Jump to content

Non-PM Trying To Log PMO Cache As FTF; Sheesh.


WebChimp
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

STAGE ONE: The owner of a new cache made it Premium Members Only. So far, so good.

 

STAGE TWO: A group of cachers got together and went looking for it. Some of them were PMs, some were not.

 

STAGE THREE: The guy who actually laid hands on it first wasn't a PM. He found it, signed the log book, and then went and claimed FTF on the published listing by using the backdoor method. The cache owner had been pretty specific that this was a PMO cache.

 

STAGE FOUR: The cache owner deletes the log, and adds a note that since it's a PMO cache, only a PM should be able to claim FTF.

 

The non-PM players logs it again. Repeatedly. Frequently. The cache owner deletes the log each time.

 

STAGE FIVE: The non-PM goes and pays the PM fee at GC.Com, become a PM (after the initial unsuccessful attempts to log the cache), and now continues trying to log the cache as FTF. The cache owner continues to delete the log each time it pops up, because the player wasn't a PM when he found it. So far, there have been over 25 attempts to log this cache.

 

SO, THE QUESTION: PMs show the cache listing to a non-PM player, a non-PM player finds it first; is his attempt to log it on the listing ethically valid, or should he leave it alone since he didn't follow the cache owner's rules?

Link to comment
SO, THE QUESTION: PMs show the cache listing to a non-PM player, a non-PM player finds it first; is his attempt to log it on the listing ethically valid, or should he leave it alone since he didn't follow the cache owner's rules?

The cache finder is fine. The cache owner is a bozo.

Link to comment

We have gone caching with non PMs a few times.... I think if we happened to hit a PMO cache while we were out it would be unfair for the owner to delete the non-PM's find log. We probably wouldn't even know it was PMO until we got back home to log it, as CacheMate doesn't flag or specify PMO caches to my knowledge. There was a topic on the forums where a parent was the PM and his two young children had their own non-PM accounts-- I don't have a link to it, but the overall feeling on the forums was that the kids should be able to log the caches they found with their PM dad.... after all, they did find them!

 

PMO cache descriptions and coords are visible to only PM members, but the caches themselves are findable by just about anyone (even muggles). So to deny someone who actually found the cache (and signed the log) of their find is, IMHO, wrong. If I was the owner, I'd allow the find ;) .

Link to comment

It all depends....are the Owner and Non-PM/PM FTF'r (looks like algebra) aware that there are starveing people in the world and there are more important things to squabble over?

 

Hmmm..... Good question. I don't have a dog in this hunt, but am aware of it (it's on my watch list) because my email box has been filling up with "cache has been logged" notices.

 

I may shoot an email to one or the other and inquire as to whether or not they have been keeping up with the hungry vs adequately-fed ratio for the world.

Link to comment

While you are at it, ask the cache owner why he's being so obstinant.

 

I think they're both rooted on standing by a principle or a mental standard for how things should be, and they have differetn perspectives. When the finder rubbed the owner's nose in it in local caching forums, I don't think it helped matters. But, that doesn't change the original scenario.

 

I think they're both good guys, they're both just entrenched, and each believes he's right in his position.

 

(sigh)

 

I may just take it off my watch list, I need to free up some time. Now I'm that all worried about the starving people in the world, I don't have time for anything else. I just hope nobody also mentions Iraq, the school shootings this week, or the mayor of Jackson, Miss. I can only worry about so many things at once.

Link to comment

It's a shame.

  • Shame on the PMs who allowed the non-PMs to accompany them on the hunt. What part of "Premium Members Only" do they not understand?
  • Shame on the non-PMs for searching for and logging the PMO cache without prior permission from the owner. What part of "Premium Members Only" do they not understand?
  • It's a shame this incident became a battle of the wills. It probably could have been resolved amicably with a little diplomacy. The owner certainly had the "right" to delete the non-PM logs, and could (perhaps would) have permitted the FTF claim to stand once the finder had paid the fee; but it was probably a matter of principle to him by that time. Too bad.

Link to comment

It's a shame.

[*]It's a shame this incident became a battle of the wills. It probably could have been resolved amicably with a little diplomacy. The owner certainly had the "right" to delete the non-PM logs, and could (perhaps would) have permitted the FTF claim to stand once the finder had paid the fee; but it was probably a matter of principle to him by that time. Too bad.

 

I think you're right on all counts. A good assessment of the situation, indeed.

 

So, when do the cache owner's rules for finding a cache have weight?

 

If one places a cache, and specifies certain conditions (i.e., PM only for FTF, must email me with info to claim the log, etc.) in the listing, do those conditions have any weight to them at all, or is it more of a "I found it, that's all that counts" thing?

Link to comment
I think you're right on all counts. A good assessment of the situation, indeed.

 

So, when do the cache owner's rules for finding a cache have weight?

 

If one places a cache, and specifies certain conditions (i.e., PM only for FTF, must email me with info to claim the log, etc.) in the listing, do those conditions have any weight to them at all, or is it more of a "I found it, that's all that counts" thing?

Interesting question.

 

At the time the cache was listed, did it have a note in the description declaring that non-PM finds will be deleted?

Link to comment

Interesting question.

At the time the cache was listed, did it have a note in the description declaring that non-PM finds will be deleted?

 

No, it did not. I went back and looked at the listing, and the only limitation the listing showed was PMO.

 

I get the idea (and this is an assumption on my part) the owner had the impression that making it PMO meant only PMs could log it until the the PMO status was removed.

 

Had the listing specified "non-PM logs will be deleted", would it have carried any weight? (This is a question I'm asking for myself. I'm still learning.)

Edited by WebChimp
Link to comment

Interesting question.

At the time the cache was listed, did it have a note in the description declaring that non-PM finds will be deleted?

 

No, it did not. I went back and looked at the listing, and the only limitation the listing showed was PMO.

 

I get the idea (and this is an assumption on my part) the owner had the impression that making it PMO meant only PMs could log it until the the PMO status was removed.

His impression does not an ALR create.

Link to comment
Had the listing specified "non-PM logs will be deleted", would it have carried any weight?

That depends. It's the cache owner's right to delete any log that they don't agree with, regardless of what's posted on the cache page, Groundspeak is nothing more than a listing service. The cache itself belongs to the person who hid it, and any rules attached to the cache, (posted or not), exist at the cache owner's discretion. For instance, I could create a cache, then delete any "found" logs that didn't contain the letter "Z". It would be within my rights as a cache owner.

 

If you wonder what your rights are as related to geocaching, read the Geocachers Bill of Rights.

 

That being said, I think the find was legitimate, and the owner should allow the first person to find it to claim the FTF. By not allowing it, he's setting a terrible example for the community at large, and demonstrating his level of immaturity. If this was something I was involved in, I would contact all the other finders, asking that they post snarky comments to the effect of, "Claiming Second To Find. FTF goes to __________" <~~ insert cacher's name here.

Link to comment

Oh man, this is FUNNY!!! It's amazing how excited people get over nothing. I'm guessing the cache owner leads a pretty boring life.

PM is BS anyway... I agree with it for the services on the website, but do NOT think caches and geocachers should make any distictions. It sets up stupid arguments like this one.

Link to comment

It's the cache owner's right to delete any log that they don't agree with, regardless of what's posted on the cache page

 

But to be fair to all concerned, a reasonable person should expect any constraints to be in the listing?

 

If you wonder what your rights are as related to geocaching, read the Geocachers Bill of Rights.

 

Somebody had fun writing that. Thanks.

 

By not allowing it, he's setting a terrible example for the community at large

 

I think that concurs with what seems to be the dominant opinion.

 

Putting all this together, what I get is this: The cache owner can do whatever he wishes with his cache, can have any stipulations he desires, and that's okay, as long as it's spelled out in the cache listing so his intetn is obvious. Owners should make no assumptions about what others may think. And, don't take it all too seriously.

 

Does that about sum it up? (And thanks for the answers....)

Link to comment
Putting all this together, what I get is this: The cache owner can do whatever he wishes with his cache, can have any stipulations he desires, and that's okay, as long as it's spelled out in the cache listing so his intetn is obvious. Owners should make no assumptions about what others may think. And, don't take it all too seriously.

 

Does that about sum it up? (And thanks for the answers....)

Some would disagree with 'The cache owner can do whatever he wishes with his cache, can have any stipulations he desires, and that's okay, as long as it's spelled out in the cache listing so his intetn is obvious'.
Link to comment

At the time the cache was listed, did it have a note in the description declaring that non-PM finds will be deleted?

It doesn't matter whether it did or didn't. Remember the OP stated,
The guy who actually laid hands on it first wasn't a PM. He found it, signed the log book, and then went and claimed FTF on the published listing by using the backdoor method.
If he had played the game as intended by the listing service, he would not have been able to log it online in the first place, and the point would be moot. I think it is a reasonable assumption that people will use the listing service as intended and only PMs will log finds for PMO caches. It shouldn't have to be stated in the cache description.
Link to comment
At the time the cache was listed, did it have a note in the description declaring that non-PM finds will be deleted?
It doesn't matter whether it did or didn't. Remember the OP stated,
The guy who actually laid hands on it first wasn't a PM. He found it, signed the log book, and then went and claimed FTF on the published listing by using the backdoor method.
If he had played the game as intended by the listing service, he would not have been able to log it online in the first place, and the point would be moot. I think it is a reasonable assumption that people will use the listing service as intended and only PMs will log finds for PMO caches. It shouldn't have to be stated in the cache description.

TPTB are fully aware of this logging method and have given it their blessing. Therefore, I don't think we can presume that the listing service is not being used as intended.

 

The reason I asked if it was noted on the cache page is because the finder found the cache while hunting with PMs. If the cache owner had noted the restriction on the cache page, he would have more of a leg to stand on, in my opinion.

Link to comment
The owner of the cache decides what logs get deleted and which ones do not. I personally would have given up after the first time of getting my log deleted. If the cache page specifically stated that members only could log it, then where is the argument exactly?
I would agree, if the cache page said that, but it did not. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

It's a shame.

  • Shame on the PMs who allowed the non-PMs to accompany them on the hunt. What part of "Premium Members Only" do they not understand?
  • Shame on the non-PMs for searching for and logging the PMO cache without prior permission from the owner. What part of "Premium Members Only" do they not understand?
  • It's a shame this incident became a battle of the wills. It probably could have been resolved amicably with a little diplomacy. The owner certainly had the "right" to delete the non-PM logs, and could (perhaps would) have permitted the FTF claim to stand once the finder had paid the fee; but it was probably a matter of principle to him by that time. Too bad.

When I introduced my cousin to caching, I looked up the nearest cache on my GPSr and took her to it. She had a blast hunting for the container, and we hunted for a few more caches after that one. When I got home, I got an email from her saying she couldn't log that first cache because it was for PMO. Shame on me for taking her to it? I had no way of knowing it was a PMO cache until I got home. Not everyone prints out cache pages before searching. The coords were in my GPSr, but not a description or PMO status.

 

How did we resolve it? I sent a friendly email to the cache owner explaining what happened. He changed the cache to regular long enough for her to log it. She did find it, after all, and should get credit for doing so.

 

As far as I'm concerned if a muggle found it first and signed the log, nobody else has the right to claim FTF. PM or not.

Well said!

Link to comment

TPTB are fully aware of this logging method and have given it their blessing. Therefore, I don't think we can presume that the listing service is not being used as intended...

Please relieve my skepticism by providing a link to their blessing. Otherwise I'm inclined to stick with my presumption that non-PMs are not able to log finds on PMO caches because TPTB intended it that way, and their lack of action to close the back door access is a matter of priority rather than policy change.
Link to comment

TPTB are fully aware of this logging method and have given it their blessing. Therefore, I don't think we can presume that the listing service is not being used as intended...

Please relieve my skepticism by providing a link to their blessing. Otherwise I'm inclined to stick with my presumption that non-PMs are not able to log finds on PMO caches because TPTB intended it that way, and their lack of action to close the back door access is a matter of priority rather than policy change.

Right here. :laughing:

Link to comment

It's a shame.

  • Shame on the PMs who allowed the non-PMs to accompany them on the hunt. What part of "Premium Members Only" do they not understand?
  • Shame on the non-PMs for searching for and logging the PMO cache without prior permission from the owner. What part of "Premium Members Only" do they not understand?
  • It's a shame this incident became a battle of the wills. It probably could have been resolved amicably with a little diplomacy. The owner certainly had the "right" to delete the non-PM logs, and could (perhaps would) have permitted the FTF claim to stand once the finder had paid the fee; but it was probably a matter of principle to him by that time. Too bad.

 

Nope, not what I am reading;

 

- Shame on the owner for being so " " retentive.

- While the owner has the right to delete any log he/she/they wish, it is poor form to do so in a case such as this without merit and they should expect to and will be ridiculed for it.

- It was found, so even if the owner lets someone else falsely claim the FTF, in reality, the previously non-PM is the first finder.

- While additional logging requirements are generally thought to be foolish, having them posted would have at least given the owner an argument.

- FTF, while fun to track for personal reasons, is starting to carry entirely too much weight.

- Hopefully, the FTFr does not hold a grudge when they place a cache as it will then be their right to delete any log they so deem.

 

One more note: Starving people? Please!

Link to comment

TPTB are fully aware of this logging method and have given it their blessing. Therefore, I don't think we can presume that the listing service is not being used as intended...

Please relieve my skepticism by providing a link to their blessing. Otherwise I'm inclined to stick with my presumption that non-PMs are not able to log finds on PMO caches because TPTB intended it that way, and their lack of action to close the back door access is a matter of priority rather than policy change.

Right here. :laughing:

Further down in the same thread, Jeremy also posted this.
Link to comment

Here's my "me, too" post.

 

ESPECIALLY since the original FTF finder IS NOW a Premium Member. To STILL disallow the find because "well, he WASN'T at the time!" borders on ridiculous and at this point seems simply spiteful.

 

Perhaps the OP, who is tired of seeing this email exchange in his inbox, should remove the cache from his watchlist, making sure to post a note on the cache page explaining why. Oh, and link to this thread in the forums where the cache owner will see that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY (if not unanimous) of responders think the cache owner is being a ****.

 

PMO caches are not some kind of elite, exclusive club. Even then, many elite exclusive clubs offer some provision for bringing friends in.

Link to comment

TPTB are fully aware of this logging method and have given it their blessing. Therefore, I don't think we can presume that the listing service is not being used as intended...

Please relieve my skepticism by providing a link to their blessing. Otherwise I'm inclined to stick with my presumption that non-PMs are not able to log finds on PMO caches because TPTB intended it that way, and their lack of action to close the back door access is a matter of priority rather than policy change.

Right here. :laughing:

Further down in the same thread, Jeremy also posted this.

Thanks for the links. I read the entire string and stand corrected. The ability to log PMO caches was clearly originally intended for PMs only, but once the "loophole, workaround, hack, what have you" (Jeremy's words) came to light, the head frog chose to do nothing to close it. That certainly is his perogative, but it appears (to me) to contradict the exclusive nature of PMO (or MO) caches implied in his advertising:
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.

But this is Jeremy's sandbox. He can make, change, or ignore the rules all he wants and allow others to do the same without need for justification. Still, I'm glad he let's us play in it.

Edited by worldtraveler
Link to comment
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.

But this is Jeremy's sandbox. He can make, change, or ignore the rules all he wants and allow others to do the same without need for justification. Still, I'm glad he let's us play in it.

 

Not really a contradiction. The last line reads "..seek it out." Without the premium membership, I am still fairly certain that it is near impossible to get the details without knowing a premium member. If someone has the resolve to seek out that kind of information, it sort of meets the stated purpose of wanting "dedicated geocachers" to seek it out.

 

Sometimes I wonder why so many look at this as we are customers (the advertising comment). I always thought of the fact that it is volunteers reviewing, participants placing, maintaining and writing the caches, that my $30 was helping cover the costs of the listing service. Guess it's all perspective.

Link to comment

I was once FTF on a members only cache, that had been signed by a non-member first. I couldn't bring myself to claim the FTF as I knew I wasn't first. The true FTF then convinced the owner to change it to a non-PM cache and then logged the cache.

 

My question is, how is a non-PM able to log a members-only cache? What's the point of having members-only caches if they can be logged by anyone?

 

Although I'm a PM, I don't think I'd ever exclude anyone by placing a members only cache - it just seems to cause problems.

Link to comment

My question is, how is a non-PM able to log a members-only cache? What's the point of having members-only caches if they can be logged by anyone?

 

As the last few posts have clearly stated, the purpose of a PM-only cache is that the listings can only be seen by PM's. This is (almost) tantamount to saying that they can only be found by premium members.

 

They can be logged by anyone.

Link to comment

...Not really a contradiction. The last line reads "..seek it out." ...

And the first line reads, "Some caches are only available to Premium Members." I'm not going to split hairs and argue the semantics. I'm simple minded enough that the intended meaning is clear to me, apathetic enough that I'm not going to try to convince you, and resolute enough that you won't convince me that PMO caches were not originally intended for Premium Members Only.
Sometimes I wonder why so many look at this as we are customers (the advertising comment)...
I didn't say anything about customers. I call it advertising because that's what Groundspeak calls it - advertising for Premium Membership.

find.gifkey.gifgeo_premiumad.jpgThese and several other photos cycle through a link clearly marked as "Advertisement" on the left side of your "My Account" page and the Geocaching Home Page. Click that link and it will take you to the "Members Only Cache" description being discussed here.

...Guess it's all perspective.
I guess it is. I've always considered myself a member, not a customer. I voluntarily donated money to Jeremy to help run this website before he turned it into a business. Then I became a charter member as soon as that option became available, not for the perks, but to support geocaching. Do you see something wrong with that perspective? Edited by worldtraveler
Link to comment

Just another case of why the PMOC idea is a bad idea.

 

In my opinion it is one of the main items that gives me the perception that Groundspeak is running a bit of a "bait and switch" marketing plan.

 

The reason often quoted for PMOC (Was implemented for cases of cache pirates, to help keep pirates unwilling to pay $$ from seeing the cache listing) seems like a very thin veil to me.

 

Since the cache owner in this case is not using the PMOC for the reason most often given for having PMOCs, then the find should stand.

 

It is true that PMOCs were not implemented as a marketing strategy, or to keep the best caches for members only, or for other silly logging requirements right ?????

Edited by Dino Hunters
Link to comment

Rehashing the 'Bogus' Requirements thread?

I found and logged two PMO caches before becoming a PM. Neither cache owner had a problem with that.

And the cache owner has the right to delete any logs that s/he chooses to. I do it with my webcam cache. In that case, the requirements are spelt out on the cache page. "A photo taken by the webcam, posted here, is required to log this cache." Sound fairly simple? (Well, we won't go into that now.)

In this case, the requirement that the finder be PMO was not listed on the page. Sort of stinky for him to delete the find, but that is his/her prerogative. But, however, he says, being a stickler... The log/find may be deleted, but that in no way affects the fact that the FTF did, indeed, find it first. Sign the logbook forst, you are the first to find, even if the owner deletes the log.

That's my solution! I'm sticking to it!

Link to comment

As far as I'm concerned if a muggle found it first and signed the log, nobody else has the right to claim FTF. PM or not.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself. This cache owner, IMO, needs to seriously get over himself.

 

What part of FIRST TO FIND are people having trouble understanding? This isn't FIRST PM TO FIND. :laughing:

Link to comment

Checked out the cacher in question's profile page and he's got the cache in question listed as one of his FTFs.... so according to his profile page, it will always be his FTF (now how's the cache hider gonna delete that? :lol: ) In the meantime, his find has been once again deleted from the cache page and the 2tf has claimed FTF "by hook, crook, or default" :). Funny enough, the 2tf that is now ftf is the 2tl and the ftl is apparently the 3tf... :laughing::D

 

Is this starting to sound silly to anyone else but me? :D:rolleyes:

 

EDIT: BTW, there's more than one find log on the cache page from PMs that were with the non-PM when he found it-- and they clearly give him credit for the find. So, it looks like he gets his credit even if he doesn't get his smiley :P

Edited by Cache Heads
Link to comment

Interesting question.

At the time the cache was listed, did it have a note in the description declaring that non-PM finds will be deleted?

 

No, it did not. I went back and looked at the listing, and the only limitation the listing showed was PMO.

 

I get the idea (and this is an assumption on my part) the owner had the impression that making it PMO meant only PMs could log it until the the PMO status was removed.

His impression does not an ALR create.

Well said! :laughing: The cache owner's impressions or assumptions do not make an automatic rule for logging requirements, and since it appears that the cache listing page DID NOT bear a warning that find logs by non-PMOs would be deleted, I personally feel that the cache owner is being very rigid and fanatical. We own MANY PMO caches, including particularly many of our extreme caches, and we always allow non-PMs to log finds (or FTFs, it that happens to be the case) on them if they happen to find them, whether with a group or by accident, via any of the million known ways for a non-PM to log a find on a PM cache.

Link to comment

Part of the reason that I paid my $30 was because of PMO caches.

 

Since most of the posters on this thread think that it's perfectly acceptable for a regular member to log PMO caches, maybe I'll just skip the $30 next year since I was under the assumption that's part of what I was paying for.

Edited by conradv
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...