Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

You missed my point. I was referring to KBI's post above:

 

QUOTE(KBI @ Oct 8 2006, 08:37 PM) *

 

 

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.

 

His assertion is that if a cache can be avoided, and that they can't be harmed if they avoid it, then they are therefore OK and there is "absolutely no reason for you (or anyone) to call for the elimination, removal, deletion, outlawing (or whatever you want to call it)".

 

My point is that virtuals, codewords, etc, could have been avoided, and caused no harm to anyone if they avoided it. Yet they were both at one time allowed, and now they aren't. Therefore, the "You can avoid it" argument for allowing a cache is irreleveant. Past practice shows us that even caches that can be avoided are sometimes deemed not OK.

Link to comment
His assertion is that if a cache can be avoided, and that they can't be harmed if they avoid it, then they are therefore OK and there is "absolutely no reason for you (or anyone) to call for the elimination, removal, deletion, outlawing (or whatever you want to call it)".

 

My point is that virtuals, codewords, etc, could have been avoided, and caused no harm to anyone if they avoided it. Yet they were both at one time allowed, and now they aren't. Therefore, the "You can avoid it" argument for allowing a cache is irreleveant. Past practice shows us that even caches that can be avoided are sometimes deemed not OK.

KBI has also added the issue of whether a cache meets the guidelines. He may not have stated that in the particular post you responded to, but he has in previous posts in this thread.

 

I think we all agree that caches that do not meet the guidelines should not be listed.

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.

 

LOL! You are kind stretching there :anibad:

 

Discriminate:

# To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

 

I don't care for Diet Pepsi, maybe you do. That doesn't mean that Pepsi Cola company is discriminating against me, though. Now, if they told me that I wasn't allowed to buy it because I have brown eyes, that would be discrimination.

 

I know what the defenition of Objectional is, as I said before, it needs to be taken in context.

Link to comment
His assertion is that if a cache can be avoided, and that they can't be harmed if they avoid it, then they are therefore OK and there is "absolutely no reason for you (or anyone) to call for the elimination, removal, deletion, outlawing (or whatever you want to call it)".

 

My point is that virtuals, codewords, etc, could have been avoided, and caused no harm to anyone if they avoided it. Yet they were both at one time allowed, and now they aren't. Therefore, the "You can avoid it" argument for allowing a cache is irreleveant. Past practice shows us that even caches that can be avoided are sometimes deemed not OK.

KBI has also added the issue of whether a cache meets the guidelines. He may not have stated that in the particular post you responded to, but he has in previous posts in this thread.

 

I think we all agree that caches that do not meet the guidelines should not be listed.

 

You still miss my point. (perhaps intentionally?)

 

The point is that at one time not all that long ago, both codeword and virtual caches were allowed. Now thay are not.

 

If TPTB used his logic of "you can avoid it" then they would still be allowed.

Link to comment
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'm not sure if you forgot a word or two, maybe some punctuation, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.
First, I don't see any of my usual typos or grammatical errors, so get over it.

 

To paraphrase and change perspective to first person meaning me, "I 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." :anibad: I've never said any such thing. Who would have said "this shouldn't exist because it fun?"

 

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?

 

That is the point. If you change "requirement" to "request" all of the fun is still there for everyone except maybe the fun for the owner to delete logs.

Link to comment

Sbel111-

 

After re-reading our latest exchange, I think I see where our miscommunication is.

 

I am not arguing against all ALR caches. Just this one.

 

I think that ALR caches are fine in general. My issue is with this one in particular. I feel that this one by not allowing people with less than a certaikn number of finds to log it crosses the line between "annoying to people that don't like these kind of caches" and "discriminatory against people that don't have many finds".

Link to comment

CR- You ceratinaly have railed that ALRs should not exist and that the reasons given of 'fun' and 'they don't cause harm' are not good enough reasons for their existance. I submit that these are the only reasons for any caches to exist. Therefore, to insist that additional reasons to support the existance of ALRs is not necessary.

 

Feel free to correct any typos that you find, but don't try to sidestep the issue this time.

Link to comment
Sbel111-

 

After re-reading our latest exchange, I think I see where our miscommunication is.

 

I am not arguing against all ALR caches. Just this one.

 

I think that ALR caches are fine in general. My issue is with this one in particular. I feel that this one by not allowing people with less than a certaikn number of finds to log it crosses the line between "annoying to people that don't like these kind of caches" and "discriminatory against people that don't have many finds".

I think we are in agreement. In my post on the first page, I asked for opinions of potential ALRs that I felt would be over the line and that I hoped would not be listed. The post was largely ignored.

Link to comment

Hmmm... The "fun" factor.

 

Lets explore that in the cotext of this cache.

 

Does the 99 find requirement make this cache any more fun for people with more than 99 finds?

 

Nope. The requirement doesn't even apply to them. This would just be another cache.

 

Does the 99 find requirement make this cache any more fun for people with less than 99 finds?

 

I don't think so. Being told "you are not allowed to play yet" is never fun.

 

How about somebody with exactly 99 finds?

 

Maybe, I guess. But it wouldn't be any less fun if the cache was just called "Century cache" and the threat of deletion was left out.

 

I would suspect that if somebody wants to do a special cache for a milestone, however, that they would choose a cache that is particularly "good" to them based on the cache itself and not just a plain old cache with a silly exclusion on the page in an attempt to make itself sound better.

 

The only people I really see getting any "fun" out of making it a requifrement Vs. a request are the cache owner, because he gets to use the delete button "Whee! I pusha da button and da post it goes 'poof!'" And forum posters like us that love any excuse for a debate. :anibad:

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.

 

You must be joking. There have been numerous threads of people objecting to micros, really hard puzzle, mulits, caches that I can't find (because the hint is useless, the coords are bad, the cache was misrated, etc.) and caches hidden in cemetaries. I find the observation that the ALR in the OP discriminates somewhat bogus itself. It provides a goal that, given time, any geocacher living in the area where the cache is hidden can a achive. Some may be able to find 99 caches in a week, others may take a few months, and there are certainly many people who have a life outside of geocaching who might takes years to find 99 caches. But it is certainly a doable task. A requirement that asks for the finder to do something unreasonable would not make a very fun ALR. I can only comprehend the objection to the ALR in light of fizzymagic's observation that some cachers view the online find as a record that you found the cache and signed the log and nothing else. Since the coords for the OP are given, anyone can go and find this caches and sign the log. The ALR only restricts the online log. Therefore, if you are a type A person any ALR that is enforced by deleting logs is bogus.

Link to comment

CR- You ceratinaly have railed that ALRs should not exist and that the reasons given of 'fun' and 'they don't cause harm' are not good enough reasons for their existance. I submit that these are the only reasons for any caches to exist. Therefore, to insist that additional reasons to support the existance of ALRs is not necessary.

 

Feel free to correct any typos that you find, but don't try to sidestep the issue this time.

 

No, I've said "because they are fun" and "they do no harm" are not justification for deletion of legitimate logs.

 

First of all, "because they are fun" refers to the challenge, not the deletion of the log. I'm not sure how "fun" can legitimately be tied to "log deletion."

 

Second, "do no harm" has been shown to be false because folks will end up with finds they can't log for whatever reason.

 

Quite frankly, I could turn that "do no harm" right around on you and submit that if this site does prohibit ALRs then what harm would it be? All they have to say is you can't delete a log on a legitimate find for reason of non-compliance of some arbitrary additional challenge. The fun of the challenge is still there. Folks can still write a poem, phoon, wear a silly hat, or whatever. That's not changed. So, what's the harm?

Link to comment

I agree that the ALR on the specific cache that spawned this thread is lame. I suspect that it is a run-of-the-mill cache trying to be special, but that doesn't mean it should be disallowed.

 

There is probably a line that would need to be drawn to ensure that caches don't discriminate against any group of cachers, but I don't think this cache is a good example of a cache that discriminates any more than a cache on top of a mountain would be.

Link to comment

Since my post on Saturday was mostly ignored, I'll repeat it here for everyone, before going over it individually:

 

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.

 

I'll also add the following:

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

You can find the rest here.

 

Thanks for your cooperation.

Link to comment
... Quite frankly, I could turn that "do no harm" right around on you and submit that if this site does prohibit ALRs then what harm would it be? All they have to say is you can't delete a log on a legitimate find for reason of non-compliance of some arbitrary additional challenge. The fun of the challenge is still there. Folks can still write a poem, phoon, wear a silly hat, or whatever. That's not changed. So, what's the harm?

I would turn that right around and say that they could do away with any caches taht are not near parking. After all, if you want to find a cache that requires a long walk, park farther away. So, what's the harm?

 

Your argument doesn't hold up given that this is a voluntary game that we play. No one is required to look for any cache.

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.

 

You must be joking. There have been numerous threads of people objecting to micros, really hard puzzle, mulits, caches that I can't find (because the hint is useless, the coords are bad, the cache was misrated, etc.) and caches hidden in cemetaries.

 

That is taking the term "offensive" outside of the context of the TOS.

 

Those objections were all based in "I don't like that". "I don't like micros" "I don't like really hard puzzles", etc. Not offensive due to being racist, insulting, or discriminatory.

 

Whether or not the requirement in this cache is discriminatory is somewhat debatable. Personally, I feel it is. Other people have said the same. Some people, like yourself, feel differently.

 

Earlier I brought up a silly example of a "no fat chicks" cache, where ladies over a certain weight would have their log deleted. Some ladies would be able to log it right away. Others might take a week, months or years to get down to the maximumm allowable weight. Would that be allowed, or would it be discriminatory? Personally, I would feel it was discriminatory.

Link to comment

Hmmm... The "fun" factor.

 

Lets explore that in the cotext of this cache.

 

Does the 99 find requirement make this cache any more fun for people with more than 99 finds?

 

Nope. The requirement doesn't even apply to them. This would just be another cache.

 

Does the 99 find requirement make this cache any more fun for people with less than 99 finds?

 

I don't think so. Being told "you are not allowed to play yet" is never fun.

 

How about somebody with exactly 99 finds?

 

Maybe, I guess. But it wouldn't be any less fun if the cache was just called "Century cache" and the threat of deletion was left out.

 

I would suspect that if somebody wants to do a special cache for a milestone, however, that they would choose a cache that is particularly "good" to them based on the cache itself and not just a plain old cache with a silly exclusion on the page in an attempt to make itself sound better.

 

The only people I really see getting any "fun" out of making it a requifrement Vs. a request are the cache owner, because he gets to use the delete button "Whee! I pusha da button and da post it goes 'poof!'" And forum posters like us that love any excuse for a debate. :anibad:

 

I find Delorme Challenge puzzles to be not fun. I have to go and find certain caches before the cache owner will even send me the coordinates. And those caches require me to travel to some very remote parts of my state. Given the price of gas that is just an unreasonable burden to find this cache.

 

I just don't but the argument that the original ALR is discriminatory.

Link to comment

 

I just don't but the argument that the original ALR is discriminatory.

 

I'm sorry, you lost me here?

 

BTW, Quiggle- What are we doing wrong? I thought we were being good now. I don't mean to argue, I just am not sure where we are failing to follow the rules.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
... Quite frankly, I could turn that "do no harm" right around on you and submit that if this site does prohibit ALRs then what harm would it be? All they have to say is you can't delete a log on a legitimate find for reason of non-compliance of some arbitrary additional challenge. The fun of the challenge is still there. Folks can still write a poem, phoon, wear a silly hat, or whatever. That's not changed. So, what's the harm?

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

 

I would turn that right around and say that they could do away with any caches with a high difficulty. After all, if you want to find a cache that requires a long walk, park farther away. So, what's the harm?

 

Your argument doesn't hold up given that this is a voluntary game that we play. No one is required to look for any cache.

 

Thank you!

 

So we are agreeing that "what harm does it do" is not a valid argument for the existence of ALRs. I would think it is also not be a valid argument against prohibiting them.

 

OTOH, considering we are pursuing this activity then when we do find a cache with an ALR and are unable or unwilling to comply then we now have a find we can't log. The find count is now off--not that it matters in the grand scheme, but it certainly can for those who want their own history accurate. We now have a valid argument against ALRs.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
... OTOH, considering we are pursuing this activity then when we do find a cache with an ALR and are unable or unwilling to comply then we now have a find we can't log. The find count is now off--not that it matters in the grand scheme, but it certainly can for those who want their own history accurate. We now have a valid argument against ALRs.

Your count would be off due to actions that you chose to take. You chose to either not read the cache description or to ignore it. I don't see that as a valid argument against anything except failing to read the description.

Link to comment

Does the 99 find requirement make this cache any more fun for people with less than 99 finds?

 

I don't think so. Being told "you are not allowed to play yet" is never fun.

Yes, it does make it more fun. The intent of this cache is clearly to give people something to look forward to for their century find. It's a goal that the cache owner created that he hoped other people would embrace and add to their caching experience.

 

The intent is clearly stated in the description, the warning not to find it with less than 99 finds or the log is deleted is clearly stated in the description, so there won't be any surprises.

 

Just because this isn't something that YOU think is fun doesn't mean that other poeple won't LOVE it.

Link to comment

I disagree- I don't see how being told you are not allowed to play is a whole lot of fun, but I was on a bit of a tangent with that post anyways. The fun factor is really irrelevant.

 

I just noticed- 888 posts! Isn't that like 1/3 more evil than 666? :anibad:

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

The OP asked that this thread be closed twice.

 

... 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

 

and again in post #377

 

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.

 

It seems like if we can't close our own threads the mods would do it when asked!

 

This thread is embarrassing drivel... it is exactly why everyone I know tells cachers, especially the newbies that need the forums the most, to stay out of here!

 

I can't imagine that anyone cares beside the few participants, or that anyone will change their ways despite any resolutions, decrees or agreements that might one day be reached here.

 

Let it go, as the OP asked.

 

Ed

Link to comment
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.

 

It seems like if we can't close our own threads the mods would do it when asked!

 

Mods can't read every post in every thread, Ed. If someone were to hit the [REPORT] button (whether it's the OP, or you, if you spot anymore), this sort of thing can be handled quicker. I've done it for people who have sent me a PM or email directly.

 

I'm currently working on steering the topic back to the center line. With a little cooperation, I just might do it. If I don't get the cooperation, it'll be a little quieter in here for a couple of days.

 

:anibad:

Link to comment

Hmmm... The "fun" factor.

 

Lets explore that in the cotext of this cache.

 

Does the 99 find requirement make this cache any more fun for people with more than 99 finds?

 

Nope. The requirement doesn't even apply to them. This would just be another cache.

 

Does the 99 find requirement make this cache any more fun for people with less than 99 finds?

 

I don't think so. Being told "you are not allowed to play yet" is never fun.

 

How about somebody with exactly 99 finds?

 

Maybe, I guess.

Irrelevant speculation.

 

Who are you to say what others will find entertaining? Who am I to claim that I know what you will find entertaining, or vice versa?

 

Have you conducted a scientific poll on a statistically significant number of cachers?

 

I think any arbitrary, contrived goal -- especially those which can't be easily bypassed in order to claim the find -- set up for the purpose of entertainment, will find takers who are willing to rise to the occasion. EVERY geocache meets this description. Solve the puzzle, swim to the island, locate the stages, crack the camouflage, sign the logbook, comply with whatever goals the owner requires of you -- and proudly claim a find! The only reason for making an ALR a requirement instead of a request is to keep it in that category: those challenges which can't be easily bypassed in order to claim the find.

 

Changing an ALR to a request would be the equivalent of making any of those other challenges optional.

 

"Note: The 'hunt' for this cache is optional. The ammo can is sitting in a clearing next to a large day-glo orange 'HERE IT IS' sign. If you prefer something more challenging, please make a few circles around the ammo can first while pretending not to see it yet."

Nobody is required to take on any of those challenges. It's all voluntary.

Link to comment

True, in the first post he did ask for the thread to be locked.

 

In the second, though, he gave permission for it to stay open. If it got off on mudslinging or obscure debating points, thenhe would want it locked again.

 

Just as a re-cap, we seem to have several stances here:

 

Some people feel that ALL ALR caches are cool, and they should be enforced by deleting the found logs if neccesary.

 

Some feel that some of them are dumb, but the owner should be able to delete non-compliant logs if they want.

 

Some feel that it is fine to have the ALR, but that logs should not be deleted for non-comliance. The "find is a find" crowd.

 

Some feel that ALRs should not be allowed at all.

 

Did I miss any?

 

I don't seem to fit in any category myself. I feel that ALR's in general are ok, but I don't like the idea of deleting logs for non-compliance. On the other hand, I feel that ALR's that are discriminatory or exclusionary in nature should not be allowed at all.

Link to comment

Irrelevant speculation.

 

Who are you to say what others will find entertaining? Who am I to claim that I know what you will find entertaining, or vice versa?

 

Have you conducted a scientific poll on a statistically significant number of cachers?

 

 

C'mon KBI... use some common sense. Now you are clearly picking nits.

Link to comment

I think the fun issue should probably be ignored. If any of the potential finders think the ALR is fun, it should pass the 'fun' test.

 

FWIW, I fall into Docapi's second category and I also think that any ALR's that are discriminatory or exclusionary in nature should not be allowed at all. However, I think we likely disagree as to which caches should be considered 'discriminatory or exclusionary in nature'. For instance, I think the cache that sparked this thread should be allowed.

Link to comment
This thread is embarrassing drivel... it is exactly why everyone I know tells cachers, especially the newbies that need the forums the most, to stay out of here!

 

I can't imagine that anyone cares beside the few participants, or that anyone will change their ways despite any resolutions, decrees or agreements that might one day be reached here.

 

Let it go, as the OP asked.

At the risk of alienating any friends I might have left in here ...

 

Some feel, quite strongly, that the existence ALRs is OK. Would you deny them the right to reasonably defend their positions?

 

Others feel, to varing degrees and for various reasons, that something should be done to get rid ALRs. Would you deny them the right to reasonably defend their positions?

 

I may eventually become convinced that my position is wrong. Same with everyone else in here. This is a valuable discussion, and, coupled with reason, common sense and fair moderation, it might very well ultimately produce something of value to all of us.

 

If the thread gets shut down, on the other hand, then such a solution will only be less likely to ever appear.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
Changing an ALR to a request would be the equivalent of making any of those other challenges optional.

 

You're right and they are.

 

As has already been outlined elsewhere, you can intuit the location of a puzzle, short a multi, stumble over the cache, cheat, be told the location, or a whole list of other ways of bypassing the challenges set in front of signing the log, yet it is still a find. A find is a find. Period.

 

That's not to say those challenges should be removed, that it means the way to bypass it should be listed in the description, or certain forms of bypassing not be frowned upon. It simply means those challenges are optional and once you sign the logbook the find is legitimate.

Link to comment

Hmmm... The "fun" factor.

 

Irrelevant speculation.

 

 

True. That is exactly what I said about that post myself about half an hour before you posted.

Sorry. I'm slow today. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

These needles are getting harder to spot in this rapidly growing haystack. :anibad:

Link to comment
Changing an ALR to a request would be the equivalent of making any of those other challenges optional.

 

You're right and they are.

 

As has already been outlined elsewhere, you can intuit the location of a puzzle, short a multi, stumble over the cache, cheat, be told the location, or a whole list of other ways of bypassing the challenges set in front of signing the log, yet it is still a find. A find is a find. Period.

 

That's not to say those challenges should be removed, that it means the way to bypass it should be listed in the description, or certain forms of bypassing not be frowned upon. It simply means those challenges are optional and once you sign the logbook the find is legitimate.

That is fine for 'those types of caches' (I can only assume that you mean puzzles and multis), but it has little to do with ALRs. When you firmly state "You're right and they are.", you are really just giving your opinion. No matter how firmly you state it, it's still only your opinion.

 

Your opinion alone has not been sufficient to sway others to your side in this thread. Please give us more than that.

Link to comment

 

Have you conducted a scientific poll on a statistically significant number of cachers?

 

 

I asked my wife, my mother-in-law, my sister, and my brother-in-law if they thought the requirement in this cache added to the fun.

 

The response was was 4 votes for "no" and 0 votes for "yes".

 

Therefore, I can say that my scientific poll shows that 100% of people (with a 98% margin of error) don't feel it adds to the fun.

 

I couldn't resist.:anibad:

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

All arguing about how each other argues aside for a minute, I'd like to summarize my position in this debate.

 

ALR's are allowed and ok. Some are even cool. It's ALR's that discriminate against a class of geocachers that are not cool.

 

Deleting someone's log when they actually laid hands on a cache and signed the log is not cool. There are a few exceptions-most would be spoilers or inapppropriate comments left in the log.

 

That is my opinion.

Link to comment
Changing an ALR to a request would be the equivalent of making any of those other challenges optional.

 

You're right and they are.

 

As has already been outlined elsewhere, you can intuit the location of a puzzle, short a multi, stumble over the cache, cheat, be told the location, or a whole list of other ways of bypassing the challenges set in front of signing the log, yet it is still a find.

One might also get similar help in complying with a logging requirement.

 

I don't think the existence of a loophole, or a way to cheat, is a valid standard for whether a type of cache should be allowed. Why should every cache need a back door to be acceptable?

 

 

That's not to say those challenges should be removed, that it means the way to bypass it should be listed in the description, or certain forms of bypassing not be frowned upon. It simply means those challenges are optional and once you sign the logbook the find is legitimate.

Again, you draw a line at the logbook, and I say that's just as arbitrary a place to draw the line as any other.

Link to comment

 

Have you conducted a scientific poll on a statistically significant number of cachers?

 

 

I asked my wife, my mother-in-law, my sister, and my brother-in-law if they thought the requirement in this cache added to the fun.

 

The response was was 4 votes for "no" and 0 votes for "yes".

 

Therefore, I can say that my scientific poll shows that 100% of people (with a 98% margin of error) don't feel it adds to the fun. :anibad:

Has anyone identified the cache in question? Did the logs read as if people had fun?

Link to comment
ALR's are allowed and ok. Some are even cool. It's ALR's that discriminate against a class of geocachers that are not cool.

You make an excellent point. These are two separate questions.

 

My libertarian philosophy leads me to remind you, however, that ALL caching is voluntary, and that you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache.

Link to comment

 

My libertarian philosophy leads me to remind you, however, that ALL caching is voluntary, and that you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache.

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that thinking. By that logic, Rosa Parks didn't give the bus driver the power to discriminate against her until she chose to get on that bus.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

It looks like nearly everyone that has contributed to this thread has agreed that ALRs shouldn't be disallowed. I suspect that if we were also able to agree on a break point between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' ALRs that we would be able to come to an agreement on whether the cache owner should be able to delete logs of cachers who ignore their requirements.

Link to comment

 

My libertarian philosophy leads me to remind you, however, that ALL caching is voluntary, and that you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache.

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that thinking. By that logic, Rosa Parks was not discriminated against until she Chose to get on that bus.

I actually agree with Docapi on this one. Of course, my political bent is not very libertarian.

Link to comment

 

My libertarian philosophy leads me to remind you, however, that ALL caching is voluntary, and that you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache.

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that thinking. By that logic, Rosa Parks didn't give the bus driver the power to discriminate against her until she chose to get on that bus.

How could the bus driver have ever tried to tell her to sit in the back if she hadn't gotten on the bus?

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.

And I was thanking you for the fact that you had made an attempt to respond to mine.

Link to comment

Hmmm... The "fun" factor.

 

Lets explore that in the cotext of this cache.

 

Does the 99 find requirement make this cache any more fun for people with more than 99 finds?

 

Nope. The requirement doesn't even apply to them. This would just be another cache.

 

Does the 99 find requirement make this cache any more fun for people with less than 99 finds?

 

I don't think so. Being told "you are not allowed to play yet" is never fun.

 

How about somebody with exactly 99 finds?

 

Maybe, I guess.

Irrelevant speculation.

 

Who are you to say what others will find entertaining? Who am I to claim that I know what you will find entertaining, or vice versa?

 

Have you conducted a scientific poll on a statistically significant number of cachers?

 

I think any arbitrary, contrived goal -- especially those which can't be easily bypassed in order to claim the find -- set up for the purpose of entertainment, will find takers who are willing to rise to the occasion. EVERY geocache meets this description. Solve the puzzle, swim to the island, locate the stages, crack the camouflage, sign the logbook, comply with whatever goals the owner requires of you -- and proudly claim a find! The only reason for making an ALR a requirement instead of a request is to keep it in that category: those challenges which can't be easily bypassed in order to claim the find.

 

Changing an ALR to a request would be the equivalent of making any of those other challenges optional.

 

"Note: The 'hunt' for this cache is optional. The ammo can is sitting in a clearing next to a large day-glo orange 'HERE IT IS' sign. If you prefer something more challenging, please make a few circles around the ammo can first while pretending not to see it yet."

Nobody is required to take on any of those challenges. It's all voluntary.

Adding logging requirements should change the cache type from traditional to puzzle. With a traditional cache, you go to the coords and find the cache. With a puzzle, there are any number of things you must do to find the cache. ALR's fit this description much better.

Link to comment

 

My libertarian philosophy leads me to remind you, however, that ALL caching is voluntary, and that you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache.

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that thinking. By that logic, Rosa Parks didn't give the bus driver the power to discriminate against her until she chose to get on that bus.

How could the bus driver have ever tried to tell her to sit in the back if she hadn't gotten on the bus?

 

Are you KIDDING me???? :anibad::D:D;):D

 

This analogy is like blaming the rape victim because she CHOSE to leave the house and happened to walk by where the rapist was hiding in wait. Give me a FREAKIN' BREAK. :D:D:D

Link to comment

 

My libertarian philosophy leads me to remind you, however, that ALL caching is voluntary, and that you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache.

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that thinking. By that logic, Rosa Parks didn't give the bus driver the power to discriminate against her until she chose to get on that bus.

How could the bus driver have ever tried to tell her to sit in the back if she hadn't gotten on the bus?

 

Are you KIDDING me???? :anibad::D:D;):D

 

This analogy is like blaming the rape victim because she CHOSE to leave the house and happened to walk by where the rapist was hiding in wait. Give me a FREAKIN' BREAK. :D:D:D

It's not my analogy. I don't think it's a very good analagy to the topic myself, I was just asking a question about it. I don't think the rape analogy is very good either.

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...