Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Maybe I just enjoy caching too much to look for things to be angry about. :D

 

not angry....I went and found it and logged as a dnf :D

the walk was worth more than the smilie

I would have rather logged it as a find since thats what I did :D

 

Oh, you haven't struck me as being angry at all, just curious. As for some of the others... Good for you for finding it anyway. "The reward is in the journey." - Tao said and I believe he's right. Come to think of it, anybody could do just what you did and then change it to a find for the smilie when they reach 100. Seems an odd way to go about it, but it does technically follow the rules of the cache. :D

Link to comment

If you found it it is already logged right between your ears nothing the owner can do about it... 99 this..

 

 

But it's the smiley......the smiley you don't get. You do NOT have permission to get that smiley.

 

Nope. No smiley for you. Log a DNF....get a frowny......but no smiley.

 

To get a smiley.....ya gotta do what I say!

 

And I sezzzz....sezzz I.............. :D

Link to comment

I still object to the title of this thread. Bogus means 'counterfeit' or 'sham'. The definition does not ap-ply to Alternate Logging Requirements. There is nothing bogus, counterfeit, or sham.

If there is no cache at the location, then it would be bogus. Just because OP does not like ALR does not make the cache bogus.

Link to comment

I still object to the title of this thread. Bogus means 'counterfeit' or 'sham'. The definition does not ap-ply to Alternate Logging Requirements. There is nothing bogus, counterfeit, or sham.

If there is no cache at the location, then it would be bogus. Just because OP does not like ALR does not make the cache bogus.

 

Jargon File bogus

 

adj. 1. Non-functional. "Your patches are bogus." 2.

Useless. "OPCON is a bogus program." 3. False. "Your arguments

are bogus." 4. Incorrect. "That algorithm is bogus." 5.

Unbelievable. "You claim to have solved the halting problem for

Turing Machines? That's totally bogus." 6. Silly. "Stop writing

those bogus sagas.

 

objection noted

Link to comment

I still object to the title of this thread. Bogus means 'counterfeit' or 'sham'. The definition does not ap-ply to Alternate Logging Requirements. There is nothing bogus, counterfeit, or sham.

If there is no cache at the location, then it would be bogus. Just because OP does not like ALR does not make the cache bogus.

 

Nobody, nor the thread title ever said the cache was bogus. The requirement to have 99 finds to log the FIND that he actually FOUND...THAT is what is bogus, IMO.

Link to comment

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.

I feel like I just graduated from the FizzyMagic school of Fizzed Up logic.

 

For those that actually understand logic, I'll sum up the ALR history much more accurately.

  • KBI thinks that puzzle cache requirements and ALR requirements have similarities, but that doesn't mean that he thinks they're equivalent caches. The similarities are that you have to do something other than find the cache in order to log it online.
  • KBI's Poetry ALR cache would most definitely meet the guidelines if it were a poetry cache. I'm not sure how the thing would work but if it were a poetry cache and the act of writing a poem led you to the coords, then it would be approved. Fizzy, for some stupid reason, suggests that if it were a puzzle cache, KBI somehow would have to get an email from the cacher before emailing the coords to them. That's not a puzzle cache at all.
  • Therefore, KBI has argued that his own ALR cache should be allowed, dispite what CR and others say about it, that those who don't like it are welcome to ignore it, and that it has similarities with puzzle caches.
  • Also, I can see that Fizzy either is acting like a jerk on purpose just to troll for an argument, or he actually believes what he's said and is a lot less able to follow conversation than I thought.

There is good reason why caches have a description. Think about it.

Link to comment
KBI thinks that puzzle cache requirements and ALR requirements have similarities, but that doesn't mean that he thinks they're equivalent caches. The similarities are that you have to do something other than find the cache in order to log it online.
Aha! So suddenly puzzle caches and ALR caches are significantly different! Apparently those people who were arguing that there is a distinction between between requirements to find the cache and those imposed to log the cache were right all along!

 

Thanks for conceding that the primary argument that KBI has been using to justify the existence of ALR caches is entirely bogus. Of course requirements before and after the find are completely different. I just wish you'd tell KBI that.

 

KBI's Poetry ALR cache would most definitely meet the guidelines if it were a poetry cache. I'm not sure how the thing would work but if it were a poetry cache and the act of writing a poem led you to the coords, then it would be approved.
Oh, really? Describe how it would work, please, in such a way that the requirements would be the same. I'm fascinated to hear about how it will be implemented, especially since the requirement is specifically for a poem that the hider finds acceptable.

 

The point here is that in his hyper-argumentative position on ALR caches, KBI ended up using an argument that completely undermined his own position. Given the bullying nature of the posts from you and from him toward anyone who so much as hinted at a disgreement, I think it's hilariously funny. And I find it even funnier that you didn't get it, either.

 

Remember, I actually agree that ALR caches should be allowed. I only posted in this thread because I take offense at the abusive little tag-team act you and KBI have going, where you verbally bludgeon anyone who disgrees with you in even the most miniscule way. Unfortunately, the vehemence with which you keep reiterating the same flawed arguments doesn't make them more compelling; it just makes people get tired and go away.

 

The whole act has grown quite old, actually. If I were you, I'd let it go. Unfortunately, you won't, and you will inevitably respond yet again with another abusive post.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

If you found it it is already logged right between your ears nothing the owner can do about it... 99 this..

 

 

But it's the smiley......the smiley you don't get. You do NOT have permission to get that smiley.

 

Nope. No smiley for you. Log a DNF....get a frowny......but no smiley.

 

To get a smiley.....ya gotta do what I say!

 

And I sezzzz....sezzz I.............. :D

If the smiley is that important, simply log a find on your own cache:

 

"Log to keep my find count accurate due to legitimate find being deleted by owner on cache GCXXXX"

 

Reckon THAT one won't be deleted.

 

Heck, on one of my old sock-puppets, I submitted and archived a cache for similar purposes- logging finds on missing caches. (the account's purpose was to confirm missing caches and clean up geolitter. No way to count DNFs automatically)

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...

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!

Fallacy: Straw Man

 

Description of Straw Man

 

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

 

- Person A (KBI) has position X. (KBI's poetry-themed ALR cache should be tolerated)

- Person B (Fizzy) presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). (Fizzy's fictitious and fabricated version of KBI's poetry-themed ALR cache should not be allowed)

- Person B (Fizzy) attacks position Y. (Because arguing against the fictitious and fabricated version of KBI's poetry-themed ALR cache, though invalid and unsound, is easier for Fizzy. There is no existing basis to argue against the actual version of KBI's poetry-themed ALR cache, as it is already allowed under current website rules, has been for over three years, and isn't bothering anybody who understands they are free to avoid it.)

 

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

 

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Link to comment
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.

Fizzy, your first bullet point is relatively accurate, but your immediately argument falls apart after that. Your argument hinges on your assertion that my poetry cache requires a finder "to email or otherwise contact the owner."

 

Have you actually read the posted description of my poetry cache?

 

Where in my description does it say a finder is required "to email or otherwise contact the owner?"

 

You've GOT to be getting low on straw by now.

 

Besides, this thread wasn't started to discuss my cache, anyway. It was started to discuss a cache which requires that a finder meet a minimum find credit count before logging. What does "caches where you have to email or otherwise contact the owner" have to do with that cache?

Link to comment
Remember, I actually agree that ALR caches should be allowed. I only posted in this thread because I take offense at the abusive little tag-team act you and KBI have going, where you verbally bludgeon anyone who disgrees with you in even the most miniscule way.

Verbally bludgeon? Did either of us attack you directly?

 

Weren't you the one who called ALR owners "jerks?"

 

As I said before: "Personal attacks and schoolyard name-calling are not appropriate, and do not constitute logically sound arguments against the existence of caches you don't happen to like."

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.

It should? By whose rule? Yours? Sounds mighty arbitrary to me.

 

If you aren't happy with where the challenge falls in the sequence when performing the elements required to claim a find for my cache, then you are welcome to:

  • NOT hunt my cache, and/or
  • whine about it in the forums, and/or
  • Hide a cache of your own, and set it up the way YOU think it should be done

Just don't presume to tell me how to run MY cache.

 

 

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".

Really? Then is the website also wrong to allow "Premium Members Only" caches?

 

If I place a cache, it's MY CACHE. It doesn't suddenly belong to the membership at large. If I want to go so far as to retrieve the container and archive the listing, it is my right to do so at will. I can place any limits or challenges on my cache as I see fit, as long as those limits and challenges comply with the currently posted rules and are accepted by the powers that be. ALRs currently comply with the posted rules and are accepted by the powers that be.

Link to comment
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.

Irrelevant. I have never proposed violating any of the website’s posted rules or guidelines.

 

Please see the reference to Straw Man arguments in my earlier post.

 

 

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".

"Arrogant" is a subjective judgment. Just because you see it as arrogant doesn't mean there aren't plenty of folks out there who will have a fine time enjoying the cache as it was intended. You are welcome to your opinion that ALR cache owners are arrogant. I respect that opinion. What I don't respect is you telling me I don't have a right to play the game in a well-intended (and popular) way that happens to be different from your version of how YOU think it should be done. You could just as easily ignore it and move on, but instead you choose to attempt to impose arbitrary and unnecessary rules upon others.

Link to comment

The Last Stand of CoyoteRed:

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 ...

 

If they can find the cache without reading the description why should they?

Assuming they don’t like ALR caches, then they would read the description to make sure it’s not an ALR cache.

 

Duh.

 

Here you have wandered into a tangent. You make the point that ALRs should be flagged. While not a perfect solution to the gnashing of teeth that ALRs seem to generate among some, it’s an idea that I strongly support. I didn’t support it at first, but after listening to enough of the debate (in previous threads on this subject) I changed my mind.

 

ALRs can be avoided, CR. Sure, there are potential website modifications that might make that avoidance more convenient, but the fact remains: ALRs can be avoided RIGHT NOW. All ya gotta do is read.

 

 

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.

No, you have not "already described." You have presented ZERO arguments to prove how the mere existence of an easily avoidable ALR cache hurts anybody.

 

And now that you have at least admitted that ALR caches don’t hurt YOU, you have my permission to stop whining about them.

 

 

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."

This type of desperate attempt to change history by surgically re-defining words didn’t impress me when Bill Clinton tried it in court, and it doesn’t impress me now.

Link to comment

More CoyoteRed confusion:

 

You begin your long post by saying:

Your first query is laughable in that I'm not asking for a whole rule change.

 

You later confuse things by proclaiming:

... 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.

"Un-acceptable," CR? Un-acceptable to whom?

 

If YOU don’t accept it, what do I care?

 

If the website owners stop accepting it, then that’s nothing less than a rule change, CR. Which is it?

 

 

But then you complete your contradiction by stating:

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.

Got it.

 

You don't want rule changes -- except that you do.

 

Thanks for clearing that up. :D

Link to comment

And now ... THIS:

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.

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

DING!!!

 

It’s official!!

 

After opting out of his last and final chance to engage, CoyoteRed has now officially conceded the debate to KBI by default!

 

 

Thank you. It’s been fun!

 

Let’s do lunch.

Link to comment

It seems the longer this thread gets, the more ingenious folks become in reiterating the same argument. I'm not a big fan of ALR caches as a general rule, but there are some I've done which have amused me greatly. I'm one of those guys that reads every cache page prior to making my hunt, (gotta love that PDA), and if I should read an ALR cache page that I don't agree with, I'll simply move on to another one. My "Ignore" list is 4 pages long. I have no problem adding another cache to that list.

 

I would not search for a cache if I was unwilling to comply with the owner's requirements. If I did, somehow accidentally log an ALR unawares, and the owner deleted my find for not following their requirements, I would be bummed, but it wouldn't ruin my day. While I certainly "found" the cache by my standards, I did not "find" it by the owner's standards. Since the cache belongs to the owner, I accept their decision. I'd move on.

 

The majority of the arguments I've seen in here against the dreaded "99 Finds" cache are frivolous at best. While it might be true that some folks would not be able to meet those requirements, the requirements themselves represent what, for most of us, is a fairly obtainable challenge. Like most challenges, some will make it and some won't. If you happen to fall into the "won't" category, (out of towner/physical handicaps/lazy/etc), too bad for you. Go find another cache to hunt.

 

The owner felt they had a reason to create that requirement, and we, as finders, can either;

1) Rise to the challenge and log the cache,

2) Hunt a different cache, or

3) Throw a digital tantrum by snubbing the requirements and ranting about it in the forums.

 

The choice you make speaks volumes for you as a person.

Link to comment

There is no guideline specifically addressing logging requirements such as this one. The thinking is, let the market decide what they feel about such a cache. Witness this thread.

 

Much wisdom in that post

 

I hope TPTB will lock this thread. This has drifted from a discussion to name calling. Not my intention at all.

 

Sorry for being the simple OP with a (I thought, silly me) simple question.

 

thanks for playing

happy caching

 

Jeff Barstool

Link to comment

Thanks for conceding that the primary argument that KBI has been using to justify the existence of ALR caches is entirely bogus. Of course requirements before and after the find are completely different. I just wish you'd tell KBI that.

KBI already knows this. I think you're the only one under the impression that he, or I, or anyone else ever claimed that ALR caches were identical in every way.

 

"They have similarities" does not equal "they are the exact same".

 

The similarities are the fact that something other than signing the log must be done in order to log the cache online. Differences include: The order in which the signing of the logbook and the other thing might be required, the listing on gc.com (puzzle caches have their own type), the cache type was well accepted before CR and pals got a chance to complain about having to do something other than sign the log, etc.

 

KBI's Poetry ALR cache would most definitely meet the guidelines if it were a poetry cache. I'm not sure how the thing would work but if it were a poetry cache and the act of writing a poem led you to the coords, then it would be approved.
Oh, really? Describe how it would work, please, in such a way that the requirements would be the same. I'm fascinated to hear about how it will be implemented, especially since the requirement is specifically for a poem that the hider finds acceptable.
Classic Fizzy. I'll reply in Fizzy Fashion.

Oh, right. If you're saying that you don't need to hear how it would work, then why do you keep insisting that the requirement isn't a problem.

 

(That hurt my head to type that)

 

The point here is that in his hyper-argumentative position on ALR caches, KBI ended up using an argument that completely undermined his own position. Given the bullying nature of the posts from you and from him toward anyone who so much as hinted at a disgreement, I think it's hilariously funny. And I find it even funnier that you didn't get it, either.
No he didn't. He used an argument that you projected onto something else entirely. Then you got upset that this other thing wasn't a valid argument for ALR caches. We find it funny that you're doing this when it's so obvious to everyone else.

 

Remember, I actually agree that ALR caches should be allowed. I only posted in this thread because I take offense at the abusive little tag-team act you and KBI have going, where you verbally bludgeon anyone who disgrees with you in even the most miniscule way. Unfortunately, the vehemence with which you keep reiterating the same flawed arguments doesn't make them more compelling; it just makes people get tired and go away.
You're offended at our posts? We discuss what we see as failed logic and bullying of other people - and it's unacceptable to you. You reply with a discussion of what you see as failed logic and bullying of us - and you're just putting in your point of view.

 

The whole act has grown quite old, actually. If I were you, I'd let it go. Unfortunately, you won't, and you will inevitably respond yet again with another abusive post.
If you no longer enjoy the discussion, maybe we're not the ones that should let it go. And if you're offended because I called you a jerk earlier, then I'm sorry. Please accept my apology.

 

Weren't you the one who called ALR owners "jerks?"

 

Something tells me you'll respond with verbal abuse of your own, with a little failed logic thrown in to muddy the issue, and won't apologize yourself for calling anyone a jerk.

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.

It should? By whose rule? Yours? Sounds mighty arbitrary to me.

 

If you aren't happy with where the challenge falls in the sequence when performing the elements required to claim a find for my cache, then you are welcome to:

  • NOT hunt my cache, and/or
  • whine about it in the forums, and/or
  • Hide a cache of your own, and set it up the way YOU think it should be done

Just don't presume to tell me how to run MY cache.

 

 

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".

Really? Then is the website also wrong to allow "Premium Members Only" caches?

 

If I place a cache, it's MY CACHE. It doesn't suddenly belong to the membership at large. If I want to go so far as to retrieve the container and archive the listing, it is my right to do so at will. I can place any limits or challenges on my cache as I see fit, as long as those limits and challenges comply with the currently posted rules and are accepted by the powers that be. ALRs currently comply with the posted rules and are accepted by the powers that be.

 

Sorry, I don't have the time to respond properly. (16 hour days for the next few days).

 

So I wll have to simply resort with the ever effective "I'm right and you are wrong- neeener, neener, neener" :D

Link to comment
If I place a cache, it's MY CACHE. It doesn't suddenly belong to the membership at large. If I want to go so far as to retrieve the container and archive the listing, it is my right to do so at will. I can place any limits or challenges on my cache as I see fit, as long as those limits and challenges comply with the currently posted rules and are accepted by the powers that be. ALRs currently comply with the posted rules and are accepted by the powers that be.

 

ALR's aren't specifically addressed either. They are neither frowned upon nor blessed by TPTB.

 

As for the first part of the above quote, while you own the cache, the finder owns the find. It's not yours to deny.

 

While themes can be fun, and I've participated in several some even without the cache owner prompting, denying a legitimate find log is wrong. The community has been clear many times on slightly differing issues but where the core was the deletion of a legitimate find--it's wrong. This is exactly what I'm basing my own opinion on, the community standard.

Link to comment
ALR's aren't specifically addressed either. They are neither frowned upon nor blessed by TPTB.
I don't think I can agree with this statement. In the geocaching FAQ, it states the following:
Are there any variations in the game?

 

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

It could certainly be argued that by submitting an ALR cache for publishing, GC'com is 'hearing about it'. The fact that the decision is made to publish the cache would suggest that ALRs are allowable.
As for the first part of the above quote, while you own the cache, the finder owns the find. It's not yours to deny.

 

While themes can be fun, and I've participated in several some even without the cache owner prompting, denying a legitimate find log is wrong. The community has been clear many times on slightly differing issues but where the core was the deletion of a legitimate find--it's wrong. This is exactly what I'm basing my own opinion on, the community standard.

I don't think you can base your position on this 'community standard'. It has been made completely clear that there is no overwhelming concensus concerning ALRs. I believe that more people believe that the cache owner has the right to establish logging requirements, but I could be wrong.
Link to comment
ALR's aren't specifically addressed either. They are neither frowned upon nor blessed by TPTB.
I don't think I can agree with this statement. In the geocaching FAQ, it states the following:
Are there any variations in the game?

 

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

It could certainly be argued that by submitting an ALR cache for publishing, GC'com is 'hearing about it'. The fact that the decision is made to publish the cache would suggest that ALRs are allowable.
As for the first part of the above quote, while you own the cache, the finder owns the find. It's not yours to deny.

 

While themes can be fun, and I've participated in several some even without the cache owner prompting, denying a legitimate find log is wrong. The community has been clear many times on slightly differing issues but where the core was the deletion of a legitimate find--it's wrong. This is exactly what I'm basing my own opinion on, the community standard.

I don't think you can base your position on this 'community standard'. It has been made completely clear that there is no overwhelming concensus concerning ALRs. I believe that more people believe that the cache owner has the right to establish logging requirements, but I could be wrong.

 

Thank you, well said. I've just caught up again with the discussion and am impressed with some of these arguments and dissapointed in some of the "my way is the only way" logic. The find most definitely does not belong to anyone if it's illegitimate due to not completing the requirements. Finding my way to the end of marathon while driving a car does not make me an offical participant in a marathon. :D

Link to comment
I don't think you can base your position on this 'community standard'.

Certainly I can.

 

Someone wants to do away with a cache and place another. To get around the approval process he deletes all of the logs off a previous cache, changes the coords and other specifics to create a different cache. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

A cache owner wants to make sure folks put the cache back where it was, i.e. in a tree, so he deletes the log of someone who doesn't. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

The cache owner gets into a tiff with someone who happens to have logged his caches and deletes this person's logs. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

Someone gets mad at Groundspeak, archives and removes all of his caches, but before he does he deletes all of the logs. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

There's more examples, but two common factors are it is wrong to delete a legitimate log and the cache owner can not, in fact, simply do anything he wants in regard to the logs written on his cache without running afoul of community standards.

Link to comment

ALRs are accepted by the site. Most ALRs are submitted with the ALR and are reviewed by the reviewers. The guidelines generally give the responsibility for maintaining the online logs to the cache owner, so we can assume that TPTB know that owners of caches with ALRs may choose to delete logs. CR has an interpretation of the guidelines that is colored by his views of geocaching and won't be convinced that the guidelines say otherwise.

 

ALRs require you to perform some task in order to log the cache online.; unlike puzzles, which require you you to perform the task in order to seek the cache. Unless its an ALR on a puzzzle cache, anyone can choose to seek a cache with an ALR, the ALR is simply a requirement for logging it online. This upsets the puritans who believe that finding a cache = logging a find online. Once you accept there is a difference, ALRs can be viewed as a legitimate variation of the game. Perhaps they should have their own cache type or an attribute, so that people who don't like this variation can filter them out.

 

The OP was not about ALRs in general. It was about a particular ALR that seemed to the OP and several others that posted to discriminate against a certain class of cachers. The OP asked if this a legitimate ALR. (I would assume that the OP has no objection to KBI's poetry ALR). I tried to point out there are puzzle caches that impose a similar kind of restriction. I got the same kinds of name calling - your logic is flawed - arguments that CR and KBI hurl at one another. People who object to ALRs that they perceive to discriminate seem to be really upset by them, yet feel the same kind of restriction could be allowed on a puzzle. I also think that people see a restriction on the number of caches you found being more discriminatory that a restriction on finding specific caches or caches that are distributed in a particular geographic fashion. I would like to know how it is harder to find any 99 caches than it is to find one cache on each of the 99 pages in an atlas?

 

ALRs falls into two categories. The first category are requirements that are met in your online log - like KBIs cache. It seems that most people would accept these caches. Even CR says he would likely comply these ALRs (perhaps excepting an ALR to write in the log about when you stopped beating your wife). The second category are tasks you must complete before you log the cache. This may include wearing a funny hat at the cache or having visited all 50 states. So long as it a reasonable task (even though not in everyones capacity) I would accept these ALRs too. There was a previous thread of an ALR that required a father and son to log the cache together. That upset a lot of people as it was cleary discriminatory against women and against men who had no sons. Yet I think that that would be a legitimate ALR cache even though I would not be able to log a find on it. But the feeling of trying to be inclusive is powerful. I doubt that people that think something discriminates will ever be convinced that geocaching - like life itself - is sometimes unfair.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
I don't think you can base your position on this 'community standard'.

Certainly I can.

 

There's more examples, but two common factors are it is wrong to delete a legitimate log and the cache owner can not, in fact, simply do anything he wants in regard to the logs written on his cache without running afoul of community standards.

 

That would be great if it were a ligitmate log. If it were true that a cache owner should not do as they wish with the logs, then they would never have been give complete control of them to begin with. The mob is a powerful thing, but it is not always right as history has proven a few million times so far. However, the ALR is quite specific so you're holding a lot of luggage in a bag with no bottom. :D

Link to comment
This upsets the puritans who believe that finding a cache = logging a find online.

 

Well, considering if you follow the buttons on this site it means exactly that.

 

I'll repeat what I said earlier; from the cache page you click "log your visit" and then on the resultant page you select "Found it." Considering that's what you did--you visited the cache and you found it--then that's what you should be able to log. Nowhere have I seen nor can be pointed out that any log type refers to doing anything more than finding the cache.

 

So, yeah, that's exactly what it means. Do you find it? Yep! Then that's the log type to use.

Link to comment
I don't think you can base your position on this 'community standard'.

Certainly I can.

 

Someone wants to do away with a cache and place another. To get around the approval process he deletes all of the logs off a previous cache, changes the coords and other specifics to create a different cache. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

A cache owner wants to make sure folks put the cache back where it was, i.e. in a tree, so he deletes the log of someone who doesn't. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

The cache owner gets into a tiff with someone who happens to have logged his caches and deletes this person's logs. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

Someone gets mad at Groundspeak, archives and removes all of his caches, but before he does he deletes all of the logs. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

There's more examples, but two common factors are it is wrong to delete a legitimate log and the cache owner can not, in fact, simply do anything he wants in regard to the logs written on his cache without running afoul of community standards.

There is a HUGE difference between these examples and someone's log being deleted from an ALR cache due to non-compliance with the requirement.

 

In none of the above cases would the finder have read something in the description that would indicate their log was at risk of being deleted unless they did something. None of those deletions are in the control of the finder.

 

It seems that one of the big problems you have with ALR caches is that you think the finder has no control of his log being deleted. But he does! In the case of the cache referenced in the OP, the finder would have read the requirement, waited until he had 99 finds, and then logged the cache. No deletion!!!

 

In the case of KBI's cache, the finder logs his find with a poem, and no deletion!!!

 

The finder is in control of if the requirement is met or not.

Link to comment
If it were true that a cache owner should not do as they wish with the logs, then they would never have been give complete control of them to begin with.

 

They don't have complete control. TPTB can certainly re-instate a log if they so choose. It's happened in cases of egregious abuse.

 

To further illustrate a cache owner doesn't have complete control over their cache, try editing the description after you archive it.

 

What do you suppose would happen if you deleted a warning from a reviewer?

 

So, no, I don't think you have complete control over the logs.

Link to comment
The find most definitely does not belong to anyone if it's illegitimate due to not completing the requirements.

 

The find is complete and valid once the log is signed. This has been the community standard for as long as I've been caching.

 

I'm not sure what community standard you're referring to since we've done a number of virtuals, regular, and puzzle caches that most certainly are not complete once you log them. You must perform a task, take a note, picture, etc. and prove the assignment to get credit. And since the community has been practicing this standard and visiting these caches for years without complaint I think you might need to reconsider your "valid" standards as you call them.

Link to comment
I'm not sure what community standard you're referring to since we've done a number of virtuals, regular, and puzzle caches that most certainly are not complete once you log them. You must perform a task, take a note, picture, etc. and prove the assignment to get credit. And since the community has been practicing this standard and visiting these caches for years without complaint I think you might need to reconsider your "valid" standards as you call them.

 

No, you're wrong. This very argument has been going around and around for a long time. I got involved many months ago when I first heard about a "1K cache."

 

Just because something has been happening doesn't mean it's right. Our history books are full of examples.

 

Oh, and BTW, virts require a form of verification, thus what you think is an ALR, is really verification. Virts don't have a logbook, so how else are you going to prove you were there?

Link to comment
If it were true that a cache owner should not do as they wish with the logs, then they would never have been give complete control of them to begin with.

 

They don't have complete control. TPTB can certainly re-instate a log if they so choose. It's happened in cases of egregious abuse.

 

To further illustrate a cache owner doesn't have complete control over their cache, try editing the description after you archive it.

 

What do you suppose would happen if you deleted a warning from a reviewer?

 

So, no, I don't think you have complete control over the logs.

 

You most certainly do have complete control of the logs, but not the site. You can also abuse that control (and no one has the power to stop you) until your control is taken away by the site. (As for editing a description after it's archived, what on earth are you talking about? We were talking about logs, not cache descriptions. Besides, if you archive a cache, it's no longer "your" cache, just digitally recorded history.) I could probably delete a warning if I were crazy enough to attempt it (never done it so I won't say it can be done), but once again I don't control the site. Like using a library, I can destroy a borrowed book in my possession, but it doesn't mean I'll ever get to borrow books again. It doesn't mean that I don't have the power to do it. The choice is mine if I'm willing to face the consequences.

Link to comment
I'm not sure what community standard you're referring to since we've done a number of virtuals, regular, and puzzle caches that most certainly are not complete once you log them. You must perform a task, take a note, picture, etc. and prove the assignment to get credit. And since the community has been practicing this standard and visiting these caches for years without complaint I think you might need to reconsider your "valid" standards as you call them.

 

No, you're wrong. This very argument has been going around and around for a long time. I got involved many months ago when I first heard about a "1K cache."

 

Just because something has been happening doesn't mean it's right. Our history books are full of examples.

 

Oh, and BTW, virts require a form of verification, thus what you think is an ALR, is really verification. Virts don't have a logbook, so how else are you going to prove you were there?

 

Really? If I'm wrong and these complaints have been going on with those caches for years, then obviously gc is aware of it and has addressed all those caches I've visited (which must have been in an alternate reality where the "community standard" differs from your personal views).

 

Just because you disagree with the way things are happening doesn't mean you're right.

 

Oh, and by the way, virts (lacking a log book) require verification because they are by their very definition an ALR. Interesting logic though.

 

edit: stupid spelling

Edited by fox-and-the-hound
Link to comment
You most certainly do have complete control of the logs, but not the site. You can also abuse that control (and no one has the power to stop you) until your control is taken away by the site.

 

:D

 

"I have complete control until that control is taken away from me." :D

 

First of all, it's the power to delete or encrypt a log. You simply do not have "complete control" over another person's log.

 

Second, the "ability" to do something doesn't mean you have the "right" to do something.

Link to comment

The finder is in control of if the requirement is met or not.

 

What if the cache required fewer than 99 finds and the finder had 100 or more?

 

A simple example that has already been mentioned in this thread invalidates your argument.

No, it doesn't. That's the easiest one of all. If the cache requires 99 or less finds, and I have 100 or more, then I don't log the cache and spend my time on another cache. My choice! And the log won't be deleted since I never logged it. I'm in total control.

 

The ignore button is a great thing.

Link to comment
Oh, and by the way, virts (lacking a log book) require verification because they are by their very definition an ALR. Interesting logic though.

 

ALR: Additional Logging Requirement.

 

Note the "Additional" in the above.

 

The latest guidelines for virts before they were moved stated it was required for them to have some sort of verification method and that could not be garnered from web research. The idea was for the finder to have visited the virt in question.

 

Following the logic of virt verification is the same as an ALR then one could simply make the requirement to write a poem.

Link to comment

As for editing a description after it's archived, what on earth are you talking about? We were talking about logs, not cache descriptions. Besides, if you archive a cache, it's no longer "your" cache, just digitally recorded history.

This is yet another example of a "straw man" argument. It's a favorite of CR. He can't logically refute an argument, so he creates another (seemingly related but actually not) argument and argues against it instead.

Link to comment

The finder is in control of if the requirement is met or not.

 

What if the cache required fewer than 99 finds and the finder had 100 or more?

 

A simple example that has already been mentioned in this thread invalidates your argument.

No, it doesn't. That's the easiest one of all. If the cache requires 99 or less finds, and I have 100 or more, then I don't log the cache and spend my time on another cache. My choice! And the log won't be deleted since I never logged it. I'm in total control.

 

Assuming you don't cache commando and actually found the cache without reading the description.

Link to comment
You most certainly do have complete control of the logs, but not the site. You can also abuse that control (and no one has the power to stop you) until your control is taken away by the site.

 

:D

 

"I have complete control until that control is taken away from me." :D

 

First of all, it's the power to delete or encrypt a log. You simply do not have "complete control" over another person's log.

 

Second, the "ability" to do something doesn't mean you have the "right" to do something.

 

Ok, I'll rephrase that to "I have complete control over the existence of their log on my cache".

 

Second, I never said it was right. I said it was possible.

Link to comment
I don't think you can base your position on this 'community standard'.
Certainly I can.
You can and I have no doubt that you would. However, the logical leap that you would take in doing so would be large.
Someone wants to do away with a cache and place another. To get around the approval process he deletes all of the logs off a previous cache, changes the coords and other specifics to create a different cache. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

A cache owner wants to make sure folks put the cache back where it was, i.e. in a tree, so he deletes the log of someone who doesn't. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

The cache owner gets into a tiff with someone who happens to have logged his caches and deletes this person's logs. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

Someone gets mad at Groundspeak, archives and removes all of his caches, but before he does he deletes all of the logs. Overwhelmingly considered wrong.

 

There's more examples, but two common factors are it is wrong to delete a legitimate log and the cache owner can not, in fact, simply do anything he wants in regard to the logs written on his cache without running afoul of community standards.

Your bag of apples has nothing to do with the orange in question.
... Just because something has been happening doesn't mean it's right. Our history books are full of examples. ...
Just because CR believes that the game should be played his way, does not make it so.
Link to comment

As for editing a description after it's archived, what on earth are you talking about? We were talking about logs, not cache descriptions. Besides, if you archive a cache, it's no longer "your" cache, just digitally recorded history.

This is yet another example of a "straw man" argument. It's a favorite of CR. He can't logically refute an argument, so he creates another (seemingly related but actually not) argument and argues against it instead.

 

No, that goes to the heart of the argument "I can do anything I want with my cache" as presented by your brother earlier in this thread.

 

It is convenient for you to selectively switch focus when it suits you.

Link to comment

While reading some of the posts in this thread, I got inspired to check the listing guidelines, and...

 

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

 

That clearly gives the cache owner the responsibility (not just the right) to delete any logs that do not meet the stated requirements of their approved geocache listing...

 

Jamie - NFA

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...