Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I'm having a difficult time seeing how the 99 finds requirement is any different than the myriad of 'unknown/mystery' caches for which you have to find a series of caches in order to get the coordinates, or the any of Delorme Challenge caches.

 

Your example serves a purpose of adding to the caching experience. It provides a challenge.

 

The ALR of the cache in question serves no purpose other than to exclude.

 

That is how it is different.

Link to comment
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".

You made that up because you thought it would sound ridiculously lame, but I guarantee you that if such a cache were to appear in the listings, someone would eventually find that guy and treat him to dinner ... and would probably have a great time in the process. That actually sounds like fun to me!

 

You, of course, have an easy option in front of you if you're not interested in picking up someone else’s meal check: Simply don't hunt that cache.

 

If you don’t like one cache, there’s always a different one at the next stop!

Link to comment
I'm having a difficult time seeing how the 99 finds requirement is any different than the myriad of 'unknown/mystery' caches for which you have to find a series of caches in order to get the coordinates, or the any of Delorme Challenge caches.

Your example serves a purpose of adding to the caching experience. It provides a challenge.

 

The ALR of the cache in question serves no purpose other than to exclude.

 

That is how it is different.

Pure speculation. How do you presume to know the true intent behind this ALR cache? Do you read minds? Do you truly believe the owner of this ALR cache is out for nothing other than to hurt your feelings?

 

Got any evidence to support your speculation? Surely you're not that insecure with yourself! :laughing:

Link to comment

I'm having a difficult time seeing how the 99 finds requirement is any different than the myriad of 'unknown/mystery' caches for which you have to find a series of caches in order to get the coordinates, or the any of Delorme Challenge caches.

 

Your example serves a purpose of adding to the caching experience. It provides a challenge.

 

The ALR of the cache in question serves no purpose other than to exclude.

 

That is how it is different.

 

How is that? Perhaps the ALR is meant to enhance one's caching experience by encouraging a person to find more caches. I can't find the mystery cache until I find other caches. I can't find the Delorme Challenges until I find cache on each page in the Delorme Atlas. Sound like they are excluding me from doing these caches until I jump through some hoops. I believe that at least 99% of ALR caches are meant to enhance the caching experience. It may be true that for some people just finding the cache is all the experience they need and they don't want it enhanced. I personally feel that ALRs should be optional for these people, but for now the website is set up to allow the cache owner to delete logs. If you truly don't need the enhancement of the ALR, you probably don't need the enhancement of the smiley. :laughing:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
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?

CR's response:

 

<crickets>

 

<crickets>

<crickets>

 

 

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?

CR's response:

 

<crickets>

 

<crickets>

<crickets>
Link to comment
You’ve never convincingly explained how the mere existence of an ALR cache hurts anybody, bothers anybody, or threatens anybody’s rights.

Just how long are you going to ignore that point, CR? Don't you have ANY response?

CR's response:

 

<crickets>

 

<crickets>

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

Speaking of obfuscation and tangents:

 

There are two very important points you keep avoiding:

  • Why must you demand wholesale rule changes restricting everyone else's gameplay instead of exercising your power to simply avoid the caches you don't like? Why isn't that good enough for you?
  • When people are enjoying -- voluntarily enjoying -- hiding and finding ALR caches, how does that hurt you? How does the mere existence of an easily avoidable ALR cache hurt anybody?

You’ve avoided these questions throughout this entire debate. Though you’ve frequently claimed to have answered them, I can’t point to a single post where you’ve truly responded to either of these two crucial points.

 

Others are right -- this has gotten way too repetitive. I'm a patient guy, CR, but I do have my limits. Time to draw the line. If you avoid either of these questions with your next post, then you will have effectively ended our debate by default. I'll assume that you truly have nothing to say in defense of your position; and will be happy to claim a win here and assume that, deep down subconsciously at least, you agree with me but just can't bring yourself to admit it here in the Forums.

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

Speaking of obfuscation and tangents:

 

There are two very important points you keep avoiding:

  • Why must you demand wholesale rule changes restricting everyone else's gameplay instead of exercising your power to simply avoid the caches you don't like? Why isn't that good enough for you?
  • When people are enjoying -- voluntarily enjoying -- hiding and finding ALR caches, how does that hurt you? How does the mere existence of an easily avoidable ALR cache hurt anybody?

You’ve avoided these questions throughout this entire debate. Though you’ve frequently claimed to have answered them, I can’t point to a single post where you’ve truly responded to either of these two crucial points.

 

Others are right -- this has gotten way too repetitive. I'm a patient guy, CR, but I do have my limits. Time to draw the line. If you avoid either of these questions with your next post, then you will have effectively ended our debate by default. I'll assume that you truly have nothing to say in defense of your position; and will be happy to claim a win here and assume that, deep down subconsciously at least, you agree with me but just can't bring yourself to admit it here in the Forums.

 

Perhaps he has gone to bed for the night.....

 

You really are coming across as a jerk with a vendetta against CR. I am mortified by the exchange between you two on this thread. Is this a normal thing for you two?

Link to comment

 

 

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.

 

First, That is precisely what they ARE saying- If you don't meet their arbitrary criteria for finding their cache, then you are not allowed to log it. Challenges are fine- puzzles, quizzes, logging requirements, trading requirements, mysteries, multiple stages, raw guesswork, or any other manner of wild goose chase- as long as they are part of the cache. As long as you have the option of attempting to overcome those challenges during the cache hunt, then they are fine. That isn't what is happening here. This is a cae of having to meet a requirement that has nothing to do with the cache in question before you are deemed "good enough" to log it.

 

Yes, the cache owner has the right to manage his cache however he wishes. The community also has the right to say he is being a jerk if he does it in a manner like this. I think maybe you are the one that has difficulty understanding the spirit of the game if you actually support excluding geocachers from geocaching. I realise I am kinda new here- I've only been around for aboout 5 1/2 years compared to your... Oops, nevermind.

 

Nobody is asking for a free pass- (in case you hadn't noticed, I would also meet the "gold standard" to be able to log it) all that is being said is that it is wrong to exclude a certain group for a purely arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with the cache itself. What is rude is saying in essence "You rookies are not good enough to log my cache".

 

The dinner party analogy doesn't wash. This isn't a private party at a privte place. It is a public cache, listed on a public service. If it is posted on a public service, then it should be open to the public. Not to the public- except certain people that you don't like.

Link to comment

I believe that at least 99% of ALR caches are meant to enhance the caching experience. It may be true that for some people just finding the cache is all the experience they need and they don't want it enhanced. I personally feel that ALRs should be optional for these people, but for now the website is set up to allow the cache owner to delete logs.

 

Then I would have to conclude that we agree. That is why I think that while the social pressure that is being applied here might or might not do any good, it is nonetheless a worthy goal. If someone found the cache, logged it in the book, then it is a find and the cache owner needs to let it stand... excepting of course spoilers or something else that riuns the cache.

 

Exclusion is wrong. Telling people that they have basically no right to express their disagreement with this pinheaded ALR is ridiculous, IMO. Telling people if they don't like it, to avoid the cache in order to shut them up is also ridiculous as well.

 

I was prompted by KBI to cite my evidence that the ALR in question serves no purpose other than exclusion. I would respond that the undeniable result is exclusion regardless of the excluder's intent, and that would serve as prima facie evidence of intent in any court. I would further would ask where is any evidence to the contrary?

Edited by disenchanted
Link to comment

...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)

 

There are many reasons to limit how many people attend an event. I'm not going to explain all of them but one simple fact is that Fire Marshals do tend to limit how many people can gather in certain locations. If you aren't bumping a limit then there is no problem.

 

However given that there are a lot of valid reasons to limit attendance if needed, then the issue isn't one of how to accommodate all who would like to attend so much as how to limit your event to what you can reasonably accommodate . The guidelines are not meant to override peoples wallets, hosting ability, fire marshals occupancy limits, or any of an entire host of things. What they intend on doing is to ensure that any cacher who chooses to attend an event has the chance. It’s just not realistic to make that chance 100% given the other issues that can get in the way.

 

The real question is how? If as you imply you have to accept all comers regardless, then Plan B is to just cancel the event when it gets too big. Then nobody can attend.

Link to comment

....Exclusion is wrong. Telling people that they have basically no right to express their disagreement with this pinheaded ALR is ridiculous, IMO. Telling people if they don't like it, to avoid the cache in order to shut them up is also ridiculous as well.

 

I was prompted by KBI to cite my evidence that the ALR in question serves no purpose other than exclusion. I would respond that the undeniable result is exclusion regardless of the excluder's intent, and that would serve as prima facie evidence of intent in any court. I would further would ask where is any evidence to the contrary?

 

My child can't attend public schools without immunization records. Exclusionary? By your rules yes.

My son can't drive without passing a test. Exclusionary? Again, by your standard yes.

I can't practice my profession without having passed a test that not even people who spent 4 years in school and another 4 in practice can pass with certainty. Exclusionary? Heck yes by your standard.

 

Yet in each case Any person whatsoever willing to do what they need to do has a fair shot. A fair shot doesn't mean they will live through the immunizations, pass the drivers test, or the professional exam. Equil opportunity doesn't mean equil result.

 

Oh wait, we are talking about a cache. As a savvy business school professor I once had loved to exclaim. "Cooperate and graduate". By gosh it works. The alternate resembles jousting at windmills.

Link to comment
Perhaps he has gone to bed for the night.....

 

You really are coming across as a jerk with a vendetta against CR. I am mortified by the exchange between you two on this thread. Is this a normal thing for you two?

No offence intended. No vendetta. I'm sorry if any of this bothers you personally.

 

I can't speak for CR, but as far as I'm concerned this is nothing more than an academic debate over a specific cache-owner's-rights issue. Heated maybe, but academic -- and mostly pointless -- nonetheless.

 

I happen to like CoyoteRed. He and I have never met in person, but I'd like to. I've thoroughly enjoyed our discussions in these Forums. We've crossed textual swords over some issues, but I've also posted comments on more than one occasion in which I've agreed with some particularly eloquent or insightful comment of his. Although come to think of it, he's apparently never felt the need to reciprocate. :laughing: Eh, I don't think that's his style.

 

Don't know whether the feeling is mutual, but I consider CoyoteRed a friend. He's basically a good guy, but it sure is fun picking apart some of his wacky ideas. Anyone who posts sermons, pronouncements, opinions, demands, proclamations, or any other sort of goofy positions in these Forums should stand prepared to defend them with supporting logic -- including me!

 

I've said it before: I'm not anti-CR; I'm just anti-BS.

Link to comment

I can understand the there may be limits for many reasons on the number of people that can be accomidated at an event, but the way the guideline reads, you can't place any exclusions on who is allowed to attend.

 

Otherwise, I could set up a weekly event at my dinner table and say that only people that live at my address are allowed to attend.

 

If you need to limit numbers, there are ways to do it without excluding certain groups or types of cachers.

 

How about putting on the event page "Due to the size if the building, only the first x number of people that write a "will attend" note on the event page can be accomidated"?

 

My child can't attend public schools without immunization records. Exclusionary? By your rules yes.

My son can't drive without passing a test. Exclusionary? Again, by your standard yes.

I can't practice my profession without having passed a test that not even people who spent 4 years in school and another 4 in practice can pass with certainty. Exclusionary? Heck yes by your standard.

 

Big difference between your examples and the case here is that those are all examples of protecting the public. They are in place for a reason. This case has none of that. This is exclusion for the sake of exclusion.

 

<edit> I really need to learn to type.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
First, That is precisely what they ARE saying- If you don't meet their arbitrary criteria for finding their cache, then you are not allowed to log it. Challenges are fine- puzzles, quizzes, logging requirements, trading requirements, mysteries, multiple stages, raw guesswork, or any other manner of wild goose chase- as long as they are part of the cache. As long as you have the option of attempting to overcome those challenges during the cache hunt, then they are fine. That isn't what is happening here. This is a case of having to meet a requirement that has nothing to do with the cache in question before you are deemed "good enough" to log it.

So you're saying it's okay with you for there to be a challenge involved in the caching process -- just as long as it falls where you say it should fall in the sequence of events? Now who's being arbitrary?

 

 

Yes, the cache owner has the right to manage his cache however he wishes. The community also has the right to say he is being a jerk if he does it in a manner like this.

Absolutely!!! If you don't like my ALR cache, then call me any name you like!! Boycott my cache!! Give it the finger!! Tell all your friends how evil I am!! Hire a band, draw a crowd and park yourself right next to the cache 16 hours a day shouting DEATH TO KBI if it helps you deal with its existence!!

 

I get judged on my behavior whether I like it or not, just like you get judged on yours -- whether you like it or not.

 

 

I think maybe you are the one that has difficulty understanding the spirit of the game if you actually support excluding geocachers from geocaching.I realise I am kinda new here- I've only been around for aboout 5 1/2 years compared to your... Oops, nevermind.

Wait a minute. Now I'm less worthy because ... I'm less senior? Nice to know you're trying to set a good example by not being "elitist." :laughing:

 

 

Nobody is asking for a free pass-

I was responding to this:

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

Sounds to me like you think your GC account gives you some kind of 'right' to log a find for every cache that exists. If not, what exactly did you mean?

 

 

... all that is being said is that it is wrong to exclude a certain group for a purely arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with the cache itself.

What's "right" and what's "wrong" is a subjective judgment here. Many folks in this thread have expressed that they see the cache in question as a fun challenge. If I were a newbie I would probably agree with them. What is horrifying to you is merely another variety of entertainment to others. Why not leave them to their fun and stop whining?

 

 

What is rude is saying in essence "You rookies are not good enough to log my cache".

 

The dinner party analogy doesn't wash. This isn't a private party at a privte place. It is a public cache, listed on a public service. If it is posted on a public service, then it should be open to the public. Not to the public- except certain people that you don't like.

No, the cache is not public property. If you place a cache and list it on the website, the cache still belongs to you.

 

And your claim that the owner's intent is to hurt your feelings by making you feel unliked or "not good enough" sounds pretty arrogant to me. I'd be willing to bet it was merely meant as an attempt at a unique and entertaining caching challenge, nothing more.

Link to comment
Exclusion is wrong. Telling people that they have basically no right to express their disagreement with this pinheaded ALR is ridiculous, IMO. Telling people if they don't like it, to avoid the cache in order to shut them up is also ridiculous as well.

So if I happen to think some particular "pinheaded food-themed cache" was ridiculous for some reason, and that its mere existence offends me, you wouldn’t be inclined to tell me to simply avoid your cache in order to shut me up?

 

 

I was prompted by KBI to cite my evidence that the ALR in question serves no purpose other than exclusion. I would respond that the undeniable result is exclusion regardless of the excluder's intent, and that would serve as prima facie evidence of intent in any court. I would further would ask where is any evidence to the contrary?

There are thousands of puzzle caches. Many of them feature puzzles that are way beyond my ability to solve them no matter how hard I try, and some of them are owned by cache owners who are unwilling to give even the slightest hint for solving their puzzle. I would respond that the undeniable result is exclusion regardless of the excluder's intent, and that would serve as prima facie evidence of intent in any court.

 

Are such puzzle caches therefore "wrong?"

 

Not that any civil or criminal statutes apply here, of course – this is a privately owned website, the owners run this game any way they like, and they currently allow for the existence and enforcement of puzzle caches...

 

... AND Additional Logging Requirements.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
as far as I'm concerned this is nothing more than an academic debate over a specific cache-owner's-rights issue. Heated maybe, but academic -- and mostly pointless -- nonetheless.

That much, at least, I agree with you on.

Good.

 

After all, Geocaching is just a silly game.

 

Silly, but WAY too much fun! :laughing:

Link to comment
Are such puzzle caches therefore "wrong?"

 

Not that any civil or criminal statutes apply here, of course – this is a privately owned website, the owners run this game any way they like, and they currently allow for the existence and enforcement of puzzle caches...

Oh, this is really too funny for words.

 

Um, you do realize that your argument equating puzzle caches and ALR caches means that you believe that your precious poetry ALR cache (the one that is in IMMINENT DANGER of BEING BANNED) does not meet the guidelines and should not be allowed, right?

 

Let's do this in small steps.

 

You claim that the order of requirements should make no difference. Thus, you argue that a requirement imposed before finding a cache is indentical to a requirement imposed after finding a cache.

 

So let's apply that logic to your Precious Poetry ALR Cache.

 

According to your argument, you could have submitted it as a puzzle cache in which the finder was required to submit a poem in order to obain the coordinates. Exact same requirements, but in a different order. Since you claim that that requirements imposed before finding the cache are identical to requirements imposed after finding the cache, you agree that such a change should have no effect on whether your cache is allowable.

 

So now you have a puzzle cache where finders must submit a poem to you and you have to approve it before giving them the coordinates. Well, I am sorry to tell you this, but such a cache is not within the guidelines and would not be approved. I quote the relevant bit from the guidelines here:

 

a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable, while a puzzle that requires sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be.

 

In practice, caches that require prior approval from the hider (via e-mail or other means) are not approved.

 

In other words, you have just argued that your Prexious Poetry ALR Cache should not be allowed. If we accept your argument, then no ALR caches should be approved at all! I guess the person who is really against such caches is staring at you from the mirror!

 

Like I said, beyond hilarious.

Link to comment
Are such puzzle caches therefore "wrong?"

 

Not that any civil or criminal statutes apply here, of course – this is a privately owned website, the owners run this game any way they like, and they currently allow for the existence and enforcement of puzzle caches...

Oh, this is really too funny for words.

 

Um, you do realize that your argument equating puzzle caches and ALR caches means that you believe that your precious poetry ALR cache (the one that is in IMMINENT DANGER of BEING BANNED) does not meet the guidelines and should not be allowed, right?

 

Let's do this in small steps.

 

You claim that the order of requirements should make no difference. Thus, you argue that a requirement imposed before finding a cache is indentical to a requirement imposed after finding a cache....

Please see the point that I made bold. I missed that assertion in the post that you included. Can you point it out to me? The rest of your post is based on this assertion and I'm missing the relevance.

 

Either way, I don't think that anyone in this thread has stated that any cache that doesn't meet the guidelines should ever be listed. Since this is also the basis of your post, can you point it out to me, also?

 

Thanks for your help.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
First, That is precisely what they ARE saying- If you don't meet their arbitrary criteria for finding their cache, then you are not allowed to log it. Challenges are fine- puzzles, quizzes, logging requirements, trading requirements, mysteries, multiple stages, raw guesswork, or any other manner of wild goose chase- as long as they are part of the cache. As long as you have the option of attempting to overcome those challenges during the cache hunt, then they are fine. That isn't what is happening here. This is a case of having to meet a requirement that has nothing to do with the cache in question before you are deemed "good enough" to log it.

So you're saying it's okay with you for there to be a challenge involved in the caching process -- just as long as it falls where you say it should fall in the sequence of events? Now who's being arbitrary?

 

I'm not saying it has to be in any particular sequence, but the challenge involved should take place within the cache itself. In this case, the "challenge" involved has nothing to do with the cache.

 

I think maybe you are the one that has difficulty understanding the spirit of the game if you actually support excluding geocachers from geocaching.I realise I am kinda new here- I've only been around for aboout 5 1/2 years compared to your... Oops, nevermind.

Wait a minute. Now I'm less worthy because ... I'm less senior? Nice to know you're trying to set a good example by not being "elitist." :laughing:

 

Well, if Joe Noob is somehow less worthy to find a cache because he doesn't have as many caches under his belt, then obviously it would also stand to reason that you would be less worthy than I am because I have been caching longer, right?

 

Nobody is asking for a free pass-

I was responding to this:

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

Sounds to me like you think your GC account gives you some kind of 'right' to log a find for every cache that exists. If not, what exactly did you mean?

 

Now you are being obtuse. I didn't say that every cacher has the right to log every cache. What they should have, however, is the right to make an attempt to seek every cache if they choose. Nobody should be telling them "you are not allowed".

 

What is rude is saying in essence "You rookies are not good enough to log my cache".

 

The dinner party analogy doesn't wash. This isn't a private party at a privte place. It is a public cache, listed on a public service. If it is posted on a public service, then it should be open to the public. Not to the public- except certain people that you don't like.

No, the cache is not public property. If you place a cache and list it on the website, the cache still belongs to you.

So, it is OK for me to put booze, girlie mags, and a switchblade in my cache? It belongs to me, after all.

 

And your claim that the owner's intent is to hurt your feelings by making you feel unliked or "not good enough" sounds pretty arrogant to me. I'd be willing to bet it was merely meant as an attempt at a unique and entertaining caching challenge, nothing more.

 

There is nothing arrogant about saying that everybody should be able to play the game. What is arrogant is placing a cache, listing it for all to see, and then saying "you are only allowed to play if you meet my standards".

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

There are two very important points you keep avoiding:

  • Why must you demand wholesale rule changes restricting everyone else's gameplay instead of exercising your power to simply avoid the caches you don't like? Why isn't that good enough for you?
  • When people are enjoying -- voluntarily enjoying -- hiding and finding ALR caches, how does that hurt you? How does the mere existence of an easily avoidable ALR cache hurt anybody?

You’ve avoided these questions throughout this entire debate.

 

I avoided those question because they are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Why, you ask?

 

Your first query is laughable in that I'm not asking for a whole rule change. The only thing I'm talking about here is once someone finds a cache they should be able to log it with the proper log type. It's a pretty simple extension of the wording on this site. From the cache page you click "log your visit" and then from the resultant page you click "Found it." No where on this site that I've been able to find is anything about additional logging requirements. There is the mention of requirements in order to verify a find which is mostly aimed at virtual caches as these don't have a log to sign.

 

Letting ALRs through because there is nothing that prohibits them whether through edict or firm opinion is a loophole I would like to see closed.

 

Your further query about avoiding caches with ALRs is another non-starter as that would require folks to read every single cache description. At present there is no indication what so ever a cache has an ALR. The argument you get what you deserve if you don't read the description is a red herring as just about every thing you are equating ALRs to in the real world is researchable or self-evident without reading the description. Park hours, parking spots, property rights, big holes, dangerous conditions are very much part of the hunt and can be determined without reading the description. Some folks like the challenge of finding a cache without reading the description and will only refer to it like you or me would a hint or logs. If they can find the cache without reading the description why should they?

 

Your answer to that last query is so they will know they would have to comply with some silly additional rule or requirement.

 

On to your second point. How does hiding an ALR cache hurt me? It doesn't directly, but it does hurt the hobby in ways I've already described.

 

Finding an ALR certainly doesn't hurt anyone. That only comes into play when they try to log it.

 

...and no where nor at any time has anyone said that you couldn't ask someone for an additional activity when logging. Have you seen that, I haven't. It's the deletion of logs because of non-compliance of the requirement. Your fun of asking for an additional activity would still be there as would the fun of those who want to comply. None of that would go away contrary to what your brother keeps insisting:

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.

Most native English speaking folks understand "eliminating" does not necessarily mean "remove." If it did I shudder at the thought of "eliminating homelessness." It's really shameful for your brother to continually bring this up when I've explained my position time and time again which is removing the ALR from a cache would make it not an ALR cache anymore. The cache is still there, the cache has not been removed. He knows prefectly well what I meant and is only using that quote to muddy the issue and/or discredit me. Shameful.

 

In conclusion, the only change that needs to be made is to make it un-acceptible to delete a log simply because of non-compliance of an arbitrary additional logging requirement. The cacher found the cache and he should be able to log it as such.

Link to comment

 

 

... all that is being said is that it is wrong to exclude a certain group for a purely arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with the cache itself.

What's "right" and what's "wrong" is a subjective judgment here. Many folks in this thread have expressed that they see the cache in question as a fun challenge. If I were a newbie I would probably agree with them.

 

 

After a quick tally of the posts in this thread, I come up with 29 posters that think the requirement in this cache is Stupid and many of those feel it should not be allowed. I come up with 10 that feel it is ok, and few of those are saying that they think it is "fun" or "interesting, just that they feel it is fine for a hider to add the requirement. While those 4 or 5 that say they think it souonds like fun may be considered "many" depending on how you look at it, there are many more in orders of magnitude that feel the opposite.

Link to comment

Holy smokes, are you actually saying that you should not have to read the cache description before going to a cache? :unsure:

 

If you're replying to me, sort of*. You should not be required to read the description if your are able to find the cache without doing so. Once you find the cache--as it meets the standards of the community--then you should be allowed to log it.

 

*I would have answered "yes" to the query, but certain parties would have tried to twist that to mean that I said all caches should be able to be found without reading the description including multis, mysteries, and puzzles. That would be ridiculous, but you do have to watch your wording with these guys. :laughing:

 

EDIT: Let me follow up a bit on this. By requiring folks to read the descriptions then that would preclude "going commando"--finding caches via coordinates alone.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

Holy smokes, are you actually saying that you should not have to read the cache description before going to a cache? :unsure:

 

If you're replying to me, sort of*. You should not be required to read the description if your are able to find the cache without doing so. Once you find the cache--as it meets the standards of the community--then you should be allowed to log it.

 

*I would have answered "yes" to the query, but certain parties would have tried to twist that to mean that I said all caches should be able to be found without reading the description including multis, mysteries, and puzzles. That would be ridiculous, but you do have to watch your wording with these guys. :D

 

EDIT: Let me follow up a bit on this. By requiring folks to read the descriptions then that would preclude "going commando"--finding caches via coordinates alone.

 

Oh, Ok I guess. We just set a cache that you absolutely can not finish without reading the description so I had a panic moment. :laughing: Does anybody know what the rest of this completely out of context sentence's description. I doubt it would have passed submission if it were as evil as it's being made out to be. Heavens forbid we find out the facts before we start ranting at each other. ;)

Link to comment
Most native English speaking folks understand "eliminating" does not necessarily mean "remove."

I'm a native English speaker (and reader).

 

The primary definition for eliminate is:

to remove or get rid of.

 

I think most English speakers would agree that those two words are often used interchangeably. What was your point, again. I missed it in the blah-blah.

Link to comment

 

... all that is being said is that it is wrong to exclude a certain group for a purely arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with the cache itself.

What's "right" and what's "wrong" is a subjective judgment here. Many folks in this thread have expressed that they see the cache in question as a fun challenge. If I were a newbie I would probably agree with them.

 

 

After a quick tally of the posts in this thread, I come up with 29 posters that think the requirement in this cache is Stupid and many of those feel it should not be allowed. I come up with 10 that feel it is ok, and few of those are saying that they think it is "fun" or "interesting, just that they feel it is fine for a hider to add the requirement. While those 4 or 5 that say they think it souonds like fun may be considered "many" depending on how you look at it, there are many more in orders of magnitude that feel the opposite.

Yet another reason why the polls are disabled in the forum software. Counting responses to this thread is by no means a scientific sample. I don't believe than most geocachers would feel that restricing a cache to cachers with at least 99 finds is any different than restricting a cache to cachers that have found the requisite caches to do a Delorme Challenge cache.

 

Edit: wrong post quoted.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
I think most English speakers would agree that those two words are often used interchangeably. What was your point, again. I missed it in the blah-blah.

 

Often, but not always.

 

If you missed my point then why don't you go back and read it instead of asking me to repeat myself. That's an advantage to the written word, it's less ephemeral than that of the spoken word. You can easily re-read something you missed.

Link to comment

 

... all that is being said is that it is wrong to exclude a certain group for a purely arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with the cache itself.

What's "right" and what's "wrong" is a subjective judgment here. Many folks in this thread have expressed that they see the cache in question as a fun challenge. If I were a newbie I would probably agree with them.

 

 

After a quick tally of the posts in this thread, I come up with 29 posters that think the requirement in this cache is Stupid and many of those feel it should not be allowed. I come up with 10 that feel it is ok, and few of those are saying that they think it is "fun" or "interesting, just that they feel it is fine for a hider to add the requirement. While those 4 or 5 that say they think it souonds like fun may be considered "many" depending on how you look at it, there are many more in orders of magnitude that feel the opposite.

Yet another reason why the polls are disabled in the forum software. Counting responses to this thread is by no means a scientific sample. I don't believe than most geocachers would feel that restricing a cache to cachers with at least 99 finds is any different than restricting a cache to cachers that have found the requisite caches to do a Delorme Challenge cache.

 

Edit: wrong post quoted.

 

If you read the post I quoted, I was responding to the assertion that "Many folks in this thread have expressed that they see the cache in question as a fun challenge." My response wat to point out that very few of the people in this thread have said anything of the sort and many, many more have said the opposite.

 

As far as it being a scientific sample, you are correct. It was never meant to be. However, it is a whole lot more scientific than saying "I don't beleive". That is where the lack of polls helps you out. You can say "I don't beleive" all you want, and there no way to show that your belief is in the minority- other than counting responses, which of course is "unscientific".

 

Nice attempt at a straw man, though. That is another "problem" with polls- they restrict the responses to the question at hand. No way to change the question to make it fit your desired response.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
I don't believe than most geocachers would feel that restricing a cache to cachers with at least 99 finds is any different than restricting a cache to cachers that have found the requisite caches to do a Delorme Challenge cache.

 

You can't be serious.

 

That's apples and oranges. Completely different.

 

How about comparing something closer? A cache that requires 99 finds compared to one prohibits more than 99 finds? Are they any different?

 

Sure they are. In the first example if you don't have 99 finds you will eventually be able to log the cache. In the second, if you have more than 99 finds you'll never be able to log the cache. In both, you can find the cache, but not be able to log it until the requirement is met, if ever.

 

The Delorme Challenge cache is a kind of a bonus cache. Most bonus caches you have to find a series of caches and in doing so gather clues to find the bonus. In the Challenge, it's similar, but the series is so fluid there is no practical way to distribute the clues to the bonus, thus the reason for the way it is set up.

 

In addition, an ALR cache doesn't prevent you from finding the cache, but a bonus cache is set up so you have to find a certain series of caches before you are even able to find it.

Link to comment
I don't believe than most geocachers would feel that restricing a cache to cachers with at least 99 finds is any different than restricting a cache to cachers that have found the requisite caches to do a Delorme Challenge cache.

 

You can't be serious.

 

That's apples and oranges. Completely different.

 

How about comparing something closer? A cache that requires 99 finds compared to one prohibits more than 99 finds? Are they any different?

 

Sure they are. In the first example if you don't have 99 finds you will eventually be able to log the cache. In the second, if you have more than 99 finds you'll never be able to log the cache. In both, you can find the cache, but not be able to log it until the requirement is met, if ever.

 

 

How about closer yet? How about a "no Fat chicks" cache? One where no female over a certain weight can log it?

 

It would be a "fun challenge" to get those hefty gals to lose some weight. If they work hard, eventually they would meet the requirements to log it. :D

Link to comment
You claim that the order of requirements should make no difference. Thus, you argue that a requirement imposed before finding a cache is indentical to a requirement imposed after finding a cache....

Please see the point that I made bold. I missed that assertion in the post that you included. Can you point it out to me? The rest of your post is based on this assertion and I'm missing the relevance.

While the equivalence was not explicit in the post I quoted, it is clearly central to the argument. Here are previous times he has made the equivalence explicit:

Here:

So apparently the only thing that bugs you about ALR caches, if I understand you correctly, is the fact that the challenge presented in an ALR cache comes after the find as opposed to before. I still see no reason why the sequence should matter.
and here:
An earlier objector in this thread wanted to know why an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache owner should be allowed to "hold his smiley hostage" until he satisfied the post-logging requirement. Using that logic, he might as well have also asked why a puzzle-cache owner should be allowed to "hold the coordinates hostage" until he solved the puzzle. Where's the difference? There is none.
and here:
A better analogy would be to say that a cache with additional logging requirements is a variation of a puzzle cache. Logging requirements and puzzles both represent challenges which are intended to enhance the fun, and which one must satisfy in order to complete the experience.

You can see that KBI has explicitly equated puzzle caches and ALR caches many times.

 

So let's review the logic again:

  • KBI thinks that puzzle cache requirements and ALR requirements are effectively equivalent.
  • KBI's Precious Poetry ALR cache would not meet the guidelines if it were a puzzle cache.
  • Therefore, KBI has argued that his own ALR cache should not have been allowed.

There is a good reason that puzzle caches where you have to email or otherwise contact the owner to get the coords are generally not approvable. Think about it.

 

For the record, I have no problem with ALR caches being allowed. I think it is fine, as long as the additional requirements are non-discriminatory. For example, ALR caches that could only be logged by Christians or by thin people or by people with black hair would be unacceptable.

 

And I am happy to comply with ALR in most cases. In those I don't want to, I ignore the cache. It remains my opinion that cache owners who would delete otherwise legitimate cache finds for non-compliance with ALR are control freaks and not people I would respect. But that's just me.

Thanks for your help.

You're welcome.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

 

... all that is being said is that it is wrong to exclude a certain group for a purely arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with the cache itself.

What's "right" and what's "wrong" is a subjective judgment here. Many folks in this thread have expressed that they see the cache in question as a fun challenge. If I were a newbie I would probably agree with them.

 

 

After a quick tally of the posts in this thread, I come up with 29 posters that think the requirement in this cache is Stupid and many of those feel it should not be allowed. I come up with 10 that feel it is ok, and few of those are saying that they think it is "fun" or "interesting, just that they feel it is fine for a hider to add the requirement. While those 4 or 5 that say they think it souonds like fun may be considered "many" depending on how you look at it, there are many more in orders of magnitude that feel the opposite.

Yet another reason why the polls are disabled in the forum software. Counting responses to this thread is by no means a scientific sample. I don't believe than most geocachers would feel that restricing a cache to cachers with at least 99 finds is any different than restricting a cache to cachers that have found the requisite caches to do a Delorme Challenge cache.

 

Edit: wrong post quoted.

 

If you read the post I quoted, I was responding to the assertion that "Many folks in this thread have expressed that they see the cache in question as a fun challenge." My response wat to point out that very few of the people in this thread have said anything of the sort and many, many more have said the opposite.

 

As far as it being a scientific sample, you are correct. It was never meant to be. However, it is a whole lot more scientific than saying "I don't beleive". That is where the lack of polls helps you out. You can say "I don't beleive" all you want, and there no way to show that your belief is in the minority- other than counting responses, which of course is "unscientific".

 

Nice attempt at a straw man, though. That is another "problem" with polls- they restrict the responses to the question at hand. No way to change the question to make it fit your desired response.

 

I guess I shouldn't have put my beliefs in the same paragraph as my comment on polls. My belief is that the restriction that you have to have 99 finds is one that most people would not differentiate from the restriction on a Delorme Challenge cache. However, I may be wrong. Docapi, CR and others who have posted here seem to insist that simply finding 99 caches is descriminating against people more than finding 40 or 50 caches in particular geographic areas. The only difference that I can see is that the Delorme Challenges (and other bonus caches) are listed as unknown/mystery type. Perhaps the issue is the "must have 99 hides" is a traditional cache with the coordinates posted so someone might look for the cache without reading the cache page first. Would this cache be ok if it were a mystery/unknown? I suspect there is more to the discussion above between fizzymagic and KBI on whether there is a difference between restrictions on getting the coordinate vs. restrictions on logging the cache after signing the log. I guess it is ok to have restrictions on who can get the coordinates to a cache, but I have done irrepairable damage to geocahing if I deny someone who has found a cache and signed the log their smiley. :D

Link to comment

Geez! I live near the cache first mentioned by the OP. If the cache owner wants to encourage people to make this cache their 100th, that's a nice idea. However, I think the requirement for at least 99 finds is ridiculously exclusionary. Consequently, I will not search for it even though I pass the cache owner's requirement of at least 99 finds.

 

Those who are not bothered by the exclusion and have at least 99 finds should go out, find it and log it. Those who are bothered and have at least 99 finds should ignore it. Those who are bothered and don't have 99 finds should either find other caches, get the requisite 99 finds and then find and log this one or ignore it and move on.

Link to comment

 

My belief is that the restriction that you have to have 99 finds is one that most people would not differentiate from the restriction on a Delorme Challenge cache. However, I may be wrong. Docapi, CR and others who have posted here seem to insist that simply finding 99 caches is descriminating against people more than finding 40 or 50 caches in particular geographic areas.

 

I guess it is ok to have restrictions on who can get the coordinates to a cache, but I have done irrepairable damage to geocahing if I deny someone who has found a cache and signed the log their smiley. :D

 

If you look back at my posts, you will find that I haver not commented on the Delorme cache. That is because that is not the cache in question here. Using the comparison between the two is a straw man.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call it "irreperable damage", but if somebody finds the cache, they should be able to log it. Do deny somebody the ability to log a cache that they found because they don't meet a certain standard for suitability is in my opinion against the principles of geocaching.

 

In my example above of a "no Fat chicks" cache, it would be wrong to say that no female over x pounds will be allwed to log it. On the other hand, if I made it a terrain 5 with several tight squeezes to get through, few of the gravity challenged ladies would be able to find it. If they did make it to the cache and sign the log book, then their log should stay.

 

There is a big difference between making it difficult to find a cache with puzzles, etc. and telling somebody they are not allowed to log it even if they do find it.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
... Would this cache be ok if it were a mystery/unknown? ...
I would love for the decision to be made that all ALRs should be listed as 'unknown'. Unfortunately, 'unknown' is defined in the guidelines as a cache that is not at the given coords. Therefore, a small amount of guideline rewrite would be necessary. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
... Would this cache be ok if it were a mystery/unknown? ...
I would love for the decision to be made that all ALRs should be listed as 'unknown'. Unfortunately, 'unknown' is defined in the guidelines as a cache that is not at the given coords. Therefore, a small amount of guideline rewrite would be necessary.

 

I think that might just be a real solution to this particular cache. The classification may just need to be changed or the wording changed at least. Still wondering exactly what the wording was since I've only seen one sentence out of context so far.

Link to comment
... Would this cache be ok if it were a mystery/unknown? ...
I would love for the decision to be made that all ALRs should be listed as 'unknown'. Unfortunately, 'unknown' is defined in the guidelines as a cache that is not at the given coords. Therefore, a small amount of guideline rewrite would be necessary.
I think that might just be a real solution to this particular cache. The classification may just need to be changed or the wording changed at least. Still wondering exactly what the wording was since I've only seen one sentence out of context so far.

Here they are.

Link to comment
... Would this cache be ok if it were a mystery/unknown? ...
I would love for the decision to be made that all ALRs should be listed as 'unknown'. Unfortunately, 'unknown' is defined in the guidelines as a cache that is not at the given coords. Therefore, a small amount of guideline rewrite would be necessary.

 

I think that might just be a real solution to this particular cache. The classification may just need to be changed or the wording changed at least. Still wondering exactly what the wording was since I've only seen one sentence out of context so far.

 

complete context follows:

 

"It would be great if this was your century (100th) cache find.

This is a locked cache. The combination is xx, xx, xx.

To claim this cache, you must have at least 99 caches.

If you don't have at least 99 caches, then your find will be deleted on this site.

The park is open 8 AM to 8 PM.

The gate to go to "A" mountain opens at 9 AM."

 

combo deleted by me. it's listed on the cache page

Link to comment
... Would this cache be ok if it were a mystery/unknown? ...
I would love for the decision to be made that all ALRs should be listed as 'unknown'. Unfortunately, 'unknown' is defined in the guidelines as a cache that is not at the given coords. Therefore, a small amount of guideline rewrite would be necessary.
I think that might just be a real solution to this particular cache. The classification may just need to be changed or the wording changed at least. Still wondering exactly what the wording was since I've only seen one sentence out of context so far.

Here they are.

 

Thanks SBell, but I meant what was the rest of the cache description. I haven't seen the rest which may very well include all these things we keep insisting would solve the problem.

Link to comment
... Would this cache be ok if it were a mystery/unknown? ...
I would love for the decision to be made that all ALRs should be listed as 'unknown'. Unfortunately, 'unknown' is defined in the guidelines as a cache that is not at the given coords. Therefore, a small amount of guideline rewrite would be necessary.

 

I think that might just be a real solution to this particular cache. The classification may just need to be changed or the wording changed at least. Still wondering exactly what the wording was since I've only seen one sentence out of context so far.

 

complete context follows:

 

"It would be great if this was your century (100th) cache find.

This is a locked cache. The combination is xx, xx, xx.

To claim this cache, you must have at least 99 caches.

If you don't have at least 99 caches, then your find will be deleted on this site.

The park is open 8 AM to 8 PM.

The gate to go to "A" mountain opens at 9 AM."

 

combo deleted by me. it's listed on the cache page

 

So you have to read the cache page in order to sign the log. Now how can you complain when your smiley is deleted because you don't have at least 99 caches? (Not addressing whether this might discriminate against newbies)

Link to comment
... Would this cache be ok if it were a mystery/unknown? ...
I would love for the decision to be made that all ALRs should be listed as 'unknown'. Unfortunately, 'unknown' is defined in the guidelines as a cache that is not at the given coords. Therefore, a small amount of guideline rewrite would be necessary.

 

I think that might just be a real solution to this particular cache. The classification may just need to be changed or the wording changed at least. Still wondering exactly what the wording was since I've only seen one sentence out of context so far.

 

complete context follows:

 

"It would be great if this was your century (100th) cache find.

This is a locked cache. The combination is xx, xx, xx.

To claim this cache, you must have at least 99 caches.

If you don't have at least 99 caches, then your find will be deleted on this site.

The park is open 8 AM to 8 PM.

The gate to go to "A" mountain opens at 9 AM."

 

 

combo deleted by me. it's listed on the cache page

 

Thanks TBS, it appears this cache was built for the purpose of being a "Century Cache" to mark that grand moment when a cacher reaches their big milemarker. I still don't see what the problem is when it states so clearly what this cache's purpose is, but maybe I'm just wearing my rose colored blinders. If I see one out there requiring any number bigger than what I have now, you can bet I'm going to find it when I've reached my goal. Maybe I just enjoy caching too much to look for things to be angry about. :D

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...