To ban or not to ban LPC's

[+Team GeoBlast]

There are two problems with that. First, your argument appears to suggest that you will do anything to find a cache, whether right or wrong. After all, you drove a long way. Second, you don't know that the cache is in the electrical box that you are about to disassemble unless you have already determined that it is fake. If you have made that determination, you should certainly go for it. However, in your two example caches, you never made that determination. Honestly, I'm beginning to be concerned for your safety.

Finally, a post I can honestly respond by saying simply, sometimes you just can't win. I think Team Geoblast might know what I'm talking about. How many problems do you have now?

 

Yes, I do completely. I came here looking for a discussion and DNFed.

[Mr.Yuck]

There are two problems with that. First, your argument appears to suggest that you will do anything to find a cache, whether right or wrong. After all, you drove a long way. Second, you don't know that the cache is in the electrical box that you are about to disassemble unless you have already determined that it is fake. If you have made that determination, you should certainly go for it. However, in your two example caches, you never made that determination. Honestly, I'm beginning to be concerned for your safety.

Finally, a post I can honestly respond by saying simply, sometimes you just can't win. I think Team Geoblast might know what I'm talking about. How many problems do you have now?

 

Yes, I do completely. I came here looking for a discussion and DNFed.

 

Trust me, you are not the first DNF on that particuliar cache.

[+sbell111]

[+Jhwk]

Briansnat's post in another thread made me think: So the access panel hide does exist?

 

My second LPC hunt included me digging out a screwdriver and opening up the access panel until I came to my senses.. DNF. This is yet another reason to avoid any type of cache that can be misconstrued and private property being tampered with. Another case in point was my first LPC hunt at a state prison nonetheless. I proceded to bypass the lamp post and go straight for the sprinkler head. When it proved obvious that it WAS a sprinkler head I couldn't get the darn thing back together, so I promptly took my leave. I came home and discovered that 4 of the previous finders had been approached by security personnel in a not-so-nice manner. The moral to the story: Think before you hide urban micros. If you still plan to hide one.. think some more. Prison cache link:Phatboyz: Goto Jail! Do not pass go... hidden 9/25/04 but now archived.

to make a long answer short:

 

'To ban or not to ban LPC's?'

 

No.

[+Totem Clan]

I've been reading along with this thread, and have kept my mouth shut till now.

 

I don't think you can ban a whole broad category of caches because of a handful of donkeys. If we start doing that, it won't be long before there is nothing left to ban.

 

The answer: You hide the best caches you can. If you find a cache that is harmful, illegal, whatever, report it. That's why the system is set up the way it is.

 

(flameproof suit on)

[+KBI]

I'm at a hotel today and don't have much time for typing (and the Internet rejoiced again! ) but I want to post at least a short response to AZBliss02:

 

 

KBI (and everybody else)-

 

I just picked up on this thread and lets just say it's been a long hour or so of reading. After taking several pain killers to stop my head from ringing, I feel ready to weigh in.

 

First off, you ARE twisting and manipulating Team GeoBlast's (TGB) comments and it is having a negative effect on how I read your other counterpoints. TGB is trying to bring to light something that many cachers are concerned about. Reading his comments it seems to me that he's calling out to the rest of the community to weigh in with their comments/suggestions in hopes that TPTB might take notice. In your rebuttals you often speak very personally toward TGB saying "Yes, you’ve made it quite clear that what you want is to control everyone’s behavior; that you’re not content to manage your own affairs and leave the rest of us alone." I don't believe that TGB wants to manage everyone's caches. I do believe that he wants the caching community and Groundspeak to take a good look at where we are and possibly reevaluate this hobby's guidelines.

Maybe yes, maybe no. See below ...

 

Whether you are or not, your comments really seem to portray that of an Anarchist. Are you an anarchist KBI? Are you a mostly law abiding citizen or do you think we should just be able to run around and do whatever we want, "as good or as lame as we want"?

That's a fair question. Unfortunately, I believe you are confusing two different things: Enforcement of public safety rules vs. enforcement of creativity rules. Security vs. Entertainment.

 

No, I'm not an Anarchist. I don't see how any reasonable person can be, as I undestand the definition. I am among the strongest supporters of the rule of law in this constitutional republic under which I live.

 

When I said geocachers should be allowed to be "as good or as lame as we want," I was not referring to 'lame attention to one's own safety.' I was refering to 'lame attention to the presence (or absence) of pizzazz, excitement, entertainment value or WOW-factor present in one's own cache hide.'

 

Do you think that a law requiring you to wear a seatbelt is ridiculous and you should have the right to decide whether you need one or not? What about drinking and driving? Who is the government to take away our fun of getting drunk and then heading out for a cruise around town? Certainly they are only thinking about their well-being, their agenda. They want to take away our fun.

You are speaking of public-safety rules. This has nothing to do with the coolnes or boringness of a geocache.

 

And micros are fun right? Urban caching is fun. But the increase of news articles making mention of bomb squads blowing up caches, property owners getting upset and their security guards threatening cachers is cause for alarm. In Arizona we have a "Stupid Persons" Law. Basically if you do something stupid that requires taxpayer dollars, then you're footing the bill. Yearly, during monsoon season, somebody gets the idea to drive their Dodge Neon through 3 feet of water. They quickly stall out and are swept into a wash. If they are lucky enough to survive police and firemen will arrive and lift the vehicle out. Luckily, because of the "Stupid Motorists" Law, my tax money doesn't have to pay for his dumb mistake. The state of Arizona can't keep that guy from driving through 3 feet of water, but they can put laws into place to help prevent such things from happening.

 

Similarly, GC.com does not typically allow caches on highway bridges, near elementary schools, government buildings, airports. When the reviewers look at caches they try their best to determine whether a cache fits into one of these questionable areas, and then they handle it accordingly. In some cases if the cache owner has received explicit permission from the superintendent of a school or if they can show that there is no cause for concern when their cache is within 150 feet of railroad tracks, then their cache will be approved. It's the approval process and the guidelines issued have helped the sport. Have they eliminated the chance for some potentially great cache hides, yeah. But what are a few less caches when the overall safety of everyone is taken into consideration?

In my opinion the current set of approval guidelines and the activites of the voluteer approvers do an excellent job of adderssing the safety and security issues you mention.

 

Nowhere does the current system attempt to regulate creativity, however, and that's as it should be. As far as a "Stupid Geocachers" rule: Fot the most part it is curently left up to the cache finder himself (or herself) to decide how careful or how stupid to be when hunting caches. Again this is also, in my opinion, as it should be. I don't want Groundspeak out there trying to protect us from ourselves.

 

This has nothing to do with the coolnes or boringness of a geocache.

 

Caches placed without permission on private property (which does include parking lots) poses a risk to the cache owner and cache seeker. Not only that but the repeated exposure of the public to poor publicity regarding the "illegal" placement of these caches and the perception that the public forms of geocachers could have a negative impact on the sport. Whether it will happen or not places across the country are discussing whether to allow geocaching or not within their jurisdiction. If there is something that we can do to put their minds at ease about caching, I think we should.

 

Currently GC.com has the following to say when it comes to permission for caches:

"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location."

 

I think what some of us are suggesting is not that we get rid of all LPCs and PLCs, but that an amendment is made to the caching guidelines to better address the placement of caches on private property.

You make a good point. If Groundspeak ever decides to become more strict in its permission rules by requiring proof of permission, I believe I could probably go along with that.

 

Maybe that's what Team GeoBlast was trying to say all along, but I really don't think so. During several exchanges he had ample opportunity to say whatever it was he really meant, yet he addressed pretty much everything other issue except that one.

 

Team GeoBlast: If that really IS all you were trying to say all along, then pleae accept my apology for misunderstanding.

 

If there are any volunteer reviewers perusing this topic, I would encourage them to chime in. Even if it is against what I've said.

Same here.

[+KBI]

Either way, it gives him a few more days to dodge KBI's questions.

Never confuse dodging with ignoring.

Thank you for finally being honest about your agenda, Clan Riffster, and admitting that you truly are actively ignoring those tough questions.

 

I can't imagine why you whould be afraid to defend your own comments, but if you ever decide to change your mind, I'll be here.

[+Moose Mob]

It's not the Reviewer's job to enforce quality (as it is derived from personal preference). This would be like a highway patrol giving you a ticket because 9 out of 10 people don't like the color of your car.

[+KBI]

I don't think you can ban a whole broad category of caches because of a handful of donkeys. If we start doing that, it won't be long before there is nothing left to ban.

 

The answer: You hide the best caches you can. If you find a cache that is harmful, illegal, whatever, report it. That's why the system is set up the way it is.

Man, I hope I can someday learn to be that succinct.

 

What Totem Clan said!!

[Clan Riffster]

Thank you for finally being honest about your agenda, Clan Riffster, and admitting that you truly are actively ignoring those tough questions.

 

I can't imagine why you whould be afraid to defend your own comments, but if you ever decide to change your mind, I'll be here.

Once again, reality is twisted past the point of recognition.

Reminds me of a Samuel Clemmons quote:

Never argue with an idiot, lest some passerby remark, 'Look at those two idiots arguing'

[+AZBuckeye04]

I'm at a hotel today and don't have much time for typing (and the Internet rejoiced again! ) but I want to post at least a short response to AZBliss02:

 

Whether you are or not, your comments really seem to portray that of an Anarchist. Are you an anarchist KBI? Are you a mostly law abiding citizen or do you think we should just be able to run around and do whatever we want, "as good or as lame as we want"?

That's a fair question. Unfortunately, I believe you are confusing two different things: Enforcement of public safety rules vs. enforcement of creativity rules. Security vs. Entertainment.

 

No, I'm not an Anarchist. I don't see how any reasonable person can be, as I undestand the definition. I am among the strongest supporters of the rule of law in this constitutional republic under which I live.

 

When I said geocachers should be allowed to be "as good or as lame as we want," I was not referring to 'lame attention to one's own safety.' I was refering to 'lame attention to the presence (or absence) of pizzazz, excitement, entertainment value or WOW-factor present in one's own cache hide.'

 

So in reality, KBI, you and I share a lot of common ground. Please know that I myself am not confused about the enforcement of public safety vs. creativity. I do believe however that my comments are slightly deviated from the original topic and may have confused others. While I do have some strong feelings toward certain caches (particularly in their location) I do not believe it is TPTB's place to stifle a cacher's creativity or lack there of. Leave that to the log entries left by those who find their caches

 

What I was addressing (and let me know whether we agree on this or not) is that given an increase in popularity and a seemingly lack of reading before doing, maybe TPTB should re-evaluate their guidelines. I think the existing guidelines are great and I'm not proposing a change to them, merely an addition. If everyone carefully read these guidelines prior to placing a cache, maybe we wouldn't have some of the problems we do. I believe that if a reviewer is looking at a cache (say they're using google maps aerial view) and they notice the cache to be in a parking lot (perhaps even behind a building) then they should be able (and possibly obligated) to request that the cache owner submit contact information from the land owner (or similar) who has approved the placement.

 

That being said, there are some potential downfalls, which is why I'm seeking more opinions from reviewers.

#1 How feasible would this actually be? I mean when I think about the number of parking lot caches in just my area, it seems that the average "review time" of a cache would be substantially increased. Then again, reviewers are already checking to make sure a cache isn't near an airport, school, highway bridge, federal buildings, railroad tracks, etc. would it be a big hassle if they were to add another thing to their checklist?

#2 What's next? Will we have to require the same information for other urban hides that are not in parking lots but in locations where the property owner is someone other than the cache owner? Where would it end?

 

Those are just two thoughts that come to mind. Any idea is bound to have its pros and cons. I just wonder if it isn't time to weigh them out.

 

Thoughts? If I'm too far off the original topic let me know and I can start a new thread for this...

 

Jared

 

Oh, and thanks for all the answers KBI, well done.

[+rdaines]

Well, I'm a might tempted to stay out of this thread since my first cache is a LPC. The first time I found one I thought it was pretty neat but apparently there are many here that disagree with them and that's fine. In light of this I will reconsider my cache's location but for now it stays.

[+sacred6]

Well, I don't think they need to be banned, but they should put special rules for them. Like if you see any posinous spiders, kill them if you want to place a cache there.

[+Yno]

I have to go to bed, or quit drinking. I thought AZBliss02 called KBI the Antichrist. I really thought that was out of line. Besides, we all know that Bill Gates holds that distinction.

 

I don't care much whether they are banned. I just ignore lame caches. If it is a good hide, I will go for it. I went looking for one and it was in the bushes under the window of a busy restaurant. I just crossed it off my list, and I won't be back. I skipped another one that was in a small park because there was some guy sitting in his front window watching every move I made. I might go back for that one. But I don't really think either one should be banned.

[+TrailGators]

Thank you for finally being honest about your agenda, Clan Riffster, and admitting that you truly are actively ignoring those tough questions.

 

I can't imagine why you whould be afraid to defend your own comments, but if you ever decide to change your mind, I'll be here.

Once again, reality is twisted past the point of recognition.

Reminds me of a Samuel Clemmons quote:

Never argue with an idiot, lest some passerby remark, 'Look at those two idiots arguing'

[Mushtang]

Thank you for finally being honest about your agenda, Clan Riffster, and admitting that you truly are actively ignoring those tough questions.

 

I can't imagine why you whould be afraid to defend your own comments, but if you ever decide to change your mind, I'll be here.

Once again, reality is twisted past the point of recognition.

Not past the point. I still recognize it. I'll sum up:

 

Clan Riffster: People get mad if you suggest you use brain power to hide a cache.

KBI: Who gets mad?

Clan Riffster: That's funny.

KBI: So you can't actually name someone that gets mad when such a suggestion is made?

Clan Riffster: (crickets chirping)

Mushtang: He's dodging the question

Clan Riffster: Not dodging, ignoring

KBI: Thanks for at least admitting you're ignoring the question

Clan Riffster: YOU'RE TWISTING MY REALITY!!!!

 

Reminds me of a Samuel Clemmons quote:

Never argue with an idiot, lest some passerby remark, 'Look at those two idiots arguing'

So now that you're no longer willing to defend something you actually said, you've resorted to calling KBI an idiot. I guess the next step is to insult me as well?

[+AZBuckeye04]

I thought AZBliss02 called KBI the Antichrist.

 

 

Thanks, wine just came out my nose.

[Mushtang]

I have to go to bed, or quit drinking. I thought AZBliss02 called KBI the Antichrist. I really thought that was out of line. Besides, we all know that Bill Gates holds that distinction.

I think a few folks here have wanted to tell KBI to go to... the place that the antichrist lives.

 

I don't care much whether they are banned. I just ignore lame caches. If it is a good hide, I will go for it. I went looking for one and it was in the bushes under the window of a busy restaurant. I just crossed it off my list, and I won't be back. I skipped another one that was in a small park because there was some guy sitting in his front window watching every move I made. I might go back for that one. But I don't really think either one should be banned.

It's amazing how some folks just can't grasp this simple concept.

[Clan Riffster]

Never argue with an idiot, lest some passerby remark, 'Look at those two idiots arguing'

So now that you're no longer willing to defend something you actually said, you've resorted to calling KBI an idiot.

Actually, if you read the whole thing, rather than just the first half, I was calling us both idiots. This was actually in jest, as I know he's not an idiot, and I believe I am not either. The fact that it was posted as humor is noted by the laughing smiley posted after the comment. This is a typical method of denoting emotion in an Internet forum. I'm sure he was able to recognize this, even if you were not.

 

Just to satisfy your curiosity, I'll share with you why I'm choosing to avoid continuing his rather one sided argument: KBI's method of operation is to enter a topic, typically with enthusiasm and well reasoned arguments. I always appreciate his initial comments, because they demonstrate the degree of passion he feels for this game. The problem occurs later on in the debate, when both sides have pretty much said everything there is to say on an issue. He recognizes that the closing line of the opposing viewpoint is pretty much inarguable, however his love for debate seems to compel him to continue the argument anyway. It is at that point that he twists the stated facts until they fit a mold which he can argue with.

 

Here's a good example of this at work:

Thank you for finally being honest about your agenda, Clan Riffster, and admitting that you truly are actively ignoring those tough questions.

He starts by citing a basic fact, (I'm ignoring him), then twists it, claiming the reason behind it was the questions were "tough".

Then he goes further left of center by stating:

I can't imagine why you whould be afraid to defend your own comments

Judging by his language skills, I cannot make the assumption that he honestly believes I am "afraid" of comments posted on the Internet. He's much brighter than that. This leads me to believe his intentions are less than beneign, and are intended for the sole purpose of continuing an argument just for the sake of arguing. I know he does this, I've seen it numerous times, yet I continue to allow myself to enter into these typing contests with him. That's the point where I feel like an idiot. Idiocy was once defined as doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting different result. Kinda sounds a whole lot like what I do every time I engage him in a debate. I know what's coming, but I expect different results.

 

I guess the next step is to insult me as well?

I'll pass.

 

(sorry about any spelling errors. spellcheck won't work on this computer)

[Mushtang]

Never argue with an idiot, lest some passerby remark, 'Look at those two idiots arguing'

So now that you're no longer willing to defend something you actually said, you've resorted to calling KBI an idiot.

Actually, if you read the whole thing, rather than just the first half, I was calling us both idiots.

Now whose twisting your words? It seems like you are. The quote clearly was intended to call KBI an idiot, and that other people might mistake you for one too since you're arguing with him. If you actually believe that using that quote is calling yourself an idiot, you missed the point of the quote entirely.

 

This was actually in jest, as I know he's not an idiot, and I believe I am not either. The fact that it was posted as humor is noted by the laughing smiley posted after the comment. This is a typical method of denoting emotion in an Internet forum. I'm sure he was able to recognize this, even if you were not.

Posting a laughing face immediately after an attack does not automatically make the attack look like good natured ribbing. It often makes the attack seem even more directed.

 

Just to satisfy your curiosity, I'll share with you why I'm choosing to avoid continuing his rather one sided argument: KBI's method of operation is to enter a topic, typically with enthusiasm and well reasoned arguments. I always appreciate his initial comments, because they demonstrate the degree of passion he feels for this game. The problem occurs later on in the debate, when both sides have pretty much said everything there is to say on an issue. He recognizes that the closing line of the opposing viewpoint is pretty much inarguable, however his love for debate seems to compel him to continue the argument anyway. It is at that point that he twists the stated facts until they fit a mold which he can argue with.

 

Here's a good example of this at work:

Thank you for finally being honest about your agenda, Clan Riffster, and admitting that you truly are actively ignoring those tough questions.

He starts by citing a basic fact, (I'm ignoring him), then twists it, claiming the reason behind it was the questions were "tough".

Then he goes further left of center by stating:

I can't imagine why you whould be afraid to defend your own comments

Judging by his language skills, I cannot make the assumption that he honestly believes I am "afraid" of comments posted on the Internet. He's much brighter than that. This leads me to believe his intentions are less than beneign, and are intended for the sole purpose of continuing an argument just for the sake of arguing. I know he does this, I've seen it numerous times, yet I continue to allow myself to enter into these typing contests with him. That's the point where I feel like an idiot. Idiocy was once defined as doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting different result. Kinda sounds a whole lot like what I do every time I engage him in a debate. I know what's coming, but I expect different results.

Nope. It's not like he's asking you to qualify a remark that you made at the end of this argument. The statement you made that *seemed* to be directed at him and other folks that you refer to as SDOEL, was from his very first post that was directly addressed to you. It was at the beginning of the conversation between you two, not the end after he'd run out of things to say.

 

You said something that was completely bogus, he asked you to verify it, and you couldn't. Instead of saying, "That's true, I was wrong to say that. However,...", you chose to ignore him for a while and then claim he just being argumentative.

[+Moose Mob]

Personal arguements are disruptive to the discussion and need to be taken off line. Thank you.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Never argue with an idiot, lest some passerby remark, 'Look at those two idiots arguing'

So now that you're no longer willing to defend something you actually said, you've resorted to calling KBI an idiot.

Actually, if you read the whole thing, rather than just the first half, I was calling us both idiots.

Now whose twisting your words? It seems like you are. The quote clearly was intended to call KBI an idiot, and that other people might mistake you for one too since you're arguing with him. If you actually believe that using that quote is calling yourself an idiot, you missed the point of the quote entirely.

 

This was actually in jest, as I know he's not an idiot, and I believe I am not either. The fact that it was posted as humor is noted by the laughing smiley posted after the comment. This is a typical method of denoting emotion in an Internet forum. I'm sure he was able to recognize this, even if you were not.

Posting a laughing face immediately after an attack does not automatically make the attack look like good natured ribbing. It often makes the attack seem even more directed.

 

Just to satisfy your curiosity, I'll share with you why I'm choosing to avoid continuing his rather one sided argument: KBI's method of operation is to enter a topic, typically with enthusiasm and well reasoned arguments. I always appreciate his initial comments, because they demonstrate the degree of passion he feels for this game. The problem occurs later on in the debate, when both sides have pretty much said everything there is to say on an issue. He recognizes that the closing line of the opposing viewpoint is pretty much inarguable, however his love for debate seems to compel him to continue the argument anyway. It is at that point that he twists the stated facts until they fit a mold which he can argue with.

 

Here's a good example of this at work:

Thank you for finally being honest about your agenda, Clan Riffster, and admitting that you truly are actively ignoring those tough questions.

He starts by citing a basic fact, (I'm ignoring him), then twists it, claiming the reason behind it was the questions were "tough".

Then he goes further left of center by stating:

I can't imagine why you whould be afraid to defend your own comments

Judging by his language skills, I cannot make the assumption that he honestly believes I am "afraid" of comments posted on the Internet. He's much brighter than that. This leads me to believe his intentions are less than beneign, and are intended for the sole purpose of continuing an argument just for the sake of arguing. I know he does this, I've seen it numerous times, yet I continue to allow myself to enter into these typing contests with him. That's the point where I feel like an idiot. Idiocy was once defined as doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting different result. Kinda sounds a whole lot like what I do every time I engage him in a debate. I know what's coming, but I expect different results.

Nope. It's not like he's asking you to qualify a remark that you made at the end of this argument. The statement you made that *seemed* to be directed at him and other folks that you refer to as SDOEL, was from his very first post that was directly addressed to you. It was at the beginning of the conversation between you two, not the end after he'd run out of things to say.

 

You said something that was completely bogus, he asked you to verify it, and you couldn't. Instead of saying, "That's true, I was wrong to say that. However,...", you chose to ignore him for a while and then claim he just being argumentative.

 

Ranster is right about one thing. The end result of "whatever" happens in a "debate" like the one I was just involved in recently is not productive, leans towards mean spirited, and for lack of a better word... silly. It's amazing to me that this unique and special form of recreation can generate this type of interaction.

[Mushtang]

Ranster is right about one thing. The end result of "whatever" happens in a "debate" like the one I was just involved in recently is not productive, leans towards mean spirited, and for lack of a better word... silly. It's amazing to me that this unique and special form of recreation can generate this type of interaction.

You're right. It did get out of hand and cross into silly. Any mean spriitedness on my part was unintentional, and I apologize to all.

 

Moose Mob is also right. This got disruptive. I actually do try to keep the snarkiness down and stick to facts, but it's sometimes a little too tempting to throw in a jab.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I've got no hard feelings now, and never really did, despite the tone that may have come out in posts. I'm in these conversations for the fun of it. Making points, defending statements, etc., is entertaining. I've always been honest with my views, however, and have never said something I didn't believe just to stoke the fire. But I've got thick skin and haven't gotten upset with other posters.

 

We're all friends, right?

 

And to stay on topic... don't ban LPCs.

[+DrAwKwArD]

Well, I'm a might tempted to stay out of this thread since my first cache is a LPC. The first time I found one I thought it was pretty neat but apparently there are many here that disagree with them and that's fine. In light of this I will reconsider my cache's location but for now it stays.

rdaines, congratulations on your first hide. Just sit back and enjoy the emails from other cachers like yourself. Many comments will be positive, some will just say something to the effect of "TFTH." Now, get out there and hide a regular-size cache if you want the excitement meter to climb some more.

 

P.S. You might want to check the screws on the access panel from time to time.

 

[+nameless301]

I hid a lamp post cache once, but it was only active for about 6 months til the police had to investigate it because they it was a drug deal going on with all the people that kept going to the light pole. So I archived it, unfortunate but understandable.

[Clan Riffster]

Personal arguements are disruptive to the discussion and need to be taken off line. Thank you.

Thank you Moose Mob for putting me back on the right track. I'll play nice.

 

Back on topic: Don't ban them, just require explicit permission.

[+KBI]

Personal arguements are disruptive to the discussion and need to be taken off line. Thank you.

I have something to say here that is on-topic to the subject of lamp post and parking lot hides, but it requires that I first make one more comment on the Clan Riffster thing, if I might be allowed to do so. I've been at a disadvantage for the last few days (at work, out of town, and away from the Internet), and before we let the personal matter drop I'd like to respectfully respond one more time, considering he has apparently decided, in my absence, to again become serious about the debate.

 

(Please note, Moose Mob, that I have already made an honest attempt to move the silliness between Clan Riffster and me to the PMs. I agree that personal arguments are disruptive to the discussion and should be taken off line. He chose to ignore my PM, however, preferring instead to continue the exchange here.)

 

Just to satisfy your curiosity, I'll share with you why I'm choosing to avoid continuing his rather one sided argument: KBI's method of operation is to enter a topic, typically with enthusiasm and well reasoned arguments. I always appreciate his initial comments, because they demonstrate the degree of passion he feels for this game. The problem occurs later on in the debate, when both sides have pretty much said everything there is to say on an issue. He recognizes that the closing line of the opposing viewpoint is pretty much inarguable, however his love for debate seems to compel him to continue the argument anyway. It is at that point that he twists the stated facts until they fit a mold which he can argue with.

 

Here's a good example of this at work:

Thank you for finally being honest about your agenda, Clan Riffster, and admitting that you truly are actively ignoring those tough questions.

He starts by citing a basic fact, (I'm ignoring him), then twists it, claiming the reason behind it was the questions were "tough".

Then he goes further left of center by stating:

I can't imagine why you whould be afraid to defend your own comments

Judging by his language skills, I cannot make the assumption that he honestly believes I am "afraid" of comments posted on the Internet. He's much brighter than that. This leads me to believe his intentions are less than beneign, and are intended for the sole purpose of continuing an argument just for the sake of arguing. I know he does this, I've seen it numerous times, yet I continue to allow myself to enter into these typing contests with him. That's the point where I feel like an idiot. Idiocy was once defined as doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting different result. Kinda sounds a whole lot like what I do every time I engage him in a debate. I know what's coming, but I expect different results.

 

Let’s go back and look at where this thing started, CR, and then you can tell me where I have less-than-benign intentions, or where I twisted your words:

I don't mean to insult anyone when I say this but when I consider Geocaching without the people that prefer to hide and seek caches that were placed with thought and ingenuity, I see a different game, a game void of a heart and soul.

Careful. Even the slightest hint that folks should apply a bit of brain power to their hides will be shouted down by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.

Really? Like who?

Let's be clear about this:

 

This comment of yours clearly implies that you believe there are forum posters (the “Staunch Defenders”) who are against the application of creativity when hiding caches. You weren’t referring to people who merely tolerate lame hides – you plainly accused somebody of standing outright against creativity.

 

I can only speak for myself, of course, but ... just because I regularly defend the right of less-than-exciting caches to exist doesn’t mean that I prefer them, or even that I want to encourage them. I have never "shouted down" anyone who "suggested that folks should apply a bit of brain power to their hides," as you say. Quite the contrary, I think the more thought and effort one applies to ones hide, the better the cache.

 

Tolerance and preference are two completely different ideas.

 

For example: I can’t stand unsweetened iced tea myself, but I don’t whine just because it happens to be on the menu. I don’t care to listen to hip-hop or country/western while in my car, yet neither do I roll my eyes at those who do, nor insist that the world would be better off without those radio stations available on the dial.

 

All other things being equal, if I only had time for one cache this afternoon I’d much rather go after the challenging / fun / expertly crafted / historical / clever / educational / comical / amazing cache over there at the east end of the park, than the ohmygodnotanotherfreakinglamppostskirt at the west end. Wouldn’t you? That’s a matter of preference.

 

Our apparent difference is that while hunting that very cool cache I wouldn’t be resenting the enjoyment simultaneously experienced by the folks who chose to go the other way, as you seem to do. I’m not bothering them, they’re not bothering me. That’s a matter of tolerance.

 

Again, you said: “Careful: Even the slightest hint that folks should apply a bit of brain power to their hides will be shouted down by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.”

 

This is the comment I was asking you to defend. You responded by repeatedly ignoring my request. I simply asked who you were referring to. If you weren’t thinking of me when you wrote that comment (and don’t worry, if you weren’t thinking of me, my fragile ego can probably take it), then who, exactly, did you mean? I’m still very curious. I’ve been closely following this debate with interest for quite a while now, and I have yet to hear anyone come out so squarely against the application of creativity as you describe. I have heard no one express a preference for lameness. I have not read a single post by anyone who is against the existence of cool, fun caches. If it did happen I must have missed it.

 

So, Clan Riffster, in response to your comment ...

Careful. Even the slightest hint that folks should apply a bit of brain power to their hides will be shouted down by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.

... I’ll respectfully repeat the question one final time:

Really? Like who?

Edited February 16, 2007 by KBI

[+TrailGators]

IMHO you get the behavior that you reward. So if the system rewarded people for how many great caches they hid instead of rewarding them for how many caches they've found, then things would change. Someday, I would love to hear someone say "I have 10 caches that all were recognized with an award!" I would shake their hands and thank them for making the game more fun for a lot more people. This future would still have LPCs, but cachers that wanted something more would be able to pull PQs of the award winning caches and find those. Imagine traveling and being able to download a quick PQ to go out and find the award-winning caches in the area. All I can do is dream...

[+sbell111]

IMHO you get the behavior that you reward. So if the system rewarded people for how many great caches they hid instead of rewarding them for how many caches they've found, then things would change. ...

There are rewards? Apparently, I've been at the wrong trough.

[+TrailGators]

IMHO you get the behavior that you reward. So if the system rewarded people for how many great caches they hid instead of rewarding them for how many caches they've found, then things would change. ...

There are rewards? Apparently, I've been at the wrong trough.

I'll spell it out for you, Mr. Wiseguy....Rewarding behavior can be praising people for achieving find goals like 100, 500, 1000 finds. That is what I meant. Edited February 16, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

IMHO you get the behavior that you reward. So if the system rewarded people for how many great caches they hid instead of rewarding them for how many caches they've found, then things would change.

I think I'm going to have to agree with you on this point, TrailGators. It's a fact that many cachers see their ever-growing find count as a reward in itself, regardless of the meaning behind those numbers. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but ... there it is.

 

I agree: You get more of the behavior that you reward.

 

I also agree: If the system rewarded people for how many great caches they hid instead of rewarding them for how many caches they've found, then things would change. Two points, though: (1) This is already in effect to some degree. The system DOES reward people for hiding great caches. The feedback already exists in the form of happily-worded logs, mostly in the form of the online logs. I see a lot of great caches everywhere I go, and I think it's the promise of a good word from a fellow cacher that provides at least some of the motivation for excellence. (2) Sometimes the trouble comes when we try to define "great cache." One man's trash is another man's treasure. What you would describe as a "great cache" might be something I'd just as soon pass on by, and vice versa. An official list of "great" caches would be of a lot more value to some folks than to others. A minor point, though, and certainly not a good reason to abandon your idea.

 

Someday, I would love to hear someone say "I have 10 caches that all were recognized with an award!"

This already exists. Here where I live the Georgia Geocaching Association passes out such awards on an annual basis. Most other states and regions have similar lists. Many folks around here seem to always be trying to out do each other when it comes to creativity, and it makes for some GREAT caching -- I must say I try pretty hard myself, but, unlike my brother Mushtang, I've yet to win one of the coveted GGA banners for any of my hides.

 

I would shake their hands and thank them for making the game more fun for a lot more people.

If you ever meet Mushtang in person, you should shake his hand. He's very clever and creative, and ALL of his hides serve to elevate the quality of the game, not just his award winner (which unfortunately, for reasons mostly beyond his control, is now archived).

 

This future would still have LPCs ...

And why not? As long as there are folks who enjoy hiding and finding them, and as long as they're not hurting anything, LPCs (and similar caches) should be tolerated.

 

... but cachers that wanted something more would be able to pull PQs of the award winning caches and find those. Imagine traveling and being able to download a quick PQ to go out and find the award-winning caches in the area. All I can do is dream...

You can't do it with your PQ (yet), but those other regional caching websites aren't hard to find. You're not dreaming!

[Clan Riffster]

I have something to say, but it requires that I first make one more comment on the Clan Riffster thing, if I might be allowed to do so.

Hey, there's a surprize.

[+KBI]

... it requires that I first make one more comment on the Clan Riffster thing ... considering he has apparently decided, in my absence, to again become serious about the debate.

Whoops ... my mistake.

[+TrailGators]

IMHO you get the behavior that you reward. So if the system rewarded people for how many great caches they hid instead of rewarding them for how many caches they've found, then things would change.

I think I'm going to have to agree with you on this point, TrailGators. It's a fact that many cachers see their ever-growing find count as a reward in itself, regardless of the meaning behind those numbers. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but ... there it is.

 

I agree: You get more of the behavior that you reward.

 

I also agree: If the system rewarded people for how many great caches they hid instead of rewarding them for how many caches they've found, then things would change. Two points, though: (1) This is already in effect to some degree. The system DOES reward people for hiding great caches. The feedback already exists in the form of happily-worded logs, mostly in the form of the online logs. I see a lot of great caches everywhere I go, and I think it's the promise of a good word from a fellow cacher that provides at least some of the motivation for excellence. (2) Sometimes the trouble comes when we try to define "great cache." One man's trash is another man's treasure. What you would describe as a "great cache" might be something I'd just as soon pass on by, and vice versa. An official list of "great" caches would be of a lot more value to some folks than to others. A minor point, though, and certainly not a good reason to abandon your idea.

 

Someday, I would love to hear someone say "I have 10 caches that all were recognized with an award!"

This already exists. Here where I live the Georgia Geocaching Association passes out such awards on an annual basis. Most other states and regions have similar lists. Many folks around here seem to always be trying to out do each other when it comes to creativity, and it makes for some GREAT caching -- I must say I try pretty hard myself, but, unlike my brother Mushtang, I've yet to win one of the coveted GGA banners for any of my hides.

 

I would shake their hands and thank them for making the game more fun for a lot more people.

If you ever meet Mushtang in person, you should shake his hand. He's very clever and creative, and ALL of his hides serve to elevate the quality of the game, not just his award winner (which unfortunately, for reasons mostly beyond his control, is now archived).

 

This future would still have LPCs ...

And why not? As long as there are folks who enjoy hiding and finding them, and as long as they're not hurting anything, LPCs (and similar caches) should be tolerated.

 

... but cachers that wanted something more would be able to pull PQs of the award winning caches and find those. Imagine traveling and being able to download a quick PQ to go out and find the award-winning caches in the area. All I can do is dream...

You can't do it with your PQ (yet), but those other regional caching websites aren't hard to find. You're not dreaming!

Jeremy posted a while back that Groundspeak is working on cache awards idea. So the dream is getting closer. As far as the San Diego area goes, I have compiled a list of the caches that appear most frequently on the local's favorites bookmarks (see below).

[+Too Tall John]

So, Clan Riffster, in response to your comment ...

Careful. Even the slightest hint that folks should apply a bit of brain power to their hides will be shouted down by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.

... I’ll respectfully repeat the question one final time:

Really? Like who?

 

Who cares? Does it actually have anything to do with LPCs?

 

This future would still have LPCs ...

And why not? As long as there are folks who enjoy hiding and finding them, and as long as they're not hurting anything, LPCs (and similar caches) should be tolerated.

 

I maintain that, by hiding any cache on property you don't have permission to do so, a LPC owner IS doing harm. After the incident in Portsmouth NH (I know, it wasn't an LPC, but it may as well have been), people were talking about geocaching in a negative way for quite a while. I'd bet if I were to go out and ask 10 people if I could hide a cache on their property today, I'd get a whole lot more "No"s today than I would have "pre-Portsmouth." It won't take too many more incidents before someone tries to legislate geocaching. I'm sure that many LPC owners have gotten permission to place their cache, but there are many more that have no permission. We don't need to ban LPCs, we need to make sure all caches are placed with consent. Those caches that aren't placed with permission are doing the geocaching community great harm! How do we stop this kind of hide? How about this: Anyone who has a cache archived at a landowner's request (or because a LEO removed or blew up the cache) gets placed "on probation," where they either can't place caches, or need to meet requirements in order to place caches. That would make people think twice.

[+TrailGators]

So, Clan Riffster, in response to your comment ...

Careful. Even the slightest hint that folks should apply a bit of brain power to their hides will be shouted down by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.

... I'll respectfully repeat the question one final time:

Really? Like who?

 

Who cares? Does it actually have anything to do with LPCs?

 

This future would still have LPCs ...

And why not? As long as there are folks who enjoy hiding and finding them, and as long as they're not hurting anything, LPCs (and similar caches) should be tolerated.

 

I maintain that, by hiding any cache on property you don't have permission to do so, a LPC owner IS doing harm. After the incident in Portsmouth NH (I know, it wasn't an LPC, but it may as well have been), people were talking about geocaching in a negative way for quite a while. I'd bet if I were to go out and ask 10 people if I could hide a cache on their property today, I'd get a whole lot more "No"s today than I would have "pre-Portsmouth." It won't take too many more incidents before someone tries to legislate geocaching. I'm sure that many LPC owners have gotten permission to place their cache, but there are many more that have no permission. We don't need to ban LPCs, we need to make sure all caches are placed with consent. Those caches that aren't placed with permission are doing the geocaching community great harm! How do we stop this kind of hide? How about this: Anyone who has a cache archived at a landowner's request (or because a LEO removed or blew up the cache) gets placed "on probation," where they either can't place caches, or need to meet requirements in order to place caches. That would make people think twice.

When there are more Portsmouth's more people will start to listen...I listened and I agree with you.

[+ReadyOrNot]

How about this: Anyone who has a cache archived at a landowner's request gets placed "on probation," where they either can't place caches, or need to meet requirements in order to place caches. That would make people think twice.

 

YIKES!

 

I got this cache archived: Pleasant Lady Cache. The cache was on homeowner association property, but the homeowners association didn't have a problem with it. One of the homeowners called Groundspeak and they immediately archived it (Understandable), but the issue was not that it didn't belong there, but some REALLY grumpy neighbors who didn't have the authority to call Groundspeak. Groundspeak of course doesn't know and doesn't have the time to investigate whether or not the person complaining has authority, and they rightly archived the cache...

 

I would be put on probation because of this cache even though permission was obtained.

Edited February 17, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[Clan Riffster]

I maintain that, by hiding any cache on property you don't have permission to do so, a LPC owner IS doing harm.

Agreed, however....., (there's always a "however"), I think your solution is a bit harsh. I tend to steer away from any kind of arbitrary punishment/mandatory sentencing type reaction. Each situation should be judged on it's own merit. The cache RoN mentions is a perfect example. It was placed with permission, and archived at the request of someone who represented themselves to Groundspeak as an authority for the area. RoN played by the "rules", such as they are, and shouldn't have to suffer any undue consequences as a result of doing the right thing. I think it would be a whole lot more effective if the Powers That Be simply sent word down the grape vine that reviewers will require explicit permission for any cache placed on a business property.

How hard is that?

[+Too Tall John]

How about this: Anyone who has a cache archived at a landowner's request gets placed "on probation," where they either can't place caches, or need to meet requirements in order to place caches. That would make people think twice.

 

YIKES!

 

I got this cache archived: Pleasant Lady Cache. The cache was on homeowner association property, but the homeowners association didn't have a problem with it. One of the homeowners called Groundspeak and they immediately archived it (Understandable), but the issue was not that it didn't belong there, but some REALLY grumpy neighbors who didn't have the authority to call Groundspeak. Groundspeak of course doesn't know and doesn't have the time to investigate whether or not the person complaining has authority, and they rightly archived the cache...

 

I would be put on probation because of this cache even though permission was obtained.

 

While I was typing last night I just knew that someone would come up with an example like this. It's a good example why there should be exceptions to almost every rule. This is why I added:

...or need to meet requirements in order to place caches.

In a case like yours, those reqirements could be as simple as the situation being explained to your local reviewer. Perhaps place another form on the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page: "Landowner Permission Documentation." If you run into a situation like this, it would be your "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Even just a copy of your emails with a landowner.

 

Rather than give the reviewers yet another thing to have to track down when approving a cache, they'd only need to worry about it if there was a situation, which there would be less of because people would generally not hide caches without permission if they knew there were actually consequences.

 

If it were a case where someone just didn't even ask, by my suggestion they wouldn't be banned from placing caches either. Perhaps there could be a local "Approved Mentor" who would help the cacher hide the next couple caches they place (or at least preview & approve them). Some have suggested in other threads that new cachers have a mentor when they place their first few caches anyways. Or maybe they need to actually submit the "Landowner Permission Documentation" for the next couple cache hides. Or maybe, it isn't the number of hides, but a time period.

 

Agreed, however....., (there's always a "however"), I think your solution is a bit harsh.

 

Then we agree. It is harsh, but if things get to a point where local governments are stepping in, it's going to be a whole lot harsher than what I'm suggesting. Don't wait for another Portsmouth.

[+sbell111]

Portsmouth wasn't the Alamo.

[+Too Tall John]

Portsmouth wasn't the Alamo.

 

Hehe... true...

 

But to follow your analogy, it might be a small skirmish that leads up to "the Alamo," where geocaching is under seige by local, state, or federal laws put in place because one too many LEOs had to deal with illegally placed caches.

 

Will this ever happen? I hope not. 'Cuz no defenders survived the Alamo. Not Jim Bowie, not Davy Crockett, not the guy who first saw Santa Anna's forces coming from the watch tower.

[+TrailGators]

Portsmouth wasn't the Alamo.

This kind of comment is what's known as a reductio ad absurdum....

[+KBI]

Portsmouth wasn't the Alamo.

This kind of comment is what's known as a reductio ad absurdum....

In the article you linked it says:

 

There is a fairly common misconception that reductio ad absurdum simply denotes "a silly argument" and is itself a logical fallacy. However, this is not correct; a properly constructed reductio constitutes a correct argument.

 

Thanks for the lesson.

[+fizzymagic]

Portsmouth wasn't the Alamo.

This kind of comment is what's known as a reductio ad absurdum....

Nope. Sorry. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument.

 

This is more of a red herring fallacy, or perhaps a specific version of non sequitur.

 

Mostly, though, it is just an irrelevant interjection with no value to the discussion.

[+KBI]

So, Clan Riffster, in response to your comment ...

Careful. Even the slightest hint that folks should apply a bit of brain power to their hides will be shouted down by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.

... I’ll respectfully repeat the question one final time:

Really? Like who?

Who cares? Does it actually have anything to do with LPCs?

Yes, it does.

 

It’s a long story. It starts here, if you want to read all of it. If you don't want to hear any more about this and you'd rather stop reading my post right now, I don't blame you.

 

For quite a while now there have been, within our hobby, two distinct factions squared off against each other over the topic of so-called "lame" hides. LPCs (Lamp Post Caches), the subject of this thread, are considered to be among the primary offenders. The 'Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame' (like me) tend to support the right of ANY rule-abiding cache to exist, no matter how uncreative or predictable such a cache might be perceived by experienced cachers, while the 'Intolerant Attackers Of Everything Lame' are not only constantly (and inconsolably) troubled by the mere existence of these caches – they regularly claim that such hides will soon be the doom of the hobby.

 

Clan Riffster, one of my respected forum friends and an outspoken member of the latter group, tried to use a standard debate tactic that is becoming increasingly common in these discussions – I like to call it the Cowardly Drive-By – in which he makes a controversial and indefensible statement, but then ducks away from defending it. In this case his argument is a strawman: He claims that there are folks in the SDOEL camp who are not only against the use of cleverness when designing a cache hide, but who will "shout down" anyone who dares to suggest that anyone "should apply a bit of brain power to their hides." This is untrue, of course, but it gives CR something easier to argue against than the actual postion being championed by his opponents.

 

I wanted to expose this for the fallacy that it is, but ... being that my SDOEL title is a rather informal one, and not wanting to presume to speak for anyone else, I first needed to establish who it was exactly that he was referring to. His early semi-comical responses implied that it was me, but he never would come out and say it. He still hasn’t. When I point-blank asked him why he didn’t want to defend his statement, he used a Mark Twain quote to call me an idiot. (Mushtang sums it all up very nicely in this post.)

 

Clan Riffster is absolutely correct about me being an idiot, of course. Nevertheless, and as you can see, my question still remains unanswered.

 

The closest CR has come to explaining his refusal to defend his comment is to mutter something in this post about me "twisting" the "stated facts," and about the "closing line" of his viewpoint being "pretty much inarguable." (No such closing line was mentioned, of course, much less any supporting discussion which would presumably render it inarguable.)

 

In short: CR has made a weak attempt to twist my argument, but states that he won’t defend his argument because he's afraid I might twist it.

 

Here’s where he then loses what little remains of his credibility:

I know [KBI] is not an idiot... KBI's method of operation is to enter a topic, typically with ... well reasoned arguments.

KBI is not an idiot? KBI uses well-reasoned arguments? You have no idea what the hell you’re talking about, CR.

 

[EDIT: spelling]

Edited February 18, 2007 by KBI

[+sbell111]

Portsmouth wasn't the Alamo.

This kind of comment is what's known as a reductio ad absurdum....

Nope. Sorry. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument.

 

This is more of a red herring fallacy, or perhaps a specific version of non sequitur.

 

Mostly, though, it is just an irrelevant interjection with no value to the discussion.

While I certainly could have fleshed out my thoughts into several paragraphs, I chose that simple sentence because it made the same point.

 

The fact is, what happened in Portsmouth was nothing new. It happens occasionally. It's also not as big a deal as some people are trying to make it into.

 

Geocaching is not 'under seige by local, state, or federal laws put in place because one too many LEOs had to deal with illegally placed caches'. In fact, the concept of 'illegally placed caches' is not as easy to legally wrap your head around as some would have you believe. The simple truth is that the government would not be able to easily enact a law that outlaws caches such as the one in Portsmouth.

 

This entire thread (and the half a dozen similarly spawned ones) is much ado about nothing. It is little more than a few people taking an opportunity to try to wipe out the kinds of caches that they don't like.

Edited February 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+KBI]

While I certainly could have fleshed out my thoughts into several paragraphs, I chose that simple sentence because it made the same point.

Bloody showoff.

 

(Pssst. How much do you charge for lessons?)

[CoyoteRed]

So, Clan Riffster, in response to your comment ...

Careful. Even the slightest hint that folks should apply a bit of brain power to their hides will be shouted down by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.

... I’ll respectfully repeat the question one final time:

Really? Like who?

Who cares? Does it actually have anything to do with LPCs?

Yes, it does.

More like, "Kind of."

 

Personally, I think the argument is pretty funny. I, also, think the argument itself is self-proving. What is "lame?" Pretty much the lack of application of imagination and thought in creating an entertaining cache is the most common element of a cache being thought lame. So, therefore, it would follow that the SDOEL would, well, staunchly defend the lack of use of imagination and thought.

 

Furthermore, considering the statement you made in the post I'm quoting, "...tend to support the right of ANY rule-abiding cache to exist, no matter how uncreative or predictable..." you answered your own question. This is backed up by other statements you've made in this very thread. Don't bother asking "which one." You can pretty much blindly pick any post on the subject and it would set as an example.

 

Maybe that's why (the other) CR thought your query was funny.

[+sbell111]

Of course, the title of SDOEL was created by posters like you as an insult to be stapled to anyone who is against 'those cachers' who try to have any kinds of caches that they do not like declared verboten.

[+geomann1]

As someone new to caching, have 1 approved and 1 pending cache, the issue of permission is a difficult one. In Lee County, Florida, to place a cache in a park, there is actually a geocache permitting process, which is quite easy. But I would guess that 80% of the caches I have found did not have formal permission. For most locations that would be close to impossible. For liability reasons most people don't want people "loitering" on their property. The highway dept would prefer nothing on road right-of-ways. Getting government employees to approval anything is a real challenge when the course of least resistance is to say no. I suspect very few LPC's had owner permission to place them there. If we had to get formal permission for every cache, the sport would be in real trouble.

 

Personally, I see no problem with a carefully placed cached in any public place without permission. I would not place anything on posted land. The stealth element is critical to the sport. Caches should be placed where no one will see them, and they should be logged without being detected. As a libertarian I believe that I have a right to use public land so long as I do not cause problems.

 

As with most activities in life, geocaching is a safe fun activity so long as all involved use a little common sense.

 

As to LPCs, why bother, they have been done. I don't want to see anything banned, but lets have more creativity