+TrailGators Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Also, a number of people have posted that 'lame caches' (by their personal definition) are 'bad for the game'. I have yet to read a convincing argument as to why this is true. I have not heard your argument as to why caches that cause unnecessary damage to the surrounding areas are 'good for the game.' Also some people brought up dangerous caches that could cause people to get seriously hurt. I'm not sure how those could be construed as being 'good for the game' either..... Link to comment
+wavector Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 (edited) the container choice is not the only reason that logs get wet Design decisions made by the hider are responsible for almost every wet log I have found. I have found a few wet logbooks that could be traced to the last finder, but only a few. I have found a lot of wet logbooks. Is there anyone who thinks an attitude change will make wet logbooks "fun". Is there anyone who thinks that most wet logbooks are caused by the last finder not having the sense to properly close a container? Is there anyone who has not encountered lots of wet logbooks while geocaching? If a logbook is wet because of a design decision made by the hider then the cache is lame, this is my opionion. It isn't a subjective call and the wet logbook "find" is an experience common to all geocachers. If you go geocaching you are going to find wet logbooks. Lame caches are bad for this activity. Edited December 13, 2006 by wavector Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 the container choice is not the only reason that logs get wetDesign decisions made by the hider are responsible for almost every wet log I have found. I have found a few wet logbooks that could be traced to the last finder, but only a few. I have found a lot of wet logbooks. Is there anyone who thinks an attitude change will make wet logbooks "fun". Is there anyone who thinks that most wet logbooks are caused by the last finder not having the sense to properly close a container? Is there anyone who has not encountered lots of wet logbooks while geocaching? If a logbook is wet because of a design decision made by the hider then the cache is lame, this is my opionion. It isn't a subjective call and the wet logbook "find" is an experience common to all geocachers. If you go geocaching you are going to find wet logbooks. Lame caches are bad for this activity. This is one of the reasons that ammo boxes make such great containers! They keep everything dry and they can survive extreme high and low temperatures. Anyhow, wavector is bringing up a valid point! Bad cache designs lead to caches becoming lame very quickly! Link to comment
+ibycus Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 the container choice is not the only reason that logs get wet Design decisions made by the hider are responsible for almost every wet log I have found. I have found a few wet logbooks that could be traced to the last finder, but only a few. I have found a lot of wet logbooks. I take it wet log books are a real issue for you I wouldn't say that anyone *likes* finding wet log books, but that alone really doesn't (in my book) make the cache lame. Are you telling me, if you had a beautiful hike, and found the perfect cache at the end...but the log book was wet, you'd think the cache was lame? I imagine the answer would be no (although maybe not, you tell me...) Sometimes stuff happens that the owner didn't anticipate. A cache can be fine for months, even years, and then one day conditions change, and wham the log gets a little damp. That hardly makes it a crappy cache (bad choice/lack of foresight on the cache owner, yes. Lame cache, probably not). Link to comment
+ibycus Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 To stay on topic, I'll use the above to underline my opinion that no caches are lame to everyone. If someone enjoyed hiding it, someone will enjoy finding it. Not everyone has to enjoy finding every cache. Of course not. My opinion is though that not on not every cache did the hider actually *enjoy* hiding it. Those are some pretty lame caches. Caches hidden purely to up the hider's number count, or out of some misguided need to 'give back' to the game. (Well we've found x caches, guess now we should hide y caches). There are of course some weirdos who will enjoy finding a soggy, wet mouldy box of fish if they get a smiley for it, but that really doesn't make it not a lame cache... Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 the container choice is not the only reason that logs get wet Design decisions made by the hider are responsible for almost every wet log I have found. I have found a few wet logbooks that could be traced to the last finder, but only a few. I have found a lot of wet logbooks. I take it wet log books are a real issue for you I wouldn't say that anyone *likes* finding wet log books, but that alone really doesn't (in my book) make the cache lame. Are you telling me, if you had a beautiful hike, and found the perfect cache at the end...but the log book was wet, you'd think the cache was lame? I imagine the answer would be no (although maybe not, you tell me...) Sometimes stuff happens that the owner didn't anticipate. A cache can be fine for months, even years, and then one day conditions change, and wham the log gets a little damp. That hardly makes it a crappy cache (bad choice/lack of foresight on the cache owner, yes. Lame cache, probably not). A cache in a scenic location can probably handle the extra bummer of having a wet logbook. However, a wet logbook would be the last straw for most urban micros. Link to comment
+The SuzyQs Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 There are no lame caches, somebody had fun hiding it an someone will have fun finding it even just for a smiley Agreed... As long as it increases my find count, then it is not lame. Everyone plays the game to their own liking. If I can find it, it is not lame. Even if I can't find it, it is still not lame, just well hidden. Link to comment
+wavector Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I have yet to read a convincing argument as to why this is true. Finding a wet logbook forces a finder to do something, new geocachers who are confronted with a wet logbook are forced to react. When new geocachers have to deal with wet logbooks they do not have fun and it isn't an attitude problem on their part. People who are seeking enjoyment and finding lame wet logbooks are not finding the enjoyment they are seeking. People who do not enjoy geocaching quit. This is bad for the activity, it means there are fewer finders, fewer hiders, fewer Travel Bugs to move, fewer geocoin collectors, fewer people having "fun" geocaching. While some may contend that fewer people geocaching is a good thing I have never seen a convincing argument for making geoaching less popular. Link to comment
+wavector Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I keep seeing excuses for wet logbooks but at least no one is claiming they enjoy them. These scenarios that are being mentioned stretch my imagination. If a cache is fine for years it is well designed, if things change then there may be a maintenance issue. Have you found wet logbooks like that or are you just making that up? Another poster explained that the wet logbooks he has found are a minor maintenance issue and the owner will generally try and fix them in a jiffy, do you agree that the wet logbooks you have found are of this type? I am not stretching anything to make my point but the implications of the point I am making are fairly far reaching. I actually posted a cache description in this thread that was thrown up by the Leprechauns and asked those "reading" this thread to make the call on that cache. You must have missed that post but the cache that was archived by The Leprechauns was lame in my opinon and I said it was lame. Three pages later you are asking me again and no my position hasn't changed, it was a lame cache. This is simple, if a cache has a wet logbook and that wet logbook is the result of a design decision made by the hider then it is lame. Location doesn't matter, technique doesn't matter, scenery doesn't matter, nice hikes don't matter. I only have one expectation when I go seeking a geocache, (virts etc aside) a logbook to sign at the end of the hunt. If the logbook is wet and unsignable and that conditoion is the result of a design decision made by the hider then it is a lame cache. A nice hike that ends at a lame cache is still a nice hike but the cache is still lame. Link to comment
+wavector Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 As long as it increases my find count, then it is not lame. Just out of curiousity what do you do when you find a logbook that is so wet it cannot be signed? Not a logbook that is a little damp after years of being fine but a sodden soggy wet mass of paper and ink that is "biodegrading" as you watch? I know that you increase your find count but I just wonder what approach you use to do that? For new geocachers it might help to see how you handle the soggy wet mass of paper that they might find when they go out caching (some of them really don't know what to do when confrionted with this type of "find".) Link to comment
Mushtang Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 As long as it increases my find count, then it is not lame. Just out of curiousity what do you do when you find a logbook that is so wet it cannot be signed? Not a logbook that is a little damp after years of being fine but a sodden soggy wet mass of paper and ink that is "biodegrading" as you watch? I know that you increase your find count but I just wonder what approach you use to do that? For new geocachers it might help to see how you handle the soggy wet mass of paper that they might find when they go out caching (some of them really don't know what to do when confrionted with this type of "find".) You didn't ask me, but I have an answer. I found a micro cache last winter (placed by a well known reviewer here) that had a wet log which was frozen into a little ice wedge. There was no way to sign it. I decided to take a picture of the cache, the log, and myself at the location, email it to the owner, and logged myself a Find. That cache was about as far from lame as you can get. It was one of my favorite caches to date. It was a lamp post micro, was in a parking lot, was surrounded by muggles, had a soggy log, didn't have any view to speak of, etc. But the cammo job was excellent!! It made me smile and dance. Signing the log is only a way to verify you were there. But if that's not possible, look for other ways. Leave a new piece of paper with your signature on it for instance. Link to comment
+wavector Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Thanks Mushtang. The point I was making may be moot for those who have developed an approach but a new geocacher in the same situation might have no idea how to proceeed. You forgot to qualify this statement That cache was about as far from lame as you can get. with the disclaimer "in my opinion". If I was to find the same cache today, would the logbook still be wet? Needless to say I could care less about the camo or the container or the swag or the hider. If the cache logbook is wet and that is due to a design decision by the hider then I think the cache is lame, that is my opinion. I have a "parking lot cache" on my list of Favourite Caches and the cache is really a great hide, I was just blown away when I finally found it. The cache involved a film canister and other things but the logbook was bone dry. If the logbook had been soaking wet because the hider made a design decision that was wrong for the location it wouldn't be a Favourite it would be, in my opinon, lame. How would you rate the same cache if your log was deleted because you didn't sign the logbook? Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Just out of curiousity what do you do when you find a logbook that is so wet it cannot be signed?... My caching pen can write on damp paper and not run. As long as the water isn't dripping off of it I'm good to go. If the water is dripping off of it...I dry it a bit and then sign it. We have a local cacher who had a knack for wet logs. Yeah they were annoying at first but then I took singing the things as a challenge, rand experiments on what pen did the best job posted the results and pictures in these forums and then someone else gave me a better answer and I'm using that pen. A Uniball Power Tank. Gell pens write well on any kind of wet paper but they run. Link to comment
+El Diablo Posted December 13, 2006 Author Share Posted December 13, 2006 How did this turn into a topic about wet log books? El Diablo Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 (edited) Think of the caches you have found that had wet logbooks. How many do you think were the result of a previous finder failing to close the cache properly ?Some. How many do you think were the result of a finder leaving the cache open and the owner not getting there in time to fix it befoire you arrived?Some.How many were caused by poor design decisions made by the hider?Some.In my experience wet logbooks are almost never a maintenance issue. Almost every wet logbook I have found is wet because the hider made bad design decisions. Logbooks that are wet are wet because water is getting into the cache, this is rarely because someone left the cache open.Huh? If the logbook is wet. It's a maintenance issue. It doesn't matter what caused the wetness. Edited December 13, 2006 by sbell111 Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I have yet to read a convincing argument as to why this is true. Finding a wet logbook forces a finder to do something, new geocachers who are confronted with a wet logbook are forced to react. When new geocachers have to deal with wet logbooks they do not have fun and it isn't an attitude problem on their part. Sure, but it's not like they have to make paper from scratch. All they have to do is tell the cache owner about the issue.People who are seeking enjoyment and finding lame wet logbooks are not finding the enjoyment they are seeking. People who do not enjoy geocaching quit. This is bad for the activity, it means there are fewer finders, fewer hiders, fewer Travel Bugs to move, fewer geocoin collectors, fewer people having "fun" geocaching. I'm sure that you are correct. After all, ever since I've been caching, I've found caches that are wet inside. In this time, we've seen fewer and fewer people playing this game. Currently, there are only two players in the Nashville area and only three caches to look for. Wait a minute, I'm mistaken. There are scads of local players and hundreds (if not thousands) of local cachers. Every year, the number of cachers grow predictably. Apparently, the curse of the wet log is not chasing these people away fast enough. I keep seeing excuses for wet logbooks but at least no one is claiming they enjoy them.I think most people neither enjoy the wetness nor let it bother them much.These scenarios that are being mentioned stretch my imagination. If a cache is fine for years it is well designed, if things change then there may be a maintenance issue. Have you found wet logbooks like that or are you just making that up?I have a cache that rarely gets found. It is an ammo box that is hidden off the ground. I recently had to change it out because someone had let moisture in and everything was mildewy. It happens. Another poster explained that the wet logbooks he has found are a minor maintenance issue and the owner will generally try and fix them in a jiffy, do you agree that the wet logbooks you have found are of this type?Sure.I am not stretching anything to make my point but the implications of the point I am making are fairly far reaching. I actually posted a cache description in this thread that was thrown up by the Leprechauns and asked those "reading" this thread to make the call on that cache. You must have missed that post but the cache that was archived by The Leprechauns was lame in my opinon and I said it was lame. Three pages later you are asking me again and no my position hasn't changed, it was a lame cache.Who are you responding to? As long as it increases my find count, then it is not lame.Just out of curiousity what do you do when you find a logbook that is so wet it cannot be signed? Not a logbook that is a little damp after years of being fine but a sodden soggy wet mass of paper and ink that is "biodegrading" as you watch?What I do is either 1) try to dry out the log, 2) replace the log with a new one, 3) 'sticker' the log, or 4) leave my card or some other signed scrap of paper. Of course, I also try to keep the cache from taking on more water. This may entail 1) replacing the container, 2) closing it properly, 3) replacing the container properly, or 4) placing the log into a baggie. Finally, I let the cache owner know about the problem. Thanks for asking. Now, please answer a quick question for me. Did some one bet you that you wouldn't cause a bunch of forum drama about 'wet logs' ala 'ammo boxes are evil'? Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 How did this turn into a topic about wet log books? El Diablo Wet log books are evil. Link to comment
+El Diablo Posted December 13, 2006 Author Share Posted December 13, 2006 How did this turn into a topic about wet log books? El Diablo Wet log books are evil. Maybe....but start your own thread about them. I can see how a cache with a wet log might be a problem, but it certainly dosen't make it a lame cache unless it's a chronic problem with that cache. El Diablo Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Needless to say I could care less about the camo or the container or the swag or the hider. Couldn't. You couldn't care less. Yeah I know, A thread closing rant. Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 (edited) How did this turn into a topic about wet log books?Wet log books are evil.Maybe....but start your own thread about them. I can see how a cache with a wet log might be a problem, but it certainly dosen't make it a lame cache unless it's a chronic problem with that cache.Why would I start my own thread about them. You just summed up my position. Edited December 13, 2006 by sbell111 Link to comment
+El Diablo Posted December 13, 2006 Author Share Posted December 13, 2006 How did this turn into a topic about wet log books?Wet log books are evil.Maybe....but start your own thread about them. I can see how a cache with a wet log might be a problem, but it certainly dosen't make it a lame cache unless it's a chronic problem with that cache.Why would I start my own thread about them. You just summed up my position. I'm glad I summed it up for you. Between you & TrailGators you have posted over 25% of the responses to a thread with 162 responses. You 19 him 29. I would think by now both could have made their points. If we don't get it by now...we'll never get it. El Diablo Link to comment
+wavector Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 We have a local cacher who had a knack for wet logs. Yeah they were annoying at first but then I took singing the things as a challenge I have used a lot of approaches to signing wet logs as well but I have never considered the ability to sign wet paper as part of the challenge of geocaching, that is illuminating. New geocachers will really benefit from seeing some of these posts. I don't think arguments about subjective issues are productive for readers. I am glad that there hasn't been a single person claiming they enjoy wet logs and I am fairly certain that your post is the closest to offering any redeeming value to a wet logbook. I found a logbook that was so wet for so long that the paper was just a homogenous mass. It wasn't a logbook rolled up so much as a mass of watery ex-pulp. With no sunshine, no vehicle and no way to dry it I decided the best thing was to sueeze it out and put the wet white stuff in a baggie and put a signed piece of paper in the cache. The nature of cache ownership prevented me from just throwing out that logbook even though it was clearly ruined, that owner might show up and maintain his cache. El Diablo is a real serious geocacher and I thought he was serious in asking us what we thought was lame so I thought I would throw my dime on the table. I really do think that a wet logbook caused by design decisions is the hallmark of all "lame" caches, perhaps everything else is subjective. I don't think every wet logbook makes a cache lame, often there are clear cirucumstances. If cache hiders were encouraged to hide caches that kept logbooks dry it would result in better caches, that is my opinion. I did not say every cache hidden in the desert is a good cache. Link to comment
nonaeroterraqueous Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 It's been a rather depressing thread. Normally, I'd try to post some positive side to the issue, but the topic does not seem geared toward it. Link to comment
+El Diablo Posted December 13, 2006 Author Share Posted December 13, 2006 It's been a rather depressing thread. Normally, I'd try to post some positive side to the issue, but the topic does not seem geared toward it. I agree with you. The purpose of the thread was to be educational to help people understand what cachers like and dislike. Instead we got the overwhelming opinions of a few. It started off good...but to many people have access to the internet and a keyboard. El Diablo Link to comment
+JamGuys Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Finding lame caches can sometimes be purgative - witness the following log entry for Oklahoma's Lamest Cache Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Just a note on parking lot caches: My husband spent several weeks living out of a hotel in a strange city while working for the government. A series of parking lot/lightpost caches helped him learn his way around town and find the grocery store, movie theater, laundromat, etc. It may seem lame to you because you live there. To the out of towner, it may be a life-saver! I am just the opposite. I really don't have any trouble finding the stores and such, after all i don't think many of them depend on GC.com for their advertising. When I am out of town, I am MUCH more concerned about how SUSPICIOUS I look. Therefore, those caches where I have to pretend to ba an inspector or cell phone tester (can u hear me now?) don't really cut it for me. There is just something about being an out-of-towner and not knowing the temprament of the local constabulary that makes me "toe the line" a little more when i'm in "foreign digs". In some places, an out of town car is a target to begin with, no use stirring the pot by lifting lamppost skirts and trampling the nastertium beds. I'll bet if I started mailing out $20 bills to people in the forums, a lot of these people would complain that the bills aren't new enough, or that the envelope they came it wasn't pretty. Giving someone something for FREE is sometimes not enough. I'll vouch for that, human nature wise. A long time ago I gave $20 bills to all my family members as Christmas gifts. I caught Sheol for it because it was "thoughtless". Odd that a $20 gift certificate that can only be used where the cheapest item for sale costs $100 is thoughtful, but $20 you can spend anywhere is wrong. It was a long time after that before I participated in Christmas giving again. I'm still not big on it. When you give someone something for free, they just expect more for free, then when the freebies stop, the whining begins. Dave Ramsey says, "Don't you know if you give a man a fish and don't teach him to fish, that all he wants tomorrow is another free fish?" Could we say that we have grown to EXPECT a lot of new caches, so we will accept the "lame" just to have something new? I would say that being thankful for a "lame" cache is a lot like being thankful for coal in your Christmas stocking. Technically, you should- a gift is a gift, but really are you (thankful for the coal)? But looking at my reaction to my family's chiding about my gift, could you infer that perhaps SOME will stop placing caches of all kinds, lame and cool, because they are fed up with their work being criticized? I think it is human nature. By criticizing the GIFT, you run the risk of alienating, and turning OFF, the GIVER. Another cache that is bothers me are caches placed near beautiful landscaping beds. We have lots of those in California and some of them just get totally trashed by people trampling all over the landscaping while hunting for a cache. These caches would be OK if the cache owner gave clear instructions not to go into the landscaping to find the cache. Many do but many do not and so caching has a negative impact on those areas. If we have to rely on cachers using common sense, and on cachers reading cache pages, in order to protect the environment from gross damage, then the cache should probably not be there. Looking at it from the perspective of a newbie who does not have enough experience to know what places are "taboo" for hiding a cache, we might well expect himher to think "the cache could be in the flower bed" and therefore heshe would look there. Also heshe might have come across a few caches that WERE hidden in "taboo" places and think this could be another one of those. Putting a warning on the cache page does not guarantee that it will be read, understood, or followed. Cache placers need to think about what irresponsible cachers are likely to do and if that poses a serious risk, simply don't place the cache there. Link to comment
+ironman114 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I've already gone on record saying there are no lame caches only CRAPPY or STUPID caches. I bet if we started a new thread to find out what we think a CRAPPY cache is, that the same people would chime in and say there is no such thing as a CRAPPY cache. Others would say calling people's caches CRAPPY is crass..... These threads could serve a useful purpose if people took the advice and hid better caches. But it seems pointless to try to influence people to hide better caches because it is obvious that some people out there really have no clue. I'm starting to think that we could fill a cache with CRAP and there would still be some people out there that would be happy to find it! Edit: Sorry about the rant El D.... I once found a cache under a pile of C***. It was fake dog poo. Link to comment
+ironman114 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 To stay on topic, I'll use the above to underline my opinion that no caches are lame to everyone. If someone enjoyed hiding it, someone will enjoy finding it. Not everyone has to enjoy finding every cache. Of course not. My opinion is though that not on not every cache did the hider actually *enjoy* hiding it. Those are some pretty lame caches. Caches hidden purely to up the hider's number count, or out of some misguided need to 'give back' to the game. (Well we've found x caches, guess now we should hide y caches). There are of course some weirdos who will enjoy finding a soggy, wet mouldy box of fish if they get a smiley for it, but that really doesn't make it not a lame cache... Do you mean to say that there are people out there that feel that they "HAVE" to hide a cache even though they don't enjoy doing so? I have never heard of someone hiding a cache that didn't want and enjoy doing it. Link to comment
+wavector Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 [rant on] The purpose of the thread was to be educational to help people understand what cachers like and dislike. Perhaps you should go back and point out the parts I missed? You never asked anyone what they liked at all, anywhere. I don't understand your use of the little frownie face. It appears you are complaining because your thread asking everyone for complaints wasn't positive for you, is that about right? but to many people have access to the internet and a keyboard. Generally insulting everyone who posted on this thread is not a great tactic to popularize your viewpoint but you know what, that is just my opinion and I am sure you couldn't care less. [rant off] Link to comment
+El Diablo Posted December 13, 2006 Author Share Posted December 13, 2006 [rant on] The purpose of the thread was to be educational to help people understand what cachers like and dislike. Perhaps you should go back and point out the parts I missed? You never asked anyone what they liked at all, anywhere. I don't understand your use of the little frownie face. It appears you are complaining because your thread asking everyone for complaints wasn't positive for you, is that about right? but to many people have access to the internet and a keyboard. Generally insulting everyone who posted on this thread is not a great tactic to popularize your viewpoint but you know what, that is just my opinion and I am sure you couldn't care less. [rant off] You are right...I couldn't care less what you think since you've done everything possible to kill this thread. El Diablo Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I'm glad I summed it up for you. Between you & TrailGators you have posted over 25% of the responses to a thread with 162 responses. You 19 him 29. I would think by now both could have made their points. If we don't get it by now...we'll never get it. It's been a rather depressing thread. Normally, I'd try to post some positive side to the issue, but the topic does not seem geared toward it.I agree with you. The purpose of the thread was to be educational to help people understand what cachers like and dislike. Instead we got the overwhelming opinions of a few. It started off good...but to many people have access to the internet and a keyboard. You created a thread that you knew (or should have known) would be volatile. Then you get upset because people post the opinions that you ask for? Do you really think that people shouldn't discuss both sides of this issue? I think that you should consider getting over it. Link to comment
+Mudfrog Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 It's been a rather depressing thread. Normally, I'd try to post some positive side to the issue, but the topic does not seem geared toward it. I agree with you. The purpose of the thread was to be educational to help people understand what cachers like and dislike. Instead we got the overwhelming opinions of a few. It started off good...but to many people have access to the internet and a keyboard. El Diablo Wet logbooks are no fun to come across but they aren't in themselves, lame or detrimental to geocaching. But i see where Wavector is coming from as for as the lameness factor goes. He is talking about cache hiders who place caches without putting any thought into container and/or the enviroment the container will be in. I agree with this as well. For instance,,, it's lame to put cheap gladware or a pretty wooden box out in the woods without any cover. That cache is going to be wet after the first rain and the logbook won't stay dry for long, even when placed inside of a baggie. With very few exceptions, unlameness in this case requires the hider to be aware of what the enviroment can dish out and to use the appropriate container for that enviroment! Link to comment
+KBI Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 It is clear that some of you think that anything goes and everything is OK. This is the age of anything goes, so it's not a big surprise to me. So maybe we should give you what you want! We'll create a special series of caches for you! Bwa ha ha! We'll make sure we include all the best suggestions in this thread! Bwa ha ha! We'll use old rusty Altoids tins for containers. They will be so rusty that you won't be able to get them open without a huge amount of effort! Bwa ha ha! We'll use a crumpled up pieces of scrap paper for the logbooks. There will be no pen to sign the log and there will be no swag. You will need to cross muddy swamps and bushwhack through thick briars to reach all the waypoints for these micros! We'll make sure that the coordinates are 100 to 200 feet off on every cache in the series! Oops! Bwa ha ha! The series will be called "There are no lame caches!" Bwa ha ha! That cache doesn't sound lame to me at all. On the contrary, it sounds like quite a challenge! In fact, I'd say that if you were to hide a cache with: an old rusty Altoids tin for the container one that's almost impossible to open a wad pf paper for a log, no pen and no swag lots of thick briars and swamps to cross an intentional 200-foot radius of possible hide locations ... and especially if you were to name it "There Are No Lame Caches" -- folks would flock to it just to be able to proudly claim that particular find! What a challenge! I would never call such a cache "lame." In my opinion, that one would stand out as Well Above Average! I don't need any Dollar Store trade goodies to make me happy, but I absolutely DO enjoy being able to brag about having found such an exceedingly challenging hide! Link to comment
+KBI Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 The question of what is, and what is not a lame cache can never be definitively answered, because the definition, by it's very nature, is subjective. The infamous "Soggy log film canister behind a dumpster" could, conceivably, be liked by somebody. Judging a particular cache is somewhat akin to judging art. Whilst one person might fall in love with a velvet Elvis painting, others would find it crass and tasteless. Whether or not lame caches exist will always be strictly a matter of opinion. Well stated, CR. Wow ... we really DO agree! Link to comment
+KBI Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Also, a number of people have posted that 'lame caches' (by their personal definition) are 'bad for the game'. I have yet to read a convincing argument as to why this is true. I have not heard your argument as to why caches that cause unnecessary damage to the surrounding areas are 'good for the game.' Also some people brought up dangerous caches that could cause people to get seriously hurt. I'm not sure how those could be construed as being 'good for the game' either..... Faulty logic. Pointing out the existence of potential environmental and personal damage does not support the premise that so-called 'lame' caches are 'bad for the game.' Failure to prove that environmental damage and potential personal injury are good things does not constitute a failure to prove that so-called 'lame' caches do NOT harm the game. Many people have claimed that 'lame' caches are 'bad for the game.' None of these people has offered any convincing arguments to support that claim. I believe the burden lies on these people to prove their claim, not on those of us who disagree to disprove it. Besides, avoiding environmental damage and personal injury is the responsibility of the seeker, not the hider. That's the reason for the big bold disclaimer at the top of each and every cache page. Tearing up flowers and getting hurt is lame finding technique, not lame hiding technique. Link to comment
+Moose Mob Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 This thread is lame. I am closing it. Thanks all. Actuially, th OP's question was answered and the thread has lost it's perspective. Dwell on it a couple days then try again. Link to comment
Recommended Posts