Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Maybe I'm the confused one here. I thought that in ADDITION to LOGGING your find on line (maybe that was my error if it refers to logging at the site instead) you were REQUIRED to verify it. That sounds like an additional logging requirement to me.

 

As for writing a poem as an ALR, I don't see why that wouldn't be completly acceptable unless it were a virtual in which case I would need verification and a poem :D

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.
Let the buyer beware.

 

If you choose not to read the cache descriptions, you run the risk of not liking what you get.

 

I've heard you pose this argument a number of times now, in this and other threads. However (as I've stated previously), it is not unduly burdensome to read these pages. All I do is read the description for the next cache right before I hit <GOTO>. If I don't like that one (or don't want to comply with it's ALR), I move on to the next cache.

 

Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy.

Link to comment
Second, I never said it was right. I said it was possible.

 

No one is arguing whether it is possible. I think we all know it is possible. We're arguing whether it is right.

 

We were discussing whether it was right until you told me it was not within my ability. Don't tell me it isn't. As Jamie has just confirmed, it is not only within my ability, it is my responsibility. Thank you Jamie for bringing that to the table for us all to digest.

 

By the way, why do you keep insisting that these are "legitimate finds" when the GC rules quite specifically say that finds must meet requirements set by the cache setter?

 

Maybe we need a "Discovered It" entry just for you?

Edited by fox-and-the-hound
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

 

Sheesh, it took someone this long to bring up even a remotely valid argument? Six pages?!

 

Thing is, I don't think this addresses ALR in the least. It a reference to the requirements one must present to the cache owner to verify a find on a virtual. It is a hold over from that and, though it could be clarified, it can't be removed until there are no virts on the geocaching side.

 

The reason you can't simply give any old information to a cache owner about a visit is because you might present something he can't verify without a visit. The best thing is for the owner to guide the finder to what information he is looking for.

 

An alternate way to look at the above reference is what the other three things say:

  • Is the Found It log bogus? No, he did find it.
  • Is the Found It log counterfeit? No, he did what he said he did, he found it.
  • Is the Found It log off topic? No, it's my cache, he found it, and he's telling me he found my cache.

I guess the only sticking point is whether you believe the "stated requirement" refers to a requirement to do something on a physical cache beyond signing the log.

 

I submit to you it does not.

 

EDIT: clarity

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
Let the buyer beware.

 

If you choose not to read the cache descriptions, you run the risk of not liking what you get.

 

I've heard you pose this argument a number of times now, in this and other threads. However (as I've stated previously), it is not unduly burdensome to read these pages. All I do is read the description for the next cache right before I hit <GOTO>. If I don't like that one (or don't want to comply with it's ALR), I move on to the next cache.

 

Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy.

 

Oh, so we all need to cache exactly like you do?

Link to comment

 

I guess the only sticking point is whether you believe the "stated requirement" refers to a requirement to do something on a physical cache beyond signing the log.

 

I submit to you it does not.

 

Why? A "valid" arument has already been submitted from FAQ that caches do and should bring new elements to the table. So not only is it ok, not only are these caches approved, but they're encouraged by the very community (which by the way you keep insisting agrees with you even though you haven't really proven to me yet) that manages the game.

Link to comment
Maybe we need a "Discovered It" entry just for you?

 

Well, that has been presented before. That and quite a few of other solutions. I don't recall the first peep from TPTB on the subject.

 

Seriously? Do you have a link or recall where I could look? I haven't heard about that until just now as you mention it. Just curious what the previous assertions covered.

Link to comment
Let the buyer beware.

 

If you choose not to read the cache descriptions, you run the risk of not liking what you get.

 

I've heard you pose this argument a number of times now, in this and other threads. However (as I've stated previously), it is not unduly burdensome to read these pages. All I do is read the description for the next cache right before I hit <GOTO>. If I don't like that one (or don't want to comply with it's ALR), I move on to the next cache.

 

Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy.

Oh, so we all need to cache exactly like you do?

You might have noticed that I don't care how you cache, as long as you don't try to force everyone else to behave your way. You are welcome to adopt my style of caching. I think it will lead to a more fun experience for you.

Link to comment

 

I guess the only sticking point is whether you believe the "stated requirement" refers to a requirement to do something on a physical cache beyond signing the log.

 

I submit to you it does not.

 

Why? A "valid" arument has already been submitted from FAQ that caches do and should bring new elements to the table. So not only is it ok, not only are these caches approved, but they're encouraged by the very community (which by the way you keep insisting agrees with you even though you haven't really proven to me yet) that manages the game.

 

Stick a fork in CR...he's done...he's been asking for a valid argument for pages, and now he doesn't want to deal with it...

 

J

Link to comment
Maybe we need a "Discovered It" entry just for you?
Well, that has been presented before. That and quite a few of other solutions. I don't recall the first peep from TPTB on the subject.

I don't see tehm implementing that solution, just for you.

 

I could see a new attribute being created or the tweaking of the 'unknown' category to include these caches. The attribute solution being the more likely, in my opinion.

Link to comment

 

I guess the only sticking point is whether you believe the "stated requirement" refers to a requirement to do something on a physical cache beyond signing the log.

 

I submit to you it does not.

 

Why? A "valid" arument has already been submitted from FAQ that caches do and should bring new elements to the table. So not only is it ok, not only are these caches approved, but they're encouraged by the very community (which by the way you keep insisting agrees with you even though you haven't really proven to me yet) that manages the game.

 

Stick a fork in CR...he's done...he's been asking for a valid argument for pages, and now he doesn't want to deal with it...

 

Actually, I thought I did. Just because you don't want to accept it doesn't mean I'm not answering your assertion. Quite frankly I'm surprised you'd use that tactic.

Link to comment

 

I guess the only sticking point is whether you believe the "stated requirement" refers to a requirement to do something on a physical cache beyond signing the log.

 

I submit to you it does not.

 

Why? A "valid" arument has already been submitted from FAQ that caches do and should bring new elements to the table. So not only is it ok, not only are these caches approved, but they're encouraged by the very community (which by the way you keep insisting agrees with you even though you haven't really proven to me yet) that manages the game.

It's not valid because not nearly all "new elements" are good for the hobby. Just because it's "creative" doesn't mean it viable. Ask a reviewer about some of the "creative" caches that have been submitted.

 

Additionally, just because some variants were proved for the short time doesn't mean they ultimately viable or good for the hobby.

Link to comment

It's not a tactic...it's a direct quote from the guidelines that renders your arguments on the issue of additional requirments obsolete...you don't have to agree with me, or with gc.com, but that doesn't change the guidelines...

 

Jamie - NFA

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
Maybe we need a "Discovered It" entry just for you?
Well, that has been presented before. That and quite a few of other solutions. I don't recall the first peep from TPTB on the subject.

I don't see tehm implementing that solution, just for you.

 

I could see a new attribute being created or the tweaking of the 'unknown' category to include these caches. The attribute solution being the more likely, in my opinion.

 

I'm not asking for any software solution. Only a change in policy that cache owners shouldn't delete logs simply because it was deemed not good enough. If the logbook is signed then it warrants that the finder should be able to log the find with the proper log type.

Link to comment

It's not a tactic...it's a direct quote from the guidelines that renders silly your arguments on the issue of additional requirments...you don't have to agree with me, or with gc.com, but that doesn't change the guidelines...

 

Jamie - NFA

 

It doesn't say "additional" requirements. Like I said, I don't think it is meant to address ALRs at all.

 

Is there is sort of guideline, anywhere, that addresses what sort of ALR is acceptable?

 

Here's a query that would certainly put this to rest and that is if the reviewers have any sort of guideline detailing what ALRs are acceptable and which are not. The only thing I've heard is because they are not prohibited then they are published. Sounds much like codeword caches of a past era.

 

EDIT: clarity

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
I could see a new attribute being created or the tweaking of the 'unknown' category to include these caches. The attribute solution being the more likely, in my opinion.
I'm not asking for any software solution. Only a change in policy that cache owners shouldn't delete logs simply because it was deemed not good enough. If the logbook is signed then it warrants that the finder should be able to log the find with the proper log type.

Just because CR doesn't like something, doesn't mean it should be verboten.

 

What you are asking for is a guideline forbidding a specific kind of cache just because you don't like it. You refuse to consider options that would allow these caches to exist and make it easy for you to ignore them.

 

Now explain to me how you are not trying to mold the game to your image.

Link to comment
What you are asking for is a guideline forbidding a specific kind of cache just because you don't like it. You refuse to consider options that would allow these caches to exist and make it easy for you to ignore them.

 

I'm not sure an ALR cache can even be considered a "kind of cache." An "ALR cache" is a misnomer. My problem is the deletion of legitimate finds.

 

The second bold part is based on no facts what so ever. I prefer a policy change as I feel that is right course and it could be implemented today, right now, with no labor involved in changing the programing of the site.

Link to comment
Maybe we need a "Discovered It" entry just for you?
Well, that has been presented before. That and quite a few of other solutions. I don't recall the first peep from TPTB on the subject.

I don't see tehm implementing that solution, just for you.

 

I could see a new attribute being created or the tweaking of the 'unknown' category to include these caches. The attribute solution being the more likely, in my opinion.

 

I'm not asking for any software solution. Only a change in policy that cache owners shouldn't delete logs simply because it was deemed not good enough. If the logbook is signed then it warrants that the finder should be able to log the find with the proper log type.

 

Where are you getting "not good enough"? The log was deemed incomplete because the logging didn't meet a required activity by the cache setter. Logging had a requirement that was not met. What's the problem? It might be premature to ask for policy change because you don't like a "new" or "unproven" idea. Oh, by the way, those caches that were approved for the short time? ( You said: "It's not valid because not nearly all "new elements" are good for the hobby. Just because it's "creative" doesn't mean it viable. Ask a reviewer about some of the "creative" caches that have been submitted. Additionally, just because some variants were proved for the short time doesn't mean they ultimately viable or good for the hobby.") I don't think anyone is going to consider caches set back in 2000 (and still active today) as being a short time considering how new this all is.

 

Just because not everybody plays according to your rules doesn't make us wrong. We are the "community" you keep referring to and we are speaking. Go ahead and keep citing the "community standards", you're just digging a deeper hole. If people don't like this cache, they won't go and eventually it will. Just don't tell me that it shouldn't be out there because you don't like the requirements it calls for. If cachers didn't keep coming up with new ideas how would we grow?

Link to comment
What you are asking for is a guideline forbidding a specific kind of cache just because you don't like it. You refuse to consider options that would allow these caches to exist and make it easy for you to ignore them.

 

I'm not sure an ALR cache can even be considered a "kind of cache." An "ALR cache" is a misnomer. My problem is the deletion of legitimate finds.

 

The second bold part is based on no facts what so ever. I prefer a policy change as I feel that is right course and it could be implemented today, right now, with no labor involved in changing the programing of the site.

 

Show me how the find is "legitimate" and maybe I'll concede the point. So far all you've done is cite your opinion which you have every right to do. My issue is when you keep saying these finds are "legitimate" when it's quite clear from the cache description that they are not in fact which is further backed up by the direct quote provided by Jamie.

Link to comment
What you are asking for is a guideline forbidding a specific kind of cache just because you don't like it. You refuse to consider options that would allow these caches to exist and make it easy for you to ignore them.

 

I'm not sure an ALR cache can even be considered a "kind of cache." An "ALR cache" is a misnomer. My problem is the deletion of legitimate finds.

 

The second bold part is based on no facts what so ever. I prefer a policy change as I feel that is right course and it could be implemented today, right now, with no labor involved in changing the programing of the site.

If this is what you are asking, you have it today. The site allows cache owners to delete logs for the reasons even you say are legitimate. They are not going take away the ability for owners to delete logs. If your log is deleted for illegitimate reasons you can report the "abuse" to Groundspeak. They can reinstate your log and lock the cache page. But I don't think that will happen for an ALR cache. What will probably happen is that they will tell you that if you want your find count to be correct you can log a find on one of your own caches. As if that would make a puritan happy :cry:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
Show me how the find is "legitimate" and maybe I'll concede the point.

 

Some owners of caches with ALRs will allow and encourage finders to log without compliance with a note instead of a Found It log. This, right there, demonstrates some owners as recognizing a find as legitimate while denying the proper log type without compliance.

Link to comment
Show me how the find is "legitimate" and maybe I'll concede the point.
Some owners of caches with ALRs will allow and encourage finders to log without compliance with a note instead of a Found It log. This, right there, demonstrates some owners as recognizing a find as legitimate while denying the proper log type without compliance.

Some owners of 'regular' caches will allow non-finders to log the cache as found.

 

What's your point?

 

Your point appears to be that cache owners let people who don't meet the requirements of a find to log the cache as either DNF or note. What does this have to do with the price of beans?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Blah, blah, blah, blah ...

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" :P

Short on time? I can help.

 

No rush on your next post, I'll wait. In the meantime, I'll keep my response short:

 

[Pee-Wee Herman voice] I know you are but what am I? HUH HUH!! [/Pee-Wee Herman voice]

 

:cry:

Link to comment

This has developed into a VERY interesting and enjoyable discussion.

 

I've been reading back over the last couple pages of the thread, and I've spotted a few items here and there that I had either completely missed the first time around, or that deserve a little more comment:

Link to comment
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.

Speaking of principles, what about general principles like The Golden Rule and Taking Responsibility for Your Own Choices?

 

Don't blame the ALR cache owner for the log denial. Blame the finder who either (1) failed, through their own negligence, to read the description, or (2) decided, through their own arrogance, to ignore the description.

Link to comment
And I am happy to comply with ALR in most cases. In those I don't want to, I ignore the cache ...

Very reasonable. Who could ask more than that of any cache hunter?

 

 

... 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.

It remains my opinion that cachers who would seek to impose restrictions on the mere existence of cache types they could easily avoid, and therefore rob the fun from ALL cachers, are the true "control freaks."

 

Based on your above statement, however, you appear not to be one of those -- for that, you have MY respect. :lol:

Link to comment
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?

After reading this again I think I see where you're coming from.

 

The fact of the matter is that this debate has been going on for many, many months now. CR first expressed his insistence that ALRs be eliminated in this thread (now closed) from the Geocaching.com Web Site forum. In that discussion, when he first found himself unable to respond to my arguments against his demands with any kind of reasoned thought, he put me on his ignore list. (Clever debate tactic, eh?)

 

The subject has come up two or three times since. Each time, certain people (including CR) demonstrate a regular pattern: when faced with the indefensibility of a stated position of theirs, they resort to common logical fallacies -- some obvious, some subtle. Each time the thread involved generally ends up getting shut down when certain of those people run out of logic and lapse into name-calling.

 

If my tone sounds out of place, then you might be right -- I'm only responding in kind, but I'm responding in the context of that larger, ongoing debate, and I forget that some people here are new to the discussion -- or that they're not Premium Members, and therefore don't have access to the aforementioned thread from the Website forum.

 

Again, if my tone offended you or anybody else here, I apologize. :lol:

Link to comment

Some have questioned whether ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) caches are "allowed" under the current set of posted rules -- in other words, whether The Powers That Be intentionally and knowingly allow ALRs. Granted, it’s not specifically listed anywhere in the guidelines, but neither are a lot of other things that are also "allowed."

 

Consider:

  • As sbell111 pointed out, the guidelines (via the FAQ) DO specifically state:

    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.


  • Caches with ALRs specifically spelled out in their descriptions are submitted and approved on a regular basis.
  • The Powers That Be actively chose not to even comment on the issue when it was debated thoroughly in this thread
  • TPTB further demonstrated their disinterest by choosing not to act on a general-consensus solution for convenient ALR avoidance that was proposed in the same thread, one which would have involved something along the lines of a new attribute, new cache type category, or change to the definitions of the existing cache type categories.
  • Other elements of caching which are not specifically allowed are nevertheless accepted by TPTB. Use of Lock-n-Locks as cache containers, for example. "Not specifically listed as OK" does NOT equal "Not Allowed."

Additional Logging Requirement are allowed. They don't bother TPTB, most likely because they simply don't bother anybody -- unless you go out of your way to make them bother you, of course.

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.

Not according to this post of yours, CR.

 

My advice: Try to watch your contradictions.

 

For the benefit of those without PM status to access that thread, he said:

 

See, you're still trying to mean "get credit for the find" is the same as "log on gc.com." This is simply not the case.

 

I can find the cache. I can sit around at any meeting and proclaim that I found the cache. Folks can go to the cache and see my signature (stamp) in the log book. I have found the cache. It's irrelevant if I've logged my find on gc.com.

Link to comment
I guess the only sticking point is whether you believe the "stated requirement" refers to a requirement to do something on a physical cache beyond signing the log.

 

I submit to you it does not.

Why? A "valid" arument has already been submitted from FAQ that caches do and should bring new elements to the table. So not only is it ok, not only are these caches approved, but they're encouraged by the very community (which by the way you keep insisting agrees with you even though you haven't really proven to me yet) that manages the game.

Stick a fork in CR...he's done...he's been asking for a valid argument for pages, and now he doesn't want to deal with it...

Actually, I thought I did. Just because you don't want to accept it doesn't mean I'm not answering your assertion. Quite frankly I'm surprised you'd use that tactic.

The valid argument fox-and-the-hound refers to is this:

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.

...and once again CR dodges the debate. Instead of directly addressing the quote presented from the FAQ, he chooses to use the opportunity instead to make meaningless noise.

 

I'm a lot happier now that CoyoteRed has formally proved to me that he doesn't really want to debate the issue. I recommend to fox-and-the-hound and NFA that you accept that fact as well ... as I see you're both beginning to do.

Link to comment
...If my tone sounds out of place, then you might be right -- I'm only responding in kind, but I'm responding in the context of that larger, ongoing debate, and I forget that some people here are new to the discussion -- or that they're not Premium Members, and therefore don't have access to the aforementioned thread from the Website forum....

Non-premium members have access to the Website forum. CR posts over there sometimes and he's not a PM.

Link to comment

I have just re-read this post by Fizzymagic. He worked hard on it, so much so that it may actually sound logical to the casual reader, and I believe it deserves a bit more attention.

 

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.

(I have quoted the entire post for context, but this response is specifically in reference to the highlighted paragraph.)

 

Fizzy, when the idea for a silly-log-written-as-amateur-poetry cache first occurred to me, I realized that, in order to make it a requirement and therefore a challenge, I had available to me both of the distinctly different options you describe. I could either (1) require that each finder submit a poem to me in order to obtain the coordinates for the cache, or (2) simply require each finder to submit their "Found It" log in the form of a poem.

 

When I first placed the cache I was still fairly new to the game, and I'm not sure if I was even aware, at that time, of the guideline you mention -- or whether it existed at the time. (Before anyone responds to that statement: That's NOT my defense, just a perspective. Keep reading, you'll see.) What WAS obvious to me was that the first option would not only be impractical and time-consuming for both me AND the finder; but also that setting it up in such a way would very likely put people off from wanting to bother with the cache at all. Like most cache placers I tried to put myself in the shoes of potential finders, to imagine what form of the idea I would find most entertaining, and I set it up thusly. I knew intuitively that the occasional cacher here and there might prefer not to meet a poetry requirement at all, but since every cacher has the power to avoid any cache he doesn't like the sound of, there seemed no reason to withhold the hide from those who WOULD enjoy it.

 

Since that time I have become aware of the rule, and I tend to agree with it: Any hide requiring that a finder contact the owner in advance in order to find the cache will have associated problems, be it a puzzle, a quiz, a multistage, or a logging requirement (Of course, even if such a cache existed, one always has the power to avoid undesired cache types; nevertheless, that's the current rule.)

 

Here is where your analysis breaks down, Fizzy: There is a distinct difference between (1) placing a hurdle (puzzle, challenge, mystery, requirement, whatever entertains people) between a cacher and his smiley, and (2) requiring the cache hunter to contact the owner somewhere in the process. A proper puzzle cache doesn't feature such a "contact" requirement; neither does a reasonable ALR cache -- including mine. The mere fact that my cache requires compliance with a challenge, on the other hand, does indeed, for the purposes of this discussion, make it the equivalent of a proper puzzle cache.

 

In short: The obvious complication that would be associated with my cache were I to set up as you describe is the very reason I didn't do it that way, and the reason it would have rightly been rejected had I done so. And since your objection hinges on stating that the two versions of my cache (the existing version and your fictitious, fabricated version) are equivalent; then your statement that I'm arguing against my own cache is logically unsound.

 

When you said:

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 asked you directly:

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

You chose not to answer. I don’t blame you, because my cache does not, in fact, require the finder "to email or otherwise contact the owner." (You could have said “You’re right KBI, my bad, I see that now.” ... but you chose instead to ignore the question. No points for style there.)

 

In the above quoted post you said "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 [sic] the coordinates."

 

I could have, but didn't. Hence the reason your argument has nothing to do with the discussion. Hence my straw man reference. :lol:

Link to comment
Non-premium members have access to the Website forum. CR posts over there sometimes and he's not a PM.

My mistake then. Thanks.

 

It doesn't show up when one is not logged into the Forums, but I guess that's different from not being a PM.

Link to comment
Non-premium members have access to the Website forum. CR posts over there sometimes and he's not a PM.

My mistake then. Thanks.

 

It doesn't show up when one is not logged into the Forums, but I guess that's different from not being a PM.

I, too, remembered that there was some difference with that forum and I was leaning toward the non-PM thing, but then I remembered that CR is not a PM.

Link to comment

...Sheesh, it took someone this long to bring up even a remotely valid argument? Six pages?!

...

 

Nope, it just took you that long to recognize the basic argument. The cache owner sets the rules for the cache they have placed and for which they are liable. The finder is subject to those ALR's. The reality is that the only true way to enforce ALRs is deleting online logs. We both know you can go find the cache and sign the log book and that you found it even if you can't log online. The gripe then is just a whine about keeping up your numbers online because the finder is too lazy to do the work that was requested up front.

Link to comment

Wait a minute ... CoyoteRed is not a Premium Member?

 

Really?

 

The guy who's been telling everone else how to play, the guy who knows how to protect everone else from anthing he happens to deem "bad for HIS beloved sport," the guy who wants to protect us all from the non-existent threat of ALRs ... he's not willing to support the website with annual PM dues?

 

<KBI checks CR's profile>

 

Well I'll be dad-gummed.

 

Interesting ...

Link to comment

I can write a note for any cache in the world without having met the requirements for the cache...does this prove something about all of those caches?

 

Jamie

 

Nope, just you. It says that you are being thoughful if you posted that note instead of a find if you didn't meet the ALRs requested.

 

If you post a note to a cache to engage in a debate that should be taking place in the forums, that says you are a dork.

 

I tend to think of you as the former. Now I better go check the notes I've posted...

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

....just to echo my thoughts in here from other threads.....

 

Whole argument on both sides can be put to rest if these caches simply had a new and different cache type.

 

 

Edit for new info

 

...nevermind - just saw this post in another thread - seems to kill off my idea.....

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry2509475

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment

....just to echo my thoughts in here from other threads.....

 

Whole argument on both sides can be put to rest if these caches simply had a new and different cache type.

 

 

Edit for new info

 

...nevermind - just saw this post in another thread - seems to kill off my idea.....

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry2509475

 

Not sanctioned is not the same as not allowed. He may have killed your idea but hasn't stepped forward with marching orders for approvers to kill off any and all ALR caches either. Then again I wouldn't know if there were no new ALR caches being approved either and the existing ones are grandfathered. In spite of my stand on them being legit, they are PITA if you own one and I'm out of the business.

Link to comment

....just to echo my thoughts in here from other threads.....

 

Whole argument on both sides can be put to rest if these caches simply had a new and different cache type.

 

 

Edit for new info

 

...nevermind - just saw this post in another thread - seems to kill off my idea.....

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry2509475

 

Not sanctioned is not the same as not allowed.

Agreed. As with my previous analogy: Lock-n-Lock containers are not specifically disallowed, but neither are they sanctioned. It wouldn't make any sense to "sanction" one manufacturer's container over another.

 

Jeremy says in his response that he thinks ALRs are silly. One might also say that use of Gladware in place of something more durable and leak proof is equally silly. Both Gladware and ALRs are tacitly allowed, but neither is officially sanctioned.

 

Yet another practical problem associated with the creation of an ALR attribute as a solution.

Link to comment
Jeremy says in his response that he thinks ALRs are silly.

Could that be the death knell I hear tolling? :lol:

Could be, but if you read his comments on the first page of the May-June 2006 ALR thread in the Geocaching.com Website forum, he seems to express a tolerance for ALRs -- and only a mild distaste for rigid enforcement:

 

What would the icon look like?

 

I guess if most people think it should be allowed then I would prefer to have it as an attribute. That way I can filter them out of my own queries.

 

I'm the first to say that we don't necessarily have to play it one particular way. However deleting someone's log on a traditional cache because they didn't have a picture of themselves phooning at the location would certainly be irritating.

... Maybe a new log type for "Mission Accomplished" though that evokes images of another mission not yet accomplished. And for that to work we'd have to create a new cache type which doesn't make sense.

 

We'll just make a phooning waymark category.

So basically something where the logging requirement doesn't involve finding or doing something at the location after finding it to prove you are there goes beyond what should be required to log a find. However having someone do something fun in their log entry like a haiku or joke as a theme would be fine.

 

That sounds like we're getting somewhere.

I think "jumping through hoops" best describes this situation :P

 

The problem is when a user doesn't have a camera or didn't read the description but still found the cache. So why would you get your cache find deleted? You did find it, after all.

 

I don't think the objection is to the fun request - just the enforcement of it. The juggling at the location should be fun not something that rains on a geocacher's parade if they didn't do it for whatever reason.

Link to comment

Wait a minute ... CoyoteRed is not a Premium Member?

 

Really?

 

The guy who's been telling everone else how to play, the guy who knows how to protect everone else from anthing he happens to deem "bad for HIS beloved sport," the guy who wants to protect us all from the non-existent threat of ALRs ... he's not willing to support the website with annual PM dues?

 

<KBI checks CR's profile>

 

Well I'll be dad-gummed.

 

Interesting ...

 

I noticed you didn't answer your own query. You side stepped the answer and left only an implication.

 

Typical.

 

Most, if not all, of your arguments are the same. You are not the "great debater" you think you are. If you were then you'd not have to resort to personal attacks, now would you?

 

Now, go ahead. Answer your query. Tell us if I'm a Premium Member and if I'm not, then tell us what my status really is.

Link to comment

...Sheesh, it took someone this long to bring up even a remotely valid argument? Six pages?!

...

 

Nope, it just took you that long to recognize the basic argument. The cache owner sets the rules for the cache they have placed and for which they are liable. The finder is subject to those ALR's. The reality is that the only true way to enforce ALRs is deleting online logs. We both know you can go find the cache and sign the log book and that you found it even if you can't log online. The gripe then is just a whine about keeping up your numbers online because the finder is too lazy to do the work that was requested up front.

 

...and I suppose you think it is okay to abuse the system in this way?

 

I'm quite surprised that you'd support something that could easily turn someone into a maggot because of a dispute such as this.

Link to comment

Wait a minute ... CoyoteRed is not a Premium Member?

 

Really?

 

The guy who's been telling everone else how to play, the guy who knows how to protect everone else from anthing he happens to deem "bad for HIS beloved sport," the guy who wants to protect us all from the non-existent threat of ALRs ... he's not willing to support the website with annual PM dues?

 

<KBI checks CR's profile>

 

Well I'll be dad-gummed.

 

Interesting ...

I noticed you didn't answer your own query. You side stepped the answer and left only an implication.

 

Typical.

 

Most, if not all, of your arguments are the same. You are not the "great debater" you think you are. If you were then you'd not have to resort to personal attacks, now would you?

 

Now, go ahead. Answer your query. Tell us if I'm a Premium Member and if I'm not, then tell us what my status really is.

Personal attack? :o

 

Let's see, so far you've: Claimed that I can't read; called me a troll; insinuated I was a sock puppet; accused me of lying about my job; ... and because I have now dared to repeat something factual about you that another person pointed out to me ... it's YOU who's been attacked?

 

You're exactly right: I'm no great debater. I'm an amateur. If I were any good at this I'd be able to figure out some way to get you to re-engage, to put up some arguments, to stop making irrelevant noise and to answer those critical questions you keep refusing to face. Nope, I've been forced into the unsatisfying position of watching you choose to lose by default. I'd much rather hear something -- ANYTHING -- to convince me of the soundness of your position. Fact is, I was bummed when you conceded.

 

No reason for you to get defensive, CR. Pointing out publicly posted facts is hardly an attack. Your profile clearly shows that you choose not to support the website with annual dues the way many of the rest of us are happy to do. If I were truly interested in making that into some sort of an "attack," I'd have looked up your status long ago.

 

I've only seen your profile a couple times, and hadn't looked at in quite a while. The way you talk of your love for the game, the way you do your best to impose your version of game play on others, the resources you consume on the forum server while preaching Proper Caching -- I naturally assumed that you would pony up in one of the few places where that attitude really matters. The fact that you don't says quite a bit about your values: You feel it's your place to tell everyone else how to behave, yet you're not willing to help out with the heavy lifting.

 

Many folks volunteer to help the website by paying their way. Some of us are even happy to pay double. You prefer to pay zero. Nice to know I've been subsidizing someone else all this time.

 

That's fine. Your choice. I just thought it was surprising, that's all.

 

I think it's interesting to imagine a controversial issue like ALRs being put up to a vote among the premium members. Think you might want to propose any caching legislation CR, knowing that I'd get TWO votes to your ZERO?

 

I doubt such a thing is ever likely to happen, but who knows ...

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...