules.

 

I suppose you could ignore a TB prison if you didn't like the rules. That is as long as you don't have a TB trapped in there. But I'm wondering if the community rejects trade rules in TB prisons because the TBs don't belong to the cache owner? Do finds belong to the cache owner?

Link to comment
Beer in OJ isn't too bad.

Derailing threads with irrelevant, off-topic posts is, like trolling, an art form.

 

I kneel at the feet of a master.

I freely admit that I was kind of hoping that a few lighthearted off-topic posts at the top of a page would help sink the thread. No such luck. The thread remains actively mired.

Link to comment
Using KBI's logic someone could feel it perfectly within their rights to run around with a pocket full of pea gravel and trade out a nice trinkets for pieces of rock.

They would be within their rights to take gold bullion and leave belly button lint. Unethical, greedy, lowlife, yes! But still within their rights.

 

Or maybe CR thinks its okay to delete someone's log if they didn't trade fairly <_<

Link to comment
I suppose using KBI's logic of "no response from Groundspeak" all other community-based standards should be tossed out the window as well.

 

What about the community based standard of trading. I could be wrong, but no where I've found has Groundspeak said anything about trading fairly. They've only mentioned if I take something then I should leave something. Using KBI's logic someone could feel it perfectly within their rights to run around with a pocket full of pea gravel and trade out a nice trinkets for pieces of rock.

 

There's other accepted practices the community has adopted which Groundspeak says nothing about. Does that mean those accepted practices are wrong? Does it mean they can be flouted at will?

 

I suppose the retort to that is "what about flouting the will of the owner?" I think it fairly clear if you look at a parallel "cache owner rules" issue of TB prisons, if the cache owner is going against the community then it perfectly acceptable to disregard cache owner rules.

 

I suppose you could ignore a TB prison if you didn't like the rules. That is as long as you don't have a TB trapped in there. But I'm wondering if the community rejects trade rules in TB prisons because the TBs don't belong to the cache owner? Do finds belong to the cache owner?

I suppose that we could discuss ALRs without personal attacks and the dragging of non-ALR issues in.
Link to comment
Using KBI's logic someone could feel it perfectly within their rights to run around with a pocket full of pea gravel and trade out a nice trinkets for pieces of rock.

They would be within their rights to take gold bullion and leave belly button lint. Unethical, greedy, lowlife, yes! But still within their rights.

 

Or maybe CR thinks its okay to delete someone's log if they didn't trade fairly <_<

 

Or maybe CR thinks someone is not reading this thread where CR mentions he doesn't think it's okay to delete legitimate logs.

Link to comment
I suppose that we could discuss ALRs without personal attacks ...

 

I suppose we could and I certainly don't see a personal attack in what you quoted.

 

... the dragging of non-ALR issues in.

 

No argument can take place in a vacuum. Precedent has been established and goes directly to the issue at hand. Does the community blindly go along with a cache owner's silly rule?

Link to comment
Using KBI's logic someone could feel it perfectly within their rights to run around with a pocket full of pea gravel and trade out a nice trinkets for pieces of rock.

They would be within their rights to take gold bullion and leave belly button lint. Unethical, greedy, lowlife, yes! But still within their rights.

 

You confuse "within one's ability" with "what is right."

Link to comment
Unfortunately, your arguments have not swayed opinion and are ferociously unlikely to do so.

 

Hmmm... How many posts have you ignored then that have mentioned cache owners going back to change their requirements to requests? You might want to rethink your position that point.

I think not, since many cachers have weighed in with their disagreement with your desires to remold the game.

Link to comment
Unfortunately, your arguments have not swayed opinion and are ferociously unlikely to do so.

 

Hmmm... How many posts have you ignored then that have mentioned cache owners going back to change their requirements to requests? You might want to rethink your position that point.

I think not, since many cachers have weighed in with their disagreement with your desires to remold the game.

 

So, you're denying anyone has changed their caches to reflect the challenge being a request instead of a requirement?

 

...and I'm not the one trying to "remold the game" to fit their definition of owner control or redefine what constitutes a find.

Link to comment

I am going to submit an ALR where the requirement is that you have to have over 1000 finds and you must then DELETE all of your online logs to claim the smiley.

 

Then, since the finder obviously did not meet the 1000 logs requirement, I'll delete the find.

 

It is, after all, ALL ABOUT THE NUMBERS!

 

;) I love it.

Link to comment
Using KBI's logic someone could feel it perfectly within their rights to run around with a pocket full of pea gravel and trade out a nice trinkets for pieces of rock.

They would be within their rights to take gold bullion and leave belly button lint. Unethical, greedy, lowlife, yes! But still within their rights.

 

You confuse "within one's ability" with "what is right."

One of us is confused. If the majority or the moderators think it's me, then I will humbly stand corrected. In your initial sentence, you used the phrase "rights", to whit, "within their rights", in your rebuttal, you altered the phrase to "right", as it "what is right". Those two words, in the context you placed them in, have very different meanings. "Rights", as used in your first sentence, are defined as privileges protected by law, and typically refer to acts that an individual is specifically allowed to perform, such as the right to free assembly and the right to free speech. It would also include a cacher trading down. On the other hand, "Right", as used in the context you placed it in, refers to a moral judgment.

 

In this case, I think an overwhelming majority of cachers would agree that trading down is not "right", however, it's still a cacher's "right".

 

Is that any clearer?

Link to comment

We can speculate forever about Jeremy's intent regarding any particular statement, however I think we can be reasonably sure about one thing: This discussion is not being ignored. Too many moderators have made their presence known in these threads

 

 

***Raymond Barrone voice****

 

"THAAAAAAT'S RIGHT!!!!"

 

And "Luke" is aware also! ;)

Link to comment
Changing an ALR to a request would be the equivalent of making any of those other challenges optional.

 

"Note: The 'hunt' for this cache is optional. The ammo can is sitting in a clearing next to a large day-glo orange 'HERE IT IS' sign. If you prefer something more challenging, please make a few circles around the ammo can first while pretending not to see it yet."

Nobody is required to take on any of those challenges. It's all voluntary.

You do understand the differences between these two challenges, right?

* those inherent in geocaching - for instance, finding the actual cache

* those made up that have nothing to do with geocaching besides (ab)using the website to list them

 

BTW, ALRs have been in play for several years now. Doing away with them would remold the game.

Big deal. How long were virtuals/moving/locationless/etc around?
Link to comment

Would you agree?

 

Well, I didn't really want to go there, but...

 

If you're wanting to put "rights" in that context. Yes, you are correct. I've long held that in a free society everyone has the freedom to do the right thing. They also have the right to be a complete and utter bunghole.

 

However in this context, "within their rights" only refers to what the laws of the land demand, not what the mores of society demand. Being a jackass won't land you in jail, but not being illegal won't make you any less of a jackass. Does being a jackass mesh with the mores of society? Of course not.

 

So, taking this further and applying it to ALRs, is the practice of cache owner deleting logs in these instances "within their rights?" With Groundspeak, yes.

 

Does it mesh with the mores of our society?

Link to comment
Does it mesh with the mores of our society?

Probably not.

 

Guys, I think I just agreed with CoyoteRed! I better go read his post again. :(

 

14 pages so far. Incredible. Reminds me of that old Pontiac commercial;

"Blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah blah. Free Shrek video. Blah blah, blah blah blah."

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment
Using KBI's logic someone could feel it perfectly within their rights to run around with a pocket full of pea gravel and trade out a nice trinkets for pieces of rock.

They would be within their rights to take gold bullion and leave belly button lint. Unethical, greedy, lowlife, yes! But still within their rights.

 

You confuse "within one's ability" with "what is right."

 

Good point.

 

What is right is to follow the ALR.

What is within a cachers ability is to igore it and log anway.

Pretty simple.

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...