Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I have to agree- that was pretty tacky.

 

First, to imply that CR is somehow less worthy because he might not be a premium member is be beneath you.

 

Then, to check and find out his actual status and then let the implication stand even when you know the truth is worse.

 

Even though I disagree with your conclusions and feel your logic is flawed, I was somewhat impressed with your debating skills, until 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 ...

 

If you really want tp continue with this line, you might want to check his profile a little more closely. You are shoveling pretty fast, but you fail to notice that you are standing in the hole.

 

<edit>

 

I see what happened now. Even though you said trhat you checked his profile, you didn't. Instead, you went with a statement made by somebody else, and used that mistaken statementy to go on a personal attack.

 

Kinda like one of those lazy cachers that don't read the cache page before hunting that you railed on earlier in the thread, you didn't bother to research before you went off.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
I have to agree- that was pretty tacky.

 

First, to imply that CR is somehow less worthy because he might not be a premium member is be beneath you.

I never said or implied that CR is any less worthy. I never said or implied that his opinion is any less worthy.

 

My point was that I was surprised to discover that, though he feels free to tell others how to play, he DOESN'T feel like he needs to help the game financially.

 

Doesn't that surprise you?

 

 

Even though I disagree with your conclusions and feel your logic is flawed, I was somewhat impressed with your debating skills, until this.

It wasn't intended as a debate point. I stopped debating CR when he chose to concede.

 

I was simply reacting to a surprising piece of information.

Link to comment
I have to agree- that was pretty tacky.

 

First, to imply that CR is somehow less worthy because he might not be a premium member is be beneath you.

I never said or implied that CR is any less worthy. I never said or implied that his opinion is any less worthy.

 

My point was that I was surprised to discover that, though he feels free to tell others how to play, he DOESN'T feel like he needs to help the game financially.

 

Doesn't that surprise you?

 

 

Even though I disagree with your conclusions and feel your logic is flawed, I was somewhat impressed with your debating skills, until this.

It wasn't intended as a debate point. I stopped debating CR when he chose to concede.

 

I was simply reacting to a surprising piece of information.

 

Obviously, since you choose to make the imlication twice more in this post, you still haven't checked your "facts".

 

A friendly suggestion. Put down the shovel, and check his profile. Check it closely. Then you can come back and post your apology.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
If you really want tp continue with this line, you might want to check his profile a little more closely. You are shoveling pretty fast, but you fail to notice that you are standing in the hole.

 

<edit>

 

I see what happened now. Even though you said trhat you checked his profile, you didn't. Instead, you went with a statement made by somebody else, and used that mistaken statementy to go on a personal attack.

 

Kinda like one of those lazy cachers that don't read the cache page before hunting that you railed on earlier in the thread, you didn't bother to research before you went off.

I did read his profile before I posted. I just checked it again to see whether he'd signed up for a paid membership since this afternoon. It still just says "member."

 

Do you see something I don't?

Link to comment

I did. This afternoon. That’s his wife’s account. Your point?

 

Still trying to ignore the obvious, eh? Do you really thing anyone is going to be stupid enough to fall for it?

 

The account name is "Sissy-n-CR". Notice the "-n-CR" part of it? It doesn't say "Sissy". It says "Sissy-n-CR". As in Sissy AND CR. He also states quite clearly in the above quote from his profile that he shares that account with his wife. He also states clearly that all geocaching is done with that account.

 

BTW, for anyone reading this, "Sissy-n-CR" is not a regular account, it's not even a premium account it is a CHARTER account. Kind kills that whole "refuses to contribute to geocaching financially" BS you were spewing.

 

BTW, I share this account with my wife and son, too. Does that mean that I am not a premium member? Or is it only in the "get CR using any means neccesary" vendettas that you have the the distinction is made?

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
Still trying to ignore the obvious, eh? Do you really thing anyone is going to be stupid enough to fall for it?

 

The account name is "Sissy-n-CR". Notice the "-n-CR" part of it? It doesn't say "Sissy". It says "Sissy-n-CR". As in Sissy AND CR. He also states quite clearly in the above quote from his profile that he shares that account with his wife. He also states clearly that all geocaching is done with that account.

 

BTW, for anyone reading this, "Sissy-n-CR" is not a regular account, it's not even a premium account it is a CHARTER account. Kind kills that whole "refuses to contribute to geocaching financially" BS you were spewing.

Well, maybe you know more about CR and his wife than I do, which isn’t much, but I get the distinct impression that the other account is controlled by her. She doesn’t seem to let him use it to post in the forums, or to post any of his more combative cache logs.

 

Even though his profile says "All of my finds I have made and log with the account I share with my wife, Sissy," you’ll notice that’s not true – he has logged six finds under his own account. Read those logs and you’ll see what I mean about "combative." No telling what kind of DNFs are floating out there.

 

At the risk of being accused of "attacking": If my wife and I were both members of some club – a club that we "loved" – you’d think we would both want to pay our way. Why would I want to watch my wife pay to be there while I lounge around getting most of the same benefits for free?

 

Her account is hers, and his account is his. She pays, he doesn't. If it were otherwise, why wouldn't he have said so when I brought it up?

 

On the other hand, you might be right. If CR wants to correct me, that's fine. I appreciate your concern, though.

 

In the meantime -- got any responses to the actual debate points we were discussing earlier?

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

No, I don't think so. After seeing your latests tactics, and the kind of twisted logic that you used in your latest post, My enthusiasm for the debate has waned.

 

I see now that you have your own way of viewing things, and no amount of logic is going to change that. You will just continue to ignore the obvious, and twist the rest around to try to make it fit your defenition of reality.

 

I'm reminded of the old saying:

 

Never wrestle with a pig. You both get full of (poop), and the pig likes it.

 

(Profanity edited by moderator)

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment
No, I don't think so. After seeing your latests tactics, and the kind of twisted logic that you used in your latest post, My enthusiasm for the debate has waned.

One would assume that if you're seeing "twisted logic" in my posts, you'd be happy to point out each and every one of the fallacies you see.

 

One would further assume that since you aren't doing so, you therefore don't actually see any fallacies, and have nothing meaningful to add in defense of your position since my last round of exchanges between us on the topic of ALRs.

 

One must then conclude that your use of the 'fatigue excuse' is just a face-saving cover for backing out of a discussion for which you've run out of responses.

 

You tell me I'm out of touch with reality and call me a pig. You've abandoned logic and are now reduced to personal attacks.

 

There's another frequent poster here who does the same thing (and I'm not talking about CR). He loves to swoop in, say "your logic is hilariously bad," then swoop out without offering any explanation. That's not much of a debate, and it only serves to further convince me that my position is correct.

Link to comment

See, KBI, you apparently haven't noticed a concerted effort on my part to stick to the argument and refrain from ad hominem tactics. I've done so after a nice conversation a while back with someone via PM whom I respect greatly. Granted, I've not always been successful and, true, some snarkiness has slipped through, but I am making the effort. How about you?

 

I think you've made it crystal clear here the person who is spewing the BS with your latest tactic. Unfortunately for you the facts are easily discernible and leaves no room for opinion to sway the end result. No amount of backpedaling or absurd logic can save your argument.

 

See, I am dedicated to the hobby. I financially support this and other sites. The Charter member status on our main account tells everyone we've financially supported this site from the beginning. My activity here in the forums should tell folks I'm dedicated to this hobby for why else would I have taken so much heat from folks such as yourself? My arguments have always been for what I see as a higher quality experience for the next person.

Link to comment

... I am dedicated to the hobby. I... My arguments have always been for what I see as a higher quality experience for the next person.

Agreed.

Yeah. Nevermind that the next person is perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what they think is a higher quality experience, and especially without having someone else's version forced upon them.

Link to comment
See, KBI, you apparently haven't noticed a concerted effort on my part to stick to the argument and refrain from ad hominem tactics. I've done so after a nice conversation a while back with someone via PM whom I respect greatly. Granted, I've not always been successful and, true, some snarkiness has slipped through, but I am making the effort.

Nobody's perfect, CR.

 

Don't worry about it. :D

 

Being called names and receiving other off-topic attacks just doesn't bother me. This debate has been frustrating at times for everybody, but it never offends me when you or anyone else tries to get personal. I find the faulty logic disappointing, but it doesn't offend me. Sticks and stones and all that.

 

I'll even go so far as to promise you right now that I will NEVER hit the "report" button to whine about you in that regard, or anyone else for that matter. Never have, never will.

 

 

See, I am dedicated to the hobby. I financially support this and other sites. The Charter member status on our main account tells everyone we've financially supported this site from the beginning. My activity here in the forums should tell folks I'm dedicated to this hobby for why else would I have taken so much heat from folks such as yourself? My arguments have always been for what I see as a higher quality experience for the next person.

And we all thank you and Sissy for your long-term support.

 

If you can understand the fine differences between words like "remove" and "eliminate," then I'm sure you can understand the differences between terms like "CR's account" and "an account where CR is a team member."

 

Analogy time. Pull up a chair.

 

I started my first account when I discovered this hobby in 2002. A few months later I introduced my brother, Mushtang, to caching. He soon opened his own account, but ... suppose he and I had decided instead to share my existing account as a team? Team BeavisAndButthead, Team DNFBoys, whatever you like, but it would have been a Premium Member account, as he and I are now. With the team account we'd each be paying only half, of course -- premium caching at a discount.

 

Now, let's further assume that Mushtang proceeds to become the Preeminent Pontificator of All Things Caching in the forums, goes on a crusade with some of his find logs while caching, and I get pretty annoyed at having my name associated with some of the things he does. Let's say he agrees to move all that activity over to a new, free account: BlueMushtang.

 

Now BlueMushtang proceeds to hold his daily court in the forums, criticizing anyone and everyone who doesn't follow HIS version of the rules, demanding official rule changes for purposes of behavior control, and telling lots of folks that what they do is "bad for the sport" -- even though those folks aren't bothering anybody. All with his non-paid account.

 

The way I see it, it's like the Sunday school teacher who walks around cluck-clucking at everyone else for their behavior all week, but looks the other way when the collection plate comes around on Sunday -- even though his partner is willing to contribute. (Whoops, it that an analogy-within-an-analogy? Sorry, I ramble.)

 

Maybe the true picture with your accounts is different. Maybe my assumptions are wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Maybe if that hypothertical members-only vote ever came up, Sissy would be in complete agreement with however you wanted to vote the joint account. It's really none of my business, and no offence was intended, as usual.

 

Either way, the fact remains: while I voluntarily pay for two full premium memberships (and Mushtang pays for his one), you're paying, at most, half a membership.

 

And the account from which all your preaching spews forth is a free ride. Your business is your business – I just found it surprising, that’s all.

 

 

See, KBI, you apparently haven't noticed a concerted effort on my part to stick to the argument ...

You've been sticking to the argument? :o Where? ;) Did I miss something? :D

 

Did you finally settle on a position?

 

Did you finally respond to the basic, issue-critical questions you've been dodging for the better part of a year? Did you finally decide to un-concede, and actually explain how ALRs harm people, and why you are powerless to avoid them?

 

If so, please post a link – and I’LL pull up a chair. I can’t wait! :D

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

Is this topic done? ;)

Is the Private Message feature broken? :o

Nope, doesn't seem to be. :D

 

If you guys could take it to private message, so the discourse is between just you two (where it belongs), that'd be great.

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Private Discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, use the private discussion feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general community.

 

You can find the rest here.

 

If the topic is done, the OP is free to contact me and I'd be happy to close it.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment

Wow. I've kept out of this thread due to being busy with more important things. I'm catching up:

 

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

As the co-owner of a DeLorme Challenge cache, I beg to differ. As a geocacher who's received a threat to delete my online log if I didn't write a "sentimental memory" in my online log, I beg to differ.

 

A DeLorme cache differs from an ALR cache because it's a mystery/unknown cache. I know to read the cache page and comply with the requirements before heading off to the (bogus) posted coordinates. It also differs from the average ALR cache because it is published with special permission from Groundspeak, as an exception to the "no e-mailing the owner for the coordinates" guideline.

 

In contrast, the ALR cache where I was threatened with log deletion was a traditional cache. I went to the coordinates, found a container there, and signed the logbook. It was the third of five caches along a nice trail. I read the cache page for the first cache, to find out where to park and to learn the hours when the park was open. I believe I complied with the requirements to log a find on this cache.

 

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

I am in favor of a listing guidelines solution to this issue. I would not object to ALR caches if they were listed as mystery/unknown. I have been on record for months as saying that the "not at the given coordinates" language is erroneously narrow.

 

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

Thank you for acknowledging that I am a wise prophet. :o I knew basically where this thread would be going right when you started it, and who would be driving it. And I do think we may be about due for a lock. The baseless attacks on Coyote Red due to mistaken beliefs about his support of the site through premium membership really turned me off.

 

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.

Hello CR, and thank you for your support of geocaching generally, and this site in particular. As someone who knows a little bit about cache reviewing, I am happy to answer your question. The Geocaching.com Terms of Use are the limit on ALR caches -- NOT the listing guidelines. It is the TOU that would prevent the listing of a cache that could only be logged by a person of a certain race or religion.

 

To sum up my own views:

1. Fizzymagic rocks, even though I disagree with him some of the time.

2. CR rocks, even though I disagree with him some of the time.

3. I would be happy with ALR caches being listed on the site if they were flagged somehow, preferably as mystery/unknown caches.

Link to comment
As usual, more of the same. Twisted logic.

If you were to detail why you think the logic is faulty, that's debate. Saying "your logic is faulty" without any supporting comments is "noise."

 

 

Now that you can't rightfully claim I'm not a paying member, either Premium or Charter, now it's about the degree of support I offer the site. Yeah, right, what ever. Like Docapi said, you should put the shovel down.

I thought we settled this already. I conceded that it's none of my business. My original comments on the matter were not really relevant to the topic -- I was expressing surprise at the irony, that's all. It was a mistake. What anybody pays to play isn't logically relevant to whether their thinking on any particular subject is sound.

 

Your continued defensiveness is unnecessary -- as I said before, nobody's perfect.

 

As Quiggle pointed out, you really need to take this somewhere off the thread if you want to discuss it any further.

 

 

And, speaking of logical debates, I noticed you squandered yet another opportunity to go back ON-topic -- you apparently missed the thread-related bit at the bottom of my post:

See, KBI, you apparently haven't noticed a concerted effort on my part to stick to the argument ...

You've been sticking to the argument? <_< Where? <_< Did I miss something? :unsure:

 

Did you finally settle on a position?

 

Did you finally respond to the basic, issue-critical questions you've been dodging for the better part of a year? Did you finally decide to un-concede, and actually explain how ALRs harm people, and why you are powerless to avoid them?

 

If so, please post a link – and I’LL pull up a chair. I can’t wait! :D

Are you really going to discuss ALRs now, or are you just teasing me again? :blink:

Link to comment
In contrast, the ALR cache where I was threatened with log deletion was a traditional cache. I went to the coordinates, found a container there, and signed the logbook. It was the third of five caches along a nice trail. I read the cache page for the first cache, to find out where to park and to learn the hours when the park was open. I believe I complied with the requirements to log a find on this cache.

I understand your frustration, but ...

 

Is this the same ALR cache you described in an earlier thread, the one where the finder doesn't find out that it's an ALR until opening the cache container?

 

If so, then I would agree that not only is that an ALR cache -- it's a badly designed ALR cache. Of course, any cache can be set up badly. Just because one ALR cache is bad doesn't mean all ALR caches are bad. You wouldn't be against all event caches after one bad event cache experience, would you?

 

If, on the other hand, the logging requirement you mention was clearly described on the cache page you chose not to read, then you can't really blame the cache owner for that, can you?

 

 

I am in favor of a listing guidelines solution to this issue. I would not object to ALR caches if they were listed as mystery/unknown. I have been on record for months as saying that the "not at the given coordinates" language is erroneously narrow.

I would be in favor of that as well.

 

One suggestion I supported was the creation of a new attribute ... which, although it would help, would be problematic because (1) it would be slow to be adopted, (2) some owners might never flag their cache with it if they don't become aware of the option to do so (or just don't want to), and (3) there are apparently PQ issues which would prevent the desired option to filter out ALRs -- this would defeat the whole purpose of the attribute.

 

As you say, the definition of Mystery/Unknown would have to be adjusted to allow ALRs into that category, but that might be a better solution. The very name "Mystery/Unknown" might even need to be adjusted.

 

I actually took a stab at that once, in this post (scroll to the bottom half of the post).

 

I've said it before: If Groundspeak makes either change, I will happy to use the new flag in order to make my cache easier to recognize as an ALR cache.

 

 

The baseless attacks on Coyote Red due to mistaken beliefs about his support of the site through premium membership really turned me off.

I'm sorry if that offended you. That wasn't my intent. As I said previously, I understand that it wasn't relevant. I was merely reacting to the irony of the information, and I should have kept it to myself.

 

 

To sum up my own views:

1. Fizzymagic rocks, even though I disagree with him some of the time.

2. CR rocks, even though I disagree with him some of the time.

3. I would be happy with ALR caches being listed on the site if they were flagged somehow, preferably as mystery/unknown caches.

From where I sit:

1. Fizzymagic rocks, I just wish he could calm down and debate rationally without THROWING rocks.

2. CR rocks, I just wish I could convince him to respond to a couple of critical ALR-debate points that he keeps ducking.

3. I would be happy with ALR caches, including mine, being flagged as mystery/unknown caches -- assuming the necessary changes are made to allow for it.

 

 

And ... thank you for not closing this thread. I believe this is a controversy which demands attention. It seems to me that there really does need to be a change to allow for ALRs to be more easily identified -- preferably without outlawing them and robbing ALR fans of their harmless fun in the process, but I'll live with whatever Groundspeak decides. It's all good. <_<

Link to comment

Just a reminder-

 

This thread isn't about ALR caches in general. This thread is about one individual cache that some people think the logging restriction is unacceptable. It may have been derailed in the direction of all ALR caches, but the "nobody under 99 caches" thing is what the thread is supposed to be about.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
Just a reminder-

 

This thread isn't about ALR caches in general. This thread is about one individual cache that some people think the logging restriction is unacceptable. It may have been derailed in the direction of all ALR caches, but the "nobody under 99 caches" thing is what the thread is supposed to be about.

Good point.

 

Question for the Original Poster, then:

 

Does the OP request that the "ALR caches in general" topic be moved to its own thread, or is the OP happy with the scope of the discussion as it exists?

Link to comment

Good point.

 

Question for the Original Poster, then:

 

Does the OP request that the "ALR caches in general" topic be moved to its own thread, or is the OP happy with the scope of the discussion as it exists?

 

I'm cool with the discussion of ALR caches in general on this thread. If this thread is going to be 25% discussion , 75% mudslinging or scoring obscure debating points , I'd prefer it be locked.

 

Jeff Barstool

 

 

edit: stoopid quote thingys

Edited by TeamBarstool
Link to comment

Considering we have this post from the founder of the site...

How about a nice, new attribute to identify those caches with Additional Logging Requirements? A suggestion was for it to be a frog jumping through a hoop.

 

No. Additional Logging Requirements is not sanctioned by Groundspeak. Suggestions would be fine but forcing someone to do a little dance for a "find" is, IMO, silly. If you found it you found it. If we had a "completed a task" log type it would make more sense.

...we have a little bit of insight into the meaning of "stated requirements."

 

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...

 

Taking the above in context we see "stated requirements" was not referring to ALRs. I submit, as before, it's referring to virtual verification as I've outlined earlier.

 

To be honest there are two other reasons for an owner to delete a log, any log, and that is protection of the cache hunt and protection of the hobby. In either case it's not about questioning the appropriateness of the log type but the text written. Both of those could be eliminated with the ability to completely hide log text from everyone but the cache owner, log writer, and admin--permanent encryption simply isn't good enough when state legislators are breathing down your neck.

 

Continuing...

 

The argument "just because it's not sanctioned doesn't mean it's prohibited" is also not valid. While the statement is true, but it also does not automatically mean the action it is referring to is right, either. The same can be said of multiple logging of non-moving caches, logging a cache that one owns (as opposed to having a find on a cache one later adopts), trading high value items for a pine cone, or a host of other instances not specifically addressed by the site yet frowned upon by the community.

 

Arguments asking "what's the harm" or "why can't you just avoid it" are completely irrelevant as they could also apply to elements, practices, and cache types that are frowned upon or completely eliminated from the site. The argument simply can not stand as testimony for a particular stance.

 

What we are left with are folks finding caches they can't log. That's what it all boils down to and that's not right.

Link to comment
... My activity here in the forums should tell folks I'm dedicated to this hobby for why else would I have taken so much heat from folks such as yourself? My arguments have always been for what I see as a higher quality experience for the next person.

Golly, CR. Give it a rest, will you? Let the thread die. You will never convince anyone using the type of arguments that you use.

 

No one has doubted your veracity or that you do what you do because you think it will improve the game for others. The only things that I have a problem with you about is that

  1. You take a my-way-or-the-highway approach to the game. It's not good enough for you that some people like to play the game differently than you. Everything must be your way.
  2. That attitude and the method by which you argue your points appears to go against your own 'creed'. That hypocrisy just makes it more irritating.

 

<Edited to fix yet another typo, thoughtfully pointed out by Lep. Naturally, I still stand behind my statement.>

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Thanks, guys, for bringing me into this thread! It has been a bit since I have felt strongly enough to bother posting to the forums, but I cannot let anyone else speak for me.

 

Our account is exactly that-OUR ACCOUNT. CR posts under a second account because we do not always agree, and I am generally non-confrontational and just a nice person. BUT, I do not like to see the bashing being delivered, and since I do not let CR speak for me, how can you think I would let a stranger do so?

 

I do agree with CR, NewEnlandN00b and Jeremy on this issue. Found is found!

 

Find one of our puzzle caches without solving the puzzle (cheat, get hints, stumble across it while out with your dog, it's all been done.) If you sign the logbook and tell me about it by posting an on-line log of the correct type-FOUND IT, in my book it has been found.

 

Find one of our multi's by skipping some steps (cheat, go with buddies and split up the work, intuit where the next stage is without having to use the rope ladder, call someone for the final coords, find it while hunting or doing park maintenance-also all been done.) If you sign the logbook and tell me about it by posting an on-line log of the correct type-FOUND IT, in my book it has been found.

 

Additional Logging Requests-no problem. The problem is making it a requirement. I cannot un-find a cache. I would like to be able to use the listing site as a tool to keep a record of which caches I have found. Easiest way is to use it as intended, and log my finds.

 

I love the new panty icon idea. But the easier way to keep both camps happy is to change the requirements to requests. Those who want to participate in the hider's ideas of more fun can, and those who don't can still maintain a record of their finds.

 

Plus you get the bonus of having the folks who do not want to play along show themselves. If your extra fun is easy and fun, there won't be much non-compliance and those who don't will look grumpy. If your ALR's are annoying or tedious, you will get lots of non-compliance and maybe should re-think your idea of fun.

 

Sissy

Link to comment
Thanks, guys, for bringing me into this thread! It has been a bit since I have felt strongly enough to bother posting to the forums, but I cannot let anyone else speak for me.

Hi Sissy! Welcome! :anibad:

 

 

I do agree with CR, NewEnlandN00b and Jeremy on this issue. Found is found!

That's the problem. We're trying to define "found."

 

Some would say that finding the hole where the cache used to be, before it was plundered, is "found." Some say being able to correctly describe the cache to the owner should be enough. Some insist that only signing the official logbook qualifies as "found " -- others counter that if the official log is missing they should be allowed to sign a scrap of paper. Many would say that there may be additional requirements involved as an added challenge for entertainment, and that defining those requirements, for any given cache, is up to no one else but the owner of that cache.

 

We all agree that the posted guidelines and Terms Of Service should be adhered to. Beyond that, many of us believe that in each case it's up to the owner to make the call. It's his cache, after all. He put it there. He didn't have to put it there, but he did ... for your entertainment.

 

 

Find one of our puzzle caches without solving the puzzle (cheat, get hints, stumble across it while out with your dog, it's all been done.) If you sign the logbook and tell me about it by posting an on-line log of the correct type-FOUND IT, in my book it has been found.

 

Find one of our multi's by skipping some steps (cheat, go with buddies and split up the work, intuit where the next stage is without having to use the rope ladder, call someone for the final coords, find it while hunting or doing park maintenance-also all been done.) If you sign the logbook and tell me about it by posting an on-line log of the correct type-FOUND IT, in my book it has been found.

 

Additional Logging Requests-no problem. The problem is making it a requirement. I cannot un-find a cache. I would like to be able to use the listing site as a tool to keep a record of which caches I have found. Easiest way is to use it as intended, and log my finds.

This has been debated in great detail already. I know the thread is a long one, but I would highly recommend that you read up on previous statements that have been made on both sides of that argument before pressing that repetitive point.

 

As I said above: In each case it's up to the owner to make the call. It's his cache, after all.

 

 

I love the new panty icon idea. But the easier way to keep both camps happy is to change the requirements to requests. Those who want to participate in the hider's ideas of more fun can, and those who don't can still maintain a record of their finds.

Please clarify: Are you suggesting that ALR cache owners be asked to voluntarily change their requirements to requests ... or are you insisting that ALR cache owners be FORCED to change their requirements to requests?

 

That's a critical distinction. Most ALR opponents support the former. CR wants the latter ... at least I that's what I think he wants. To put it frankly, he’s been doing a lot of flip-flopping on that question, as you can see in this example.

 

That argument has come up before as well -- many times. Each time it does I invite the person making that argument to design their own caches any way they like, and to simply avoid the existing caches they don't like. Live and let live. There is no reason for new rules which would unnecessarily limit other people's harmless fun.

 

 

If your ALR's are annoying or tedious, you will get lots of non-compliance and maybe should re-think your idea of fun.

Agreed, Sissy ... but doesn't that apply to ANY type of cache?

 

One can generally tell from counting and reading logs whether a cache is annoying or tedious, ALR or not. Good caches come in all flavors, and so do the bad ones.

 

If you're claiming that all ALR caches are annoying and tedious ... well, maybe that has been your experience, but it definitely hasn't been mine. Most of the ALR caches I've seen get lots and lots of happy traffic.

Link to comment

Thank you, CR. I'm glad you finally decided to re-join the debate. You appear to have made an honest attempt to respond to my issue-critical questions (see the final quote/response of this post), and for that I thank you.

 

This is a lot more fun than all that other noise, don't you think? ;)

 

On with the debate ...

"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."
Taking the above in context we see "stated requirements" was not referring to ALRs. I submit, as before, it's referring to virtual verification as I've outlined earlier.

Logic:

 

Yes, you are correct: taking "stated requirements" in context we see that it was not referring specifically to ALRs. It was also not referring specifically to "virtual verification" -- or to anything else for that matter, other than exactly what it says: "stated requirements." I submit that there was probably a very good reason why the statement was written in such non-specific terms. Cache owners must be allowed to decide whether a finder has met the stated criteria for logging their own cache -- as long as published guidelines are followed -- whatever those criteria may be.

 

At this point our speculations as to the intended meaning of the statement are only that: speculations. Your speculation isn't worth any more than mine, which is zero.

 

If the game's rule makers ever do decide to specifically outlaw ALR caches, I'll happily collect mine up, retire it, and try to think of something else fun with which to replace it. If, on the other hand, they ever officially sanction them I'll be just as happy to leave it in place, flag it as an ALR using any means provided, and watch the silly-poem logs keep coming in. Thirdly, if they decide to do nothing -- which has been the official response so far during these many, many months of debate -- I'll assume that even though Jeremy thinks ALRs are silly (his word), he doesn't think they're bothering anybody bad enough to justify any new, unnecessarily restrictive rules.

 

 

The argument "just because it's not sanctioned doesn't mean it's prohibited" is also not valid. While the statement is true, but it also does not automatically mean the action it is referring to is right, either. The same can be said of multiple logging of non-moving caches, logging a cache that one owns (as opposed to having a find on a cache one later adopts), trading high value items for a pine cone, or a host of other instances not specifically addressed by the site yet frowned upon by the community.

You are correct. That statement is not a valid defense of ALR caches. If a thing is not prohibited, that doesn't mean it's not bad. It could simply mean that the do-badders are ahead of the lawmakers. For example, certain computer crimes are now illegal, but when those crimes were invented there were no laws against them -- even though they were clearly crimes.

 

You are correct. That statement is not a valid defense of ALR caches. If you'll note the context, you'll see it was not intended to be a defense of ALR caches. Folks were merely trying to speculate as to the thinking and intentions of TPTB after having heard the statement that ALR caches are "not sanctioned."

 

 

What we are left with are folks finding caches they can't log. That's what it all boils down to and that's not right.

Here you are referring to folks who fail to read (or refuse to comply with) descriptions. That argument has been dismissed long ago.

 

 

And now, here is where we get to the issue-critical questions:

Arguments asking "what's the harm" or "why can't you just avoid it" are completely irrelevant as they could also apply to elements, practices, and cache types that are frowned upon or completely eliminated from the site. The argument simply can not stand as testimony for a particular stance.

Not true. Those two arguments are relevant. Critical, in fact.

 

Yes, they could apply to elements which are already banned. Yes, they could apply to elements which are frowned upon by a subset of cachers.

 

They could also apply, however, to ANYTHING.

 

Proving that something bad can't be avoided is a valid reason for exclusion. That's exactly what I'm asking you to do -- prove that ALR caches can't be avoided.

 

Proving that certain unrelated bad things can be avoided is not a valid reason for exclusion of something else. You keep telling me it is, but it's not -- there is no logical link between the two.

 

Suppose someone tried to convince you that ALL caches should be hidden within 100 feet of convenient parking, and be wheelchair accessible. Wouldn't you point out to that person that there are plenty such caches available everywhere, and that the less accessible ones can easily be bypassed? Suppose that argument wasn't enough to satisfy them? Wouldn't you then ask that person what could possibly be the harm in the very existence of a cache that they either wouldn't enjoy, or can't do?

 

By asking you "why can't you just avoid" ALR caches, I'm asking you to prove that a person is unable to avoid caches they don't want to do. You haven't done so. No one has. I submit to you that it can't be proven.

 

By asking you "what's the harm" in the mere existence of ALR caches, I'm asking you to prove that a person -- any person -- is harmed by the very existence of a cache they can provably avoid. You haven't done so. No one has. I submit to you that it can't be proven.

 

Based on those last two items there is absolutely no reason for you (or anyone) to call for the elimination, removal, deletion, outlawing (or whatever you want to call it) of Additional Logging Requirements on Geocaches. You, CoyoteRed, have the power within yourself to simply pass them by and cache where the caching is more to your liking. No one can take that power away from you.

 

 

CoyoteRed, you've finally made an honest, rational and serious attempt to respond to my previous points. Now that I've countered your responses, please do me the honor of treating my arguments seriously: either show me convincingly where there are holes in my thinking, or move on to the next step, whatever that may be, and present something new to convince me that ALR caches shouldn't be allowed.

 

If you can convince me, I'll join your side. I promise! I just want what's right, same as you. :anibad:

Link to comment

 

By asking you "why can't you just avoid" ALR caches, I'm asking you to prove that a person is unable to avoid caches they don't want to do. You haven't done so. No one has. I submit to you that it can't be proven.

 

By asking you "what's the harm" in the mere existence of ALR caches, I'm asking you to prove that a person -- any person -- is harmed by the very existence of a cache they can provably avoid. You haven't done so. No one has. I submit to you that it can't be proven.

 

Based on those last two items there is absolutely no reason for you (or anyone) to call for the elimination, removal, deletion, outlawing (or whatever you want to call it) of Additional Logging Requirements on Geocaches. You, CoyoteRed, have the power within yourself to simply pass them by and cache where the caching is more to your liking. No one can take that power away from you.

 

Using that reasoning, why is it that gun, knife, and porno (GKP for short)caches are against the rules? They can be avoided if you don't like them, too.

 

By asking you "why can't you just avoid" caches, I'm asking you to prove that a person is unable to avoid caches they don't want to do. You haven't done so. No one has. I submit to you that it can't be proven.

 

By asking you "what's the harm" in the mere existence of GKP caches, I'm asking you to prove that a person -- any person -- is harmed by the very existence of a cache they can provably avoid. You haven't done so. No one has. I submit to you that it can't be proven.

 

Saying "you can avoid it if you don't like it" is not a valid reason for it to be allowed. You could avoid a porno cache, but that doesn't mean that they are OK. If Groundspeak used your logic, it wouldn't be against the rules to place one.

 

On another point, I do find this in the TOS:

 

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

It could be argued that because people have stated on this thread that the ALR in question is objectionable to them, that the ALR in question would then be against the TOS.

 

Or this from the page listing the benefits that premium members get for their $3 a month:

 

Member-Only Caches

 

Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches "subscriber only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out. (Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each cache is managed by their cache owner.)

 

It could be argued that by telling people with less than 99 finds that they are not allowed to log this PMO cache, that the cache owner is denying PM's from getting the benefits that they have paid for. It could be construed as breach of contract.

 

On the "ownership" issue-

 

The cache does belong to the hider. The cache PAGE, however, is the property of Groundspeak. Since the ALR in this case is not in question until the time to log it on the page, saying "he owns it" is incorrect.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

I don't want to get involved in the incredibly tedious point-by-point arguments here. And I will not respond to any. Instead, I think I can give a little perspective on why this issue seems so intractable.

 

I believe the arguments here revolve around exactly the same issue that has been central to the discussions of pocket caches, multiple find allowances, and other controversial logging behaviors.

 

Here's the problem: there are two groups of cachers, each of whom has a different definition of the meaning of the "found it" log.

  • Group A believes that a "found it" log is a record of a fact -- the fact that the cacher found the cache and signed the log.
  • Group B believes that a "found it" log is a reward that is given by the owner of the cache to seekers for finding their cache.

Unfortunately, those two definitions are not compatible. From the perspective of people in Group A, additional logging requirements make no sense. For people in Group B, lots of things seem natural, including additional logging requirements, multiple finds awarded to people who do extra tasks, giving finds when the seeker didn't actually find the cache, pocket caches, etc.

 

All the accusations about how people are trying to force their narrow vision of the game onto other people seem to always boil down to this single issue. In the case of additional logging requirements, people in Group A are not trying to force people in Group B to play any particular way; they just want to be able to use the website to record the fact that they found the cache. Of course, people in Group B see that desire as an attempt to dictate to the cache hider what they can and cannot do.

 

My impression is that Jeremy tends to fall closer to Group A than to Group B, but has chosen not to enforce either definition. My opinion is that the lack of a firm definition of the meaning of the "found it" log has created much conflict and angst over the past year or so, and the community would be well-served by having the issue clarified and settled once and for all.

Link to comment

I have read all the responses in this thread and REFUSE to get involved!

 

However.....I am going to call someone that CAN get involved!

 

LUKE! HEY LUKE! GET OVER HERE AND SOLVE SOMETHING FOR ME!

 

Luke is a good guy, but he has done stuff that makes me......HEAVE!

 

Go Luke! Be gentle Luke! LUKE, BE GENTLE!!!! too late.

 

:anibad:

Link to comment

Thank you, CR. I'm glad you finally decided to re-join the debate. You appear to have made an honest attempt to respond to my issue-critical questions (see the final quote/response of this post), and for that I thank you.

 

Don't be so full of yourself. I was recapping the major arguments and only threw yours in for good measure.

 

At this point our speculations as to the intended meaning of the statement are only that: speculations. Your speculation isn't worth any more than mine, which is zero.

Love this twist. Speculations are just that, sure. However, Jeremy's statement makes it crystal clear the statement certainly doesn't mean ALRs--no speculation necessary.

 

Here you are referring to folks who fail to read (or refuse to comply with) descriptions. That argument has been dismissed long ago.

No, you dismissed it as you can't counter it. I suspect even you can see the failure in logic in prohibiting folks from logging a legitimate find. Your answer is to avoid the cache in question, yet many folks have already pointed out this is not always possible with the way they cache. Your counter to that is basically they need to change the way they cache or "tough nuts."

 

I think it clear your position is indefensible otherwise you would have been able to come up with valid argument for ALRs and not non-sense about "what's the harm?" Because, really, what's "the harm" in simply asking for an additional activity and not deleting non-compliant logs?

Link to comment
Using that reasoning, why is it that gun, knife, and porno (GKP for short)caches are against the rules? They can be avoided if you don't like them, too. ...

These items are forbidden not because they might be found by geocachers, but because they might be found by non-cachers. A non-cacher finding an ALR cache does not present 'a danger to the game'.

Link to comment
... It could be argued that because people have stated on this thread that the ALR in question is objectionable to them, that the ALR in question would then be against the TOS. ...

The same could be said about micros, really hard puzzles, multis, caches that I can't find, caches hidden in or near cemetaries, et al. Do you really want to travel down that road?

Link to comment

I don't want to get involved in the incredibly tedious point-by-point arguments here. And I will not respond to any. Instead, I think I can give a little perspective on why this issue seems so intractable.

 

I believe the arguments here revolve around exactly the same issue that has been central to the discussions of pocket caches, multiple find allowances, and other controversial logging behaviors.

 

Here's the problem: there are two groups of cachers, each of whom has a different definition of the meaning of the "found it" log.

  • Group A believes that a "found it" log is a record of a fact -- the fact that the cacher found the cache and signed the log.
  • Group B believes that a "found it" log is a reward that is given by the owner of the cache to seekers for finding their cache.

...

While I agree with almost everything in your post, I believe that it is not as simple as you present it. People do not fall cleanly into one group or the other. In many past threads, we've seen people react differently to different situations related to logging caches as finds.

Link to comment
At this point our speculations as to the intended meaning of the statement are only that: speculations. Your speculation isn't worth any more than mine, which is zero.
Love this twist. Speculations are just that, sure. However, Jeremy's statement makes it crystal clear the statement certainly doesn't mean ALRs--no speculation necessary.
It's possible that you are correct that this is Jeremy's meaning. I disagree, however. I don't think Jeremy made it clear that Groundspeak is not going to sanction ALRs, but did not say that they were verboten. In fact, he made it clear that it was only his personal opinion that they were 'silly', just like it's my personal opinion that they are dumb. It doesn't mean I think they should be forbidden. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
At this point our speculations as to the intended meaning of the statement are only that: speculations. Your speculation isn't worth any more than mine, which is zero.
Love this twist. Speculations are just that, sure. However, Jeremy's statement makes it crystal clear the statement certainly doesn't mean ALRs--no speculation necessary.
It's possible that you are correct that this is Jeremy's meaning. I disagree, however. I don't think Jeremy made it clear that Groundspeak is not going to sanction ALRs, but did not say that they were verboten. In fact, he made it clear that it was only his personal opinion that they were 'silly', just like it's my personal opinion that they are dumb. It doesn't mean I think they should be forbidden.

 

What it does mean and the only point I was making was the fact that the "stated requirements" statement does not refer to ALRs. The site doesn't sanction ALRs therefore there would be no statement using them as a reason to delete a log.

 

No one has argued the statement meant that they are to be prohibited. It says the "stated requirements" statement is not a valid argument for ALRs.

 

In fact, there's not much of an argument for ALRs anywhere.

Link to comment
What it does mean and the only point I was making was the fact that the "stated requirements" statement does not refer to ALRs. The site doesn't sanction ALRs therefore there would be no statement using them as a reason to delete a log.

 

No one has argued the statement meant that they are to be prohibited. It says the "stated requirements" statement is not a valid argument for ALRs.

 

In fact, there's not much of an argument for ALRs anywhere.

I disagree.

 

First, you presume that 'stated requirements' only refers to requirements set forth in the guidelines. I present that an ALR is, by definition, a stated requirement.

 

Second, you frequently state that ALRs shouldn't exist because their only reason for existence is that they are believed by some to be fun and that they don't pose any harm to the game or it's players. I present that this is true of all caches. Therefore, no additional reason for ALRs is needed.

Link to comment
First, you presume that 'stated requirements' only refers to requirements set forth in the guidelines. I present that an ALR is, by definition, a stated requirement.

Except for the fact they are not sanctioned by the site.

 

Second, you frequently state that ALRs shouldn't exist because their only reason for existence is that they are believed by some to be fun and that they don't pose any harm to the game or it's players. I present that this is true of all caches. Therefore, no additional reason for ALRs is needed.

 

I'm not sure if you forgot a word or two, maybe some punctuation, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

If I read that statement the way I think you intended, then you're forgetting the fact a request would be just as much fun for those who want to participate. Stop trying to confuse the requested challenge with the deletion of the logs.

Link to comment
Using that reasoning, why is it that gun, knife, and porno (GKP for short)caches are against the rules? They can be avoided if you don't like them, too. ...

These items are forbidden not because they might be found by geocachers, but because they might be found by non-cachers. A non-cacher finding an ALR cache does not present 'a danger to the game'.

 

Perhaps those were poor examples. How about codeword caches, virtuals, etc? Those could have been avoided, and caused no harm to anybody, yet they were made to be against the rules.

 

KBI's assertion above is that if you can avoid the cache, then it is OK, it doesn't hurt you. My point is that just because you can avoid it doesn't necessarily make it OK.

Link to comment
First, you presume that 'stated requirements' only refers to requirements set forth in the guidelines. I present that an ALR is, by definition, a stated requirement.
Except for the fact they are not sanctioned by the site.
Perhaps our problem is with the definition of 'sanction'. Sanctioned is defined as having formal and explicit approval. Just because TPTB have not formally blessed ALRs, does not mean that they are verboten or that cache owners cannot set requirements for their own caches.

 

Second, you frequently state that ALRs shouldn't exist because their only reason for existence is that they are believed by some to be fun and that they don't pose any harm to the game or it's players. I present that this is true of all caches. Therefore, no additional reason for ALRs is needed.
I'm not sure if you forgot a word or two, maybe some punctuation, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

If I read that statement the way I think you intended, then you're forgetting the fact a request would be just as much fun for those who want to participate. Stop trying to confuse the requested challenge with the deletion of the logs.

First, I don't see any of my usual typos or grammatical errors, so get over it. Second, they are 'requirements' not 'requests' because the cache owner wishes them to be. How about you stick to my point, rather than tring to brush it off?

 

Using that reasoning, why is it that gun, knife, and porno (GKP for short)caches are against the rules? They can be avoided if you don't like them, too. ...
These items are forbidden not because they might be found by geocachers, but because they might be found by non-cachers. A non-cacher finding an ALR cache does not present 'a danger to the game'.
Perhaps those were poor examples. How about codeword caches, virtuals, etc? Those could have been avoided, and caused no harm to anybody, yet they were made to be against the rules

 

KBI's assertion above is that if you can avoid the cache, then it is OK, it doesn't hurt you. My point is that just because you can avoid it doesn't necessarily make it OK.

You're correct. The cache would not be OK, if it violated the guidelines. ALRs are not in violation of the guidelines. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
... It could be argued that because people have stated on this thread that the ALR in question is objectionable to them, that the ALR in question would then be against the TOS. ...

The same could be said about micros, really hard puzzles, multis, caches that I can't find, caches hidden in or near cemetaries, et al. Do you really want to travel down that road?

 

With the possible exception of cemetery caches, none of those on that list are considered objectionable by anybody that I have noticed. Annoying, frustrating, even irritating maybe, but not objectionable.

 

Taken in context, they are referring to things which are offensive in nature due to being racist, insulting, or otherwise discriminatory. Cemetary caches, etc. are none of those. This one, however, is being objected to for exactly that reason- it discriminates against those with fewer than a certain number of caches.

Link to comment
... It could be argued that because people have stated on this thread that the ALR in question is objectionable to them, that the ALR in question would then be against the TOS. ...

The same could be said about micros, really hard puzzles, multis, caches that I can't find, caches hidden in or near cemetaries, et al. Do you really want to travel down that road?

 

With the possible exception of cemetery caches, none of those on that list are considered objectionable by anybody that I have noticed. Annoying, frustrating, even irritating maybe, but not objectionable.

 

Taken in context, they are referring to things which are offensive in nature due to being racist, insulting, or otherwise discriminatory. Cemetary caches, etc. are none of those. This one, however, is being objected to for exactly that reason- it discriminates against those with fewer than a certain number of caches.

Micros discriminate against those who like quality caches.

Really hard caches discriminate against those who can't solve them.

Multis discriminate against those who don't like multis.

Caches that I can't find discriminate against me.

Caches in or near cemetaries discriminate against SC legislators.

 

BTW, 'objectionable' is defined as 'causing disapproval or protest'. We could just shut the website down if we were going to remove all caches that someone found objectionable.

Edited by sbell111
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...