Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I'm afraid the I completely missed your point.

 

Not surprisingly.

 

"'Fun' is not a justification" is my point. People will do the wrong thing for "fun" is my point. I'm asking for a justification for placing an ALR on a cache.

 

Oh, and "because I can" is about the same as deleting any log "just because I can."

Typical CR snarkiness.

 

'Because they want to' is perfectly fine justification, as is 'fun'. Heck, 'fun' is why we all play this game. Certainly, it is the justification that we use for any kind of caches that we hide.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I'm afraid the I completely missed your point.

 

Not surprisingly.

 

"'Fun' is not a justification" is my point. People will do the wrong thing for "fun" is my point. I'm asking for a justification for placing an ALR on a cache.

 

Oh, and "because I can" is about the same as deleting any log "just because I can."

Typical CR snarkiness.

 

'Because they want to' is perfectly fine justification, as is 'fun'. Heck, 'fun' is why we all play this game. Certainly, it is the justification that we use for any kind of caches that we hide.

 

...and the exact response I anticipated. I suppose stealing caches, trading down, moving trinkets to a pirate's stash, keeping TBs and geocoins, or a whole host of things become perfectly acceptable, because the justification is fun then, right?

Link to comment
...and the exact response I anticipated. I suppose stealing caches, trading down, moving trinkets to a pirate's stash, keeping TBs and geocoins, or a whole host of things become perfectly acceptable, because the justification is fun then, right?
As expected, CR tosses out a straw man.
Link to comment
...and the exact response I anticipated. I suppose stealing caches, trading down, moving trinkets to a pirate's stash, keeping TBs and geocoins, or a whole host of things become perfectly acceptable, because the justification is fun then, right?
As expected, CR tosses out a straw man.
I take it you don't know what a "straw man" is.

Perhaps you just can't read. From your posted link:

2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
or from Dictionary.com:
3. a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man.
Link to comment
...and the exact response I anticipated. I suppose stealing caches, trading down, moving trinkets to a pirate's stash, keeping TBs and geocoins, or a whole host of things become perfectly acceptable, because the justification is fun then, right?
As expected, CR tosses out a straw man.
I take it you don't know what a "straw man" is.

Perhaps you just can't read. From your posted link:

2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
or from Dictionary.com:
3. a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man.

 

So you're saying me asking for a justification or reason that is not based on whim, and giving why whim is not a valid reason or justification, is a straw man even though it doesn't even come close to the linked, and quoted, definition.

 

Oh - kay...

 

:anitongue:

Link to comment

No, I'm saying that you throwing out ridiculous issues that have no relationship to the topic at hand so you can 'prove' that you are correct is an example of a sraw man argument and appears to match the definitions that we both gave.

 

Regardless, you don't appear to be happy unless you can mold the game to what you want it to be.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I will continue to express that opinion and I will advocate others to express their opinion about it, as well, ignoring the requirement.

Will you also continue to suggest caches with ALRs be eliminated?

 

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I can think of someone that I'd love to hand a beating to.

 

A perfect example of CR avoiding a question, debate, argument, whatever, that he KNOWS he can't defend by changing the subject, claiming he didn't say things, calling someone names, whatever.

 

I'm saying, in black and white, easy to understand, clearly worded language that CoyoteRed at one point claimed in these forums that caches with additional logging requirements be eliminated. If he denies it, I'll post links (that have been posted several times). If he admits it, I'll be surprised.

Link to comment
Again, that's your opinion. That's merely your version of how you think everyone else should play the game.
You keep throwing that out there as if simply being an opinion somehow self-invalidates--makes it less meaningful.

I never said anyone’s opinions are invalid or meaningless. Your opinion is no more or less valid or meaningful than mine.

 

What I’ve been saying is that your position on the subject is illogical. See below.

 

 

The killing of another person without justification is wrong. Of course, it's merely my opinion. Not everyone holds that opinion.

 

Never mind it is also illegal.

 

Like I said, don't knock "opinion."

I don’t know whether this will surprise you, CR, but I happen to share your opinion on that one. Like you, it is my opinion also that the killing of another person without justification is wrong, and I agree that it should be illegal.

 

I’m not “knocking” opinion, CR. I’m trying – desperately – to make you see that your stated opinion on ALR caches is simply wrong.

 

Irrational.

 

Illogical.

 

Poorly thought out.

 

Why do I say that? ;) How can I say such a thing? ;) How can a mere "opinion" be wrong?

 

Because: it is apparently not enough for you that you happen to dislike a certain style of cache. If you stopped right there I would have the utmost respect for your opinion. The problem I have is that you want to force your version of how things should be on everyone else. You’ve never convincingly explained how the mere existence of an ALR cache hurts anybody, bothers anybody, or threatens anybody’s rights.

 

You (and others) seem to feel that just because a cache exists ...

  • It somehow belongs to you;
  • You have a right to treat it in any way you see fit;
  • Anyone who gets in your way -- by daring to insist that you follow the same posted theme as all other finders of the same cache -- is somehow playing the game WRONG;
  • LEAST of all the owner who went to the trouble to purchase, arrange, and place the thing iin the first place -- and;
  • Due to some strange, unseen and uncontrollable urge, you must log it -- YOU MUST LOG IT – simply because it’s THERE.

CAN ... NOT ... AVOID ... CACHE ... MUST ... FIND ... AND ... LOG ... CACHE .................. IT ... IS ... MY ... DESTINY!!!!!

 

You keep bringing up issue about avoidance, try to get a rise out of me by calling me hypocritical, and generally try to twist my point of view.

I don't know about that other stuff, buy yes, I do keep bringing up the issue of avoidance. And you keep avoiding the question.

 

 

One thing I don't recall seeing is your reasoning why it's okay.

Huh? Now you’re asking me to explain why it’s okay to simply avoid the caches you don’t like? Reasoning? Are you serious?

 

Okay, I’ll give it a shot:

 

CoyoteRed: If there is any specific type, style, flavor or category of cache out there that you don’t happen to like, then I highly recommend that you actively try to avoid hunting, finding and/or logging that specific type, style, flavor or category of cache. Nobody says you have to hunt, find or log any particular cache hide, and if you avoid the ones you don't like, you're guaranteed to be a much happier Geocacher.

 

That seems obvious to me, CR. Excruciatingly obvious. Self-evident. Intuitive. It has never, ever occurred to me to even question the concept.

 

Is that what you wanted? ;)

 

 

Before you try to point back to one of your posts about "fun" there's a lot of things that folks can think is fun, but completely wrong. Heck, on 60 Minutes last night there was a segment about kids beating up and killing homeless people. One kid, in for a 35 year sentence, was asked why he and his friends did it. One of the reasons, "it was fun."

Nice analogy. :D

 

Now, to complete your analogy, please explain to me how placing an ALR cache is the logical, moral or mathematical equivalent of kids beating up and killing homeless people.

 

(I'm REALLY looking forward to reading THIS answer!)

Link to comment
My last post on the issue, as my mind is set, and so is the oppositions.

So your mind is closed then?

 

Does that mean you're never going to answer my question to you?

 

In case you missed it the last several times, here is the question again: Why can't you just avoid the caches you don't like, instead of whining about them in the forums?

 

(And why does that simple question always rattle so many of the ALR-haters? ;) )

Link to comment
This 99 cache requirement doesn't even give you a choice, you either qualify or you don't. It penalizes cachers for something they may not have any control over!

Nobody has to be penalized for anything. Who says you have to hunt the cache in the first place?

Nobody says i have to hunt anything, but i am a cacher who likes to do what cachers do,,,, find caches. If i just happen to be in the area where this cache is hidden, then why wouldn't i want to hunt for this cache? ;)

Um ... because you don't qualify?

 

I don't mean you personally. Your four-digit find count would appear to meet the owner's requirement. The point is that all caching is voluntary. I thought my point was obvious, but I'll clarify: Nobody has to be penalized for anything. You only get penalized if you choose to hunt the cache without meeting the owner's requirement. Who says you have to hunt the cache in the first place?

 

 

The cache in question is not detrimental to geocaching. I also believe that the owner placed it with good intentions in mind. It does have it's flaws, at least in my mind, and i just hope the owner doesn't mind receiving criticsm from time to time.

Exactly!

 

Now there's a logical, rational and reasonable point of view! ;) Well done.

 

Nothing wrong with not liking something, and nothing wrong with such criticism. Anybody who can't take such criticism is too thin-skinned, in my opinion. You're welcome to criticize my ALR cache all you want -- just don't start trying to tell me, as others have, that nobody should be allowed to place or hunt ALR caches.

Link to comment
A perfect example of CR avoiding a question...

 

No, I avoided a loaded question.

 

If he denies it, I'll post links (that have been posted several times).

 

No, you'll point to posts where I said the requirements should be eliminated, not the caches. Does that mean that all ALR caches would go away? Sure it does, because they would no longer be an ALR cache. The cache doesn't have to move. It could still be listed. The cache itself wouldn't change a bit. The only change would be the removal of the threat and follow through of cache owner deleting legitimate logs. Nothing else.

 

In short, the change wouldn't touch the cache in the least, only the silly practice of additional logging requirements.

 

So, now,do you not see where you asked a loaded question that didn't deserve an answer? Sure you do, that's why you asked it.

 

If you ask a question that is on point, I may just answer it. I would expect you to do the same.

Link to comment
I'm asking for a justification for placing an ALR on a cache.

I have an ALR cache, CR.

 

It's my cache.

 

Why do I need to provide you with any justification when I add a logging requirement to my cache? ;)

 

You own some puzzle caches, CR. Feel free to refresh my memory, but I don't recall you ever applying for my approval or providing any justification to me before you placed puzzles on your caches.

Link to comment
'Because they want to' is perfectly fine justification, as is 'fun'. Heck, 'fun' is why we all play this game. Certainly, it is the justification that we use for any kind of caches that we hide.

...and the exact response I anticipated. I suppose stealing caches, trading down, moving trinkets to a pirate's stash, keeping TBs and geocoins, or a whole host of things become perfectly acceptable, because the justification is fun then, right?

Yes, those things are bad, CR. Now, as I'm sure you didn't intend to throw out yet another strawman, can you please explain to us why you think placing an ALR on one's own cache is also bad?

 

(BTW, in your list of bad caching behaviors you forgot to mention: ignoring ALRs, ignoring trading requirements on TB hotels, and ignoring those folks with virtual caches who ask you to email them the verification and wait for them to get back to you before logging it. Sound familiar?)

Link to comment
Before you try to point back to one of your posts about "fun" there's a lot of things that folks can think is fun, but completely wrong. Heck, on 60 Minutes last night there was a segment about kids beating up and killing homeless people. One kid, in for a 35 year sentence, was asked why he and his friends did it. One of the reasons, "it was fun."

Nice analogy. ;)

 

Now, to complete your analogy, please explain to me how placing an ALR cache is the logical, moral or mathematical equivalent of kids beating up and killing homeless people.

 

(I'm REALLY looking forward to reading THIS answer!)

 

Here is a prime example, among several from the same post, where you pull what I've said out of context and try to steer into a tangent that has nothing to do with the argument.

 

The above was not an analogy, but you already knew that. You intentionally try to make it one to muddy the issue which you are very good at.

 

I'm not comparing ALR's with murder. I'm illustrating "fun" is not a valid justification for anything, especially not in and of itself.

Link to comment
A perfect example of CR avoiding a question...

No, I avoided a loaded question.

If he denies it, I'll post links (that have been posted several times).

No, you'll point to posts where I said the requirements should be eliminated, not the caches. Does that mean that all ALR caches would go away? Sure it does, because they would no longer be an ALR cache. The cache doesn't have to move. It could still be listed. The cache itself wouldn't change a bit. The only change would be the removal of the threat and follow through of cache owner deleting legitimate logs. Nothing else.

 

In short, the change wouldn't touch the cache in the least, only the silly practice of additional logging requirements.

I just realized something:

 

I've been thinking, and I think all puzzles should be eliminated from caches. I don't like puzzle caches anymore. They're bad for the sport. Cache coordinates were never intended to be hidden behind puzzles. That's not how the game originally worked. That's not how coordinates were intended to be used. It's just wrong. Coords held hostage behind puzzles? How is that fair? Why should I be penalized -- not be allowed to complete a cache find -- just because I can't solve some control freak's stupid puzzle?

 

Note that I said the puzzles should be eliminated, not the caches. Does that mean that all puzzles caches would go away? Sure it does, because they would no longer be a puzzle cache. The cache doesn't have to move. It could still be listed. The cache itself wouldn't change a bit. The only change would be the removal of the threat and follow through of cache owner hiding the cache's true location behind some arbitrary puzzle. Nothing else.

 

In short, the change wouldn't touch the cache in the least, only the silly practice of those unjustifiable "puzzle" hurdles.

Link to comment
Before you try to point back to one of your posts about "fun" there's a lot of things that folks can think is fun, but completely wrong. Heck, on 60 Minutes last night there was a segment about kids beating up and killing homeless people. One kid, in for a 35 year sentence, was asked why he and his friends did it. One of the reasons, "it was fun."

Nice analogy. ;)

 

Now, to complete your analogy, please explain to me how placing an ALR cache is the logical, moral or mathematical equivalent of kids beating up and killing homeless people.

 

(I'm REALLY looking forward to reading THIS answer!)

 

Here is a prime example, among several from the same post, where you pull what I've said out of context and try to steer into a tangent that has nothing to do with the argument.

 

The above was not an analogy, but you already knew that. You intentionally try to make it one to muddy the issue which you are very good at.

Nice backpedal, but you made it crystal clear that you think something can be "fun," yet still be "bad." The obvious analogy was that you think ALRs, while "fun" to some, are also "bad."

 

If that's not what you meant to say via your reference to kids beating up and killing homeless people for fun -- then where the heck were you going with it?

 

And -- nice job ignoring the rest of the post. Any chance I could get you to respond to the other points in my post? Or is that all you've got to say?

Link to comment
Why do I need to provide you with any justification when I add a logging requirement to my cache?

The "find" doesn't belong to you. That's what you don't get. You didn't find it. Someone else did. Who are you to deny them that?

 

Can you justify that? Apparently not.

If you were to hunt and find my ALR cache, then presumably you would have also read about the logging requirement in the cache description.

  1. If you did read the description, but you somehow misunderstood about the requirement, then no problem -- either make an attempt to comply, or simply excuse yourself and delete your own log (or convert it to a note). That's what I would do if I were you in that situation.
  2. If you chose to ignore the description, then shame on you! You will eventually learn, as I have, that choosing to ignore a cache description can lead to wasted time, annoyance, embarrassment, or worse.
  3. If you did read the description, but you purposely chose to ignore the logging requirement, then double-shame on you!! If I treated an ALR cache owner with such contempt I would fully expect nothing less than for him to immediately delete my log. Such rudeness on the part of the finder reflects poor judgment, bad manners, and an unnecessarily anti-social attitude. Can you justify that? Apparently not.

Other people are out there hiding and finding ALR caches every day, and as they do so they're enjoying themselves. What they're doing doesn't affect you in the slightest, CR -- yet you want to remove that entertainment from them. Can you justify that? Apparently not.

Link to comment

I knew you couldn't justify ALRs. You didn't even make an attempt which was quite disappointing. It's all about cache avoidance, look the other way. I'm glad not everyone in life has your attitude. I'm glad folks will speak up when they see something wrong.

 

I was hoping you'd come up with a reason. Something like, "it's my cache and I can do anything I want," but I suppose you know that is an indefensible position. Maybe even "it's not a legitimate find until I say so," though that is full of bunk.

 

Your argument continues to be nothing but obfuscation. You'd rather argue semantics, non-issues, and tangents rather that substance.

 

For instance, in the above post you gave reasons why someone might have hunted your cache, three perfectly good scenarios, but woefully incomplete. You purposefully left out the most likely scenario and that is someone found your cache and didn't read the cache description at all. They simply loaded several traditionals into their GPS and went for it. Considering it is a 1/1 they were able to find it and never needed to consult the description. They signed the log and now have the completed the community standard of being able to claim the find.

 

Granted, with your cache they can attempt to comply when they log it as the requirement on your cache is log it in verse.

 

But what happens if the ALR is "take a picture of yourself with the cache?" Opps, they didn't do that. So, now they have a find that the cache owner says they can't log.

 

Okay, so they could go back and take a picture, but what if they don't have a camera. What if they feel they are not photogenic and are not self-confident enough to post a picture of themselves on the internet? They still have a find they can't log. Is that good for the hobby? Of course not, it's just the opposite.

 

Now that I've given one reason ALRs are bad for the hobby, you tell me how you, or anyone, is justified in denying that find?

 

You're not justifying it to me. You're justifying it to the community at large.

 

If you can.

Link to comment
... I'm not comparing ALR's with murder. I'm illustrating "fun" is not a valid justification for anything, especially not in and of itself.

This is not the first time that you have made this statement in this thread. Frankly, I'm surprised every time that I read it. I commented on it before, but you ignored my comment. This time, I'll make an effort to be more clear.

 

The reason that any of us hide or find caches is because we believe it to be fun. There is no other reason to it. We play the game because we enjoy playing the game.

 

If a cache is submitted and it is determined to meet the guidelines, it is valid. It shouldn't have to meet CR's Test of Worthiness.

I knew you couldn't justify ALRs. You didn't even make an attempt which was quite disappointing. It's all about cache avoidance, look the other way. I'm glad not everyone in life has your attitude. I'm glad folks will speak up when they see something wrong.

 

I was hoping you'd come up with a reason. Something like, "it's my cache and I can do anything I want," but I suppose you know that is an indefensible position. Maybe even "it's not a legitimate find until I say so," though that is full of bunk.

 

Your argument continues to be nothing but obfuscation. You'd rather argue semantics, non-issues, and tangents rather that substance.

I really don't understand why you are hung up on 'justification'. Here's all the justification that should ever be needed:
  • Because they believe it to be fun,
  • Because they want to, and
  • because it meets the guidelines.

BTW, I missed where you explained why this practice is inherently wrong (I posted some examples of why it could be specifically wrong, but I trust the reviewers to handle those situations) or 'bad for the game'.

For instance, in the above post you gave reasons why someone might have hunted your cache, three perfectly good scenarios, but woefully incomplete. You purposefully left out the most likely scenario and that is someone found your cache and didn't read the cache description at all. They simply loaded several traditionals into their GPS and went for it. Considering it is a 1/1 they were able to find it and never needed to consult the description. They signed the log and now have the completed the community standard of being able to claim the find.
Ummm, you might want to reread his post. That was clearly covered in reason #2. (Speaking of #2...)
Granted, with your cache they can attempt to comply when they log it as the requirement on your cache is log it in verse.

 

But what happens if the ALR is "take a picture of yourself with the cache?" Opps, they didn't do that. So, now they have a find that the cache owner says they can't log.

 

Okay, so they could go back and take a picture, but what if they don't have a camera. What if they feel they are not photogenic and are not self-confident enough to post a picture of themselves on the internet? They still have a find they can't log. Is that good for the hobby? Of course not, it's just the opposite.

 

Now that I've given one reason ALRs are bad for the hobby, you tell me how you, or anyone, is justified in denying that find?

 

You're not justifying it to me. You're justifying it to the community at large.

 

If you can.

If the cache requirements, as stated on the cache page, were not fulfilled, the cache owner is justified in deleting the find. Obviously, you are unhappy with this, but tough nuts. That's the way it is.

 

Again, I'm not a big fan of ALRs, but why should I care if some caches are placed that I probably won't look for. I already skip other caches. Why not ignore a few more?

 

Probably the best way to handle this is for the cache owner to tag it as a mystery cache or TPTB to create an attribute so these are searchable.

 

Anyway, this drama is boring. I'm going to go look at Courtney Hansen's picture on the home page.

Link to comment
That was clearly covered in reason #2.

 

Um, no, not so clear. You may have read it as choosing to not read the description, I read it as ignoring what is in the description, i.e. not taking what was in the description under advisement.

 

I couldn't fathom that you would mean it the first way as that would mean you would be forcing others to play the game your, i.e. always read descriptions, when you've time and time again accused me of trying to force others to play the game my way.

 

BTW, I see your justification as that which could be applied to elements of this hobby that have been eliminated. Good argument.

Link to comment
A perfect example of CR avoiding a question...

 

No, I avoided a loaded question.

 

If he denies it, I'll post links (that have been posted several times).

 

No, you'll point to posts where I said the requirements should be eliminated, not the caches.

Yeah, that's what I expected you to say.

 

In this post you said "It's about eliminating caches that is bad for the hobby." That quote doesn't say that it's about removing undesired requirements on caches, or changing caches. It says REMOVING caches.

 

I'm sure you'll still deny saying it.

 

Does that mean that all ALR caches would go away? Sure it does, because they would no longer be an ALR cache.
You've also said this on other occasions, which is to just remove remove the requirement that you don't approve of and leave a CR approved cache. So you've actually said both things on different occasions. 1) remove the cache, and 2) remove the requirement

 

In short, the change wouldn't touch the cache in the least, only the silly practice of additional logging requirements.
In long, it would remove the requirement that is silly to someone other than the cache owner (in this case YOU) and would leave behind a cache that the owner didn't want. Who are you to decide what is a good cache for me to hide?

 

Oh yeah, I forgot, you consider yourself to represent the entire community.

Link to comment
That was clearly covered in reason #2.
Um, no, not so clear. You may have read it as choosing to not read the description, I read it as ignoring what is in the description, i.e. not taking what was in the description under advisement.
In order to make it clear to you, let's review. He posted:
2. If you chose to ignore the description, then shame on you! You will eventually learn, as I have, that choosing to ignore a cache description can lead to wasted time, annoyance, embarrassment, or worse.
To which, you replied:
For instance, in the above post you gave reasons why someone might have hunted your cache, three perfectly good scenarios, but woefully incomplete. You purposefully left out the most likely scenario and that is someone found your cache and didn't read the cache description at all. They simply loaded several traditionals into their GPS and went for it. Considering it is a 1/1 they were able to find it and never needed to consult the description. They signed the log and now have the completed the community standard of being able to claim the find.
Your example is clearly covered by his second alternative. The cacher loaded the coordinates and cached, choosing not to read the cache descriptions. In that scenario, the cacher takes his chances. Oh, well.
I couldn't fathom that you would mean it the first way as that would mean you would be forcing others to play the game your, i.e. always read descriptions, when you've time and time again accused me of trying to force others to play the game my way.

 

<Removed typical CR snarkiness.>

First, can you honestly tell me that your behavior in this thread is not a perfect example of you trying to make everyone else play the game your way?

 

Second, I'm not making anyone play the game any way. However, I know that if I don't read a cache description, I might be denied my smiley, one way or the other.

 

Third, don't project your actions on others. It's tacky.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I'm getting a visual of an argumentative pinata getting pounded into tiny, colorful, pieces of angsty, controlling, crepe-paper and pummeled candy fragments...

 

The topic seems to have been addressed, the positions/points/opinions presented, and it will soon slide downwards towards nastiness...

 

Jamie - NFA

Link to comment

M personal opinion:

 

A cache that says you have to wear a red hat to log it? OK. I can get a red hat.

 

A cache that says I have to include the word "cheese" in my found log? OK. I can do that.

 

A cache that says I have to take a picture of myself holding a sign saying "I'm a cache nut" at the cache site? OK. I can do that, too.

 

A cache that says I have to have X number of caches, or be female, or of a certain race, religous denomination, or have a certain color hair in order to log it? Not OK.

 

The first 3 are all examples of things that any cacher can do. Any cacher can find a hat or make a sign.

 

The last is simply exluding geocachers for the sake of excluding them.

 

How about if somebody made a cache requirement that "In order to log this cache, you have to be somebody I like. Anybody logging this cache that I either dont like or have not made up my mind about will have their logs deleted"?

Link to comment

...Yes, I think the requirement SUCKS THE BIG ONE, and smacks of elitism. Could I host an event where attendees must have at least 99 finds? NO!

 

Actually, why couldn't you? With the increasing numbers of cachers who can ovewhealm a persons ability to host an event and drain them financially and with the sheer work (we lost an annual event because of that). Why not use some arbitary means of weeding people out? It's not personal. You could go pick up 99 Micro Spew caches and make the cut in a busy weekend before the event.

 

Why couldn't you?

 

How about the very first sentence in the guidelines for Event Caches:

 

Event caches are gatherings that are open to ALL geocachers and which are organized by geocachers.

(Emphasis added)

Link to comment

M personal opinion:

 

A cache that says you have to wear a red hat to log it? OK. I can get a red hat.

 

A cache that says I have to include the word "cheese" in my found log? OK. I can do that.

 

A cache that says I have to take a picture of myself holding a sign saying "I'm a cache nut" at the cache site? OK. I can do that, too.

 

A cache that says I have to have X number of caches, or be female, or of a certain race, religous denomination, or have a certain color hair in order to log it? Not OK.

 

The first 3 are all examples of things that any cacher can do. Any cacher can find a hat or make a sign.

 

The last is simply exluding geocachers for the sake of excluding them.

 

How about if somebody made a cache requirement that "In order to log this cache, you have to be somebody I like. Anybody logging this cache that I either dont like or have not made up my mind about will have their logs deleted"?

 

In the time it takes you to make your sign, find that hat and take the picture you could probably make it to 100. Why do you believe finding 100 caches is beyond the capacity of a geocacher? :laughing:

Link to comment

Those are all things that could be done by anybody, anywhere, right now, today.

 

For a beginning cacher, 100 caches isn't going to be done that fast. Unless of course, you are in a cache saturated area and want to hit a bunch of lamp post micros just to fullfill some arbitrary prerequisite.

 

I suppose I could go get a sex change, change my religion, and dye my hair, too, but I shouldn't have to.

 

It isn't a question of being beyond their capacity. It is a question of making a cache off limits to certain people because they belong to a certain group- whether that is the "under 100"club or the "under 5000" club.

 

If you want me to do something silly when I find it or take an extra step in logging a cache, that's fine. But to tell somebody that they are not allowed to log you cache because they don't meet your personal criteria is wrong.

 

Geocaching is meant to be for everybody. If I sign up as a geocacher, then I should be allowed to find the caches. If I sign up and pay the $3 to become a Premium Member, then I should be allowed to find the premium caches as well.

 

No hider should have the right to tell me that I am not allowed to find their cache just because I don't meet their personal stndards of what they want for finders.

Link to comment

 

In the time it takes you to make your sign, find that hat and take the picture you could probably make it to 100. Why do you believe finding 100 caches is beyond the capacity of a geocacher? :laughing:

 

Because making a sign, finding a red hat or taking a picture is a trivial task. I can find the materials for those readily, or at very low cost, and it will only take an extra minute or two out of my day. Also, whether or not I want to wear a silly hat or sign is a choice I can make at the time I do the cache.

 

To find 100 caches (or any other arbitrary number) is not something that can be done readily -- practically speaking, you either have it, or you don't. You're not going to go "oh, I need 100 cache finds? Hmm, ok, be right back..." unless you were already pretty close. To reach 100 would take a few days of work (at least) and expense (gas, etc). To the casual geocacher, that's nowhere near easily, quickly, or cheaply done.

 

It took me about a year and a half to reach 100 finds. I hope to hit 200 by month's end.

Link to comment

I think it's a valid point that reaching 100 is not easy. It took three of us (Fox, Hound & Moun10Girl) just under a year to make that number ourselves. It was quite an accomplishment by our standards even if laughable by someone elses. Now that we have made that goal, we're proud of it and would be proud to do a 100+ cache.

 

What we're really talking about here seems to be individual cachers senses of what is fair. If we say no to this should we then say no to 5 star terrain caches which require special equipment or skills. If I don't have the mean to own a boat does a boating-only cache become elitist? Or does it become a new part of the challenge to aquire the water transport? I don't have easy access or the proper training to reach a rock-climbing cache either. Classes and equipment are beyond my ability right now. Does that mean we should remove those caches, too? How about puzzle cache requiring a slide rule? I wouldn't recognize one if it were shown to me much less know how to use it. It's cheap and easy learn (I just asked), but does that make it elitist?

 

The placer of a cache often tries to come up with new challenges to add to the game. I highly doubt that anyone wants to place a cache so that people won't find it. This cache requires you to have 100 caches under your belt. This is your chance to rise to a silly challenge and enjoy it at the same time. While you don't agree with it, ask yourself this: Will you be proud when you reach 100? Would you be proud to overcome a challenge and share it with others? If you don't like, don't do it. If you want to rise to the challenge, here's your chance. :laughing:

Link to comment
What we're really talking about here seems to be individual cachers senses of what is fair. If we say no to this should we then say no to 5 star terrain caches which require special equipment or skills. If I don't have the mean to own a boat does a boating-only cache become elitist? Or does it become a new part of the challenge to aquire the water transport? I don't have easy access or the proper training to reach a rock-climbing cache either. Classes and equipment are beyond my ability right now. Does that mean we should remove those caches, too? How about puzzle cache requiring a slide rule? I wouldn't recognize one if it were shown to me much less know how to use it. It's cheap and easy learn (I just asked), but does that make it elitist?

 

There is a difference between the scenarios you mentioned and what is happening here. All of those deal with challenges in finding the individual cache.

 

While I might not be in good enough shape to do a level 5 terrain cache, The cache owner is not saying I am not allowed to try.

 

If you need a boat to get to a cache, that is fine. I can buy a boat, borrow one, rent one, whatever. I could try swimming, parachuting, being flown in by a chopper, whatever. That is up to me. Now, if the cache owner had said I was only allowed to log the cache if I owned a boat myself, then I would have a problem with it. The challeng is in getting to the cache, not in meeting the owners standars for suitability.

 

Rock climbing, same thing. I don't have the training or knowledge to do one, but If I wan't to try, I can, and the Cache owner is not going to delete my log If I make it.

 

I am not saying that every cache has to be possible to do by every cacher, but they should all be allowed to try.

Link to comment
... but does that make it elitist?

 

There is a difference between the scenarios you mentioned and what is happening here. All of those deal with challenges in finding the individual cache.

 

The challenge is in getting to the cache, not in meeting the owners standars for suitability.

 

I am not saying that every cache has to be possible to do by every cacher, but they should all be allowed to try.

 

The scenarios I'm talking about all include overcoming one challenge to reach another. Similar to finding a multi-cache or puzzle cache you may have to overcome any number of obstacles to reach your goal. This cache requires you reaching an obstacle first (100 caches) so that you can reach your goal (logging this particular cache). There are many, many series caches out there that must be completed as a group before you can log a final cache. What makes this one different in nature?

 

You stated "All of those deal with challenges in finding the individual cache" and that's exactly what is required here. Overcome an obstacle and claim the find. Like many caches, the obstacle isn't just to find the cache.

 

You said "The challenge is in getting to the cache, not in meeting the owners standars for suitability", but that's where I disagree, but hope to change your perspective. You are deciding what is the challenge with that statement ("getting to the cache") when the cache setter gave you a completely different challenge (completing a challenging task first) to accomplish.

 

You said "I am not saying that every cache has to be possible to do by every cacher, but they should all be allowed to try." Every cacher is welcome to try and reach that goal set by the cache setter. No one is being denied that chance. They are being given a challenge to overcome first though.

 

Whether the challenge is a skill learned, a lesson learned or an obstacle overcome, I hope we will always be challenged by the cache setter. The fun is in the challenge. Life is a journey, not a destination. Just getting to the cache can be done at lots of caches. This cache setter gave us something more. He/She gave us a new challenge. Who's up for it? :laughing:

Link to comment
... someone found your cache and didn't read the cache description at all. They simply loaded several traditionals into their GPS and went for it. Considering it is a 1/1 they were able to find it and never needed to consult the description.

On that point I agree with you CR -- there is a definite problem there that probably needs a solution. If the website were to offer some way for players to electronically filter out ALR caches from all the other simple, straightforward types, then people could more easily reduce the risk of disappointment associated with ignoring cache descriptions.

 

Some have suggested that such a marker should take the form of a new attribute, and others have further sarcastically suggested that the image should be that of a cacher (or a frog) jumping through a hoop. I don’t have a problem with that at all. I think it would be funny.

 

I've said it before: Give me a way to mark my cache as an ALR ... and I'll gladly be the first to fly that flag!

 

But of course that is a completely separate issue from your claim that a cache owner has no right to enforce logging requirements. An electronic filter would only serve to make avoidance more convenient for you. You can ALREADY avoid caches you don't like when the unwanted element is clearly stated in the description. Just read the descriptions, and don’t hunt the ones you don’t like!

Link to comment

 

You stated "All of those deal with challenges in finding the individual cache" and that's exactly what is required here. Overcome an obstacle and claim the find. Like many caches, the obstacle isn't just to find the cache.

 

This cache setter gave us something more. He/She gave us a new challenge. Who's up for it? :laughing:

 

Here is where I disagree. The hider didn't give an obstacle to overcome in the cache. The requirement has nothing to do with what you have to do to find this cache. All the requirement is is a standard that has to be met before even looking for the cache.

 

As far as I can tell, there is nothing more to this cache than any other- just an arbitrary limit on who he feels is "qualified" to search for it.

 

To me, it is no different than setting up a cache and saying that "Only people that have bought me dinner are allowed to log this cache".

 

I also find it ironic that some of the same people that are on here saying it is OK for this cache hider to made arbitrary standards for who he/she will "allow" to log this cache are on another thread bashing a cache hider that hid a PMO cache and doesn't want to allow the FTF to go to a non-PM.

Link to comment

If you need a boat to get to a cache, that is fine. I can buy a boat, borrow one, rent one, whatever. I could try swimming, parachuting, being flown in by a chopper, whatever. That is up to me. Now, if the cache owner had said I was only allowed to log the cache if I owned a boat myself, then I would have a problem with it. The challeng is in getting to the cache, not in meeting the owners standars for suitability.

 

Rock climbing, same thing. I don't have the training or knowledge to do one, but If I wan't to try, I can, and the Cache owner is not going to delete my log If I make it.

 

I am not saying that every cache has to be possible to do by every cacher, but they should all be allowed to try.

 

The quote above is simply excellently stated. I should be able to attempt a cache, whether I have brown hair or blonde, 1 find or 10000 finds. I'm surprised the reviewers let (100+ find) caches go through.

Link to comment

Why, thank you dcrepeau!

 

Just for that, I will allow you to come and find and log my upcoming "people that have complimented one of my posts on the forum" cache! ;-)

 

It will be a very elite cache- chances are, you will most likely be the only one will meet the requirement to log it.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

If you need a boat to get to a cache, that is fine. I can buy a boat, borrow one, rent one, whatever. I could try swimming, parachuting, being flown in by a chopper, whatever. That is up to me. Now, if the cache owner had said I was only allowed to log the cache if I owned a boat myself, then I would have a problem with it. The challeng is in getting to the cache, not in meeting the owners standars for suitability.

 

Rock climbing, same thing. I don't have the training or knowledge to do one, but If I wan't to try, I can, and the Cache owner is not going to delete my log If I make it.

 

I am not saying that every cache has to be possible to do by every cacher, but they should all be allowed to try.

 

The quote above is simply excellently stated. I should be able to attempt a cache, whether I have brown hair or blonde, 1 find or 10000 finds. I'm surprised the reviewers let (100+ find) caches go through.

 

While I am ashamed and embarrassed by the exchange about semantics, etc higher up on this page, I have an opinion about this subject I'd like to insert before the thread gets closed.

 

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE 100 CACHES IS WRONG.

 

Someone here said you could go get 100 finds of micro spew easily. Well, not where I live and cache. The cache density here, frankly, isn't so good. Just ran a search, and the 100th cache from my home is 49.8 miles away. If my math is correct, that is 7790 square miles I gotta cover before I get 100 caches. I have been caching since 7/23 and I have 53 finds. I cache a lot. It will take me a long time to log 100 finds.

 

Now, just to be clear.... My position would be the same on this issue whether I had 100 or 1000 finds. Geocaching is about a lot of things...Nature, exercise, challenge, personal goals, seeing neat places and things, but there is one thing it is NOT about. EXCLUSION. Whether that is based on level of experience, race, religion, sexual orientation, hair color, height, weight, etc, etc etc...

 

I think that social pressure works wonders. I think that telling someone "If you don't like it, don't go find it" would be exactly like someone in the 1850 saying, "If you don't like slavery, then don't own them." Sorry, wrong. If the point of this thread is to garner and apply some social pressure to make a reasonable request to change the system, then that is a worthy goal.

 

ALR's designed to add to the caching experience are fun and kinda cool. ALR's designed to EXCLUDE someone from finding it are wrong.

 

PS. Don't anyone try to twist my words into making all caches ADA compliant. That's different.

Link to comment
Granted, with your cache they can attempt to comply when they log it as the requirement on your cache is log it in verse.

 

But what happens if the ALR is "take a picture of yourself with the cache?" Opps, they didn't do that. So, now they have a find that the cache owner says they can't log.

 

Okay, so they could go back and take a picture, but what if they don't have a camera. What if they feel they are not photogenic and are not self-confident enough to post a picture of themselves on the internet? They still have a find they can't log. Is that good for the hobby? Of course not, it's just the opposite.

Invalid argument. The cache didn’t jump out and bite the geocacher as he was innocently walking by. Finding a cache is a voluntary act. The finder made a conscious decision to hunt the cache. They KNEW they were hunting a cache without having all the details. You’re making the poor finder out to be some kind of victim, when in fact that person has voluntarily chosen their fate.

 

That’s not bad for the hobby – it’s bad for the cacher who fails to read descriptions maybe, but it’s not bad for the hobby.

 

Trust me: I've done it to myself more than once. I learned from it.

 

If anything, it’s good for the hobby because it serves to remind people of the potential for self-inflicted annoyances that can occur from failure to prepare. It’s also good for the hobby because it serves to remind people of the vast variety of creative entertainment that exists out there for them to find – if you don’t like one cache, there’s always a different one at the next stop!

 

 

Now that I've given one reason ALRs are bad for the hobby...

(An invalid reason. See above.)

 

 

...can you tell me how you, or anyone, is justified in denying that find?

Because I explained the logging requirement up front, and because I want to be fair by making the cache an equal challenge to all who find it.

Link to comment
M personal opinion:

 

A cache that says you have to wear a red hat to log it? OK. I can get a red hat.

 

A cache that says I have to include the word "cheese" in my found log? OK. I can do that.

 

A cache that says I have to take a picture of myself holding a sign saying "I'm a cache nut" at the cache site? OK. I can do that, too.

 

A cache that says I have to have X number of caches, or be female, or of a certain race, religous denomination, or have a certain color hair in order to log it? Not OK.

 

The first 3 are all examples of things that any cacher can do. Any cacher can find a hat or make a sign.

 

The last is simply exluding geocachers for the sake of excluding them.

 

How about if somebody made a cache requirement that "In order to log this cache, you have to be somebody I like. Anybody logging this cache that I either dont like or have not made up my mind about will have their logs deleted"?

Yes, some caches here and there are offensive, annoying, poorly thought out, or just plain bigoted. Each of us knows what we think is unworthy, yet each of us draws the line in a different place. Fortunately, however, we're all free to boycott the hides we think are undeserving of attention.

 

I suspect caches like those in the second half of your list would never get much, if any, traffic. If the owner gets the message, fine. If not, then who's it hurting? If you don’t like one cache, there’s always a different one at the next stop!

Link to comment
I suppose I could go get a sex change, change my religion, and dye my hair, too, but I shouldn't have to.

You don't have to. Just skip the offending cache and move on to the next one that sounds good.

 

 

If you want me to do something silly when I find it or take an extra step in logging a cache, that's fine. But to tell somebody that they are not allowed to log you cache because they don't meet your personal criteria is wrong.

If you don't like such caches, then by all means, don't hide such caches. Go hide a cache the way you think it should be done. Set the example you want others to follow. But don't presume to tell others how to play the game.

 

 

Geocaching is meant to be for everybody. If I sign up as a geocacher, then I should be allowed to find the caches.

Not exactly. The cache hide doesn't belong to you -- it belongs to the owner.

 

Besides, nobody's saying you aren't allowed to find any particular cache, only that you must meet certain challenges if you want the find. The basic challenge, as always, is simply locating the container in the first place. Any further elements the owner comes up with are intended for your entertainment, whether they involves puzzles, quizzes, logging requirements, trading requirements, mysteries, multiple stages, raw guesswork, or any other manner of wild goose chase.

 

It's all meant as entertainment, nothing more. Demanding a free pass from the cache owner just to get a find credit is rude, unfair to other finders, and demonstrates a failure on your part to understand the very spirit of the game.

 

 

No hider should have the right to tell me that I am not allowed to find their cache just because I don't meet their personal stndards of what they want for finders.

The hider has every right to determine how his cache is managed. It's his cache.

 

That's like saying "No person should have the right to tell me that I am not invited to a dinner party at their home just because they don't want me on their guest list." People have parties all the time in their homes without inviting you or me. That doesn't mean they hate us, and it doesn't mean they're trying to make us feel excluded. It's just that it's their house, you see, and they have a right to invite or exclude anybody they like.

 

Same with a privately owned Geocache -- and every Geocache, BTW, is privately owned. This website is merely the listing agency.

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...